Left Communism and its discontents

[Random Precision]

I do generally have major problems with left-communists. I think most of it lies in the fact that most other leftist formations are open to some amount of political critique of their positions, and try to reason with other leftists. Even the reformist IMT, which often frustrates me more than both LCs and Maoists, is actually angry at other leftists for being trapped in a "sectarian ghetto".

Whereas Left Communists (and I mean the ones we have today, not the ones of 80 years ago, who I can sometimes tolerate) remain convinced that the whole leftist project is completely unsalvageable, and come off as incredibly smug about it. They know down to every fucking detail where they stand on every issue concerning the left, without having to think for a second about it. And anything that falls outside of their view- well, that's just completely anti-worker.

That being said, I've voted yes, because after her outburst at me she demonstrated some maturity by apologizing for the insults and even repping my post. I hope this shows a sign of her behavior in the CC.

[Devrim]

And anything that falls outside of their view- well, that's just completely anti-worker.

I don't think that it is every little thing that falls outside our view. It is actually quite a big thing like supporting imperialist wars.


Whereas Left Communists (and I mean the ones we have today, not the ones of 80 years ago, who I can sometimes tolerate) remain convinced that the whole leftist project is completely unsalvageable, and come off as incredibly smug about it.

Yes, we thing that 'the whole leftist project is completely unsalvageable'. We think that the Trotskyism for example betrayed the working class when it supported the Second imperialist war just as Social democracy did with the first.


They know down to every fucking detail where they stand on every issue concerning the left, without having to think for a second about it.

You seem to be criticising people for being knowledgeable here.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

I do generally have major problems with left-communists. I think most of it lies in the fact that most other leftist formations are open to some amount of political critique of their positions, and try to reason with other leftists. Even the reformist IMT, which often frustrates me more than both LCs and Maoists, is actually angry at other leftists for being trapped in a "sectarian ghetto".

Whereas Left Communists (and I mean the ones we have today, not the ones of 80 years ago, who I can sometimes tolerate) remain convinced that the whole leftist project is completely unsalvageable, and come off as incredibly smug about it. They know down to every fucking detail where they stand on every issue concerning the left, without having to think for a second about it. And anything that falls outside of their view- well, that's just completely anti-worker.

That being said, I've voted yes, because after her outburst at me she demonstrated some maturity by apologizing for the insults and even repping my post. I hope this shows a sign of her behavior in the CC.

This post you've made is anti-worker. And probably nationalist too.

[Bilan]

This post you've made is anti-worker. And probably nationalist too.

cranky because you support national liberation and get called up on it? :lol:

[Random Precision]

You seem to be criticising people for being knowledgeable here.

No. I'm criticizing people for being dogmatic. You guys have the whole truth, all of it, and take it for granted that other revolutionary tendencies, having "betrayed the working class" (read: betrayed your idea of working class principles) at some point or another, are completely wrong and thus we are completely unsalvageable.

[Labor Shall Rule]

No. I'm criticizing people for being dogmatic. You guys have the whole truth, all of it, and take it for granted that other revolutionary tendencies, having "betrayed the working class" (read: betrayed your idea of working class principles) at some point or another, are completely wrong and thus we are completely unsalvageable.

Which is why I totally can't take having another ultra-leftist on board.

[black magick hustla]

Well you support mass-murderers like Sendero Luminoso, I guess you can have it when people call you out on that shit however.

[Bilan]

No. I'm criticizing people for being dogmatic. You guys have the whole truth, all of it, and take it for granted that other revolutionary tendencies, having "betrayed the working class" (read: betrayed your idea of working class principles) at some point or another, are completely wrong and thus we are completely unsalvageable.

If you take that out of context, yeah, it sounds weird - in context to the rubbish people support, it's not at all. National Liberation, bourgeois/reactionary militias under a guise of anti-imperialism, the use of the bourgeois political system. Those are anti-working class.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well you support mass-murderers like Sendero Luminoso, I guess you can have it when people call you out on that shit however.

Oh no, 'mass murderers'!? I'm heart broken! A guerrilla movement based in the rural areas that actually killed people?

[black magick hustla]

Oh no, 'mass murderers'!? I'm heart broken! A guerrilla movement based in the rural areas actually killed people?

Yeah, it decimated a whole village with machetes, including unarmed children. I guess this might not prove a problem to you because of your overall disgusting politics, but unfortunately most of us are human.

[Bilan]

Oh no, 'mass murderers'!? I'm heart broken! A guerrilla movement based in the rural areas actually killed people?

Case closed.

[Random Precision]

If you take that out of context, yeah, it sounds weird - in context to the rubbish people support, it's not at all. National Liberation, bourgeois/reactionary militias under a guise of anti-imperialism, the use of the bourgeois political system. Those are anti-working class.

If you take support for national liberation out of context, then it might appear that it is anti-working class. That is to say, if you don't recognize that liberation of the nation from imperialism is a step in the process that ends with social revolution and helps clear the way for that action, it might appear that the workers fighting for national-liberation lay themselves down for their own ruling class.

The problem with that viewpoint is that it only takes things as they appear during a struggle for national liberation without looking forward to when the workers of the nation (that has now been liberated from imperialism) will deal with their own ruling class.

[Tower of Bebel]

Some tend to forget that left-communists are actually comrades :(. They don't question the emancipation of the working class by smashing the capitalist state; they are internationalists and they recognize the class struggle.

[Bilan]

If you take support for national liberation out of context, then it might appear that it is anti-working class. That is to say, if you don't recognize that liberation of the nation from imperialism is a step in the process that ends with social revolution and helps clear the way for that action, it might appear that the workers fighting for national-liberation lay themselves down for their own ruling class.

It doesn't appear, it manifests as completely that.
National liberation unites two opposing class to oust an occupier, at which point, even if successful in pushing the 'foreign' occupiers out, results in much the same as this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch01.htm)
Perhaps if you ignore history - for the sake of supporting symbolic action and men and women with guns telling an imperialist to fuck off - then you can support National Liberation and other bourgeois movements.



The problem with that viewpoint is that it only takes things as they appear during a struggle for national liberation without looking forward to when the workers of the nation (that has now been liberated from imperialism) will deal with their own ruling class.


Oh yeah, because that's what happens when you unite two opposing classes to push out an invader! Everytime, right?

[Random Precision]

Oh yeah, because that's what happens when you unite two opposing classes to push out an invader! Everytime, right?

Sigh. The "it's never happened before" argument makes just as much sense as saying Marxism is a bankrupt system because of the behavior of the states that claimed to be Marxist.

Read this thing (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/abc.htm), as for me, I think I'll check out.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yeah, it decimated a whole village with machetes, including unarmed children. I guess this might not prove a problem to you because of your overall disgusting politics, but unfortunately most of us are human.

Children died too? Oh no! That's terrible!

I want to defeat the military and political supremacy of the Superpower. I also want Peru to become an independent capitalist state.

What else do you want me to say? I can use up tissue boxes from my comfy 'first' world home, and sadden myself over how children died, or I can lend a hand in international solidarity with those that are fighting to be human. In my evaluation of Sendero Luminoso, they are more than just a few Blanquists (at least in the 90's), but a legitimate national liberation movement.

I'm interested: what's the ultra-left position on the Mau-Mau, or on 'anti-colonial' resistance movements prior to 1960 that were violent to white settlers?

[black magick hustla]

"
What else do you want me to say? I can use up tissue boxes from my comfy 'first' world home, and sadden myself over how children died, or I can lend a hand in international solidarity with those that are fighting to be human."

In the contrary, it is quite telling that it is easier in your first world comfy home to dismiss massacres, which were not just "excesses", but gravely calculated executions, all in the name of the revolution. After all this kind of violence to you is just a spectacle.


I want to defeat the military and political supremacy of the Superpower. I also want Peru to become an independent capitalist state.

And this is part of why you have terrible politics. I want to defeat capitalism and have workers revolution. That is why I do not see in this quabbles for independent capitalism any sort of communist interests, because besides there is no such thing as independent capitalism.


'm interested: what's the ultra-left position on the Mau-Mau, or on 'anti-colonial' resistance movements prior to 1960 that were violent to white settlers?

We reject national liberation movements. If we did not, we would be encouraging native americans, black people, and hispanics to start randomly murdering white folks, because that is the conclusion of such thesis.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yes, but it's hard to have a 'worker's revolution' if the productive forces aren't developed to the point of making a pool of proletariat a vulnerable political force - when bourgeois-nationalist (not 'fascist', but 'national liberation') ideology prevails, it shows that the material base of superstructure is at a economic level that affirms the necessity of accumulating a profit for the local capitalists, due to the constraints of imperialism on overall development. It's a classic Marxist position.

Trotsky (along with other 'ultra-leftists') have suggested that general capitalist growth is impossible in the 'developing' (i.e. neo-colonial) world due to the local bourgeois and junta's ties to the imperialists. It's the general thesis of your political tradition - that capitalism is no longer 'progressive' whatsoever, hence it's 'anti-worker' to support any developing movements in poor, illiterate backwaters that are used like a well pump by the 'developed' nations. This, of course, is not true - Leon's overall premise is false, since general capitalist growth has occurred under the epoch of imperialism, but not without a fight. There have been several 'national' revolutions (including, in my opinion, the Russian Revolution) that has unseated the influence of the Euro-American alliance.


We reject national liberation movements. If we did not, we would be encouraging native americans, black people, and hispanics to start randomly murdering white folks, because that is the conclusion of such thesis.No, it does not. I was referring to movements in history, not to actual political summations you can make today; though national oppression exists, it's clear that the settler dynamic is no longer in operation.

Also, how do you feel about the English and American Revolution? You know, a 'proletariat' (mechanics, laborers, contract artisans) existed in America, does that mean that bourgeois forces were 'outdated' in the colonies? For what reason do you think bourgeois revolutions are no longer necessary?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some tend to forget that left-communists are actually comrades :(. They don't question the emancipation of the working class by smashing the capitalist state; they are internationalists and they recognize the class struggle.

I think this post summarizes what's wrong with the "maintream" revleft critique of Left Communism. I have my criticisms regarding their dubious commitment to the merger formula, but on the other hand their criticisms of the current fetish for "national liberation" (no, I don't mean republican socialism, the opposition to which Lenin would've called "Right-Economist," but rather "We are all Hezbollah!" or "We are all Taliban!" crap) and the vulgarization of today's minimum programs (although the rejection of such tantamounts to "Left-Economist") are spot on.



Comrade JimmyJazz suggested aptly that, as part of a "left unity" project, any sort of national anti-imperialist campaigning should be done outside the party (perhaps frontism would apply here) UNLESS the war happens to be like the past world wars. That way, left-communists can stay inside and critique, while the national anti-imperialists can do their thing when they aren't doing party work.

[Bilan]

Sigh. The "it's never happened before" argument makes just as much sense as saying Marxism is a bankrupt system because of the behavior of the states that claimed to be Marxist.

Read this thing (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1969/abc/abc.htm), as for me, I think I'll check out.

It's actually extremely different to the argument against Marxism.
Firstly, national liberation does not have an exact political end - it is limited to sovereignty, or, the removal of a foreign occupier.
Marxism is not like this.
Secondly, national liberation movements with socialist direction have failed many, many times. This is due to their collaboration with the bourgeoisie - and ultimately, the subordination of their class interests (Which IMO comes first) for bourgeois national interests - and their abandonment of internationalism in favour of home grown nationalism. The repercussions of this type of nationalist socialism (not in the Nazi sense, obviously) really do speak for themselves.

the text I linked you to from Marx was about a very similar instance.
French Proletariat collaborated with the bourgeoisie.
Following success, the bourgeoisie turned on the workers (shock horror).
The workers tried to revolt against this, and failed.

Success for proletarian revolution is international - it has no national boundaries. It does not recognize collaboration with those whose class activity perpetuates their subordination.
National liberation is contrary to this.

[black magick hustla]

Yes, but it's hard to have a 'worker's revolution' if the productive forces aren't developed to the point of making a pool of proletariat a vulnerable political force - when bourgeois-nationalist (not 'fascist', but 'national liberation') ideology prevails, it shows that the material base of superstructure is at a economic level that affirms the necessity of accumulating a profit for the local capitalists, due to the constraints of imperialism on overall development. It's a classic Marxist position.

When "bourgeois-nationalism" prevails is because the ideas of the ruling class are the ones dominant. The thing that it affirms is the nature of the socio-economic order but it does not affirm what kind of moral imperative communists have. "Bourgeois nationalism" is prevalent in every corner of the earth.

Capitalism is a world system, for a communist platform it makes no sense to analyze each country's economy as a separated cell rather, as a world economy. Peruvian economy cannot meaningfully progress beyond the limits of international capital today. Almost, if not all countries who had "marxist" national liberation movements, like Zimbawbe, did not benefit of their seeming "independent" status. I type independent in apostrophes because there is no such thing as an indepdent economy.


Trotsky (along with other 'ultra-leftists') have suggested that general capitalist growth is impossible in the 'developing' (i.e. neo-colonial) world due to the local bourgeois and junta's ties to the imperialists. It's the general thesis of your political tradition - that capitalism is no longer 'progressive' whatsoever, hence it's 'anti-worker' to support any developing movements in poor, illiterate backwaters that are used like a well pump by the 'developed' nations. This, of course, is not true - Leon's overall premise is false, since general capitalist growth has occurred under the epoch of imperialism, but not without a fight. There have been several 'national' revolutions (including, in my opinion, the Russian Revolution) that has unseated the influence of the Euro-American alliance.
We communists do not give a damn if the "unseated influence" comes from either Americans, Europeans, or mexicans. We know, however, that imperialism is a world system, and that every country is going to form imperialist alliances or try to become an imperialist superpower. Our thesis does not imply that there will be always an unseated influence of western countries, on the contrary, we feel there is a general decomposition and this alliances are always in flux.





No, it does not. I was referring to movements in history, not to actual political summations you can make today; though national oppression exists, it's clear that the settler dynamic is no longer in operation.
National liberation does not imply an opposition to "settler dynamic", there is not a settler dynamic in kurdistan. I do not see what is the difference from native americans and hispanics murdering white people to attain thew political goal of national liberation, as lets say, sendero luminoso murdering children to attain a political leverage against the state.



Also, how do you feel about the English and American Revolution? You know, a 'proletariat' (mechanics, laborers, contract artisans) existed in America, does that mean that bourgeois forces were 'outdated' in the colonies? For what reason do you think bourgeois revolutions are no longer necessary?

We nbelieve bourgeois revolutions are neither necessary or possible because after WWI it was clear that the economy had attained a world status and that it was already decadent when unions and social democracy encouraged world war.

[black magick hustla]

Yes, but it's hard to have a 'worker's revolution' if the productive forces aren't developed to the point of making a pool of proletariat a vulnerable political force - when bourgeois-nationalist (not 'fascist', but 'national liberation') ideology prevails, it shows that the material base of superstructure is at a economic level that affirms the necessity of accumulating a profit for the local capitalists, due to the constraints of imperialism on overall development. It's a classic Marxist position.

When "bourgeois-nationalism" prevails is because the ideas of the ruling class are the ones dominant. The thing that it affirms is the nature of the socio-economic order but it does not affirm what kind of moral imperative communists have. "Bourgeois nationalism" is prevalent in every corner of the earth.

Capitalism is a world system, for a communist platform it makes no sense to analyze each country's economy as a separated cell rather, as a world economy. Peruvian economy cannot meaningfully progress beyond the limits of international capital today. Almost, if not all countries who had "marxist" national liberation movements, like Zimbawbe, did not benefit of their seeming "independent" status. I type independent in apostrophes because there is no such thing as an indepdent economy.


Trotsky (along with other 'ultra-leftists') have suggested that general capitalist growth is impossible in the 'developing' (i.e. neo-colonial) world due to the local bourgeois and junta's ties to the imperialists. It's the general thesis of your political tradition - that capitalism is no longer 'progressive' whatsoever, hence it's 'anti-worker' to support any developing movements in poor, illiterate backwaters that are used like a well pump by the 'developed' nations. This, of course, is not true - Leon's overall premise is false, since general capitalist growth has occurred under the epoch of imperialism, but not without a fight. There have been several 'national' revolutions (including, in my opinion, the Russian Revolution) that has unseated the influence of the Euro-American alliance.
We communists do not give a damn if the "unseated influence" comes from either Americans, Europeans, or mexicans. We know, however, that imperialism is a world system, and that every country is going to form imperialist alliances or try to become an imperialist superpower. Our thesis does not imply that there will be always an unseated influence of western countries, on the contrary, we feel there is a general decomposition and this alliances are always in flux.





No, it does not. I was referring to movements in history, not to actual political summations you can make today; though national oppression exists, it's clear that the settler dynamic is no longer in operation.
National liberation does not imply an opposition to "settler dynamic", there is not a settler dynamic in kurdistan. I do not see what is the difference from native americans and hispanics murdering white people to attain thew political goal of national liberation, as lets say, sendero luminoso murdering children to attain a political leverage against the state.



Also, how do you feel about the English and American Revolution? You know, a 'proletariat' (mechanics, laborers, contract artisans) existed in America, does that mean that bourgeois forces were 'outdated' in the colonies? For what reason do you think bourgeois revolutions are no longer necessary?

We nbelieve bourgeois revolutions are neither necessary or possible because after WWI it was clear that the economy had attained a world status and that it was already decadent when unions and social democracy encouraged world war.

[PRC-UTE]

cranky because you support national liberation and get called up on it? :lol:


nah, it's the because they create invalid premises:


that national liberation is bourgeois (for instance the Irish bourgeoisie don't support any of the anti-imperialist currents, this seems to hold true in most other oppressed nations and has been commented upon by communists for generations now);

or claiming they're "ethnic gangsters", even if this is untrue. in fact it's ethnic identity politics that's reshaped and twisted the universalist goals of former anti-imperialist revolutionaries like the IRA, ANC etc. there is a whole literature on this subject- in other words, classical ethnic nationalism is not synonymous with anti imperialism;

or dismissing national liberation on the grounds that no nation can be completely sovereign anyway, so it doesn't matter, which is a false dichtomy. surely some measures of self determination are preferable to violent occupations, "frontier" wars and the like;

and generally just simplifying the issue to the point of stupidity ('all nations are imperialist anyway' is another nonsensical doctrine they hold which contradicts the denial that there is any sovereignty, since imperialism must originate from a particular state and its polity if you trace it back far enough);

then the conclusions they draw, like claiming national liberation is bourgeois and betrays the proletariat or will cause the proletariat's ruin thus seem very logical because they are valid to draw from the premise. They are if you accept the way they frame the debate, but it's not actually sound or factual for reasons previously mentioned. This takes amusing forms such as when Leo I believe it was quoted Connolly to me in an effort to debunk republican socialism, seemingly unaware that republican socialism is based on Connolly’s analysis(!) recall that Marx himself supported national liberation on the grounds that it could weaken empire's and create opportunities for revolution. that view seems vindicated by history.

on top of that, they offer no concrete specific advisement to form an alternative to what workers should do under an occupation (see the debate on anti imperialism between Leo and LZ). So why should we listen to their critiques- without an alternative concrete course of action suggested it is merely whining.

[Devrim]

This takes amusing forms such as when Leo I believe it was quoted Connolly to me in an effort to debunk republican socialism, seemingly unaware that republican socialism is based on Connolly’s analysis(!)

Well yeah, he is young, he comes from another continent, and maybe he didn't know something. I don't think there is a contradiction in Leo's argument. I think there is a difference in Conolly's position between in 1913 when there were powerful working class struggles, and 1916.


on top of that, they offer no concrete specific advisement to form an alternative to what workers should do under an occupation (see the debate on anti imperialism between Leo and LZ). So why should we listen to their critiques- without an alternative concrete course of action suggested it is merely whining.

Even if we didn't, which is untrue, it would still be a better alternative than dragging the working class into ethnic war.

Devrim

[Leo]

Labor Shall Rule's posts in general reek so much with liberal chauvinism that they are not even worth responding to.

I will comment on things PRC-UTE said though:


This takes amusing forms such as when Leo I believe it was quoted Connolly to me in an effort to debunk republican socialism,I think you are confusing Connolly with Sean O'Casey, I don't remember quoting Connolly... ever in fact.



on top of that, they offer no concrete specific advisement to form an alternative to what workers should do under an occupation (see the debate on anti imperialism between Leo and LZ)Yeah, lets see that debate in fact:


No, all the murder, committed by all different bourgeois factions, is imperialist barbarism in Iraq, and should be completely condemned, and the only possible alternative to this barbarism is the proletariat rising and challenging all bourgeois factions.
(...)
In Turkey, there was a left wing of the Communist Party which always argued against, tried to work around and simply never put into practice the directives of the Communist International. They were genuine internationalists who opposed the war and condemned the Turkish bourgeois government at all times. Despite facing all the suppression of the nationalist government, at their peak, the "Red Unions" they organized had more than 20,000 members, they were heavily involved in the strikes of 30,000 in 1923, they organized workers congresses where more than 50,000 workers were represented, and all this they did being a party that started off as a dozen militants in a few small cities in inner Anatolia formed a couple of years earlier. They never forgot that who they were facing was their class enemy.

Although workers might be pulled into nationalist feelings, they still have class interests, and those class interests of theirs make them very disturbed, especially at times of war, regardless of the fact that the war is labeled as a "progressive national liberation" war. It is the task of the communists to appeal to those class interests, not to the nationalist feelings created by bourgeois ideology.
(...)
call for fraternalization between all proletarians in Iraq against all bourgeois factions, this includes the Americans soldiers, as well as the foot soldiers of the different resistance group. I call for a condemnation of all imperialist gangs in the region, and a struggle for socialism.
It ain't my problem if you don't see fraternalization of workers from different backgrounds and proletarian revolution as a "concrete alternative" for the 'little brown fellas'.


that national liberation is bourgeoisYes, everyone who knows the first thing about marxism is aware that national struggles, by definition are bourgeois struggles.

When you state that there can be "proletarian nationalism", you come closer to proletarian nations theory than anything else.


or dismissing national liberation on the grounds that no nation can be completely sovereign anyway, so it doesn't matter, which is a false dichtomy.So, can you give an example of a completely sovereign nation?


all nations are imperialist anyway' is another nonsensical doctrine they hold which contradicts the denial that there is any sovereigntyWhy?


since imperialism must originate from a particular state and its polity if you trace it back far enoughSo?

[Labor Shall Rule]

National liberation does not imply an opposition to "settler dynamic", there is not a settler dynamic in kurdistan. I do not see what is the difference from native americans and hispanics murdering white people to attain thew political goal of national liberation, as lets say, sendero luminoso murdering children to attain a political leverage against the state.



Once again, I was asking you about how you felt about those movements in history, not today.

There are differences between fascism, national liberation, and Bonapartist 'patriotism' that you are not ackowleding - they are ideas apart of the political superstructure that are unique to each nation's social production, not universal 'propaganda' to trick the workers into being their folly. That's profoundly mechanical.

As so, capitalism is 'global', but local conditions persist due to the irregularities created by international capitalism (e.g. imperialism) - agriculture is more or less mechanized, but the relations generally associated with economic exploitation and dominance keep the productive forces from growing in the 'darker' nations. China, Russia, Cuba, and other 'socialist' nations have gone through bourgeois revolutions that have expanded the productive forces and opened new areas of accumulation.



We nbelieve bourgeois revolutions are neither necessary or possible because after WWI it was clear that the economy had attained a world status and that it was already decadent when unions and social democracy encouraged world war.


I'd say this: prove it.

As I said, growth has continued despite of projections that it would not, so capitalism is not 'deformed' or 'decadent' as of yet.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would like to clarify that the polemics against "Left Communism" on this board are directed specifically at the ICC and ICC sympathizers. Nobody upholding the positions of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (which rejects the ICC's position on "decadence") has been criticized directly.

[Leo]

This is not true, the IBRP does share the ICC positions on national liberation, unions, elections for today and what is being attacked is those positions, not decadence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Very well, then:

“Now a new Economism is being born. Its reasoning is similarly based on the two curvets: ‘Right’ – we are against the ‘right to self-determination’ (i.e., against the liberation of oppressed peoples, the struggle against annexations—that has not yet been fully thought out or clearly stated). ‘Left’ – we are opposed to a minimum programme (i.e., opposed to struggle for reforms and democracy) as ‘contradictory’ to socialist revolution. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/sep/00.htm)” (Lenin)

[Ever since Comrade Rakunin pointed out this profoundly true and important 1916 article, I couldn't resist quoting the above. :D ]

Going back to the standard two-front polemical war against anti-merger opponents of socialism and anti-merger opponents of the worker movement, Left Communism keeps socialism away from the worker movement through its sectarianism and the worker movement away from socialism by not providing key political (not so much economic) links between "bread and butter" struggles (and also "social issues" struggles that are the ideological basis of faddish "social movements") and the necessity for workers' power.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch02.htm


The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrasemongering and clowning. On the other hand, these conditions cannot emerge at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

This recollection and reaffirmation of that "profoundly true and important" merger formula clarified upon in the authoritative but woefully underrated Das Erfurter Programm, much more than all the Bolshevik mistakes in the Russian Civil War, is what drives [ultra-]left communists to declare the post-CW Lenin a "counter-revolutionary." :rolleyes:

[Bilan]

^^^
perhaps you can substantiate that with someone other than Kautsky and Lenin, who know about as much about Left Communism as they do about the Internet.
Perhaps base it on something left communists - e.g. luxemburg, or even an organization like the ICC - said, rather than shit critiques.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Perhaps you can substantiate that with someone other than Kautsky and Lenin, who know about as much about Left Communism as they do about the Internet.
Perhaps base it on something left communists - e.g. luxemburg, or even an organization like the ICC - said, rather than shit critiques.

While the true founder of "Marxism" did indeed "know as much about [Ultra-]Left Communism as [he did] about the Internet," critiques based on a proper understanding of the merger formula are NOT "shit critiques." :(

Mind you, typical Left communists very explicitly reject the merger formula in favour of Gramsci's half-witted "organic development" (when in fact historically socialism was developed by the bourgeois-intellectual utopians long before the worker movement came into existence). This rejection is most apparent in their blatant rejection of the necessity for class-party organization ("educate, agitate, organize") in favour of little information circles ("educate, agitate..."), as if woefully inexperienced workers can spontaneously organize even in the midst of objective obstacles (such as longer and longer work hours).

[Bilan]

While the true founder of "Marxism" did indeed "know about as much about [Ultra-]Left Communism as [he did] about the Internet," critiques based on a proper understanding of the merger formula are NOT "shit critiques." :(

Enough of the ultra. Slander is for the petty wankers who populate the sectarian no votes in the CC - they know who they are.
His critique is bollocks. Absolute shit.
I will pay State and Revolution is good, and Lenin was an intelligent man - no doubt. But Left Wing communism: an infantile disorder and Left Wing Childishness and Petit-bourgeois mentality (of which, interestingly, so few Leninsts seem to know of) are utter shite.
As I think Leo has said, it was the most right wing text Lenin had ever written - the same applies for the latter.



Mind you, [ultra-]left communists very explicitly reject the merger formula in favour of Gramsci's half-witted "organic development" (when in fact historically socialism was developed by the bourgeois-intellectual utopians long before the worker movement came into existence). This rejection is most apparent in their blatant rejection of the necessity for class-party organization ("educate, agitate, organize") in favour of little information circles ("educate, agitate..."), as if woefully inexperienced workers can spontaneously organize even in the midst of objective obstacles (such as longer and longer work hours).


There is truth and fiction in this. Truth in that the formulation of socialism as an idea often came from bourgeois intellectuals, but not alone. The practice of socialism came from the proletariat, however. And not just the most advanced sections, either.
And thats what counts. As Engels said, an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. This applies to the development of socialist theory, too.

Further, there is evidence in favour of the Left Communist way of thinking in regards to revolutionary action, and refusing the use of permanent organizations - such as unions, mass parties, so on.
Examples such as paris 68 - being a fantastic one - give evidence that its not just the party or organization (one would be naive to think so, anyway) which spark revolutionary activity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Enough of the ultra. Slander is for the petty wankers who populate the sectarian no votes in the CC - they know who they are.

My apologies. :(


His critique is bollocks. Absolute shit.

I was referring to the "founder," not to the "disciple." :confused:


Left Wing Childishness and Petit-bourgeois mentality (of which, interestingly, so few Leninists seem to know of) are utter shite.

You'll recall that I did quote that article in appendix to my first work. ;)


There is truth and fiction in this. Truth in that the formulation of socialism as an idea often came from bourgeois intellectuals, but not alone. The practice of socialism came from the proletariat, however. And not just the most advanced sections, either.
And thats what counts. As Engels said, an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. This applies to the development of socialist theory, too.

Well, at least we can agree here. BTW, I was NOT implying that socialism came exclusively from "bourgeois intellectuals," who are long gone through the proletarianization of intellectual work. :)

In terms of "most advanced sections," are you referring to the hyper-activists or the "theory nuts"? My position is that socialist consciousness is, these days, developed within the class, but outside the class movement (hence the necessity of the merger formula).


As I think Leo has said, it was the most right wing text Lenin had ever written - the same applies for the latter.

[...]

Further, there is evidence in favour of the Left Communist way of thinking in regards to revolutionary action, and refusing the use of permanent organizations - such as unions, mass parties, so on.
Examples such as paris 68 - being a fantastic one - give evidence that its not just the party or organization (one would be naive to think so, anyway) which spark revolutionary activity.

You may wish to read CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's profoundly true and important articles in 2006 (or the book equivalent, if you wish):

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=366&view=getnewpost

[Bilan]

My apologies. :(

:)




I was referring to the "founder," not to the "disciple." :confused:


Apologies, misread it.



You'll recall that I did quote that article in appendix to my first work. ;)


'bout time someone read it.




In terms of "most advanced sections," are you referring to the hyper-activists or the "theory nuts"? My position is that socialist consciousness is, these days, developed within the class, but outside the class movement (hence the necessity of the merger formula).

What?





You may wish to read CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's profoundly true and important articles in 2006 (or the book equivalent, if you wish):

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=366&view=getnewpost



Alright then.

[Tower of Bebel]

Further, there is evidence in favour of the Left Communist way of thinking in regards to revolutionary action, and refusing the use of permanent organizations - such as unions, mass parties, so on.
Examples such as paris 68 - being a fantastic one - give evidence that its not just the party or organization (one would be naive to think so, anyway) which spark revolutionary activity.
May '68 :(? But it failed miserably.

Parties (in the abstract) don't make the revolution: the proletariat does. That's an important principle. But party and proletariat are not necessarily two different things. The emancipation of the workers is the task of the working class as a whole and the formation of a revolutionary party, even a vanguard party, cannot oppose that.

And an unorganized proletariat is not ready to take power, because of child diseases: for the proletariat to have a world historical task of taking power and ending history as we have always known it (a history of class struggle), doesn't mean that a revolutionary upswing is a successful formula. That's a lesson from May '68; one in favor of so called "merger formulas".

[Bilan]

May '68 :(? But it failed miserably.

What I was referring to was the fact that the mass uprisings of the proletariat can take a class character without mass organizations - whether they'll succeed or not really comes down to material conditions, and the ability of the proletariat (in said situation) to organize itself.
It is when this occur that true self-emancipation of the proletariat can occur.
The fact that Paris 68 failed is much more complicated than dogmatic Trotskyists, irrational Leninsts, arrogant anarchists, and foolish others will portray it as. Such is life, however.



Parties (in the abstract) don't make the revolution: the proletariat does. That's an important principle. But party and proletariat are not necessarily two different things. The emancipation of the workers is the task of the working class as a whole and the formation of a revolutionary party, even a vanguard party, cannot oppose that.

No doubt. Bordiga really made that clear in Party and Class, no?



And an unorganized proletariat is not ready to take power, because of child diseases: for the proletariat to have a world historical task of taking power and ending history as we have always known it (a history of class struggle), doesn't mean that a revolutionary upswing is a successful formula. That's a lesson from May '68; one in favor of so called "merger formulas".

The nature and form of this organization determines that, really. Hell, even an organized proletariat hasn't successfully taken power! Had it, events like 36 would not have turned out the way they had.
The fact is that its material conditions, and factors relating to this, which will determine (in the end) the success of the uprising.

[Die Neue Zeit]

'bout time someone read it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html

Left-Wing Childishness had some key points, though. In spite of my problems with Lenin's retention of the Second International's monetary conception of "socialism" (*), that section where he explains what I call the "transitional multi-economy" was sheer brilliance.

* Lenin, more than Luxemburg or any other major communist of that time, came closest towards breaking from that monetarism, though, since he revisited the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Nevertheless, it's unfortunate he may not have known AT ALL the remarks made towards the end of Chapter 18 of Das Kapital, Volume II regarding the elimination of money-capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch18.htm#2).

[Sam_b]

Slander is for the petty wankers who populate the sectarian no votes in the CC - they know who they are.

For fucks sake, you telling me you've never voted no before?

[Bilan]

I quite clearly made clear who I was referring too. :)

And we only have to have a look through the reasons presented by those who voted No to see exactly why it's total tripe.

I mean really, voting against someone for not agreeing with you on Trade Unions...It is pathetic.

[Bilan]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html

Left-Wing Childishness had some key points, though. In spite of my problems with Lenin's retention of the Second International's monetary conception of "socialism" (*), that section where he explains what I call the "transitional multi-economy" was sheer brilliance.

* Lenin, more than Luxemburg or any other major communist of that time, came closest towards breaking from that monetarism, though, since he revisited the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Nevertheless, it's unfortunate he may not have known AT ALL the remarks made towards the end of Chapter 18 of Das Kapital, Volume II regarding the elimination of money-capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch18.htm#2).

Meh, I found it difficult to consider in any way good.



If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the “Left Communists” will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .
It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.



Speaks for itself, dunnit?

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the one hand, Lenin could be seen as implying "socialism in one country." On the other hand, like most of his other works, context is key. He was, according to the veritable historian Lars Lih, banking on the immediate fulfillment of the most profoundly true and important words of The Road to Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/index.htm) (the inspiration for the final chapter of my CSR work ;) ) on at least a continental scale.

[Bilan]

Context however does not override the point: Lenin was advocating State Capitalism.

[Tower of Bebel]

Speaks for itself, dunnit?
I think Lenin is right in some way. Even the ICC had an article which said that the left communists mentioned by Lenin made some mistakes that could "provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter". If we know that marxists fight for democracy then state capitalism (in the context of a possible breakthrough of the proletarian revolution on an international scale) isn't really a problem (you know: you cannot simply expect a revolution to build a new society with backward means).

[Leo]

Although i don't recall your ICC quote to begin with, considering that ICC agrees with the left communist criticisms of the degeneration of the Russian revolution, I would say that such criticism could only be made about the left communist positions about the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty.

[Tower of Bebel]

Although i don't recall your ICC quote to begin with, considering that ICC agrees with the left communist criticisms of the degeneration of the Russian revolution, I would say that such criticism could only be made about the left communist positions about the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty.The quote was from Lenin, and indeed I think that most criticisms had to do with the treaty.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder why "revolutionary" groups wanted the Bolsheviks to break one of their three slogan promises, even while knowing that Russia's military forces would collapse (as demonstrated by the German response to Trotsky's wavering).

[Random Precision]

I want to defeat the military and political supremacy of the Superpower. I also want Peru to become an independent capitalist state.

But what exactly is an "independent capitalist state"? Does it mean that the economy would be autarkic? Does the fight for "independent capitalism" mean that countries like Australia and Canada (as the CP of each seems to think) have to be freed from American capital also before the socialist revolution can come?

The problem with your perspective on this, Tom, is that the bourgeois revolutions in Latin America ended over a century ago. And after the dust had cleared from those revolutions, what the bourgeoisie did in every country of Latin America, including Peru, was to deliver their industries and agriculture straight over to American and European imperialism. Since then, it's become abundantly clear that the Latin American bourgeoisie (with a few exceptions) is perfectly content to be dominated by the United States, and has no interest in going "independent", as you call on them to do. It would be an ultimate waste of time (and much worse than that) for the Peruvian working class to try and break their own rulers away from American imperial interests. And I've no idea why you think that a new ruling class, provided by Sendero's 12 remaining cadre I suppose, would act any differently.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's obvious that the capitalists would consolidate a revolution after national independence, since it's in their objective interests (no matter how "patriotic" they are) to purchase the labor-power of workers for exploitation. If the 'national' capitalist can get a five percent return in a freed colony, and a two percent in a colonial situation, they'd surely choose national-liberation - which is what they've done, and what they will do, time and time again. I'd ask you this: why would the Baath Party nationalize the country’s oil from Shell, or why would the Saudi's not allow their oil to be ran by the old Seven Sisters-dominated Aramco, if they are such 'compradors'?

Ninety-percent of Canada's trade occurs with the United States - if I may quote a Canadian comrade, "you've got us by the balls." There is underdeveloped industry, in which there is essentially no manufacturing sector there. America refuses to abide by NAFTA rules on softwood lumber and beef exports also.

It's clearly a 'semi-colony' - capital is exported there - but that's not the question. It is this: is national-liberation a necessity? In Canada, no; but in Nepal or Bhutan? U.S. imperialism will "under-develop" everything that it touches like a poor version of Midas, but in areas of uncompleted bourgeois revolution, it stunts growth in such a way that could only trigger a national-democratic revolution.

[Random Precision]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Tom. I'll try to respond point-by-point, although I hope my post still essentially remains unified as a whole.


It's obvious that the capitalists would consolidate a revolution after national independence, since it's in their objective interests (no matter how "patriotic" they are) to purchase the labor-power of workers for exploitation. If the 'national' capitalist can get a five percent return in a freed colony, and a two percent in a colonial situation, they'd surely choose national-liberation - which is what they've done, and what they will do, time and time again.

First, historically that is not true. You have not addressed my example of Latin America, which is a pretty big region that you probably should consider.

Second, your figures of 2% versus 5% are made up and have no relevance. In fact your model would run into countless problems. Since we started with Peru, let’s take that country as an example. Were Peru to have a “national-democratic revolution”, it would face the issue of building an independent (as you say) national capitalism, which involves building many diverse industries from scratch. So, let’s take for example an auto industry, which Peru does not have. There would be truly massive cost in developing first models and finally plants for this industry, all to serve an incredibly limited national market. This would make for a far lower rate of return to the national bourgeoisie than they can get now from cooperation with American imperialism.

Then there’s the problem of natural resources. Peru has some very important mineral reserves, but not nearly all that are necessary for developing an independent capitalist economy. There’s also a huge shortage of arable land in Peru, which means it would not be able to feed its population very well as it’s developing independent capitalism. We can also take this back to mineral reserves: Peru has huge quantities of easily reached copper that it would have no need for when developing independent capitalism, that is to say, without exporting it. This goes back to the inefficiency that developing a truly independent national capitalist economy would present.

(Of course, I may be mischaracterizing your argument for "independent capitalism". If so, I'm sorry, but it's probably the result of you not explaining precisely what you mean by "independent capitalism".)

But let’s turn again to history. All of the countries that have industrialized in the past couple of decades have done it by integrating themselves, rather than separating from into the international economy. Brazil and Argentina, for example, have only been able to industrialize through integration with global capitalism, which has made them more vulnerable to shocks from the global economy.


I'd ask you this: why would the Baath Party nationalize the country’s oil from Shell, or why would the Saudi's not allow their oil to be ran by the old Seven Sisters-dominated Aramco, if they are such 'compradors'?

First of all, oil as a commodity is a terrible example if you’re trying to prove your case, since it’s the most demanded commodity in the world.

Furthermore, except in Saudi Arabia to a limited extent, most of the countries that have nationalized their oil reserves have had huge problems moving from extracting and exporting crude oil to mastering the various processes of refinement, and taking advantage of the various petroleum-product industries. For example, Iran and Mexico have to import large amounts of gasoline because they haven't been able to reproduce and generalize the technology for petroleum refinement. Thus they have had to buy gasoline back at incredibly high markup. As a historical example of this, one of the final blows to the Shah’s regime in Iran was when the port workers refused to allow gasoline tankers to dock, which threw the economy down the toilet.


Ninety-percent of Canada's trade occurs with the United States - if I may quote a Canadian comrade, "you've got us by the balls." There is underdeveloped industry, in which there is essentially no manufacturing sector there. America refuses to abide by NAFTA rules on softwood lumber and beef exports also.

Well, I’m mainly quibbling here, but it should be noted that Canada, as the home of the Toronto stock exchange, is effectively the home base for the world mining industries, and there are definitely Canadian trans-national corporations that play a large role on the world market in many different sectors.


It's clearly a 'semi-colony' - capital is exported there - but that's not the question. It is this: is national-liberation a necessity? In Canada, no; but in Nepal or Bhutan?

But why not? The implications of your argument seem to dictate the fight for independent capitalism for Canada and Australia as well, since, as you made the case for above, they are so dominated by American capital.


U.S. imperialism will "under-develop" everything that it touches like a poor version of Midas, but in areas of uncompleted bourgeois revolution, it stunts growth in such a way that could only trigger a national-democratic revolution.

Certainly American, EU, and Japanese imperialism distorts the development of newly industrializing nations. But unless you want to form a completely autarkic system in those countries, you are going to have to interact with the global capitalist system.

Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose a socialist revolution breaks out in Peru, and the leaders of the revolution decide that the task in front of them is to consolidate national capitalism, as you are proposing. Soon after, however, the revolution in Peru sparks a revolution in neighboring Bolivia. With the very real chance of spreading the revolution into the rest of Latin America, should the Peruvian revolutionaries still turn inward? If both nations did this they would be competing with each other to establish national capitalism. Whereas if they turned outward towards the rest of Latin America, and began socialist cooperation between their national economies, they form the basis with which to challenge the United States and the entire, global, capitalist system.

In the short term, your schema means huge problems with the availability of resources and the efficiency of production for an isolated national economy, as I’ve pointed out. In the longer term, it means you essentially lock the workers of each country into their own national prison. You’re telling them to subordinate their own economic needs to those of "primitive nationalist accumulation", if I’m allowed to coin a phrase. This has to take place on the back of the working class. The only way "national capitalist development" will be possible is subordination of the working class, disarming them ideologically and organizationally. But when national capitalism has been consolidated as shown by a certain amount of GDP or whatever (and again we come back to the problem of defining "independent capitalism"), you can’t just tell the working class that "it’s time for socialism now!", because they’ve already bought into your nationalist framework, and can’t just resurrect their class-based politics and organizations immediately. There are far too many examples in the past century of the working class subordinating itself to the needs of national capitalist development, and becoming unable to break with that goal to serve its own economic needs.

Essentially, you're arguing for the working class to develop a nationalist perspective. But if you take an internationalist perspective based on the Permanent Revolution (the horror!), it allows you to overcome the short-term problems of efficiency and shortages of material resources with the spread of the international revolution, and forms the long-term political basis for international working-class rule.

[KC]

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the “Left Communists” will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .
It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

Speaks for itself, dunnit?

As with most things, no, it doesn't "speak for itself":


[put in this paragraph for context]It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a “Left Communist” will recoil from these words, and what “devastating criticism” he will make to the workers against the “Bolshevik deviation to the right”. What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?


Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists”. And that is why we must deal with this point in greater detail.

Firstly, the “Left Communists” do not understand what kind of transition it is from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country the Socialist Republic of Soviets.


Secondly, they reveal their petty-bourgeois mentality precisely by not recognising the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.


Thirdly, in making a bugbear of “state capitalism”, they betray their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically.


Let us examine these three points.



Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)(about 1/3 of the way down)




It goes on to explain all of these points, for anyone that's interested, and addresses your statement about socialism in one country, JR, as well. Quoting out of context is such an old trick; seriously, just stop it because you won't get away with it.





But what exactly is an "independent capitalist state"? Does it mean that the economy would be autarkic? Does the fight for "independent capitalism" mean that countries like Australia and Canada (as the CP of each seems to think) have to be freed from American capital also before the socialist revolution can come?

The problem with your perspective on this, Tom, is that the bourgeois revolutions in Latin America ended over a century ago. And after the dust had cleared from those revolutions, what the bourgeoisie did in every country of Latin America, including Peru, was to deliver their industries and agriculture straight over to American and European imperialism. Since then, it's become abundantly clear that the Latin American bourgeoisie (with a few exceptions) is perfectly content to be dominated by the United States, and has no interest in going "independent", as you call on them to do. It would be an ultimate waste of time (and much worse than that) for the Peruvian working class to try and break their own rulers away from American imperial interests. And I've no idea why you think that a new ruling class, provided by Sendero's 12 remaining cadre I suppose, would act any differently.

I just wanted to add here that in the case of revolutions in such countries, the biggest threat comes not from the national bourgeoisie, but from the petit-bourgeoisie (neglecting foreign imperialist intervention, of course).

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is not 'necessary' in Canada since the material-international basis to negate the law of value, wages, and capitalism (which flows from the historical need for capital accumulation), already exists. It's unique role in the international capitalist chain inhibits it with an advanced level of productive forces.

It is historically conceivable that there can be a capitalist economic system "without capitalists." It is true, that because of the "anarchy" of the market, that the decrease in the rate of profit always tends to function inversely with the increase of the productive forces. This is why that countries that are unlike Canada or the US, with mostly feudal economic and historio-cultural features, are restricted to state-capitalist development (which is what Preobrazhenski called 'socialist primitive accumulation') to finance other investments (such as the hypothetical auto industry) that private capitalists surely would not take out of their pocket-books.

Most importantly, it's foreseeable that national development and national revolution (though 'bourgeois democratic') is often lead by objective social processes that can not be attributed to the classicist position of "whatever class leads, makes (enter 'capitalism' or 'socialism' here)" - the 1789 revolution was completed by the small shop-owners and handicraftsman, but nobody characterized the French revolution as a petit-bourgeois revolution. The revolution of November in Germany was not made by the bourgeoisie - but by workers - but nobody considers that it was proletarian. The Chinese (and yes - even Russian) revolution was created by a proletarian party. The 'oppressed' classes could very well lead capitalist development.


Let’s take a hypothetical example. Suppose a socialist revolution breaks out in Peru, and the leaders of the revolution decide that the task in front of them is to consolidate national capitalism, as you are proposing. Soon after, however, the revolution in Peru sparks a revolution in neighboring Bolivia. With the very real chance of spreading the revolution into the rest of Latin America, should the Peruvian revolutionaries still turn inward? If both nations did this they would be competing with each other to establish national capitalism. Whereas if they turned outward towards the rest of Latin America, and began socialist cooperation between their national economies, they form the basis with which to challenge the United States and the entire, global, capitalist system.There is an inevitable unfolding process of material history - if the 'advanced' capitalist states no longer have the real-existing capacity to recuperate (or even raise the rate of profit), then they can not tactically pay workers more for doing what they do, and there'd likely be a 'international revolution' that would bury the entire continent under a shade of red. Unfortunately, modern-day features have shown that, through the acquisition of new semi-colonies, or even by enforcing significant hardships of labor, this recuperation is a contemporary impossibility.

Peru's revolution would inevitably be nationally limited and relatively backward, with a 'state capitalist' economic system.

[Led Zeppelin]

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the “Left Communists” will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .
It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

Speaks for itself, dunnit?


Seriously, this must be the tenth time I've refuted this "state-capitalism" stuff and people are still clinging to it.

First of all, what was the context of the quote?

I'll let Trotsky explain:


Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control.

All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved; the quotation marks were intended to stress just this difference of no little importance.

However, insofar as the proletarian state allowed private capital and permitted it within definite restrictions to exploit the workers, it shielded bourgeois relations under one of its wings. In this strictly limited sense, one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP, when he presupposed that the concessions and the “mixed companies,” that is, enterprises based upon the correlation of state and private capital, would occupy a major position in the Soviet economy alongside of the pure state trusts and syndicates.

In contradistinction to the state capitalist enterprises – concessions, etc., that is – Lenin defined the Soviet trusts and syndicates as “enterprises of a consistently socialist type.” Lenin envisioned the subsequent development of Soviet economy, of industry in particular, as a competition between the state capitalist and the pure state enterprises.

We trust that it is clear now within what limits Lenin used this term that has led Urbahns into temptation. In order to round out the theoretical catastrophe of the leader of the “Lenin(!)bund,” we must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy.

Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death.

Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”

Here, however, we must also forestall any possible misunderstandings, and this time of just the opposite character. Lenin chose his terms with precision. He called the trusts not socialist enterprises, as the Stalinists now label them, but enterprises of the “socialist type.”

Under Lenin’s pen, this subtle terminological distinction implied that the trusts will have the right to be called socialist not by type, not by tendency, that is, but by their genuine content – after the rural economy will have been revolutionized, after the contradiction between the city and the village will have been destroyed, after men will have learned to fully satisfy all human wants, in other words, only in proportion as a real socialist society would arise on the bases of nationalized industry and collectivized rural economy.

Lenin conceived that the attainment of this goal would require the successive labors of two or three generations and, moreover, in indissoluble connection with the development of the international revolution.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm)

Now, I remember posting this a while back and MSL said that Trotsky was simply wrong and making shit up. I guess his hatred of Trotsky goes so far that he won't believe anything he says even if it is true; he has to read it from Lenin himself to believe it.

Here you go then, Lenin himself referring to that article he wrote in 1918, the one you quoted from, and reaffirming what Trotsky said above:


Whenever I wrote about the New Economic Policy I always quoted the article on state capitalism which I wrote in 1918 ["Left-Wing” Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality; part III]. This has more than once aroused doubts in the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract political points.

It seemed to them that the term “state capitalism” could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power.

They did not notice, however, that I use the term “state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy.

It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy.

Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.

But there is another aspect of the matter for which we may need state capitalism, or at least a comparison with it. It is a question of cooperatives.

In the capitalist state, cooperatives are no doubt collective capitalist institutions. Nor is there any doubt that under our present economic conditions, when we combine private capitalist enterprises—but in no other way than nationalized land and in no other way than under the control of the working-class state—with enterprises of the consistently socialist type (the means of production, the land on which the enterprises are situated, and the enterprises as a whole belonging to the state), the question arises about a third type of enterprise, the cooperatives, which were not formally regarded as an independent type differing fundamentally from the others.

Under private capitalism, cooperative enterprises differ from capitalist enterprises as collective enterprises differ from private enterprises.

Under state capitalism, cooperative enterprises differ from state capitalist enterprises, firstly, because they are private enterprises, and, secondly, because they are collective enterprises.

Under our present system, cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises because they are collective enterprises, but do not differ from socialist enterprises if the land on which they are situated and means of production belong to the state, i.e., the working-class.

This circumstance is not considered sufficiently when cooperatives are discussed. It is forgotten that owing to the special features of our political system, our cooperatives acquire an altogether exceptional significance. If we exclude concessions, which, incidentally, have not developed on any considerable scale, cooperation under our conditions nearly always coincides fully with socialism.
Let me explain what I mean. Why were the plans of the old cooperators, from Robert Owen onwards, fantastic? Because they dreamed of peacefully remodeling contemporary society into socialism without taking account of such fundamental questions as the class struggle, the capture of political power by the working-class, the overthrow of the rule of the exploiting class.

That is why we are right in regarding as entirely fantastic this “cooperative” socialism, and as romantic, and even banal, the dream of transforming class enemies into class collaborators and class war into class peace (so-called class truce) by merely organizing the population in cooperative societies.

Undoubtedly we were right from the point of view of the fundamental task of the present day, for socialism cannot be established without a class struggle for the political power and a state.

But see how things have changed now that the political power is in the hands of the working-class, now that the political power of the exploiters is overthrown and all the means of production (except those which the workers' state voluntarily abandons on specified terms and for a certain time to the exploiters in the form of concessions) are owned by the working-class.

Now we are entitled to say that for us the mere growth of cooperation (with the “slight” exception mentioned above) is identical with the growth of socialism, and at the same time we have to admit that there has been a radical modification in our whole outlook on socialism.

Two main tasks confront us, which constitute the epoch—to reorganize our machinery of state, which is utterly useless, in which we took over in its entirety from the preceding epoch; during the past five years of struggle we did not, and could not, drastically reorganize it. Our second task is educational work among the peasants. And the economic object of this educational work among the peasants is to organize the latter in cooperative societies. If the whole of the peasantry had been organized in cooperatives, we would by now have been standing with both feet on the soil of socialism.

Our opponents told us repeatedly that we were rash in undertaking to implant socialism in an insufficiently cultured country. But they were misled by our having started from the opposite end to that prescribed by theory (the theory of pedants of all kinds), because in our country the political and social revolution preceded the cultural revolution, that very cultural revolution which nevertheless now confronts us.

This cultural revolution would now suffice to make our country a completely socialist country; but it presents immense difficulties of a purely cultural (for we are illiterate) and material character (for to be cultured we must achieve a certain development of the material means of production, we must have a certain material base).
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm)

Sorry for the lengthy quotes, but it's necessary if people won't believe something until they literally read it. Lenin saying that his use of the term state-capitalism was conditional, that he was referring to specific cases, and that there were actually "enterprises of the consistently socialist type", like Trotsky said. Not only that, he also says that the growth of co-operation is "the growth of socialism".

But how?!!? I thought Lenin wanted state-capitalism, not socialism! I thought he considered socialism to be impossible! :ohmy:

The things you learn when you actually read Lenin in historical context and don't just pick out whatever suits your need at the time (not referring to you SoB).

[Labor Shall Rule]

Trotsky, once again, is mischaracterizing Lenin's explanation of the capitalist forms of production that existed within Russia. Not all state allowed capitalist ventures are 'state-monopoly' capitalism, by Lenin's definition.

Lenin himself noted that the development of state-monopoly capitalism over other forms of capitalist relations, such as the predominant small commodity production, was 'progressive' and a necessary in-road to take in the "transition" to socialism. To him, it was the large-scale enterprises controlled by the party-state that were "state-capitalist" in it's economic form. In that same year of 1918, he stated that state-capitalist enterprises are of "a socialist type" since they are controlled by the proletariat state. It must be understood that Lenin used "socialism," "communism," and of "a consistently socialist type" for politically expedient and pragmatic reasons (I assume) - because, as revolutionary Marxists, it's impossible to have a democracy and 'socialist' republic if a state-managed capitalist economy is clearly in place.

Even if Lenin didn't think their economic system was 'state-capitalist', it'd still be no matter what.

[Led Zeppelin]

Even if Lenin didn't think their economic system was 'state-capitalist', it'd still be no matter what.

Ok, now you're talking.

If you bother to read On Co-operation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm), one of the last articles Lenin wrote, you'll see that he obviously did not consider the economic system to be state-capitalist as you do, and he explains why he used that term in his debate with the Left-Communists, confirming what Trotsky said about Lenin's use of the term.

However, that was my main point. I am not interested in arguing over the nature of the USSR's economic system. If you want to be a Cliffite in terms of economics then be my guest, but I'm not really interested in yet another "state-capitalism versus degenerated workers' state" discussion, in my experience it doesn't lead to anything, and I've heard all the arguments in favor and against it.

I just wanted to point out that when you quote Lenin out of context on state-capitalism, you're actually doing so out of context.

For example, On Co-operation shows clearly that Lenin considered the "co-operatives of the consistently socialist type" to be the basis for a socialist economic system in the USSR, and argued for investing heavily in it (a few years before the 5 year plans, which actually did heavily invest in those co-operatives).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Back on topic, I found a Weekly Worker article written back in 2003 that sheds some "neo-Kautskyist" light on the left-communist "myth" that Lenin briefly became a left-communist:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/495/marxism.html


The Second International was founded in 1889 as a federation primarily of socialist political parties, based on the growth of socialist parties generally, and in particular the strength of the German SPD, and the less striking but still real progress of the French Parti Ouvrier Français. The anarchists participated in it until 1893, when the Zurich congress passed a resolution excluding all non-trade union bodies which did not recognise the need for parliamentary action.

Trends in the workers’ movement

By the middle 1890s it is possible to distinguish five different trends in the international workers’ movement:

(a) Right syndicalists or ‘non-political’ trade-unionists. The most important element was the right wing in the British trade union movement, but the trend was also found elsewhere in Europe, and within Germany under the banner of the SPD, as well as in the catholic and other trade union organisations. The Russian ‘economists’ were ideological representatives of this trend with a Marxist coloration. This tendency held that it was sufficient to defend the immediate economic interests of workers in the direct struggle with their employers - primarily through trade union action, but also through seeking pro-worker legislation.

(b) Non-Marxist socialists. The usual ‘representative figure’ is Bernstein, because he was an ex-Marxist, relatively ‘sophisticated’ in his writings and engaged in argument by the German centre and left. In fact Bernstein is not particularly representative: there were various other forms of non-Marxist socialism, like those of the English Fabians and Independent Labour Party or the semi-Radical trend in France led by Jean Jaurès. This tendency argued, on very various grounds, that the task of the movement simply was to fight within the existing state order for reforms which shifted society towards socialist ‘values’. Its direct inheritors are the modern socialist parties.

(c) The ‘Kautskyan Marxist’ centre, mainly based in the SPD but also found in France (where the most prominent leader was Jules Guesde) and elsewhere; the Russian Iskra tendency around 1900, and hence both the Bolsheviks and part of the Mensheviks, were part of this tendency. This tendency had generally Marxist reference points. It foresaw a decline of capitalism and a revolution at some point in the future, but was ambiguous as to the role in this of the parliamentary-constitutional state. Its main focus in practice was on ‘preparatory tasks’: ie, building up the organised workers’ movement, including trade unions and cooperatives, but particularly building an organised workers’ political party which would take on all political questions posed for the society as a whole.

(d) A ‘Hegelian Marxist’ and semi-syndicalist left tendency within the International. Prominent leaders or writers included Antonio Labriola in Italy, Herman Gorter in the Netherlands and Rosa Luxemburg in Poland and Germany. This tendency argued that the International should not merely prepare for the revolution, but should fight for it by promoting strike action and the general strike, which was seen as the means by which the proletariat escaped from the dynamics of commodity fetishism and began to emancipate itself; it tended to deprioritise or reject electoral and parliamentary activity. Luxemburg’s pamphlet The mass strike is part of the ongoing polemics of this tendency against the right and centre round the ‘strategy’ of the general strike. Trotsky seems to have been intermediate between this position and the centre.

(e) Outright left anarcho-syndicalists were outside the International, but, as can be seen from (d), their ideas had significant indirect influence within it; they were strongest in Italy, Spain and France (another Hegelian Marxist, Georges Sorel, was a theoretician of revolutionary syndicalism in France). They were also present in the USA and Britain (International Workers of the World and De Leonist Socialist Labour Parties).

We can thus see a ‘right’, ‘centre’ and ‘left’ of the workers’ movement. The Bolsheviks, however, were part of the centre. With Kautsky, they emphasised the construction of workers’ institutions under capitalism and especially of a workers’ political party, which should attempt to take the lead in all the questions affecting society as a whole and hence should fight for political goals and make whatever use it could of parliamentary, etc, institutions. They did not adhere to the ‘general strike’ strategy, or to the Hegelian ‘voluntarism’ (insistence on the role of the subjective and the ‘act of will’) of the left, as can be seen in Lenin’s Materialism and empirico-criticism (1909).

World war

The outbreak of war in 1914, of course, changed all of this. The majority of the leaders of the centre - notably Kautsky and Guesde - went along with the rightwing trends, particularly the right-syndicalists, to form pro-war majorities in most socialist parties. Socialist opposition to the war came mainly, on the one hand, on pacifist grounds from part of the non-Marxist socialists - notably Bernstein and the British ILP - and, on the other, to the left from the anarcho-syndicalists and the Hegelian Marxist semi-syndicalist left socialists. Only a minority of the centre, of which the Bolsheviks were the strongest organised component, opposed the war.

It was in this context, and not merely because of the war, that Lenin turned to the study of Hegel. In Lenin’s polemics against Kautsky and Plekhanov and accounts of the causes of the political collapse of the Second International in 1914-15 (CW Vol 21) we begin to find references to Kautsky’s and Plehkanov’s defective dialectics, and to the voluntarist turn of phrase, the “unity of the will” of the working class. There is here an implicit, partial, self-criticism of Lenin’s political alignments in the International movement before the war. The Communist International, when it was founded, grouped a section of the old centre which had moved to the left ... but also an important part of the old left, including elements from the old left syndicalists who had never been part of the Second International. The result was a tendency to downplay the historical differences between the Bolsheviks and this tendency. These, however, resurfaced in 1920-21 as ‘new’ differences between the majority and the ‘left’ communists on participation in parliament, attitudes to the trade unions, the party question, etc, discussed in Lenin’s Leftwing communism, an infantile disorder (1920).

Fate of the left’s strategy

Once we see that the Hegelian Marxists before the war represented a distinct international political tendency linked to left syndicalism, we are forced to make a balance sheet of the strategy of this tendency. The conclusion is simple. It failed miserably in the face of revolutionary crises, both in Germany in 1918-19 and in Italy in 1919-21. Similar strategies have failed repeatedly in similar situations between 1921 and the present date.

As to why the strategy failed, the answer is equally clear. The Hegelian Marxist left neglected the preparatory work, especially the construction of a workers’ political party under the existing regime, which the Kautskyan centre insisted on. They did so due to their over-reliance on the spontaneity of the mass movement to solve political problems. Their radical-left refusal of the struggle for political leadership in relation to pre-revolutionary political problems left them politically disarmed when revolutionary crisis actually broke out. This is not to say that they did not organise at all, though this is perhaps true of the German left before 1914. The problem is just as much that they tended to organise small sects - and their descendants, the ‘libertarian left’ and ‘council communists’, continue to do so to this day. There is more than a trace of these vices in the history of the Trotskyist movement, including that of the SWP.

[Devrim]

That is a very bizarre representation, Jacob. The left communists were in no way a syndicalist current, and constantly argued against syndicalism. I think the writer's lack of knowledge of the discussions at the time is quite clear when he sees Luxemborg's 'The Mass Strike' as an argument in favour of the general strike when actually the idea of the 'general strike' was one of the things it polemicised against. It is also wrong on the left's attitude to the party. Both the German and the Italian efts believed in constructing a vanguard party.

However, on the fact that the international was made up mainly by the left alongside the centre that had been dragged to the left, Lenin and those to the right of him particulary the rump of the KPD and the USPD, it is certainly correct.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not quite; the third link in this link explicitly mentions the term "mass strike":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32 ("Reform coalition, or mass strike?")