Results 1 to 7 of 7
Leftcoms: Was there ever a dotp in Russia? What is the view of the dotp? and more
So, to leftcoms, was there ever a dotp in Russia?
Why or why not? If so, when?
What was the nature the USSR (under Lenin, then Stalin, and after him)?
Also, what is the leftcom view of the nature of the dotp?
Is it socialist (as MLs and MLMs would argue)?
Is it a transitional phase (between capitalism and socialism)?
Any more details of how it should be set up?
What does the left-wing of capital mean?
Isn't that a bit sectarian?
Do you see a difference in the nature of the state and the mode of production?
Last edited by Fourth Internationalist; 15th July 2013 at 13:19.
the DOTP to left coms is just the class expression of the proletariat, it doesn't need take on a specific form or operate under a certain 'system'. To them, It's part of revolution and necessary for the destruction of the bourgeois class. Most Left communists say that the DOTP in Russia came to a halt sometime in the 1920s, and was firmly dismantled with Stalin's policies. 'left of capital' just refers to those who call themselves socialists or communists while desiring to keep in place capitalist social relations indefinitely (leninists and stalinists who blather about 'worker states', syndicalists, parecon lovers, etc.)
Ditto
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the final stage of capitalism, but I'm not sure whether you could call it a transitional phase.
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
Left Communists do see the early beginnings of the Bolsheviks in power in Russia as a proletarian dictatorship, eventually loosing this characteristic with the failure of the revolution to spread.
The USSR is seen as capitalist in nature, whether in the form of a proletarian dictatorship or the state bureaucracy that bought alienated labor and accumulated capital.
I'm not really sure about what you mean by the "conception" of the proletarian dictatorship. Most left communists see the party existing as an entity outside of the state. Others (such as myself) don't see a problem with fusing the state and party. Either way, it is up to the working class to liberate itself.
Left communists use socialism and communism interchangeably to mean a classless and stateless society.
There is no "in-between" capitalism and communism.
"The exploited are not carriers of any positive project, be it even the classless society (which all too closely resembles the productive set up). Capital is their only community. They can only escape by destroying everything that makes them exploited...Capitalism has not created the conditions of its overcoming in communism-the famous bourgeoisie forging the arms of its own extinction-but of a world of horrors." -At Daggers Drawn
"Our strategy is therefore the following: to establish and maintain a series of centers of desertion, or poles of secession, of rallying points. For runaways. For those who leave. A series of places where we can escape from the influence of a civilization that is headed for the abyss." -Tiqqun, Call
There will be disagreement between communists on a number of points (I'm answering your post in an individual capacity; not in the name of any group etc.).
The class dictatorship isn't established in one country; it's the working-class, as a class, exercising political power on a global level. When all of the recalcitrant capitalists have been suppressed, when the revolution has penetrated nearly all of the globe- it becomes the sole bearer of power, and leads by example and coercion to eliminate class society.
The proletarian revolution successfully wrested power from the bourgeoisie and smashed the Tsarist-absolutist state within Russian borders. The proletarian revolution was defeated everywhere else; leading to the peculiar and unique phenomenon of a successful revolution turning in on itself under the weight of counter-revolution and reflux. There was still proletarian life in Russia and the RCP(b) into the 1920's, but a number of contingent maneuvers and false solutions by the communists (fusing the party with the state; removing power from the revolutionary factory committees and worker's councils; re-introducing advanced capitalism via one-man-management, Taylorism, militarization of labor, etc.) to hold out until the revolution succeeded elsewhere left it to rot on the vine. Russia, like all other nation-states of that period, was subject to the change from finance to state capitalism as an international tendency of capital. The myth that nationalized property = socialism was a primary aspect of the counter-revolution, in Russia and the weight of the counter-revolution on the world proletariat for most of the 20th century.
The 'transitional phase' is not a static society, a form that can be said to be a 'gain' or 'sign of progress' on the way to communism- the content of the proletarian revolution, from day 1, is communism. That communism can't be established (by the whole class with its revolutionary minority) overnight necessarily means there is a de facto transitional phase, but all along the working-class is, in its real movement, constantly revolutionizing society (relationships between people, the nature of work, and so on).
I don't think intentions make someone right, or make their chosen organization revolutionary. The Second and Third Internationals were integrated into capitalism. The socialist parties and trade unions supporting imperialist war (both world wars), the communist parties and communist-linked trade unions also supported imperialist war (world war II); the division between communists and leftists (the left of capital) are over principled positions: that the working-class has nothing to gain from imperialist war and must support an independent class perspective against all sides involved (revolutionary defeatism), that the working-class can't administer the bourgeois state or influence it to win real gains for the proletariat (so no participation in electoral politics, parliamentarism), that trade unionism has been institutionalized as an appendage of the bourgeois state under state capitalism and completely integrated into defending the system of waged labor.
When nominally socialist or communist groups support one side against another in an imperialist war, support the state against the working-class, participate in managing the capitalist state by engaging in electoralism or coalitions, they act against the working-class, asking it to support one faction the bourgeoisie against another, or one bourgeois regime against another, or to defend the status quo of wage labor and private property (all in the name of socialism).
When the French Communist Party acted a bulwark against the nationwide general strike in 1968; when Trotskyist groups want rallies to support keeping the postal service in the public sector or to defend the institution of a union (like defending the ILWU monopoly on the West Coast instead of the class interests of the workers who are being fed cuts and concessions by that same union); when PASOK and the Socialist Party in France administer the state to enact austerity; it shows the difference between class based positions and those that reinforce capitalism (a capitalism with a 'left' veneer).
Which isn't about individuals who desire communism who join them, it's about the structural role played by these organizations and ideologies. Hopefully comrades can be won over through discussion and example.
I will be answering as a member of the ICC.
Yes.
Because the workers councils took power in October 1917 via the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd and the political line of the international proletariat, world revolution was the program. By the time socialism in one country was adopted, not an inch of dotp left in Russia, the workers had lost all power and in fact had even been suppressed by the state openly (during the Petrograd strike and the Kronstadt revolt) and the workers councils had turned into empty cells.
As marxists, we left communists tend to explain things not with who's in power, but by looking at the material situation. In October 1917, the working class took power in Russia, but this was a part of an international revolutionary wave of the world proletariat, shaking countries like Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland, China, Persia and others to their foundations. The economic nature, or the mode of production of a country doesn't change overnight, so when the workers took power in Russia, the economic nature of the country didn't change overnight - nor could it even begin to change in conditions of war, famine and scarcity. So as the international revolutionary wave lost, so did the Russian working class and the more isolated the Russian Revolution got, the more it degenerated, eventually giving way to the Stalinist counter-revolution.
No, it is a period of transition.
You can check out this article.
It means all leftists who, in our opinion, support and serve the interests of the ruling class, willingly or with the best intentions. Our main criteria is quite simple: proletarian internationalism: do they support bourgeois states in wars or in general and this or that form of bourgeois nationalism including national liberation, or not? Other criteria is if they support parliamentarianism and trade-unionism.
That depends on what one means by sectarian. If being sectarian means working with all sorts of political organizations despite disagreements on matters of principle, then yes. However, I would define sectarianism as refusing to discuss, and we are open to discuss with anyone on an individual level, we are willing to try to understand their arguements and where they're coming from and we accept that we are not holders of the supreme truth.
Well, yes, but this is quite a complicated question. Lets say we see a difference between the state, class rule and the mode of production.
"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx
Pale Blue Jadal
i don't know if i'd call myself a leftcom, but i've left the CWI, and i am a lot more sympathetic to left communism than anything else out there at the moment
I don't think there was. i think there was a revolution in Russia and I think it went further than any other revolutions, however I also think Lenin and trotsky and much of the bolshevik party were a bunch of ****s, who cared more about gaining power than about the working class, this can be clearly seen by the fact they introduced "one man management" with many of the old bosses in the factories that the workers had overthrown, the fact they tortured people, Kronstadt, etc
State Capitalism, why? because the workers were still being exploited, just because they were working for one capitalist employer and not many (and actually private industry was never fully abolished in any "socialist country") the state was the capitalist. there was still a clearly identifiable proletariat.
i don't know what the "leftcom view" is but i think they would view any state as needing to be abolished as soon as possible.
for me i think that the dictatorship of the proletariat, is communism RIGHT NOW or as soon as possible. i don't think we should lie to people with "transitional demands" and so on, i've come to the conclusion that that is all bullshit.
It means they favour an economy that is still capitalist even with some things nationalised. Because state capitalism is still capitalism.
I think you need to read what the argument is before calling people sectarian. the communist left generally speaking talk about the "proletarian milieu" or "proletarian camp" (which is communist left, and anarchists, and other organisations they regard as representing the working class) and the left of capital - the left of capital are basically stalinists and trots and reformists, who think that you can reform capitalism or "nationalise the X monopolies" or whatever and that that is socialism
hopefully there won't be a state
read the ICC's "communism is not a nice idea but a material necessity" for a good explanation of this
