A question to left-communists.

[black magick hustla]

I agree with a lot of left communist analysis but a lot of things bother me about it as well.

What bothers me alot right now is the fact that socialism, according to left communists, cannot exist in one country. What happens if the workers have overturned capitalist relations in a certain country but an international revolution hasn't ensued. They shouldn't start building socialism themselves? They shouldn't defend their gains?

I understand how communism is not possible in one country because in order to destroy capitalism completely, commodity production needs to dissappear, and in order for any state to survive it has to trade with other countries. However, what aboiut the "lower phase of communsim" as marx called it, or socialism? Obviously the international revolution won't happen everywhere at the same time.

Believe me, I am a hardcore internationalist and I despise nationalism. I am talking about, however, a question of practicality.

[Herman]

What bothers me alot right now is the fact that socialism, according to left communists, cannot exist in one country. What happens if the workers have overturned capitalist relations in a certain country but an international revolution hasn't ensued. They shouldn't start building socialism themselves? They shouldn't defend their gains?

Nope, they'd rather just give up their victory rather than risk a "bureaucratic regime". ;)

Perhaps they would wage revolutionary war? Let them tell us.

[McCaine]

Isn't the point rather that they think the revolution can't survive in one country alone, as opposed to that they don't want it to?

[Dr Mindbender]

surely theres no such thing as 'right' (wing) communism? :blink:

[manic expression]

Left communists are puritans who can't bring themselves to support socialist states or movements. As has been said, they'd rather give up seeking revolutionary gains than risk actually building something.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:37 pm
Isn't the point rather that they think the revolution can't survive in one country alone, as opposed to that they don't want it to?
Well I remember one of them saying that cuba wasn't socialist because it traded with capitalist countries, which pretty much implies that workers shouldn't try building it in one country.

[Raúl Duke]

Why not let the Left Communists on this board to clarify themselves instead of answering for them?

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:58 pm
Why not let the Left Communists on this board to clarify themselves instead of answering for them?
IAWTC.

Seriously, it's almost worse than how every topic involving the word "anarchism" becomes about how petit-bourgeois it is.

I wanna here the response a great deal, actually.

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:37 pm
Isn't the point rather that they think the revolution can't survive in one country alone, as opposed to that they don't want it to?
I'm not a left communist (and this view isn't the sole preserve of left communists), but yes that's the point. It's about what's possible, not about wanting or not wanting things to happen.

The only chance for a revolutionary situation in one country to continue for any length of time will be if it spreads. The experience of countries which got close, both the 'really existing socialist' countries which experienced counter-revolution from within, and those where the old bourgeios forces regained control by themselves, show this to be the case. The term 'revolution' by itself suggests something that isn't static no?

Obviously in such a situation you should push for the most far reaching changes possible, and refuse to compromise, but once isolated the reaction has always come, from the right or left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:18 am
I agree with a lot of left communist analysis but a lot of things bother me about it as well.

What bothers me alot right now is the fact that socialism, according to left communists, cannot exist in one country. What happens if the workers have overturned capitalist relations in a certain country but an international revolution hasn't ensued. They shouldn't start building socialism themselves? They shouldn't defend their gains?
This question has already been addressed:

Socialism in one what?, The extent of a "country" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71643)

In there, I said there needs to be distinction between four various epochs: "revolutionary democracy" / RDDOTPP (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71399), "proletocracy" / DOTP, socialism, and communism.

So here I am, another "Leninist" sympathizer of left-communist views. :D

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:59 pm
The only chance for a revolutionary situation in one country to continue for any length of time will be if it spreads. The experience of countries which got close, both the 'really existing socialist' countries which experienced counter-revolution from within, and those where the old bourgeios forces regained control by themselves, show this to be the case. The term 'revolution' by itself suggests something that isn't static no?
Why do you say this? Societies have been able to establish and maintain socialism without complete world revolution. Revolution is not static, but it is also resilient, it perseveres. Revolution is not something that can be defeated solely through isolation, as you suggest.

By the way, you still have not shown how "the old bourgeois forces regained control" (probably because you can't), yet you continue to parrot this point like dogma.


Obviously in such a situation you should push for the most far reaching changes possible, and refuse to compromise, but once isolated the reaction has always come, from the right or left.

So tell me, when is the line of "isolation" drawn? Two months? Two years? Twenty years? Furthermore, after time passes this point, do you (the ultra-leftist) just throw up your hands and concede defeat, because reaction MUST be coming soon?

Oh, and by the way, illustrate how the "reaction has always come", when socialist societies have endured for considerable amounts of time throughout history.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Marmot+October 16, 2007 05:18 pm--> (Marmot @ October 16, 2007 05:18 pm) I agree with a lot of left communist analysis but a lot of things bother me about it as well.

What bothers me alot right now is the fact that socialism, according to left communists, cannot exist in one country. What happens if the workers have overturned capitalist relations in a certain country but an international revolution hasn't ensued. They shouldn't start building socialism themselves? They shouldn't defend their gains?

I understand how communism is not possible in one country because in order to destroy capitalism completely, commodity production needs to dissappear, and in order for any state to survive it has to trade with other countries. However, what aboiut the "lower phase of communsim" as marx called it, or socialism? Obviously the international revolution won't happen everywhere at the same time.

Believe me, I am a hardcore internationalist and I despise nationalism. I am talking about, however, a question of practicality. [/b]

Trotsky
The revolution must begin on a national basis but, in view of the economic and political interdependence of the European state, it can not be concluded on that basis.

I don't think that what we are saying is different from what Lenin, and Trotsky said during the revolutionary wave.

The revolution must be international if it is to survive.

If you are interested in what we have to say about the period of transition, there are some interesting articles on it here:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/verc...d-of-transition (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/vercesi-period-of-transition)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/bila...d-of-transition (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/bilan-period-of-transition)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/commy-5-pot

Devrim

[catch]

Why do you say this? Societies have been able to establish and maintain socialism without complete world revolution.
As you know, we disagree strongly on this question.


By the way, you still have not shown how "the old bourgeois forces regained control" (probably because you can't), yet you continue to parrot this point like dogma.
Paris Commune, Russia 1905, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Italy (et al) 1917-1921, Spain '36, Paris '68. Russia 1917-21 was also defeated by a counter-revolution but it is unique in how exactly that came about and isn't the same as the process in Germany or Italy.


So tell me, when is the line of "isolation" drawn? Two months? Two years? Twenty years? Furthermore, after time passes this point, do you (the ultra-leftist) just throw up your hands and concede defeat, because reaction MUST be coming soon?
This would depend on the international situation, not arbitrary amounts of time. I'd rather be defeated than turn into a new ruling class though.


Oh, and by the way, illustrate how the "reaction has always come", when socialist societies have endured for considerable amounts of time throughout history.
This is starting to feel like being asked to prove God doesn't exist by a Christian.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:42 pm
As you know, we disagree strongly on this question.
Of course, and yet I can't seem to find the reason you believe in such a theory. If nothing else, denying the prolongued existence of socialist societies is a slight to the revolutionaries who struggled for them.


Paris Commune, Russia 1905, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Italy (et al) 1917-1921, Spain '36, Paris '68. Russia 1917-21 was also defeated by a counter-revolution but it is unique in how exactly that came about and isn't the same as the process in Germany or Italy.

Of course we all agree on the first few. Russia, however, is a different story. Your theoretical "counter-revolution" that re-established the "old bourgeois forces" doesn't jive with what actually happened. The bureaucracy had no capitalist social relations whatsoever, and so it is completely illogical to say that it was capitalist.


This would depend on the international situation, not arbitrary amounts of time. I'd rather be defeated than turn into a new ruling class though.

And what would the present international situation dictate, then? In your mind, what would be the time frame for a revolution today before its fate is sealed? And why would you rather have a revolution be defeated than have it be maintained for as long as possible? Is that not a defeatist position?


This is starting to feel like being asked to prove God doesn't exist by a Christian.

Funny, since you've provided the same amount of evidence for your "state capitalism" as Christians have provided for their God.

All I'm asking for is some evidence and logic, catch.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 17, 2007 04:21 pm--> (manic expression @ October 17, 2007 04:21 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 02:42 pm
As you know, we disagree strongly on this question.
Of course, and yet I can't seem to find the reason you believe in such a theory. If nothing else, denying the prolongued existence of socialist societies is a slight to the revolutionaries who struggled for them.
[/b]
Given the number of revolutionaries killed or sentenced to forced labour in the USSR. The massacres at Vichuga 1932 and the gulags in 1953, the repression of workers in East Germany '53, Hungary '56, Novercherkassk '62 and Czechoslovakia '68 this is an abhorrent position to take. Not to mention the CPs international role in crushing strikes and propping up bourgeios democracy from the '40s onwards.



Your theoretical "counter-revolution" that re-established the "old bourgeois forces" doesn't jive with what actually happened.
Only few old bourgeios forces were restored in Russia - some factory owners and Tsarist generals. Obviously I'm aware the regime changed completely, but the underlying social relationships didn't (apart from the erosion of old feudal relations and their replacement with capitalist ones in some areas). The extent of the events between 1917 and 1921, and the counter-revolution came from within the workers movement does mark it out, but not as a success. Some people took longer to realise this than others, but there's a reason why there'd been a mass exodus from the Communist Parties by the '60s.



And what would the present international situation dictate, then? In your mind, what would be the time frame for a revolution today before its fate is sealed?
There is no revolution occurring today. There's encouraging signs in some countries (particularly Egypt and Bangladesh recently).


And why would you rather have a revolution be defeated than have it be maintained for as long as possible? Is that not a defeatist position?
Not if you see the 'maintenance' of the revolution in the form of the restoration of capital, gulags, secret police etc. as also being a failure, no.

[madcat]

It's not just left-communists that believe socialism can't work in one country.This is explained in the first Communist FAQ by Engels: http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/115/60/#onecountry

I think the reason for this on a social level is because capitalism exploits human instincts and the residents of that isolated socialist country will percept that as a problem with socialism and not capitalism.As a resident of a former eastern-bloc country I can tell you that was one of the main problems here.People wanted to live in the west because of the all temptations it offered,not because the lacked anything here.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:08 pm
Given the number of revolutionaries killed or sentenced to forced labour in the USSR. The massacres at Vichuga 1932 and the gulags in 1953, the repression of workers in East Germany '53, Hungary '56, Novercherkassk '62 and Czechoslovakia '68 this is an abhorrent position to take. Not to mention the CPs international role in crushing strikes and propping up bourgeios democracy from the '40s onwards.
Yes, these events show how revolutionaries were targeted in the USSR from the 30's onward (and a bit before that as well). That I agree with. However, that does not equal a capitalist counterrevolution. What it does signify is the bureaucratic conquest of political power; the bureaucrats didn't own anything, so they couldn't be capitalists, but they DID use the state to gain privileges and benefits. The bureaucracy's new position and desire to protect their interests are what drove those events, not capitalism at all.


Only few old bourgeios forces were restored in Russia - some factory owners and Tsarist generals. Obviously I'm aware the regime changed completely, but the underlying social relationships didn't (apart from the erosion of old feudal relations and their replacement with capitalist ones in some areas). The extent of the events between 1917 and 1921, and the counter-revolution came from within the workers movement does mark it out, but not as a success. Some people took longer to realise this than others, but there's a reason why there'd been a mass exodus from the Communist Parties by the '60s.

What I meant is that you think capitalism was restored in the USSR, which I am objecting to. Yes, people started leaving the Communist Parties after the 30's, but again, what does that have to do with capitalism being re-established? It was very difficult (almost impossible, in fact) to deny that the USSR had an entrenched bureaucratic elite within the worker state. The nomenklatura didn't employ anyone directly, they made their gains in indirect manners that were far from how capitalists make profit.


There is no revolution occurring today. There's encouraging signs in some countries (particularly Egypt and Bangladesh recently).

No, I'm asking you, given the situation today, what would be the general timeframe before a revolution were to be defeated? I didn't ask you how many revolutions were ongoing at the moment.


Not if you see the 'maintenance' of the revolution in the form of the restoration of capital, gulags, secret police etc. as also being a failure, no.

History certainly doesn't see it that way. Cuba doesn't imprison dissidents (unless they're taking money from reactionaries) or use "secret police" and neither the USSR nor Cuba restored capital at all. Socialism can be maintained through a healthy worker state and leadership from the vanguard (and even failing that bureaucratic deformities do not constitute capitalist restoration, as property relations are far from capitalist), and the example of Cuba shows this.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:19 pm
It's not just left-communists that believe socialism can't work in one country.This is explained in the first Communist FAQ by Engels: http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/115/60/#onecountry
For the transition from socialism to communism, yes, it must be international. However, that does not mean a worker state cannot be maintained for a prolongued period (yes, that is a vague term, but that is because revolutions are usually unpredictable). Also, Engels was writing before the dawn of the imperialism, and so different rules applied (for instance, revolutions have not succeeded in the most advanced capitalist countries, but rather the less advanced).

[Alf]

I agree completely with Catch's post. Not only can 'socialism' not exist in one single country, but a proletarian political power can also not long sustain itself in the face of a hostile capitalist world.

The comparisons with Cuba are false: the proletariat did take power in Russia, though only for a relatively brief period of time. This never happened in Cuba.

[p.m.a.]

I'm an autonomist Marxist, and I think the Marxian concept of the Revolution as one monolithic international event is extremely idealistic. Instead, I see parallel and simultaneous uprisings across the multitude, creating autonomous zones that are networked; a sort of post-modern, distributed-network reconceptualization of dual power. The notion of revolution by country is still stuck on the 20th century conception of national sovereignty as meaning anything at all. But network-organization, or horizontalidad as it is known to many across Latin America, is the key to empowering ourselves to the extent necessary to bring true revolutionary change.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:54 pm
I'm an autonomist Marxist, and I think the Marxian concept of the Revolution as one monolithic international event is extremely idealistic. Instead, I see parallel and simultaneous uprisings across the multitude, creating autonomous zones that are networked; a sort of post-modern, distributed-network reconceptualization of dual power. The notion of revolution by country is still stuck on the 20th century conception of national sovereignty as meaning anything at all. But network-organization, or horizontalidad as it is known to many across Latin America, is the key to empowering ourselves to the extent necessary to bring true revolutionary change.
^^^ You sound way too much like the ultra-imperialists Hardt and Negri by mentioning the word "multitude" there. <_<

That being said, since you mentioned the limitations of revolutions "one country at a time," I feel the need to point this old topic to your attention:

Why an international socialist party? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)

[p.m.a.]

Out of curiosity, how exactly are Negri and Hardt "ultra-imperialists"? And are you attempting to draw a parallel between them and Kautsky? As a Leninist, you surely must be aware of Comrade Vlad&#39;s designation of Kautsky&#39;s line during WWI as such.

And the party-form is no longer a revolutionary paradigm, so those "internationals" of yours can be filed under "idealism."

[Tower of Bebel]

Left-communists wont surrender the revolution to the bourgeoisie just because they define the USSR as State-capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:54 pm
Out of curiosity, how exactly are Negri and Hardt "ultra-imperialists"? And are you attempting to draw a parallel between them and Kautsky? As a Leninist, you surely must be aware of Comrade Vlad&#39;s designation of Kautsky&#39;s line during WWI as such.
Yep. The main critique of "Empire" is that it reeks too much of Kautsky, and based too much on the Cold War paradigm where the closest thing to ultra-imperialism - US hegemony over the entire Western capitalist world (even over other developed capitalist countries) - existed.


And the party-form is no longer a revolutionary paradigm, so those "internationals" of yours can be filed under "idealism."

That&#39;s the same defeatist attitude that Kautsky exhibited more and more from WWI to his death. Besides, the best form for a future international party proper to start is a transnational NGO.

[IronColumn]

Sadly what happened in Russia was not that the workers took power and "degenerated" into capitalism, but that a capitalist party took power and its bourgeois ideas served to isolate it even further (at Brest Litovsk, for example, by abandoning Finland, the Baltic states, etc.) along with its role in aborting revolutions in other countries.

The unfortunate thing is that many of the &#39;left communists&#39; here are little other than sentimental paleo-bolsheviks, and thus persist in thinking that a coup by a Jacobin party equates with a working class revolution. This is not the case.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:52 pm
The unfortunate thing is that many of the &#39;left communists&#39; here are little other than sentimental paleo-bolsheviks, and thus persist in thinking that a coup by a Jacobin party equates with a working class revolution. This is not the case.
I think that there are only three left communists who post on here, myself, Leo, and Alf. So which of us are &#39;sentimental paleo-bolsheviks&#39;?
Devrim

[p.m.a.]

Hammer, clearly you have never read Empire: they don&#39;t argue, like Kautsky, that the imperial powers are coming to an era of perpetual peace. Empire argues we are on the cusp of a massive rearrangement of capital, a paradigm shift into a new regime of accumulation for capitalism, one that will not bode well for any worker anywhere. Your gross oversimplification of Marxism continues to astound me.

And to decry the party-form is defeatist now? The vanguard party was the single largest setback to the Left in the 20th Century: history has proven that, itself, by the fall of every vanguardist country to emerge, and it is no longer an issue of importance. Your inability to comprehend this obvious fact of history is testament to your extreme anachronistic idealism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:08 pm
And to decry the party-form is defeatist now? The vanguard party was the single largest setback to the Left in the 20th Century:
So, if the vanguard party was a setback, then it follows that the party-form as a whole is?

If all gas-fueled cars are a threat to the environment, does it follow that electric cars are a threat to the environment?

And, even, is the Leninist party the only possible form of vanguard party?

If we follow that kind of simplistic reasoning - then

- history has proven that vanguard parties cannot lead a proletarian revolution (the Bolshevik experience);
- history has proven that mass parties cannot lead a proletarian revolution (the Social-democrat experience);
- history has proven that the absence of a party cannot lead a proletarian revolution (the anarchist experience).

From which we run the risk of concluding that

- history has proven that a proletarian revolution is impossible.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:58 pm
I think that there are only three left communists who post on here, myself, Leo, and Alf.
catch and DJ-TC come to mind.

Luís Henrique

[p.m.a.]

So, if the vanguard party was a setback, then it follows that the party-form as a whole is?

Autonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism). That is, the self-organization of we the workers, by ourselves. Kinda like what Marx talked about.

It&#39;s very clear the vanguard party-form was devised for a different set of circumstances: there was no large proletariat in proto-capitalist Russia of 1900. Furthermore, they were not a class for themselves; they were underdeveloped and thus incapable of revolution. That&#39;s why Lenin said the vanguard was necessary. Now, tell me: how the fuck does that relate to us today, in the US, in the 21st century? Didn&#39;t Marx say something once about the need to derive conclusions from the material conditions of the present, and not ideologies of the past? Oh yeah: The German Ideology.

Vanguardists are anachronistic.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:57 pm
Autonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism). That is, the self-organization of we the workers, by ourselves. Kinda like what Marx talked about.
A mass party, then? Like the Socialdemocratic parties that have already failed so spectacularly?

Or do you mean a non-party organisation, like that proposed by anarchists... which also failed so spectacularly?


It&#39;s very clear the vanguard party-form was devised for a different set of circumstances: there was no large proletariat in proto-capitalist Russia of 1900. Furthermore, they were not a class for themselves; they were underdeveloped and thus incapable of revolution. That&#39;s why Lenin said the vanguard was necessary.

Yes - it really becomes much more understable like that, when we take into account the specific circumstances of Russia, instead of bringing into discussion foolish antisemite conspiracy theories, isn&#39;t it?


Now, tell me: how the fuck does that relate to us today, in the US, in the 21st century?

Not at all, I would say.

How are the American workers solving the problem, by the way? Or, at least, how are they equating the problem? Nay, tell me something even simpler - are they at least aware of the problem?


Didn&#39;t Marx say something once about the need to derive conclusions from the material conditions of the present, and not ideologies of the past? Oh yeah: The German Ideology.

Yes - under the condition that we effectively derive conclusions from the material conditions of the present, conclusions that can be put into practice in the actual class struggle going on in our material conditions of the present.

Where is this happening?


Vanguardists are anachronistic.

They are. And? What, exactly, is not anachronistic? "Networks" like the "Iraqi Resistance"? Taking our dreams for reality?

Luís Henrique

[p.m.a.]

A mass party, then? Like the Socialdemocratic parties that have already failed so spectacularly?

And you prove yourself incapable of fathoming anything beyond vanguardism. So I&#39;m going to put this very simply: the party is a bourgeois political tool. It originated in the bourgeois era, and was adapted by Lenin for his own revolution. To bring a new era of a history, and a new mode of production, one cannot take tools from the old era. Did the Third Estate in the French Revolution organize themselves into a family along previous monarchical models?

There are other forms of organization that are not parties, and not anarchist. I encourage you to investigate council communism, libertarian communism, and autonomist marxism.


Yes - it really becomes much more understable like that, when we take into account the specific circumstances of Russia, instead of bringing into discussion foolish antisemite conspiracy theories, isn&#39;t it?

So instead of addressing my criticism, you bring up a straw-man argument to a former post of mine. Typical behavior for an authoritarian.


They are. And? What, exactly, is not anachronistic? "Networks" like the "Iraqi Resistance"? Taking our dreams for reality?

This is nonsensical. Please try again.

[black magick hustla]

I don&#39;t think Luis Henrique is a vanguardist.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:08 pm
The vanguard party was the single largest setback to the Left in the 20th Century...
Yes, p.m.a., that and Jewish bankers....

:lol:

[p.m.a.]

Manic, I think your post technically constitutes trolling. I suggest you try again as well.

But excellent job proving the contemporary relevance of a century-old ideology&#33; Want a cookie?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:48 pm
Manic, I think your post technically constitutes trolling. I suggest you try again as well.

But excellent job proving the contemporary relevance of a century-old ideology&#33; Want a cookie?
It needed to be said.

So you&#39;re saying that an ideology isn&#39;t valid because it&#39;s "old"? Let me clue you in: capitalism hasn&#39;t changed, its contradictions haven&#39;t changed, the same dynamics are in play. Want to give one legitimate reason for why Leninism is "outdated", or do you just want to blame the bankers again? :rolleyes:

[p.m.a.]

capitalism hasn&#39;t changed

You&#39;re an idiot, and clearly not a Marxist.
Capitalism hasn&#39;t changed since 1905? That&#39;s so fucking funny.

A ideology&#39;s age isn&#39;t what makes it obsolete: it&#39;s relevance to contemporary material conditions is. Or, at least, for a Marxist.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:01 pm
You&#39;re an idiot, and clearly not a Marxist.
Capitalism hasn&#39;t changed since 1905? That&#39;s so fucking funny.

A ideology&#39;s age isn&#39;t what makes it obsolete: it&#39;s relevance to contemporary material conditions is. Or, at least, for a Marxist.
So I guess you can&#39;t read OR write. I asked you how Leninism is outdated.

Give me one legitimate reason why Leninism is outdated.

Let&#39;s see if you can answer it in this minute&#39;s "contemporary material conditions".

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 18, 2007 06:34 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 18, 2007 06:34 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 05:58 pm
I think that there are only three left communists who post on here, myself, Leo, and Alf.
catch and DJ-TC come to mind.

Luís Henrique [/b]
DJ-TC yes. Catch no.
That makes four.
Devrim

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:48 pm
Manic, I think your post technically constitutes trolling. I suggest you try again as well.

But excellent job proving the contemporary relevance of a century-old ideology&#33; Want a cookie?
That isn&#39;t even a valid argument. it may be old but that certainly doesn&#39;t make it irrelevant or invalid. You haven&#39;t justified your argument, just as you didn&#39;t in the other thread where topics of the such were being discussed. I don&#39;t consider Lenin&#39;s theory to be invalid, there&#39;s a lot of evidence that it is still relevant today - mainly that capitalism hasn&#39;t changed and that the same characteristics that Lenin used to define Imperialism still exist today- in different forms, in different ways- but the characteristics of Imperialism are still there- it still exists. These same characteristics still allow for exploitation and for the conditions under capitalism. If the characteristics of Imperialism didn&#39;t exist today and weren&#39;t still relevant- if that were true, something would have changed- but it hasn&#39;t. the same conditions are still present, just under a different name- if capitalism changed in any way then the conditions in society and around the globe would have also changed- and that is not the case, as much as you choose to deny it- the proletariat isn&#39;t being any less exploited around the globe than it was when Lenin wrote about it.

[p.m.a.]

Well, Capitalism at the time of Imperialism&#39;s writing was very much based on the laissez-faire model. That is, there was little government intervention in the policies of its national-bourgeoisie.

Since the 1930s, with the rise of Fordism-Keynesianism, capital began to mass-produce its commodities, and pay its workers more in the industrialized countries to encourage mass consumption. Henry Ford championed this idea, and its from this era we see the rise of Taylorist techniques, to coincide with the institution of the mass-line. This lead to Keynesian policies of government investment in public infrastructure to divert overaccumulation. Examples as such are the New Deal, etc. This contradicted previous laissez-faire capitalism, and thus constitutes the first major shift in the regime of accumulation in the Twentieth Century.

This began to collapse in the mid-late 1960s, and the OPEC oil crisis of 72-3 lead to the development of post-fordist flexible accumulation. In this system, the fluidity of capital is necessary. Labor markets are freed up, and we begin to see laborers no longer specializing in one field, and much less so in industrial markets. Instead, service industries begin to rise as outsourcing is more globalized, and workers in industrialized worlds begin accustomed to working many different jobs over the entirety of their life. No longer are commodities mass-produced, but instead their are split into many sub-genres: for example, in 1950 everyone had more-or-less the same car. At this point we see many different cars being made, for different tastes. Subcontracting and compartmentalization begin to become necessary for continuing accumulation. The disposable society of fast-food and paper plates rises. Kids now can choose from dozens of types of music to listen to. Etc., etc.

In the 1980s, neoliberalism has begun to rise. Margaret Thatcher introduces accumulation by dispossession, that is the privatisation of previously unavailable resources. Dragging inaccessible resources into the market to absorb overaccumulation becomes the primary method of diverting crisis. This is institutionalizing previously-seen primitive-accumulation into a central tenet of the regime of accumulation. Supra-national institutions such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank become regulators of global capital. Diversion of global crisis is seen by the siphoning off of overaccumulation into regional markets: the East-Asian crisis of the late 1990s is a prime example of such.

Today, we see a perverted form of neoliberalism: neoconservatism, while previously but a faction in the bourgeoisie, has become its central tendency. Similar in most ways, except force. Neoliberalism has failed to maintain the profitability of its actions, and so its previously covert exertions of force are now central. The moral monopoly on force is invoked permanently. Thus, the war on terror.

To argue capital hasn&#39;t changed in 100 years is absurd. I suggest you start looking over some regulation theory. David Harvey is a very accessible Marxist -- in fact, my above words are basically a crude summarization of his books The Condition of Postmodernity and The New Imperialism. But, obviously, a Marxist must read them for his or herself. Other notable Marxists analyzing these paradigm shifts in the regime of accumulation are Michael Burawoy, Erik Olen Wright, and Antonio Negri, amongst many others.

I&#39;ve got to head out to do things in the real world, but I&#39;ll check up on you kids later.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:22 pm
Well, Capitalism at the time of Imperialism&#39;s writing was very much based on the laissez-faire model. That is, there was little government intervention in the policies of its national-bourgeoisie.

Since the 1930s, with the rise of Fordism-Keynesianism, capital began to mass-produce its commodities, and pay its workers more in the industrialized countries to encourage mass consumption. Henry Ford championed this idea, and its from this era we see the rise of Taylorist techniques, to coincide with the institution of the mass-line. This lead to Keynesian policies of government investment in public infrastructure to divert overaccumulation. Examples as such are the New Deal, etc. This contradicted previous laissez-faire capitalism, and thus constitutes the first major shift in the regime of accumulation in the Twentieth Century.

This began to collapse in the mid-late 1960s, and the OPEC oil crisis of 72-3 lead to the development of post-fordist flexible accumulation. In this system, the fluidity of capital is necessary. Labor markets are freed up, and we begin to see laborers no longer specializing in one field, and much less so in industrial markets. Instead, service industries begin to rise as outsourcing is more globalized, and workers in industrialized worlds begin accustomed to working many different jobs over the entirety of their life. No longer are commodities mass-produced, but instead their are split into many sub-genres: for example, in 1950 everyone had more-or-less the same car. At this point we see many different cars being made, for different tastes. Subcontracting and compartmentalization begin to become necessary for continuing accumulation. The disposable society of fast-food and paper plates rises. Kids now can choose from dozens of types of music to listen to. Etc., etc.

In the 1980s, neoliberalism has begun to rise. Margaret Thatcher introduces accumulation by dispossession, that is the privatisation of previously unavailable resources. Dragging inaccessible resources into the market to absorb overaccumulation becomes the primary method of diverting crisis. This is institutionalizing previously-seen primitive-accumulation into a central tenet of the regime of accumulation. Supra-national institutions such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank become regulators of global capital.

Today, we see a perverted form of neoliberalism: neoconservatism, while previously but a faction in the bourgeoisie, has become its central tendency. Similar in most ways, except force. Neoliberalism has failed to maintain the profitability of its actions, and so its previously covert exertions of force are now central. The moral monopoly on force is invoked permanently. Thus, the war on terror.

To argue capital hasn&#39;t changed in 100 years is absurd. I suggest you start looking over some regulation theory. David Harvey is a very accessible Marxist -- in fact, my above words are basically a crude summarization of his books The Condition of Postmodernity and The New Imperialism. But, obviously, a Marxist must read them for his or herself.
Reforming capitalism does not change the conditions of capitalist society, it does not eliminate subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie- it does not eliminate the coercive power the bourgeois state has- it does not eliminate the problem- it may alter it&#39;s form, but it does not change the conditions present in capitalist society- and even when it is supposably &#39;reformed&#39; it does not eliminate the bourgeois state or the control which they have over industry and capital. It does not change the class relation- it does not eliminate Imperialism. however, it does make this relation more complex- and allows for more advanced forms of exploitation of the working-class to occur- through the coercive institution of the state- which the bourgeoisie ultimately have control of- so yes it will rule in their interests- and when you have bourgeois states of many different countries - and monopolist capitalist associations of these nations dominating the globe and its resources, etc- it is already impossible for there to be reform- at least to a relevant degree. capitalism cannot be reformed. it simply deteriorates into imperialism - because the competitive elements of capitalist society cannot be maintained- it automatically results in monopoly- which ultimately creates a new form of monopoly- between nations- between capitalist powers- all to obtain capital and resources- the same condition that exists now- the world being shared among the rather large capitalist powers - that is characteristic of Imperialism.

[p.m.a.]

Reforming capitalism does not change the conditions of capitalist society, it does not eliminate subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie- it does not eliminate the coercive power the bourgeois state has- it does not eliminate the problem- it may alter it&#39;s form, but it does not change the conditions present in capitalist society- and even when it is supposably &#39;reformed&#39; it does not eliminate the bourgeois state or the control which they have over industry and capital.

Of course not. But this is based on Marx&#39;s analysis -- still wholly applicable to current conditions of capital. And, these aren&#39;t "reforms" of capital -- they&#39;re the evolution of the regime of accumulation, or, to parallel the term in Marx&#39;s words, they&#39;re paradigm shifts within the base. Still, they constitute significant shifts in labor processes, methods of accumulation, and ways of dispersing overaccumulation in crisis. While of course the dialectic of exploitation still exists, the methods central to capital&#39;s operation have evolved significantly. To write them off is to ignore the material conditions of reality.


because the competitive elements of capitalist society cannot be maintained- it automatically results in monopoly- which ultimately creates a new form of monopoly- between nations- between capitalist powers- all to obtain capital and resources- the same condition that exists now- the world being shared among the rather large capitalist powers - that is characteristic of Imperialism.

Lenin&#39;s thesis of Imperialism identifies the superprofits drawn from the exploitation of the third-world as being the primary mode of accumulation for capital. This is no longer true. While, yes, there is still inter-capitalist competitions on the international level, most capital is now supranationally organized. And no longer are the largest profits drawn from superexploitation, and no longer is crisis diverted simply by neo-colonialism. This is why Lenin&#39;s claim that Imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism is false: just as Marx&#39;s belief that the revolution was imminent. Thus, we must recognize the necessity of new revolutionary paradigm to be derived from the material conditions of today. And that necessitates putting down our books of Marxists written a hundred years ago, and starting to take a contemporary analysis of the global situation.

And, now, seriously, I have to haul ass out of here. I&#39;ll try to check up on responses later tonight.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:45 pm

Reforming capitalism does not change the conditions of capitalist society, it does not eliminate subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie- it does not eliminate the coercive power the bourgeois state has- it does not eliminate the problem- it may alter it&#39;s form, but it does not change the conditions present in capitalist society- and even when it is supposably &#39;reformed&#39; it does not eliminate the bourgeois state or the control which they have over industry and capital.

Of course not. But this is based on Marx&#39;s analysis -- still wholly applicable to current conditions of capital. And, these aren&#39;t "reforms" of capital -- they&#39;re the evolution of the regime of accumulation, or, to parallel the term in Marx&#39;s words, they&#39;re paradigm shifts within the base. Still, they constitute significant shifts in labor processes, methods of accumulation, and ways of dispersing overaccumulation in crisis. While of course the dialectic of exploitation still exists, the methods central to capital&#39;s operation have evolved significantly. To write them off is to ignore the material conditions of reality.


because the competitive elements of capitalist society cannot be maintained- it automatically results in monopoly- which ultimately creates a new form of monopoly- between nations- between capitalist powers- all to obtain capital and resources- the same condition that exists now- the world being shared among the rather large capitalist powers - that is characteristic of Imperialism.

Lenin&#39;s thesis of Imperialism identifies the superprofits drawn from the exploitation of the third-world as being the primary mode of accumulation for capital. This is no longer true. While, yes, there is still inter-capitalist competitions on the international level, most capital is now supranationally organized. And no longer are the largest profits drawn from superexploitation, and no longer is crisis diverted simply by neo-colonialism. This is why Lenin&#39;s claim that Imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism is false: just as Marx&#39;s belief that the revolution was imminent. Thus, we must recognize the necessity of new revolutionary paradigm to be derived from the material conditions of today. And that necessitates putting down our books of Marxists written a hundred years ago, and starting to take a contemporary analysis of the global situation.

And, now, seriously, I have to haul ass out of here. I&#39;ll try to check up on responses later tonight.
Lenin&#39;s claim of Imperialism is still relevant because not only are third world countries still exploited (depending on your definition of that) the forms of Imperialism have changed, of course, but the existence of it has not. It may no longer involve colonialism, but the doesn&#39;t mean Imperialism is no longer relevant. Imperialism has advanced with the times- there are differences - but those differences only exist because of the way it has evolved- it has not disappeared- but it does not show itself the way it once did- now it takes a different form- with the same characteristics Lenin used to define it. arguing that Imperialism no longer exists is invalid- it may not be the same as during colonial times- but capitalism itself has not changed, nor have the conditions of capitalist society. the only thing that has changed is how it presents itself- the general characteristics of Imperialism are still present around the globe- think of global capitalism- all characteristics that were present in Imperialism are present in global capitalism- capitalist powers don&#39;t necessarily have a lesser role in it than they used to- they don&#39;t exploit workers any less- the conditions have not changed, therefore Imperialism has not &#39;disappeared&#39;- it just presents itself in a different form than it used to.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:39 pm
I don&#39;t think Luis Henrique is a vanguardist.
Of course I am&#33;

I don&#39;t agree with p.m.a., ergo...

Luís Henrique

[Tower of Bebel]

p.m.a., leninism is still a valid ideology. Since today&#39;s world differs from Marx&#39;s world, you want us to give up on marxism too? What makes you believe leninism cannot serve to analyse the world as it is today?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:37 pm
And you prove yourself incapable of fathoming anything beyond vanguardism. So I&#39;m going to put this very simply: the party is a bourgeois political tool.
Yes?

But before the proletarian parties of the late XIX century, the bourgeois "parties" didn&#39;t look much like the modern bourgeois party. In fact... the modern bourgeois parties resemble more either the Socialdemocratic parties or the Leninist parties than they do resemble the old, pre-SPD, bourgeois parties.


It originated in the bourgeois era, and was adapted by Lenin for his own revolution. To bring a new era of a history, and a new mode of production, one cannot take tools from the old era. Did the Third Estate in the French Revolution organize themselves into a family along previous monarchical models?

The Bonapartes come to mind, don&#39;t they?

Or was France under Napoleon some kind of "State Feudalism", not really capitalist?


There are other forms of organization that are not parties, and not anarchist. I encourage you to investigate council communism, libertarian communism, and autonomist marxism.

Ah, yes. I took a look a the link you gave about "Autonomy". A lot of vanguardism, I would say.


So instead of addressing my criticism, you bring up a straw-man argument to a former post of mine. Typical behavior for an authoritarian.

Instead? No. I actually agreed with your criticism; it is clear progress from your previous position that Lenin conspired with Wall Street bankers in order to establish a State Capitalist regime in Russia.



They are. And? What, exactly, is not anachronistic? "Networks" like the "Iraqi Resistance"? Taking our dreams for reality?

This is nonsensical. Please try again.

OK, trying again...

So? Exactly what is not anachronistic?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:15 pm
DJ-TC yes. Catch no.
That makes four.
Devrim
co-op?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:22 pm
Well, Capitalism at the time of Imperialism&#39;s writing was very much based on the laissez-faire model.
Eh?

The purpose of the book was exactly to show that the days of laissez-faire were over...

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 18, 2007 09:23 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 18, 2007 09:23 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 08:15 pm
DJ-TC yes. Catch no.
That makes four.
Devrim
co-op?

Luís Henrique [/b]
I don&#39;t understand.
Devrim

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:22 pm
Well, Capitalism at the time of Imperialism&#39;s writing was very much based on the laissez-faire model. That is, there was little government intervention in the policies of its national-bourgeoisie.

Since the 1930s, with the rise of Fordism-Keynesianism, capital began to mass-produce its commodities, and pay its workers more in the industrialized countries to encourage mass consumption. Henry Ford championed this idea, and its from this era we see the rise of Taylorist techniques, to coincide with the institution of the mass-line. This lead to Keynesian policies of government investment in public infrastructure to divert overaccumulation. Examples as such are the New Deal, etc. This contradicted previous laissez-faire capitalism, and thus constitutes the first major shift in the regime of accumulation in the Twentieth Century.
As Luis Henrique pointed out, "Imperialism" was certainly not about laissez-faire capitalism.

Further, the main points of "Imperialism" were on the concentration of production and monopolies and capital in banks. Neither Fordism nor Keynesianism changed any of this. In fact, it verified what Lenin had been saying: that imperialism can afford to buy off workers in the most developed capitalist countries and exploit those in less developed capitalist countries. Moreover, America, for instance (where "Fordism" originated), has become more and more monopolized in many industries; this aligns with Lenin&#39;s analysis.

The New Deal was an abberation if there ever was one. All of its programs have been deconstructed and neutered, save for a few (like Social Security, which will either be gutted or tank on its own within the next generation). The New Deal responded to the Great Depression, and was the life support of the capitalist system. Does that contradict Lenin? No, it really doesn&#39;t.


This began to collapse in the mid-late 1960s, and the OPEC oil crisis of 72-3 lead to the development of post-fordist flexible accumulation. In this system, the fluidity of capital is necessary. Labor markets are freed up, and we begin to see laborers no longer specializing in one field, and much less so in industrial markets. Instead, service industries begin to rise as outsourcing is more globalized, and workers in industrialized worlds begin accustomed to working many different jobs over the entirety of their life. No longer are commodities mass-produced, but instead their are split into many sub-genres: for example, in 1950 everyone had more-or-less the same car. At this point we see many different cars being made, for different tastes. Subcontracting and compartmentalization begin to become necessary for continuing accumulation. The disposable society of fast-food and paper plates rises. Kids now can choose from dozens of types of music to listen to. Etc., etc.

Huh? You have it all wrong here. The basis for the post-war commercialist society was laid in the 50&#39;s. All the developments you listed happened in the 50&#39;s because the US was left as the foremost imperialist country on Earth. Also, de-industrialization falls in line with Marx more than anything else (and that was written 50 years before Lenin). The globalization you describe (outsourcing, de-industrialization of so-called "first-world countries", etc.) is what Marx was talking about in 1848. Lenin is hardly contradicted here.


In the 1980s, neoliberalism has begun to rise. Margaret Thatcher introduces accumulation by dispossession, that is the privatisation of previously unavailable resources. Dragging inaccessible resources into the market to absorb overaccumulation becomes the primary method of diverting crisis. This is institutionalizing previously-seen primitive-accumulation into a central tenet of the regime of accumulation. Supra-national institutions such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank become regulators of global capital.

How do the WTO, IMF and World Bank contradict Lenin? Are they not incredible examples of monopoly in capitalism?

On neoliberalism, you&#39;re taking the bourgeoisie at their word, which is a bad idea. Neoliberalism should be called "imperialism", because they are in fact basically the same. The forceful acquisition of markets, reduction of trade boundaries, free trade and other tenets of neoliberalism are precisely what Marx and Engels and Lenin wrote about. As I said, the same dynamics are in play.


Today, we see a perverted form of neoliberalism: neoconservatism, while previously but a faction in the bourgeoisie, has become its central tendency. Similar in most ways, except force. Neoliberalism has failed to maintain the profitability of its actions, and so its previously covert exertions of force are now central. The moral monopoly on force is invoked permanently. Thus, the war on terror.

Give me a break. You don&#39;t think the bourgeoisie used force before 10 years ago? It&#39;s been a time-honored tradition in capitalism since its inception. Capitalism HAS ALWAYS USED FORCE AND WILL ALWAYS DO SO. This is nothing new, and Lenin was well aware of this (and if he wasn&#39;t, WWI reminded him).


To argue capital hasn&#39;t changed in 100 years is absurd. I suggest you start looking over some regulation theory. David Harvey is a very accessible Marxist -- in fact, my above words are basically a crude summarization of his books The Condition of Postmodernity and The New Imperialism. But, obviously, a Marxist must read them for his or herself.

Again, I asked you to explain how Leninism is outdated. You then gave me a "crude" summary of someone else&#39;s interpretation of the last 100 years. Here&#39;s another summary that&#39;s pretty accessible: you didn&#39;t answer my question.

Let&#39;s do this again: how is Leninism outdated? You failed to answer this.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:40 pm
I don&#39;t understand.
Devrim
There is a member whose screen name is "co-op", and seems to me to be an "ultra-leftist".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I am coming to believe that p.m.a.&#39;s critique of Leninism is based on sheer ignorance.

First there was that shameful idea of a collusion between Wall Street bankers and the bolsheviks, for the purpose of establishing a State Capitalist regime in Russia. Now we are told that capitalism at Lenin&#39;s time was laisse-faire capitalism... and that monopoly capitalism only begun a decade after the Russian Revolution, with Henry Ford?

How could Lenin consciously plan to establish State Capitalism in Russia if the only capitalism he knew was laisse-faire capitalism?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 18, 2007 08:39 pm
I am coming to believe that p.m.a.&#39;s critique of Leninism is based on sheer ignorance.

First there was that shameful idea of a collusion between Wall Street bankers and the bolsheviks, for the purpose of establishing a State Capitalist regime in Russia. Now we are told that capitalism at Lenin&#39;s time was laisse-faire capitalism... and that monopoly capitalism only begun a decade after the Russian Revolution, with Henry Ford?

How could Lenin consciously plan to establish State Capitalism in Russia if the only capitalism he knew was laisse-faire capitalism?

Luís Henrique
That is the point I have been attempting to address in my last few posts.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 19, 2007 01:32 am--> (Luís Henrique @ October 19, 2007 01:32 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:40 pm
I don&#39;t understand.
Devrim
There is a member whose screen name is "co-op", and seems to me to be an "ultra-leftist".

Luís Henrique [/b]
Luís, you know that ultra leftist is an insult. Anyway, I am sure that there are people who you describe as &#39;ultra-leftists&#39; who aren&#39;t left communists.
We define the left communists as those who are members, and supporters of the left communist political organisations.
Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Because of my increased "sympathy" towards the left-communist emphasis on decadence and internationalist organization, and just because of today&#39;s material circumstances anyway, today&#39;s left-communists aren&#39;t "ultra-leftists."

[However, there are certain leftist types to the "left" of left-communists whom Lenin for sure would&#39;ve deemed in today&#39;s world "ultra-leftists," especially in their overemphasis on spontaneity.]


Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:22 pm
Well, Capitalism at the time of Imperialism&#39;s writing was very much based on the laissez-faire model. That is, there was little government intervention in the policies of its national-bourgeoisie.

Since the 1930s, with the rise of Fordism-Keynesianism, capital began to mass-produce its commodities, and pay its workers more in the industrialized countries to encourage mass consumption. Henry Ford championed this idea, and its from this era we see the rise of Taylorist techniques, to coincide with the institution of the mass-line.
Looks like somebody didn&#39;t check into the HISTORY of capitalism very much. <_<

At that time already, it was anything BUT laissez-faire (and this fact was acknowledged by Lenin himself in that "popular outline" which you just mentioned), what with all the trade protectionism, the national monopolies increasing the market "entry barriers," the traditional finance capital (banks) wresting control away from the industrial capitalists, and so forth.

Oh, and "Taylorism" was mentioned directly by Lenin himself, too. :)

[Revolutionary Souljah]

What bothers me alot right now is the fact that socialism, according to left communists, cannot exist in one country. What happens if the workers have overturned capitalist relations in a certain country but an international revolution hasn&#39;t ensued. They shouldn&#39;t start building socialism themselves? They shouldn&#39;t defend their gains?

I understand how communism is not possible in one country because in order to destroy capitalism completely, commodity production needs to dissappear, and in order for any state to survive it has to trade with other countries. However, what aboiut the "lower phase of communsim" as marx called it, or socialism? Obviously the international revolution won&#39;t happen everywhere at the same time.

Well, If you have a revolution in the US, the world economy collapses...

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:47 am
Luís, you know that ultra leftist is an insult. Anyway, I am sure that there are people who you describe as &#39;ultra-leftists&#39; who aren&#39;t left communists.
We define the left communists as those who are members, and supporters of the left communist political organisations.
Devrim
To me, "ultra-leftist" is an insult, has always been. Leo gave me some beatings because of that, and convinced me that to him and his tendency, "ultra-left" is how they call themselves.

I have no intention of being offencive; the political differences between us are more than enough reason for discordy, without need of gratuitous insults. If you don&#39;t consider yourselves "ultra-leftists", I won&#39;t call you that. But then please don&#39;t complain when I accuse Trotskyists or Maoists of "ultra-leftism".

I can&#39;t possibly know the affiliations of all posters here, nor am I interested in knowing them. co-op seems to use arguments similar to yours, so I supposed that he was what he seemed like. Absolutely no offence intended.

Luís Henrique

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:18 pm
What bothers me alot right now is the fact that socialism, according to left communists, cannot exist in one country. What happens if the workers have overturned capitalist relations in a certain country but an international revolution hasn&#39;t ensued. They shouldn&#39;t start building socialism themselves? They shouldn&#39;t defend their gains?

I understand how communism is not possible in one country because ...

The question is not of "building socialsm" or not, the question is if it can be sustained by isolation of certain territory or a country. As you know, no country in the world can function properly in capitalist fashion if it would be torn out of a global market. Just like that, no country in the world can anticipate the possibility of reproduction for the satisfaction of the needs of the populace if it&#39;s not counting for the support from the international proletariat.

Leninists on this board try to put the balme on left communists for "puritanism", but the solution for main two problems we insist upon are precisely those two problems caused by Leninist-Bolshevik politics: 1) do we defend the concept of absolute workers&#39; control (like Left wing and, for instance, Russian Anarcho-Syndicalists did) or do we demolish it (and falsely call it "necessity"); 2) do we work in internationalist direction and put all efforts in expanding the revolutionary tide, or do we give it up, join the capitalist community and (i.e.) make our workers assemble guns that will kill other workers (those who know history will know what I&#39;m talking about).

[Leo]

Leo gave me some beatings because of that, and convinced me that to him and his tendency, "ultra-left" is how they call themselves.

I don&#39;t think I ever said "ultra-left" is how we called ourselves. I think that it isn&#39;t really a meaningful term. I don&#39;t remember ever claiming to be "ultra-left" myself*.

*I might have claimed that it was a positive thing to be called in the past though. Just because all the Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists and so forth love throwing it as an insult to everything which they see as to their left, it can be an appealing concept.


If you don&#39;t consider yourselves "ultra-leftists", I won&#39;t call you that.

As I said we don&#39;t find the term really meaningful. The term which would express the political line properly would be left communist or the communist left.

[al-Ibadani]

I post on here. :(

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:21 pm
I post on here. :(
Sorry.

Luís Henrique

[McCaine]

I think the thesis of "monopoly capitalism" is untenable within Marxism because it misunderstands what a monopoly is. For Marx, it is sufficient for their to not be a monopoly as long as some form of capitalist competition occurs. This was definitely the case in Lenin&#39;s time and definitely also is true now (if it weren&#39;t, there wouldn&#39;t be any capitalism). "Monopoly capitalism" is therefore a contradiction in terms.

The problem here is that the people proposing it are instead using the neoclassical concept of monopoly (or oligopoly), which is one where in a given market companies no longer are considered pure price-takers. Of course, the problem with this is that companies are only that under conditions of perfect competition, which never hold in reality.

I think it&#39;s better to drop the term "monopoly capitalism" and instead read it as meaning "there are many multinationals with relatively more power vis-á-vis small capital than was the case in 1860". Then it is true.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:44 pm
I think the thesis of "monopoly capitalism" is untenable within Marxism because it misunderstands what a monopoly is. For Marx, it is sufficient for their to not be a monopoly as long as some form of capitalist competition occurs. This was definitely the case in Lenin&#39;s time and definitely also is true now (if it weren&#39;t, there wouldn&#39;t be any capitalism). "Monopoly capitalism" is therefore a contradiction in terms.
I don&#39;t think you read Lenin&#39;s work in detail:

"Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm#v22zz99h-265-GUESS)

Lenin here was referring to an enterprise&#39;s ability to exercise monopoly power, absolute or relative. Take, for example, the classic example of the relationship between auto makers and the supplier(s) of their parts (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/BUSINESS01/708240327/1014). There is a "capitalist association" between the auto makers through their supplier(s), who in turn exercise monopoly power. Unlike other businesses, there are no niches, but there are "very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions, and conflicts" because of their individually global market reach.



BTW, I&#39;m sure Marx would indeed consider today&#39;s Microsoft to be an operating system monopoly, in spite of the niche market that Linux holds. <_<

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:44 am
I think the thesis of "monopoly capitalism" is untenable within Marxism because it misunderstands what a monopoly is. For Marx, it is sufficient for their to not be a monopoly as long as some form of capitalist competition occurs. This was definitely the case in Lenin&#39;s time and definitely also is true now (if it weren&#39;t, there wouldn&#39;t be any capitalism). "Monopoly capitalism" is therefore a contradiction in terms.

The problem here is that the people proposing it are instead using the neoclassical concept of monopoly (or oligopoly), which is one where in a given market companies no longer are considered pure price-takers. Of course, the problem with this is that companies are only that under conditions of perfect competition, which never hold in reality.

I think it&#39;s better to drop the term "monopoly capitalism" and instead read it as meaning "there are many multinationals with relatively more power vis-á-vis small capital than was the case in 1860". Then it is true.
Oligopoly is the correct term.

[McCaine]

Originally posted by Hammer+October 25, 2007 02:09 am--> (Hammer @ October 25, 2007 02:09 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 06:44 pm
I think the thesis of "monopoly capitalism" is untenable within Marxism because it misunderstands what a monopoly is. For Marx, it is sufficient for their to not be a monopoly as long as some form of capitalist competition occurs. This was definitely the case in Lenin&#39;s time and definitely also is true now (if it weren&#39;t, there wouldn&#39;t be any capitalism). "Monopoly capitalism" is therefore a contradiction in terms.



[/b]

I don&#39;t think you read Lenin&#39;s work in detail:

"Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm#v22zz99h-265-GUESS)

Lenin here was referring to an enterprise&#39;s ability to exercise monopoly power, absolute or relative. Take, for example, the classic example of the relationship between auto makers and the supplier(s) of their parts (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/BUSINESS01/708240327/1014). There is a "capitalist association" between the auto makers through their supplier(s), who in turn exercise monopoly power. Unlike other businesses, there are no niches, but there are "very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions, and conflicts" because of their individually global market reach.But Lenin is clearly wrong. It is not possible for there to be monopoly "above and alongside" competitive capitalism, except in the form of state monopolies, which he is not referring to; and then even these can compete with each other internationally. There is no form of capitalism that does not take on the motion of competition, that is its life-blood and its means of reproduction.



BTW, I&#39;m sure Marx would indeed consider today&#39;s Microsoft to be an operating system monopoly, in spite of the niche market that Linux holds. <_<I am certain that he wouldn&#39;t.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think I ever said "ultra-left" is how we called ourselves. I think that it isn't really a meaningful term. I don't remember ever claiming to be "ultra-left" myself*.

In fact, and I owe you apologies: it was DJ-TC, not you. My memory is no longer what it used to be. Here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ultra-left-t55315/index.html?t=55315&highlight=ultra-left

Luís Henrique

[hekmatista]

Sorry this is such a long extended quote, but there is no way of turning the points Mansoor Hekmat is making into a few bullet points. In fact to really understand this dialectical materialist treatment of the "Russian Question" (and by implication, all subsequent deformed communist revolutions), I suggest making the effort to read the entire article at

The Experience of Workers’ Revolution in the Soviet Union

Outline of a Socialist Critique by Mansoor Hekmat

available in the marxists.org archive.


No doubt I am infuriating both the Left Communists and their opponents by introducing an argument (not my own, but the perspective of worker-communism as a trend) that both Permanent Revolution and Socialism in One Country miss the point! The extended quote follows.


"I sum up my discussion so far. The twentieth century placed a fundamental question before the Russian society in general, and that was how to overcome its economic backwardness and catch up with the industrial and production growth which Western Europe was undergoing. The social forces in Russia were set in motion around this fundamental question. The two main emerging classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, together arose against the old regime, and at the same time stood before each other as two opposing forces with two antagonistic perspectives. Given the conditions of Russia, both alternatives enjoyed the historical possibility for their realisation. Both alternatives could open the way for the economic progress of the Russian society. Bolshevism and Leninism brought the working class to the field as an independent force in opposition to both the bourgeoisie and Tsarism. This class independence on the question of political power and even of the structure of the state was clearly achieved and became an organic and established feature of the Russian proletarian movement. That much independence allowed the Russian workers under the leadership of Bolshevism to disrupt the plans for the bourgeois-democratic development of the political and state superstructure in Russia and to establish the independent power of workers through a proletarian revolution. But the populist aspirations for overcoming the backwardness of the national economy of Russia, and the defective economic thoughts predominant in the international social democracy deprived the working class and its vanguard party, the Bolshevik Party, of forming at the most decisive moment in the Russian revolution its independent rank on the fundamental question of the Russian society, i.e. the social mode of production and economic development. ‘The revolution became a victim of confusion in its aims.’ This confusion represented not a theoretical or intellectual problem but a social reality. The Russian society was not sufficiently polarised on the economic perspective for its development. The workers’ party, lacking a clear vision for the revolutionary transformation of the production relations, and under the economic and political pressures of the capitalist system both domestically and internationally, retreated to the common grounds of its economic stands with the perspective of the bourgeoisie. The revolutionary transformation of the capitalist system gave way to its reform through the extension of state ownership and planning for the accumulation of capital and the division of labour. With a halt at this stage, the workers’ revolution allowed all of its political gains to be wrested back gradually and under the pressure of the realities and the needs of the bourgeois economy. Leninism, i.e. the class independence of the proletariat at every front and battle, was not represented at the time when the future of the economic system of the Russian society was being settled. ‘Socialism in one country’ was the banner for the retreat to the interests of national-bourgeois economy in Russia. A banner which was hoisted precisely due to the absence of a Leninist banner for the building of socialism in Russia, as a ‘superior’ economic system based on common ownership and the abolition of wage-labour. The building of socialism in Russia, in the true and Marxist sense of the term, not only was possible but was also imperative for the continuation and consolidation of the revolution. The workers’ revolution was defeated in the face of its economic tasks.
From these reasonings I can draw several conclusions. Firstly, I emphasize once more the fundamental role of economic transformation in Russia after the revolution. The class struggle in Russia took place in the context of given social relations and over fundamental problems which resulted from the immanent contradictions and antagonisms of these relations. The same economic development which brought about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Russia, also presented the objective necessity for the transformation of the existing economic relations. The fate of the Russian revolution was ultimately determined by the way in which this fundamental social-historical necessity was dealt with. This was the essential link in the development of the proletarian revolution as it also was the main issue for the bourgeois counterrevolution. The economic outcome of the revolution turned out to be the imposition of certain reforms on the development of capitalism in Russia, and not a socialist transformation. The root of this failure must be sought in the lack of a material and social demarcation between the economic perspective of the working class and the industrialist and national horizon of the Russian bourgeoisie.
Secondly, if we accept that the struggle of social forces in Russia prior to the revolution was being polarised over two alternative class policies on the future development of Russia, i.e. the industrialist-nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie and the socialist policy of the proletariat, then it becomes evident why the fate of the workers’ revolution in Russia, too, should be assessed on the basis of the continuity of this fundamental class concurrence after the revolution. The political victory of the working class in Russia, the expropriation of the big bourgeoisie, both politically and economically, was not tantamount to an end in the social and class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie for the determination of the destiny of the Russian society according to their patterns and alternatives. Since, still both alternatives were historically possible and had grounds for realisation. The capitalist development of the Russian society, the attainment of economic power under the capitalist system, was still a real possibility and a viable perspective in society. (As it was later vindicated, the economic development of Russia did actually advance under the capitalist system.) It is therefore clear that the discussion is about showing which social and class forces would become the standard-bearers of either of these two historically realisable alternatives. The truth of the matter is that in the ‘20s under specific circumstances, mainly the absence of an organised proletarian rank advocating a real socialist path, this bourgeois perspective was represented by the official line in the Communist Party itself, namely Stalin’s line.
I do not therefore accept this schematic and unreal assumption that on the morrow of the 1917 revolution the name of the bourgeoisie was struck out of the list of active social forces in the society, and the bourgeois alternative for the development of the Russian society lost all its relevance. To understand the social framework of the October Revolution means to understand the continuity of the class struggle before and after the revolution, i.e. to grasp this point that on the morrow of the October revolution the proletarian and bourgeois perspectives for the transformation of the Russian society were still confronting each other, and as the key problems of the class struggle could still rally around themselves real forces in society. Even in the current interpretation of the radical Left it is emphasized that the Stalin faction represented in the final analysis Russian nationalism. But what this Left fails to understand is that this nationalism was not merely an ideological phenomenon or a superstructural tendency. This nationalism was the banner of the bourgeoisie and the symbol of its material power in society. This nationalism had a certain economic content and that was none other than the promotion of the national economy of Russia to the level of the advanced capitalist economy of the Europe of the time. The material power of the bourgeoisie by far exceeds the physical presence of the bourgeois in management posts or governmental offices. The bourgeoisie disseminates its interests and ideas as the ideals of the entire society. Bourgeois thinking becomes an immense force which survives in the ‘spontaneous’ mentality and inclinations of millions of people, who have directly no common interest with the bourgeoisie. One who with the 1917 revolution writes off the bourgeoisie from the political arena commits the most flagrant reductionism and the worst kind of departure from the comprehensive and social understanding of Marxism of the class relations in a capitalist society. The October Revolution brought about many great changes, to the advantage of the working class, in the balance of forces which existed between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. But it did not obliterate, nor could it obliterate, the essence of this class confrontation. A confrontation which then acted as the focus of the class struggle in society and which could not be eliminated without an immense economic transformation. Therefore, I have differences with those viewpoints for which the triumph of the October Revolution and the establishment of the workers’ state is sufficient justification to consider that the dynamism of the Russian society was based on something other than the class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; viewpoints which become stunned by the contradictions of the proletariat with the minor classes of the society, and which consider that the threat to socialism came not from capitalism but from the petty commodity-production and the like. In my opinion such consideration of the problems of the Russian society after the revolution is, from the point of view of Marxist theory, incorrect and mechanistic, and politically naive. I am not denying the importance of the contradictions between the proletariat and its interests and the aspirations of other social strata, but I stress the continuity of class dynamism in the movement of a society, that is the predominance of the confrontation between labour and capital, the worker and the capitalist, in both the periods preceding and following the revolution, and lay emphasis on the influence of this dynamism even on other social conflicts. With the political and economic expropriation of the Russian big bourgeoisie, the social solution of this class is not eliminated, but loses its direct human agencies and must thus temporarily find new human and class agents. In other words, if on the morrow of the October the proletariat is seeking its socialist alternative, what is happening on the other side of the equation is the arrival of class forces and social strata which attempt (no doubt with the blessing and support of international capital) to act as the defender of the interests of the bourgeois industrialist alternative in Russia. In the context of such a fundamental class contradiction, the peasants, the petty-bourgeois, the middlemen, the bureaucrats, etc., could only act as the human and class agents for continuing and preserving the bourgeois alternative, and not as the standard-bearers and the motive force of the alternatives of the newly-emerging marginal strata. It was only in this capacity which these marginal strata could essentially have any decisive social role and not as the defenders of their marginal interests. The social struggle only takes form on the basis of those class alternatives which have a universal and historical possibility and significance. This contest in our era is the contest of socialism and capitalism, the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. All social classes and strata must be polarised around this struggle and in the final analysis play no socially decisive role except in connection with this fundamental contest.
The other implication of this argument is that once the proletariat failed to realise its alternative, Russian society had no other way for its development except that provided by the bourgeois alternative. Thus I do not accept the argument for the establishment of a new mode of production or an intermediary economy based on petty-commodity forms of production and so on. Nor do I accept the bureaucracy as the main social class in a society. These should be considered as the forms of continuation of the capitalist society and of the rule of capital. On paper, one can define any new mode of production or any new ruling class which one chooses, and classify the reality in whatever arbitrary array of tables one wishes to, but history only moves on the basis of its own material possibilities and social grounds, which are the product of real social classes. The defeat of the proletarian revolution, in the context of a capitalist society, means the continuation of capitalism, albeit in new forms. It does not mean the emergence of a new mode of production whose motive forces, historical background, and social bases did not have any objective existence at the height of the struggle between socialism and capitalism. The advocates of such viewpoints not only should explain the origins and the forms of emergence of such a new mode of production, and the way in which it superseded the socialist movement, but should also explain how it overwhelmed the bourgeois alternative, and the really existing capitalism. How could a task which the proletarian revolution failed to accomplish, i.e. the overthrow of capital, be done by a social ‘stratum’, from the side and without any resistance on the part of the bourgeoisie! "

[ern]

Luis I post occasionally too!

[ern]

Very interesting discussion and good to see it has been the most visited on Theory ( judging by the first page of threads at least)

[el comandate]

As far as I know,communism is a perfect form of socialism....so,how can you be a "left" communist without going through socialism?

[el comandate]

Me again...and there is one thing that bothers me too.Why there are "left" communists,socialists,"right" communists, etc?We all know what we want...a better life without corruption and wars...without capitalism!

[IronColumn]

The distinction between "socialism" as a lower stage of "communism" was invented by the Bolsheviks. Since left communists reject the Bolshevik party at least after 1921, it would serve to reason they would reject the idea of building socialism to pass to communism. Furthermore I don't think it was ever the idea of Lenin to have one country build socialism itself as a prelude to perfect communism. That's an invention of Stalin. Hopefully this clears things up for you comandante.