left wing communism an infantile disorder

[redarmyfaction38]

i've read lenins pamphlet/thesis more than once.
i agree with it in its entirety.
there can be no compromise with "left wing i ntellectuals" or "liberals"; the working class, disciplined by the demands of the workplace, disciplined by the demands of working class communities, disciplined by striving for the simple necesseties of life and the brutality of existence is the only class capable of delivering the revolutionary capability to create the "democratic workers state".

[spartan]

The trouble is though is that these ideas were never implemented in the USSR which says alot about Lenin and the role of a vanguard if you ask me.

Besides Leninism is a very serious misunderstanding of Marxism coupled with adapting these misunderstandings to a society in between Feudalism and Capitalism (Early twentieth century Tsarist Russia).

So Lenin can hardly take the high horse here and accuse Left-Communism of being an infantile disorder, seeing how he single handedly reinterpreted his own misunderstanding of Marxism as a basis for future Socialist societies.

[Bilan]

i agree with it in its entirety.

That's a shame. :(


there can be no compromise with "left wing i ntellectuals" or "liberals"

Really? Why's that? And what sort of compromise would you have to take with 'Left Wing Intellectuals'? and What do you mean by 'Left Wing Intellectuals'? do you mean like bourgeois liberal intellectuals, or intellectuals who are left wing? Cause to be fair, the great theorists of modern communism and anarchism were intellectuals.
So please, elaborate.


he working class, disciplined by the demands of the workplace, disciplined by the demands of working class communities, disciplined by striving for the simple necesseties of life and the brutality of existence is the only class capable of delivering the revolutionary capability to create the "democratic workers state".

Your 'communism' sounds like a barracks, to be honest.

[Tweecore]

The key points to take from Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder have to do with how communists should relate to bourgeois forces and the parliamentary bodies they inhabit. Lenin wrote the book to argue against two ideas that stood to the right and to the left of the Bolshevik party:

1. Reformism, the idea that communists should devote themselves to working within parliaments and trade union bureaucracies to achieve gradual social change;

2. Left-wing communism, the idea that communists should ignore parliaments and trade unions as a matter of principle, regardless of the circumstances.

Both ideas are wrong. Lenin's point is that communists need to analyse present circumstances (the balance of class forces, the radicalisation of the masses, etc.) in order to figure out how to relate to parliaments. For example, the situation in Britain in 1920 meant that communists there should have entered an electoral coalition with the Labour Party(!), a move that would be unprincipled in other circumstances.

It's odd you should say you agree with Lenin and then talk of "no compromise" with liberals and intellectuals. "No compromise" is actually the line of the left-communists Lenin was arguing against. Lenin devoted an entire chapter to arguing that all sorts of compromises are necessary, and that the very folly of the left-communists is that they stubbornly refuse to take heed of an imperfect situation and to compromise accordingly:

"The entire history of Bolshevism, both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!" - Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder"

I suggest you re-read a few chapters to get a clearer picture of Lenin's argument:

Chapter 7: Should We Participate In Bourgeois Parliaments? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm)
Chapter 8: No Compromises? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm)

[DrFreeman09]

This article was brought up in a debate between Ben Seattle, a guy named Frank (founder of the Communist Voice Organization), and myself.

Although Chapter V hasn't been mentioned yet, I think it's important to point out.

In Chapter V, Lenin criticized the German "left communists" because they insisted upon thinking in terms of "dictatorship of the party OR the proletariat," as if the masses couldn't be led by parties if the class was to rule. It was Lenin's assertion that yes, the class would rule, but not AS OPPOSED to the party; in other words, it's not a "one or the other" issue and he felt that it was silly to be thinking in such terms.

Indeed, the "left communists" used the various reactionary parties to plaster all political parties with the same image, i.e. that of being "bourgeois." This statement is somewhat simple-minded and at the time in which it was written, the criticism was completely justified.

Classes are led by parties. I think history has made this clear.

However, it has also become clear that the party cannot rule AS OPPOSED to the class. The class is not the party. When one party rules, the class does not, as to maintain this monopoly over political power, the "Marxist" party will have to suppress all that oppose it. This includes those who would expose the inevitable corruption within the party. So it is clear that the vanguard party cannot be the ruling party, and that the entire working class must have concrete democratic rights of free speech. Further, the working class must be able to organize independently of the "Marxist" party without permission from the state.

Only in this way will workers' rule be successful.

However, to reject the entire notion of vanguard parties is reactionary. There's nothing to say that a vanguard party can't operate in a transparent way that makes it accountable to the masses.

[kromando33]

Well people are always going to be led until communism is acheived, it's just natural, the naive Utopians love to talk of 'no leaders' but ultimately they cannot coordinate anything.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 02:04 pm
However, to reject the entire notion of vanguard parties is reactionary. There's nothing to say that a vanguard party can't operate in a transparent way that makes it accountable to the masses.
It is not reactionary. Please don't misuse those words.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A lot of what Lenin wrote was polemical in nature.

On the question of unions, the communist left hasn't yet addressed the globalization of unions (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74520). :(

There is also a lot of stuff that could've been debated constructively between the Bolsheviks and the communist left. I don't think that one singular sci-soc party for the world's working-class folks - a step above mere "internationals" and certainly steps above the current national parties (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355) - is "infantile."

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 04:04 am
However, to reject the entire notion of vanguard parties is reactionary. There's nothing to say that a vanguard party can't operate in a transparent way that makes it accountable to the masses.
Interestingly enough, it is something that the communist left didn't do. The currents criticised in 'Left wing communism...' all believed in a vanguard party at the time.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:55 pm
there can be no compromise with "left wing i ntellectuals" or "liberals";
This, however, is not the subject of Lenin's pamphlet on "left wing communism". "Left wing communism" was, at Lenin's time, a tendency among the working class, not among "intellectuals", much less "liberals".

Did you even read the thing?


the working class, disciplined by the demands of the workplace, disciplined by the demands of working class communities, disciplined by striving for the simple necesseties of life and the brutality of existence

Why does it then need to be instructed by (petty-)bourgeois intellectuals to break with trade-unionism and reformism, as Lenin argues?

Is the discipline of the workplace a good or a bad thing, and if it is a good thing, should we stop confronting its imposition by the corporate hierarchies?

If the simple necessities of life and the brutality of existence are necessary to "discipline" the working class, how do we effectively reconcile the struggle for a revolutionary transformation of society with the struggle for better life conditions under capitalism?

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

let us not forget that Lenin was middle-class, intellectual and left wing,

so were many many many others,

[spartan]

let us not forget that Lenin was middle-class, intellectual and left wing,

so were many many many others,
Lets see the Leninists get around that one!

"Oh but comrade Lenin is always right whatever he says" :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 09:28 pm
Lets see the Leninists get around that one!
I don't think Leninists need to "get around that one" at all. The OP was a total misrepresentation of Lenin's thought, and that's all.

Luís Henrique

[Nusocialist]

However, to reject the entire notion of vanguard parties is reactionary. There's nothing to say that a vanguard party can't operate in a transparent way that makes it accountable to the masses.History is philosophy teaching by example.
Henry St.John Bolingbroke.

[Louis Pio]

let us not forget that Lenin was middle-class, intellectual and left wing,


Hmm don't really get your point, what your trying to "prove"?

[Sky]

After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, Communist parties in capitalist countries faced the very important task of leading the struggle of the proletariat, relying on the revolutionary fervor of the masses. But most of these new Communist parties lacked experience in revolutionary combat, had not mastered Marxist strategy and tactics, did not possess the Marxist-Leninist temper and organization, and were out of touch with working people. In addition to right-wing opportunist elements, “Left” Communists appeared, pushing them along the path of sectarianism and adventurism. The so-called leftists rejected the participation of Communists in the work of the trade unions, which were controlled by the reformist Social Democrats, demanded a boycott of bourgeois parliaments, and advanced the slogan “no compromises.” They obstructed Communist parties from drawing closer to the working people. In response, Lenin directed his main attack against the grave danger of leftism in the international workers’ movement, and he showed the ways to overcome it.

Analyzing the reasons and conditions for the formation in Russia of an ideologically and organizationally united and tempered proletarian revolutionary party, Lenin described the main stages in the history of Bolshevism. “As a current of political thought and as a political party, Bolshevism as existed since 1903.” It was established on a very firm foundation of Marxist theory. Lenin showed that in richness of experience Bolshevism had no equal in the world. He revealed the diversity of the forums of struggle that the Bolsheviks adopted at various stages, depending on concrete conditions, and he emphasized that in their struggle for soviet power the Bolsheviks had displayed versatile tactics, care, and circumspection. Among the basic conditions for the success of the Bolsheviks were their firmly revolutionary, politically conscious discipline and the loyalty of the workers.

Lenin clarified and further developed the fundamental theoretical questions of the socialist revolution: the dictatorship of the proletariat, the party and its role in the dictatorship of the working class, party discipline, the role of theory, and the attraction of the broad masses of the working class to the cause of the proletarian revolution. Lenin severely criticized those “Left” Communists who opposed the centralization and discipline that is essential in the ranks of Communist parties and who advanced demagogic slogans against the “dictatorship of leaders.” In his criticism of the “Left” Communists, Lenin showed that the rejection of party spirit and party discipline “is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It all adds up to that petit bourgeois diffuseness and instability, that incapacity for sustained effort, unity, and organized action, which, if encouraged, must inevitably destroy any proletarian revolutionary movement.

Lenin criticized “left-wing” doctrinarism and dogmatism and insisted that communism had to be cured of the infantile disorder of ‘left-wing’ Communism. The leftists in the international Communist movement did not understand the revolutionary significance for a proletarian party of a combination of legal and illegal forms of struggle and failed to realize that the strength and invincibility of a party guided by revolutionary theory consists of its close ties with the workers. Lenin argued that it was necessary to join trade unions, even if they were reformist, and to conduct communist work there and to participate in bourgeois parliaments. He wrote: “We Bolsheviks participated in the most counterrevolutionary parliaments, and experience has shown that this participation was not only useful but indispensable to the party of the revolutionary proletariat, after the first bourgeois revolution in Russia (1905), so as to pave the way for the second bourgeois revolution (February 1917) and then for the socialist revolution (October 1917)."

Clarifying the issue of admissibility of political compromises, Lenin pointed out that during a revolutionary struggle a proletarian party can and should conclude agreements and form political blocs in the interests of the working class. He wrote: “To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilization of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating, or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme?” Lenin advised Communists to find, without sacrificing their principles, a form of compromise that would not hamper them in carrying on an ideological and political struggle but that would allow them to maintain their revolutionary tactics and organization.

Lenin taught that the tactics of the party should be based on a strictly objective consideration of the arrangement of class forces and on a scientific analysis of the historical situation. He wrote that the Communist parties should learn to win victories without taking risks. In other words, following the example of the Bolsheviks, they must apply as fully as possible all forms of the class struggle of the proletariat: “Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat.”

According to Lenin, Communist parties should take into consideration the variety of forms of action, national differences, fundamental tasks of struggle, and concrete forms of which the struggle assumes and inevitably must assume in each country. He called attention to the necessity of an accurate scientific analysis of the presence of a revolutionary situation in a given country. Considering the question of when a revolution may be said to be imminent and what conditions will provide for its victory, Lenin pointed out that the ideological conquest of the vanguard of the proletariat is in itself insufficient for the victory of the revolution. “Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of sympathetic neutrality toward it and of precluded support for the enemy, would be no not merely foolish but criminal.) The genuine political experience of the broad masses of the toiling people is necessary for the victory of the revolution. “Such”, said Lenin, “is the fundamental law of all great revolutions”

[blackstone]

Classes are led by parties. I think history has made this clear.


O yeah? Where, cite some sources since history has made this so clear.

If you believe what you stated, you have a rudimentary understanding of class.

[redarmyfaction38]

i've read lenins pamphlet/thesis more than once.
i agree with it in its entirety.
there can be no compromise with "left wing i ntellectuals" or "liberals"; the working class, disciplined by the demands of the workplace, disciplined by the demands of working class communities, disciplined by striving for the simple necesseties of life and the brutality of existence is the only class capable of delivering the revolutionary capability to create the "democratic workers state".

can i excuse myself by admitting i was a "little" drunk when i posted this!

have really enjoyed the discussion it engendered though :o