Left communism

[TheIrrationalist]

I've looked through the tendency list and I came across left communism. What exactly is left communism? How does it differ from "basic" Marxism?

[subcp]

People and groups which were to the left of the Communist International, and kicked out either in the 2nd or 3rd Congresses- the Communist Party of Italy was majority left communist until the Bolshevization of the Western CP's, and Gramsci-Togliatti were put in charge. The 2 main branches were the Dutch/German and the Italian communist left, though there were left communists who were organized as left communists in many countries (Bulgaria, Russia, etc.). After being kicked out of the Communist International, the organized communist left (both of the main versions) lived on and inspired new generations and created new organizations, which have descendents that still exist today.

[newdayrising]

In terms of actual politics, here's what I wrote on a similar thread:

Someone will probably write something more in depth after this, but if you want to be really basic about it, here's a list of differences/particularities in relation to what you called Trotskyism/Leninism:

Rejection of parliamentarism and unions (except for a few Bordigists who view they can in certain circumstances be used tactically)
Rejection of national liberation and "anti-imperialism"
Intransigent internationalism, meaning one does not pick sides on wars between bourgeois states
Views of so called "real existing socialism" (past and present) as capitalist
Views of the mainstream left (Trotskyism, Stalinism, social democracy, etc) as part of the bourgeois apparatus

The two most influential currents of what became known as left-communism are the Dutch/German and the Italian ones. There are left-communists of the Italian variety who would consider themselves Leninists.
Most left communists today are members or sympathizers of two main groups: the International Communist Current and the International Communist Tendency or in fewer cases, of groups that split from either group.
This would be, for lack of a better term, the mainstream of left-communism and both groups are, to different degrees, influenced by both the Italian and the Dutch/German lefts.
Also, both regard Lenin and Trotsky as genuine revolutionaries but don't consider Trotskyism as a proletarian political current and are generally critical of what's usually called "Leninism".

I've been corrected since on the part where I say most Leftcoms today are members or sympathizers of the two main organizations. Apparently, this is not true anymore.
But looking at their websites would be a good thing if you want to look deeper into it.

[garrus]

So in a nutshell, they're marxist theoreticians that adopt anarchist-type action ?

[subcp]

Not exactly. They're Marxists that stayed consistent in their analysis and activity as Communists; not 'going along to get along' when the Third International devolved into opportunism and then out and out counter-revolution (Popular Front). Activism is opposed; though there is a fine line between communists intervention in the class struggle and activism (activism being voluntarist and substitutionist).

Though certain strands of class struggle anarchism are close to the politics of left communists, and some left communist groups (GCI I think) are close to anarchism; some of the communisation groups describe themselves as dissident anarchists and left communists, taking from both tendencies.

[Sasha]

the ICC here considers internationalist anarchists the only other revolutionary current and as such is willing to work with us (even though they can be highly critical of us in their paper)

[Alf]

This article gives a general overview of how we see the communist left


http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left

[Alf]

We have a page in Finnish on our website:
http://fi.internationalism.org/



There were also left communists in Finland at the time of the Russian revolution

extract from Gilles Dauvé / Denis Authier

The “International Communist Left”




Finland

Part of the Russian empire until its independence in December 1917, Finland was wracked by civil war from January to March of 1918. The revolutionaries organized in the left wing of the Socialist Party, who had taken power in the south, were defeated by the reaction supported by Germany. The communist Finns working in Russia founded the Finnish Communist Party there in August. The following summarizes the lessons which its leader, O. Kuusinen, drew from the failure of the Socialist Republic of Finland, in his work The Finnish Revolution: an Auto-critique.[19]

“It was utterly typical that, during the meeting of the (socialist) party held in June 1917—where, by the way, we had joined the Zimmerwald International—not one voice was heard demanding that we separate ourselves from the government socialists ... the road of democracy, it then seemed, was open and offered vast possibilities. We expected that we could avoid the worst outcome by using parliamentary methods. And what has been the result of this historical error? Were we able to avoid an armed conflict? No! Parliamentary action was and can only be a danger to the working class movement. All that it did was to uselessly gather together all the forces which were necessary for the revolutionary struggle. Parliamentary activity has only served to deceive the masses; it was used to conceal from them the preparations of their enemies, the bourgeoisie, when it was the working class which should have been making preparations. It is now seen that the idea of the democratic state ... was historically false.”

“The idea of the democratic state was an attempt to fill a vacuum, to serve the transition from capitalism to socialism. But democracy is incapable of assuming the responsibility for such a mission. It has revealed its historical nature during the course of the revolution. Although no one had declared their opposition to it, it satisfied neither the bourgeoisie nor the workers. Its essential characteristic was, in reality, its lack of cohesion, a weakness which necessarily afflicts democracy throughout all of bourgeois society.”

“The Social Democracy claimed it supported the revolution. Yet, what was its rallying cry? Power to the workers? No, its rallying cry was democracy, and respect for democracy. We had not understood that, when the revolution broke out, the workers had violently overthrown the democracy, they had shaken it off as if it were a nuisance.”

Kuusinen showed how the socialists used the democracy to consolidate their power. Later, when the workers rejected the democracy, the bourgeoisie rejected the socialists and resorted to terror. It is not enough to evoke the necessity of the illegal and military struggle; it must also be understood how democracy is opposed to the revolution. This analysis implicitly criticized positions like those taken by the First Congress of the Communist International in regard to democracy and parliamentarism, as well as, of course, the later tactics of the united front and workers governments. The Communist International admitted that democracy was not revolutionary, but it claimed that one could make use of it. The left, on the contrary, said that in order to fight it one had to remain outside of it. At first this appeared to be a slight difference, but it soon highlighted the abyss which existed between the left and the majority. The latter thought it could take a non-neutral social reality and, with certain precautions, turn it into a useful “tool”.

“Our forces must focus on abolishing the bourgeois state rather than setting up in its place, either before or after the revolution, a democracy.” This was the revolutionary position expressed at that time by the Finnish Communist Party, which had also expressed its reservations, at the First Congress of the Communist International, on the topic of the revolutionary use of the trade unions.[20] At its founding Congress in May 1920, the party of the socialist left also interpreted parliamentarism as “a buttress of the bourgeois state”: “The bourgeois government, in order to stay in power, must avail itself of the assistance of the representatives of the workers, in every country, in the legislative assemblies, in municipal governments, and, in certain circumstances, in the national administration itself. However [...] the party must not make a declaration in advance on its future participation in the assembly, since such a decision would be premature without considering each particular situation.”[21]

Kuusinen’s positions are even more relevant insofar as he soon abandoned the left to become a “Leninist” and, later, a “Stalinist”: he was to be one of the signers of the dissolution of the Communist International in 1943. Rather than an organization or organizations, the left was a tendency which was generally stifled by the negative development of the class struggle.

[nativeabuse]

Rejection of national liberation and "anti-imperialism"

This part always confuses me, why exactly are they against this? Could someone please explain?

[Rational Radical]

This part always confuses me, why exactly are they against this? Could someone please explain?

What Left Communists mean by this is not giving support to bourgeois states that are at war with western nations.

[Blake's Baby]

Because 'anti-imperialism' is usually pro-imperialist. Imperialism isn't a 'policy' that's only adopted by the USA, it's a dynamic inherent in world capitalism that all states are subject to. It's not that there are 'imperialist' and 'anti-imperialist' states, there are successful imperialist states and less-successful imperialist states. Supporting less-successful states against more successful states is nothing to do with the working class fighting for its liberation from capitalism. Left Communists are 'anti-imperialist' through opposing capitalism, not just the USA.

'National liberation' is the politics of bourgeois liberalism. Fair enough in the epoch when the bourgeoisie was a progressive class in relation to feudalism - why Marx and Engels supported Polish independence from Tsarist Russia in 1864 - but not in the epoch of global capitalism. National liberation means replacing one set of bourgeois rulers for another set with different hats or accents. Where's the gain for the working class?

[l'Enfermé]

Not exactly. They're Marxists that stayed consistent in their analysis and activity as Communists; not 'going along to get along' when the Third International devolved into opportunism and then out and out counter-revolution (Popular Front). Activism is opposed; though there is a fine line between communists intervention in the class struggle and activism (activism being voluntarist and substitutionist).

Though certain strands of class struggle anarchism are close to the politics of left communists, and some left communist groups (GCI I think) are close to anarchism; some of the communisation groups describe themselves as dissident anarchists and left communists, taking from both tendencies.

Left-Communism appeared before the Comintern.

Anyway, OP, "left-communism", when it was actually a relevant movement, in the late 1910s and the 1920s, wasn't some sort of single tendency. There were 2 different tendencies calling themselves "left-communism", one in Germany and the Netherlands, which was councilist, and the Italian one, lead by Bordiga. These two were very hostile to each other, almost like Trots and Stalinists today. The Dutch-German left-communists broke with the Comintern, while Bordiga complained about how the Dutch-Germans were syndicalists or semi-anarchists or whatever.

[l'Enfermé]

'National liberation' is the politics of bourgeois liberalism. Fair enough in the epoch when the bourgeoisie was a progressive class in relation to feudalism - why Marx and Engels supported Polish independence from Tsarist Russia in 1864 - but not in the epoch of global capitalism. National liberation means replacing one set of bourgeois rulers for another set with different hats or accents. Where's the gain for the working class?

No it's not. Bourgeois liberalism never supported national-liberation. In fact, liberals, historically, have been some of the most brutal butchers of national-liberation movements.

The proletariat can only wage a political class-struggle under a democratic regime. It can't wage a political class-struggle under a savage colonial or semi-colonial administration. When workers try that shit under colonial administration they get, you know, murdered, no questions asked.

[Yuppie Grinder]

No it's not. Bourgeois liberalism never supported national-liberation. In fact, liberals, historically, have been some of the most brutal butchers of national-liberation movements.

The proletariat can only wage a political class-struggle under a democratic regime. It can't wage a political class-struggle under a savage colonial or semi-colonial administration. When workers try that shit under colonial administration they get, you know, murdered, no questions asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim%C3%B3n_Bol%C3%ADvar
If Stalin is an anti-imperialist so are James Monroe and Simon Bolivar.
Also, what about the majority of states in Africa being formally Liberal Republics, if very poorly functioning ones?

[l'Enfermé]

What the fuck does Stalin have to do with my post? When did I say anything about liberal republics? Bolivar? Monroe? What do they have to do with post-WWII national-liberation movements? What are you talking about?

[Thirsty Crow]

The proletariat can only wage a political class-struggle under a democratic regime. It can't wage a political class-struggle under a savage colonial or semi-colonial administration.

Which would imply that democracy leaves the door for proletarian dictatorship wide open, that workers would not face firing squads soon enough, and that it is in no way connected to despotic and authoritarian reshaping of the state, such as with historical Fascism which is itself a bulwark against proletarian struggle that democracy has no interest to oppose?

How about that parliamentary cretinism.

[l'Enfermé]

Which would imply that democracy leaves the door for proletarian dictatorship wide open, that workers would not face firing squads soon enough, and that it is in no way connected to despotic and authoritarian reshaping of the state, such as with historical Fascism which is itself a bulwark against proletarian struggle that democracy has no interest to oppose?

How about that parliamentary cretinism.

I didn't understand a word of that, can you rephrase it?

[Thirsty Crow]

There were 2 different tendencies calling themselves "left-communism", one in Germany and the Netherlands, which was councilist, and the Italian one, lead by Bordiga. These two were very hostile to each other, almost like Trots and Stalinists today.

It is apparent that you either

a) have an axe to grind, and thus deliberately present ambiguous and outright faulty arguments or

b) that you have no idea what you're talking about

The Dutch-German left was not councilist. AAUD-E and Ruhle do not exhaust even the dominant portion of the actual positions and arguments of the communist left in those regions.

And of course, it is a stupid exaggeration to conclude that the Italian Lefts relationship to German adn Dutch left communists is anything like the relationship between Trots and Stalinists today. The former saw, erroneously, the latter as expressing a syndicalist viewpoint.

The Dutch-German left-communists broke with the Comintern, while Bordiga complained about how the Dutch-Germans were syndicalists or semi-anarchists or whatever.

This is true only insofar as you keep quiet about the conditions of the de facto expulsion. The communist have been issued a clear ultimatum at the 3rd Congress of the International to merge with the VKPD. This is the background you either deliberately withhold or don't know about. And even then, the delegates present at the congress did not either leave or express that the KAPD is no longer part of the International.

Maybe you ought to keep away from threads such as this one. Ignorance or prejudice and slander, it matters little, and this is learning after all.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't understand a word of that, can you rephrase it?

A democratic regime - be it a national state or kind of devolution of power as it is the case with Scotland today - is no guarantee for class struggle, political or economic. Your unwitting implication is that democracy practically hands political power over to workers. Historically, as you probably know, liberals and democrats have favoured fascism instead. So to conclude that a democratic regime is the only system of governance under which the working class can wage political class war (by this you actually mean elections and parliamentary participation; I don't think there's any need to comment on this, history has done so already) is ridiculous.

The problem is this generalization, which pits democracy and colonial rule against each other in an abstract way (meaning, class struggle is possible in despotic and authoritarian regimes as well).

And finally, there is the glorious history of national liberation in South Africa. Does Marikana ring a bell? Good for them miners that they've got democracy now, and not apartheid, so they can't possible get mowed down like animals, right?

[l'Enfermé]

It is apparent that you either

a) have an axe to grind, and thus deliberately present ambiguous and outright faulty arguments or

b) that you have no idea what you're talking about

It's neither.

The Dutch-German left was not councilist. AAUD-E and Ruhle do not exhaust even the dominant portion of the actual positions and arguments of the communist left in those regions.

Dutch-German left-commu
Not just Ruhle. Pannekoek, Gorter, Mattick, Korsch, Wolffheim, Laufenberg, Appel, Schroder, etc.. I can't even think of a single Dutch-German Left-Communist who wasn't a Councilist.

And of course, it is a stupid exaggeration to conclude that the Italian Lefts relationship to German adn Dutch left communists is anything like the relationship between Trots and Stalinists today. The former saw, erroneously, the latter as expressing a syndicalist viewpoint.

No, you are right. Trotskyists and Stalinists actually had more in common than Bordigists and Dutch-German ultralefts.

This is true only insofar as you keep quiet about the conditions of the de facto expulsion. The communist have been issued a clear ultimatum at the 3rd Congress of the International to merge with the VKPD. This is the background you either deliberately withhold or don't know about. And even then, the delegates present at the congress did not either leave or express that the KAPD is no longer part of the International.

I know about it. I read the entire stenographic record of the 3rd congress. The zip file is 55 megabytes.

The KAPD was never a full member of the Comintern for it to be expelled.

Maybe you ought to keep away from threads such as this one. Ignorance or prejudice and slander, it matters little, and this is learning after all.

Forgive me for saying things you don't want to hear about your tendency.