http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism
Main branches libertarian marxism (luxemburgism) & libertarian communism (anarchist,council, etc)
Results 1 to 20 of 38
Communist Anti-Bolshevism
What are the best examples of Communist Anti-Bolshevism? What do Stalinists think of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism
Main branches libertarian marxism (luxemburgism) & libertarian communism (anarchist,council, etc)
Luxemburguism, trotskism, and the Netherlandern left.
IMO Luxemburgism and the NL (they're very near in their thoughts) can haver very positive aspects to the Comunist theory. But trotskism...
Trots aren't anti-Bolshevik. What the hell. Also, libcommunism isn't a branch of left communism, I'm sure there are some anarchists who support nat-lib struggles, and many SLP members aren't left commies, or so one would think from their position of support for Vietnam in the war (well, after the war, during it they were too split on it, after it it seems they got a Party line and many who didn't agree quit). Also, other than Luxemburgians, you also have SPGBers, De Leonites, the 'Open Marxists', perhaps council commies, and so on. The way you put it, it would appear the terms were synonymous, which is false, as not all lib\m/arxists have crappy economics.
What's the 'best kind'? Well, what criterion would you propose for deciding (so that people don't just name their own tendencies)?
Last edited by ZeroNowhere; 21st August 2009 at 18:16.
They are for stalinists.
This suits better in Learning as it seems, than theory, so moved
OMONOIA
ANARCHO
COMMUNISM
You're never over
Stalinists are not bolsheviks according to Trotskyists.
The main branches of anti-bolshevism are:
1) Anarchism with all its variations
2)Left-Communism
3)Reformism
4)Petit-bourgeois anti-capitalism, which can also be considered reformism in some cases. (NPA, SYRIZA, Die Linke etc)
Stalinism for me, as well as for most trotskyists is anti-bolshevism.
The tactic of popular fronts of the Comintern from 1935 onwards, the sectarianism of the early years of the Stalinist comintern, the dissolution of the comintern itself and also the bureaucratic crimes of the stalinist elites are few of the examples of stalinist treason to the ideas of Bolshevism.
To me all Leninists look alike. As I've said elsewhere, Stalinism is Leninism come of age.
Anarchism and Left Communism are the best examples.
sing me to sleep then leave me alone
I would just like to add that all anarchist "schools" are not communist.
You can say that anarchist communism/libertarian communism is anti-Bolshevik communism, but you can say that for anarchism in general. There are a lot of individualists craps connected with anarchism, and also we have primitivists, insurectionists, anarcho-capitalists etc.
But in general, only libertarian communism is perspective way to create anarchist/communist society. Other "schools" of anarchism are no use.
For the record, Anarchists/Council commies aren't Left Communists, as the left opposition was, and is, Marxist.
Speaking as a Trot myself (mostly), Trotskyism is very much anti-Bolshevik, and is the core, and the original spark, of the Left Opposition.
Yes, Trotsky was a member of the Bolshevik party, however, he changes his view on the transitional process to socialism after Stalin gains power in the USSR.
While I disagree with Trotsky's concept of the permanent revolution allowing a feudalistic nation to skip capitalism, Trotsky makes a point of stating the importance of permanent revolution, and it's major conflict with the nationalist concepts behind the Bolshevik party. The concepts behind Bolshevism posits that socialism is possible to be achieved within one nation, independent of the rest of the world, and later Bolshevism goes on to expand upon that concept with extra emphasis on nationalism.
And this is the flower of the partisan who died for freedom.
council commies aren't Marxists?
It's arguable, though, I would say no, as, as I understand council communism, they don't believe the state should be utilized by the workers before it more or less shifts into a worker's representative democracy. (aka, socialism)
They teeter in between marxist and non-marxist schools of communism.
And this is the flower of the partisan who died for freedom.
As I understand it most council communists utilize the Marxist method of class analysis, they just have a fundamentally different understanding of what "workers control" and "workers democracy" should actually look like (from Leninists), and how state suppression of capital should be carried out.
Please correct me if I'm wrong however.
I'm honestly not incredibly familiar with council communism, so I may very well be wrong, however, I believe that council communism centers around strong support for growth in trade unions, stating that this will lead to the eventual socialist state, controlled by the workers through the hands of trade unions. This seems to stand in opposition to Marxism as trade unions exist to create compromise between the collective workers and the employer.
And this is the flower of the partisan who died for freedom.
[FONT=Verdana]Wrong.
Gorter, Pannekoek, Ruhle, Mattick were all Marxists and members of communist parties. Council communism is not anarchism.
Incidentally, its wrong to say that Left-Communists oppose Bolshevism, but that depends on how you define Bolshevism. Council communists, yes. Left-Communism as a whole, no. There were Left-Communists in the Bolshevik party, after all.
Bordiga and the Italian Left strongly supported the Bolsheviks.
Amadeo Bordiga wrote to Karl Korsch in 1926 saying:
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]For example I don't think the way you express yourself about Russia is correct. We can't say that the Russian revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The 1917 revolution was a proletarian revolution, even If generalising about the tactical lessons which can be derived from it is a mistake. The problem we are presented with now is this: What will become of the proletarian dictatorship in one country if revolutions don't follow elsewhere. There may be a counterrevolution, there may be an external intervention, or there may be a degenerative process in which case it would be a matter of uncovering the symptoms and reflexes within the communist party.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]We can't simply say that Russia is a country where capitalism is expanding. The matter is much more complex; it is a question of new forms of class struggle, which have no historical precedents; it is a question of showing how the entire conception of the relations with the middle classes supported by the Stalinists is a renunciation of the communist programme. It would appear that you rule out the possibility of the Russian Communist Party engaging in any other politics than that which equates with the restoration of capitalism. This is tantamount to a justification of Stalin, or to support for the inadmissible politics of giving up power. Rather it is necessary to say that a correct and classist policy for Russia would have been possible if the whole of the Leninist old guard hadn't made a series of serious mistakes in international policy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]No, they completely rejected trade unions just like they rejected social-democratic parties, and favored workers councils.[/FONT]
Pannekoek wrote:
Trade unions, however, in war must stand upon the side of the capitalist. Its interests are bound up with national capitalism, the victory of which it must wish with all its heart. Hence it assists in arousing strong national feelings and national hatred. It helps the capitalist class to drive the workers into war and to beat down all opposition.
Trade unionism abhors communism. Communism takes away the very basis of its existence. In communism, in the absence of capitalist employers, there is no room for the trade union and labour leaders. It is true that in countries with a strong socialist movement, where the bulk of the workers are socialists, the labour leaders must be socialists too, by origin as well as by environment. But then they are right-wing socialists; and their socialism is restricted to the idea of a commonwealth where instead of greedy capitalists honest labour leaders will manage industrial production.
Trade unionism hates revolution. Revolution upsets all the ordinary relations between capitalists and workers. In its violent clashings, all those careful tariff regulations are swept away; in the strife of its gigantic forces the modest skill of the bargaining labour leaders loses its value. With all its power, trade unionism opposes the ideas of revolution and communism.
Council Communists and other Left Communists were actually, or usually at least, staunchly opposed to trade unions as revolutionary organizations. From Anton Pannekoek's Trade Unionism:
etc etc
A good and very brief article on the most basic aspects of Council Communism can be found here. If you want to understand the history and specific political positions of Council Communism and Left Communism, Marxists.org has a good introduction here.
I consider myself just a Marxist and oppose Bolshevism. I don't wish to argue Bolshevism here but I will lay out my beliefs. I think Marx was correct in saying that there would be an epoch of Capitalism before an epoch of Socialism. The Bolsheviks believed that socialism could occur without a full or mature epoch of capitalism. From my view this has been discredited in a handful of countries without one becoming a strong socialist democracy. Call me a Menshevik if you want but I just can't see a country becoming socialist anywhere but a first world democracy.
I tried to become a Marxist-Someoneist but so far I just can't find that someone. For the time being I consistently identify more with Marx than with any other future Marxist writer.
Everything above is open to criticism. It's the only way to learn.
People have already pointed out that the council communists were opposed to trade unions, but I would just like to add that actually left communists are also different from the 'left opposition'.
The 'left opposition' is the Trotskyist opposition whereas the left communists were those who opposed the Lenininst 'centre' at the Second Congress of the International.
Devrim
Anarchism and Left Communism are the best critiques of Bolshevism.
I consider myself a Bolshevik but I will keep an open mind. ^.^
A problem with this thread is that is assumes that there is such a concept as "Bolshevism". I would argue there is not. As an organization which played a major role in overthrowing capitalism in Russia and thereafter managing the Soviet state, initially with the support of other parties, the Bolsheviks underwent many changes in the way they functioned and the social forces they represented during the period 1917-1989. If you speak of "Bolshevism" you infer that there was a set of ideas that were advocated by the party, or at least its leadership, and implemented consistently for as long as the Bolsheviks exercised state power - in other words, you accept the continuity thesis as advocated by ruling-class historians, which assumes that Stalinism was the logical outcome of the legacy of October 1917, and that Stalinism was consistent with the vision of socialism that Lenin and Trotsky held.
The Trotskyist (i.e. Bolshevik, in my view) position on the relationship between capitalist development and socialist revolution is that by the time the Bolsheviks, acting as the vanguard of the Russian working class, had become strong enough to carry out the expropriation of the bourgeoisie for the first time in human history, in 1917, leading to the formation of the world's first socialist state, the world as a whole had already experienced a long period of capitalist development, and as such the material basis for socialism (i.e. an advanced productive apparatus, capable of providing for mankind's basic needs) already existed. In that sense the Bolsheviks did not believe it is/was possible to "skip" capitalism. The key thing here is that Russia did not possess the material basis for socialism within her own borders and neither did any other country, primarily due to the international division of labour, which leads to different kinds of industries and resources being located in different countries, to the extent that no single country can be independent from the world capitalist-system, no matter how hard they try. It was the absence of international revolution that led to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution but this was by no means inevitable, as the seizure of power in Russia led to an intensification of class antagonisms throughout the world, with workers in several countries - Germany in particular, and even countries that have historically been seen as having a gradualist political tradition, and as lacking an acute sense of class consciousness, such as Britain - coming close to replicating the example of Russia, only to be held back by the dominance of reformist leaders, and the inability of revolutionaries to attract a sufficiently large section of the working class. This is why Trotskyists place such emphasis on internationalism, and the goal of international revolution.
Why do you think Trotskyism is "anti-Bolshevik", given that both Lenin and Trotsky were major leaders of the party, and shared the same analysis concerning the relationship between democratic and socialist revolutions from the months immediately prior to the October Revolution, when Lenin largely accepted Trotsky's views, until the end of Lenin's life?
How so?
