left communism

[jaffe]

What is left communism?

who were important left communists and which books are considered important to lef communists?

What's the difference between left communism and (marxist leninist) communism?

What's the difference between left communism and anarcho-communism/syndicalism?

thank you

[black magick hustla]

Left communism started both as a tendency inside the Bolsheviks and the third international--it was criticized bv Lenin as "ultra-left" and infantile. In the third international, this tendency was represented by the Dutch, German, and Italian sections.

It differs from anarchism in as much as it doesnt rejects centralization and the state.

Some of the tenets that unite left communist orgs is the rejection of all nationalism, including national liberation movements, the analysis of state-capitalism as a worldwide tendency, the rejection of unions, and embracing world revolution as the only feasable way of installing socialism.

Some left communist theorists would be pannekoek, Bordiga, and Ruhle.

[Leo]

I think the ICC Basic Positions mostly sum up the general framework pretty successfully in my opinion.

http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions


The International Communist Current defends the following political positions:

* Since the First World War, capitalism has been a decadent social system. It has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. In the 1980s, it entered into the final phase of this decadence, the phase of decomposition. There is only one alternative offered by this irreversible historical decline: socialism or barbarism, world communist revolution or the destruction of humanity.

* The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first attempt by the proletariat to carry out this revolution, in a period when the conditions for it were not yet ripe. Once these conditions had been provided by the onset of capitalist decadence, the October revolution of 1917 in Russia was the first step toward of 1917 in Russia was the first step towards an authentic world communist revolution in an international revolutionary wave which put an end to the imperialist war and went on for several years after that. The failure of this revolutionary wave, particularly in Germany in 1919-23, condemned the revolution in Russia to isolation and to a rapid degeneration. Stalinism was not the product of the Russian revolution, but its gravedigger.

* The statified regimes which arose in the USSR, eastern Europe, China, Cuba etc and were called ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ were just a particularly brutal form of the universal tendency towards state capitalism, itself a major characteristic of the period of decadence.

* Since the beginning of the 20th century, all wars are imperialist wars, part of the deadly struggle between states large and small to conquer or retain a place in the international arena. These wars bring nothing to humanity but death and destruction on an ever-increasing scale. The working class can only respond to them through its international solidarity and by struggling against the bourgeoisie in all countries.

* All the nationalist ideologies - ‘national independence’, ‘the right of nations to self-determination’ etc - whatever their pretext, ethnic, historical or religious, are a real poison for the workers. By calling on them to take the side of one or another faction of the bourgeoisie, they divide workers and lead them to massacre each other in tr in the interests and wars of their exploiters.

* In decadent capitalism, parliament and elections are nothing but a mascarade. Any call to participate in the parliamentary circus can only reinforce the lie that presents these elections as a real choice for the exploited. ‘Democracy’, a particularly hypocritical form of the domination of the bourgeoisie, does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship, such as Stalinism and fascism.

* All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

* With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.

* In order to advance its combat, the working class has to unify its struggles, taking charge of their extension and organisation through sovereign general assembliassemblies and committees of delegates elected and revocable at any time by these assemblies.

* Terrorism is in no way a method of struggle for the working class. The expression of social strata with no historic future and of the decomposition of the petty bourgeoisie, when it’s not the direct expression of the permanent war between capitalist states, terrorism has always been a fertile soil for manipulation by the bourgeoisie. Advocating secret action by small minorities, it is in complete opposition to class violence, which derives from conscious and organised mass action by the proletariat.

* The working class is the only class which can carry out the communist revolution. Its revolutionary struggle will inevitably lead the working class towards a confrontation with the capitalist state. In order to destroy capitalism, the working class will have to overthrow all existing states and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world scale: the international power of the workers’ councils, regrouping the entire proletariat.

* The communist transformation of society by the workers’ councils does not mean ‘self-management’ or the nationalisation of the economy. Communism requires the conscious abolition by the working class of capitalist social relations: wage labour, commodity production, national frontiers. It means the creation of a world community in which all activity is oriented towards the full satisfactisfaction of human needs.

* The revolutionary political organisation constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalisation of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to ‘organise the working class’ nor to ‘take power’ in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariat’s combat.

OUR ACTIVITY

Political and theoretical clarification of the goals and methods of the proletarian struggle, of its historic and its immediate conditions.

Organised intervention, united and centralised on an international scale, in order to contribute to the process which leads to the revolutionary action of the proletariat.

The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party, which is indispensable to the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a communist society.

OUR ORIGINS

The positions and activity of revolutionary organisations are the product of the past experiences of the working class and of the lessons that its political organisations have drawn throughout its history. The ICC thus traces its origins to the successive contributions of the Communist League of Marx and Engels (1847-52), the three Internationals (the International Workingmen’s Association, 1864-72, the Socialist International, 1889-1914, the Communist International, 1919-28), the left fractions which detached themselves from the degenerating Third International in the years 1920-30, in particular the German, Dutch and Italian Lefts.

After that, a few historical texts could be helpful, such as Herman Gorter's Open Letter to Comrade Lenin (http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/open0.htm) , Anton Pannekoek's World Revolution and Communist Tactics (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/panworl1.htm) and Amadeo Bordiga's Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Fraction (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipu/lipuhcaboe.html). A text which has to do with more direct measures is Rosa Luxemburg's What Does the Spartacus League Want? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm). As for more detailed works, I would recommend the ICC Platform (http://en.internationalism.org/platform) for the further expansion of the basic left communist positions, Rosa Luxemburg's Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm) is significant in the detailed early analysis of the Bolshevik Revolution and it's mistakes and Rosa Luxemburg's Accumulation of Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm) is a very significant work in founding the basis of the future left communist theory.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:15 pm
the rejection of unions
Is this correct?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by mikelepore+November 18, 2007 03:29 am--> (mikelepore @ November 18, 2007 03:29 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:15 pm
the rejection of unions
Is this correct? [/b]
See above:

ICC
* With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.
Devrim

[Bilan]

How does it explain/justify this position on unions?
For example, we look at unions like the IWW (Starbucks Union in America), and the union involved in the "Strike-Bike" action, and this comes off as a bullshit.
Is there not a clear distinction between revolutionary unionism and unionism? How do Left-Communists stand on this?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 18, 2007 10:21 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 18, 2007 10:21 am) Is there not a clear distinction between revolutionary unionism and unionism? [/b]
We believe that revolutionary unionism is impossible today. To put it on a very basic level, all unions are yellow today.

The bases of this is that outside of periods of struggle, mass unitary organisations of the working class have a tendency to be integrated into capital.

Speaking plainly, you can have a revolutionary mass democratic organisation of workers when only a majority of workers are revolutionaries. It will unavoidably become either non-democratic, or non-revolutionary.

Worse than being non-revolutionary, they actually end up being weapons of the bosses not of the working class.

Of course any militant worker today can see that there are huge problems with the present unions. The question is whether the problem is with these unions, or these leaders, or with the whole form.

In Turkey we have a 'revolutionary syndicalist' union, DİSK, with about 350,000 members. The first President was assassinated by fascists. The last one was stealing money from the union to build his own house. Of course it is only an anecdote, but I think that it does reflect the reality of these organisations.


Proper Tea is Theft
For example, we look at unions like the IWW (Starbucks Union in America), and the union involved in the "Strike-Bike" action, and this comes off as a bullshit.

I don't think that the IWW is much more than an anarcho-leftist club/historical society. The farce that accompanied its first job branch in the UK is instructive. As for the strike bike, I don't really understand why anarchists are getting so excited about a failed workers' co-op.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 10:45 pm
I think the ICC Basic Positions mostly sum up the general framework pretty successfully in my opinion.

http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions

I read all of that up to "our activities" and based on that. I could join, I agree with it all.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William Everard+November 18, 2007 12:27 pm--> (William Everard @ November 18, 2007 12:27 pm)
Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 10:45 pm
I think the ICC Basic Positions mostly sum up the general framework pretty successfully in my opinion.

http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions

I read all of that up to "our activities" and based on that. I could join, I agree with it all. [/b]
Actually membership of the ICC is based on their 'Platform' (http://en.internationalism.org/platform), not their 'Basic Positions'.
It is a bit more detailed.

What surprises me about this though William, is that I thought you were closer to the 'Platformist' positions, which are quite opposed to the ones there.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Now, about being a left-communist activist: can we expect the ICC to intervene where the workers are (trade unions f.e.) or must it be where the workers are breaking with there traditional parties and unions?

[Dr Mindbender]

surely theres no such thing as 'right-communism'? :blink:

[Random Precision]

I must admit that I'm a bit confused. How do you guys plan to do this:


The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party

while you proclaim this:


All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

Or are the revolutionaries whom you seek to regroup to be found outside the capitalist political apparatus?

[black magick hustla]

one observation:

"self-management" isn't necessarily a workers' co-op--it just simply means managing industry without managers--whether it is through capitalist relations or not.

When the situationists would say "generalized self-management", they would simply mean a society where managers and bosses do not exist.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 18, 2007 10:21 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 18, 2007 10:21 am)How does it explain/justify this position on unions?
For example, we look at unions like the IWW (Starbucks Union in America), and the union involved in the "Strike-Bike" action, and this comes off as a bullshit.[/b]

IWW is not an anarcho-syndicate. It never was. It's an "industrial unionist" union - or better yet, an attempt of it, since it lacks "industrial membership" - and the difference between those are in the fact that latter tend to be "apolitical", which is senseless, while former tend to turn every single "economic struggle", or every partial struggle, into a political one through direct action.

Rudolph Rocker explains:


Methods of Anarcho-Syndicalism
Anarcho-Syndicalists [...] are not in any way opposed to the political struggle, but in their opinion this struggle, too, must take the form of direct action, in which the instruments of economic power which the working class has at its command are the most effective. The most trivial wage fight shows clearly that, whenever the employers find themselves in difficulties, the state steps in with the police, and even in some cases with the militia, to protect the threatened interests of the possessing classes. It would, therefore, be absurd for them to overlook the importance of the political struggle. Every event that affects the life of the community is of a political nature. In this sense, every important economic action, such, for example, as a general strike, is also a political action and, moreover, one of incomparably greater importance than any parliamentary proceeding.

Obviously, Left Communists and anarcho-syndicalists, if latter are the ones who learned something from the Spanish tragedy, share the same - or at least similar - views on parliamentarism.


Is there not a clear distinction between revolutionary unionism and unionism? How do Left-Communists stand on this?

Well, it depends. I'll leave out "revolutionary unionism" for whatever it means, and deal with anarcho-syndicalism.

Since anarcho-syndicalism is first and foremost an organizational position, it can be implemented in several ways, and they, of course, can be very different, and thus more or less unacceptable to Left Communists.

In example, allot of "anarcho-syndicalist" unions by name actually function as regular, yellow unions. Like one mentioned by Devrim in Turkey, like CNT in Spain or the one in Sweden. They carry red-black flags, they talk the talk, but they are not organized as anarcho-syndicates, and therefore, they are not anarcho-syndicates. They established certain social-democratic lines of functioning, developed a bureaucracy and a pyramid-like structure, and they act above the working class and the membership. We basically look at them as to all other unions.

To be organized as one it has to fuction on the principles of direct democracy. Direct democracy, even though some Left Communists tend not to use that term, is our goal, which is to be implemented through power of workers' councils. Goal for anarcho-syndicalists is more or less the same: organization of unified political and economic life based on mass direct democracy of working class collectives - workplace councils or otherwise.

But the problem lies in the fact that direct democracy in that case is an instrument of revolutionary mass action, usualy developing out of a wild strike, while in an anarcho-syndicate direct democracy stands outside of the workplaces only as an instrument of union organization, dedicated to everyday problems that concern union itself.

Thus, far from being "just like yellow unions", real anarcho-syndicalist organizations have one thing to understand: -- Anarcho-syndicates - even though they function on the principles of pure direct democracy, even if every action is conditioned by their basic revolutionary positions - are no replacement for workers' councils. This means that, if they are to be really revolutionary, their goal is supposed to be creation of latter, not expansion of former.


We have two examples of anarcho-syndicalist actions and positions where one is totally acceptable to Left Communists, while other one is completely reactionary:

1.) positive one would be the efforts of Russian anarcho-syndicalists during the Russian Revolution - i.e. Maximoff and Shatov - to support and aid factory committees and autonomous working class efforts
2.) negative one would be CNT's joining the government which basically meant blocking all revolutionary developments.

P.S.

"Strike-bike" is just an isolated workers' action which positively shows how workers' are more than capable of running a workplace, but negatively, it is bound to fail as any "self-managed" capitalist business. Certanly, our goal is not to create a society where workers manage their own exploitation.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:38 pm
What surprises me about this though William, is that I thought you were closer to the 'Platformist' positions, which are quite opposed to the ones there.

Devrim
There's a difference between platformism as a form of organisation, and as a set of political positions that platformist groups have adopted.

Some platformist groups became very reformist, but I wouldn't call myself a reformist!

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rakunin+November 18, 2007 01:13 pm--> (Rakunin @ November 18, 2007 01:13 pm) Now, about being a left-communist activist: can we expect the ICC to intervene where the workers are (trade unions f.e.) or must it be where the workers are breaking with there traditional parties and unions? [/b]
Workers are in the workplace.


Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+--> (Ulster Socialist)surely theres no such thing as 'right-communism'?:blink: [/b]

Historically there was. Read about Soviet Russia in the twenties, and the right opposition.


Hope Lies in the [email protected]
I must admit that I'm a bit confused. How do you guys plan to do this:


The regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party

while you proclaim this:


All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

Or are the revolutionaries whom you seek to regroup to be found outside the capitalist political apparatus?

I don't see any contradiction here. Could you rephrase the question, please?


William Everard
What surprises me about this though William, is that I thought you were closer to the 'Platformist' positions, which are quite opposed to the ones there.

Devrim
There's a difference between platformism as a form of organisation, and as a set of political positions that platformist groups have adopted.

Some platformist groups became very reformist, but I wouldn't call myself a reformist![/b][/quote]

Yes, fair point, but 'Platformism' as it exists today is associated with certain political positions.

Devrim

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:26 pm
I don't see any contradiction here. Could you rephrase the question, please?
Probably my fault. But I have heard that left communists want the formation of a world communist party that unites Maoists/Stalinists, Trotskyists, and themselves, perhaps the "regroupment of revolutionaries" the ICC speaks of. But the ICC also calls the other trends in revolutionary socialism "the left of the bourgeois political apparatus". I don't see how left communists expect Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists to join together with them at the same time they are labeled that. Or even why Left Communists would want to join with us if that's really the case.

This is an honest question on my part, I sincerely would like to learn more about the left-communist position.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 01:19 pm
surely theres no such thing as 'right-communism'? :blink:
yes there is.
you have to understand that the proletariats moral values arise out of capitalist and theological teachings, nah, it's more than that, proletarian justice is swift and simple, if you are a threat to our class, our children, our future, then there is no room for liberal or left wing compassion.
we do not have the time to forgive and forget, we cannot afford to relax, even for a moment our disc ipline and determination if we are to win the struggle for freedom.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+November 19, 2007 11:49 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ November 19, 2007 11:49 pm)
"self-management" isn't necessarily a workers' co-op--it just simply means managing industry without managers--whether it is through capitalist relations or not.

We should also point out that "self-management" has meant different things historically. For example, in Yugoslavia, "self-management" meant a direct rejection of the communist position that "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State..." [/b]

I thought that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes” (Marx, 1971-2), but anyway, that's not the issue.

In Yugoslavia, so-called "self-management" proved that proletariat can be led into its own self-exploitation by decrees of the state. It means that economic and political struggle must be united in one autonomous movement of the working class, and it has to have one clear goal: elimination of alienated labor and destruction of labor-capital relationship along with commodity production.

Political and economic self-liberation of the working class cannot be achieved through separated institutions such as political parties and separated endeavors such as ocupations of existing state machinery that should be thrown on the junkyard of history.

"Generalized self-management", in contrast to Yugoslav model, is explained:


Mustafa Khayati
The essence of commodity production is the loss of self in the chaotic and unconscious creation of a world totally beyond the control of its creators. In contrast, the radically revolutionary core of generalized self-management is everyone’s conscious control over the whole of life. The self-management of commodity alienation would only make everyone the programmers of their own survival — squaring the capitalist circle. The task of the workers councils will thus be not the self-management of the existing world, but its unceasing qualitative transformation: the concrete supersession of the commodity (that enormous detour in the history of human self-production). [...] The democracy of workers councils is the solution to all the present separations. It makes impossible “everything that exists outside individuals.”

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the Proles+November 19, 2007 04:00 pm--> (Hope Lies in the Proles @ November 19, 2007 04:00 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:26 pm
I don't see any contradiction here. Could you rephrase the question, please?
Probably my fault. But I have heard that left communists want the formation of a world communist party that unites Maoists/Stalinists, Trotskyists, and themselves, perhaps the "regroupment of revolutionaries" the ICC speaks of. But the ICC also calls the other trends in revolutionary socialism "the left of the bourgeois political apparatus". I don't see how left communists expect Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists to join together with them at the same time they are labeled that. Or even why Left Communists would want to join with us if that's really the case.

This is an honest question on my part, I sincerely would like to learn more about the left-communist position. [/b]
^^^ I may not be a left-communist, but even the left-communists on this board were surprised to find my earlier (and still-true-to-position) call for such, as a "Leninist" proper. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)

I'll say this as a compliment to each group: Maoist activists (as opposed to those in power) are by far the best mobilizers of the "revolutionary" segments of the peasantry. Stalinist activists (as opposed to those in power) have by far the best anti-sectarian organizational approach (although of course prone to national opportunism and reformism by working within each countries' main "Communist" party like the CPUSA, PCF, CPRF, etc.). Left-communists are the most advanced group in terms of international organization, and Trotskyists... well... I'll think about that (because the only compliments I can think of pertain to Trotsky himself and certain not-so-dialectical folks ;) ).

I'm closer to the left-communist position as an ICC "sympathizer" than I am to my former Trotskyist and Stalinist positions, but I still uphold my criticism of their position on the Communist/Third International as already being a global vanguard party by itself, based on the globalizing opportunities posed already at the Second International.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the Proles+November 19, 2007 11:00 pm--> (Hope Lies in the Proles @ November 19, 2007 11:00 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:26 pm
I don't see any contradiction here. Could you rephrase the question, please?
Probably my fault. But I have heard that left communists want the formation of a world communist party that unites Maoists/Stalinists, Trotskyists, and themselves, perhaps the "regroupment of revolutionaries" the ICC speaks of. But the ICC also calls the other trends in revolutionary socialism "the left of the bourgeois political apparatus". I don't see how left communists expect Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists to join together with them at the same time they are labeled that. Or even why Left Communists would want to join with us if that's really the case.

This is an honest question on my part, I sincerely would like to learn more about the left-communist position. [/b]
OK. It is clear now. I think that you have misunderstood what we are talking about.

The left communists believe that the Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist organisations are objectively anti-working class. This does not mean that we think that every member is subjectively anti-working class, but that the activities of these parties objectively are.

If we look at one example, the question of war, and national liberation, in our opinion the support of the leftists for national liberation struggles plays the part of mobilising the working class behind different sections of the bourgeoisie. Now, we can argue about the validity of national liberation struggle, but I think that you have to accept that if we are right, then the activity of the leftist parties is something beyond a mere tactical mistake. If we are right then they are effectively acting as recruiting sergeants of various capitalist factions, and in our opinion should be condemned in the same way as the communists condemned Kautsky in 1914.

So no, we don't advocate a 'formation of a world communist party that unites Maoists/Stalinists, Trotskyists, and [our]selves'. We advocate '[t]he regroupment of revolutionaries with the aim of constituting a real world communist party'. We don't consider those organisations to be revolutionary. We consider them to be anti-working class.

That does not mean that individuals who come from those parties will not be involved in the building of the world party, but it does mean that the one of the steps towards them doing so is breaking with the ideology of those parties.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:37 am
Maoist activists (as opposed to those in power) are by far the best mobilizers of the "revolutionary" segments of the peasantry.
...but what are they mobilising them for?

Generally it is to die on behalf of the national bourgeois.

Write to Leo ;)

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Here are some good explanations as to what left-communism is: “Left-Wing” Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm), Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm). :)

[Random Precision]

The left communists believe that the Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist organisations are objectively anti-working class. This does not mean that we think that every member is subjectively anti-working class, but that the activities of these parties objectively are.

Could you provide some examples of how Trotskyist organizations are anti-working class besides the national liberation bit? Which I definitely am coming to agree with you guys on, by the way.


That does not mean that individuals who come from those parties will not be involved in the building of the world party, but it does mean that the one of the steps towards them doing so is breaking with the ideology of those parties.

So essentially the regroupment of revolutionaries into a world communist party rests on individuals coming around to the left communist point of view? Once again, an honest question!

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:42 am
Could you provide some examples of how Trotskyist organizations are anti-working class besides the national liberation bit? Which I definitely am coming to agree with you guys on, by the way.
What "national liberation" bit?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 02:43 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 02:43 am)
Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:42 am
Could you provide some examples of how Trotskyist organizations are anti-working class besides the national liberation bit? Which I definitely am coming to agree with you guys on, by the way.
What "national liberation" bit? [/b]
The idea of supporting national liberation struggles in general.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the Proles+November 21, 2007 02:47 am--> (Hope Lies in the Proles @ November 21, 2007 02:47 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 02:43 am

Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:42 am
Could you provide some examples of how Trotskyist organizations are anti-working class besides the national liberation bit? Which I definitely am coming to agree with you guys on, by the way.
What "national liberation" bit?
The idea of supporting national liberation struggles in general. [/b]
Do you have any examples of that? I personally wouldn't support a national liberation struggle which has an inherent reactionary character, and as far as I know that opinion was shared by Trotsky, hence the whole "the bourgeoisie has no progressive role in the third world anymore, hence the proletariat must lead the democratic revolution as well as the socialist revolution".

That is what the theory of permanent revolution is based on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 20, 2007 07:28 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 20, 2007 07:28 pm)
Hope Lies in the [email protected] 19, 2007 11:00 pm

Probably my fault. But I have heard that left communists want the formation of a world communist party that unites Maoists/Stalinists, Trotskyists, and themselves, perhaps the "regroupment of revolutionaries" the ICC speaks of. But the ICC also calls the other trends in revolutionary socialism "the left of the bourgeois political apparatus". I don't see how left communists expect Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists to join together with them at the same time they are labeled that. Or even why Left Communists would want to join with us if that's really the case.

This is an honest question on my part, I sincerely would like to learn more about the left-communist position.
OK. It is clear now. I think that you have misunderstood what we are talking about.

The left communists believe that the Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist organisations are objectively anti-working class. This does not mean that we think that every member is subjectively anti-working class, but that the activities of these parties objectively are.

[...]

That does not mean that individuals who come from those parties will not be involved in the building of the world party, but it does mean that the one of the steps towards them doing so is breaking with the ideology of those parties.

Devrim [/b]
Of the three groups, I would agree with you on the overly peasant-biased Maoists. Even when I was a proper Stalinist (not a spinoff Hoxha-ite or whatever, just strictly Uncle Joe himself), I recognized the logic in Stalin's backing of the Guomindang over the CCP itself, both realpolitik factors (rivalry for bloc leadership) and material (peasantry, plus the comments made by Liu Shaoqi in this section of the wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split#Background).

The sad thing about today's "Stalinists" is that their activities reek too much of "Kamenev-ism" and of the "Zinoviev-ites," because Stalin wasn't prominent when those two hacks favoured accommodation from within the Bolshevik party. I daresay that even Martov himself - having drifted into "left Menshevism" - would've made for a better Party member than those two a**clowns who continued in their blunders on the international front (Zinoviev having succeeded in shifting his failures to Radek).

[Sorry for using old Stalinist vocabulary, but that's the best I can come up with in terms of linking policies with specific figures.]

Then there are the Trot leaders and their expertise at sectarianism extraordinaire. Note here that all my criticisms above related strictly to organization, and not "historical questions."



Last question: you didn't mention your position regarding "Leninists" (I know the ICC keeps equating "Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism" on its site with Stalinism, but you know by now that my usage of that term in quotation marks refers to the few of us around who don't subscribe to the above spin-offs, as well as refers to "revolutionary Marxism").

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 02:50 am
Do you have any examples of that? I personally wouldn't support a national liberation struggle which has an inherent reactionary character, and as far as I know that opinion was shared by Trotsky, hence the whole "the bourgeoisie has no progressive role in the third world anymore, hence the proletariat must lead the democratic revolution as well as the socialist revolution".

That is what the theory of permanent revolution is based on.
Hm. Now that I think of that, I really don't know of any. I know that during the wars in Afghanistan in the eighties, the Sparts had such a hard-on for "spreading the gains of the October Revolution to Afghanistan" that they even tried to send an international brigade there to fight for the Stalinist government. :lol:

But admittedly that is not quite on-topic. And the Sparts are definitely not representative of the Trotskyist movement in general. So that would be another question I would ask devrim, Leo or whoever when they check in on the thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 20, 2007 07:50 pm
Do you have any examples of that? I personally wouldn't support a national liberation struggle which has an inherent reactionary character, and as far as I know that opinion was shared by Trotsky, hence the whole "the bourgeoisie has no progressive role in the third world anymore, hence the proletariat must lead the democratic revolution as well as the socialist revolution".

That is what the theory of permanent revolution is based on.
From my conversations with Leo, the left-communist position apparently holds Lenin's idea of "revolutionary democracy" in higher regard than Trotsky's idea of "permanent revolution," designating the former as some sort of "honest mistake" while designating the latter as fantasy.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 02:40 am
Here are some good explanations as to what left-communism is: “Left-Wing” Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm), Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm). :)
And here is the reply:

Open Letter to comrade Lenin (http://http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm)

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Well, it is Trotskyist to unite with the bourgeoisie against Fascism, and then the workers movement is subordinated, and compromised. When infact the workers should take on both the bourgeoisie and the pette-bourgeois Fascists.

This is one of the many reasons why Trotskyism is anti-working-class.

True, Trotsky was revolutionary, but after the revolution he became anti-working-class. Its very sad to know about someone like him getting swept away in their own rubbish bin of history. But workers can't rely on very prominent leaders, the tradition of bourgeois democracy has given us that mentallity to depend on those with power to do things for us, and really only we can do things ourselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 20, 2007 08:02 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 20, 2007 08:02 pm)
Led [email protected] 21, 2007 02:40 am
Here are some good explanations as to what left-communism is: “Left-Wing” Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm), Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm). :)
And here is the reply:

Open Letter to comrade Lenin (http://http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm)

Devrim [/b]
^^^ Don't take that as being representative of "Leninist" positions. :(

As I said before, the question of the timing of decadence is where I disagree with you guys with somewhat. Sure, WWI started it all (directing imperialist conflict to within Europe itself), but there are other, probably more convincing points in time:

The Great Depression
WWII
Dropping the Bretton-Woods system

The collapse of the eastern bloc (and this one's important for me primarily because of the partial validity of Kautsky's "ultra-imperialism," which was realized to its full potential during the Cold War)

Just as Luxemburg stated that capitalist imperialism per se was already inherent from the beginning of capitalism (even if the historical stage itself "emerged fully from the womb" much later on), ditto with decadence.

And of course, naturally, the extent of decadence may determine conversely the validity of Lenin's theory (and I stated my earlier qualms about Luxemburg's ideas being excessively goods-based and Lenin's ideas being excessively colonies-based after penning Imperialism and the Split in Socialism).

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 21, 2007 03:05 am
Well, it is Trotskyist to unite with the bourgeoisie against Fascism, and then the workers movement is subordinated, and compromised. When infact the workers should take on both the bourgeoisie and the pette-bourgeois Fascists.

This is one of the many reasons why Trotskyism is anti-working-class.

True, Trotsky was revolutionary, but after the revolution he became anti-working-class. Its very sad to know about someone like him getting swept away in their own rubbish bin of history. But workers can't rely on very prominent leaders, the tradition of bourgeois democracy has given us that mentallity to depend on those with power to do things for us, and really only we can do things ourselves.
No it is not Trotskyist to unite with the bourgeoisie against Fascism in all cases. Trotsky was writing specifically for his period, and he was right. If the Communist Party worked with the Social-Democratic party instead of denouncing them as "reactionary!!!" they might've been able to make a stand against the Nazis.

And it's ironic that you're saying that he was swept away in the rubbish bin of history, when left-communism as a movement is countless times smaller (and has always been so) than Trotskyism.

It is your movement that is in the dustbin of history my friend, not mine.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Hammer+November 21, 2007 03:00 am--> (Hammer @ November 21, 2007 03:00 am)
Led [email protected] 20, 2007 07:50 pm
Do you have any examples of that? I personally wouldn't support a national liberation struggle which has an inherent reactionary character, and as far as I know that opinion was shared by Trotsky, hence the whole "the bourgeoisie has no progressive role in the third world anymore, hence the proletariat must lead the democratic revolution as well as the socialist revolution".

That is what the theory of permanent revolution is based on.
From my conversations with Leo, the left-communist position apparently holds Lenin's idea of "revolutionary democracy" in higher regard than Trotsky's idea of "permanent revolution," designating the former as some sort of "honest mistake" while designating the latter as fantasy. [/b]
Permanent revolution is a continuation of Lenin's policy, and to say permanent revolution is fantasy just proves how delusional they are, given the fact that it actually was put into practice in the USSR and worked as a strategy to take state-power, while also saying that it would eventually fail if the revolution were not to spread to more advanced countries.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 02:50 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 02:50 am)
Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:47 am

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 02:43 am

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 02:42 am
Could you provide some examples of how Trotskyist organizations are anti-working class besides the national liberation bit? Which I definitely am coming to agree with you guys on, by the way.
What "national liberation" bit?
The idea of supporting national liberation struggles in general.
Do you have any examples of that? [/b]
Every war since 1939, maybe? I am not saying that every Trotskyist faction has supported every war, but I am quite certain that it is possible to find one Trotskyist faction which has supported each one.

We will use this for our example though, the SWP speaking about Iran:


[email protected] 28.11.87, SR, Dec. 87
We have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime...it would be wrong to strike... socialist should not call for the disruption of military supplies... not support action which would lead to the collapse of the military effort.


I personally wouldn't support a national liberation struggle which has an inherent reactionary character,

National liberation struggles have an 'inherent reactionary character'.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 20, 2007 08:14 pm
Permanent revolution is a continuation of Lenin's policy, and to say permanent revolution is fantasy just proves how delusional they are, given the fact that it actually was put into practice in the USSR and worked as a strategy to take state-power, while also saying that it would eventually fail if the revolution were not to spread to more advanced countries.
Being a "Leninist" myself, I can say that permanent revolution isn't:

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/30cTrotsky.html


"Permanent revolution" was Trotsky's first major distinctive theory of his own, and it would become the banner of the Trotskyist movement. Indeed, this term is sometimes used in a general sense as a synonym for Trotskyism in general. But strictly speaking, it refers to Trotsky's view that the former Marxist distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolution is outdated and obsolete. Instead, Trotsky held that revolution in any country--no matter on what issues it breaks out, what the local alignment of classes was, and what the economic level of development is--would either be utterly defeated, or directly go on to a proletarian dictatorship and socialist measures. The only type of revolution possible in the current era was supposed to be the socialist revolution (although Trotsky held that the revolution should generally, for the sake of gaining mass support, drape itself at the outset in some other colors). Trotsky held that any socialist who regarded a revolution as bourgeois-democratic was allegedly selling out the working class to the bourgeoisie.

And to comment on this, Trotsky was basically in agreement with the left-communists in regards to the "need" for a proper socialist revolution in backward countries (the latter basing their argument on the issue of decadence, which I stated my "timing" differences already).

I'll also say that Lenin was a "two-stage-ist," albeit one who recognized problems with the traditional Menshevik "two-stage-ism," the ideological ancestor of Brezhnev's "national-democratic revolution" crap.


Marxism holds that revolutions spring from definite class contradictions, and their outcomes are dependent on these conditions. It holds that, with regard to their social content, revolutions are divided into bourgeois-democratic and socialist ones. Whether a revolution would be bourgeois-democratic or socialist does not depend on the declaration of revolutionaries, but on the material conditions and class relations of a country. A national liberation struggle, an agrarian revolution that provides "land to the tiller", or the overthrow of various vicious dictatorships do not thereby go beyond the bounds of capitalism. Marxism showed that democratic revolutions that issued radical promises, made great inroads on the property of the former ruling circles, and, at the height of mass activity, appeared to be providing freedom for all, were actually paving the way for a wider and deeper spread of capitalism, and hence a wider and deeper class struggle. The conditions that provide for a revolution against various forms of oppression are not necessarily the same conditions as those that provide for a revolution against capitalist exploitation.

[...]

Lenin elaborated on the Marxist principle that a democratic revolution might, under favorable conditions, directly pass over into a socialist revolution. But he showed that, even then, the class alliances in the two revolutions would be different. In a country with a large peasantry, the workers might be allied with the peasantry as a whole in a struggle against large landlords, foreign colonialists or other oppressors who weighed down on all the peasants. But the richer peasants would not back socialism. It was only the poor peasants and agricultural laborers that could provide a firm agrarian class support for socialism, and only when they no longer saw obtaining or clinging to their own small plot of land as their salvation. Class attitudes would shift as the revolution proceeded to socialism. Lenin showed that, while in some cases the democratic and socialist revolutions might be intertwined, even then they remained, in principle, different stages of the revolutionary process, with different class alliances.

Thus Lenin upheld the Marxist theory of different social types of revolution, bourgeois-democratic and socialist, and developed it further in the light of the changes in world capitalism and class relations. Trotsky discarded this theory, and held that the proletariat should only be interested in socialist revolutions. In the course of doing so, he set forward a series of erroneous views.

[...]

Trotsky did sometimes talk about the "democratic" or "bourgeois" revolution". But he regarded such a phrase as referring simply to the first days of a "proletarian dictatorship" or socialist revolution. In his view, one talked about the democratic revolution simply to gain support, while all revolutions actually had a socialist character. He opposed the view that the democratic revolution could ever be something separate from socialist revolution.

I think I ranted enough about historical questions, but that depends on the extent of "undistorted capitalism" being in every corner of the earth. Africa is one continent wherein only "revolutionary-democratic" tasks can be pursued.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:14 am
to say permanent revolution is fantasy just proves how delusional they are
Actually, despite the fact that I don't know whether we actually said this, or not I think there is actually a problem in your response.

You don't ask why we said that it was a fantasy. You just come back with this sweeping response. Trotskyism is being criticised, so you must defend it. The critics are called delusional before you even know what the criticism is.

Given that what you are quoting is only based on what somebody believes are politics apparently , I think that this is a little incautious to say the least.

I will take a guess at what is being said here. The word fantasy probably applies to the idea held by many Trotskyists today of national liberation struggle turning into struggles for socialism. Yes, I would say that is fantasy.

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:12 am
No it is not Trotskyist to unite with the bourgeoisie against Fascism in all cases. Trotsky was writing specifically for his period, and he was right. If the Communist Party worked with the Social-Democratic party instead of denouncing them as "reactionary!!!" they might've been able to make a stand against the Nazis.
On the contrary, they worked with the bourgeoisie in Spain, and look where that lead them. Sad.


And it's ironic that you're saying that he was swept away in the rubbish bin of history, when left-communism as a movement is countless times smaller (and has always been so) than Trotskyism.

Yes, what we need are more Paper Pushers. Not to mention in the words of Ali G "RESPECT"-- your wonderful collaboration with the British Bourgeoisie!
Or is that "RESTECP"?


It is your movement that is in the dustbin of history my friend, not mine.

With smaller highly principled organizations you can accomplish more, like what the Bolsheviks did when they split away from the opportunist and vacilliating Mensheviki.

We're not the ones acting like Mensheviks.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 03:21 am--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 03:21 am) National liberation struggles have an 'inherent reactionary character'. [/b]
So then you opposed the Vietnamese struggle?

And I don't give a shit about the SWP, they are not Trotskyists. When you disagree with a central theory of Trotskyism, you can no longer say that you are one.

It's like me saying that a Nazi is a left-communist because he says he is. You have to look at their theory and policies, not just their label (which they themselves try to uphold).


Originally posted by [email protected]
And to comment on this, Trotsky was basically in agreement with the left-communists in regards to the "need" for a proper socialist revolution in backward countries (the latter basing their argument on the issue of decadence, which I stated my "timing" differences already).

I'll also say that Lenin was a "two-stage-ist," albeit one who recognized problems with the traditional Menshevik "two-stage-ism," the ideological ancestor of Brezhnev's "national-democratic revolution" crap.

How can you say that Lenin was a two-stageist of any kind when you know that he supported the Russian revolution and that his main argument was the same as Trotsky's for doing so?

For example read this: Our Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm)

One of his latest works, where he attacks the idea that they should abandon the cause of building socialism just because revolution failed in other more advanced countries.


EL KABLAMO
Yes, what we need are more Paper Pushers. Not to mention in the words of Ali G "RESPECT"-- your wonderful collaboration with the British Bourgeoisie!
Or is that "RESTECP"?

I don't support the SWP, and that criticism is rich coming from a person who isn't even involved in a political party or movement himself.


With smaller highly principled organizations you can accomplish more, like what the Bolsheviks did when they split away from the opportunist and vacilliating Mensheviki.

We're not the ones acting like Mensheviks.

Your smaller grouping aren't highly principled, they are more like a group of political clowns in the circus that is world politics.

The fact that you haven't picked out any of those sects to be a part of yet just proves this.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 03:35 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 03:35 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:21 am
National liberation struggles have an 'inherent reactionary character'.
So then you opposed the Vietnamese struggle?
[/b]
Not personally, I was a child at the time, but yes, the communist left opposed the 'Vietnamese struggle'.


Led Zeppelin
And I don't give a shit about the SWP, they are not Trotskyists.

Tell me which faction you support, and I will find wars you supprted.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 03:56 am--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 03:56 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:35 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 03:21 am
National liberation struggles have an 'inherent reactionary character'.
So then you opposed the Vietnamese struggle?

Not personally, I was a child at the time, but yes, the communist left opposed the 'Vietnamese struggle'. [/b]
And that's why no one takes your movement seriously.


Tell me which faction you support, and I will find wars you supprted.

Nope, I didn't support any wars, maybe historically my "faction" did, but I don't really care, because I haven't, and probably won't unless the movement is not inherently reactionary.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 03:58 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 03:58 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:56 am

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:35 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 03:21 am
National liberation struggles have an 'inherent reactionary character'.
So then you opposed the Vietnamese struggle?

Not personally, I was a child at the time, but yes, the communist left opposed the 'Vietnamese struggle'.
And that's why no one takes your movement seriously.
[/b]
Yes, that's why there are lots of people here who want to discuss left communism. That is why people, not us, keep staring threads on Left Communism. That is why you are writing on this thread about left communism instead of discussing with people who are interested in Trotskyism.

Of course you could put it down to the huge amount of people we have writing on here, four.

The Vietnamese war was a clash between the two superpowers of the time with both Vietnamese, and American workers being sent to die for the interests of opposing classes.


Nope, I didn't support any wars, maybe historically my "faction" did, but I don't really care, because I haven't, and probably won't unless the movement is not inherently reactionary.

This is, in my opinion a really bizarre attitude. If the organisation I was a member, or supporter of backed imperialist wars, I would at least want to know why.

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:35 am
I don't support the SWP, and that criticism is rich coming from a person who isn't even involved in a political party or movement himself.
That's because they don't want newspaper pushers, and to make sure they don't recruit people who just want to be in an organization. They want people who understand the tenets, and are expirienced in class-struggle for Communism.

They are not unwilling to help me gain expirience.


Your smaller grouping aren't highly principled, they are more like a group of political clowns in the circus that is world politics

(Here I'm supposed to come up with a clever analogy as a comeback).


The fact that you haven't picked out any of those sects to be a part of yet just proves this.

So what if I'm a sympathizer.

The idea isn't to build the biggest club-house, it's to understand the world right now and highten fellow proletarians Communist consciousness in revolutionary situtations, so as to advance to revolution. I think they (Left-Communist) are all swell organizations, but all I really want from them is the expirience and knowlege, if I can contribute, great! If they want me in as a millitant, great! But what's more important to me is to have the expirience and the knowlege so when I'm in a workers-council, I can help my sisters and brothers advance to revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 04:06 am--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 04:06 am) This is, in my opinion a really bizarre attitude. If the organisation I was a member, or supporter of backed imperialist wars, I would at least want to know why. [/b]
Even if you weren't part of the organization when they did so, and weren't even born?

Now that is a bit bizzare isn't it? It's assuming that parties never chance and are some kindof static organization, and I know for a fact that my "faction" has changed a lot since then.

As for that comment, there have also been a lot of posts and threads here about RAAN, that doesn't mean that more than 10 people in the world take it seriously.


EL KABLAMO
The idea isn't to build the biggest club-house, it's to understand the world right now and highten fellow proletarians Communist consciousness in revolutionary situtations, so as to advance to revolution. I think they (Left-Communist) are all swell organizations, but all I really want from them is the expirience and knowlege, if I can contribute, great! If they want me in as a millitant, great! But what's more important to me is to have the expirience and the knowlege so when I'm in a workers-council, I can help my sisters and brothers advance to revolution.

I know that's not the idea and I personally hate the "recruitment" environment that's prevalent in political parties (hence why I've taken a break from them, that and the fact that I'm busy with other things at the moment), but I personally do not engage in the perpetuation of that environment.

I talk to people as much as possible, discuss with them, argue with them, and engage with them on that level, instead of trying to sell a paper to them or get them to join our organization, because the former is what raises consciousness, while the latter only perpetuates the bad reputation that we have on the political scene.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 04:10 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 04:10 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:06 am
This is, in my opinion a really bizarre attitude. If the organisation I was a member, or supporter of backed imperialist wars, I would at least want to know why.
Even if you weren't part of the organization when they did so, and weren't even born?

Now that is a bit bizzare isn't it? It's assuming that parties never chance and are some kindof static organization, and I know for a fact that my "faction" has changed a lot since then.

[/b]
Yes, even if it was before I was born. I would want to know why they supported it, whether they still think that they were correct, why they changed their opinion.

Maybe we look at it differently. I think it is quite important to understand the political positions of the organisation you belong to.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 04:16 am--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 04:16 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 04:10 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 04:06 am
This is, in my opinion a really bizarre attitude. If the organisation I was a member, or supporter of backed imperialist wars, I would at least want to know why.
Even if you weren't part of the organization when they did so, and weren't even born?

Now that is a bit bizzare isn't it? It's assuming that parties never chance and are some kindof static organization, and I know for a fact that my "faction" has changed a lot since then.


Yes, even if it was before I was born. I would want to know why they supported it, whether they still think that they were correct, why they changed their opinion.

Maybe we look at it differently. I think it is quite important to understand the political positions of the organisation you belong to. [/b]
Actually I have asked about that and they admitted to be wrong. Ironically the people who supported that action the most later split from us, so it's pretty obvious that the party is not the same as it was back then.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 04:09 am

Yes, that's why there are lots of people here who want to discuss left communism.

"Left communism" sounds the nicest. I don't know if everyone would admit that, but it's obviously true. In a purely academic sense it so so pure and authentic. The only problem is that we have to make revolution in the real world, and in that "left communism" fails.
It is also an easier path to follow, not requiring high levels of theoretical and practical experience, hence its mass following these days with all of the confusion floating around due to the effects of the postwar boom and the collapse of the USSR. Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism - An Infantile Disorder is more relevant today than it was when it was written due to left communism composing the bulk of the left these days. I highly recommend reading it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Axel1917+November 21, 2007 04:30 am--> (Axel1917 @ November 21, 2007 04:30 am)
Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 04:09 am

Yes, that's why there are lots of people here who want to discuss left communism.

"Left communism" sounds the nicest. I don't know if everyone would admit that, but it's obviously true. In a purely academic sense it so so pure and authentic. The only problem is that we have to make revolution in the real world, and in that "left communism" fails.
It is also an easier path to follow, not requiring high levels of theoretical and practical experience, hence its mass following these days with all of the confusion floating around due to the effects of the postwar boom and the collapse of the USSR. Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism - An Infantile Disorder is more relevant today than it was when it was written due to left communism composing the bulk of the left these days. I highly recommend reading it. [/b]
Now that is not true.

There is a lot of very interesting left communist theory, and just because you have your face up the ass of Trotsky, doesn't means otherwise.

In fact, the Bordigist "communist left" considers itself "orthodox leninist", and does take some very "leninist positions".

There are good things to salvage from left communist theory. I cannot call myself a left communist because I feel, as CDL said, that it sometimes fail to cope with the real world, because the "socialist struggles" are never as pure as the left communists want to.


I also really disagree with their position on Cuba.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 03:35 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 03:35 am) So then you opposed the Vietnamese struggle? [/b]
Regardless of my being a "Trotskyist", I think that the Left Communist line makes a great deal of sense on this issue. In Vietnam, the two sides fighting the war were Ho Chi Minh's Stalinist North Vietnamese with the Viet Cong guerillas, and the bourgeois dictatorship in South Vietnam with the backing of the American military. The first side, while it may be said that it was fighting for "national liberation", had the goal of establishing another Stalinist regime in Vietnam. Whatever your personal beliefs on the nature of Stalinism are (state capitalism versus whatever) I think you would agree that its manifestation in Vietnam was certainly not trying to establish workers' power. To a lesser extent it also represented the imperialist bureaucracy of the USSR as one of its chess pieces in the Cold War. On the other side, we have the bourgeois South Vietnamese and the American military, which none of us have any illusions about. So essentially, the working class of Vietnam could gain nothing from supporting either of them. To say anything else is nothing but lesser-evilism.

Forgive me if my tone is rather simplistic, I'm just trying to work things through in my head. :)


Axel1917
It is also an easier path to follow, not requiring high levels of theoretical and practical experience, hence its mass following these days with all of the confusion floating around due to the effects of the postwar boom and the collapse of the USSR. Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism - An Infantile Disorder is more relevant today than it was when it was written due to left communism composing the bulk of the left these days. I highly recommend reading it.

Where do you get the impression that left communism is so popular?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:39 am
There are good things to salvage from left communist theory. I cannot call myself a left communist because I feel, as CDL said, that it sometimes fail to cope with the real world, because the "socialist struggles" are never as pure as the left communists want to.


I also really disagree with their position on Cuba.
Well, recruiting Peasants from the country-side (and they join to get jobs); standing by one imperialist against another (without anyone really caring); supporting old unions with their traditions, and their vacilliating framework, are all methods that just don't work, they do not raise Communist consciousness, they are imediate so as to get your foot in the door.

So really, if there are relationships with fellow workers they are pretty microsociological-- you engage in conversations, and help accomodate them on wildcat strikes ((as I'm speaking as a student and part-time worker (whose in a workplace thats never had a tendency to partake in actions)). So its about establishing a relationship with your non-Communist Conscious fellow workers.


because the "socialist struggles" are never as pure as the left communists want to.

No one wakes up one day and is socialist, this consciousness develops from class-conscious, and it gives class-consciousness a direction.


I also really disagree with their position on Cuba.

Have you been there recently?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 21, 2007 06:04 am

Have you been there recently?
What is your point.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 04:22 am
Actually I have asked about that and they admitted to be wrong. Ironically the people who supported that action the most later split from us, so it's pretty obvious that the party is not the same as it was back then.
OK, I am not sure, which war that you are talking about here.
Let's just try a similar discussion on another thread:
CWI and Labour (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=73408)
I think I would be asking more questions than you.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 06:31 am--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 06:31 am)
Led [email protected] 21, 2007 04:22 am
Actually I have asked about that and they admitted to be wrong. Ironically the people who supported that action the most later split from us, so it's pretty obvious that the party is not the same as it was back then.
OK, I am not sure, which war that you are talking about here.
Let's just try a similar discussion on another thread:
CWI and Labour (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=73408)
I think I would be asking more questions than you.

Devrim [/b]
Nice thread you made there, I'm not interested in participating in it though.

Why don't you ask questions about these occurances within your organization:


The ICC rejects what it describes as bourgeois democracy, finding that it "does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship, such as Stalinism and fascism". It is also hostile to the unions, seeing them as "organs of capitalist order within the proletariat".


Gradually the ICC has spread to several countries across the world although most of its national sections remain small. It has also seen a number of splits from its ranks. From 1978 up to the present day a succession of groups have split from the ICC such as the Internationalist Communist Group, Communist Bulletin Group, Internationalist Perspective group in 1985. More recently, in 2003 the ICC expelled several members who belonged to a group calling themselves the "Internal Fraction of the ICC".
International Communist Current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_Current)

Why did they all split? Have you asked about any of that? Have you asked why the ICC doesn't see a difference between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois dictatorship, something which any worker would laugh at if they heard it?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:30 am
It is also an easier path to follow, not requiring high levels of theoretical and practical experience, hence its mass following these days with all of the confusion floating around due to the effects of the postwar boom and the collapse of the USSR. Lenin's "Left Wing" Communism - An Infantile Disorder is more relevant today than it was when it was written due to left communism composing the bulk of the left these days. I highly recommend reading it.

my emphasis
This is completely disconnected from reality. I would advise you either to get more in touch with the world or to stop posting when taking hallucinogenic drugs.

The stuff about 'not requiring high levels of theoretical and practical experience' is nonsense too, and seems particularly ironic coming from a group that came out of the Militant. At least you could pretend it was reality though.

The other possibility of course is that you don't have much connection to real political struggles.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the Proles+November 21, 2007 04:52 am--> (Hope Lies in the Proles @ November 21, 2007 04:52 am)
Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:35 am
So then you opposed the Vietnamese struggle?
Regardless of my being a "Trotskyist", I think that the Left Communist line makes a great deal of sense on this issue. In Vietnam, the two sides fighting the war were Ho Chi Minh's Stalinist North Vietnamese with the Viet Cong guerillas, and the bourgeois dictatorship in South Vietnam with the backing of the American military. The first side, while it may be said that it was fighting for "national liberation", had the goal of establishing another Stalinist regime in Vietnam. Whatever your personal beliefs on the nature of Stalinism are (state capitalism versus whatever) I think you would agree that its manifestation in Vietnam was certainly not trying to establish workers' power. To a lesser extent it also represented the imperialist bureaucracy of the USSR as one of its chess pieces in the Cold War. On the other side, we have the bourgeois South Vietnamese and the American military, which none of us have any illusions about. So essentially, the working class of Vietnam could gain nothing from supporting either of them. To say anything else is nothing but lesser-evilism.

Forgive me if my tone is rather simplistic, I'm just trying to work things through in my head. :)


[/b]
That actually seems quite reasonable to me.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:39 am
I also really disagree with their position on Cuba.
Why?

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 06:42 am--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 06:42 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:39 am
I also really disagree with their position on Cuba.
Why?

Devrim [/b]
I think there is workers' control in cuba.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 06:38 am
Why don't you ask questions about these occurances within your organization:


The ICC rejects what it describes as bourgeois democracy, finding that it "does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship, such as Stalinism and fascism". It is also hostile to the unions, seeing them as "organs of capitalist order within the proletariat".


Gradually the ICC has spread to several countries something which any worker would laugh at if tacross the world although most of its national sections remain small. It has also seen a number of splits from its ranks. From 1978 up to the present day a succession of groups have split from the ICC such as the Internationalist Communist Group, Communist Bulletin Group, Internationalist Perspective group in 1985. More recently, in 2003 the ICC expelled several members who belonged to a group calling themselves the "Internal Fraction of the ICC".
International Communist Current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_Current)

Why did they all split? Have you asked about any of that? Have you asked why the ICC doesn't see a difference between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois dictatorship, hey heard it?
It isn't my organisation. It is an organisation that the organisation I am in is close too.

But to answer your questions. Yes, We have discussed their splits with them.

I don't think that this is as important as understanding why your organisation supported capitalist wars though.

We also think that 'does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship'. As did Marx funnily enough.

This line 'something which any worker would laugh at' is one that usually comes from the Stalinists.

Actually, we find that workers don't laugh at it at all.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Devrim
Actually, we find that workers don't laugh at it at all.


Haha, have you ever told a worker that Nazi Germany is just as bad as bourgeois democratic Germany? Try it, they might even think you're joking if you don't laugh with them.

And asking about splits and expelling people is pretty important in my opinion, just as important as any other position the party holds, especially if those splits were very recent (when you were born and were supporting that organization).

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 06:14 am
Really? So why did living conditions improve vastly under every "Stalinist" state, and then decrease rapidly after their destruction?


I am not sure that this is true, but even if we take it at face value. It mirrors the position in the rest of the world. In the period of post war boom (when the 'Stalinist States' were set up) living standards increased internationally. In the period following the post war boom (When the USSR collapsed) living standards have decreased internationally. The Stalinist states followed the normal capitalist model.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 04:52 am
So essentially, the working class of Vietnam could gain nothing from supporting either of them. To say anything else is nothing but lesser-evilism.
Sorry comrade I missed this earlier. I believe Trotsky said it right on issues such as these:

"Sectarians, i.e., people who are revolutionary only in their own imagination, guide themselves by empty idealistic norms. They say: “These unions are not to our liking, we will not join them; this workers’ state is not to our liking, we will not defend it.” Each time they promise to begin history anew. They will construct, don’t you see, an ideal workers’ state, when God places in their hands an ideal party and ideal unions. But until this happy moment arrives, they will, as much as possible, pout their lips at reality. A very big pout – that is the supreme expression of sectarian “revolutionaryism.”" - Trotsky

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 06:00 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 06:00 pm)
Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 04:52 am
So essentially, the working class of Vietnam could gain nothing from supporting either of them. To say anything else is nothing but lesser-evilism.
Sorry comrade I missed this earlier. I believe Trotsky said it right on issues such as these:

"Sectarians, i.e., people who are revolutionary only in their own imagination, guide themselves by empty idealistic norms. They say: “These unions are not to our liking, we will not join them; this workers’ state is not to our liking, we will not defend it.” Each time they promise to begin history anew. They will construct, don’t you see, an ideal workers’ state, when God places in their hands an ideal party and ideal unions. But until this happy moment arrives, they will, as much as possible, pout their lips at reality. A very big pout – that is the supreme expression of sectarian “revolutionaryism.”" - Trotsky [/b]
Yet Trotsky was quite a strong critic of Stalinist Russia. Ought he have to defended it instead of being 'sectarian?'

I don't think there is anything wrong with criticising unions, 'worker's states' or ideas.

And if we don't clearly state what we want, then we risk the possibility that we will not get what we want. As a matter of fact, it is probable that in such a case won't get it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 08:59 am--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 08:59 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 06:00 pm

Hope Lies in the [email protected] 21, 2007 04:52 am
So essentially, the working class of Vietnam could gain nothing from supporting either of them. To say anything else is nothing but lesser-evilism.
Sorry comrade I missed this earlier. I believe Trotsky said it right on issues such as these:

"Sectarians, i.e., people who are revolutionary only in their own imagination, guide themselves by empty idealistic norms. They say: “These unions are not to our liking, we will not join them; this workers’ state is not to our liking, we will not defend it.” Each time they promise to begin history anew. They will construct, don’t you see, an ideal workers’ state, when God places in their hands an ideal party and ideal unions. But until this happy moment arrives, they will, as much as possible, pout their lips at reality. A very big pout – that is the supreme expression of sectarian “revolutionaryism.”" - Trotsky
Yet Trotsky was quite a strong critic of Stalinist Russia. Ought he have to defended it instead of being 'sectarian?' [/b]
Erm, that was from an article wherein his entire argument was for the defense of the USSR: Not a Workers’ and Not a Bourgeois State? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/wstate.htm)

Trotsky always defended the gains of the workers' state.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 06:38 am
[QUOTE=Devrim]Let's just try a similar discussion on another thread:
CWI and Labour (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=73408)
I think I would be asking more questions than you.[QUOTE]

Yes, personally, I don't blame you. You would end up having to defend the indefensible.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 06:49 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 06:49 am) And asking about splits and expelling people is pretty important in my opinion, [/b]
Did you read my post?


Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)Yes, We have discussed their splits with them. [/b]


Led [email protected]
especially if those splits were very recent (when you were born and were supporting that organization).


Devrim
It isn't my organisation. It is an organisation that the organisation I am in is close too

Actually though, I am not a kid like you, and remember discussing with members of the Militant who were 'backing their boys' back in the Falklands war.

I still fail to see how a split between a small group of people is as important as an organisation backing imperialist war.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

You quoted yourself in the first post, first of all.

And secondly, I don't think a 19 year old is considered a "kid" anymore, unless you're an old fart that is.

As for the rest of the drivel you posted when you probably thought you had me "caught", reread my post, I said "the organization you support", not the organization you are a part of. Either put on your glasses (given your apparent old age) or take courses in reading comprehension before you reply to my posts.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 06:49 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 06:49 am)
Devrim
Actually, we find that workers don't laugh at it at all.


Haha, have you ever told a worker that Nazi Germany is just as bad as bourgeois democratic Germany? Try it, they might even think you're joking if you don't laugh with them.
[/b]
It is the typical tactic of the Trotskyists, distort what people are saying, and try to mock them.

We welcome it. Not only does it give us a chance to explain our positions but also it demonstrates how fundamentally dishonest their debating tactics are.

Now what was said here was that:


bourgeois democracy...does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship

So immediately the Trotskyist pulls out the most extreme examples that he can think of, Nazi Germany, and modern democratic Germany. I am quite happy to keep the analogy of Nazi Germany and democratic Germany, but lets compare like with like. Let's compare the Nazi Germany of the 1933-39 period (i.e. when it wasn't at war) with the democratic Germany of Noske, and the Freikorp.

I think that then not many workers would laugh when we say that 'bourgeois democracy...does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship'.

I would put it more clearly. bourgeois democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Sometimes it resorts to fascism, and remember that the fascists in German came to power through democratic means, sometimes to other forms of brutality.

For us in Turkey of course military coups, and dictatorship, have been come merely another tool in normal 'democratic' politics.

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 21, 2007 06:13 am--> (Marmot @ November 21, 2007 06:13 am)
EL [email protected] 21, 2007 06:04 am

Have you been there recently?
What is your point. [/b]
I'm just curious, because I thought you did, and maybe your views changed. I'm remember your views towards Cuba being pretty radical-- that no socialism was going on, and a ruling class was there still and always was ruling.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:17 pm
I am quite happy to keep the analogy of Nazi Germany and democratic Germany, but lets compare like with like. Let's compare the Nazi Germany of the 1933-39 period (i.e. when it wasn't at war) with the democratic Germany of Noske, and the Freikorp.

I think that then not many workers would laugh when we say that 'bourgeois democracy...does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship'.
You didn't stick with my analogy, you made a new one.

Nice trick you got there. Distort what people are saying, and try to mock them. :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 21, 2007 03:20 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 21, 2007 03:20 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 03:17 pm
I am quite happy to keep the analogy of Nazi Germany and democratic Germany, but lets compare like with like. Let's compare the Nazi Germany of the 1933-39 period (i.e. when it wasn't at war) with the democratic Germany of Noske, and the Freikorp.

I think that then not many workers would laugh when we say that 'bourgeois democracy...does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship'.
You didn't stick with my analogy, you made a new one.

Nice trick you got there. Distort what people are saying, and try to mock them. :rolleyes: [/b]
Again if people want to go back, and read what was said, I am sure they can decide for themselves where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 21, 2007 03:26 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 21, 2007 03:26 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 21, 2007 03:20 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 03:17 pm
I am quite happy to keep the analogy of Nazi Germany and democratic Germany, but lets compare like with like. Let's compare the Nazi Germany of the 1933-39 period (i.e. when it wasn't at war) with the democratic Germany of Noske, and the Freikorp.

I think that then not many workers would laugh when we say that 'bourgeois democracy...does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship'.
You didn't stick with my analogy, you made a new one.

Nice trick you got there. Distort what people are saying, and try to mock them. :rolleyes:
Again if people want to go back, and read what was said, I am sure they can decide for themselves where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from.

Devrim [/b]
That's the first thing we've agreed on. I'm sure most members here don't need to take any reading comprehension lessons.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 07:58 am
Sorry, life expectancy has never seen a jump like it did in the USSR and China in such a short time. The case is the same with literacy and infant mortality in Cuba. Those are just a few examples.

Ask someone in Haiti or the Dominican Republic how life was for them in the period of 1959-1967, and compare that with one in Cuba.
Can we have some data please, not just assertions.

Devrim

[Leo]

You didn't stick with my analogy, you made a new one.

How so? Weren't you comparing Nazi Germany with Democratic Germany? Wasn't it what Devrim did also?

Anyway.


Haha, have you ever told a worker that Nazi Germany is just as bad as bourgeois democratic Germany?

Actually, this is where I get to quote Trotsky.


Originally posted by Trotsky+ in relation to making defeatism obligatory only in the Fascist countries and renouncing it in the "democratic" countries--> (Trotsky @ in relation to making defeatism obligatory only in the Fascist countries and renouncing it in the "democratic" countries) "Defeatism is the class policy of the proletariat, which even during a war sees the main enemy at home, within its particular imperialist country. Patriotism, on the other hand is a policy that locates the main enemy outside one's own country. The idea of defeatism signifies in reality the following: conducting an irreconcilable revolutionary struggle against one's own bourgeoisie as the enemy, without being deterred by the fact that this struggle may result in the defeat of one's own government; given a revolutionary movement the defeat of one's own government is a lesser evil. Lenin did not say, nor did he wish to say, anything else. There cannot even be talk of any other kind of "aid" to defeat. Should revolutionary defeatism be renounced in relation to non-Fascist countries? Herein is the crux of the question; upon this issue, revolutionary internationalism stands or falls."[/b]


[email protected] on whether the working class must aid the "democracies" in their struggle against German Fascism
"That is how the question is put by broad petty-bourgeois circles, for whom the proletariat remains only an auxiliary tool of this or that faction of the bourgeoisie. We reject this policy with indignation. Naturally there exists a difference between the political regimes in bourgeois society, just as there is a difference in comfort between cars in a railway train. But when the whole train is plunging into an abyss, the distinction between decaying democracy and murderous Fascism disappears in the face of the collapse of the entire capitalist system."

Source: http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/bac...o3/RevDeft.html (http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk/backiss/Vol1/No3/RevDeft.html)

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 06:14 am
Really? So why did living conditions improve vastly under every "Stalinist" state, and then decrease rapidly after their destruction?
Your point is well-taken, but it remains that Stalinists, wherever they may be coming into power, are not concerned with real workers' power. I don't think it makes sense to support them because of superficial gains in standards of living they might make (and how could the workers of Vietnam have known that this would happen during the "national liberation" conflict, even if we grant that gains were made in some areas?). The nature of a Stalinist state is such that it can hold back the current of true proletarian revolution indefinitely, and as communists that is the one goal we should be aiming for.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 03:40 pm

You didn't stick with my analogy, you made a new one.

How so? Weren't you comparing Nazi Germany with Democratic Germany? Wasn't it what Devrim did also?
No, he set specific time-periods of a "democratic" and Nazi Germany. The first year of Nazi rule is probably considered better than the worst year of "democratic" rule, that doesn't mean the former is superior over the latter. What kindof ridiculous way of analyzing history is that? Well, the left-communist way I guess.

No, if you want to compare systems then do so in general. Compare bourgeois-democratic Germany with Nazi Germany over its entire history, and then see which one is "better". It is pretty ridiculous that left-communists do not consider bourgeois-democracy to be a gain of the working-class. This is probably one of the main reasons that it has so little attachment to the working-class itself, because it forms theories contrary to the best interest of the class as a whole.

No worker would say they'd want bourgeois dictatorship over bourgeois democracy, so I guess they do see a difference between the two. If they considered them to be "equally eviiiiil" then they'd have the same position as you, and the working-class struggle which resulted in the gain (or rather, concession) of bourgeois democracy would've never happened in the first place, and we'd all be living in outright bourgeois dictatorships.


Actually, this is where I get to quote Trotsky.

Actually no, you're not. You quoted him out of context, as I'm sure you're well aware of, at least I hope. I'm not going to start a "Trotsky quote war" for that reason, as I believe you have read into him and know his position on matters.

Trotsky supported the position that the German Communists should work with the Social-Democratic party to counter the Nazi party. He was proven right.

Trotsky supported the position that if the USSR were to be invaded by Nazi Germany, they would have to defend the former since the struggle would be about the "most advanced form of production, with the capitalist mode being pitted against the planned form", the latter of which he considered to be the most advanced form in the world at the time, and therefore always defended. He was proven to be right, after the collapse of the USSR they were "set back for decades", as he rightly predicted.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 22, 2007 02:52 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 22, 2007 02:52 am)
Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 03:40 pm

You didn't stick with my analogy, you made a new one.

How so? Weren't you comparing Nazi Germany with Democratic Germany? Wasn't it what Devrim did also?
No, he set specific time-periods of a "democratic" and Nazi Germany. The first year of Nazi rule is probably considered better than the worst year of "democratic" rule, that doesn't mean the former is superior over the latter. What kindof ridiculous way of analyzing history is that? Well, the left-communist way I guess.
[/b]
No, we say that 'bourgeois democracy...does not differ at root from other forms of capitalist dictatorship'. Bourgeoisie democracy is capable of suppressing the working class with violence, and this is the root of bourgeois rule, ultimately it rests on armed coercion.

The specific time period that I set for the Nazis was the period when they were not at war. I think that it enables us to compare like with like. Picking the period of the Freikorp was to show that 'at root'. there is no difference. Capital doesn't act like that everyday because it isn't suppressing a revolutionary working class every day, but when it is neither the fascists, nor the social democrats, nor the liberals will hesitate.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 04:09 am

Yes, that's why there are lots of people here who want to discuss left communism.

"Left communism" sounds the nicest. I don't know if everyone would admit that, but it's obviously true. In a purely academic sense it so so pure and authentic. The only problem is that we have to make revolution in the real world, and in that "left communism" fails.
Has it ever played any leading role in any revolutionary struggle?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 22, 2007 06:23 am
Has it ever played any leading role in any revolutionary struggle?
The left communists were the majority in both the Italian, and German parties; the two most advanced points of the struggle in Europe during the revolutionary wave. The Italian party was led by the communist left before Stalin's man Gramsci was put in against the majority of the party. The German's excluded the majority of their party, which then went on to play a leading role in the revolution as the KAPD.

Devrim

[Leo]

Trotsky supported the position that the German Communists should work with the Social-Democratic party to counter the Nazi party. He was proven right.

No, he was proven ridiculous. I think even he understood that later on.


Trotsky supported the position that if the USSR were to be invaded by Nazi Germany, they would have to defend the former since the struggle would be about the "most advanced form of production, with the capitalist mode being pitted against the planned form", the latter of which he considered to be the most advanced form in the world at the time, and therefore always defended. He was proven to be right, after the collapse of the USSR they were "set back for decades", as he rightly predicted.

Which was also a position which he was having doubts about near the end of his life.


If however we consider that the present war will provoke, not the revolution but the decline of the proletariat, then there is only one possible outcome to the alternative: the further decomposition of monopolist capital, its fusion with the state and the replacement of democracy, where it still survives, by a totalitarian regime. In these conditions, the proletariat’s inability to seize the leadership of society could lead to the development of a new exploiting class emerging from the Bonapartist and fascist bourgeoisies. In all likelihood this would be a regime of decadence, and would signify the twilight of civilisation.

We would reach a similar result should the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries take power and prove unable to hold on to it, abandoning it, as in the USSR, in the hands of a privileged bureaucracy. We would then be forced to recognise that the new decline into bureaucracy was due, not to one country’s backwardness and capitalist environment, but to the proletariat’s organic inability to become a ruling class. We would then have to establish retrospectively that in its fundamental traits today’s USSR is the precursor of a new regime of exploitation on an international scale.

We have strayed a long way from the terminological controversy on the definition of the Soviet state. But our critics should not protest: only by basing ourselves on the necessary historical perspective can we formulate a correct judgement on such a question as the replacement of one social regime by another. Taken to its conclusion, the historical alternative appears thus: either the Stalinist regime is an awful setback in the process of the transformation of bourgeois society into a socialist society, or else the Stalinist regime is the first step towards a new society of exploitation. If the second forecast proved correct, then of course the bureaucracy would become a new exploiting class. However dire this second perspective may appear, should the world proletariat indeed prove itself unable to carry out the mission entrusted to it by the course of historical development, then we would be forced to recognise that the socialist programme, based on the internal contradictions of capitalist society, has finally turned out to be a Utopia. It goes without saying that we would need a new “minimum programme” to defend the interests of the slaves of the totalitarian bureaucratic society.


Actually no, you're not. You quoted him out of context, as I'm sure you're well aware of, at least I hope. I'm not going to start a "Trotsky quote war" for that reason, as I believe you have read into him and know his position on matters.

I did not quote him out of context. The quotes which you dodged are very clear. It is well known that Trotsky might have taken an internationalist position during the second imperialist war, as some of the Greek, Chinese and Spanish Trotskyists at that time did. Along with those quotes supporting this thesis, there is also the fact that Natalya Sedove herself claims that he was about to take such position.

Again, to quote the old man:


At the same time, we do not for a moment forget that this war is not our war (...) The 4th International bases its policy, not on the military fortunes of the capitalist states, but on the transformation of the imperialist war into a war of the workers against the capitalists, for the overthrow of the ruling class in every country, on the world socialist revolution (...) We explain to the workers that their interests and those of bloodthirsty capitalism cannot be reconciled. We mobilise the workers against imperialism. We propagate the unity of the workers in all the belligerent and neutral countries.

Now, there is a little possibility that regardless of all these quotes, Trotsky might have supported the war when Russia entered. Again, his wife claims that he was preparing to fully oppose the war and I see no reason for her to lie about this, however if this was not the case, I'd say that the icepick saved the old man.

Anyhow, those comments would still make the Trotskyists of today, who come from the tradition of supporting imperialist democrats against imperialist fascists go "oops". Dodging them and vaguely saying "oh you are taking them out of context" won't do the trick for you. Just like dodging the comparision of the Nazi Germany of the 1933-39 period (i.e. when it wasn't at war) with the democratic Germany of Noske, Ebert and the Freikorp.


No, he set specific time-periods of a "democratic" and Nazi Germany.

Yeah, he made things concrete.

Also, you've got to remember, for example, that still the social democratic left in Germany, as well as the rest of the democratic bourgeoisie today sees Ebert and Noske as great heroes.


No worker would say they'd want bourgeois dictatorship over bourgeois democracy, so I guess they do see a difference between the two.

Actually this is exactly what some (fascist, stalinist, some national liberationist and even some trotskyists) workers would end up saying in your terms.

End then there is the kind who supports the good old western democracy and freedom against the evil dictatorships.

Yet, all bourgeois rule is a class dictatorship over the proletariat. Those who advocate supporting one faction over the other are objectively agents of the faction they are supporting and thus objectively anti-working class. Again, I am going to quote Trotsky here, asked if the working class should aid the democracies in their struggle against German Fascism: "That is how the question is put by broad petty-bourgeois circles, for whom the proletariat remains only an auxiliary tool of this or that faction of the bourgeoisie. We reject this policy with indignation. Naturally there exists a difference between the political regimes in bourgeois society, just as there is a difference in comfort between cars in a railway train. But when the whole train is plunging into an abyss, the distinction between decaying democracy and murderous Fascism disappears in the face of the collapse of the entire capitalist system."

The real initial questions here are the following: Does claiming that a certain regime is democratic prevent the bourgeoisie from committing brutal acts? Do the regimes who commit brutal acts do so because they don't claim to be democratic?

Illusions in bourgeois democracy always leads workers to death.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+November 22, 2007 10:09 am--> (Leo Uilleann @ November 22, 2007 10:09 am)
Trotsky supported the position that the German Communists should work with the Social-Democratic party to counter the Nazi party. He was proven right.

No, he was proven ridiculous. I think even he understood that later on. [/b]
Yes, because the Comintern tactic of not working with the Social-Democrats and shutting them out proved to be so successful! I find it pretty strange that you as a left-communist are trying to "gain Trotsky" for your cause, disregarding his disagreements with left-communist theory in general, and his obvious disagreement with your entire movement theoretically.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove by pretending to have the mystical power of talking to the dead, for how else could you know what he "thought"? You're not going by his actual political writings on the issue, so you must have the power to talk to dead people.

Hey, can you ask Lenin if he really did have that affair while he was in Switzerland?


Which was also a position which he was having doubts about near the end of his life.

See there you go again with the talking to dead people thing. The quote you provided doesn't hint at all at the fact that he supported such a position. Trotsky always regarded Stalinism to be a "new society of exploitation". If you haven't read The Revolution Betrayed yet I suggest you do so, he mentions it several times there (and also in much earlier works).


I did not quote him out of context. The quotes which you dodged are very clear. It is well known that Trotsky might have taken an internationalist position during the second imperialist war, as some of the Greek, Chinese and Spanish Trotskyists at that time did. Along with those quotes supporting this thesis, there is also the fact that Natalya Sedove herself claims that he was about to take such position.


Given the fact that Trotsky considered the Soviet economic system to be superior over the capitalist economic system, and always continued to have this position until his death, regardless of what you with your mystical powers or his wife said, it can be said with certainty that he would've supported the defense of the USSR.

I said that I did not want to get into a "Trotsky quote war" with you, but I guess your pride (or ego, I should say) got the better of you. Oh well, here goes then:


Originally posted by [email protected]
In the war between Japan and Germany on one side, and the USSR on the other, there would be involved not a question of equality in distribution, or of proletarian democracy, or of Vyshinsky’s justice, but the fate of the nationalized property and planned economy. The victory of the imperialist states would signify the collapse not only of the new exploiting “class” in the USSR, but also of the new forms of production – the lowering of the whole Soviet economy to the level of a backward and semicolonial capitalism. Now I ask Craipeau: When we are faced with the struggle between two states which are – let us admit it – both class states, but one of which represents imperialist stagnation and the other tremendous economic progress, do we not have to support the progressive state against the reactionary state? Yes or no?
Once Again: The USSR and Its Defense (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm)

By the way, in the future source your quotes.


Yeah, he made things concrete.

Also, you've got to remember, for example, that still the social democratic left in Germany, as well as the rest of the democratic bourgeoisie today sees Ebert and Noske as great heroes.

No, he distorted the analogy I originally made to be better able to counter my point, disregarding the fact that my analogy was distorted.


Actually this is exactly what some (fascist, stalinist, some national liberationist and even some trotskyists) workers would end up saying in your terms.

End then there is the kind who supports the good old western democracy and freedom against the evil dictatorships.


You dodged my point, which is pretty logical since you can't really respond to it because it rips your whole "theory" to shreds:


me
No worker would say they'd want bourgeois dictatorship over bourgeois democracy, so I guess they do see a difference between the two. If they considered them to be "equally eviiiiil" then they'd have the same position as you, and the working-class struggle which resulted in the gain (or rather, concession) of bourgeois democracy would've never happened in the first place, and we'd all be living in outright bourgeois dictatorships.

Of course bourgeois democracy is just another form of bourgeois dictatorship, you haven't really discovered anything new, we all knew that. The point is that the form of its dictatorship is not direct, and therefore allows more freedom for the working-class movement to operate and agitate. Consider the illegalism in Tsarist Russia, and compare that to the situation in the western-European bourgeois democracies. Even back then when they weren't that developed democratically the working-class movement had it much easier than the Bolsheviks in terms of operating and political activity.

Or compare Iran to Turkey. There is cleary a difference, any person who can think logically without his mind being muddied by an ideology not based on reality knows this, and that is exactly why your movement has throughout its history been regarded as a joke by the working-class in general.

Bourgeois democracy developed out of class struggle by the working-class, forcing the bourgeoisie to make concessions in order to "appease the masses". Just like the formation of the trade-unions, higher wages, Eight-hour day etc.

If you oppose the former for being "reformist" then you should stick to your principles and also oppose the latter gains made by the class struggle. I hope that even you aren't that theoretically bankrupt to do that (the MIMites and some other Maoists were, sadly).

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 22, 2007 03:16 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 22, 2007 03:16 pm)
Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+November 22, 2007 10:09 am--> (Leo Uilleann @ November 22, 2007 10:09 am)
Trotsky supported the position that the German Communists should work with the Social-Democratic party to counter the Nazi party. He was proven right.

No, he was proven ridiculous. I think even he understood that later on. [/b]
Yes, because the Comintern tactic of not working with the Social-Democrats and shutting them out proved to be so successful! [/b]
I don't think that that is what Leo is talking about. When Trotskyism today goes on about the actions of the KPD in late 1920s early 1930s Germany it completely misses the point. If the question is what could have stopped Nazism, the answer is clear; workers revolution in Germany in the revolutionary wave after the first world war. Now it is understandable that Trotsky wrote extensively about the period that you refer to. It was contemporary, and it was the period in which he fell out with the ruling clique in the USSR. It is less understandable why modern day Trotskyists always talk about that period, and not about the revolutionary period in Germany.

There are two possibilities, the first is that they are just repeating some half understood writings by Trotsky, and they are unaware of what went on at the time. The second is that don't want to talk about the line held by Trotsky at the time because it spelt disater for the German revolution.

Trotsky missed the point completely. The battle for Germany was lost between 1918 and 1923.


Led [email protected]

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove by pretending to have the mystical power of talking to the dead, for how else could you know what he "thought"? You're not going by his actual political writings on the issue, so you must have the power to talk to dead people.

Hey, can you ask Lenin if he really did have that affair while he was in Switzerland?

Leo quotes Trotsky, his comrades, and discusses what could have happened. Note that he doesn't say that either would have happened. He just talks about the possibilities. You don't enter the argument, but just try to mock him. It is a bit week really.


Led Zeppelin
and that is exactly why your movement has throughout its history been regarded as a joke by the working-class in general.

Again, it just comes down to throwing petty empty phrases around. Either you know that the communist left was the strongest wing of the communist parties in the two Western European countries that came closet to revolution, Germany and Italy, in which case you are lying, or you don't know the history of what you are talking about at all in which case I would suggest that you stop making such ill informed comments.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:43 pm
The Italian party was led by the communist left before Stalin's man Gramsci was put in against the majority of the party. The German's excluded the majority of their party, which then went on to play a leading role in the revolution as the KAPD.
Pardon me for sounding unusually acerbic (particularly your comments regarding Gramsci and his brilliant exposition on cultural hegemony), but how was Gramsci "Stalin&#39;s man"? <_<

[If you read my profile, I rank him alongside Bordiga as a key influence. I realize that some of his "counter-hegemonic" solutions have key flaws, but he was the first to discuss in great detail the cultural hegemony phenomenon. Does that mean that, all along, I&#39;m a different kind of "Stalinist"? :mellow: ]

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 12:54 am

I thought that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes” (Marx, 1971-2), but anyway, that&#39;s not the issue.

You&#39;re right, it&#39;s not... that has nothing to do with what I mentioned.

"The ready-made state machinery" is the capitalist state; Marx called for the "[centralization of] all instruments of production in the hands of the [workers&#39;] State."

Now, precisely by adding a word - out of a sheer need to manipulate the theory and political work of Marx - and thus a whole new meaning to Marx&#39;s proposal, you make it a whole new issue, and it concerns the subject in hand: Left Communism.

Marx, when he said that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery" (1871-2), he was precisely in opposition to his early statement of the Communist Manifesto (1848), where he speaks of - lets say - &#39;grabbing&#39; the whole existing bourgeis state machinery and centralization of "all instruments of production in the hands of the State". Your interpolation "[workers&#39;]" is missleading, wrong and completely out of context.

He never spoke of a "Workers&#39; state", especially not in the Manifesto, where he means the existing, bourgeois state, as an existing "machine": this political statement was later corrected by Marx himself (thanks to the new experience of Paris Commune) in Civil War in France (1871) and the given statement quoted in Preface to 1872 German edition of the Communist Manifesto.

The term "Workers&#39; state" is a pure invention, never used by Marx. The juggling you perform is, although typical, still very hurtful to the Marxist theory (or what it&#39;s pretending to become).

Marx changed his opinions in relation to new practical discoveries.

Do the same?

P.S.

To be more clear, I&#39;ll make a resumé:

1.) in 1848 Communist Manifesto Marx says (Section II): "the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

2.) in 1872 German edition Preface Marx says: "The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” ."

* and that&#39;s it&#33; No "Workers&#39; state" was mentioned, but understanding of political changes was considered to be a bit more "sophisticated" than simple Leninist formulas.