Which side to support?

[Devrim]

Comment on the current war and the national question from Gece Notları
Which side to support?


For so long the left has preached its support of national liberation struggles that the very issue seems to have become unquestionable. It is taken for granted that whenever some nation is ‘fighting for its freedom’ various leftists will be supporting it. In fact in many conflicts one can find different leftists supporting different sides.

To question the whole idea of support for ‘oppressed nations’ has become nearly unthinkable on the left. Even the smallest criticisms cause various leftists to start screaming ‘fascist’, or imperialist puppet. To us this seems quite ironic as it is quite clear that the real imperialist puppets today are the ones shouting loudest about national liberation.

Taking a look at Kosovo for example (also see article in this issue), it becomes clear that the whole notion of national independence is a farce. The amount of US flags being waved on the ‘independence’ day celebrations are a clear demonstration of the nature of the new Kosovan state. It is a state which can aspire to nothing more that to being a puppet of American or European interests. Similarly, the appeals come from Serbia for Putin to defend them shows how independent that country is.

So which side are the left going to pick on this one? Will it be the brave little Kosovans fighting for their freedom? Or will it be the courageous Serbs defying the Americans? One think that we can be sure of is whatever they are calling for it won’t have anything to do with the working class.

With the end of the cold war and the deepening of the crisis the left is becoming increasingly confused about which nationalists to support. This was very clear in the Northern Iraq crisis in November. The İsçi Partısi having decided that Turkey is an oppressed nation has dived straight into social chauvinism, open co-operation with the MHP, and support of the state. The TKP, with its slogan of ‘Don’t let the Americans divide our country’ seems to be going in the same direction. All this talk of ‘our country’ is hardly surprising from those who have organised a ‘Patriotic Front’. Let us be very clear on this question. This is not ‘our country’. Workers do not own this country. The bourgeoisie do. Workers have no material interest at all in joining fronts to protect the property of the rich.

And what of the rest of the left? From the majority of them, the recent invasion of Iraq brought forth mainly liberal whining. They talked about democracy, and letting the Kurds have their rights while afraid to condemn the state. It is as if they were begging the Turkish state, red in blood and claw, dripping with the blood of national minorities from its birth in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide to its most recent invasion of Northern Iraq, to be nice to people. It is beneath contempt.

And finally of course there are the ‘extremists’. Those who reject support of the Turkish state and advocate support of the PKK. The ones who tells us that the cause of socialism is best served by having young Kurdish boys and young Turkish boys kill each other in the mountains. For us there is no difference between these ‘left’ nationalists, and the ‘left’ nationalists who support the Turkish state. Neither of them have anything to offer the working class. Both of them try to pull the working class into giving up its own interests to fight for the interests of the nation. In the process of this they both work as an active force in creating divisions within the working class. They both mobilise workers to die for the nation, one on behalf of the Turkish state, and the other on behalf of an idea of ‘Kurdistan’, but in reality of the foreign states backing them. In the past Syria, but today it seems more, and more that it is that great friend of the working class, the USA.

The communists bring a different perspective to this. For us, the workers have no country. It is not about choosing which nationalist gangsters to support but about trying to rebuild, however slowly, an independent movement. A movement that ultimately will be able to resist the Turkish states drive towards war.



Devrim

[RedAnarchist]

You've posted this twice. Is there a reason why?

edit - sorry, they are different articles.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

a good article, often when thinking about current conflicts and issues, as well as when I have been debating them, I have found it difficult to come to a solid conclusion on whom to support. Maybe we leftist should remember that we do not have to support a side in every conflict; in virtually all wars the looser is all ways the working classes sent out to die for often Imperialist aims.

[Zurdito]

If the Turkish state won't stop opressing national minorities and if asking it to change its ways peacefully is a waste of time as your article admits, then how can you have any principled opposition to those minorities themselves organising to end that opression by force? Should they have to wait around for the rest of the working class to gain class consciousness before they are allowed to resist the added burden of national oppression?

[PRC-UTE]

Comment on the current war and the national question from Gece Notları



Devrim

The article is essentially a worthless contribution to the debate: it operates on a definition of national liberation that is not the Marxist definition of national liberation. Therefore, how can it be a legitimate criticism of national liberation? These kinds of polemics are a result of reductionist politics.

There's actually a very thoroughly defined meaning for national liberation in Marxism. I have posted here, Severian and others have in the past. I'm sick of reposting it so look it up.

[Xiao Banfa]

And what of the rest of the left? From the majority of them, the recent invasion of Iraq brought forth mainly liberal whining. They talked about democracy, and letting the Kurds have their rights while afraid to condemn the state. It is as if they were begging the Turkish state, red in blood and claw, dripping with the blood of national minorities from its birth in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide to its most recent invasion of Northern Iraq, to be nice to people. It is beneath contempt.



Thanks for contradicting the rest of the article with this paragraph.

So you do recognise that turkish national chauvanism and imperialism bleeds the national minorities?

What are we going to do with that, then? Not remove turkish national chauvanism and imperialism thats bleeding national minorities from kurdish soil. Where is your common sense for crying out loud?

[Devrim]

Thanks for contradicting the rest of the article with this paragraph.

So you do recognise that turkish national chauvanism and imperialism bleeds the national minorities?

What are we going to do with that, then? Not remove turkish national chauvanism and imperialism thats bleeding national minorities from kurdish soil. Where is your common sense for crying out loud?


If the Turkish state won't stop opressing national minorities and if asking it to change its ways peacefully is a waste of time as your article admits, then how can you have any principled opposition to those minorities themselves organising to end that opression by force? Should they have to wait around for the rest of the working class to gain class consciousness before they are allowed to resist the added burden of national oppression?

I don't really see any contradiction here at all. Of course we recognise that there is Turkish national chauvinism, and that minorities are oppressed. The point is what can be done about it.

There are some who refer to themselves as Marxists who have no idea what a class perspective is. All societies today class societies, including Kurdish society. There are workers, and there are bosses. They do not have the same interests.

I don't see what Kurdish workers have to gain by a Kurdistan. If, however, you think that it would be a great gain to have a new state in the Middle East propped up by the US, and Israel, which going on the PKK's past record would persecute other minorities. Of course 'achieving' this would be at the cost of a large scale regional war where of course it would be the working class dying.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The article is essentially a worthless contribution to the debate: it operates on a definition of national liberation that is not the Marxist definition of national liberation. Therefore, how can it be a legitimate criticism of national liberation? These kinds of polemics are a result of reductionist politics.

There's actually a very thoroughly defined meaning for national liberation in Marxism. I have posted here, Severian and others have in the past. I'm sick of reposting it so look it up.

One could say that your 'national Marxism' has nothing to do with Marxism.

I think that the main point here though that if reality doesn't fit your theoretical definitions, maybe it is your theory that is at fault.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

One could say that your 'national Marxism' has nothing to do with Marxism.

I think that the main point here though that if reality doesn't fit your theoretical definitions, maybe it is your theory that is at fault.

Devrim

'National marxism' with quotes. What a way to pile on the dishonesty. Well done!

One could say I've nothing to do with Marxism- but you'd have to include Marx, Engels, Connolly and Lenin with me. It's you that are outside the Marxist tradition, if you really want to play that card.

My theory's not at fault at all- the theory is that there is a distinction to be made between nationalism and anti-imperialism. I realise that is somewhat subtle, and subtlety is alien to your political tradition.

[Devrim]

'National marxism' with quotes. What a way to pile on the dishonesty. Well done!

It is not dishonest at all to call it a national Marxism. That is what it is.


One could say I've nothing to do with Marxism- but you'd have to include Marx, Engels, Connolly and Lenin with me. It's you that are outside the Marxist tradition, if you really want to play that card.

Actually you played that card. Much of what has passed itself off as the 'Marxist tradition' is completely anti-working class. Marx, Engles, and Lenin all stressed that it was possible to support national liberation in a certain period. They never offered unqualified support for it. Connolly ended up leading the working class into a nationalist blood bath.


My theory's not at fault at all- the theory is that there is a distinction to be made between nationalism and anti-imperialism. I realise that is somewhat subtle, and subtlety is alien to your political tradition.

So subtlety is no defined as an abandonment of internationalism.

Devrim

[manic expression]

It is not dishonest at all to call it a national Marxism. That is what it is.

No, it is dishonest. You are showing quite a capacity for this, Devrim, probably because you can't make an honest argument.


Actually you played that card. Much of what has passed itself off as the 'Marxist tradition' is completely anti-working class. Marx, Engles, and Lenin all stressed that it was possible to support national liberation in a certain period. They never offered unqualified support for it. Connolly ended up leading the working class into a nationalist blood bath.

What a shameless misrepresentation. Read what Lenin said about national liberation, it's not "a certain period", it's this period.

Connolly led the working class of Ireland against the capitalists of Britain. That, beyond any doubt, is in the interests of the working classes of all countries. Ultra-lefts like yourself, however, can't bring themselves to support anything of the sort.

[Zurdito]

I don't really see any contradiction here at all. Of course we recognise that there is Turkish national chauvinism, and that minorities are oppressed. The point is what can be done about it.

There are some who refer to themselves as Marxists who have no idea what a class perspective is. All societies today class societies, including Kurdish society. There are workers, and there are bosses. They do not have the same interests.

I don't see what Kurdish workers have to gain by a Kurdistan. If, however, you think that it would be a great gain to have a new state in the Middle East propped up by the US, and Israel, which going on the PKK's past record would persecute other minorities. Of course 'achieving' this would be at the cost of a large scale regional war where of course it would be the working class dying.

Devrim

1.) I don't think Kurdish workers and Kurdish bosses have the same interests

2.) Unlike many stalinophile "trotskyists", I don't care who backs what minority or oppressed group, I support the working class of that group's (i.e. homosexuals, women, national minorities, semicolonial states) right to immediately end all the added oppression it faces within capitalism on top of also being opressed as the working class. For example my group (Workers Power) argued in support of the KLA and that they were right to accept weapons from US imperialism as part of their struggle against Serb national chauvinism. We also called on them to use those weapons against any imperialist attempts to impose conditions on their own struggle. Likewise, I don't see Kurds, Palestinians, Northern Irish Catholics etc. as pawns on a chessboard who I'll deny or provide support to based on whether they are backed by the US/Israel/EU or Russia/China. This gets me condemned by hysterical stalinophiles, but so what.

3.) I don't think the creation of a Kurdistan imperialist protectorate would be a good thing, any more than the creation of a Kosovan state with a tiny comprador bourgeoisie enriching itself at the expense of the rest of the population.

4.) However I don't see how you are going to tell Kosovans or Kurds that they were/are not justified in demanding a state within which they will no longer suffer national oppression - something you yourself admitted exists. You are right, it's not "their" state, it's the bourgeosie's state. However it is a state which has come about through popular struggle and the bourgeoisie/would-be-bourgeoisie of those nations is forced to lean on the masses and often to tail their struggle for national liberation. That's because it's not simply a case of a greedy Kurdish bourgeoisie manipulating workers, but rather of the Kurdish masses themselves fighting back against the national oppression they face every day, and the Kurdish bosses needing to find a way to channel that struggle into purely demanding the creation of a bourgeois state.

5.) I think communists in their propaganda must on the one hand accompany the struggle of the Kurdish masses, but on the other hand openly say all the way that the creation of a bourgeois state is not the objective, so that in the best outcome workers will come to the leadership of those national struggles themselves and create a socialist state with an internationalist approach to the working class of the opressor nation, and in the worst outcome, the bourgeois state will from it's inception be created directly in opposition to the radicalised sections of the working class (hopefully large sections, ie as we see with the bourgeois Fatah's inability to gain the support of the Palestinian masses) and - whilst in itself a progressive step forward from national opression within a chauvinist opressor state - will be experienced ever more by the masses an inadequate compromise and a betrayal of their struggle.

6.) The above can only happen however if we relate to the masses - those who are *rightly* fighting against the *real* national oppression which they face every day, just as you or I would - and if you fight for socialists to take the leadership of their just struggle. This won't happen though by condemning the existing struggle - because how can you can convert the masses when you aren't even amongst them? Rather, this will happen through a united front against the national opressor and against imperialism (we would have to reject any sell-outs to imperialism by the bourgeois elements of the struggle and mobilise the masses to resist their implementation), which we critically support, and which we constantly urge to go further than its bourgeois elements will allow - openly propagandising against them and openly saying all along that they will not succesfully lead the struggle. To prove this we must place immediate, transitional and immediate demands on them.

7.) You are right to argue against all those "trotskyist" centrists who see this as an objective process. We should never sow the illusion that the national bourgeoisie is "progressive". The fight against national opression is *part* of struggle for the liberation of the working class - a struggle which the "national bourgeoisie" manouvre to contain and to betray. We should be clear on this point all the way. Like I said there is no such thing as the "progressive bourgeoisie" - however "anti-imeprialist" their rhetoric may be. Anyone who says that is not a trotskyist. The trotskyist concept of critical support is to place demands on the leadership of a movement in order to relate to the masses withint he movement, whilst simultaneously propagandising against the bourgeois/bureaucratic leadership in a clearly revolutionary, class-based way.

8.) On the other hand I find your approach to be maximalist-minimalist. On the one hand you'll repeat the need for communism on this board. But yet on the other hand, when it comes to the real struggle for liberation for national liberation within your country, you place yourself outside of it. You can say "we need communism", but will the Turkish state really be scared of that, when you refuse to take sides against it in its real battles, or when your slogans are so extreme that you can't really go to workers meetings and put them forward because they don't relate to the dynamics of the real struggle, but are instead just dogmatic repetitions?

[Devrim]

What a shameless misrepresentation. Read what Lenin said about national liberation, it's not "a certain period", it's this period.


It is precisely and solely because Russia and the neighbouring countries are passing through this period that we must have a clause in our programme on the right of nations to self-determination.

The period that Lenin refers to is the one in which the bourgeois tasks of overthrowing feudalism and of achieving national independence had not yet been completed. Now in our opinion his position was deeply mistaken at the time, but note that Lenin does not say that support for national liberation struggles is a principle just that it was a tactic during a particular period.

Do you think that feudalism has yet to be overthrown?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Zurdito, your post is serious and as such deserves a serious reply. I will try to do it tonight.
Devrim

[Devrim]

I will address you points one by one. The numbers refer to your post above.

1) We agree here at least.

2) The second point seems to start from a principled stance, that you support national liberation struggles regardless of who they are supported by. It is diametrically opposite to our position, but at least it appears to have its own internal consistency.

You write though:


I don't care who backs what minority or oppressed group, I support the working class of that group's (i.e. homosexuals, women, national minorities, semicolonial states) right to immediately end all the added oppression it faces within capitalism on top of also being opressed as the working class.

What does it mean to 'support the working class of that group'? We see national movements as cross class fronts, and as always happens in these fronts they are lead by a particular class, which is not the working class. For us the working class struggle has its own terrain, and these struggles take place on a completely alien terrain. The methods of the national struggle are not the same as the methods of the class struggle. When it submits to the idea of national defence, or national liberation the working class ceases to impose itself as a class. The sociological origins of a guerilla are not of utmost importance. How do you differentiate between a working class member of an ethnic murder gang, and a middle class one, except for the obvious fact that more often than not one is generally doing the order giving, and one is doing the dying.

You continue:


Likewise, I don't see Kurds, Palestinians, Northern Irish Catholics etc. as pawns on a chessboard who I'll deny or provide support to based on whether they are backed by the US/Israel/EU or Russia/China.

Neither do we, but it is undeniable that national movements are used as pawns on a chess board in a conflict between different powers. The history of the Kurdish national movements is ample confirmation of this. At different times different Kurdish factions have been allied with and/or supported by all four of the countries with large numbers of Kurdish inhabitants, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

3) We agree that 'the creation of a Kurdistan imperialist protectorate would [not] be a good thing'. In fact it would probably be worse for the working class than the state is Kosovo due to the immense conflict it would cause in the region.

4) When you talk about the Kosovans or the Kurds demanding a state you seem to be talking about 'the people'. In fact, you often use the term 'the masses'. Despite point one there seems to be somewhat of a tendency to forget that society is divided into classes which have differing interests.

You write:


That's because it's not simply a case of a greedy Kurdish bourgeoisie manipulating workers, but rather of the Kurdish masses themselves fighting back against the national oppression they face every day, and the Kurdish bosses needing to find a way to channel that struggle into purely demanding the creation of a bourgeois state.

Of course there are people, including workers, fighting against oppression. Their fight against oppression is very easily channelled into a struggle in the interests of the nation, which are completely opposed to those of the working class.

You say that we are right when we say that it is not 'their' state. The Turkish state is not the state of the working class either. Should Turkish workers support 'their' state? I think that you would reject this. The Turkish state though was formed in a national liberation struggle, and national liberation is an essential part of the state ideology. Many people, who call themselves socialists, think that Turkey is an oppressed nation, and that workers should defend the state. While I am not saying that you are suggesting this, your theory is based on the same logic. The difference is only in your analysis of the balance of forces.

To ask a question, which states or potential states should we support? I once discussed this point with a very ignorant American, who argued that revolutionaries in Turkey should support both Kurdish and Armenian land claims. In the patchwork of ethnicities which is the modern Middle East supporting all national movements is possibly the best recipe that could exist for war.

5) On the fifth point we don't believe that it is possible for the working class to come to the leadership of national struggles as a class for itself as the interests of the national struggle are completely opposed to those of the working class. That is not to say that individual workers can not become leaders, but I am sure that you would agree that the sociological background of a particular leader is not the defining point. National liberation movements have a tendency to massacre workers, not only when they come to power, but also in the course of the struggle. The Kurdish movement is a great example of this.

In Turkey of course the Russian Bolsheviks were supporting the nationalists while Kemal was murdering the Turkish communist wholesale.

6) There are times when communists can't influence the masses whoever hard we try. In last year's nationalist hysteria in Turkey it was difficult for communists not to be completely isolated. Of course our organisation distributed leaflets, put up wall posters, held meetings, sold our press, and argued on picket lines. We were, however, completely isolated from the vast majority of the class. What is the response of communists in this situation? Is it to stick to principles, or abandon them in an attempt to appeal to the most reactionary tendencies within the working class?

Lenin had some wise words to say on this when he was accused by Kamenev of being an 'idealist' and of 'separating himself from the masses':


Comrade Kamenev contraposes to a 'party of the masses' a 'group of propagandists'. But the 'masses' have now succumbed to the craze of 'revolutionary' defencism. Is it not more becoming for internationalists at this moment to show that they can resist 'mass' intoxication rather than to 'wish to remain' with the masses, i.e., to succumb to the general epidemic? Have we not seen how in all the belligerent countries of Europe the chauvinists tried to justify themselves on the grounds that they wished to 'remain with the masses'? Must we not be able to remain for a time in the minority against the 'mass' intoxication? Is it not the work of the propagandists at the present moment that forms the key point for disentangling the proletarian line from the defencist and petty-bourgeois 'mass' intoxication?

The extent to which the working class is dragged into supporting the nation is the extent to which it is defeated. The extent to which it is still capable of struggle on its own terrain (for example the huge Türk Telecom strike during the war hysteria) is the extent to which it is not.

7) You state that the '"national bourgeoisie" manoeuvre to contain and to betray' the working class during the national struggle. We would say that they do not 'betray' the working class as their interests were always opposed to it.

8) The struggle that you refer to is not in our opinion the struggle of the working class even though it may contain workers. In what we consider genuine working class struggles our interventions are based upon what we consider possible.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

ok Devrim I won't reply to each of your points because I don't think I'll turn you into a trot, in fact I've never recruited anyone online despite hours of arguing. thanks for the serious reply, I'll just note a couple of things that came to my attention as the most obvious points to make:


7) You state that the '"national bourgeoisie" manoeuvre to contain and to betray' the working class during the national struggle. We would say that they do not 'betray' the working class as their interests were always opposed to it.

My sentence was badly phrased. I meant that the bourgeoisie or the bureaucrats betray the united front struggle for national liberation, and not the working class itself, as you are right, in the case of the bourgeoisie that would be a redundant and unmarxist thing to say. (though not in the case of the bureaucratic caste).


8) The struggle that you refer to is not in our opinion the struggle of the working class even though it may contain workers. In what we consider genuine working class struggles our interventions are based upon what we consider possible.

Well I think you need to refine your definitions further. The Kurds inside Turkey have no Kurdish state apapratus oppressing them, so therefore their militias are popular militias, and not the same as a bourgeois army of a bourgeois state which simply enjoys popular support. Do you really thinkt he PKK has been set up in opposition to Kurdish workers in the same way that every bourgeois army is?

Left-communists have a certain amount of principle when they stand against ever supporting bourgeois states, but against supporting national minorities I think your position becomes more confused. Is there really a Kurdish bourgeois media and state coercing and propagandising Kurds into fighting Turkey? If not then I think it's dismissive to say the struggle simply "contains" the working class in the same way that the struggle of a bourgeois state does.

Regarding Lenin and Kamenev, it's an interesting point which unfortunately I haven't read about. I will do now though.

[Devrim]

Is there really a Kurdish bourgeois media and state coercing and propagandising Kurds into fighting Turkey?

No, but the PKK do obviously have their own TV channels etc., and do coerce people into fighting. Of course the coercion is not as organised as that of the state. Mehmet Tarhan, a prominent Turkish conscription resister, has been repeatedly sent to prison. The PKK don't do this. They just kill people who refuse to join. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone they recruit is coerced.


The Kurds inside Turkey have no Kurdish state apapratus oppressing them, so therefore their militias are popular militias, and not the same as a bourgeois army of a bourgeois state which simply enjoys popular support.

Do you think that the PKK doesn't oppress people? In which case you would have a very idealised view of how these sort of groups operate. We are talking about an organisation, which is estimated to have killed up to 1,500 of their own members.

I don't understand what you mean by 'popular militias'.


Do you really thinkt he PKK has been set up in opposition to Kurdish workers in the same way that every bourgeois army is?

No, more like in the way that Mafia type organisations are.


I meant that the bourgeoisie or the bureaucrats betray the united front struggle for national liberation, and not the working class itself,

I wouldn't even go this far. I don't think that the bourgeoisie betrays the 'united front struggle for national liberation' as I think that often they are not even aware that it exists. To them it is a national struggle pure and simple.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

There are some who refer to themselves as Marxists who have no idea what a class perspective is. All societies today class societies, including Kurdish society. There are workers, and there are bosses. They do not have the same interests.


Lower sections of the bourgeoisie in an oppressed nation often have an interest in expelling imperialism.

Traditionally it has been (principally) the comprador bourgeoisie that has worked against anti-imperialist alliances which always, always include the mass of workers and their organisations.

Why are these lines of demarcation constantly drawn? Why does that overwhelming majority of the left stand on that side?


I don't see what Kurdish workers have to gain by a Kurdistan. If, however, you think that it would be a great gain to have a new state in the Middle East propped up by the US, and Israel, which going on the PKK's past record would persecute other minorities.

Please explain to me how kurdish independence in the US interest.

Why did washington allow the recent invasion to happen?

How does this sit with the fact that Turkey has been consistently allied to the US?

[Devrim]

Please explain to me how kurdish independence in the US interest.

Unless you have failed to notice the US has spent the last few years building the foundations of the Kurdish state in Northern Iraq. Basically, they see it as the least unstable part of Iraq, and something that will help assert their dominance in the region. The Israelis also support it as it would seriously weaken one of the strongest Arab states.


Why did washington allow the recent invasion to happen?

More to the point would be 'why did Washington force Turkey into a humiliating withdrawal and climb down?'.


How does this sit with the fact that Turkey has been consistently allied to the US?

If you paid any attention to what happens in the region you would have noticed the growing divergence between Turkey and the US in recent years. Basically they have different interests. They are not enough yet to cause an open break but there are divergences in the US camp.

Devrim

[RHIZOMES]

Kosovo is one of those rare occasions in which a oppressed nationality met the same interests as the US ruling class. I'm not opposing Kosovo's independence, I've seen to many horrible war pictures from that region so I know what the Kosovars went through to get this far. People should not oppose an oppressed nation getting independence all because it has US support.

[Devrim]

Kosovo is one of those rare occasions in which a oppressed nationality met the same interests as the US ruling class.

Do you mean rare like the Kurds in Iraq today, or the Kurds in Iran? Perhaps you are looking back a little to something as rare like the Afghan rebels, or UNITA, or...hang on, it is not that rare at all.

In reality the vast majority of national movements are tools of some power or other.

Devrim

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I completely agree with the gist of the article. I have often thought this about the "struggle" in Northern Ireland. It's time to stop clinging to our national pride, it's always a poisoned chalice.

[Xiao Banfa]

In reality the vast majority of national movements are tools of some power or other.

All movements are a tool of some power or another. To an extent. You can't do anything without it serving the purpose of some rival power or another. It's a great chess game (I hate that analogy, but it works) all parties have independent inierests.
As I've already said the PKK are a complicated, sophisticated, organic, flawed but essentially independent organisation; they're not Saiqa or the Arab Liberation Front.


Unless you have failed to notice the US has spent the last few years building the foundations of the Kurdish state in Northern Iraq. Basically, they see it as the least unstable part of Iraq, and something that will help assert their dominance in the region. The Israelis also support it as it would seriously weaken one of the strongest Arab states.

Yes, but they have supported the non-PKK factions. Ever since the US fell out with Saddam Hussein, they've used the iraqi Kurds.


The interests of an oppressed nation can never be fought for by imperialists, though they may try to use their struggle temporarily. The only people who can continue till the end the national liberation struggle is the people of the oppressed nation themselves, hopefully with the solidarity of the international working class. Although today, that seems like wishful thinking.

[Xiao Banfa]

Kosovo is one of those rare occasions in which the interests of an oppressed nationality were used by the US ruling class.

[RHIZOMES]

Okay whoops I was wrong. But I don't think we should oppose it all because of it's ally. All the shit the Kosovars have gone through - I just don't want to oppose their sincere struggle simply because the US was "helping" them.

[Xiao Banfa]

I can only be bothered with independence movements with a left wing character. Fuck Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovar independence movements they're all reactionaries.

And there too stupid to realise that together, in a federation, they are strong enough to resist european and US predators.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The article is essentially a worthless contribution to the debate: it operates on a definition of national liberation that is not the Marxist definition of national liberation. Therefore, how can it be a legitimate criticism of national liberation? These kinds of polemics are a result of reductionist politics.

There's actually a very thoroughly defined meaning for national liberation in Marxism. I have posted here, Severian and others have in the past. I'm sick of reposting it so look it up.

Comrade, you really have caught on to my "Internal challenges for revolutionary Marxism" stuff! :scared: :cool:



Devrim, while "workers have no country," nation-states will remain throughout the entirety of bourgeois rule precisely because, as Luis Henrique (Where is he?) noted, capital hasn't truly escaped national limits (in spite of the global reach of securities exchanges and at the click of the mouse)

Like with the capitalist mode of production (which can under several distinct examples function independently of bourgeois rule - per my Theory thread), nation-states won't disappear overnight after the socialist revolution.

[Read Lenin's Left-Wing Childishness regarding the post-revolution status of the capitalist mode of production.]

Therefore, genuine national liberation is tied to international socialist revolution (preferrably of the Bordigist type, but with a mass party like what Luxemburg suggested ;) ), and vice versa: each "nation" is liberated from bourgeois rule and from both imperialist capital and cultural hegemony (Gramsci).

[Devrim]

Kosovo is one of those rare occasions in which the interests of an oppressed nationality were used by the US ruling class.


As I posted above, it is not so rare, indeed there are two struggle at the moment being supported by the US in states neighbouring ours.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I can only be bothered with independence movements with a left wing character. Fuck Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovar independence movements they're all reactionaries.

And there too stupid to realise that together, in a federation, they are strong enough to resist european and US predators.

So this is why you are supporting the PKK, which incidentally is no longer even called the PKK (it dropped the worker from its name name when it dropped all reference to Marxism and socialism at the eightieth congress over six tears ago). It is now called Kongreya Azad z Demokrasiya Kurdistan (Congress of Freedom and Democracy in Kurdistan).

Devrim

[Devrim]

[Read Lenin's Left-Wing Childishness regarding the post-revolution status of the capitalist mode of production.]

I have. He was wrong. It is little more than a hysterical polemic.


Therefore, genuine national liberation is tied to international socialist revolution (preferrably of the Bordigist type, but with a mass party like what Luxemburg suggested ;) ), and vice versa: each "nation" is liberated from bourgeois rule and from both imperialist capital and cultural hegemony (Gramsci).

We don't believe that there can be genuine national liberation today.

Devrim

[manic expression]

The period that Lenin refers to is the one in which the bourgeois tasks of overthrowing feudalism and of achieving national independence had not yet been completed. Now in our opinion his position was deeply mistaken at the time, but note that Lenin does not say that support for national liberation struggles is a principle just that it was a tactic during a particular period.

Do you think that feudalism has yet to be overthrown?

Devrim

Yes, that was the reason for the Bolsheviks' position on self-determination in RUSSIA. However, Lenin also talked of the need for self-determination of the Irish from the British capitalists, for example. So no, it doesn't just have to do with feudalism but with imperialism as well. That specific program dealt with feudalism, but that is, obviously, a specific program.

Do you think "left-communism" has proven itself anything more than a complete joke?


We don't believe that there can be genuine national liberation today.

That betrays a complete obliviousness to the realities of imperialism. National liberation is a step that favors the working class and serves as a blow to world capital. Unfortunately, the ultra-lefts are utterly incapable of wrapping their heads around this fact.

[black magick hustla]

i like how manic expression gets always angry he is so cute

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have. He was wrong. It is little more than a hysterical polemic.

Then please feel free to drop into my Stamocap thread (in the Theory forum) and comment there on all the discussions: leveraged state control over the commanding heights (through a preserved corporate organizational structure), parecon and cooperative businesses for "niches," socialist / "directly democratic" economic activity (which could operate on Marx's notion of labour-time vouchers), and communist / "moneyless" economic activity.

There isn't as much "hysterical polemic" in that thread, but my "four-economy proletocratic multi-economy" is derived from a key section in Left-Wing Childishness (which I think you overlooked).

[Devrim]

Do you think "left-communism" has proven itself anything more than a complete joke?

As I have pointed out before the two countries in the left that can nearest to revolution had communist parties dominated by the left-wing. If the German Revolution, and the Red years in Italy are a joke to you, then obviously I can see how left communism would be.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Yes, that was the reason for the Bolsheviks' position on self-determination in RUSSIA. However, Lenin also talked of the need for self-determination of the Irish from the British capitalists, for example. So no, it doesn't just have to do with feudalism but with imperialism as well. That specific program dealt with feudalism, but that is, obviously, a specific program.

Lenin did support other national movements. My point was that for Lenin this was not a principle, but a tactic to be applied in specific circumstances. I demonstraated one such circumstance in which it was applied. You called my point ' a shameless misrepresentation', but have still to demonstrate that Lenin believed in support for national movements on principle.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

The point is; 'where do you stand in the contradiction between Kurdish national self-determination and Turkish national chauvinism in the current framework'.

I'm amazed that some leftists think they can extract themselves from this conflict with clean hands. It's a purist fantasy.

I had realised the PKK had renounced Marxism-Leninism. They still believ in 'socialism' which is a far cry from some of the other 'Kurdish Nationalist' gangsters.

[proleterian fist]

Well the solution of Kurdish problem is in socialism I think.
Nations determines on their own destinies so we have to recognise them to determine on their destinies i.e Kurdishes.

[Devrim]

Well the solution of Kurdish problem is in socialism I think.
Nations determines on their own destinies so we have to recognise them to determine on their destinies i.e Kurdishes.

Nations are divided into classes within the current society the dominating ideology is always the ideology of the ruling class.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I'm amazed that some leftists think they can extract themselves from this conflict with clean hands. It's a purist fantasy.

It is strange that some on the other side of the world can talk about people who live in Turkey 'think[ing] they can extract themselves from this conflict with clean hands'. To us it is a very real conflict. 40,000 have died. Most people know, or at least know of people who have died, many, particularly Kurds, people on both sides.

For the working class this war has been terrible. It has no material interest in continuing it.

Of course hobbyists thousands of miles away do.

Devrim

[manic expression]

As I have pointed out before the two countries in the left that can nearest to revolution had communist parties dominated by the left-wing. If the German Revolution, and the Red years in Italy are a joke to you, then obviously I can see how left communism would be.

Devrim

Wrong. The German Revolution was not led by left-communists, it was led by the Spartacus League, which was not a left-communist organization (Rosa Luxembourg was most assuredly not an ultra-left). The only thing a council-communist ever succeeded in doing was burning down the Reichstag. On Italy, you'll have to be more specific, as Gramsci and other prominent leaders of the Italian left were not left-communists at all.

If you ask me, rewriting history for self-aggrandizement is the foremost concern of the ultra-lefts.


Lenin did support other national movements. My point was that for Lenin this was not a principle, but a tactic to be applied in specific circumstances. I demonstraated one such circumstance in which it was applied. You called my point ' a shameless misrepresentation', but have still to demonstrate that Lenin believed in support for national movements on principle.

Supporting national movements was about supporting the working class against imperialism. It was true then, it's true now. Whether or not it is due to "tactics" or "principles" is irrelevant.

[Leo]

A little bit of historical info is necessary here.


Wrong. The German Revolution was not led by left-communists, it was led by the Spartacus League, which was not a left-communist organization (Rosa Luxembourg was most assuredly not an ultra-left).Rosa Luxemburg was completely against national liberation, also she was for the destruction of trade-unions and her theories created the basis of future left communist theory. These of course were the positions of the Spartacus League as well. Although 'left-communism' did not exist back then as a tendency, their positions were exactly what you call 'ultra-left' although the term is nothing but a meaningless slur.

The KAPD had 200.000 militants and when it was formed after being kicked out of the KPD despite being the majority.


On Italy, you'll have to be more specific, as Gramsci and other prominent leaders of the Italian left were not left-communists at all.Gramsci was not a prominent leader of the Italian communists, but a minor leader, only a leader of a minority faction in the party. The overwhelming majority of the Italian Communist Party were left communists, as was the leader of the party, Amadeo Bordiga.


If you ask me Actually, no one is asking you anything, you are the most uninteresting parrot on RevLeft.

[YKTMX]

If the Kosovans want a state then they should have one. But as the article correctly pointed out, this Independent Kosovan State is neither Kosovan nor independent. It's probably not even a state in the strictest sense of the word. It's an illegal political unit under the protection of Western Imperialism.

I have very little sympathy with the Serbian territorial claim, but I have massive sympathy with the few remaining Serbs in Kosova, a state likely to be dominated by luminaries of the rather nasty Kosova Liberation Army. The Russians "support" of Serbia is also purely instrumental. They only oppose Kosovan independence because it might give the Chechens some dangerous ideas.

Similarly, it seems clear now that the EU and US are hoping that Kosovo can become a kind of "Israel in the Balkans" - a centre for Western interests in an "unfriendly zone".

It's a difficult, obviously one must reject the ludicrous 'Third Campism' of the article (I support the PKK in the struggles against the Turks). One doesn't want to see the Serbs constantly submerged under Western Imperialism, nonetheless, the right of nations to self-determine holds.

The most obvious yet unexplored question is: to what extent is Kosovo a 'nation'?

[manic expression]

A little bit of historical info is necessary here.

Rosa Luxemburg was completely against national liberation, also she was for the destruction of trade-unions and her theories created the basis of future left communist theory. These of course were the positions of the Spartacus League as well. Although 'left-communism' did not exist back then as a tendency, their positions were exactly what you call 'ultra-left' although the term is nothing but a meaningless slur.

On the other hand, let's look at the connections between the German Revolution and the Bolsheviks:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/apr/27.htm

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were very influential in the revolutionary movement of Germany. The so-called "council communists" succeeded in what, exactly?


The KAPD had 200.000 militants and when it was formed after being kicked out of the KPD despite being the majority.

And what did it accomplish?


Gramsci was not a prominent leader of the Italian communists, but a minor leader, only a leader of a minority faction in the party. The overwhelming majority of the Italian Communist Party were left communists, as was the leader of the party, Amadeo Bordiga.

Bordiga's faction lost control after 1924, when Gramsci took control and essentially began to revive the party. You act as though this never happened.


Actually, no one is asking you anything, you are the most uninteresting parrot on RevLeft.

It is not my intention to be found "interesting" by the "left-communists". Nevertheless, calling me a parrot while you copy-and-paste ICC garbage probably makes you feel better.

[Devrim]

I am not sure what point 'Manic Expression' is arguing. The left communists were in the majority in the Spartacist league, and in the early KPD. This was at the time of the German revolution.

When he says that 'Bordiga's faction' lost control in 1924 that also implies that they were a majority during the red years in Italy.

Both of which prove my point.

As for his comments about Lenin and the Bolsheviks being connected to the Russian revolution, well of course they were. The entire communist left supported the Russian revolution though. It fact Lenin was on the left of his party, and was a close ally of those who later became the communist left from 1903 onwards. Read his comments on K.Horner.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

The Italian Communist Party in the two red years was dominated by the bordigist "ultra-left" wing. (1919, 1920), Gramsci was nothing more than a stalinist and at the same time, a predecessor to eurocommunist social democracy.



On the other hand, let's look at the connections between the German Revolution and the Bolsheviks:
if you knew what left communism is, you'd understood it doesn't neccesarily needs to be "anti-bolshevik". indeed, the bordigists were pretty much "ultra-leninists".

luxembourg was a predecessor to left communism, especially because on her take on the national question.

jesus manic expression you are like an angry puppy with rabies

[Devrim]

It's a difficult, obviously one must reject the ludicrous 'Third Campism' of the article

Many rejected Lenin's 'Third Campism' as ludicrous in 1914 including many Bolsheviks.

Devrim

[YKTMX]

Many rejected Lenin's 'Third Campism' as ludicrous in 1914 including many Bolsheviks.

Devrim


Lenin supported the 1916 uprising in Ireland, an archetypal "petty-bourgeois" nationalist uprising.

Do we want to trade Lenin quotes?

Anyway, I said "ludicrous" Third Campism, like yours.

[Devrim]

Lenin supported the 1916 uprising in Ireland, an archetypal "petty-bourgeois" nationalist uprising.

Yes, he did. In our opinion he was wrong. He also supported national movements in the countries bordering Russia, and that turned out to be an absolute disaster for the revolution. In Turkey the Soviets provided the nationalist with the guns that they used to wipe out the communist party.

But my point was, as I am sure that you know that many called his position ludicrous in 1914 when he rejected national defence in the First World War.


Do we want to trade Lenin quotes?

Not really. There is an interesting one on the first page of this thread though. I would recommend taking a look at it.


Anyway, I said "ludicrous" Third Campism, like yours.

Communist positions often appear ludicrous to many when the working class is weak.

Devrim

[YKTMX]

But my point was, as I am sure that you know that many called his position ludicrous in 1914 when he rejected national defence in the First World War.


But comrade, it wasn't just a call for a "rejection" of nation defence. And it wasn't just a "mistake" that he supported the national liberation movements. The two things are inextricably linked to each other.

Calling for a defeat for one's own ruling class - in Lenin's day Tsarist Russia - is a recognition that the working classes of the imperialist countries cannot emancipate themselves without first being stripped of their illusory belief in the glory of the fatherland. This view will not arise spontaneously, it must involve active intervention by socialists to break the proletariat from their allegiance imperialist ruling class. So the reason Lenin calls for support of the national liberation struggles amongst the oppressed people's of the Tsarist Empire is because this is the ONLY way to weaken the grip of Imperialism on Russian workers.

In this context, your apathy in the fight between the Kurdish rebels and the Turkish state becomes politically perilous. Firstly, you're engaged in creating a false symmetry between the PKK and the Turkish state. You're enfeebling the Turkish state to an unacceptable degree, so it seems like a "fair fight". Secondly, it's not that we, as socialists, have some class interest in the creation of a no-doubt bourgeois republic in Kurdistan, the class interest here is that we should oppose Turkey's attempts (and Iran's and Iraq's and America's) to stop the Kurds doing this.

That's the point Lenin was making and it's the point that must be defended just as strongly today.

I accept your position, comrade, it's principled but I think it's wrong, and perhaps I shouldn't have called it "ludicrous". I apologise for that remark. :)

[Devrim]

Secondly, it's not that we, as socialists, have some class interest in the creation of a no-doubt bourgeois republic in Kurdistan, the class interest here is that we should oppose Turkey's attempts (and Iran's and Iraq's and America's) to stop the Kurds doing this.

I think that there is a mistake here. Whilst Turkey, Iran, and Iraq are all obviously against the idea of a Kurdish state, America is probably the strongest international supporter of the Kurds at the moment. Certainly it is the US that has created the Kurdish state in embryo that is the KRG in Northern Iraq. It is also the US that is arming PJAK (a part of the PKK) to fight against Iran.

The various Kurdish movements have always been tools in the hands of different powers both major, and regional.Another supporters of Kurdish movements historically for obvious reasons has been Israel.


Firstly, you're engaged in creating a false symmetry between the PKK and the Turkish state. You're enfeebling the Turkish state to an unacceptable degree, so it seems like a "fair fight".

I don't think that we have 'enfeebled the Turkish state' at all. Please point out where you think we have if you do. We do not say that it is a fair fight. The Turkish state has one of the biggest armies in the world. The PKK is probably down to about 5,000 armed militants. It doesn't sound very fair to me, and at no point have we portrayed it as so. The question is whether workers should support the weaker side in a bourgeois faction fight. We say they have no interest in it.


Calling for a defeat for one's own ruling class - in Lenin's day Tsarist Russia - is a recognition that the working classes of the imperialist countries cannot emancipate themselves without first being stripped of their illusory belief in the glory of the fatherland. This view will not arise spontaneously, it must involve active intervention by socialists to break the proletariat from their allegiance imperialist ruling class.

The call was to 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war'. It was not a call to support the other side, in that case the central powers. Lenin called for desertion, fraternisation, and mutiny. All things that we would call for. He didn't call for military support for the other side.

Our position on the Turkish state is also clear. In the last crisis the communist left were condemning Turkish imperialism whereas the TKP took a defencist line, 'Don't let the US divide our country.


So the reason Lenin calls for support of the national liberation struggles amongst the oppressed people's of the Tsarist Empire is because this is the ONLY way to weaken the grip of Imperialism on Russian workers.

On one level, I can see your point here that is not to say I agree with it though. However, it went beyond a propaganda point to convince Russian workers to the point when they were supplying money and guns to the Kemalists at the same time as they were massacring communists. This was not the pattern in only one country either. Do you think, given the benefit of hindsight, they were still correct?

Devrim

[manic expression]

I am not sure what point 'Manic Expression' is arguing. The left communists were in the majority in the Spartacist league, and in the early KPD. This was at the time of the German revolution.

Devrim, you have said that "left communism" wasn't even a political tendency at the time. How you square this with your assertion that it was in the majority, I don't know.


When he says that 'Bordiga's faction' lost control in 1924 that also implies that they were a majority during the red years in Italy.

And what did they accomplish at that time?


As for his comments about Lenin and the Bolsheviks being connected to the Russian revolution, well of course they were. The entire communist left supported the Russian revolution though. It fact Lenin was on the left of his party, and was a close ally of those who later became the communist left from 1903 onwards. Read his comments on K.Horner.

Devrim

That's a terrible oversimplification. The left communists did not support many Bolshevik policies, including the Brest-Litovst Treaty, war-communism, Bolshevik support of activism within trade unions, NEP and more. As if that wasn't enough evidence, Lenin strongly criticized left communist positions in many works. The left communists, likewise, criticized the Bolsheviks. For goodness' sake, Lenin was far more supportive of James Connolly and Republican Socialism than left communism. So no, it wasn't such a smooth relationship at all.

Marmot


The Italian Communist Party in the two red years was dominated by the bordigist "ultra-left" wing. (1919, 1920), Gramsci was nothing more than a stalinist and at the same time, a predecessor to eurocommunist social democracy.

Yes, but that faction eventually lost out because the "red years" came to nothing. Gramsci and his allies took control of the party afterwards.

Eurocommunists use some of Gramsci's ideas, but whether or not this is an accurate application of his theories is arguable.


if you knew what left communism is, you'd understood it doesn't neccesarily needs to be "anti-bolshevik". indeed, the bordigists were pretty much "ultra-leninists".

That's wishful thinking. The so-called left communists have always heavily criticized Leninist policies and Leninist-led socialist governments. As I said before, Lenin clearly expressed his dislike for left communism, and left communism for the Bolsheviks. Even today, left communists consistently slander socialist societies such as Cuba.


luxembourg was a predecessor to left communism, especially because on her take on the national question.

That, in my opinion, is another arguable point (and more importantly, a point that is impossible to prove in the affirmative). Luxemburg may have influenced the left communists, but that is about it. To call her a "predecessor" without any support isn't exactly helpful.


jesus manic expression you are like an angry puppy with rabies

Well, people who slander socialist Cuba as "bourgeois" get on my nerves, but that's besides the point. Please engage my arguments, I don't think you have so far.

[Devrim]

Devrim, you have said that "left communism" wasn't even a political tendency at the time. How you square this with your assertion that it was in the majority, I don't know.

I think that you will find that I didn't say that. Left communism hadn't emerged as a distinct tendency, but it did exist. I said the left wing of the party was the majority. This is fact proven by when they were expelled the vast majority of the party was expelled.


And what did they accomplish at that time?

The attempts at an Italian revolution failed. We both know that. One could equally ask what the 4th International has ever accomplished?


That's a terrible oversimplification. The left communists did not support many Bolshevik policies, including the Brest-Litovst Treaty, war-communism, Bolshevik support of activism within trade unions, NEP and more. As if that wasn't enough evidence, Lenin strongly criticized left communist positions in many works. The left communists, likewise, criticized the Bolsheviks. For goodness' sake, Lenin was far more supportive of James Connolly and Republican Socialism than left communism. So no, it wasn't such a smooth relationship at all.

The entire left supported the Russian revolution. That is a fact. I did not make any claims about the lefts positions after towards Bolshevik policy after the revolution. It is true though that at this point the communist left was still in the RCP(B) and on the Brest-Litovsk treaty had a majority in the Petersburg, Moscow and other major industrial areas. You are factually wrong on war communism.

Lenin's current was close to those who became the communist left before the revolution, as I said from 1903 on.


Yes, but that faction eventually lost out because the "red years" came to nothing. Gramsci and his allies took control of the party afterwards.

Trotsky's supporters came to nothing in Russia. Gramsci was part of the Stalinisation of the party.


That, in my opinion, is another arguable point (and more importantly, a point that is impossible to prove in the affirmative). Luxemburg may have influenced the left communists, but that is about it. To call her a "predecessor" without any support isn't exactly helpful.

She agreed with the left on imperialism, and the trade unions as well as many other issues.

Devrim

[manic expression]

I think that you will find that I didn't say that. Left communism hadn't emerged as a distinct tendency, but it did exist. I said the left wing of the party was the majority. This is fact proven by when they were expelled the vast majority of the party was expelled.

Then what was it, a non-distinct tendency? The issue has remained quite nebulous: are you willing to draw the line somewhere? When did the left communist tendency arise?


The attempts at an Italian revolution failed. We both know that. One could equally ask what the 4th International has ever accomplished?

We also both know that the most viable opportunity for revolution was during the so-called red years, when the left communists were in control. That is very important, and not to be dismissed.


The entire left supported the Russian revolution. That is a fact. I did not make any claims about the lefts positions after towards Bolshevik policy after the revolution. It is true though that at this point the communist left was still in the RCP(B) and on the Brest-Litovsk treaty had a majority in the Petersburg, Moscow and other major industrial areas. You are factually wrong on war communism.

Yes, but initially. The SR's supported the Russian Revolution, too, but that doesn't mean they went against the Bolsheviks and the course of the revolution once the chips were down (coincidentally over the exact same issues the left communists opposed the Bolsheviks for).

Lenin gradually convinced the party that the treaty was necessary; everyone in the know knew this to be true. The left communists in the Bolshevik party were defeated by Lenin and his allies.

Perhaps I was wrong on war-communism. However, I am right that the left communists criticize worker states. Cuba is a good example of this.


Lenin's current was close to those who became the communist left before the revolution, as I said from 1903 on.

That's just the thing, Devrim. They disagreed entirely on what to do after the initial revolution. Their ideological affinity is similar to that of the Bolsheviks and the SR's: relatively close before the revolution, extremely strained after the initial stages. That is the crux of the issue, and Lenin's multiple criticisms of the so-called left communists after 1917 serve as evidence of this. You're not taking into account the source of disagreements between left-communism and Leninism.


Trotsky's supporters came to nothing in Russia. Gramsci was part of the Stalinisation of the party.

Gramsci was arrested before Stalinisation could seriously be considered the overriding factor. The party members who mostly isolated Trotsky were Zinoviev and Bukharin, Stalin wasn't nearly as active in this as they were. Stalinism came into its own in the 30's, not in the 20's.


She agreed with the left on imperialism, and the trade unions as well as many other issues.

Devrim

She agreed with the left communists on certain issues (retroactively, apparently), but that doesn't make her one. That was basically my whole point.

[Devrim]

Then what was it, a non-distinct tendency? The issue has remained quite nebulous: are you willing to draw the line somewhere? When did the left communist tendency arise?

It is a difficult thing to put an exact date on. The KAPD was formed in April 1920, but the expulsion of the majority of the KPD for supporting the original programme of the party took place at the Heidelberg convention in October 1919. One could of course trace it back earlier. I think that my point that the left was a majority in the party is proven though.


We also both know that the most viable opportunity for revolution was during the so-called red years, when the left communists were in control. That is very important, and not to be dismissed.

Yes, it is true. Do you think that it is total coincidence that when the working class was strong the left was a majority in the party.


Yes, but initially. The SR's supported the Russian Revolution, too, but that doesn't mean they went against the Bolsheviks and the course of the revolution once the chips were down (coincidentally over the exact same issues the left communists opposed the Bolsheviks for).

Lenin gradually convinced the party that the treaty was necessary; everyone in the know knew this to be true. The left communists in the Bolshevik party were defeated by Lenin and his allies.

The communist left though was not a peasant populist party. It was an intrinsic part of the Bolshevik party, and again as in Italy, the left wing of the party was at its strongest when the working class was at its strongest.

Yes, Lenin managed to convince people of his argument, and to a certain extent it is a reflection of the weakness of the European proletariat.


However, I am right that the left communists criticize worker states. Cuba is a good example of this.

The left communists refuse to support so-called workers state. In this they were joined by the beat elements to come out of Trotskyism after WWII including Natalya Sedova, Munis, Stirnas...


That is the crux of the issue, and Lenin's multiple criticisms of the so-called left communists after 1917 serve as evidence of this. You're not taking into account the source of disagreements between left-communism and Leninism.

The crux of the issue is that the communist left was intransigent and rejected compromise whilst Lenin supported it on tactical grounds. There is a politically discusion to be had here, but this is not the point that we are arguing. The point that we are arguing is you idea that ' "left-communism" has [never]proven itself anything more than a complete joke'. Against this I maintain that whenever the working class was strong in the revolutionary period, the power of the communist left increased.


Gramsci was arrested before Stalinisation could seriously be considered the overriding factor. The party members who mostly isolated Trotsky were Zinoviev and Bukharin, Stalin wasn't nearly as active in this as they were. Stalinism came into its own in the 30's, not in the 20's.

Gramsci replaced Bordiga as General Secretary of the Italian Party (against the will of the majority of the membership, which supported the left in 1924, at which point Lenin was dead and Stalin was General Secretary of the Russian Party.

As for Stalinism coming into its own in the 1930's the theory of socialism in one country was adopted in 1926.


She agreed with the left communists on certain issues (retroactively, apparently), but that doesn't make her one. That was basically my whole point.

No, we never claimed she was, but she was closely allied with those who became the communist left. It was their defence of the programme that she supported that got them thrown out of the KPD. Also, it is not just certain issues. It was every issue except 'parlimentarianism', and on that she was moving towards them at the time of her murder.

Devrim

[manic expression]

It is a difficult thing to put an exact date on. The KAPD was formed in April 1920, but the expulsion of the majority of the KPD for supporting the original programme of the party took place at the Heidelberg convention in October 1919. One could of course trace it back earlier. I think that my point that the left was a majority in the party is proven though.

It is important to put an exact date on. I don't think we can talk about an ideology and its place in a certain period when you can't tell me when it began (basically, you're trying to have it both ways).


Yes, it is true. Do you think that it is total coincidence that when the working class was strong the left was a majority in the party.

It is not a coincidence that this opportunity was completely squandered. The Bolsheviks showed how to make a revolution; the left-communists showed how not to.


The communist left though was not a peasant populist party. It was an intrinsic part of the Bolshevik party, and again as in Italy, the left wing of the party was at its strongest when the working class was at its strongest.

Sure, but they DID disagree with the Bolsheviks over the same exact issues. That is a curious similarity, and not one that can be seen as a mere coincidence.


Yes, Lenin managed to convince people of his argument, and to a certain extent it is a reflection of the weakness of the European proletariat.

To a large extent it was a reflection of the growing consciousness of the international proletariat. Lenin's arguments won over the movement and the workers because they were sound: everyone knew the treaty was necessary.


The left communists refuse to support so-called workers state. In this they were joined by the beat elements to come out of Trotskyism after WWII including Natalya Sedova, Munis, Stirnas...

In this, they refuse to support the gains of the working class. If you ask me, this is no different from anarchist objections.


The crux of the issue is that the communist left was intransigent and rejected compromise whilst Lenin supported it on tactical grounds. There is a politically discusion to be had here, but this is not the point that we are arguing. The point that we are arguing is you idea that ' "left-communism" has [never]proven itself anything more than a complete joke'. Against this I maintain that whenever the working class was strong in the revolutionary period, the power of the communist left increased.

No, the "communist left" rejected the existence of an actual worker state, whereas Lenin and the Bolsheviks did what needed to be done to defend the revolution. My assertion is that left communists have indeed never made the progress seen by Bolshevists, because their ideology is fundamentally flawed. That the left was in control during periods of working class strength support my argument: they were unable to capitalize on these opportunities.


Gramsci replaced Bordiga as General Secretary of the Italian Party (against the will of the majority of the membership, which supported the left in 1924, at which point Lenin was dead and Stalin was General Secretary of the Russian Party.

Stalin was General Secretary, but he was FAR from being in complete control of the party. That happened after he beat out Bukharin and made Zinoviev and Kamenev submit to him, and after Kirov was killed. Stalinization came into being in the late 20's and really got going in the 30's, Gramsci was in prison when all of that happened.


As for Stalinism coming into its own in the 1930's the theory of socialism in one country was adopted in 1926.

That means nothing. Stalinism isn't just socialism in one country, that was adopted by the wider membership of the Politburo at the time.


No, we never claimed she was, but she was closely allied with those who became the communist left. It was their defence of the programme that she supported that got them thrown out of the KPD. Also, it is not just certain issues. It was every issue except 'parlimentarianism', and on that she was moving towards them at the time of her murder.

Devrim

And Lenin was "closely allied" with those who were peasant populists and even Mensheviks. This means nothing in ideological terms, and this is precisely my point. Furthermore, Devrim, we have established that the main point of disagreement between Bolshevists and left communists is in policy after the initial revolution. Luxemburg was mostly about making the initial steps, she did not have the opportunity to lead a revolutionary government; had she been able to, we would be able to see her ideological affinity far more clearly.

[Devrim]

It is important to put an exact date on. I don't think we can talk about an ideology and its place in a certain period when you can't tell me when it began (basically, you're trying to have it both ways).

It is difficult to put an exact date on it. Partly because the specific identification as 'left communists' doesn't come until the Second Congress of the CI. It is possible to talk of the communist left earlier, and the formation of the KPD was a joining of the left communists and the Spartakist Bund. They saw themselves as communists though. Basically the left communists were the first in virtually every European country to declare solidarity with the Russian revolution.


It is not a coincidence that this opportunity was completely squandered. The Bolsheviks showed how to make a revolution; the left-communists showed how not to.

Again you miss the point that the Bolshevik party contained the left communists. To a certain extent Lenin 'April Theses' is an acceptance of the ideas of the left wing of the Russian party. Before April 1917, Lenin had argued that only a bourgeois revolution was possible in Russia. It was the victory of the position of the left that prepared the party to make the revolution.


Sure, but they DID disagree with the Bolsheviks over the same exact issues. That is a curious similarity, and not one that can be seen as a mere coincidence.

No, they didn't. They disagreed over many different issues. You have shown one similar one, Brest-Litovsk, which also the majority of the working class agreed with.


To a large extent it was a reflection of the growing consciousness of the international proletariat. Lenin's arguments won over the movement and the workers because they were sound: everyone knew the treaty was necessary.

Lenin's arguments started to gain ground after the Russian offensive. In that it show the weakness of the European working class. If German workers, and soldiers had prevented the offensive, it seems logical to presume that Lenin's position wouldn't have won through.


No, the "communist left" rejected the existence of an actual worker state, whereas Lenin and the Bolsheviks did what needed to be done to defend the revolution. My assertion is that left communists have indeed never made the progress seen by Bolshevists, because their ideology is fundamentally flawed. That the left was in control during periods of working class strength support my argument: they were unable to capitalize on these opportunities.

The counter revolution ultimately was made from within the Bolshevik party. The Trotskyists agree with this. The left was more aware of that danger than the Trotskyist current.

The rest of this is classical Trotskyism, 'crisis of leadership' type stuff. It is basically idealism.


Stalin was General Secretary, but he was FAR from being in complete control of the party. That happened after he beat out Bukharin and made Zinoviev and Kamenev submit to him, and after Kirov was killed. Stalinization came into being in the late 20's and really got going in the 30's, Gramsci was in prison when all of that happened.
...
That means nothing. Stalinism isn't just socialism in one country, that was adopted by the wider membership of the Politburo at the time.

As mentioned earlier the Trotskyists saw the dangers of Stalinism late. In 1926, the left communist, Bordiga told Stalin in full session of the Comintern that he was 'the grave digger of the revolution'. The theory of 'socialism in one country' is confirmation of the degeneration of the revolution.

Those Trotskyists who don't see it are merely protecting their political ancestors.


And Lenin was "closely allied" with those who were peasant populists and even Mensheviks. This means nothing in ideological terms, and this is precisely my point.

The April Thesis is the adoption of the main positions of the left as I pointed out before.


Furthermore, Devrim, we have established that the main point of disagreement between Bolshevists and left communists is in policy after the initial revolution.

I disagree completely, it is not the main point.

In the first years after the revolution, the left still supported the Bolshevik party. What they objected to was the counter revolutionary tactics being forced on the international.

Devrim

[manic expression]

It is difficult to put an exact date on it. Partly because the specific identification as 'left communists' doesn't come until the Second Congress of the CI. It is possible to talk of the communist left earlier, and the formation of the KPD was a joining of the left communists and the Spartakist Bund. They saw themselves as communists though. Basically the left communists were the first in virtually every European country to declare solidarity with the Russian revolution.

So are you going to give a precise answer? I ask because it is central to this point.

I hold that the distinctions between Bolshevists/Leninists and left communists came after the establishment of the Russian Revolution (namely, the former supported the policies that defended it).


Again you miss the point that the Bolshevik party contained the left communists. To a certain extent Lenin 'April Theses' is an acceptance of the ideas of the left wing of the Russian party. Before April 1917, Lenin had argued that only a bourgeois revolution was possible in Russia. It was the victory of the position of the left that prepared the party to make the revolution.

No, I didn't really miss it, because I've continually said that Lenin defeated the left communists within the party (in regards to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty). The April Theses established the objectives of the Bolsheviks, and they basically mirrored Lenin's ideas in "The State and Revolution". So no, it was more an acceptance of what would become known as Bolshevism more than anything else.

You're wrong on that second point. In 1905, Lenin had been encouraged by the fact that the urban proletariat led the anti-Tsarist fight. He saw the bourgeoisie as cooperating with the Tsar. So no, before 1917, Lenin was completely looking to proletarian revolution. He wasn't sure if it would happen in his lifetime, but he was struggling for it regardless.


No, they didn't. They disagreed over many different issues. You have shown one similar one, Brest-Litovsk, which also the majority of the working class agreed with.

Stop playing with semantics. The SR's and left communists did agree on crucial issues, Brest-Litovsk being one of them. And no, the workers and revolutionaries of Russia agreed with Lenin and Trotsky because it was obviously necessary to the highest degree.


Lenin's arguments started to gain ground after the Russian offensive. In that it show the weakness of the European working class. If German workers, and soldiers had prevented the offensive, it seems logical to presume that Lenin's position wouldn't have won through.

Lenin's arguments became persuasive immediately, but it was the reality of the Civil War that made them so undeniable. The Bolsheviks were fighting far too many armies to unnecessarily risk war with Germany as well. Practically everyone knew this to be true, save the left communists.


The counter revolution ultimately was made from within the Bolshevik party. The Trotskyists agree with this. The left was more aware of that danger than the Trotskyist current.

But not in the same way at all. There was a "counterrevolution" in Russia, but not one that reestablished capitalism. Socialism was not overturned, for the worker state and its social relations remained intact. Furthermore, the counterrevolution did not truly come from the party but from the rising bureaucracy. It was the isolation of the Russian Revolution (which the left communists can be thanked for) that was the overriding danger. To simply talk of "danger from within the party" is nonsensical in the face of the reality of the Russian Revolution.


The rest of this is classical Trotskyism, 'crisis of leadership' type stuff. It is basically idealism.

Wrong. Read Trotsky's actual arguments if you don't believe me.


As mentioned earlier the Trotskyists saw the dangers of Stalinism late. In 1926, the left communist, Bordiga told Stalin in full session of the Comintern that he was 'the grave digger of the revolution'. The theory of 'socialism in one country' is confirmation of the degeneration of the revolution.

Trotsky was struggling against Stalin in 1919. Nevertheless, the left opposition (Trotsky's faction) was actively fighting the bureaucratization of the party throughout the 1920's. Lenin saw Stalin as a potential threat when he wrote his final letters. The real problem was that Stalin promoted the bureaucracy and the nomenklatura promoted him. Trotsky identified these dangers, and I don't think the left communists have ever come around to them.


Those Trotskyists who don't see it are merely protecting their political ancestors.

You see political ancestors even where they don't exist.


The April Thesis is the adoption of the main positions of the left as I pointed out before.

Or an adoptation of Bolshevism. Lenin was always calling for proletarian revolution, even in 1905, it was just a decisive statement in the decisive days of mid-1917.


I disagree completely, it is not the main point.

In the first years after the revolution, the left still supported the Bolshevik party. What they objected to was the counter revolutionary tactics being forced on the international.

Devrim

Lenin and the left communists were engaging in heavy polemics in the early 1920's. Please be more specific.

[Devrim]

So are you going to give a precise answer? I ask because it is central to this point.

I hold that the distinctions between Bolshevists/Leninists and left communists came after the establishment of the Russian Revolution (namely, the former supported the policies that defended it).

Again I stress that it is impossible to give an exact answer, but if you want a date, I would say 1916.


No, I didn't really miss it, because I've continually said that Lenin defeated the left communists within the party (in regards to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty). The April Theses established the objectives of the Bolsheviks, and they basically mirrored Lenin's ideas in "The State and Revolution". So no, it was more an acceptance of what would become known as Bolshevism more than anything else.

Well, yes, but Brest-Litovsk is a year after the April thesis. The left communists were defeated on Brest-Litovsk, but Lenin took up the arguments of the left, and made them the position of the party in 1917 after the February revolution. What was known as Bolshevism in October was fundemantally based on the positions of the left.


You're wrong on that second point. In 1905, Lenin had been encouraged by the fact that the urban proletariat led the anti-Tsarist fight. He saw the bourgeoisie as cooperating with the Tsar. So no, before 1917, Lenin was completely looking to proletarian revolution. He wasn't sure if it would happen in his lifetime, but he was struggling for it regardless.

This is the same Lenin that wrote 'The Nascent Trend of Imperialist Economism' in 1916 then:


'The social revolution cannot be the united action of the proletarians of all countries for the simple reason that most of the countries and the,majorities of the world's population have not even reached, or have only just reached, the capitalist stage of development... Only the advanced countries of Western Europe and North America have matured for socialism. The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements... in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.

Or was that a different Lenin? In reality the February revolution showed Lenin that Pyatakov was actually right when he said that:


We picture this process [the social revolution] as the united action of the proletarians of all countries, who wipe out the frontiers of the bourgeois state, who tear down the frontier posts, who blow up national unity and establish class unity

Lenin was advocating the same policy barely six months after he had been attacking it.


Stop playing with semantics. The SR's and left communists did agree on crucial issues, Brest-Litovsk being one of them. And no, the workers and revolutionaries of Russia agreed with Lenin and Trotsky because it was obviously necessary to the highest degree.

This isn't playing with semantics. You talk about 'issues' and then come up with one issue. Please name another.

Also, Lenin and Trotsky opposed each other fundamentally on Brest-Litovsk.

Also, a the start of the negotiations Lenin did not have the support of the majority within the party, or within the working class. I suggest you go back to Lenin.


Lenin's arguments became persuasive immediately, but it was the reality of the Civil War that made them so undeniable. The Bolsheviks were fighting far too many armies to unnecessarily risk war with Germany as well. Practically everyone knew this to be true, save the left communists.

The civil war hadn't really begun at this point, certainly the foreign intervention hadn't. They were fighting no foreign armies at the start of the negotiations.

So much for what 'everyone knew to be true'. Again check your history.


But not in the same way at all. There was a "counterrevolution" in Russia, but not one that reestablished capitalism. Socialism was not overturned, for the worker state and its social relations remained intact.

The whole Trotskyist line of 'degenerate' or 'deformed' worker's sates is so patently absurd that I don't really feel a need to argue against it.


Furthermore, the counterrevolution did not truly come from the party but from the rising bureaucracy.

And the bureaucracy came from where exactly? I think that you will find that it was the party.


It was the isolation of the Russian Revolution (which the left communists can be thanked for) that was the overriding danger.

So you have gone from saying that the left communist were irrelevant to saying that they were responsible for the isolation of the Russian revolution. That is a pretty big leap.


Read Trotsky's actual arguments if you don't believe me.

Do you really think I haven't read them.


Trotsky was struggling against Stalin in 1919. Nevertheless, the left opposition (Trotsky's faction) was actively fighting the bureaucratization of the party throughout the 1920's. Lenin saw Stalin as a potential threat when he wrote his final letters. The real problem was that Stalin promoted the bureaucracy and the nomenklatura promoted him. Trotsky identified these dangers, and I don't think the left communists have ever come around to them.

Actually when Trotsky finally came round to opposing Stalinism in any real way, the left communists had been expelled from the party and thrown into the camps years earlier. The left communists realised the dangers of the situation earlier, and expressed them more clearly. Trotsky lined up with Stalin against them.


Lenin and the left communists were engaging in heavy polemics in the early 1920's. Please be more specific.

Support for parlimentarianism, trade unionism, and national liberation. The arguments of the second congress.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Again I stress that it is impossible to give an exact answer, but if you want a date, I would say 1916.

That basically contradicts your other arguments.


Well, yes, but Brest-Litovsk is a year after the April thesis. The left communists were defeated on Brest-Litovsk, but Lenin took up the arguments of the left, and made them the position of the party in 1917 after the February revolution. What was known as Bolshevism in October was fundemantally based on the positions of the left.

No, Lenin didn't "take up the arguments of the left", he established the policy of the Bolsheviks with the April Theses. That was the result of the development of Lenin's thought, which Imperialism was a part of. The Bolsheviks and the "lefts" disagreed mostly on post-revolutionary policy.


This is the same Lenin that wrote 'The Nascent Trend of Imperialist Economism' in 1916 then:

That is fundamentally different. Lenin was talking of the possibility of worldwide proletarian revolution, not just in a backwards country like the Russian Empire. He was right, in that the struggles of the Russian workers and peasants was central to the struggles of the workers of developed countries.


Or was that a different Lenin? In reality the February revolution showed Lenin that Pyatakov was actually right when he said that:

Lenin was advocating the same policy barely six months after he had been attacking it.

Lenin never went back on self-determination and national liberation against imperialism. He DID, however, encourage class consciousness in the fight against world capital. The two quotes you used don't contradict one another.


This isn't playing with semantics. You talk about 'issues' and then come up with one issue. Please name another.

Also, Lenin and Trotsky opposed each other fundamentally on Brest-Litovsk.

Also, a the start of the negotiations Lenin did not have the support of the majority within the party, or within the working class. I suggest you go back to Lenin.

It's called an example of a wider trend.

They came to agree on it, IIRC. Trotsky himself was central in the final signing of the treaty.

Yes, but both the party and the working class came to support Lenin in that decision. To invite war with Germany would have been stupid and suicidal.


The civil war hadn't really begun at this point, certainly the foreign intervention hadn't. They were fighting no foreign armies at the start of the negotiations.

No foreign armies? The German army was in Ukraine and threatening major cities. That was the whole point of the treaty. The Bolsheviks had promised an end to the fighting, and the reality necessitated its end; the treaty was beyond necessary.

You ignored my point, by the way. I said that the Civil War, in hindsight, showed that Lenin was correct. That is part of why he won over everyone except for the lefts.


So much for what 'everyone knew to be true'. Again check your history.

There was no way the Bolsheviks could have fought Germany. That's basically a fact. Whether or not people had accepted the fact at the time is tangential, because Lenin recognized it and convinced people of it.


The whole Trotskyist line of 'degenerate' or 'deformed' worker's sates is so patently absurd that I don't really feel a need to argue against it.

Typical. Trotsky's analysis of the worker state remains unrefuted. The ultra-left notion of "state capitalism" is beyond insipid and incorrect. The ultra-lefts, to no one's surprise, ignore social relations and the mode of production in favor of their delusional ideas.

You "don't really feel a need to argue against it"? Here's a hint: it's probably because you can't.


And the bureaucracy came from where exactly? I think that you will find that it was the party.

Not exactly. The bureaucracy's power was drawn from material conditions, not the party. The nomenklatura was able to develop thanks to isolation of the revolution; basically, a reliance on bureaucratic means of governance encouraged its growth. Sure, party cadres became bureaucrats, but to blame the party is nonsensical and anti-materialist.


So you have gone from saying that the left communist were irrelevant to saying that they were responsible for the isolation of the Russian revolution. That is a pretty big leap.

Irrelevant in terms of making revolutions. Successful in terms of failure and immature criticism of revolutionary movements. Sure, you got me there.


Do you really think I haven't read them.

I don't think you've read them closely enough.


Actually when Trotsky finally came round to opposing Stalinism in any real way, the left communists had been expelled from the party and thrown into the camps years earlier. The left communists realised the dangers of the situation earlier, and expressed them more clearly. Trotsky lined up with Stalin against them.

Stalinism became a force after Trotsky was isolated within the party. Trotsky and the left opposition was demonized by Bukharin and Zinoviev, and by 1926 Trotsky was getting drowned out by jeers. The left communists got expelled for other reasons, not for opposing Stalinism (which they couldn't, seeing as it wasn't around until the late 20's). You're trying to rewrite history to suit your desires, again.

Trotsky roundly rejected the ideas of the lefts, and rightfully so.


Support for parlimentarianism, trade unionism, and national liberation. The arguments of the second congress.

Devrim

An inability to support unions and struggles against imperialism. The cornerstones of the ultra-lefts.

[Devrim]

Manic Expression, it is very difficult to discuss things with you when you change your statements from post to post, and keep distorting history (whether deliberately or through lack of knowledge).

This, however, does need comment:


Typical. Trotsky's analysis of the worker state remains unrefuted. The ultra-left notion of "state capitalism" is beyond insipid and incorrect. The ultra-lefts, to no one's surprise, ignore social relations and the mode of production in favor of their delusional ideas.

You "don't really feel a need to argue against it"? Here's a hint: it's probably because you can't.

Personally I feel quite capable of arguing against Trotsky's analysis. That though really isn't the point. If I didn't feel that it was possible to argue against Trotsky's argument (whether an individual feels personally capable of doing it is beside the point), I would agree with Trotsky's position. This is how human beings function. Generally, they tend not to hold to things that they don't believe to be true.

Basically, Trotsky's position is very weak and fails to see past judicial property relationships. In Trotsky's defence, however, he realised that the theory had weaknesses and that he would have been forced to change it if the end of the war didn't result in either a political revolution in the USSR, or the restoration of capitalism.
Neither of these, of course, happened. The leaders of the 4th international didn't have the wit to realise that their theory was finished, and carried on regardless.

Devrim