What is a left communist?

This is also the proposal of the italian communist left, which is the most represented in todays left communist organizations. Furthermore, vnaguard parrties have existed in every revolutionary situation, from the bourgeois revolutions to Catalonia (FAI).The working class makes the revolution, but there will always be organic cadre more dedicated than others.

I disagree. In my opinion I think the theory that a 'vanguard' should be an organization of "advanced workers," to act as sheep herders to herd the sheep (proletariat) is exactly what needs to be rejected. To quote LSD the vanguard in the Left Communist sense is...

merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation. As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and therefore the entire working class, the "vanguard party" sees its role as that of the "dictator" in the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Thus I agree with you that a 'vanguard' does arise in revolutionary situations however I disagree with the idea that there needs to an organization or 'party' of 'professional revolutionaries'.

And I'm in agreement with that to some degree. Although I do think that there can be a a vanguard organization that doesn't have the same intentions as a party.

For a world proletarian revolution to have a chance at success there needs to be a decent-sized world communist party. It will act as a sort of catalyst in the revolutionary process. THe party doesn't make the revolution, or lead it, but is essential nonetheless.

This is a gross analogy but think of the role of bile in digestion.

I disagree. In my opinion I think the theory that a 'vanguard' should be an organization of "advanced workers," to act as sheep herders to herd the sheep (proletariat) is exactly what needs to be rejected. To quote LSD the vanguard in the Left Communist sense is...

merely that section of the working class which is the most class conscious. It can be as big or as small as the pervasiveness of revolutionary identity and has no organizational manifestation. As communists, all of us would be technically "part of the vanguard", even though we have no "authority" over workers or anyone else.

A "vanguard party" however is precisely the opposite. It does have an organizational manifestation and it does (or at least it intends to) excersize authority. As the "voice" of the "vanguard", and therefore the entire working class, the "vanguard party" sees its role as that of the "dictator" in the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

It is interesting how you quote an anarchist to define the left communist view. I would rather quote the left communists themselves:

[FONT=Verdana] The name of the KAPD indicates that the Party stands on the terrain of the conquest of political power and that the Party comprises the best elements.[/FONT]

This is clearly a call for a vanguard party. Gorter is also clear on this in 'An Open Letter...'

The Left Wing wishes in all countries to form parties consisting exclusively of Communists, and determines its tactics accordingly.

Devrim

I think anti-authoritarianism has a very concrete meaning: you can't authoritatively force the revolution onto the unconscious masses. This is the Leninist proposal: the masses are not revolutionary, but we can make the revolution and they'll be caught up afterwards. The historical result of such is massive authoritarianism. Left communists realize that if the revolution is not the work of the workers themselves, then it is not revolutionary.

I think as a term in left politics it comes from the Bakuinists in their arguments with Marx. Personally, I prefer, whatever his faults, Marx's idea of open political struggle to Bakunin's secret societies, and 'invisible dictatorship'.

The problem that the left communists have with the politics of the Leninists, Trotskyists etc, is not that they are authoritarian, but that they are bourgeois.

Devrim

This is clearly a call for a vanguard party.

Indeed and I don't disagree with that if such a party is as Leo put it...

...a party which can only appear in a revolutionary period, as a consequence of workers' struggles, a party which intervenes within the working class and within the organs of the working class, a party which never takes political power itself.

If that is what constitutes as a 'vanguard' party then I have no objections to that and do infact agree however I think my objections was more with the Leninist/common definition of the term ‘vanguard’ than with the party itself and I don’t usually call parties ‘vanguards’.

If that makes sense.

a party which never takes political power itself.

What is the purpose of organizing as a political party if the party does not seek involvement in a government? At the very least it is misleading.

[quote=Devrim;1061967]I think as a term in left politics it comes from the Bakuinists in their arguments with Marx. Personally, I prefer, whatever his faults, Marx's idea of open political struggle to Bakunin's secret societies, and 'invisible dictatorship'.
[quote]

i rhink you are being intellectually dishonest here. bakunin's narodnik leftover of "secret society" is not represented by todays' anarchist organization.

No, I wouldn't say that it is in anyway. There is a bit of anarchist reverence for Bakuinin, but I don't think that they really understand what he was going on about.

Devrim

What is the purpose of organizing as a political party if the party does not seek involvement in a government? At the very least it is misleading.

Only from the very anarchist conception you have of the word party.

Devrim

Well don't let me stop you from elaborating on a political parties non participation in politics.

Well don't let me stop you from elaborating on a political parties non participation in politics.

Again I think it is down to anarchist semantics. For us arguing for a strike in a mass meeting of workers is politics, and it is one of the tasks of militants of a communist organisation.

Devrim

I don't think it has anything to do with anarchist semantics, but semantics generally. A political party tends to hold a specific purpose and has a specific meaning. Why is it necessary to organize specifically as a party? You can argue for a strike just as easily as a committee, a coalition, a collective, or any other number of things. But party still semantically implies political participation:

party n. an organization to gain political power -princeton.edu dictionary

Main Entry:1par&#183;ty Pronunciation: ˈp&#228;r-tē Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural partiesEtymology:Middle English partie part, party, from Anglo-French, from partir to divide — more at partDate:14th century 1: a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest2: a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government3: a person or group participating in an action or affair <a mountain-climbing party> <a party to the transaction>4: a particular individual : person <an old party approaching 80>5: a detail of soldiers6: a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it

This is Webster's, an American source. Note the first definition.
Regardless of this, I think that what you are arguing is that left communists should jettison their theoretical history, and adopt the semantic definitions coming from other political currents. Why on Earth should we?
I think that the fear of a party being an organisation which intends to gain political power for itself comes from anarchist positions.

You can argue for a strike just as easily as a committee, a coalition, a collective, or any other number of things

But we aren't arguing for any of those things. We are arguing for an international centralised party.

Devrim

Regardless of this, I think that what you are arguing is that left communists should jettison their theoretical history, and adopt the semantic definitions coming from other political currents. Why on Earth should we?

IMO, so as to remain relevant to contemporary political realities.

Again, you say that this is some sort of "anarchist perspective", but look at the second definition you just quoted: "a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government". Does Webster's Dictionary have a secret anarchist agenda?

Also, the first definition doesn't have to do with organization. It is how the word is used, for example, in a courtroom with a defendant and plaintiff. They are both called "parties" in this sense. It doesn't mean the same thing as an organizational party. That is the second definition.

Actually, I think the first definition uses it as it was used as it was in Marx's day, as in a 'body of opinion'. It could apply to a courtroom too though.

Again, you say that this is some sort of "anarchist perspective", but look at the second definition you just quoted: "a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government". Does Webster's Dictionary have a secret anarchist agenda?

I think that the fear of using the word party is something that comes from anarchism. It certainly isn't the perspective of the left communists. As I think has been shown here, and even more so on the threads about Bordigism, which is one of the places where the communist left has its origins.

IMO, so as to remain relevant to contemporary political realities.

Personally, I don't think that stopping using the word party will make us any more relevant. Actually, we don't use the word party to describe our organisation because in the way that it has been traditionally used in the communist movement, we are obviously not. It doesn't stop people referring to us as a party because that is the way that people generally refer to political organisations.

Devrim

Actually, I think the first definition uses it as it was used as it was in Marx's day, as in a 'body of opinion'. It could apply to a courtroom too though.

The first definition is a way of differentiating between two groups or individuals who are on opposite sites of an issue. A fight in a bar involves parties, parties in court. It isn't meant to imply political parties which have been around since long before Marx. See the online etymology dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com

I think that the fear of using the word party is something that comes from anarchism. It certainly isn't the perspective of the left communists. As I think has been shown here, and even more so on the threads about Bordigism, which is one of the places where the communist left has its origins.

Well I can't speak for anarchists, but in this day and age, given the implications of what a party means, it strikes me as disingenuous to organize as a party if ones purpose isn't inline with what a party semantically means today.

Why? What is the purpose beyond the fact that some dead people did it nearly a century ago?

Here is the definition from your link.. Yes, it is much older than Marx, but was used like that in Marx's day.:

party c.1290, "part, portion, side," from O.Fr. partie "a part, a party" (12c.), lit. "that which is divided," from fem. pp. of partir "to divide" (see part (v.)). Political sense of "side in a contest or dispute" evolved by 1300

Well I can't speak for anarchists, but in this day and age, given the implications of what a party means, it strikes me as disingenuous to organize as a party if ones purpose isn't inline with what a party semantically means today.

What are the implications of what it means? Personally, I would say political organisation, and nothing more. What also are the implications of the word 'communism'?. Should we drop that one too?

I think my point is proven though. Of course you are free too use words as you like, as am I, but the way that I am using it is the way that our party (meaning body of opinion) has always used it. And this is the left communist group.

Devrim

party line is first recorded 1834 in the sense of "policy adopted by a political party,"

Political parties as we know them today had been working since before Marx. Just look at the Whig Party in the United States.

What also are the implications of the word 'communism'?. Should we drop that one too?

Considering what the word means to most people after the collapse of the USSR, maybe.

And this is the left communist group.

Oh good lord... ruffle your tail feathers more?

Political parties as we know them today had been working since before Marx. Just look at the Whig Party in the United States.

You might as well say that political parties as we know them today had been working since the Optimates and Populares in Ancient Rome for gods sake! The old political parties in America are hardly even close to what we know as political parties today anywhere, imagine the leader of any main opposition party having a duel with the vice president from the ruling party today!

What also are the implications of the word 'communism'?. Should we drop that one too?

Considering what the word means to most people after the collapse of the USSR, maybe.

And this is the left communist group.

Oh good lord... ruffle your tail feathers more?

Well, no offense but I'm beginning to wonder when you'll start to argue for standing in the elections.

imagine the leader of any main opposition party having a duel with the vice president from the ruling party today!

I believe that was technically still illegal back in the 19th century. Regardless, political parties existed back then with the purpose of seizing political power.

I really don't care how you or any one else wants to organize. You can revive the Jacobin Clubs at a Golden Corral Buffet for all I care honestly. I am just pointing out that if someone organizes as a party, in this day and age it is assumed that such an organization seeks political power. This is why you have criticisms like those made by LSD. If your intentions aren't to seize political power, then what's the point of calling yourself a party? What are left communists so desperately trying to hold onto?

Well, no offense but I'm beginning to wonder when you'll start to argue for standing in the elections.

I have no idea where you are getting this from.

You can revive the Jacobin Clubs at a Golden Corral Buffet for all I care honestly. I am just pointing out that if someone organizes as a party, in this day and age it is assumed that such an organization seeks political power. This is why you have criticisms like those made by LSD. If your intentions aren't to seize political power, then what's the point of calling yourself a party? What are left communists so desperately trying to hold onto?

I think that there are two points. One is your argument as expressed above. It is a valid discussion, but not the topic of this thread. You should make another thread for it.

The second is my point, and the point of this thread; If this is a left communist group, it is necessary to define who the left communists are so that they can control it. Otherwise it won't in any way represent left communism.

Devrim

I have no idea where you are getting this from.

I was partially being humorous but that's the only position you haven't defended that is against the basic positions of left communism.

I believe that was technically still illegal back in the 19th century. Regardless, political parties existed back then with the purpose of seizing political power.

They weren't political parties as we knew them. The whole argument is completely anachronistic.

I am just pointing out that if someone organizes as a party, in this day and age it is assumed that such an organization seeks political power.

Actually, as most of the legal parties in the world have no chance of gaining power in their lifespans ever, we can say that they interested in government support funds rather than being elected.

As for most of the illegal parties, they are really generally either gangs or paramilitary forces which, again, has little hope and of and probably stopped working for taking power generally.

So most bourgeois parties generally have little to do with taking political power themselves.

If your intentions aren't to seize political power, then what's the point of calling yourself a party?

We want to piss anarchists off.

Besides, the meaning of the term in the proletarian movement was always different from the definition of bourgeois political parties.

The second is my point, and the point of this thread; If this is a left communist group, it is necessary to define who the left communists are so that they can control it. Otherwise it won't in any way represent left communism.

I don't have much interest in controlling any group. I'm here to discuss things.

I was partially being humorous but that's the only position you haven't defended that is against the basic positions of left communism.

My position on trade unions is the only thing that is against modern left communist thought. Even that I am sympathetic to ideologically, but I feel groups like the ICC are far too harsh on the subject.

Actually, as most of the legal parties in the world have no chance of gaining power in their lifespans ever, we can say that they interested in government support funds rather than being elected.

And this is what I was asking for. If there is special tax reasons, federal grants, etc. that makes organizing as a party really worth wild. Up until now it just sounded like "the thing to do" cause "left communists always did it in the past".

We want to piss anarchists off.

It is difficult to tell if you are being sarcastic at this point or not.

Besides, the meaning of the term in the proletarian movement was always different from the definition of bourgeois political parties.

"was" being the key word here?

to be honest, i think the most impotant aspect of left communism is its refusal to subordinate the struggle to bourgeois factions. the question arises whether different tactics really subordinate the struggle to the bourgeosie. i think national liberation and "´popular fronts" are pretty evident that they do, but i cant say its that evident for trade unions, for example.

I don't have much interest in controlling any group. I'm here to discuss things.

So start a thread on it. It is not the purpose of this thread.

And this is what I was asking for. If there is special tax reasons, federal grants, etc. that makes organizing as a party really worth wild. Up until now it just sounded like "the thing to do" cause "left communists always did it in the past".

Well, actually our organisation is technically illegal, as is our publication. I would ask about yours, but I presume that you are not in one.

"was" being the key word here?

No, he's a native Turkish speaker. It doesn't have a concept of present perfect time, and uses past simple to express these concepts. It's a mistake. It should read 'has always been'.
Devrim

My position on trade unions is the only thing that is against modern left communist thought.

National liberation? Usage of the term 'communism'? Party?

Now tell us the truth, you joined NEFAC and you are spying here on their behalf, aren't you?

And this is what I was asking for. If there is special tax reasons, federal grants, etc. that makes organizing as a party really worth wild.

What the hell are you talking about? The revolutionary party we are talking about is neither a legal and official entity nor an armed gang!

Up until now it just sounded like "the thing to do" cause "left communists always did it in the past".

It still is the thing to work for but not because people always did it in the past - we can say for the same reasons people did it in the past, perhaps.

It is difficult to tell if you are being sarcastic at this point or not.

I know, that's part of my charm...





Yes, I was being sarcastic.

"was" being the key word here?

Nope.

National liberation?

Opposed to it, like I said in the thread on it.

Usage of the term 'communism'?

I tend to describe myself as Marxist with people "not in the know" as it has less baggage associate with it, especially in the US, but otherwise I still call myself a communist (though not an anarchist)

Now tell us the truth, you joined NEFAC and you are spying here on their behalf, aren't you?

I don't live in the North East, nor am I an Anarcho-Communist.

What the hell are you talking about? The revolutionary party we are talking about is neither a legal and official entity nor an armed gang!

Well then I ask again, why the fetishization of a party as an organization?

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

I knew you were. I've just been putting up with 3 pages of left communists indirectly calling me an anarchist.

Opposed to it, like I said in the thread on it.

You said something like this:

it is alright to support people that are supporting national liberation if it means supporting class struggle.

Just know that this is more or less the argument of more sophisticated Trotskyists in Turkey who support the PKK.

I tend to describe myself as Marxist with people "not in the know" as it has less baggage associate with it, especially in the US, but otherwise I still call myself a communist (though not an anarchist)

The term 'communism' more or less has such baggage everywhere. It is exactly for that reason the more important actual communists to call themselves communists so that they can argue that what was known as 'communist states' were not communist at all.

I don't live in the North East, nor am I an Anarcho-Communist.

This is what you want us to believe!

Well then I ask again, why the fetishization of a party as an organization?

There isn't any fetishization of the party. 'The party' for us is the name of the organization which appears in revolutionary periods* and which, through it's interventions plays a direct part in the making of history**. The sort of party which Marx was talking about in the Communist Manifesto.

*As opposed to other forms of organizations such as fractions, currents, groups etc. which appear in counter-revolutionary or non-revolutionary periods.
**Note that it doesn't take power itself. It is not a party of a fraction of the bourgeoisie, competing with other fractions but a party of real communists whose interests are the same with the interests of the whole proletariat and who thus wants the proletariat as a class to take power.

It is difficult to tell if you are being sarcastic at this point or not.

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

I knew you were.

I've just been putting up with 3 pages of left communists indirectly calling me an anarchist.

Well, that's life.

You said something like this:

Well that by itself doesn't sound good. I was trying to say that while national liberation movements are not helpful in and of themselves, it is wise to be wary of class struggle from within these movements that could take an international perspective. I worry people can be blinded by dogmatism when dealing with these issues because they are too fixated on national liberation.

The term 'communism' more or less has such baggage everywhere. It is exactly for that reason the more important actual communists to call themselves communists so that they can argue that what was known as 'communist states' were not communist at all.

I go back and forth on the issue personally. Sometimes I think that it is just a word and we shouldn't let the baggage associate with that word impede humanities historical progress by fixating on it so much. Other times I think it is important to advocate the side of communism that is shadowed by the Soviet Union because it is rich and diverse, and a history worth telling. There are pros and cons on both sides.

Ultimately I'm not an idealist nor am I very sentimental. I'm pragmatic and I'll go with whatever works.

This is what you want us to believe!

Well if you want me to spell it out for you, I don't identify with left communism any more than I identify with anarchism. Bordiga is as irrelevant to me as Kropotkin in that they were minor historical actors. I'm principally interested in the works of Marx, but ultimately I think it is asinine to fixate on theoreticians or historical movements over ideas that are relevant to us right here and now.

The sort of party which Marx was talking about in the Communist Manifesto.

The Marx that I know advocated parliamentarianism (though certainly not exclusively). He specifically said that a proletarian dictatorship could be achieved by working within a bourgeois democracy -- presumably through some sort of proletarian led party.

Well, that's life.

Whatever you Khrushchevite revisionist.