Hello Left Comms, I have a few questions

Being devoid of any literature on Left Communism, let alone knowledge of what such literature would be - well okay, I have a collection of Rosa Luxemburg's works - coupled with a lack of motivational drive to read books, I thought it best to ask the fine comrades around here.

Basically, I've come to inquire what the Left Communist position on a couple of things listed below would be. Now I understand that opinions won't be uniform, so I guess it'd be best if someone could tell me what stance Left Communist theorists or Left Communist movements/organizations have taken on these matters:

1. The role of the state/definition of what a state is.
   
2. Transitional states in a post-revolutionary/revolutionary situation.
   
3. Revolutionary vanguard groups.
   
4. Parliamentary participation, political parties and partisan tactics in general.
   
5. Participation in unions and syndicalism.
   
6. Direct action and autonomy.
   
7. How the revolution should be brought upon, and what revolutionary work should include.

Looking to hear from you folks!

Hi
That's a lot of questions! Most of these points are dealt with in our platform
http://en.internationalism.org/platform
You can click on the sections you are most interested in, although since all the points have an underlying coherence, it is better to read the whole thing.
However, if you don't find that clear enough, or have further questions, let me know.

Thanks, that seems like the sort of text I've been looking for! I'll get back once I've found the time read through it.

As I understand it, the ICC is pretty much the biggest active Left Communist organization?

I haven't found a great deal of literature by leftcoms on this. The ICC's pamphlet seems to be the only thing dealing with the question:

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition

Hm. I can somewhat agree with their analysis of the transitional state. I find the proposal to not identify with the state, and especially to keep the armed forces out of state control pretty interesting.

We generally agree with these. Bordigists believe that the class only exists as a class with the aid of the revolutionary party, and without the party the class is only a class for statistical purposes, not a historical actor.

I agree that the working class needs to organize in some way in order to gain any revolutionary potential. Now I'm not certain if this should happen around party lines, though. But I guess my opinion on that varies on what exactly we define as a "party". I basically can agree with organizing around any programmatic revolutionary organization.

As a result, they believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat is simultaneously the dictatorship of the Communist party. The rest of us would probably reject the identification of the party and the class, and insist on the DotP as collective rule exercised by the entire class.

Yes, I like that stance. The Bordigist approach seems too hegemonic.

Disagree with participation in elections. Agree with 'political parties' in a broad sense, as dues paying organisations with a definite political program (Although not one to be implemented through the organs of the existing bourgeois state).

Good ^^

Bordigists believe in entering into the trade unions to win them over to class positions. They disagree vehemently with Syndicalism.

The German-Dutch left believed, on the basis of their experiences during the November revolution in Germany, that the Unions had come to occupy a counter-revolutionary role, and that workers should organise outside and against them. Some of them had sympathies with 'revolutionary' unions like the IWW in america (Paul Mattick even joined them), and they participated in the similar 'Unionen' movement in Germany. Pannekoek saw these kind of unions as a stepping stone from regular craft unions to workers' councils, not ends in themselves but a step forward and something to be supported nonetheless.

The ICC pretty much rejects all forms of Unionism.

The ICT does likewise, although unlike the ICC they don't believe that Communists shouldn't even join unions.

Hm. The German-Dutch approach seems most reasonable to me, seeing as how certain unions (eg. the IWW, CNT, FAU, etc.) could fit under what you earlier described as "political parties in the broader sense" (organizations with a political program).

Reading around on the ICC website a bit, I definitely can agree with their criticism of unionism. However I think it's not applicable to all unions. Definitely agree that they can and should serve as a stepping stone towards worker's councils. In fact I always have viewed them that way.

I think these terms are kind of vague, so clarification would probably help.

Direct Action primarily as in vandalism, boycott, sabotage, blocking of crucial areas, and in the broader sense strikes.
Autonomism as in self-organized/self-managed living.

edit: Three more questions.

As I understand it, Left Comms are very critical of the Bolshevik rule in the USSR, especially Lenin's and Stalins politics. Is this about right?

As a self-identified Anarchist, I've found most Left Communist stances pretty agreeable, sometimes more than Anarchist stances. In fact I can't think of one I can't agree with right now, except maybe a strict rejection of unionism displayed by some.
However, as I understand it, there is still some conflict between Left Comms and Anarchists, because the former advocate a state during the transitional period (even though they [I'm referring to the ICC pamphlet Zanth linked here] call for drastic opposition to that state) - is this correct so far?

I've seen Luxemburgists sometimes labelled as a branch of Left Communists closer to Anarchism or at least more anti-authoritarian than 'traditional' Left Comms. Are they? If yes, how?

Thanks, that seems like the sort of text I've been looking for! I'll get back once I've found the time read through it.

As I understand it, the ICC is pretty much the biggest active Left Communist organization?

Bigness is relative. The ICC has an official section but a small presence in North America for example, and is probably outnumbered there by some other group. However, considered as a whole, yes it is the left communist group with the most members and the widest geographic representation.

Hm. I can somewhat agree with their analysis of the transitional state. I find the proposal to not identify with the state, and especially to keep the armed forces out of state control pretty interesting.

I think the crucial point is, as you say, keeping the armed forces out of the hands of the state. We're talking about a point in this hypothetical revolution where the old state has been dismantled, the old police dissolved, the old army either dissolved or put under the leadership of the workers' councils as a body. We're also talking about a point in this hypothetical revolution where the working class has armed itself. There is no reason whatsoever for the working class to hand over the armed force it gathered in itself to the transitional state, and many reasons not to.

I agree that the working class needs to organize in some way in order to gain any revolutionary potential. Now I'm not certain if this should happen around party lines, though. But I guess my opinion on that varies on what exactly we define as a "party". I basically can agree with organizing around any programmatic revolutionary organization.

How would you define a "party"? How is it different, to you, from a "programmatic revolutionary organization"?

Hm. The German-Dutch approach seems most reasonable to me, seeing as how certain unions (eg. the IWW, CNT, FAU, etc.) could fit under what you earlier described as "political parties in the broader sense" (organizations with a political program).

The trouble with this sort of dual character - union or political organization - is that it really cannot be sustained. When the IWW negotiates contracts, for example, clauses relating to labor peace somehow seem to find their way in, despite the IWW denouncing the big unions for exactly such practices. On the other hand, its militants are revolutionary unionists, and do defend some of the basic positions of the workers' movement. There is a tension in this sort of organization between acting as a union and acting as a revolutionary political organization, which will eventually resolve itself either in its choosing one side over the other, a split, or irrelevance.

Reading around on the ICC website a bit, I definitely can agree with their criticism of unionism. However I think it's not applicable to all unions. Definitely agree that they can and should serve as a stepping stone towards worker's councils. In fact I always have viewed them that way.

If unions provide a "stepping stone towards workers' councils", it is only in a negative way. That is, it is only by organizing bodies of struggle outside the unions that workers can begin to move towards the workers' council form. In the most advanced struggles, we see just this sort of relationship, with the unions attempting to manage workers' militancy by breaking up actions by time (one-day strikes, etc.) and sector, and with the workers organizing to move beyond these constraints. It is in the strike committees, and the public assemblies, that we see the beginnings of workers' councils, not in the unions.

As I understand it, Left Comms are very critical of the Bolshevik rule in the USSR, especially Lenin's and Stalins politics. Is this about right?

Yes, but critical in what way? Left Communists began as a tendency by being the most enthusiastic adherants to the Third International. Their earliest criticisms were made as part of the same movement, attempting to advise another part, and maybe correct its theoretical and practical errors. The German Left was expelled earliest, and it's no coincidence that its criticisms lost their fraternity first. After a certain point, they went so far as to excommunicate the Bolshevik Party of 1917 from the workers' movement, and the Russian revolution from its history. Thereafter it was defined as a bourgeois revolution. The Italian Left was expelled later, and it would be a long time before they understood Russia as having developed a form of state capitalism. They never disowned either October nor the Bolsheviks of October; if that party had become the bearer of state capitalism, it was down to its internal defects, the state of Russia, and the international situation, not a conscious betrayal before the revolution.

However, when it comes to the nature of the pre-war (that is, in the period leading up to WWII, starting in the early thirties) and especially post-war regime in Russia, both currents saw nothing in common between it and the workers' movement.

As a self-identified Anarchist, I've found most Left Communist stances pretty agreeable, sometimes more than Anarchist stances. In fact I can't think of one I can't agree with right now, except maybe a strict rejection of unionism displayed by some.

About here is where someone actually in an organization would invite some sort of regular discussion. Just so you're prepared .

However, as I understand it, there is still some conflict between Left Comms and Anarchists, because the former advocate a state during the transitional period (even though they [I'm referring to the ICC pamphlet Zanth linked here] call for drastic opposition to that state) - is this correct so far?

That's certainly a theoretical difference, but I don't think the practical cleavages between anarchism and left communism stem from it alone.

I've seen Luxemburgists sometimes labelled as a branch of Left Communists closer to Anarchism or at least more anti-authoritarian than 'traditional' Left Comms. Are they? If yes, how?

Not sure what you mean by "Luxemburgist". Is there some group that defines itself as such? If so, which? If not, are you referring to the German left?

Regardless, I don't think "more anti-authoritarian" or "closer to Anarchism" is how "Luxemburgists", whoever they are, would describe themselves.

Bigness is relative. The ICC has an official section but a small presence in North America for example, and is probably outnumbered there by some other group. However, considered as a whole, yes it is the left communist group with the most members and the widest geographic representation.

Okay, that's what I was talking about pretty much.

There is no reason whatsoever for the working class to hand over the armed force it gathered in itself to the transitional state, and many reasons not to.

Precisely. And in the hypothetical situation that the working class has not already armed itself, it probably wasn't a proletarian revolution to begin with.

How would you define a "party"? How is it different, to you, from a "programmatic revolutionary organization"?

To me, the word 'party' always has some connotation of being a highly bureaucratic, forcedly hegemonic and top-down organized entity; and for most people in the mainstream, I guess it's a word inseparably connected to the parliamentary system. I prefer to not use it for those two reasons. Yeah, it's a purely semantic issue.

The trouble with this sort of dual character - union or political organization - is that it really cannot be sustained.
[...]
There is a tension in this sort of organization between acting as a union and acting as a revolutionary political organization, which will eventually resolve itself either in its choosing one side over the other, a split, or irrelevance.

I would say the ideal way would be to keep it's union character until it has drawn a considerable amount of workers to it's political position, and then abandon that aspect in favor of wholly political work. But yeah, that doesn't seem so likely to actually happen.

When the IWW negotiates contracts, for example, clauses relating to labor peace somehow seem to find their way in

Have you got any examples for when this has happened?

If unions provide a "stepping stone towards workers' councils", it is only in a negative way. That is, it is only by organizing bodies of struggle outside the unions that workers can begin to move towards the workers' council form. In the most advanced struggles, we see just this sort of relationship, with the unions attempting to manage workers' militancy by breaking up actions by time (one-day strikes, etc.) and sector, and with the workers organizing to move beyond these constraints. It is in the strike committees, and the public assemblies, that we see the beginnings of workers' councils, not in the unions.

I know that unions act and have acted in the way you describe here, but don't you think that unions, sometimes being the only way workers organize and cooperate with each other, play a major rule in forming class consciousness? Would you argue that the damage their bureaucratic, managerial character does by alienating the workers from their struggles outweighs their potential benefits of uniting workers?

The Italian Left was expelled later, and it would be a long time before they understood Russia as having developed a form of state capitalism. They never disowned either October nor the Bolsheviks of October; if that party had become the bearer of state capitalism, it was down to its internal defects, the state of Russia, and the international situation, not a conscious betrayal before the revolution.

Hmmm... a conscious betrayal would mean that the Bolsheviks in fact never opted to establish communism, right? Is that a position the German Left held?

However, when it comes to the nature of the pre-war (that is, in the period leading up to WWII, starting in the early thirties) and especially post-war regime in Russia, both currents saw nothing in common between it and the workers' movement.

Reasonably so.

About here is where someone actually in an organization would invite some sort of regular discussion. Just so you're prepared .

Should I be scared?

That's certainly a theoretical difference, but I don't think the practical cleavages between anarchism and left communism stem from it alone.

Hm. Probably not. I guess Anarchism (and Left Communism too I'd think) is hardly uniform enough to give a satisfying answer as to what constitutes the differences.

Not sure what you mean by "Luxemburgist". Is there some group that defines itself as such? If so, which? If not, are you referring to the German left?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgists
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=67

These people. I'm not much versed in their history, but I would assume they are in some way influenced by the German left of Rosa's times.

Regardless, I don't think "more anti-authoritarian" or "closer to Anarchism" is how "Luxemburgists", whoever they are, would describe themselves.

Neither do I. Such descriptions usually come from Anarchists.

-The transitional state is not seen as something the workers 'build', it is simply a necessity and an inevitability as long as class distinctions still exist (as they most certainly will in a revolutionary and post-revolutionary period). It is an entity that will exist, however it must be subject to the dictatorship of the proletariat, since the state strives to maintain the status quo, in this case class distinctions among the non-exploiting strata (lumpenproletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, etc) and the proletariat, it must be on guard against until it dissolves. Which is why all political and military power must be directly in the hands of the working class (manifested through its class organs- workers councils, shop committee's, assemblies, worker-militias, class party- and the direct participation of the workers of the world in these and similar bodies).

So basically the transitional state is really just the prolonged maintenance of the organs already existing prior to revolution, while keeping the newly accumulated power in the hands of the proletarian class? Or, I guess one could say, not the immediate 'abolition' of the state, but rather an abolition in steps, letting it go on and controling it's course for a while, without 'becoming' or 'seizing' the state?

-Here is a great article on the subject of the class party written by the ICC:

On The Party And Its Relationship To The Class

http://en.internationalism.org/node/3131

Okay. That clarifies a few things, and I in most points agree with such an understanding of what a class party should be.

This was the position of the workers organizations and theoriticians for a very long time. It has proven in practice, all over the world in every revolutionary event, to be a backdoor for opportunism and counter-revolutionary to enter and reclaim the workers organs and struggle, by either recuperating it into the state apparatus or by crushing it with force.

Moving away from this position, but holding on to its basic concept, can be seen in the KAPD's experience during the German Revolution with the Unionen/permanent factory committee's.

It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it does not work.

Hm. Yeah, corresponds with my knowledge of recent workers struggles.

Yes. There are several discussions about this on Libcom.org. The modern day IWW has signed and currently has contracts in the US with no-strike clauses.

http://libcom.org/forums/organise/no...s-iww-16122007

I see. That's too bad though, I really would've hoped a union like the IWW would not let those things slip in. It is sort of reflective of a couple of examples I know from worker's struggles that were only successful because they vehemently refused cooperating with unions.

They were once legitimate forms of struggle- they are no longer capable of functioning that way however.

If I read the ICC article you linked correctly, their explanation for this is that the unions tried to attain a permanent character and maintain it during the decadent capitalist period, which did not allow for it, so they ultimately had to become part of the establishment?

There is a long list of organizations and currents within the historical and present day workers movement that may call themselves anarchists or marxists, but are much closer to eachother than most think.

Yes. Council Communists and Anarchists are a good example of this. I really fail to see why people make the distinction between (social) Anarchism and Marxism at all and display them as somewhat polar opposites at times.

I don't think that we really work like that. We do have a small section in Germany as do the ICT.

If you want to get in touch with us, it is up to you.

o.o At first glance it seems they are physically non-existent.

We don't advocate a state. We believe that one would exist, as you can't abolish classes on day one of the revolution.

Yeah, sorry, I worded it wrong. That's what I was talking about basically. Although, seeing as how I come from an Anarchist perspective, I'm sure there are Anarchists who would argue that "believing that one would exist" isn't so different from 'advocating'.

Also, how do you stand on the definition that the revolution isn't over until the state ceases to exist, and that its abolition is in fact is the primary act of revolution?

So basically the transitional state is really just the prolonged maintenance of the organs already existing prior to revolution, while keeping the newly accumulated power in the hands of the proletarian class? Or, I guess one could say, not the immediate 'abolition' of the state, but rather an abolition in steps, letting it go on and controling it's course for a while, without 'becoming' or 'seizing' the state?


No, if we base ourselves (with due caution) on the experience of the Commune and Russia in 1917, the entire structure of the old state has to be destroyed - the new state arises out of the general soviet structure in which the whole population is organised, and which is not identical to the workers' councils. The most dangerous, though not entirely avoidable products of this new structure would be bodies like a 'red army' or a special police force aimed at suppressing the counter-revolution: such bodies would be very vulnerable to turning against the working class, which would have to keep a very vigilant eye on them at all times.

No, it is new organs. They would be organs which enfranchised other non exploitative classes, particularly the peasantry.

I can't quite picture this. What exactly would those organs be and how would, whatever they do?, they "enfranchise" those classes?

The term 'anti-authoritarian' is really an anarchist one and is not part of the Marxist terms of reference.

I know. That's what I was referring to here:

Such descriptions usually come from Anarchists.

I know they have a monthly paper, and a quarterly magazine. I know that they held about 12 public meetings across Germany with the FAU a couple of months ago because we sent the speaker from Turkey.

Do you have any more info on this by any chance? I wouldn't have thought the ICC would cooperate with unions (which 'meeting' sorta implies). Also I've been meaning to get organized for a while now, but the lack of presence in my geographic area was sort of offputting. So far, the FAU was my main consideration, but I find myself in increasing agreement on many points with Left Comms and the ICC, so I'm quite interested in what the two have going with each other

Think about peasant Soviets in the Russian revolution. Whilst obviously the peasant question isn't relevant in Germany today, it is a very real question in much of the world.

Oh, okay, makes sense for a lot of countries.

Yes, I see your point, but we do not talk about a 'workers' state' in any way, but suggest that that state will be a body that the working class will have to oppose with its own organs.

Yes, that's what I like about this position. I've come to reject the anarchist notion that the formation of a state will be avoidable.

Maybe I am missing your point, but to me this looks a bit like a semantic argument. One could then say a state will exist during the process of the revolution.

You could say that I guess.

There is a piece about it here in German.

Wee, thanks

I don't think the FAU is actually a union. As far as I know it is a political group in favour of an anarchosyndicalist union.

Well, no matter what it actually is, the FAU officially appears as a Union (that's even reflected in their name, "Freie ArbeiterInnen Union") and is treated as such by the German law.

I get the impression that there are disagrements within the FAU on the question of unions with the berlin group for example being much more pro-union that some others. That is only my impression from another continent though.

That's a good point. I don't know how much you have been following the FAU, but they have been in a quarrel with the German state and some employers earlier this year, because they acted as a Union in a cinema in Berlin. That resulted in a temporary ruling, that the FAU was forbidden to call itself 'Gewerkschaft' (union), because its organizational character is "too political". It was later reversed.

So yeah I guess you have a point.

Which area do you live in? I was under the impression that the FAU had a pretty wide geographical spread.

They are. I recently moved to the north, where they have a much bigger presence, but I'm originally from South West Germany, and the next FAU group was like 100km away.

I knew what was going on. It was called Cinema Babylon, wasn't it? I didn't follow it closely though.

I didn't follow it too close either, except from what was covered in various publications.

People have different perceptions of distances. Here in Turkey people think 100km is pretty close. A good example of this would be a woman I know who moved to Ankara to be closer to her parents. Now she is only about 8 hours drive away from them.

:/ Well Turkey is twice as big as Germany after all.

Oh btw, what stance do Left Comms take on Anti-Fascists? I've heard some consider the movement as bourgeois and oppose it?

To quote myself, in a post you thanked nonetheless:

Heh, thanks. I only vaguely remember that post, what thread was it from again?