What is a left communist?

Looking at the other thread in this forum on nationalism, I think that one of the first things that we need to be clear on with group is what a left communist is. There are post on that thread which advocate positions, which advocate positions that are diametrically opposed to those of the left communists (Malte, and Chimx's posts), as well as posts by people who have the same position, but who would in no way consider themselves to be left communists (TAT).

I think that there are some questions that we have to ask ourselves. I have provided my answers to the questions;

1)What is a left communist?
In our opinion a left communist is a member or supporter of a left communist organisation.
2)Who should be in the group?
Personally, I wouldn't limit the membership of the group to left communists only. I think that anybody who is reasonably close to the communist left should be allowed to be a member of the group.
3)Who should control the group?
I think the group must be controlled by people who are left communists as defined above. Otherwise you could very easily get a situation where you had a 'left communist' group that wasn't in anyway left communist. Somebody should be elected to preform the work by the left communists.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Devrim

I agree, but if possible to have other moderators here who aren't entirely EKS (as you have the largest presence on revleft). I don't have anything against your organization, but it would be good to have a ballanced modship of this forum over time, that could possibly give a balanced idea of the Communist-Left.

I guess you don't consisder myself a left-communist any more now, which is sad, but I basically support this proposal.

I already did revert Leo's changes of this group as a gruop for people interested to discuss left-communism, as this would ultimately mean "Otherwise you could very easily get a situation where you had a 'left communist' group that wasn't in anyway left communist.", as Devrim said.

Although I think also people sympathetic to left-communist ideas should be included, not only supporters of single organisations. it's impossible to tell over the Internet if someone is really members or supporter of a single org anyway.

Furthermore I agree that we need more "group leaders" ASAP.

but who would in no way consider themselves to be left communists (TAT).

Question: Does the group think Anarchists (like TAT) should be permitted in the group or should they be rejected? I ask this because TAT isn't the only Anarchist wanting to be apart of the group and I would like to hear the group's opinions before proceeding.

Question: Does the group think Anarchists (like TAT) should be permitted in the group or should they be rejected? I ask this because TAT isn't the only Anarchist wanting to be apart of the group and I would like to hear the group's opinions before proceeding.

"2)Who should be in the group?
Personally, I wouldn't limit the membership of the group to left communists only. I think that anybody who is reasonably close to the communist left should be allowed to be a member of the group."

this is not a political group, this is a discussion forum. so i dont see why not anyway

Question: Does the group think Anarchists (like TAT) should be permitted in the group or should they be rejected? I ask this because TAT isn't the only Anarchist wanting to be apart of the group and I would like to hear the group's opinions before proceeding.

Personally I think it would be okay to include sympathizers (like myself), but not members just generally members interested to discuss left-communism.

because as i said, in the end that would mean that this group would no longer work as a left-communist group, please keep that in mind.

I also think it's essential that the group leaders are always left-communists, and indeed ideally members of left communists orgs, so I propose Devrim as a second group leader. Any objections?

Nope

Oh, and once we have agreed whom to allow into this group and who not (I strongly propose to also allow sympathizers!), somebody should write a self-introduction text for the FAQ which describes briefly the left-communist ideology and also lists the conditions to join.

Any objections?

No objections here.

somebody should write a self-introduction text for the FAQ which describes briefly the left-communist ideology and also lists the conditions to join.

I could revamp what I wrote in this thread once we have come to a decision about what are the conditions to join and so on.

I understand why you would include Malte, but I'm curious what I have mentioned that is diametrically opposed to left communism.

Regardless, I think for interesting and engaging discussion to occur, having sympathizers that may disagree on certain nuances of left communism is essential.

this is not a political group, this is a discussion forum. so i dont see why not anyway

No, the open forums are the discussion forum. These groups exist to congregate those of similar ideology.

Personally, I wouldn't limit the membership of the group to left communists only. I think that anybody who is reasonably close to the communist left should be allowed to be a member of the group.

Agreed. Sympathizers, such as, I suppose, Anarchists, should be allowed to keep the membership supportive of Left Communism, and since Anarchists are only similar and not identical to Left Communists it would arouse some interesting debate that I would consider to be healthy for the group.

but I'm curious what I have mentioned that is diametrically opposed to left communism.

National liberation, and the trade unions.

Regardless, I think for interesting and engaging discussion to occur, having sympathizers that may disagree on certain nuances of left communism is essential.

So do I.

I think a 'left-communist' today is someone who utilizes the Marxist tools of historical materialism while essentially disagreeing with the authoritarian 'party-form' of revolutionary organization. This does not necessarily mean an outright rejection of the entirety of Lenin's works or contributions to Marxist theory, but essentially we realize that this ain't 1917 Russia - we're in the 21st century, and the majority of posters here are from the advanced capitalist states; rehashing organizational paradigms from a century ago is anachronistic and counterproductive. As such, left-communism embraces a range of self identifications, from councilists to autonomists, marxists and (some) anarchists.

I think a 'left-communist' today is someone who utilizes the Marxist tools of historical materialism while essentially disagreeing with the authoritarian 'party-form' of revolutionary organization.

All of the left communist organisations today believe in building a communist party. If that is 'authoritarian' in your opinion, it is your problem.

Devrim

Let me append my statement above: many left-communists organize party in the Marxist sense of an expression of working-class self-valorization, but not a party in the sense of a vanguard which is to make revolution for the not-yet-conscious masses. The organization of communists working for revolution is not authoritarian, but the misconception that a "transitional workers state" is needed after the revolution.

Left-communists what to start building communism from day one.

Again, I would say that the left communists today argue for a vanguard party, not to make revolution on behalf of 'the not-yet-conscious masses', but nevertheless a vanguard party. Nor do you generally hear the left communists talking about 'authoritarianism'.

Left communism is more than a slightly left wing Marxist rejection of Leninism. It is historically a defined body of ideas.

Devrim

National liberation

How is being opposed to national liberation antithetical to left communism?

I think it is wise to not be as dogmatic about the rejection of national liberation as Marxist-Leninists are about following it blindly

To me it seems that this sentence is a rejection of the communist left's position on national liberation.

Devrim

All of the left communist organisations today believe in building a communist party. If that is 'authoritarian' in your opinion, it is your problem.

I think by Left Communist rejection of authoritarian parties he referred to the rejection of Bolshevism.

i think that is a problem with a lot of people approaching left communism. left communism, at least in the way it is represented in organziations today, is not anarchism with marxist clothes.

I absolutely agree with Marmot here. That is why I say that we should have a list of the people who are actually left communists (i.e. members or sympathisers of left comunist organisations) in this group.
Devrim

i think that is a problem with a lot of people approaching left communism. left communism, at least in the way it is represented in organziations today, is not anarchism with marxist clothes.

Quite the opposite, I'd argue that left communism is Marxism only embracing anarchism's anti-authoritarian and prefigurative politics.

Quite the opposite, I'd argue that left communism is Marxism only embracing anarchism's anti-authoritarian and prefigurative politics.

I don't think that the left communists are at all interested in 'anti-authoritarianism'. Personally, I don't really even understand what anarchists mean by it, and don't think they really know either.

What would I know though? I am only a member of a left communist organisation.

I think there should be a list of who actually is a left communist. Leo should make it.

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 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.

that is not the leninist proposal: the leninist proposal is that inside the masses, there is always a minority that is most advanced than the rest, and that minority should form a vanguard party.

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.

It has nothing to do with a bunch of petty bourgeois intellectuals imposing their will.

that is not the leninist proposal: the leninist proposal is that inside the masses, there is always a minority that is most advanced than the rest, and that minority should form a vanguard party.

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.

It has nothing to do with a bunch of petty bourgeois intellectuals imposing their will.

While I understand I've understood this well and good, I have never understood the persisting pretense to organize as a party, as opposed to some other vanguard group. The development of a class' consciousness is never equal within itself, and this acknowledgment is all any vanguard really asserts. But aren't there implications in operating as the political voice of a class?

While I understand I've understood this well and good, I have never understood the persisting pretense to organize as a party, as opposed to some other vanguard group. The development of a class' consciousness is never equal within itself, and this acknowledgment is all any vanguard really asserts. But aren't there implications in operating as the political voice of a class?

i dont think is "operating as the political voice of a class", i think it has more to do with education and agitation by a centralized communist organization. it doesnt necessarily means that the communist organization is going impose itself as a state. i dont think that was even lenin's intention, for the bolshevik iron rule that started with the civil war was always thought of a temporal measure.

But why then as a political party? Convenience? It implies a group of individuals whose goals include the forming of a new government, or the participating within a preexisting one.