Hi Guys

Some questions - what adavantages do you left communists (i dont know if you have various strands within it like anarchism does) think left communism has over anarchism?

And also, what is the collective left communist position on resistance to the nazis in WW2?

Do you all think there should be a state post-revolution?

and how do you think a revolution could be created, internationally?

Oh and what do you guys think of anti-fascism, coming from a revolutionary working class based organisation like Antifa, i.e. militant revolutionary anti-fascism.

Whaddup H-L-V-S..

I'm not gonna really answer your first question. Certain individuals/tendencies within the anarchist movement except the notion of historical materialism and the class struggle. Left communists have nothing 'over' these comrades..

As for your second question, I'm not sure if I can answer that clearly either. If I had to, I'd say that resistance against the Nazis in some places during WWII was a matter of life or death...However, modern day anti-fascist movements and anti-fascist organizations are a distraction from our revolutionary task which is to overthrow capitalism-- we as left communists fight all forms of bourgeois oppression/exploitation whether it be capitalist democracy, or corporate fascism (btw, Mussolini called fascism the perfect merger between the state and capital/corporations).

After a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, workers will take political, executive, and judicial power. Committees of workers will form systems of popular governance (government).......and a "semi-state" will "arise"-- in the early stages after victory this would be unavoidable. We as left communists understand, as Marx wrote in The Civil War in France, that workers "cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made State machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

About your last question-- what do you think? Any left communist would tell you that the first step to creating an international revolutionary movement is to raise the consciousness of the international working class to the point where they begin acting in their own interests...from that point on its all speculation.

Hope I did your questions some justice. I'd be glad to answer any more, or go back to one in some more detail.

Honestly Intifada, there where a lot of folks who got shot in WWII for opposing both sides from the positions of the communist left. I think the issue here is not whether you should lay and die but not support national defense politically. I think in this situations, people should do whatever to survive. Either run away, shoot someone, etc.

Yeah, thanks Marmot. That is a good point.

Like I said, I don't know much about the history of left communists during WWII.

Wanna elaborate on those positions you mentioned a little? For my sake and HLVS'?

I think it was Bordiga who said the worst product of fascism was anti-fascism.

For the most part the communist left in the war followed the orientation of the Bolsheviks in WW1 - they called for the fraternisation of German and Allied troops, turn the imperialist war into a civil war, etc. In fact, one of our founding comrades was nearly shot by the French Stalinists when they found internationalist leaflets in German in his possession.

There are several ICC books that cover the activity of the Communist Left during the War, particularly The Italian Communist Left and the The German & Dutch Communist Left.

My personal opinion is that anti-fascism is neccesar and good if its in defense of the workers movement and the class against aggresive enemies, which it is, as long as its from a revolutionary class based perspective.

And I mean say the workers movement grew in the manner left communists advocate, but fascism became a major threat, attacking strikes, revolutionaries, our protests, etc. Surely left communists would appreciate the need for the workers movement to fight back, i.e. defend itself and form militant anti-fascist groups? Because thats how I see anti-fascism and how its neccesary.

So you don't take the position that workers should have dfended themselves against Nazism?

I disagreed with this precisely because for millions of people it was a neccesity to resist.

Oh, and also, this semi-state, what form will it take? Workers councils federated into a central organisation, or what?

Yes, workers should have fought back - like the Spanish workers did in July 1936 in Spain, when they responded to Franco's coup with their own autonomous struggle, not by allying with the 'democratic' bourgeoisie. The moment they did this (thanks to the cross class ideology of 'anti-fascism', ie subordinate the class struggle to the fight against the fascists) the quicker they became the victims of both fascist and 'democratic'/stalinist terror.

HLVS:

The question about anti-fascism was discussed in the left communist forum in this thread, I think it would be a good place to look, it also includes several links to our articles: http://www.revleft.org/vb/group.php?...scussionid=463

i dont know if you have various strands within it like anarchism does

Well, other the the ICC whose positions you are aware of (and IBRP who mostly holds similar positions), there is the bordigists and then there is the councilists.

Oh, and also, this semi-state, what form will it take? Workers councils federated into a central organisation, or what?

We don't see workers' councils as a state but rather as an actual, physical expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat, exercising it's power above all on the state which necessarily is (by definition) a separate apparatus. I would recommend these two articles:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/113_pot_ir1.html

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

Some questions - what adavantages do you left communists (i dont know if you have various strands within it like anarchism does) think left communism has over anarchism?

Well, this is a deeper question, something like marxism or anarchism. I think the key difference between marxism and anarchism is the difference of method. While marxists by definition uphold a historical method, anarchists either don't hold anything as such or even if they have some sort of an understanding of a historical method, they do not use it on theoretical/practical questions, disregard it etc. While this might seem to be a more or less minor aspect, it is in my opinion the key one. Using the historical method, marxists managed to form and maintain a dynamic, always drawing lessons from the past, always seeing things not only in what they are but in what they were and what they will or can become. It became a living dynamic, an ever-developing one. Anarchism, on the other hand, due to this lack of method, has always been a more or less static ideology in all its forms, unable to draw historical lessons, unable to prevent the momentary, daily conditions determining the line of thought and action, unable to develop as an ideology, unable to improve itself through series of self-criticisms. All this makes anarchism a very confused ideology. This is the principle difference in my opinion between genuine marxism and all sorts of anarchism. This of course doesn't in any way negate the fact anarchists can be revolutionary internationalists in which case we would work with them, be in the fullest solidarity with them as we are in several different countries. It does on the other hand mean that revolutionary internationalist anarchists walk a thinner line due to all the weaknesses of anarchism, which are what inherently makes anarchism anarchism.

[FONT=Verdana]

[/FONT]

I think it was Bordiga who said the worst product of fascism was anti-fascism.

I've heard this aswell but I don't know where it's from. The only thing I can find with a quick google search is from Jean Barrot's "Fascism/Anti-Fascism".

I don't think it is actually a direct quote, but rather a paraphrase of the argument Bordiga / Programme Communiste made in the articles Auschwitz, the big alibi and Race and Class.