Collaborative list of Left Communist organisations

  1. Savage
    They identify themselves as left communists and as the communist wing of the anti-authoritarian milieu in Greece. They also say that they don't deny they have been influenced by the situationists and anarchism.
    My understanding is that they broke from an explicitly anarchist orientation when they first formed as a group.
  2. Alf
    Alf
    "Beyond the pale" because of the 'cop consultant' business or because they don't identify with left communism?
  3. Devrim
    Devrim
    MC as far as I know came out of French operaismo and people who split from the GCI in Belgium. I would not say they are 'left-communist' using the strict definition of relation to the historical communist left. But they do share common positons with the communist left on opposition to trade-unionism, nationalism and parliamentarism.

    KPK developed out of a split from the neo-platformist group that existed in the Czech Republic. Like MC they hold communist positions.
    I did not think any member of MC or KPK posts on RevLeft. At least two members of KPK post on libcom.org - 'Jura' and 'guadia'. Jura posts quite frequently as well.

    IIRC Devrim has met members of both groups.

    To be honest, I think you can't include MC and exclude KPK since they are pretty much sister groups today, i.e. they engage in joint activity and publish material together.
    I now people in KPK pretty well. I only met MC once, and didn't talk to them that much. The people in KPK consider themselves to be left communisrs.

    Devrim
  4. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    @ Alf; beyond the pale because of the alleged cop-consultation business. Aufheben identify with the heritage of the Communist Left enough to qualify under the definition of the list; but I haven't studied the allegations and defence in the Aufheben=state agents case enough to offer an opinion. I know what's been alleged, and I know some of what has been said in defence. I don't don't know how true any of it is. If comrades who've looked at more than I have believe that Aufheben have been acting on behalf of the police, then I'm happy to pull them from the list. Leo seems to want that to happen, but no-one else has offered any opinion or argument one way or another.

    @ Devrim; thanks for the information, I'll put KPK on the list too. I don't know anything more about them than what I've seen on this thread, Android's original statement led me to think that they were internationalist anarchists.
  5. Savage
    is the whole Aufheben controversy an accusation towards the group as a whole or just one specific contributor, because I was under the impression that it was the later
  6. Leo
    Leo
    but no-one else has offered any opinion or argument one way or another.
    One other person, Android did.

    is the whole Aufheben controversy an accusation towards the group as a whole or just one specific contributor, because I was under the impression that it was the later
    It is the latter, but the whole group covered for the guy.
  7. Devrim
    Devrim
    @ Alf; beyond the pale because of the alleged cop-consultation business. Aufheben identify with the heritage of the Communist Left enough to qualify under the definition of the list; but I haven't studied the allegations and defence in the Aufheben=state agents case enough to offer an opinion. I know what's been alleged, and I know some of what has been said in defence. I don't don't know how true any of it is. If comrades who've looked at more than I have believe that Aufheben have been acting on behalf of the police, then I'm happy to pull them from the list. Leo seems to want that to happen, but no-one else has offered any opinion or argument one way or another.
    I think more importantly Aufheben is not a political organisation, merely a group, which produces an annual magazine.

    Devrim
  8. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    One other person, Android did...
    Are you sure?

    I can't see any comment by Android about the scandal of Aufheben (or members of Aufheben) doing consultation work for the police (or not) or the rest of the group defending him, which was what I was asking about. I may have missed it, but I really can't see it.

    I can see a post where Android said that he didn't think that they would identify themselves as Left Communists. But they reference the history and theories of the communist left and that's enough to get them included on the list, under my criteria in the first post.

    As to them not being an organisation as such... they're enough of an organisation to produce their magazine. I have no idea how most of the organisations on this list function; how many people are involved; how regular their press/publications/statements are or how much effort goes into their online presence; whether many of them have public meetings... so at the moment I'm not going to remove groups for not actually being groups.

    I will remove groups that comrades have reasonable grounds for thinking have aided the police.
  9. Leo
    Leo
    Are you sure?

    I can't see any comment by Android about the scandal of Aufheben (or members of Aufheben) doing consultation work for the police (or not) or the rest of the group defending him, which was what I was asking about. I may have missed it, but I really can't see it.

    I can see a post where Android said that he didn't think that they would identify themselves as Left Communists.
    Here's what he said:

    Aufheben - I would not call them 'left-communist' for the reasons Leo has already given and plus I don't think they would identify as such.
    The reasons I have given are, I think, pretty clear. He can further clarify if he wishes.

    But they reference the history and theories of the communist left and that's enough to get them included on the list, under my criteria in the first post.
    As I said, to be consistent, you should also add the Anarchist Federation then - they also reference the history and the theories of the communist left.

    As to them not being an organisation as such... they're enough of an organisation to produce their magazine. I have no idea how most of the organisations on this list function; how many people are involved; how regular their press/publications/statements are or how much effort goes into their online presence; whether many of them have public meetings... so at the moment I'm not going to remove groups for not actually being groups.
    I think this is a fair point, I see no need to remove magazine circles.

    I will remove groups that comrades have reasonable grounds for thinking have aided the police.
    Maybe you should read the TPTG's open letters yourself as well.
  10. Android
    Android
    Just to clarify I do think as it happens that 'J.D.' has 'crossed a line'. Although I probably do not feel as strongly about it as Leo and some other people do.

    Android's original statement led me to think that they were internationalist anarchists.
    I guess my previous post on KPK was not clear enough. Given that I stated that there origins were in neo-platformism and did not mention that they consider themselves communists now. I will take Devrim's word for it that they identify as left-communists. But I have seen a member, Jura say on libcom that he is not comfortable being identified as a left communist IIRC.
  11. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    Here's what he said:

    The reasons I have given are, I think, pretty clear. He can further clarify if he wishes...
    Yes. My reading of the reasons you had given that Android agreed with was that Aufheben were not really Left Communists, given an objective definition of Left Communism, and he also supplied the reason that they do not identify themselves as Left Communists, though they do make reference to Left Communism. It may be that Android meant that they should be removed on the basis that one of their members was a police collaborator, but that wasn't clear to me.

    ...
    As I said, to be consistent, you should also add the Anarchist Federation then - they also reference the history and the theories of the communist left...
    I disagree. Seems to me that there's a significant difference between Aufheben and the Anarchist Federation. The Anarchist Federation is an avowedly anarchist organisation, and though it does mention what is probably more accurately council communism rather than left communism per se (don't remember many references to the Italian Left) I can't really see that there's much of an historical connection. Aufheben situate themselves in a kind of post-modern 'updated' marxism and more explicitly refer to the contribution of the Communist Left.

    ...

    Maybe you should read the TPTG's open letters yourself as well.
    Sometimes I like to rely on my comrades to offer opinions on things that they know more about than I do. I started this list assuming I'd take responsibility for maintaining it but also assuming that I wasn't going to have to take responsibility for all of the external content.

    From my reading, it seems that TPTG believes that Aufheben have acted disgracefully. And if TPTG are right, then I'd agree Aufheben have acted disgracefully. But I'm unsure as to whether TPTG are right. You've said you think that Aufheben should be excluded for 2 different reasons, Android seemed to agree with one (that I didn't consider the important one) and offered another, and Devrim supplied a fourth. Android has since said that he considers that Aufheben have crossed a line but that he perhaps doesn't see the situation as severely as you do.

    I'm not going to remove Aufheben on the grounds that they're not a political organisation; nor that despite being influenced by the Communist Left, they don't actually consider themselves to be Left Communists; nor that they mix their Left Communist influences with other influences. Nor, incidently, am I going to include the Anarchist Federation on the basis that they are equivalent to Aufheben in their referencing of Left Communism, because I don't believe that they are.

    But if they are working with the police on public order and crowd control strategies, or defending members of their group who are working with the police on public order and crowd control strategies, then I think that is very serious. What I'm asking for is opinion from other comrades about this issue.

    I'm trying to make this list a useful resource for people interested in Left Communism. I'm not going to run it on a whim so I'm trying to make the criteria for inclusion clear - of course, you may disagree that I'm managing to do that, or even disagree with how I'm applying criteria, but I am trying to be consistent, I assure you - and to give everyone with an interest in it plenty of opportunity to make their views known. As I hope I've made clear, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of removing Aufheben from the list if comrades think that's justified. But at the moment I don't feel sufficiently equipped to decide if it is justified.
  12. Leo
    Leo
    Yes. My reading of the reasons you had given that Android agreed with was that Aufheben were not really Left Communists, given an objective definition of Left Communism, and he also supplied the reason that they do not identify themselves as Left Communists, though they do make reference to Left Communism. It may be that Android meant that they should be removed on the basis that one of their members was a police collaborator, but that wasn't clear to me.
    Well, he clarified it:

    Just to clarify I do think as it happens that 'J.D.' has 'crossed a line'. Although I probably do not feel as strongly about it as Leo and some other people do.
    That settles it, I think.

    The Anarchist Federation is an avowedly anarchist organisation, and though it does mention what is probably more accurately council communism rather than left communism per se (don't remember many references to the Italian Left)
    They claim heritage to the Dutch and German communist left very clearly.

    I can't really see that there's much of an historical connection.
    No, neither is there any whatsoever with Aufheben.

    Aufheben situate themselves in a kind of post-modern 'updated' marxism and more explicitly refer to the contribution of the Communist Left.
    No, they refer to the contribution of the communist left only as explicitly, as simply an influence among many. And I don't think "post-modern 'updated' marxism" is closer to the communist left than AF style anarchism.

    Sometimes I like to rely on my comrades to offer opinions on things that they know more about than I do. I started this list assuming I'd take responsibility for maintaining it but also assuming that I wasn't going to have to take responsibility for all of the external content.
    Very good, not a reason not to form opinions though - you don't have to take a decision based on it.

    You've said you think that Aufheben should be excluded for 2 different reasons, Android seemed to agree with one (that I didn't consider the important one) and offered another, and Devrim supplied a fourth. Android has since said that he considers that Aufheben have crossed a line but that he perhaps doesn't see the situation as severely as you do.
    Crossing the line is crossing the line. And in any case, now it seems there are three people who think Aufheben shouldn't be on this list, and none who says no they should remain.

    But if they are working with the police on public order and crowd control strategies, or defending members of their group who are working with the police on public order and crowd control strategies, then I think that is very serious.
    Actually they don't even deny that their member acted as a consultant for the police, they defended him saying it would have looked weird if he refused to do so professionally.


    I'm trying to make this list a useful resource for people interested in Left Communism. I'm not going to run it on a whim so I'm trying to make the criteria for inclusion clear - of course, you may disagree that I'm managing to do that, or even disagree with how I'm applying criteria, but I am trying to be consistent, I assure you - and to give everyone with an interest in it plenty of opportunity to make their views known. As I hope I've made clear, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of removing Aufheben from the list if comrades think that's justified.
    Oh, I think you are trying to do a very good thing incidentally. This is too serious a matter though, as you also acknowledge.
  13. Savage
    Actually they don't even deny that their member acted as a consultant for the police, they defended him saying it would have looked weird if he refused to do so professionally.
    If that was their response then I would probably agree that they should be excluded based on those grounds.
  14. Leo
    Leo
    Here:

    The talks to the ‘policing major incidents’ meeting, the CBRN centre, and Civil Contingencies Secretariat were each about his research on mass emergencies. They were part of the dissemination of his research to the emergency services and other relevant organizations that he is expected to do as part of his work at the university. The ‘blue light services’ work closely together; and so talking about emergencies means probably talking to cops as well as the others. His University encouraged this, and it would have looked odd to refuse to communicate with the cops. So he accepted this as a small cost of the overall job of research work.
    http://libcom.org/library/response-tptg
  15. Devrim
    Devrim
    Although I probably do not feel as strongly about it as Leo and some other people do.
    Yes, I am not sure why he does and I have asked him about it.

    I guess my previous post on KPK was not clear enough. Given that I stated that there origins were in neo-platformism and did not mention that they consider themselves communists now. I will take Devrim's word for it that they identify as left-communists. But I have seen a member, Jura say on libcom that he is not comfortable being identified as a left communist IIRC.
    Yes, I know Jura. He wasn't a member when I was there. I think that even he though shares the basic positions of the communist left.

    Devrim
  16. Android
    Android
    Yes, I know Jura. He wasn't a member when I was there. I think that even he though shares the basic positions of the communist left.
    Yeah, I am 100% sure Jura does agree with the basic positions of the communist left - anti-unionism, opposition to nationalism and parliamentarism.

    From memory, I think him being uncomfortable with being labelled a left communist was that he was influenced by operaismo in Italy that occurred after the historical period in which the communist left was formed, i.e. the struggle against the rightward drift of the Comintern in the 1920s.
  17. Alf
    Alf
    The problem I have with this list is that it gives no assessment of the real trajectory or relative importance or health of these different groups.
  18. cassady
    cassady
    Just to inform people that the CBG site is back again.http://cbg.110mb.com/index.html
  19. zimmerwald1915
    Why should it? The point of such a collection is to present the situation as it stands at a point in time, not to give the collector the opportunity to pass judgment on various groups. The links to the organizations' websites are made available, and examiners can judge for themselves based on what they see, and whatever their interactions with the groups in quesion are, how "important" and "healty" the groups are.
  20. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    Thanks Zimmerwald; due to the site being down I've not been able to reply to this, but that's pretty much what I was going to say. It's supposed to be a directory; and just as telephone directory doesn't offer character assessments of the people whose phone numbers it lists, I wasn't going to do anything like that with this either. The point was to provide contact information not opinions as to the health of organisations. One person's 'only viable pole of regroupment' is another person's 'absurd new age sect' after all.

    On the other hand the very question as to what constitutes a left-communist organisation in the first place raises these same questions, but I hope that I'm making inclusion criteria clear; any criteria I or others could use to 'rate' these organisations would I think be inherently less clear, and really beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do.

    For what it's worth, I will lay my political cards on the table. As Alf knows, politically I consider myself to be very close to the ICC, but also the ICT and CBG, and I have I think good relationships with members, former members and sympathisers of all those organisations; other groups I have less knowledge about. The three I have named I think will all have some role to play in what I see as the necessary foundation of the world communist party; none in my opinion constitutes the nucleus of that party but I'd hope to see all involved in its formation.

    That can be seen I suppose as my assessment of the health and importance of those three groups. On the others, the whole business with Aufheben must I think seriously bring into doubt its political integrity. There has been very little opinion expressed by anyone other than Leo on this but it seems to me that their political practice has been appalling. if no-one wants to explain why Aufheben should stay on this list I'll delete them.
  21. Alf
    Alf
    One person's 'only viable pole of regroupment' is another person's 'absurd new age sect' after all.


    The point is that communists have to take a position on such claims or characterisations, not hover about in democratic scepticism. We have to make a political judgement on whether the various groups and organisations express a real work towards the future party, or whether they have become obstacles to it.
  22. Искра
    What about these guys: http://cafe.daum.net/leftcommunist
  23. Blake's Baby
    Blake's Baby
    Kontrrazvedka, I'll check them out.

    Alf, I've already taken a political position on four organisations on the list (soon to be three if as I suspect I will I delete Aufheben soon), which you can read in the same post as the part you quoted.

    Not sure that some of the organisations - such as IP - could be classified on either pole of the spectrum you propose. But I think they're interesting and useful so worth including even though I have many problems with their analyses. IP's 'Appeal to the Pro-Revolutionary Milieu' was very interesting I thought, though I only picked up on it after the fact.

    As to the others (some of which I first came across through reading around IP's 'Appeal...') ... not enough info to make a reasonable judgement.

    The Bordigist groups produce solid material that I rarely disagree with (those that I've seen - 'Communist Left' and 'Proletarian', whichever version of the PCInt they are published by). But their political practice? Not so good in my estimation. But, being right 'in theory' while having practices which may mitigate against the formation of the world party isn't, I'd argue, confined to the Borgdigists. The ICC is seen by many as an obstacle to that work. I disagree, as I said earlier, I hope the ICC will play a part in the formation of the world party; but I can't exactly ringingly endorse the ICC either. Either way, Bordigist presence in this country is practically nil and their publications in English are few and far between. So even if they're a major political force in Italy and France, it would be harder to know about and comment on in any meaningful way given the barriers of language and distance.

    Internationalist Voice look interesting. What's the most interesting for me is that they publish both ICC and ICT material and seem to regard both organisations fraternally. Gives me hope that Left Communists can overcome some of the divisions of the past 90 years, because if the world party is to be formed substantially from the organisations that currently exist (and I believe it must be as I can't see where else the militants of the world party are going to come from) then the two largest organisations, the ICC and the ICT, must come together. Are the current practices of the ICT and the ICC positive or negative in that dynamic? I'm really not sure. Why not? I've been in touch with and reading the press of the ICC for 12 years and the ICT (at a slightly greater distance) for the same period. If I can't decide whether the two organisations that I think are the most important in the process are actually helping, how can I make a reasonable judgement about the rest?

    There's more to say on this but not at 2am.
  24. Leo
    Leo
    Not that I think any of these groups (aside from Aufheben, of course) should be removed from this list, however I think Alf does have a point here. The Internationalist Perspectives is a magazine circle made up, literally, of a hand-full of people in the US and in Belgium. It is not an organization. Controversies is also a magazine circle based in Belgium and Holland. Ex-CBG is, to my knowledge, made up of three people in Scotland. Again, not an organization. The Fraction of the Communist Left is a handful of people in Paris, and I'm not sure whether they would even count as a proper magazine circle, because I'm not sure whether they actually publish a magazine (and am not sure whether anyone in their right mind would actually buy a magazine half of which is about a tiny organization). Mouvement Communiste, Insurgent Notes and n+1 are also magazine circles based in France, the US and Italy respectively. Klasbatalo is a magazine circle in Montreal. TPTG and KPK I know are more than magazine circles - I would personally qualify them as organizations of sorts, although not international organizations. The three Bordigist organizations listed, I would qualify as actual international organizations although minor ones. By the way, Programma Comunista has a new website: http://www.partitocomunistainternazionale.org/

    Both the ICC and the ICT are at least ten times bigger than all these groups listed here as organizations, possible aside from the Bordigists - and both the ICC and the ICT are several times bigger than the Bordigists as well. They are not equals of the other groups listed and it is indeed misleading to present them as such, although the intentions here is obviously not to be so. Perhaps a good idea would be to make categories in the list such as international organizations, under which we can list the ICC, the ICT and the three Bordigist organizations; local organizations under which we can list the TPTG and the KPK and magazine circles and websites under which we can list the others.
  25. Искра
    There's also BIROV, an anarcho-syndicalist (foraist)/ultra-left group from Serbia. They are found of ICC. They are not exactly left-communist, but they are interesting
  26. Alf
    Alf
    Agree about Birov - their declaration is certainly more council communist than anarcho-syndicalist. A very interesting development as they express a critique of anarcho-syndicalist ideas and practices 'from within'. Their website's English page is here http://www.birov.net/en/
  27. Искра
    Yeah, they are more council communists (especially when you discuss with them, they usually promote council communist ideas), but they still consider themselves an anarcho-syndicalsits. I hope that they'll drop that soon and move more thowards left-communism. Critique of anarcho-syndicalism in ex-YU is something that we really need. Especially when it comes to Serbian IWA's section which is in my oppinion gang of opportunists and left-liberals, but also cult of one individual.
  28. Android
    Android
    One person's 'only viable pole of regroupment' is another person's 'absurd new age sect' after all.

    The point is that communists have to take a position on such claims or characterisations, not hover about in democratic scepticism. We have to make a political judgement on whether the various groups and organisations express a real work towards the future party, or whether they have become obstacles to it.
    I must say I found this post a bit strange, no offense. What exactly does 'real work' mean? I know you are not calling for an activist orientation here, but makes me wonder, are you just referring to building a political organisation? I just consider the notion of 'real work' potentially problematic, under present conditions what would that be? Surely it is the movement of the working-class struggling against its conditions of existence that will produce a word-party, not this or that left-communist group declaring themselves the pole of regroupment etc.

    The Internationalist Perspectives is a magazine circle made up, literally, of a hand-full of people in the US and in Belgium. It is not an organization. Controversies is also a magazine circle based in Belgium and Holland. Ex-CBG is, to my knowledge, made up of three people in Scotland. Again, not an organization. The Fraction of the Communist Left is a handful of people in Paris, and I'm not sure whether they would even count as a proper magazine circle, because I'm not sure whether they actually publish a magazine (and am not sure whether anyone in their right mind would actually buy a magazine half of which is about a tiny organization). Mouvement Communiste, Insurgent Notes and n+1 are also magazine circles based in France, the US and Italy respectively. Klasbatalo is a magazine circle in Montreal. TPTG and KPK I know are more than magazine circles - I would personally qualify them as organizations of sorts, although not international organizations. The three Bordigist organizations listed, I would qualify as actual international organizations although minor ones.
    Once more I am not sure what the big deal is, you are just submitting all these groups to your formalist tick-the-boxes questionaire. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with theoretical circles, in fact i think they can play a positive role within the communist movement. Do you have a negative opinion of what you call "magazine circles"?

    Of the groups you characterise as "magazine circles" (IP, Controversies, FICL, Internationalist Voice, MC, Insurgent Notes and n+1), I think you fairly characterise Controverses, Internationalist Voice and possibly Insurgent Notes and n+1 as such. I don't think you can characterise IP, FICL and MC as merely magazine circles. I know IP have oriented themselves toward workers struggles in the past and more recently have engaged the Occupy movement in the USA. As regards MC, last time I met Devrim he told me when he met them in the Czech Republic where he helped them distribute a leaflet they had produced in at least more then one language at some factory, so don't really see how they are merely a magazine circle and of course they were active within the anti-CPE movement. FICL have supported and taken part in workers initiatives in the recent past if I recall correctly, so not an accurate description of them either. Insurgent Notes is a bit unclear in that they are indications that Goldner and others involved in that initiative are attempting to move toward becoming a political group. I am not exactly sure what the activity of n+1 consists of.

    Both the ICC and the ICT are at least ten times bigger than all these groups listed here as organizations, possible aside from the Bordigists - and both the ICC and the ICT are several times bigger than the Bordigists as well. They are not equals of the other groups listed and it is indeed misleading to present them as such, although the intentions here is obviously not to be so. Perhaps a good idea would be to make categories in the list such as international organizations, under which we can list the ICC, the ICT and the three Bordigist organizations; local organizations under which we can list the TPTG and the KPK and magazine circles and websites under which we can list the others.
    Lets keep some sense of proportion here. The ICC, ICT and the Bordigists may be slightly bigger then the other groups. But aside from BC in Italy, the French and Mexican sections of the ICC and the Bordigists groups. Most sections of the international groups don't exceed 20 people and are in general around the size as the other groups we are discussing.
  29. Devrim
    Devrim
    We print* more papers than they do
    To be honest, I am quite surprised by this. Everybody who has any actual knowledge of what we are talking about knows that the entire communist left is tiny. I don't entirely see the point of stating that one group is slightly less minuscule than another.

    TPTG and KPK I know are more than magazine circles - I would personally qualify them as organizations of sorts, although not international organizations.
    The ICC is an international organisation, which has sections that don't meet its already minimal criteria for sections (three people). There are cases where the dog of 'one man and his dog fame' would be a marked increase in size. I can think of three sections of the ICC that the KPK is bigger than. That is not bigger than each of them separately, but than the three of them combined. The KPK, like all left communist groups today, is tiny, but the ICC isn't much bigger, and the idea that it represents some sort of vibrant dynamic international organisation is pretty much a joke really.

    Most sections of the relevant groups don't exceed 1-20 people around the size of the other groups we are discussing.
    Let's forget exceeding by 20 people. I would imagine that there are few organisations that have twenty people: BC in Italy, ICC in France, and perhaps in Mexico, and Maybe Programma. I don't imagine there can be many more.

    The point is that communists have to take a position on such claims or characterisations, not hover about in democratic scepticism. We have to make a political judgement on whether the various groups and organisations express a real work towards the future party, or whether they have become obstacles to it.
    Who does we mean here?

    Devrim

    *I know this is generally sell, but in this case it isn't. They just accumulate large piles in their cupboards.
  30. black magick hustla
    black magick hustla
    One person's 'only viable pole of regroupment' is another person's 'absurd new age sect' after all.


    The point is that communists have to take a position on such claims or characterisations, not hover about in democratic scepticism. We have to make a political judgement on whether the various groups and organisations express a real work towards the future party, or whether they have become obstacles to it.
    honestly, i think if anything, the factions in the communist left that will survive or stay relevant in the future, will have to regroup around something else than themselves. the "ultraleft" millieu today is too tiny and insignificant, and has been so for many decades to be able to absorb the new waves of struggle. i imagine something new will have to emerge from the class struggle where pro-revs will have to attune themsleves to - as opposed to the old idea of the communist left of being some sorts of "treasure chest" of the revolutionary program as handed down by our ancestors.
1234 ...