Left Communist response to Trotskysist, etc. criticism.

I was curious to as, what the Left Communist response was to the criticisms made by Lenin in Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder, as well as the general criticisms made by the Trotskysists on this website, and in general.

For on this site, I mean this thread:

"Left Communism"

I'll try quote the relevant things:

"Left-Communists seem to me dogmatic in their own little tiny world. Every national-liberation movement is wrong and "bourgeois", participating in elections or trade unions is being "bourgeois" or supporting them."

"Absolutely. They are obsessive in spending their time slandering other groups and organisations that don't take "the correct line" and do more damage than good if ever in a united front situation."
(Ironic, much?)

"Another point of divergence between Left-Communism and Trotskyism is that Left-Communists refuse to work within trade unions, labeling them all as part of the capitalist system. They furthermore believe that all revolutionary-leftist group, whether Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist or Anarchist is part of "the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus". They refuse to make necessary compromises during a period of reaction, and hold ideological purity up so high that it gets in the way of any constructive work they might do otherwise."

(My italics)

Is that a correct position of Left-Communists: the refusal to work with Trade Unions?

"Left-communists are sectarian. As was mentioned earlier, they do not believe in using bourgeois campaigns to gain political strength. Left communists can also be described as sectarian for not using already existing entryism in labour unions, but believe in creating revolutionary parties out of thin air. Hence the RCP (maoists) as one example."

"These are people who CANNOT succeed because they refuse to gain political strength through real institutions such as labour parties."

"They don't have a transitional approach between minimum demands or low consciousness and revolutionary socialism."

Responses?

I was curious to as, what the Left Communist response was to the criticisms made by Lenin in Left Wing Communism: an infantile disorder

This: http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/open0.htm (Herman Gorter's "Open Letter to Comrade Lenin" written in 1920 as a response to Lenin's pamphlet)

Left-Communists seem to me dogmatic in their own little tiny world.

Baseless. Most left communists are workers who are active in the workplaces and who have numerous experiences of strikes and struggles. The fact that we don't participate in the official mechanisms of the bourgeois state means 'living in ones own tiny little world' to Trotskyists only because those official mechanisms are the only place Trotskyists can think one could exist in.

Every national-liberation movement is wrong and "bourgeois", participating in elections or trade unions is being "bourgeois" or supporting them.

This is more or less accurate, we do see national liberation movements as a part of imperialism and anti-working class. We see the parliaments and trade unions as a part of the capitalist state, and are against participating in the elections and see the role of the unions as anti-working class by their nature in the current period of capitalism.

They are obsessive in spending their time slandering other groups and organisations that don't take "the correct line" and do more damage than good if ever in a united front situation.

They mostly don't slander but discuss with each other, as sharp as the tone might be, the relationship of different left communists groups like the ICC and the IBRP have mostly been fraternal at the end of the day, although they had conflicts on some issues.

Left communists, of course, oppose the Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists and would never be in any front with them, because left communists see their politics fundamentally different from those groups.

Another point of divergence between Left-Communism and Trotskyism is that Left-Communists refuse to work within trade unions, labeling them all as part of the capitalist system.

Accurate.

They furthermore believe that all revolutionary-leftist group, whether Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist or Anarchist is part of "the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus".

Not entirely true. Left communists believe that some groups that came from Trotskyism, such as the groups around Munis in Spain, Stinas in Greece and Chaolin in China were proletarian groups. However, we do regard the rest of Trotskyism, and of course Stalinists and Maoists as the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus, because of their politics and practice. As for anarchists, well, here's what the left communists think about it: "Under the same denomination of 'anarchist' we can find groups which differ from the Trotskyists on the sole question of the 'party' while at the same time supporting the whole range of Trotskyist demands (right down to the demand for a Palestinian state!), and truly internationalist groups with which communists can perfectly well not only discuss but undertake a common activity on the basis of internationalism. In our opinion, there can be no question today of rejecting discussion with groups or individuals simply because they describe themselves as 'anarchists'." In other words, left communism differentiates between the internationalist, revolutionary, class struggle anarchists and the 'official' anarchists.

They refuse to make necessary compromises during a period of reaction, and hold ideological purity up so high that it gets in the way of any constructive work they might do otherwise.

Left communists obviously don't make any political compromises. As communists, we always argue for the interests of the working class, for internationalism, for world revolution. Practical activity of course changes in revolutionary and reactionary, counter-revolutionary periods for material reasons, but the core of it, the politics remain the same. In other terms we don't turn into bourgeois-democrats in periods of reaction, nor do we support them.

Is that a correct position of Left-Communists: the refusal to work with Trade Unions?

Yes, left communists don't work with and in trade unions.

This of course doesn't mean we don't discuss with unionized workers, or even that we don't go to their meetings, but we argue against trade unions, as we think they derail and sabotage workers struggles.

Left-communists are sectarian.

Funny when it's coming from Trotskyists.

Being non-sectarian is willing to discuss.

There are basically two left communists organizations who have the basic positions described above. They are very critical of each others historical-theoretical approaches. Yes still, they discuss with each other (to a level), have relations with each other, would help each other if the militants of one needed help. They send their solidarity to each other when militants of one of them dies. Their relationship is not what it could have been, but it's not like other organizations.

The Bordigists are sectarian, and very much divided and they don't discuss with anyone, not even different bordigists groups discuss with each other, but they are either for work in the trade-unions or organizing 'Red Unions', and have at least theoretically supported national liberation until recently.

There are dozens, perhaps even hundreds of Trotskyist organizations who have the same position on national liberation, parliamentarianism, trade-unions etc. They are not willing to discuss those positions, nor are they really willing to discuss with each other at all.

As was mentioned earlier, they do not believe in using bourgeois campaigns to gain political strength.

That's right, we do not believe in using bourgeois campaigns to gain anything.

Left communists can also be described as sectarian for not using already existing entryism in labour unions, but believe in creating revolutionary parties out of thin air.

Left communists think that revolutionary parties will be created in revolutionary periods, when the level of class confrontation is very high. So those parties are not created out of thin air, but in relation to revolutionary class struggle.

Hence the RCP (maoists) as one example.

RCP have got nothing to do with left communism. This shows that the person has no idea about what he's talking about, really.

These are people who CANNOT succeed because they refuse to gain political strength through real institutions such as labour parties.

This quote only shows that the Trotskyist understanding of a 'real institution' is limited to a bourgeois institution.

They don't have a transitional approach between minimum demands or low consciousness and revolutionary socialism.

Well, this is a bit confused sentence I think. Left communists think that communism flowers from the struggle of the working class, and do of course argue for defending the living interests of the proletariat. However left communists don't have a 'reformation program', because we think that permanent reforms are not possible. This is why communists only argue for a communist program, and argue that sectoral struggles have little chance of success unless they break the sectoral isolation and unite with the rest of the class. Left communists do think that the daily struggle of the working class is linked to communism, however we think that it's the impossibility of a 'reformation program' in the current epoch rather than reforms that would break sectoral, national, religious etc. barriers within the working class. This is why for us this is the age of wars and revolutions.

So, in periods of reaction, etc. what method(s) of organization do you use, if you reject the trade unions (and Industrial too?) and parties, etc?

and thanks for the link.

"Another point of divergence between Left-Communism and Trotskyism is that Left-Communists refuse to work within trade unions, labeling them all as part of the capitalist system. They furthermore believe that all revolutionary-leftist group, whether Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist or Anarchist is part of "the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus". They refuse to make necessary compromises during a period of reaction, and hold ideological purity up so high that it gets in the way of any constructive work they might do otherwise."

I don't think for a moment that the Leninists start their movements with joining the capitalist ruling class in mind...I think they were genuine in the sense that they oppose capitalism and the ruling class.

But they always DO end up exactly as the "the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus", don't they? Well, the "successful" ones, anyway.

Either that, or if they are really lucky, they get to replace the bourgeoisie ruling class with themselves...in which case they soon degenerates into the oppressive ruling class they once opposed.

Is that a correct position of Left-Communists: the refusal to work with Trade Unions?

Depends. There are trade unions that are as progressive as the Screen Actors' Guild.

What's the point of working with them?

I think Lenin was right in the sense that Trade unions can only obtain a limited level of consciousness--short of outright class consciousness, that is. But there certainly are incidences where trade unions develop a highly confrontational attitude towards capitalism in general. Unless these trade unions can go that far or has the potential to go that far, there is no point in working with them.

So, in periods of reaction, etc. what method(s) of organization do you use, if you reject the trade unions (and Industrial too?) and parties, etc?

I don't reject parties...I think a strong, organized communist party will be instrumental in bring about the revolution.

But we do have to strive for a non-hierarchical communist party.

I do think that's possible, only that our organizational skills are lacking at the moment.

I think, like using a computer or riding a bike, self-organization (that is, without hierarchy) is something that can be learned. The potential of us human beings in that field has been severely suppressed.

If you blindfold a new born for a couple of years, take off the blindfold, and you will discover that he has gone blind, because his potential of sight was suppressed. Similarly, if you place human beings in a dictatorship (like the one we are in now), they tend to loose their potential ability to make choices for themselves and organize themselves as if there were free (wo)men.

How to overcome that disadvantage is, I think, instrumental for the communist movement.

some of the critiques in this are my points of departure with orthodox left wing communism too (and ive debated with many left communists on this). i support national liberation struggles, and dont oppose working with(in) trade unions. as for political parties, i live in the usa and am of panamanian descent, so progressive parties are third parties and very weak, but i dont oppose working with(in) them.

but the problem left commism has with nat'l liberation is one of the main reasons it has never made traction in the third world.

also, im avidly anti-sectarian, and i do believe some left wing communists to be quite sectarian.

nevertheless, i am neither a leninist nor an anarchist (calling myself a communist without prefixes) who has some strong agreements with left wing and council versions of communism

but the problem left commism has with nat'l liberation is one of the main reasons it has never made traction in the third world.

'Peripheral' places like Mexico, Brazil, China, Greece, Bulgaria Turkey, Venezuela, Iran, Central Asia, Indonesia, South Africa and others historically (that is, let's say, between 1917 and 1965) either had left communist tendencies or left-wing tendencies in the communist parties opposing national liberation.

And the irony about your argument is that a Kurd from Turkey here is arguing against national liberation while an American is arguing that left communism has never made traction in the third world because it opposes national liberation.

National liberation movements in the Third World are, above all, directly against the interests of the workers in the third world.

Vaginal_Residue

The Leninists, if you mean by this the Stalinist are not opposed to the ruling class or capitalism, they are an expression of capitalism. The rise to power of Stalin and his fraction expressed the needs of Russian national capital, the need to impose a ruthless dictatorship over the class in order to impose the necessary counter-revolution to crush the revolutionary spirit of the class and to prepare the ground for the coming war. From 1926 there was a process of each of the national communist parties siding with their national capital. As the rise of other parties claiming to be Leninist the have been and are the expressions of a fraction of the national capitals belief that they can gain power and manage capital better by imposing state capitalism.
As for the Trotskyists with their defense of WW2 they choose the side of capital against the proletariat and have consistently defended the needed for state capitalism with a more human face.
Many of the militants of these organizations clearly believe in what they take to be communism, but that shows the power of these ideologies for imprisoning militants.
It is not a question of good or bad intensions but the class nature of Leninism/Stalinism? Trotskyism: and that it bourgeois.

Leo
Fully agree with your reply to Bayano. We could also add the existence of sections of the ICC in India, Mexico, Venezuela and the growing interest amongst those, in the 'third world', seeking a revolutionary alternative to capitalism in the Communist Left and the ICC.

And the irony about your argument is that a Kurd from Turkey here is arguing against national liberation while an American is arguing that left communism has never made traction in the third world because it opposes national liberation.

ahem, im a panamanian-america. watch yourself

and as for your comment that there have been left-communist factions in leftist parties in the third world, i think thats great. but those factions have been even smaller than trotsykist factions or parties, and trotsky was also anti-nationalist. that doesnt mean either one gains any real traction is the vast majority of cases.

ahem, im a panamanian-america.

So?

watch yourself

What should I watch for?

and as for your comment that there have been left-communist factions in leftist parties in the third world, i think thats great. but those factions have been even smaller than trotsykist factions or parties

Some of them were small, some of them however (the ones in China, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, Central Asia, South Africa, Bulgaria are some examples), the ones which appeared between 1917 and 1927 numbered thousands, tens of thousands even and were really the majority in the Communist Parties, struggling not only against the national liberation movements but also against the directives of the Comintern leadership, ordering them to support the very national liberation movements that were butchering them as well as revolutionary and struggling workers in those countries.

The consequence of the policy of the Communist International in support of national liberation was horrific, and it meant supporting the butchers of communists and workers in the countries where the policy was applied to, thus it objectively meant betraying those communists and workers. We could excuse those who formulated and applied those policies for not knowing better about the consequences of this policy. After more than ninety years of workers' blood being spilled for national 'liberation', what excuse does the leftists have today in supporting the nationalist butchers of the proletariat in the 'third world' today?

I think the broader definition of sectarianism is cherry-picked by various tendencies. To start off, I'll use Marx's material in The Jewish Question as a comparison.

One group of tendencies happens to be "Sabbath-sectarian" (absolute rejection of trade unions, absolute opposition to national liberation, although opposition to parliamentarianism is OK, given developments in information-communication technology since the 60s).

The other group happens to be "real, practical sectarians," as Leo noted above. For all the problems I have with the Stalinist Ludo Martens, at least he isn't the type who likes splitting ad nauseum at the first opportunity.

Being non-sectarian is willing to discuss.

There are basically two left communists organizations who have the basic positions described above. They are very critical of each others historical-theoretical approaches. Yes still, they discuss with each other (to a level), have relations with each other, would help each other if the militants of one needed help. They send their solidarity to each other when militants of one of them dies. Their relationship is not what it could have been, but it's not like other organizations.

Still, my article submission "Rescuing Lenin from the Leninists" is a good read. The definition above isn't complete, IMO. The Bolsheviks worked with the Mensheviks, and only split when it was necessary. Even then, there were no "splittish" attitudes among Bolsheviks towards one another (the Left Communists didn't split from the party).

The Bordigists are sectarian, and very much divided and they don't discuss with anyone, not even different bordigists groups discuss with each other, but they are either for work in the trade-unions or organizing 'Red Unions', and have at least theoretically supported national liberation until recently.

I'd like to know more about this.

but the problem left commism has with nat'l liberation is one of the main reasons it has never made traction in the third world.

I think that this misses the whole point. What are you saying? Give up internationalism to gain more adherents? What sort of opportunism is that?

Devrim

^^^ What is "national liberation," though?

It is not a question of good or bad intensions but the class nature of Leninism/Stalinism? Trotskyism: and that it bourgeois.

You forgot the "orthodox Leninists" like myself.

The trotskyist critique of "left communism" as "being irrelevant" and "divorced from the world" is little more than condemning left communists for not playing the capitalist, geopolitical game. For them, not supporting the Bolivarian revolution translates into "sectarianim" because after all, It is Chavez who is visible in the newspapers, not the workers themselves. In the world, there are big geopolitical players, and like a soccer match, to the more "tankie" trotskyists, you need to support one of the players. However, the sad thing is, these "geopolitical games" involve real flesh and blood workers, tearing the guts out of each other.

Neverthless, I am not sure why trotskysts accuse "left communists" of irrelevance. The only "relevance" the trots have is mentioning their support for "deformed workers' states" in their newspapers.

You forgot the "orthodox Leninists" like myself.

Well, no offense but that isn't really a 'tendency' so to speak, is it?