Left Communists

[Sendo]

This excerpt identifies what is most....frustrating about LCs to me.


The working class in China was crushed in 1927.

There was nothing socialist at all about the 1949 'revolution' in China.

Devrim

To this I would respond:

So unless everyone in society is employed by one of a few giant capitals in a "last days" of capitalism dystopia there can be no socialist revolution?

What do Left Communists suggest? We just *****, moan, set up Internet-based study groups and wait for the revolutionary conditions in the Church of Ultraleft purity?

I'm starting to think Chomsky may have it wrong when it comes to Left Communists, at least today. Maybe he just uses the term to describe all non-Bolshevik Marxists, I don't know. While I'm on the fences I find that anarchists and commies of many shades get along except for reasons of tactics, or anarchists simply just don't like vanguardism or dictatorships or standing armies (a justifiable position). Both can criticize imperialism and capitalism and give degrees of support to leftist nations. Left commies on the other hand, only seem to exist to give blanket put-downs on EVERY revolution or movement and show no preference for the US vs. Cuba vs. Maoist China vs. USSR vs. Venezuela....none of it matters, because we are ALL sinners in the eyes of left communists.

Sorry to single you out Devrim, I just thought that this quotation best showed what I'm talking about. I am also exaggerating to a degree, but it stands to me at least, that self-avowed Left Communists only seem to jump in other discussions to enlighten us as to how we should arguing at all about something, that it's irrelevant, because it isn't even socialist. Some of the Hoxhaists and Trotskyists who sound like broken records at least bring up facts and make it relevant to discussion. I'd rather listen to another endless debate of Stalin: Messiah or Asshole. It seems like LCs only come on to shut down discussions and usually have little to add about ongoings today or little to about. It's like hearing OI sockpuppet come interrupting to tell us how wrong we all are. Give it a rest, please.

[black magick hustla]

Well its just that left communists belive workers have no benefits in being send to die for the leftist "bourgeoisie". You may think it is *****ing and moaning, I personally think that is a step up towards clarification and the building of an independent working class force. Its not a question of "purity", its a question of what we believe to be immediate interests.

[Devrim]

Sorry to single you out Devrim,

No, problem.


Left commies on the other hand, only seem to... show no preference for the US vs. Cuba vs. Maoist China vs. USSR vs. Venezuela....none of it matters, because we are ALL sinners in the eyes of left communists.

I think that this is the central point here. We think that all of these states are/were capitalist. Why then should we show any preference for any of them?


I am also exaggerating to a degree, but it stands to me at least, that self-avowed Left Communists only seem to jump in other discussions to enlighten us as to how we should arguing at all about something, that it's irrelevant, because it isn't even socialist.

So if we think that something has nothing to do with socialism, or is anti-working class, do you think that we should be quite about it?


It seems like LCs only come on to shut down discussions and usually have little to add about ongoings today or little to about. It's like hearing OI sockpuppet come interrupting to tell us how wrong we all are. Give it a rest, please.

It seems to me that lots of people on here are interested in discussing our ideas. Considering that there are only three left communists who post regularly on here what we have to say gets talked about an awful lot.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I think that this is the central point here. We think that all of these states are/were capitalist. Why then should we show any preference for any of them?

Given that socialist revolution is not a real possibility in any state at the current time, mainly due to the lack of an effective vanguard organization, socialists should recognize that not all capitalist states are the same and, in the event of a war between two capitalist states, which state is victorious will have an effect on the condition of the working class, especially when the government of one state is progressive in some respects, as in the case of Cuba, which, despite the alleged existence of a parasitic ruling class and the negative impacts of the embargo, is one of the only states to maintain a comprehensive system of healthcare provision, and guarantee employment for all of its citizens. By asserting that socialists should not show "preference" for any capitalist state, left communists are taking an elitist position which disregards the importance of basic economic issues (such as healthcare and employment) which are a central concern for millions of workers throughout the world.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don’t necessarily see everyone as “sinners” rather I see some people as “believers in denial”. Call me a political snob, as Trotsky once put it, but I just don’t see anything communist about China, Russia, Cuba, or Vietnam. In fact I see the exact opposite, Capitalism.

Is it because so and so betrayed something or other? No, it’s because that’s what material conditions called for in those countries.

But let’s say I was wrong. Let’s say Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution holds true.

Is it possible for a small, undeveloped working class in a backwards country with proper leadership and the correct line to complete the tasks of a Bourgeoisie and a communist revolution?

It hasn’t happened yet.

You guys do a bang up job of getting the minimum program achieved, I will admit, but you never seem to reach that higher stage.

Is this because Marxism is a flawed theory? No, if anything it shows us the validity of Historical Materialism.

As Marx said “Men make their own history but they do not make it as they please.”

[Yehuda Stern]

I would like, first of all, to point out that not only left communists, but also several Trotskyist groups, such as mine (the IS tendency is of course a much more prominent example), regard China's revolution as bourgeois and consequently the state that resulted as capitalist. The same holds true for the other Stalinist states, including the USSR after 1939. I just don't sure the left-communists' definition of our epoch. To me, the epoch is one of the decay of capitalism, the imperialist stage, in which revolutionaries are duty bound to defend the oppressed countries against imperialism, while not forgetting to carry out the political fight - and eventually a socialist revolution - against the ruling class in those states.

[BobKKKindle$]

I would like, first of all, to point out that not only left communists, but also several Trotskyist groups, such as mine (the IS tendency is of course a much more prominent example), regard China's revolution as bourgeois and consequently the state that resulted as capitalistHowever, unorthodox Trotskyists such as those who belong to the IS tendency would still call for the unconditional defense of these states if they faced imperialist attack, because Trotskyists recognize that communists have an obligation to fight for the independence of oppresed nations against the aggression of the imperialist powers, even when we do not offer political support to the governments of these nations because they are hostile to the interests of the working class. Consider the IST's position on Cuba as an example:


Socialists today should defend Cuba against US imperialism, but we should not have illusions in the allegedly socialist character of the country.Castro and Cuba, Socialist Worker, Issue 2090 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14241)

[Devrim]

Is it because so and so betrayed something or other?

We would say that these parties betrayed the principle of internationalism by dragging the working class into bourgeois wars. There are always those on the 'left' who will argue for the defence of the nation on some spurious ground or another. Bob Kindles posts above are good examples of this.


Is it possible for a small, undeveloped working class in a backwards country with proper leadership and the correct line to complete the tasks of a Bourgeoisie and a communist revolution?Revolution in isolation is impossible.

Devrim

[Devrim]

However, unorthodox Trotskyists such as those who belong to the IS tendency would still call for the unconditional defense of these states if they faced imperialist attack...

Actually, at its origins the IS tendency was able to see that these wars are struggles between different powers, and that the working class had no interest in supporting them. This is the position that they took on Korea. By the time the Vietnam war came along the support that the NLF had amongst the student milieu made opportunism much more attractive to them than internationalism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I just don't sure the left-communists' definition of our epoch. To me, the epoch is one of the decay of capitalism, the imperialist stage, in which revolutionaries are duty bound to defend the oppressed countries against imperialism, while not forgetting to carry out the political fight - and eventually a socialist revolution - against the ruling class in those states.

Our characterisation of the epoch is very similar, for us capitalism is also in its decadent stage, and this is the age of imperialism, the period of war or revolution.

The conclusions that we draw are, however, very different. We say that no faction of the bourgeois is progressive today, and all of them are opposed to the proletariat.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

However, unorthodox Trotskyists such as those who belong to the IS tendency would still call for the unconditional defense of these states if they faced imperialist attack

You're way too optimistic about the IS. More often than not they are neutral in cases where one should defend a country against imperialism.


Our characterisation of the epoch is very similar, for us capitalism is also in its decadent stage, and this is the age of imperialism, the period of war or revolution.

The conclusions that we draw are, however, very different. We say that no faction of the bourgeois is progressive today, and all of them are opposed to the proletariat.

While this is all quite correct, Lenin took imperialism to mean that Marxists have to defend oppressed countries from attacks by imperialism without regard to the political nature of the regimes in those countries. Your position suggests otherwise.

[Devrim]

While this is all quite correct, Lenin took imperialism to mean that Marxists have to defend oppressed countries from attacks by imperialism without regard to the political nature of the regimes in those countries. Your position suggests otherwise.

Yes, in as much as he thought this, we think he was wrong.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Naturally - I am quite aware that we are different in our assessment of Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks in general.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While I'm on the fences I find that anarchists and commies of many shades get along except for reasons of tactics, or anarchists simply just don't like vanguardism or dictatorships or standing armies (a justifiable position). Both can criticize imperialism and capitalism and give degrees of support to leftist nations. Left commies on the other hand, only seem to exist to give blanket put-downs on EVERY revolution or movement and show no preference for the US vs. Cuba vs. Maoist China vs. USSR vs. Venezuela....none of it matters, because we are ALL sinners in the eyes of left communists.

Indeed, you'll find that there is almost no single class-struggle anarchist who adopts "left-wing childishness" in terms of the immediate struggle.

However, they may be tempted to fall into the cheap economism that plagues most existing left groups' minimum programs. :(

As for the national-liberation spat between Devrim and Yehuda, Lenin did NOT support the Irish equivalent of Hezbollah. His position on national liberation was more complicated (and "Republican-Socialist") than the simplistic, reductionist views of Devrim on one side and Yehuda on the other.

[Devrim]

Indeed, you'll find that there is almost no single class-struggle anarchist who adopts "left-wing childishness" in terms of the immediate struggle.

Once again Jacob, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. There are many anarchists who have the same ideas as us about 'immediate struggle'.


However, they may be tempted to fall into the cheap economism that plagues most existing left groups' minimum programs. :(

We don't have a minimum programme, Jacob, as is also the case with many anarchist groups. For us the opening of the periods of war, or revolution destroyed the difference between the maximum and minimum programme.


As for the national-liberation spat between Devrim and Yehuda, Lenin did NOT support the Irish equivalent of Hezbollah. His position on national liberation was more complicated (and "Republican-Socialist") than the simplistic, reductionist views of Devrim on one side and Yehuda on the other.

Hardly a spat here, Jacob. I would say more a clarification of positions. It took you to come in and be abusive.

On the point of Lenin's views. I would say that your right his position is a little more complicated theoretically than it is made out to be by Leninists today. He didn't support national liberation on principle. In practice though there positions are almost identical.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

What do Left Communists suggest? We just *****, moan, set up Internet-based study groups and wait for the revolutionary conditions in the Church of Ultraleft purity?

Adding to that, my problem with them and some Trotskyists is the perpetual arrogance in their tone. I don't know if educating people is part of their tactic or not, but if so, I find them to be much more successful at putting people off them. I'm here primarily to learn and try to be open to all arguments no matter what sect. But I'm only human and can't help getting distracted from the actual point someone is trying to make if their tone is elitist and condescending.

What I have also noticed is that despite their tirelessly attacking 'totalitarian' leftist currents, they stand out as actually being more dogmatic and intolerant of dissent that the most anti-revisionist of anti-revisionists. Whatever the topic, their attitude tends to be one of utter unwillingness to look at the other side of the coin and an apparent belief that they've got everything worked out.

That said, these are just random impressions that I don't mean to apply to every single Trotskyist or Left Communist and which doesn't really have much to do with their political positions. Also, this is only revleft - maybe these people are completely different in real life.

[black magick hustla]

What I have also noticed is that despite their tirelessly attacking 'totalitarian' leftist currents, they stand out as actually being more dogmatic and intolerant of dissent that the most anti-revisionist of anti-revisionists. Whatever the topic, their attitude is one of utter unwillingness to look at the other side of the coin and an apparent belief that they've got everything worked out.



I would rather call it "intransingence" than dogmaticism. I certainly think any communist worth their weight would take diamond hard positions on things like war (which we dont seem to agree here). I dont see how we are "intolerant" or "condescending" for disagreeing with the idea of backing imperialist war. I think most of us already saw the "other side of the coin", after all those are the values most of us probably grew up with.

[communard resolution]

I would rather call it "intransingence" than dogmaticism. I certainly think any communist worth their weight would take diamond hard positions on things like war (which we dont seem to agree here). I dont see how we are "intolerant" or "condescending" for disagreeing with the idea of backing imperialist war. I think most of us already saw the "other side of the coin", after all those are the values most of us probably grew up with.

I was not referring to that example, which we can debate further in the relevant thread. As I said, these are just some general impressions of Left Communists'/Trotskyists' behaviour in debate.

Also, it's not so much the position they're taking, it's the tone. Maybe I'm not a communist worth my weight, and I presume there's many others like me on here, at least from your point of view - fine. But assuming it's part of the Left Communists' tactic to change that at all rather than just give people edge, I think they should work on their attitudes.

I hope this was in any way constructive.

EDIT: I don't remember having a problem with your conduct in the war/Nazi Germany thread, in case you still think my post was motivated by that episode

[Yehuda Stern]

Adding to that, my problem with them and some Trotskyists is the perpetual arrogance in their tone. I don't know if educating people is part of their tactic or not, but if so, I find them to be much more successful at putting people off them.

I try very hard to be as nice as possible to anyone who doesn't treat me arrogantly or condescendingly. However, when people act like know-it-alls or try to play honor games, I tend to get ticked off and let the asshole in me out.

[black magick hustla]

What do you mean by "attitude"? Not telling people we think they are wrong? I dont remember me flaming, or in fact, any other person, someone for a loong time. In fact, I think we receive more abuse than anyone else. I simply state things like I think they are, or should I just put DISCLAIMER THIS IS MY OPINION? I certainly dont think people who disagree with me are stupid, I do think though that not taking itnransingent positions against capitalist war is simply something that cannot make you a communist.

[communard resolution]

I try very hard to be as nice as possible to anyone who doesn't treat me arrogantly or condescendingly. However, when people act like know-it-alls or try to play honor games, I tend to get ticked off and let the asshole in me out.

I can't blame you for that, I probably sometimes react in the same way.

[communard resolution]

What do you mean by "attitude"? Not telling people we think they are wrong?

No. By attitude, I mean talking down to people in a certain tone. It has nothing to do with your or my positions.


I certainly dont think people who disagree with me are stupid, I do think though that not taking itnransingent positions against capitalist war is simply something that cannot make you a communist.

I have no idea why you're still invoking that example. I already told you that I'm not basing my impression on your conduct in that debate. We can discuss this topic further in the relevant thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We don't have a minimum programme, Jacob, as is also the case with many anarchist groups. For us the opening of the periods of war, or revolution destroyed the difference between the maximum and minimum programme.

Oh boy:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/03.htm


The usual idea the man in the street has about the Bolsheviks, an idea encouraged by a press which slanders them, is that the Bolsheviks will never agree to a compromise with anybody.

The idea is flattering to us as the party of the revolutionary proletariat, for it proves that even our enemies are compelled to admit our loyalty to the fundamental principles of socialism and revolution. Nevertheless, we must say that this idea is wrong [...] The task of a truly revolutionary party is not to declare that it is impossible to renounce all compromises, but to be able, through all compromises, when they are unavoidable, to remain true to its principles, to its class, to its revolutionary purpose, to its task of paving the way for revolution and educating the mass of the people for victory in the revolution.

[...]

The Russian revolution is experiencing so abrupt and original a turn that we, as a party, may offer a voluntary compromise – true, not to our direct and main class enemy, the bourgeoisie, but to our nearest adversaries, the “ruling” petty-bourgeois-democratic parties, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.

[...]

The compromise would amount to the following: the Bolsheviks, without making any claim to participate in the government (which is impossible for the internationalists unless a dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasants has been realised), would refrain from demanding the immediate transfer of power to the proletariat and the poor peasants and from employing revolutionary methods of fighting for this demand. A condition that is self-evident and not new to the S.R.s and Mensheviks would be complete freedom of propaganda and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly without further delays or even at an earlier date.

The Mensheviks and S.R.s, being the government bloc, would then agree (assuming that the compromise had been reached) to form a government wholly and exclusively responsible to the Soviets, the latter taking over all power locally as well. This would constitute the “new” condition. I think the Bolsheviks would advance no other conditions, trusting that the revolution would proceed peacefully and party strife in the Soviets would be peacefully overcome thanks to really complete freedom of propaganda and to the immediate establishment of a new democracy in the composition of the Soviets (new elections) and in their functioning.

Perhaps this is already impossible? Perhaps. But if there is even one chance in a hundred, the attempt at realising this opportunity is still worth while.

Notwithstanding the postscript, I don't see how the above could be be seen as anything else but a minimum-maximum formulation by Lenin during the revolutionary period which left-communists praise.

[Random Precision]

Adding to that, my problem with them and some Trotskyists is the perpetual arrogance in their tone. I don't know if educating people is part of their tactic or not, but if so, I find them to be much more successful at putting people off them. I'm here primarily to learn and try to be open to all arguments no matter what sect. But I'm only human and can't help getting distracted from the actual point someone is trying to make if their tone is elitist and condescending.

What I have also noticed is that despite their tirelessly attacking 'totalitarian' leftist currents, they stand out as actually being more dogmatic and intolerant of dissent that the most anti-revisionist of anti-revisionists. Whatever the topic, their attitude tends to be one of utter unwillingness to look at the other side of the coin and an apparent belief that they've got everything worked out.

This is exactly my problem with left-communists (at least as they are represented on this site, I've never run across one in real life). I must admit that I was attracted to it at one point, but I was more than a bit turned off by their attitude of seeming to have all the answers. They know exactly where they stand on every struggle of the working class, and never have to question themselves on any issue. It's a very pedantic and dogma-laden worldview that focuses on the subjective entirely too much.

This is not, of course, intended to offend Devrim or Leo or Marmot, who seem to be cool enough guys. I expect they think about the same of my politics as I do of theirs.