nihilist communism and the communist left

hello.

i will admit i like the aethetics of "nihilist" communism. the rejection of a sort of "ideological" education, "formal" revolutionary organizations and basically the rejection of every old tradition etc. nihilism is a very convincing, but mortal temptation

in fact, i got interested in "communism" first by reading about the situationists, crime thinc, and all sorts of quasi "nihilistic" situ inspired stuff. one can read vaneigem and see the very similarities to the sort of "nihilist communism" expoused in this group.

it seems to me a lot of this stuff has strong intellectual roots in the old communist left. for example, the critique of the "party" resonates with the councilists, and the emphasis on workers' self organization in councils or mass assemblies. the critique of "democratic" ideology in general resonates with bordigist critique of democracy. i mean "intellectual" because this sort of groups dont really have an organic link with the old communist left.

we generally call this type of groups "modernists" in the sense that they might hold some sort of semblance with left communism but they reject the role of formal organizations.

however, again, what is wrong with centralized, formal organizations? for example, generally left communist organizations dont act as a sort of "vanguard", but we see ourselves as a minority within the class. we dont "organize" the class, because workers are perfectly capable of self organization, as history has shown. however, we are a minority within it, and we argue our own positions and encourage discussion and political clarification.

i do believe in the construction of a world communist party, or a sort of "vanguard", but i dont think it emerges from two maoists and their dog declaring themselves as a vanguard party, but genuine communist parties emerge organically in periods of mass struggle. as of now communist organizations are either currents or fractions but they are not "parties".

furthermore, bcbm speaks about how leftists encourage "revolutionary consciousness" as an act of evangelization. i think the issue here is not evangelization, but that us communists, were bred in the class and as such the conditions of capitalist conflict actually made us. we are actually in a sense, the class "acting on self interest", except we are just the "revolutionary minorities". we arent ahistorical creatures, we where bred by the conditions.

long story short, if "nihilist communism" attacks the concept of the revlutionary, then what should communists aspire to do?

it seems to me a lot of this stuff has strong intellectual roots in the old communist left. for example, the critique of the "party" resonates with the councilists, and the emphasis on workers' self organization in councils or mass assemblies.

i think it has a starting point in the council communists, but...

The occupations of the factories are only a
means and not an end, therefore we are not 'ultra-councilist' as
those who would marginalize us would have it; we do not propose
workers' councils at all, we do not presume to call for any specific
political institution, we leave that to the participants at the time.

however, again, what is wrong with centralized, formal organizations?

as i understand, their critique isn't the formation of revolutionary groups themselves, but the ways in which most of these revolutionary groups imagine themselves. monsieur dupont argues that the revolutionary movement primarily manifests itself as a pro-capitalist movement, because its primary function has been and, in so much as it has any effect, continues to be streamlining the maintenance of capital.

but genuine communist parties emerge organically in periods of mass struggle. as of now communist organizations are either currents or fractions but they are not "parties".

this is somewhat similar to the ideas expressed in nihilist communism.

we see the revolution (and communist consciousness)
arising after this period of crisis when a a new material base of
reality is coming into existence: we see revolution as being in two
stages (as we believe, did Marx) and it is in the second stage, the
becoming human stage, that the vast mass of human beings
participate (via consciousness by which we mean
organization/common values, etc, which is determined by the new
material conditions).

furthermore, bcbm speaks about how leftists encourage "revolutionary consciousness" as an act of evangelization. i think the issue here is not evangelization, but that us communists, were bred in the class and as such the conditions of capitalist conflict actually made us. we are actually in a sense, the class "acting on self interest", except we are just the "revolutionary minorities". we arent ahistorical creatures, we where bred by the conditions.

i don't think most communists came to become communists because of the specific conditions of their life, ie, it wasn't working in a job for wages that motivated most of us to consider the role of capitalism, but because we encountered some text or group or whatever and it appealed to us, probably for reasons beyond pure self-interest considering the number of communists who come from outside of the class or declare themselves such before fully entering the working world.

long story short, if "nihilist communism" attacks the concept of the revlutionary, then what should communists aspire to do?

Given the terrible history of the revolutionary movement and its betrayals of the working class surely it is imperative that every pro- revolutionary group reaches the level of integrity whereby it is able to recognize and denounce its organizing tendencies and look for other ways of acting. We do not say what pro-revolutionary groups should do, we only say what they should not do