See topic thanks in advance comrades.
And don't know what both terms mean. I often encounter "luxemburgists" who're actually left-communists in many aspects. And I don't know what left leninism should mean. Is it an ideological current or just several aspects of "leninism"? Anyway, many of my views concerning the relation between Luxemburg and Lenin are based on this article. I also read somewhere that while the "Bolsheviks" where situated around the "Kautskyan" center, Luxemburg and her closest allies where situated on the left of the Second Internationale (it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of Richter's links to an article of the CPGB).
^^^ Yes it was a CPGB article, comrade: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...3&postcount=32 Anyway, "left Leninism" has one critical advantage over "Luxemburgism": the Kautsky-inspired emphasis on organizational theory. Other than that, "left Leninism" is quite broad. The "party" model that I have suggested, which actually encompasses the vast majority of the proletariat the world over, goes beyond traditional organizations (councilist, syndicalist, circle-ist, and "minimum mass" fetishes).
I´ll try to write in english. I don´t agree with that "advantage". We are luxemburgists. We are not all the luxemburgists, but we are that. We are a "party" because we are a part of the proletariat. But for us, the only subject of the Revolution is the proletariat like class. So, the Party is the proletariat (is too a part, like a part of society), not us or other part of the proletariat. By that, we reject all the expressions of the bolsheviks models of party. The proletariat is a complex party, with many parts. We can´t try eliminate other parties like bolsheviks done, because then we aren´t democratics (in the sense of the workers democracy). And because then we´ll susbtitute the real party, the proletariat. Like bolsheviks done. For us, every proletarian can organizate him/herself in the part in which he is in agreement. But in the jobs and in the residence´s place, we all have to coexist. But the "fronts" or the "large parties" have showed their ineffectiveness. Because they mixed contradictories tendencies in a place where the union wasn´t neccesary. And because they finished (all) trying to susbtitute to the proletariat. The most "nice" is that the conception of Marx and Engels about the question of the parties was that, the party as part of a whole. And Rosa Luxemburg and the same Trotsky ("Our Political Tasks") criticized the bolsheviks conceptions. There is an excellent book of Wolfgang Leonhard (Triple Split of Marxism). In this, there is a really interesting explication of the differences between Marxism and Leninism (Bolshevism). We published this fragment in spanish (inedit in the web). In "Libertarian Marxism", one of ours blogs. SALUD
^^^ Actually, comrade, I read Marx's programme for the French Workers' Party. He made it explicitly clear that the party would have to encompass the vast majority of the working class (i.e., most workers are party members): http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...ti-ouvrier.htm "That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party" Kautsky said this, too: http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power...963/index.html “The ideal organisation is the unification of all proletarian parties, the political societies, the trade unions, the co-operatives, as equal members, not of a Labour Party without a programme, as is at the present the case in England, but of a class-conscious, all-embracing Social-Democracy.”
In english is very difficul to express for me in some complex like this. You say it, comrade. The party is the vast majority of the working class, organizated in a distinct party (against the others classes, especially the bourgeoise). But the conceptions of Kautsky are anothers. He spoke of parties as organizations as today are the parties. Marx never did organizational fetichism. He said clearly his opinion in the Manifesto. And he and Engels write texts very clear about workers democracy and the existence of diverse tendencies in the workers movement. Marx spoke, in the text that you comment, about the differences between the bourgeoises and the proletarians. It was a context in which many workers support bourgeoises parties. The AIT had clear that it wasn´t like a modern party. Later, in our opinion, the things were like Kautsky and anothers said. This is the error. But the extreme error is the bolsheviks´ conceptions (completely differents to Marx, Engels or Rosa Luxemburg -and others-). Lenin wanted eliminate all the other organizations of the proletariat. And he did it. They are a minority, not a majority of the working class. But they substituted to the proletariat. And crush the dissidences, the alternatives. Today, there is parties that yet want substitute to the proletariat, to the vast majority of the working class. With centralism and other practices. We consider that if really exist differents tendencies, then exist differents parts in the workers movement. This is no bad. It´s simply real. It isn´t in the sphere of the parties where the struggle is. It is in the jobs, in the place of residence, in the basis, where the struggles are and from these spheres the workers can unite their struggles. In the jobs,..., there is different tendencies, "parties". The "normal" parties want eliminate these differences, to impose their point of wiew from outside. We don´t. It´s true that there is parties (like you consider left leninism) that they say that they don´t want to substitute to the proletariat. But his internal practices aren´t differents to the other bolsheviks. By that, we reject them. We consider that it´s necessary a coherence between internal and external practices. Without internal democracy and freedom, is it believable external democracy and freedom? Finally, the history of united fronts, large parties,..., prove the error. The different tendencies wanted impose his opinions and control the organs of power. In the past and recent history there is many examples. But today, you can see Respect, PSOL, United Left,... There is some comrades that participate of unitaries experiences today. But the majority of us consider that the unit will be only in the struggle, from the concrete to the general, and by need. Not in the theory or in "parties". SALUD (and sorry for my english)
In my experience, most of those who call themselves Luxemburgists should be placed in the category of council communists or left communists. But a lot of what I read places her in Lenin's camp, not with those who claim her name.
But not all are council communits or left communists. Because the positions of the luxemburgism (not only of Rosa Luxemburg, there is a luxemburgist "tradition") have very important differences with these tendencies. By example, with council communism, a very important difference is the question of the accumulation of the capital. We defend the positions of RL (and the History showed that her had reason). Council communism defend the criticism of the leaders of SPD and the International (bolshevism too). Another important difference is the question of unions and parties. And others. With the bolshevism the differences are more important. And with the reformism ... Usually, the majority of tendencies of the workers movement speak well of Rosa Luxemburg and luxemburgism. But usually too they (the majority) don´t accept the luxemburgist positions. In my opinion, is an example of oportunism ("speak well of the myth, but reject her opinions"). There is an article of Pelz, a militant of CSP ("Another Luxemburgism is Possible"), very interesting about that. SALUD
