Why a left-communist party?

  1. RNL
    RNL
    If, unlike the Trotskyists, the left-com parties don't advocate the party itself taking power, what is the rationale behind adhering to that particular model of organisation? Couldn't the kind of principled intervention in workers' struggles advocated by left-communists be carried out just as well at a decentralised local level by loosely associated left-communist organisations?
  2. Leo
    Leo
    There are two reasons.

    One is the point of principle: for left communists, internationalism isn't a vague idea or just a feeling of solidarity - it is something the revolutionaries have to practice, it requires them striving for not a loose but a strong international unity.

    On the point of practice: simply effectiveness. The better you are coordinated, the more effective your principled intervention will be. The more internationally united you are, the more people will think that internationalism is not just a word to you.

    This does not mean, however, a centralism which is bureaucratic, hierarchical and so on.

    For a more detailed explanation, I will provide a few quotes from the ICC.

    1. The political organization is an organ of the class, engendered by the class in order for it to fulfill a specific function: to help develop the consciousness of the class. The political organization does not bring this consciousness from ‘outside’; neither does it create the process of this appropriation of consciousness. It is on the contrary a product of this pro*cess just as it is an indispensable instrument of its development. From a certain standpoint one could say that the political organization is as neces*sary for the collective elaboration of the consciousness of the class, as written and oral expression is for the development of individual thought.

    In the general functioning of the political organization of the proletariat, two main tasks can be distinguished:

    a. Permanent analysis of social reality, aimed at making more precise the historic interests of the proletariat.(the appropriation of the lessons of the historic experience of the class and the defining of the proletarian position vis-a-vis each concrete situation). This is the task of constant elaboration of the communist programme, that is to say, the definition of the goals and the methods of the historic struggle of the working class.

    b. Intervention within the class in order to aid in the conscious carrying out of its historic programme and so that it can appropriate for itself the means for its revolutionary task.

    2. The working class is not the only class to exist internationally. The bourgeoisie and the various peasant strata are to be found in all countries. But the proletariat is the only class that can organize itself and act collectively at an international level because it is the only class which has no national interests. Its emancipation is only possible on a world scale.

    That is why its political organization inevitably tends to be centralized and international. The proletariat creates its political organization in its own image.

    Whether it is a question of political analysis or of intervention, the prole*tarian political organization is dealing with a world-wide reality. Its centralized and international character is not the result of any moral or ethical demand, but a necessary condition for its effectiveness and therefore for its very existence.

    3. The international character of the proletarian political organization has been affirmed throughout the history of the workers' movement. Already in 1847, the Communist League, through its watchword, "Workers of the world, unite, the workers have no fatherland," proclaimed its international charac*ter. After 1864, political, organizations took the form of ‘Internationals’. Up until the triumph of the Stalinist counter-revolution and of ‘socialism in one country’ only the failure of the IInd International really broke this internationalist continuity.

    The internationalism of the IInd International, which existed in the period of stability of the major industrial powers, inevitably suffered from the confinement of proletarian struggles to the framework of reforms: the horizon of the proletarian struggle objectively submitted to nationalist restric*tions. Thus the treason of the IInd International was not an isolated, unex*pected phenomenon. It was the worst outcome of thirty years of confinement of workers' struggles within national frameworks. In fact, right from its inception, the IInd International represented a regression in relation to the International Workingmen’s Association. Parliamentarism, trade unionism, the establishment of mass parties, in sum, the orientation of the workers' move*ment towards the reformist struggle, contributed to the fragmentation of the world workers' movement along national lines. The revolutionary task of the proletariat can only be conceived and realised on an international scale. Otherwise it is nothing but utopia. But from the very fact that capital is divided into nations, the .struggles for the acquisition of reforms (when they were possible) did not require an international arena to be successful. It was not world capital which decided to concede this or that amelioration to the proletariat of this or that nation. It was in each country and in a struggle against their own national bourgeoisie that the workers pressed home their demands.

    Proletarian internationalism is not a pious hope, nor an abstract ideal, but a necessity imposed by the nature of the proletariat’s historic task.

    That is why the first world war, by decisively demonstrating the historic unviability of the national framework and by putting the proletarian revolu*tion as the order of the day, had to .lead, after the collapse of the IInd International, to the most energetic re-affirmation of proletarian internatio*nalism within the workers’ movement. This was the task imposed on Zimmerwald and Kienthal, and which then demanded the constitution of a new International, the Communist International.

    The IIIrd International was founded at the very beginning of the ‘era of the socialist revolution’ and its most important characteristic inevitably had to be its intransigent internationalism. Its demise came when it became unable to maintain this internationalism. This was the theory of socialism in one country.

    Since then it has not been by chance that the word internationalist has been part of the name of many of the main organized reactions against the Stalinist counter-revolution. Capitalist decadence is synonymous with the necessity of the proletarian revolution and proletarian revolution is synonymous with internationalism.

    4. If at all times proletarian political organizations have affirmed their international character, today this affirmation is more than ever the indis*pensable precondition for a proletarian organization.

    It is because of this that we must understand the importance, the profound significance, of the internationalist effort of our current.


    Centralism is not an optional or abstract principle for the structure of the organisation. It is the concretisation of its unitary character. It expresses the fact that it is one and the same organisation which takes positions and acts within the class. In the various relations between the parts of the organisation and the whole, it's always the whole which takes precedence. In the face of the working class you cannot have political positions or conceptions of intervention which are particular to this or that territorial or local section. These latter must always see themselves as part of a whole. The analyses and positions expressed in the press, leaflets, public meetings discussions with sympathisers, the methods used in our propaganda and in our internal life are those of the organisation as a whole, even if there are disagreements with this or that point in this or that place or with this or that militant, and even if the organisation expresses in public the political debates going on within it. We must absolutely reject the conception according to which this or that part of the organisation can adopt, in front of the organisation or of the working class, the positions or attitudes which it thinks correct instead of those of the organisation which it thinks incorrect. This is because:


    In a revolutionary organisation the whole is not the sum of the parts. The latter are delegated by the whole organisation to carry out a particular activity (territorial publications, local interventions, etc), and are thus responsible in front of the whole for the mandate they have been given.

    Today the idea of 'democratic centralism' (a term we owe to Lenin) is marked by the seal of Stalinism which used it to cover up the process by which any revolutionary life in the parties of the CI were stifled and liquidated. Moreover, Lenin himself bears some responsibility for this in that, at the Tenth congress of the Russian Communist Party (1921), he asked for and won the banning of fractions which he - wrongly, even on a provisional basis - considered to he necessary in the face of the terrible difficulties the revolution was going through. Furthermore the demand for a "real democratic centralism", as practiced in the Bolshevik party, has no sense either, in that:


    To a certain extent, the term 'organic' (which we owe to Bordiga) would be more correct in describing the kind of centralism that exists in an organisation of revolutionaries. However the fact that the Bordigist current has used this term to justify a mode of functioning which prevents the organisation as a whole exerting any control over its central organs and over its own life, disqualifies the term and makes it necessary for us to reject it also. For Bordigism, the fact - correct in itself - that a majority is in favour of a position doesn't guarantee that it Is correct, or that the election of central organs is not a perfect device which prevents it from any kind of degeneration, is used to defend a conception of organisation where votes and elections are banned. In this conception the correct positions and the leaders arise 'by themselves' through a so-called organic process, which in practice means giving the 'centre' the job of deciding everything and settling every debate, and leads this 'centre' to align itself behind the positions of a 'historic leader' who has a sort of divine infallibility. Since they are opposed to any kind of religious or mystical spirit, revolutionaries have no intention of replacing the pontiff of Rome with one from Naples or Milan.

    Once again voting and elections, however imperfect they may be, are in present conditions still the best way of guaranteeing the maximum unity and life in the organisation.

    Contrary to the Bordigist standpoint, the organisation of revolutionaries cannot be 'monolithic'. The existence of disagreements within it is an expression of the fact that it is a living organ which does not have fully formed answers which can be immediately applied to the problems arising in the class. Marxism is neither a dogma nor a catechism. It is the theoretical instrument of a class which through its experience and with a view towards its historic future, advances gradually, through ups and downs, towards a self-awareness which is the indispensable precondition for emancipating itself. As in all human thought, the process whereby proletarian consciousness develops is not a linear or mechanical process but a contradictory and critical one: it necessarily presupposes discussion and the confrontation of arguments. In fact, the famous 'monolithism' or 'invariance' of the Bordigists is a decoy (as can be seen in the positions taken up by the Bordigist organisations and their various sections); either the organisation is completely sclerotic and is no longer affected by the life of the class, or it's not monolithic and its positions are not invariant.
  3. RNL
    RNL
    Thanks for that.

    You say internationalism is something revolutionaries have to practice. But why? I could see from a Trotskyist perspective why this might be the case--if the party itself had the intention of taking power, then internal experience of internationalism would have a 'prefigurative' quality (similar to the way anarchists see horizontal organisation). But for left-communists I still don't see why local organisations would be less suited to the tasks at hand.

    Regarding convincing people of the importance of internationalism by embodying it in the organisation, again, that seems like it would be significant for an organisation that actively recruits, as the Trotskyists do, but I don't see why a local left-communist organisation couldn't convincingly argue for the necessity of an international workers' movement. I see where you're coming from with this point, but it seems like a minor issue.

    The extracts you posted are helpful, but they seem to mostly be arguing for the importance of internationalism in the workers' movement itself (which I fully accept), but then arguing from historical precedent when it comes to showing why left-communist organisations must be international.

    It's probably not a very practical line of inquiry anyway, since there are no left-communist organisations in Ireland, as far as I know. I've just become very interested in left-communism lately.
  4. Leo
    Leo
    You say internationalism is something revolutionaries have to practice. But why? I could see from a Trotskyist perspective why this might be the case--if the party itself had the intention of taking power, then internal experience of internationalism would have a 'prefigurative' quality (similar to the way anarchists see horizontal organisation).
    And funnily enough, it is something they have never practiced, and probably never will. This is because they don't see it like that. Even the future party, they say will be a federation of different national parties. So what they try to do is try to set up national parties and become their leaders.

    But for left-communists I still don't see why local organisations would be less suited to the tasks at hand.
    Fundamentally because we think that every communist nucleus has to see the world with the perspective of an international whole to achieve its tasks. A local organization which is not a part of an international centralized body, like all other purely local organizations regardless of the tendency, would be consumed by the day to day activities and events going on in that locality. Because at the end of the day, no matter what it is always the conditions shaping the consciousness. A purely local activity will create a mind-set and eventually politics of its own.

    Regarding convincing people of the importance of internationalism by embodying it in the organisation, again, that seems like it would be significant for an organisation that actively recruits, as the Trotskyists do, but I don't see why a local left-communist organisation couldn't convincingly argue for the necessity of an international workers' movement. I see where you're coming from with this point, but it seems like a minor issue.
    It is not just about arguing with people or recruiting them though. It is about the stance left communist organizations take within the struggles of the working class as a part of their interventions.

    Participating in a workers' struggle not just as a local group of militant proletarians but a group of local militant proletarians who are also part of an international whole actually significantly strengthens the practical intervention.

    The extracts you posted are helpful, but they seem to mostly be arguing for the importance of internationalism in the workers' movement itself (which I fully accept), but then arguing from historical precedent when it comes to showing why left-communist organisations must be international.
    Actually, the argument is made from a practical point as well:



    It's probably not a very practical line of inquiry anyway, since there are no left-communist organisations in Ireland, as far as I know.
    Just because there isn't one of course doesn't mean there won't ever be though.
  5. Left-Internationalist
    Left-Internationalist
    To stand up for the Trots for a moment, I would say most (except the most nutso sects who are never going to get anywhere anyway) are not advocates of party power, that is, of the party seizing the state and then supposedly acting in the 'class interests' of the proletariat-that would be better called Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism. They are advocates (especially IS type organisations, who are the most consistent) of the working class and oppressed taking power through their own activities and organisations, i.e. 'the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself'- Marx. So they don't confuse party and class, because if they did, they would merely be advocates of party dictatorship, which no one wants. They are in favour of radical council democracy, emancipatory politics, self-organisation, self-management, a multi-party system (because political parties aren't going to just disappear, and will still play some role I imagine, in the councils or maybe even through a Constituent Assembly like during the Russian Revolution) and so on, all the good things.
  6. RNL
    RNL
    Fundamentally because we think that every communist nucleus has to see the world with the perspective of an international whole to achieve its tasks. A local organization which is not a part of an international centralized body, like all other purely local organizations regardless of the tendency, would be consumed by the day to day activities and events going on in that locality. Because at the end of the day, no matter what it is always the conditions shaping the consciousness. A purely local activity will create a mind-set and eventually politics of its own.
    It is not just about arguing with people or recruiting them though. It is about the stance left communist organizations take within the struggles of the working class as a part of their interventions.

    Participating in a workers' struggle not just as a local group of militant proletarians but a group of local militant proletarians who are also part of an international whole actually significantly strengthens the practical intervention.
    Okay, I find those arguments convincing, I think. Certainly the bolded section.

    This part I find confusing though:

    The working class is not the only class to exist internationally. The bourgeoisie and the various peasant strata are to be found in all countries. But the proletariat is the only class that can organize itself and act collectively at an international level because it is the only class which has no national interests. Its emancipation is only possible on a world scale.

    That is why its political organization inevitably tends to be centralized and international. The proletariat creates its political organization in its own image.

    Whether it is a question of political analysis or of intervention, the prole*tarian political organization is dealing with a world-wide reality. Its centralized and international character is not the result of any moral or ethical demand, but a necessary condition for its effectiveness and therefore for its very existence.
    Isn't the left-communist theory that workers will not flood into the pre-existing communist organisations when the class struggle sharpens, but rather will establish their own organisations in the course of fighting for their class interests?

    The above extract seems to imply that the ICC is identical with these hypothetical future workers' organisations.

    Just because there isn't one of course doesn't mean there won't ever be though.
    Hopefully. What course of action would you advise in the meantime?
  7. Alf
    Alf
    In a revolutionary situation, it is obviously necessary and possible for communist organisations to grow considerably, but they will still remain a minority, even when they really merit the title of 'party' or International: you have to be a committed communist to be a member. But this still won't make them the same as the general organisations which, potentially, can regroup a majority of the class in a revolutionary situation: mass assemblies, workers' councils, etc which all workers can take part in, regardless of their political convictions.
  8. Leo
    Leo
    Since Alf responded on the other point;

    Hopefully. What course of action would you advise in the meantime?
    Well if you are serious about it, there are two things you should do. Get in contact with the organizations which exist nearby (the ICC for example has a section in England). Try to find out if there are other like minded people in Ireland (I know there is one in the North) and try to set up some sort of a discussion group. Your course of action in the meantime as you call may very well result in the creation of a left communist organization in Ireland, this is basically how it begins everywhere.