/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(7.66 KB 191x164 icc-logo.jpg)
Leftcom general Anonymous 12/27/2019 (Fri) 09:59:43 No. 189149
What is the difference between Bordigism, councilism and communization? I was surprised by this quote from the International Communist Party (Bordigist): >"The meaning of unitarism and of organic centralism is that the party develops inside itself the organs suited to the various functions, which we call propaganda, proselytism, proletarian organisation, union work, etc., up to tomorrow, the armed organisation; but nothing can be inferred from the number of comrades destined for such functions, as on principle no comrade must be left out of any of them." This runs counter to all the (forced? with ulterior motive?) Armchair memes you always see in association with Bordigas name in this community. If communization then is a synthesis of 'all power to the workers councils' and organic centralism, what is the theoretic result? I know it has a kind of superposition interpretation of the party, which I thought was great, and communization also has some of the best critiques I've ever read of other tendencies (specifically autonomism, Communalism, Leninism and social democracy). I guess I wanna know how how praxis looks like via communization theory (councils, strikes, propaganda, insurrection, revolution, production, mutual aid?). When I saw what happened in Ecuador recently and what's continually happening in France and Chile, it makes me think of these theories and their immanent relevance.
No.
Leftcom youtube podcast channel I found recently: >Radio Free Storozhevoy: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGxi5WPEBYfcXKQeJufUhhg/videos First Episode (they name-drop leftypol at one point Fix your mics / audio levels -- in ref. to the latest ep.): >Radio Free Storzhevoy Podcast Episode 1: Left-Communism, Revolution, and Terror: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtX4mnkcs-A
>>189181 I'd like to hear these guys in dialogue w/ the proles of the roundtable
Old leftcom thread here: https://archive.md/Nv6eq There was another but I'll need to find it.
bordigists are leninists just as stalinists, maoists, and trotskyists and so organize their parties according to democratic centralism. council communists and communizers do not. none of the three groups do more than polemics about the insufficiency of other left tendencies and write hopelessly abstract articles for other communists to read
>>189437 They do the same kind of shit other left groups do which is nothing. None of the tiny sect parties from any tendency do shit. This isn't somehow unique to leftcom tendencies. It's complete bullshit.
The left-communist rejection of stagism and demand for immediate abolition of all capitalist relations is unworkable to the point of absurdity. You'd have to believe in global civilizational collapse to simplify society enough to communize it, or else give up on communism entirely. IMO left-criticisms in general are usually correct, but can only ever exist in opposition to a broad "right-socialist" project that compromises with reality in order to achieve power.
>>189437 >>189513 Okay these are the kinds of shit takes I'm starting to vehemently distrust as memetically reproduced slander. 1. Bordigists are indeed Leninists ("more Leninist than Lenin") but not democratic centralist, and especially not anything close theoretically to Stalinism and Maoism. To say this you showcase your absolute ignorance of the tendency at hand. Bordigist theory of centralism is called 'organic centralism', which I already mentioned you illiterate fuck, as it seeks to guarantee closer relation to the organic movement of the working class than previous Leninist theories were able to accomplish (at least this is my interpretation of the orgcent theory, someone critique it if it's incomplete). 2. May 68 was a clear result of council communist organizing and agitation (via the Situationist subtheory). The fact that it resulted in the largest wildcat strike in Europe (and without union mediation) says a lot in and of itself. My critique of councilism is that it lacks the political structure needed to take this (say May 68) to the next level of protracted revolutionary activity, but that's exactly the opening I see with a hypothetical synthesis with either Bordigism proper into a new classical-ish leftcom theory (a process of which has already been started with some orgs in Europe, just not very well documented), OR this has already been done but I'm just misunderstanding, via communization theory? Now communization is very analysis-heavy on the class struggle, but in certain passages they do focus on praxis, like communist production (of what I read of Dauvé), so say a revolutionary wave breaks out. How do communizers find each other and organize... communization? Is it thought of as affinity-like, so the informal party is hopefully already established before SHTF? I mean this would still be an improvement over councilism that's unreasonably anti-prefiguration that they only can pass around commentary on events, out of a fear of being "authortitarian" (becoming so "anti-Leninist" that you become less organized that ancoms / platformists). Or should I think of communization theory praxis more like 'informalizing' Bordigist organic centralism? (I just thought of this).
>>189552 Left-communists do not all reject stage theory, they do all reject the late-Leninist revisism of adding another stage; that of state-capitalism. As far as I understand the majority of leftcoms tendencies have a view like: Capitalism -> crisis -> DotP -> lower stage communism -> higher stage communism Communization do seem to advocate going straight to higher stage though, via the leadership of an informal party, but their arguments are quite sound for why though, like pointing out that we've already entered complete maturation of capitalism, especially in Western Europe and NA, and that this implies that the material conditions for communism are ripe, unlike in the late 19th century, or even 20th century (they reference the passages of formal and real subsumption, but I'm not galaxy-brained enough to incorporate that terminology coherently just yet).
(414.81 KB 887x1298 8734817817381.png)
>>189553 >Bordigist theory of centralism is called 'organic centralism' Organic Centralism is a big meme dude. Its just dencent with another name. Camette pointed this out, in his piece, "On Organization." The I.C.P. does not practice centralization in a way that's any different than the one seen in the USSR. Also, they're utterly irrelevant. The ICC, CWO and ICP are minuscule parties with no connections to the working class. People need to stop giving a fuck about what Left Communists have to say because their critiques are more interested in debating what Stalin should have done while not having any alternatives. Council Communists/ Communizers are just crypto anarchists that reject the party form, and fetishize spontaneous revolution. The only thing that matters is knowing we need a party, a crisis in which this party takes power, and after which this party much centralize the means of production, by the state, and provide economic incentives for cooperative production according to a central plan that eventually phases out the markets.
>>189589 /thread
>>189287 <Hello nostalgia my old friend...
>>189589 >Council Communists/ Communizers are just crypto anarchists that reject the party form, and fetishize spontaneous revolution. This is just wrong. Council Communists reject Anarchism, Pannekoek despised them as much as Social Democrats. >This idea often prevails among those who seek exact definitions of Socialism and Anarchism, in order to answer the question whether the Anarchists also belong to the great family of Socialists, and whether they are justly or unjustly rejected by the Social-Democrats as illegitimate "brothers." Practically, the question is not of the slightest importance; we fight the Anarchists most energetically, in spite of the fact that they call themselves enemies of capitalism, because they are enemies of the working class movement; because their propaganda always threatens to destroy organization and discipline, the chief weapons of the proletariat in its struggles, and tends to divert the workers from the most important part of their struggle, the conquest of the power of the State. And so it is not because of a formal definition, but in the interests of the practical struggle, that we regard the Anarchists as opponents who do not belong to our Socialist movement. Also we don't absolutely reject parties, we do believe they have a responsibility of organizing the working class before and during a revolution. We just don't believe in a Party Dictatorship were the revolution becomes completely reliant on them and Worker's Councils become the means the exercise their own power instead of Councils enforcing a DotP themselves and the Party protecting them in this process.
>>189600 >Pannekoek despised them as much as Social Democrats. Yeah, in 1913, where your quote comes from - later in life, Pannekoek rejected the role of the party, and started arguing the immediate creation of Worker Councils without a party - >Our conclusion is that the forms of organization of autonomous power, expressed by the terms “soviets” or “workers councils” must serve as much in the conquest of power as in the direction of productive labor after this conquest. In the first place this is because the power of the workers over society cannot be obtained in any other way, for example by what is called a revolutionary party; in the second place, because these soviets, which will later be necessary for production, can only be formed through the class struggle for power. The Councilist movement rejected the party form after the Russian Revolution. Mattick, Ruhle and the rest of them pretty much fucked off, and spent the rest of their lives lambasting about State Capitalism, and considering Leninism counter-revolutionary. >instead of Councils enforcing a DotP themselves and the Party protecting them in this process. Then, there's no problem here. As long as you acknowledge the Communist Party must have a majority in the councils before they take power, otherwise the revolution will be crushed by reformists, there is nothing to really argue then.
>>189589 >Organic Centralism is a big meme dude. Its just dencent with another name. Prove it. >Camette pointed this out, in his piece, "On Organization." The I.C.P. does not practice centralization in a way that's any different than the one seen in the USSR. Camatte wrote that these political groups were fundamentally "gangs" and that "gangs" dominated all social organization or something. >Also, they're utterly irrelevant. The ICC, CWO and ICP are minuscule parties with no connections to the working class. Just like most communist groups, then. >People need to stop giving a fuck about what Left Communists have to say because their critiques are more interested in debating what Stalin should have done while not having any alternatives. I disagree. The communist left offered a useful critique of the USSR. >Council Communists/ Communizers are just crypto anarchists Prove it. >that reject the party form, and fetishize spontaneous revolution. All modern revolutions have happened more-or-less spontaneously. Even the Bolsheviks did little more than ride an existing revolutionary wave into power. >The only thing that matters is knowing we need a party, a crisis in which this party takes power, and after which this party much centralize the means of production, by the state, and provide economic incentives for cooperative production according to a central plan that eventually phases out the markets. These statements raise more questions than they answer. 1. What exactly is a "party" in this context? 2. Is this party supposed to seize the existing state or create a new one? 3. If a party has seized state power, why does it need to provide "incentives" for cooperative production? 4. Why does the abolition of markets happen "eventually" rather than immediately?
>>189660 >Prove it I'll just quote Bordiga's Democratic Principle where he explicitly says so > Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organization must be unity of structure and action. The term centralism is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organization on "organic centralism". While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term "democracy", which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses. Its no different than demcent - you still have democracy, and you still have centralization, but you just change the name because you want to be associated with the word "democracy." Its like when anarchist change the name of a state, but the function stays the same. >Camatte wrote that these political groups were fundamentally In On Organization, he addresses the fact they use Demcent, but hypocrtically call it something else: >The political gang attains its perfection in those groups that claim to want to supersede existing social forms (forms such as the cult of the individual, of the leader, and of democracy). In practice, anonymity – understood simply as anti-individualism - means unbridled exploitation of the gang members to the profit of the direction clique, which gains prestige from everything the gang produces. And organic centralism becomes the practice of hypocrisy, since the double-dealing that one finds in those groups that lay claim to democratic centralism occurs anyway, in spite of the denial that it's going on. >Just like most communist groups, then. The ones that are relevant are Marxist-Leninist, Maoist - there are no relevant Left Communist groups at all - even though you would think having all that theory would mean something. >Prove it. Here's a piece by Endnotes where they specifically reject the party form, or even the revolutionary programme itself: >Communization is typically opposed to a traditional notion of the transitional period which was always to take place after the revolution, when the proletariat would be able to realise communism, having already taken hold of production and/ or the state. Setting out on the basis of the continued existence of the working class, the transitional period places the real revolution on a receding horizon, meanwhile perpetuating that which it is supposed to overcome. For us this is not a strategic question, since these matters have been settled by historical developments – the end of the programmatic workers’ movement, the disappearance of positive working class identity, the absence of any kind of workers’ power on the horizon: it is no longer possible to imagine a transition to communism on the basis of a prior victory of the working class as working class. To hold to councilist or Leninist conceptions of revolution now is utopian, measuring reality against mental constructs which bear no historical actuality. The class struggle has outlived programmatism, and different shapes now inhabit its horizon. Its pretty obvious here, like Anarchists, they fetishize revolutionary spontaneity, immediateness, and economicism i.g. class struggle for the sake of it without realizing the steps that are necessary before it to pre-configure such a society. Basically, they want an immediate revolution that abolishes capitalism. That's never going to happen because currently don't have any way of centrally planning everything without markets. >Even the Bolsheviks did little more than ride an existing revolutionary wave into power. Not really? The Bolsheviks spent 30 or so years preparing to take state power. The argument Lenin made, and what Leninists make today, is that the best period for the party to take power is during a Civil War after the military defeat of ones' own country, and when Communist Party has a majority of support in the Soviets. http://materialnecessity.org/2019/11/28/1917-the-proletariat-takes-power-ict/ 1.What exactly is a "party" in this context? A vanguard, a political party that exists during a non-revolutionary scenario to spread propaganda, to gain political support among the masses by taking part in their organic struggles for their survival (strikes, unionization, cooperative movements) 2.Is this party supposed to seize the existing state or create a new one? Suppress the existing state, and create a new one:https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm 3.If a party has seized state power, why does it need to provide "incentives" for cooperative production? The whole point of communism is to voluntarily encourage the creation of cooperative production among a common plan. Cooperatives are pre-configurations of the type of production we want in society, and obvious these forms of production don't exist on a national scale in capitalist society - they often fail much like Robert Owen's projects did. They are the germ in this society that will lead to creation of a new post capitalist society. But, again cooperatives aren't just worker coops, their communes, co-determinations, public ownership, communal ownership, municipal ownership - the point is to end competition to create production along the lines of creating products for direct use instead of for market exchange. >Why does the abolition of markets happen "eventually" rather than immediately? That's just my opinion based off this: http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/ I don't think its technologically possible abolish the market, or feasible, in the near future. I'm more in favor of a cooperative commonwealth approach like the ones we've seen Yugoslavia, Rojava and Cuba at the moment. You'll have a highly regulated market along side a cooperative economy.
Leftcoms were never good. They only seem like a good alternative because they didn't have to deal with the reality of being in power and could criticize it from afar.
>>189741 >Its no different than demcent But it is. decisions aren't made based on a majority of the party in all cases but by the leadership consulting with them, applying Marxist analysis and maintaining the invariant program. In practice it kind of looks like the mass line. In theory it means that like every member of the party is a part of the decision making process at least insofar as it applies to their role. It also seeks to allow difference of opinion to exist from the central leadership that isn't factionalist by having an invariant baseline that you can't cross, but allowing different views to be expressed even after a decision is made By contrast - demcent (at least post-Bolshevization) often says no more discussion on a topic once it's been settled.
You may sympathize with the Italian left-communist critic of Bordiga post-WWII, Onorato Damen. Here's a short critical text from him, titled "Centralised Party, Yes – Centralism over the Party, No!" (1951): https://www.marxists.org/archive/damen/1951/centralised.htm On wikipedia it says his party Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista) by contrast held these principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalist_Communist_Party_(Battaglia_Comunista) >· Rosa Luxemburg and not Lenin was right on the national question. >· The old Communist Parties (now fully stalinised) were not centrist but bourgeois. >· There was no hope of conquering the unions and that new strategies towards the daily class struggle would have to be evolved to connect the daily struggle of the class to the longer term struggle for communism. >· The USSR was not a neither-nor society but state capitalist. >· There could be no substitution of the party for the class as a whole. What's peculiar here, at least to me, is that we here have a previous Bordigist left-communist turning from Lenin/Bordiga and toward Luxemburg; the proto-influence for the development of the council communist tendency of which Bordiga was unable to fraternize with. This was just one of the early development towards a leftcom synthesis. Another one was the Gauche Communiste de France that began "a conscious attempt to develop a synthesis of the two strands of left communism". Might be of interest for further reading for those interested in these ideas ITT.
>>189149 >Leftcom general >COINTELPRO central
Leftcoms really do live rent free in tankies heads, lmao
>>189773 Of course they live rent free. American defence budget and Soros grants pay their rent
>>189741 >Here's a piece by Endnotes where they specifically reject the party form, or even the revolutionary programme itself You may not know this but Endnotes is part of a cascade of communization theorists, involving a leftcom and an anarchist division, with a rich set of different takes. These are Troploin, Theorie Communiste, Tiqqun/TIC and Endnotes, and if I'm not mistaken Endnotes is part of the Anglophone (mis)interpretation, 'thanks' to Tiqqun/TIC, that have a way heavier anarchist/activist interpretation than the leftcom milleu where communization theory came from. So if you want to be relevant to this thread you should've quoted something from Troploin or Theorie Communiste, but you seem like some condescending Stalinist (flag w/ reference to Stalin-hijacked Popular Front of the Spanish civil war) so perhaps this wasn't of a particular concern to you when originally replying in the first place.
>>189775 Where can I apply for the bucks?
>>189773 It seems to go both ways
>>189771 >>189775 It wouldn't be a useful thread if it doesn't give the resident schizotank an episode.
Two questions: 1. Are there specific writers one could point to that theorized a leftcom synthesis of councilism and orgcent that resulted in the present synthesized orgs in continental Europe? 2. What are the theoretical differences between the left-communist communizers Troploin and Theorie Communiste?
bump
Why are leftcoms either nerds or brainlets?
>>189741 >I'll just quote Bordiga's Democratic Principle where he explicitly says so This is clearly wrong. Bordiga didn't believe in elevating democracy to a principle within the party and he didn't believe that centralism and discipline should be maintained by administrative methods. This is why Bordiga advocated "organic" centralism which was based on an adherence to the communist programme rather than using party discipline to maintain centralism. >Its no different than demcent - you still have democracy, and you still have centralization ...then why does Bordiga write, <...it eliminates from its structure one of the starting errors of the Moscow International, by getting rid of democratic centralism and of any voting mechanism, as well as every last member eliminating from his ideology any concession to democratoid, pacifist, autonomist or libertarian trends. The ICP wrote, <In 1965 we established that not only we don’t want the principle of democracy, but that we don’t consider its machinery to be of any use either, and we jettisoned the lot for good. >In On Organization, he addresses the fact they use Demcent, but hypocrtically call it something else: He says that in practice these political groups are just "gangs" that profit from their membership regardless of their organizational principles. >The ones that are relevant are Marxist-Leninist, Maoist Relevant to what? The socialist movement in Venezuela isn't Marxist-Leninist. The socialist movement in Bolivia isn't Marxist-Leninist. The Chinese Communist Party is just the ruling coalition and contains everything from free market advocates to ultraleft Maoists. In the developed world the Marxist-Leninist parties are mostly small sects. >there are no relevant Left Communist groups at all - even though you would think having all that theory would mean something. This is a non-argument. History isn't determined by theories or ideas. >Basically, they want an immediate revolution that abolishes capitalism. That's never going to happen because currently don't have any way of centrally planning everything without markets. I disagree. In developed countries it would be easy, on the basis of technique, to abolish private property and create a planned economy. The real obstacle is political not economic. >The Bolsheviks spent 30 or so years preparing to take state power. The Bolsheviks didn't engineer WWI and the fall of the imperial government. They had to wait until the conditions existed for their seizure of power to become possible. Even within the Bolshevik party there was confusion and vacillation during 1917 and leading up to October. It wasn't something that had been planned for decades.
>>189741 >A vanguard, a political party that exists during a non-revolutionary scenario to spread propaganda, to gain political support among the masses by taking part in their organic struggles for their survival (strikes, unionization, cooperative movements) But here you define party by referencing the word itself. You ignore the important question of whether or not this party is a loose class-based coalition or an administrative-bureaucratic organization with membership rolls and a common programme, i.e. something necessarily sectarian that stands apart from the class as a whole. It's also interesting that you define party activity in terms of purely economic activity and ignore any mention of electoralism. >The whole point of communism is to voluntarily encourage the creation of cooperative production among a common plan. Cooperatives are pre-configurations of the type of production we want in society, and obvious these forms of production don't exist on a national scale in capitalist society - they often fail much like Robert Owen's projects did. They are the germ in this society that will lead to creation of a new post capitalist society. But, again cooperatives aren't just worker coops, their communes, co-determinations, public ownership, communal ownership, municipal ownership - the point is to end competition to create production along the lines of creating products for direct use instead of for market exchange. My question was why this is implied to be a matter of giving "incentives" rather than reorganizing production by the enforcement of new laws. >I don't think its technologically possible abolish the market, or feasible, in the near future. I'm more in favor of a cooperative commonwealth approach like the ones we've seen Yugoslavia, Rojava and Cuba at the moment. You'll have a highly regulated market along side a cooperative economy. So you're conceding to the libertarians, then. I don't even see why it wouldn't be feasible to abolish private property with today's technology. As long as a planning system receives feedback provided by individual consumption there shouldn't be a problem.
>>189779 It does tbh
>>189745 >>189771 >>189775 >muh imperialist lapdogs
>>189919 >In developed countries it would be easy, on the basis of technique, to abolish private property and create a planned economy. care to elaborate? even if you count internal corporate ERP systems as proto-gosplan modules, you still need to integrate them, and this is not easy, see how much investment is requires to customize and integrate corporate SAP and it requires time and planning, like GOELRO for electrification and please be concrete, the thing pissing me about lefcoms the most is that they deal in too abstract shit and never come down to the dirty earth I just don't give a fuck if you call it state-capitalism, low-stage communism, DotP, it changes NOTHING
>>189954 >and please be concrete, the thing pissing me about lefcoms the most is that they deal in too abstract shit and never come down to the dirty earth Yeah this. Leftcoms are the `idea guy` of game development.
>>189950 >Can't refute his post, ill just post bad georgian man instead
>>189954 >care to elaborate? What should I elaborate on? The technology exists to centrally finance enterprises throughout an economy and track movements of inventory and consumption. Enterprises that suffer from insufficient consumer demand can be shut down and their personnel can find new employment by searching for positions in a central database. The distribution of surplus product can be decided broadly via referendums on taxes to fund public goods like defense or education. Rationing of consumer goods could occur on the basis of labor vouchers. >even if you count internal corporate ERP systems as proto-gosplan modules, you still need to integrate them, and this is not easy, see how much investment is requires to customize and integrate corporate SAP and it requires time and planning, like GOELRO for electrification It would take a little time to integrate things, yes, but an economy using a centralized system of "finance" and inventory would actually be much smoother and require less administration overall since in theory it should eliminate all kinds of redundancies and eliminate barriers generated by rent-seeking and profit motive. I just don't see how this would be any more difficult than what private enterprise already does, especially if the integrated system is provided via public investment to existing enterprises both large and small. >and please be concrete, the thing pissing me about lefcoms the most is that they deal in too abstract shit and never come down to the dirty earth I don't see how leftcoms have been any less "concrete" than other Marxists. FFS, Dutch council communists wrote this in 1930: https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm >>189970 Go back to twitter.
>>189919 >he didn't believe that centralism and discipline should be maintained by administrative methods. Bordiga can "believe" whatever he wants - that doesn't change what actions he takes. >from his ideology any concession to democratoid, pacifist, autonomist or libertarian trend Because in practice "Organic Centralism" is the same as "Democratic Centralism" instead centralism happens naturally due to apparently having the "correct" revolutionary politics, and members of the party are binded to it much like they would be under a democratic centralist organization. And, like in that paragraph, Bordiga clearly states they did not completely give up voting. Its still DemCent with a different name. >Relevant to what? Relevant to the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. You're not doing anything revolutionary by writing countless papers, and not actually engaging in class struggle with the party in mind. China, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam are all controlled by MLs. Greece and India both have large ML parties. There's also the World Federation of Trade Unions. All the major political fronts with communist influence are ran by MLs. Its not a coincidence.And the argument "well they have free market elements!" is kinda silly because you're expecting them to instantly transition to socialism in a world much different than one in 1917. Its utopian. They're much closer if they're in charge a country than they would be in a place than they're not. I think the issue is here that you have a very euro-centric view of socialism, and so, you downplay their significance due to dogma. >This is a non-argument. History isn't determined by theories or ideas. Its not determined by having no praxis or having any infrastructure to carry out revolution, and Left Communist groups are even smaller, and even more irrelevant, than the smallest ML parties. I mean hell, dude, Bernie Sanders was literally a ML, and his policies model the typical immediate program of a ML party. Its not by chance. >The real obstacle is political not economic What evidence exists that suggest we could completely plan the economy without markets? >They had to wait until the conditions existed for their seizure of power Yeah - that's the point? I never said they engineered those things, but I pointed out there was planning ahead of time. The Bolsheviks didn't just do everything at the last minute. They built influence among the populace using strikes, dual power committees, and ending pogroms against the Jews - people have to know, and trust you, before they join you. They had some influence, notoriety prior to taking power. >You ignore the important question of whether or not this party is a loose class-based coalition or an administrative-bureaucratic organization I don't see why you can't have both? I don't see how you can have a communist party that isn't bureaucratic. Bureaucratic isn't something we absolutely hate - its going to be necessary to manage such a large organization. >ignore any mention of electoralism I'm not opposed to electoralism though? Getting seats on local governments is helpful for pushing propaganda, getting people interested in the party, and some instances those seats can be used to funnel money into communist projects such as municipal cooperatives and land trusts for communal development. >My question was why this is implied to be a matter of giving "incentives" Because the DOTP isn't going to automatically be communist , and you will want to use the market, and state aid, i.g. economic incentives to encourage the creation of collectives, cooperatives and communes. Once you've collectivized as much as possible; you certainly can do away with those incentives. >I don't even see why it wouldn't be feasible to abolish private property Mao, the USSR, mostly abolished private property through state ownership and collective ownership, but they still allowed some forms of private property for individual use, there were black markets, and market exchange still existed between the communes and the state. Stalin tried make the market less of a problem through price controls, and this was used all through out the Eastern Block. Again, you're being dogmatic. Marx didn't leave plan on how these things should work out. We have to use our heads, you know?
>>189777 I'm aware of those irrelevant hipster groups that are interested in selling magazines instead of putting in work. Also, its funny you're saying "The Stalinist Hi-Jacked Pouplar Front" - Spain wouldn't have lasted without the USSR's support: http://www.international-brigades.org.uk/content/soviet-union-and-spanish-civil-war Also, I really hope you're not using "Stalinist" in a negative sense. It might be painful for you to realize that Stalin is extremely popular these days, and much of his legacy has been vindicated by current events.
>>189777 >having an invariant baseline that you can't cross, but allowing different views to be expressed even Bordiga's "invariance" only showed up in the 1950s. The concept of invariance is silly, no one keeps the same beliefs, principles throughout their entire lives, and that just turns Marxism into a dogma instead of a science that analyses current conditions. Its' largely why Bordiga's group is nothing more than a cult these days. Also, I'm not sure about "allow factions" makes much sense when talking about Bordiga because he didn't even allow Damen's faction...they split over it.
"Dunning-Kruger" the post. >>190213 >Because in practice "Organic Centralism" is the same as "Democratic Centralism" Whatever. I'm tired of pointing out the differences and I really don't care. Your evidence for this consists in a text written by Camatte equating all party sects as being functionally equivalent to "gangs" in which the leadership simply extracts profit from followers. That critique has merit but it undercuts the very idea of bureaucratic party politics which you seem to support. >Relevant to the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. Abolishing the "present state of things" to Marx and Engels meant abolishing wage-labor, commodity production, and private property. China, Cuba, the DPRK, and Vietnam aren't doing this. In fact China and Vietnam have increasingly allowed wage-labor and private property to grow. Like I stated above, China's Communist Party can't even be said to be "Marxist-Leninist" in any real sense considering that their party is more like a broad coalition of mutually contradictory tendencies and factions. >Greece and India both have large ML parties. And would you agree with Camatte that they function as "gangs" seeking to profit from their followers? Or was that just a throwaway argument you pulled out of your ass? >All the major political fronts with communist influence are ran by MLs. Its not a coincidence. You're right it isn't a coincidence. Communists who disagreed with "Marxist-Leninist" dogma were frequently expelled from the international movement in the 1920s and 1930s. >And the argument "well they have free market elements!" is kinda silly because you're expecting them to instantly transition to socialism in a world much different than one in 1917. I don't expect anyone to "instantly" transition to socialism. What I do expect is for nominally "Marxist" governments to pursue methods of superseding the capitalism instead of strengthening it. >They're much closer if they're in charge a country than they would be in a place than they're not. By that logic Donald Trump is closer to establishing communism than Greek communists. He's in charge - that's what matters! >I think the issue is here that you have a very euro-centric view of socialism, and so, you downplay their significance due to dogma. Nonsense. >Its not determined by having no praxis or having any infrastructure to carry out revolution, and Left Communist groups are even smaller, and even more irrelevant, than the smallest ML parties. Why don't you just join a liberal or social-democratic party? They're typically much bigger than ML parties and can really "get things done." >I mean hell, dude, Bernie Sanders was literally a ML, and his policies model the typical immediate program of a ML party. Its not by chance. Bernie Sanders was never an ML. Stop making shit up. >What evidence exists that suggest we could completely plan the economy without markets? Literally the existence of giant multinational corporations. >Yeah - that's the point? I never said they engineered those things, but I pointed out there was planning ahead of time. You literally said above "The Bolsheviks spent 30 or so years preparing to take state power". The Bolsheviks didn't even exist 30 years before 1917. >I don't see how you can have a communist party that isn't bureaucratic. Christ, have you even read Marx? Have you even read Lenin's State and Revolution? >Again, you're being dogmatic. Marx didn't leave plan on how these things should work out. We have to use our heads, you know? How is it "dogmatic" to demand that communists fulfill the goal of abolishing wage-labor and private property? This was the goal since the very beginning.
>>190239 >What I do expect is for nominally "Marxist" governments to pursue methods of superseding the capitalism instead of strengthening it. Based and Xi Jinping and neo-Maoist pilled. Read The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy
(701.00 KB minqili08.pdf)
>>190243 This book?
>>190239 >I'm tired of pointing out the differences and I really don't care. The text was specifically attacking the ICP. I don't think you read it. >Abolishing the "present state of things" to Marx and Engels meant abolishing wage-labor, commodity production, and private property. China, Cuba, the DPRK, and Vietnam aren't doing this. And they eventually will. No Left Communist is doing that either, but they doing a lot of spilting, and organizing on online forums. >Communists who disagreed with "Marxist-Leninist" dogma were frequently expelled from the international movement You're against expelling people now? >What I do expect is for nominally "Marxist" governments to pursue methods of superseding the capitalism instead of strengthening it. You don't think those governments are a threat to NATO? >He's in charge - that's what matters! Are you saying that not having state power isn't important? Do you expect the revolution to happen from your arm-chair? >Bernie Sanders was never an ML He literally called the nationalization of most firms in the 70s, and took trips to USSR to sing the international. No one is making shit up here. >Literally the existence of giant multinational corporations. Explain this? >Christ, have you even read Marx? Have you? Are you arguing that revolutions aren't going to have bureaucracy even though every revolution has a bureaucratic apparatus. It doesn't disappear over night. >How is it "dogmatic" to demand that communists fulfill the goal of abolishing wage-labor and private property? You're being dogmatic because you think there's only way one way to get there, and that there's a set plan to do so. Instead of complaining online, join a union, actually do something with your time instead of being a quote-mining psuedo on bunkerchan.
(41.21 KB 645x729 8d6.jpg)
>>190302 >nationalizing firms makes you an ML.
>>190243 Great, maybe you can post it IN THE CHINA THREAD. >>190310 Literally 90% of his statements are false and stupid. It's unfortunate that derailing isn't against the rules here.
>>190320 >It's unfortunate that derailing isn't against the rules here. Should we hold a referendum?
>>189149 What are some recent (1990's or later) and interesting leftcom theory that's not about critizing other leftists idelogies?
>>190310 Yeah, where do you think he got those ideas from? Anarchists don't call for nationalization and central planning, and anarchists certainly don't visit the USSR to sing the international. The dude's politics is standard ML policy. He's not calling for the creation of communes and federalism. >>190320 They should start calling you copecoms instead of leftcoms. Anyways, Marxism-Leninism > Everything Else >>190320 >>190320
>>190380 >where do you think he got those ideas from? The Social Democratic Nordic Nations. Oh wait I guess since some of their industries are nationalized then they're Communist States under the leadership of a Leninist Vanguard Party.
>>190380 According to this anon - the establishment of the NHS was an ML policy LMAO the lack of historical comprehension. Nice Stalinist LARPing though, really aesthetic.
Eddy do you have any input on >>189831? >Two questions: >1. Are there specific writers one could point to that theorized a leftcom synthesis of councilism and [organic centralism] [...]? >2. What are the theoretical differences between the left-communist communizers Troploin and Theorie Communiste? Thanks for your contributions ITT.
>>190333 Probably communization theory. I'm not an expert on that, though. >>190507 I honestly couldn't speak on those questions. My own focus has been to read Marx & Engels original texts. IMO while the "leftcoms" are interesting I don't see much point in splitting hairs over the finer differences in ideology.
(138.71 KB 1252x704 americanpsycho.jpg)
>>190066 Check em'
bump
What is the leftcom take on economic crises? Do they think they happen because of overproduction?
>>198589 This is from a Trotskyst website but explains the differences between crises theories of overproduction and underconsumption pretty well. Leftcoms adhere to the former.
Paul Mattick (council com) wrote about crises here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/
>>190333 I'm a big fan of Mike Macnair of the Weekly Worker. His big schtick is party organization and rejecting "democratic centralism", which makes him Leftcom in the historical sense of the word (would have been kicked out of the early Comintern). He has good takes on all subjects though, from history to his unique (to my knowlege) theory of "intellectual property in skills" to evaluate the class position of specially trained workers. https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/authors/mike-macnair/
(131.54 KB conrad.pdf)
>>199394 The Weekly Worker is worth reading. The group it represents (CPGB-PCC) came out of the anti-revisionist factions in the original Communist Party of Great Britain. Cockshott himself was a member of the CPGB in the 1980s was but was expelled as an "ultraleftist." The original CPGB disbanded after the collapse of the USSR. There's a world of difference between these older Marxist-Leninists and the new generation today. Groups like CPGB-PCC are much more willing to be critical of the USSR and it's dogmatic approach to Marxism. Attached is a letter that Cockshott sent them that describes some of his political development and his disagreements.
>>199420 >Cockshott himself was a member of the CPGB in the 1980s was but was expelled as an "ultraleftist." That is fucking awesome. I was wondering about the details on this as I had recently investigated whether or not Cockshott could be classified as an ML anymore, as he indeed did back in the 80s. I went to his website and found that he wasn't part of any ML Party anymore but instead is a member of these organizations: >https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/about/ >Paul is an economist and computer scientist who writes extensively on both subjects. His publications are available in several languages. He is a member of WARP[1] and of Solidarity[2]. >1: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/WARP ("World Advanced Research Project, the international center for transition science") >2: https://solidarity.scot/ (an org for a Scottish socialist republic) All of this with combined leads me to conclude that he today (or from 80s-90s forward) moved away from ML and closer to the communist left, or classical Marxism. One of the Marxists he respects the most from the 20th century is Bordiga, in addition.
half of them are anti-leninist and the other half didn't read lenin right
>>199494 Based.
(57.61 KB 500x289 Six Heads ML.jpg)
>>199420 >>199494 >There's a world of difference between these older Marxist-Leninists and the new generation today. Groups like CPGB-PCC are much more willing to be critical of the USSR and it's dogmatic approach to Marxism. I don't usually use the term "Stalinism" here to avoid derailing threads but the term has value. People who call themselves Marxist-Leninists in essence assert that Marx and Lenin would have supported the leadership of the 20th century socialist states, starting with Stalin's coalition. However, Trotsky, Bordiga, and now Cockshott and Macnair preach a Leninism quite different from the "ML" states. Even within the ML states there are competing tendencies, what I nickname "three heads ML" ("Khruschevite"), "four heads ML" (Hoxhaist / Stalin Did Nothing Wrong) and "five heads ML" (Maoist). Cockshott or Macnair are supporters of Marx and Lenin, but the implied meaning changes completely when you call them "Marxist-Leninists".
Latest Chuang - The Divided God: A Letter to Hong Kong http://chuangcn.org/2020/01/the-divided-god/
(619.21 KB 717x620 bordiga-opportunism-detected.png)
Bump
>>189560 Leftcommunists keep saying that they're okay with a DotP as a transitional phase, but apparently you will never ever find a Leftcommunist who will ever admit something to be a DotP, they will always slander it, calling it regular capitalism, etc. In my opinion, and this is why I think Leftcommunists end up with worse takes than even Trots, conflate the DotP as a form of the political reign of the proletariat with socialism as a mode of production. The DotP seeks to "politicize" the economy, trying to establish political supremacy over production and allocation, instead of economic supremacy over the political relations like it is in private capitalism. State-capitalism isn't "another stage", it's simply another mode of production (just like the capitalist mode of production, the peasant mode of production, or the petit-bourgeois mode of production). Modes of production can exist parallel to each other, there is nothing in Marx that contradicts this. The question is, what mode is dominant. Take Cuba, for example. Looking at their current political system, one may make the argument that we have DotP, or a "deformed worker's state" as Trots call it. But Leftcoms just smear it as "Sugarcane Stalinism" and that's that (with the exact same arguments: muh commodity production, muh law of value) - so I'm sorry when I tell you that I don't take the commitment to a transitional stage with a huge [x] doubt, because political praxis of Leftcoms seems to be rather nihilistic here.
>>189950 Imperialism is when you shake hands, and the more hands you shake, the imperialister you are.
>>225693 >Leftcommunists keep saying that they're okay with a DotP as a transitional phase, but apparently you will never ever find a Leftcommunist who will ever admit something to be a DotP, they will always slander it, calling it regular capitalism, etc. This is just false. Unfortunaltey I don't have time to make an in-depth response but you're clearly not familiar with central positions of leftcoms and councilcoms.
>>205260 Best article I've read on the Hong Kong conflict. Chuang delivers as always.
>>225718 Let me guess, War Communism was a proper DotP?
>>190213 >What evidence exists that suggest we could completely plan the economy without markets?
>>225732 That article was a completely banal surface-level analysis ridden with unnecessary metaphors and figures of speech that leftcom/ultra types love, completely missing the facts on ground.
>>225695 >i-it was j-just a handshake guise...nothing to see here! >>225693 >Leftcoms conflate the DotP as a form of the political reign of the proletariat with socialism as a mode of production No...that's...just wrong. "The precondition for going beyond the capitalist system is the overthrow of bourgeois power and the destruction of its state. The condition for bringing about the deep and radical social transformation which has to take place is a new proletarian state apparatus, capable of using force and coercion just as all other historical states. The presence of such an apparatus does not characterise communist society but instead it characterises the stage of its construction. Once this construction is secured, classes and class rule will no longer exist." https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm Bordiga clearly understood the difference between the political transition and the new mode of production. Emphasis mine.
>continuously winging about muh slander you deserve more than slander you deserve gulag
>>226222 >Anarchists want chaos >MLs want to starve workers >Leftcoms want to sit in chairs We need to stoop lower!
(86.53 KB 833x960 smonkkk.jpg)
Bordigism is just leninism taken seriously, council communists are irrelevant, and communization theory is just post modern anarchism dressed up in red.
(20.81 KB 350x281 alunya4.png)
>>226735 Oh it's you! I vaguely remember your persona from back in OG (pre-Body Odor?) /leftypol/. Nice to see you back either way! >Bordigism is just leninism taken seriously Would you say it's your preferred socialist tendency?
(15.13 KB 255x255 skmk.jpg)
>>226936 Glad my avatarfagging has paid off. >Would you say it's your preferred socialist tendency? I don't really know anymore. The past 5 years have done a number on my mental health. I agree with the Bordiga's theory of organic centralism as outlined in the Lyons Theses so I suppose so. In the real world I would probably be considered a trotskyist by virtue of who I do activism with, but I could also be described as being one mental breakdown away from becoming a raging super tankie, and I am also sympathetic to some forms of arab & third world nationalism and shia islamism. I just opt for the label communist when asked to identify my politics.
>>226958 Yep, there's no need to classify oneself into this or that tendency. That's only good for feeling good online.
(3.95 MB 2480x3507 sonkosn.jpg)
>>226969 True. I do worry that my current politics lack the theoretical consistency that they had when I was a normie ancom. They are more sophisticated in a sense, but certainly less coherent. Lately I've been losing a lot of the hope I once had for revolution in my country. I fear that the only viable path for humanity may be full on neo-luddism, but for now I am holding out hope for a resurgence of the communist movement.
>>226214 Then please point where the difference between Bordigists and Trots truly is, because both saw the USSR stuck in a "transitional stage" as DotP but deformed. It looks to me Leftcoms just disagree with Trots when the "deformation" happened.
>>227194 >Then please point where the difference between Bordigists and Trots truly is This is a more complicated question than it appears because the Trotskyists are represented by different parties and tendencies. At the time of his death in 1940, Trotsky believed that the USSR was a worker's state which had fallen under the control of a bureaucracy but he hoped that this bureaucracy would be overthrown at some point. Later, Trotsky's followers split into different camps over the question of the USSR. Some of them maintained the USSR was a DotP that had achieved a socialist society of some kind. Ernest Mandel and the 4th International are a good example of this tendency. Others believed that the USSR was no longer a DotP whatsoever, with the bureaucracy forming a new ruling class as such. This was the opinion of Max Shactman and a few others. (Shachtman broke with Trotsky before the latter died.) After Trotsky's death, his widow resigned from the 4th International because she could not agree with their continued belief that the USSR remained a "worker's state." Her resignation letter is available on Marxists.org. The question of whether or not the USSR was stuck in a transitional stage is likewise complicated. The society inherited by the Bolsheviks was semi-feudal. Which means that any transition following the revolution would have been toward a developed form of capitalism. This is sort of what Lenin wanted - a guided development toward state-owned trusts and monopolies that could be placed under the control of the worker's state. Of course, the reality is that the kind of "worker's state" imagined by Lenin in State & Revolution was not a possibility in a country where 2/3 of the population was illiterate. The Bolsheviks had to rely on the old Tsarist state apparatus in order to maintain order and organize the country. Lenin admitted this. Later, the county rebounded from WWI & the Civil War during the NEP. The growing dominance of state-owned trusts proved antagonistic with the rest of the economy. Eventually, lack of satisfaction with the results of the NEP led to collectivization at the end of the 1920s, which, by force, remolded the economy along the lines of the state-owned model with a large collective farm sector (which, however, was not allowed to be autonomous in terms of their capital goods nor commodity prices.) After the 1930s, people asked the question of exactly what kind of society existed in the USSR. According to Stalin, it was a socialist society that had eliminated private property and had built the foundations of the lower phase of communism. I think Trotsky was inclined to agree with that assessment generally. His followers later split into the different camps I mentioned above. The group that I most agree with are the Trotskyists who aligned with Tony Cliff's thesis of state capitalism. They didn't see the USSR as being in a transitional stage in the sense that Marxists typically think. Of course, Bordiga's opinion was that there was no point in distinguishing between "capitalism" and "state capitalism" since capitalist society had always relied upon some form of a state to maintain the bourgeoisie's power as a class. This is partly why, I think, he didn't consider fascism to be anything terribly new - the bourgeois was simply using the state apparatus that already existed to crush the worker's movement. From that perspective it made little sense for communists to ally themselves with "progressive" or "democratic" forces within the bourgeoisie - since what mattered was the struggle between classes and not a struggle between factions of the bourgeoisie.
(150.87 KB 680x960 leftcoms.jpg)
>>226735 >council communists are irrelevant Why? Because they are few of them?
(22.40 KB 235x375 its-a-bore.jpg)
Reminder that the Situationist International were a continuation of councilcom
https://libcom.org/library/party-old-type >A few observations must be made here. First, Lenin is advocating that public criticism of party line should be allowed, as long as it does not impede carrying out actions. According to Lenin, a party member should be free to publicly disagree with the decision to take part in the Duma elections before or after the elections. This makes sense to us; if a party member is going around telling people to boycott the election, this undermines the party efforts, which in turn makes it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of participating in the Duma. >Second, the example Lenin gives is tied to immediately relevant practical work. Today’s ML groups take “unity of action” to be public agreement on not just organizing work, but also, for example, whether or not the USSR was socialist, or if the Syrian government deserves support. Imagine if the RSDLP had a united public party line on the French Revolution! And further, this CC declaration, which lines up with the modern ML understanding of “demcen”, was actually passed by a Menshevik-majority CC6! In short, this passage demonstrates that a reading of today’s ML “democratic centralist” practices onto Lenin has a weak textual basis.
How can Mao's "New Democracy" be seriously considered anything other than class collaborationism? It's just militant socdem that wants to get to socialism eventually.
>>189553 >maybe your grammar is the reason for their misunderstanding you. break down these sentences, you try-hard fuck
>>235083 It's not that different from the NEP except that China was even more underdeveloped with being 90% being peasantry. It's not SocDem because it already implies the destruction of the bourgeois state and erecting a dictatorship of the proletariat.
>>235141 >its not even different from the NEP except for the immense scale capitalism needs to be institued on quantitative change is qualitative change, this is Marx 101
>>235237 I don't see the "immense scale" - during New Democracy, socialist sector remained dominant. Also remember that during ND they were still concerned with getting rid of landlords - you need to do stuff gradual, you can't have your cake and eat it. Recently I was looking at the tractor production during New Democracy, it increased almost 30 times, and tractors were immediately sent to the fields and cooperatives. Obviously, in that sense, New Democracy was a success.
What's this I keep hearing about lenin abolishing the soviets during the civil war, and them never being reinstated? Was the soviet union a union of soviets or not?
>>226936 >pre-Body Odor There was no pre-oldBO 8ch/leftypol, you moron. He created the board. Also >2020 >still seething about oldBO schizo-tier
>>235046 And it was just as useless.
>>238306 He didn't abolish them per se. The Worker's Soviets existed in Russia and the USSR up until its final collapse. What happened was when War Communism was instated, the entire Economy was nationalized under strict management with the Soviets losing their autonomy. The Soviet still existed but they didn't have the power to coordinate production on thier own instead it was all coordinated by the Bolshevik higher ups. And as I far as I know there were no attempt to reestablish this autonomy after the war.
>>238332 I disagree. Council communists have some of the best analysis out of all the Marxists, both in terms of analysis of capital, but also of labor.
>>189149 The leftcom/mukeist position of activism is straight up retarded. Sure its all historical forces and shit. But historical forces need to have somewhere to go. If there is no Communist party of a really shitty one, then revolutions can easily fizzle out. Take France for example.
>>238875 You're addressing a strawman (Muke, who seems to live rent free in your head).
>>238884 How do I start charging rent
>>238890 fuck off landlord
Is there any leftcom theory or writing about anticolonialism or third world struggles?
>>238841 Ok they have good analysis, where's their revolution then?
>>238439 >The Soviet still existed but they didn't have the power to coordinate production on thier own Then it's not a soviet anymore.
>>238913 How about you look into the start of the October revolution you absolute fucking LARPer.
>>238931 Exactly, this.
>>239003 Not him, but most leftcoms theorist do seem to have "let's just wait it out attitude". Gramsci had something interesting to say about that, but for the rest I haven't seen anything persuasive from leftcoms.
>>239007 Not the case for the party-oriented ones.
>>239007 Also Gramsci was a Stalinist.
>>238913 >Early Stages of German Revolution >Bavarian Soviet Republic >Ruhr Uprising >56 Hungary Just to name a few.
>>239119 >Gramsci was a Stalinist Source about that?
>>239398 He lead the Centrist Faction of the Communist Party. Ofcourse Bordiga led the Left Faction and Angelo Tasca lead the right, both were Anti Stalinist. I wouldn't call Gramsci an Stalinist but he was a hard core Bolshevik since he looked up to what he called "Sovietism" and was a Leninist.
>>239447 >hard core Bolshevik What does that mean exactly? Both Trotsky and Stalin considered themselves "hardcore" Bolshevik, not exactly in those terms of course.
>>239219 >56 Hungary Everybody has been claiming 56 from anarchists to trotskyist to what fucking ever. It was a reform socialist movement in the beginning that turned into armed conflict and had to organize its resources as it could, hence its working class organization. >Ruhr Uprising It even has in its name: uprising. You were asked for revolutions.
(268.67 KB 1280x936 1280px-Rote_Ruhrarmee_1920.jpg)
>>239475 At this time it meant organizing the party and it's belief off of Leninism and the USSR. Bordiga was in prison at that time so Gramsci was able to Bolshevize it. >>239482 The Ruhr Uprising was a revolution with the Communist Party of Germany and Independent SocDems joining with worker's councils to establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They even had their own Red Army.
Bordigism is just hyperstalinism, Council communism is based, and communization is just ANCOM for marxists
>>239398 He sided with Stalin in the days of Trotsky's anti-Stalinism. Though that Gramsci would be a Stalinist is disputed by the fact that he later in life started turning more critical of him himself, though not keeping this very public. >>239497 >Bordigism is just hyperstalinism Pure nonsense. Bordiga criticized Stalin vehemently (to his face) for his counterrevolutionary reintroduction of capitalist forms while calling it socialism. He was closer to early, pre-NEP Lenin than any other bolshevik. >communization is just ANCOM for marxists People keep writing this superficial hot take as if it's something incredibly sharp and incisive. It's rather bland and I could see it attracting a lot more people than scaring them away. Having read Dauvé it's also just simply not true, it reminds me of Marxist left-communists (history, class analysis, critique, theory), not of platformists (flowery, 'pragmatic' humanism) or anarcho-insurrectionists (edgy poetry).
>>239792 >counterrevolutionary reintroduction of capitalist forms Amazing nonsense. As if there was a giant button in the Kremlin that said "end commodity production" but Stalin decided not to press it. Also, what the fuck do you mean by "reintroduction"? Do you hold the NEP to be more socialistic than Stalin's collectivisation?
>>239792 >Pure nonsense. Bordiga criticized Stalin vehemently No? Bordiga upheld the vanguard model Lenin, Stalin followed - his critique was essentially their obsession with democracy. He also considered parts of the Russian Economy socialist. You might want to actually read him.
>>239876 "Socialism in one country".
>>239995 You might wanna try some Bordiga yourself before you accuse people of not reading him. I suggest you start here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm
>>239998 What was the fucking alternative? Invade every other country? What could have been actually done? Even if the soviet union wasn't socialist, putting the blame on Stalin instead of material conditions is retardation. Stalin was man.
>>240011 Bordiga wanted Stalin to invade all the other countries and overthrow their governments Also, you have back up a bit. Socialism isn't a static thing, like some utopians think, is a period class struggle where contradictory forms of production exist along side socialist organization - like for example, the subbotniks organized by Lenin were socialist because performed voluntary labor without payment. That type of management model would have gradually take over all sectors of the economy for it to ever be socialist
(14.94 KB 474x404 whut.jpeg)
>>240054 >the subbotniks organized by Lenin were socialist because performed voluntary labor without payment. That type of management model would have gradually take over all sectors of the economy for it to ever be socialist Leftcoms, I swear. I'm sorry, but this is kinda a pipedream.
>>240062 Well, the USSR turned out to be a pipe dream too.
>>239998 So the USSR wasn't a country before Stalin became general secretary?
>>240062 Not really? Maoist China, Rojava are good examples doing this by encouraging voluntary collectivization, with a mix of production according to work, with some according to need.
>>240163 Don't know about Rojava, but that was one of the biggest failures for Maoist China. Production always remained low because people didn't have any personal reason to labor. Obviously, I don't mean this into some "work harder for capital" way, but people generally expect to be able to get a reward for their hard work and I don't think this will cut for the large majority of people.
Reminder that agricultural collectivization was a left opposition demand that was co-opted by Stalin to outflank his political opponents, and the real "counterrevolutionary right wing" position in the 1920s was continuing the NEP.
>>240172 Reminder that Stalin stole basically all of Trotsky's positions once he'd gotten into power.
>>240170 >Production always remained low because people didn't have any personal reason to labor. But conmmunism isn't about productivity, and in fact, Bordiga attacked that thesis. The plan for communism is consumption - we limit what we produce to meet peoples needs. Production, in the Peoples Communes, were excellent because the national policy was to make the commune self sufficient, and this policy did work out well - peasants made their own electrical plants, grew their own food into production teams >people generally expect to be able to get a reward for their hard work But they were? There was the work points system that gave people who worked harder more grain, and higher wages
>>240172 The Workers Opposition, Workers Group had the best line though and they were suppressed by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin The Left Opposition's thesis of super industrialization was silly, and again, Italian Communist Left saw it as an error when communism was possible the day the manifesto was written. Marx made it clear to Vera Zasulich the rural communes could have been connected and set foundations of communism in Russia
>>240196 Surely these small Communes are not the same a society wide Communism. By this logic, self sufficient peasant communes were Communist. Communism would be defined by a better linking of the Communes and a society wide economic plan. This is what was attempted, but largely the communes were somewhat atomized.
>>240205 Sure, that's the Chuang analysis - its just that those communes laid a decent pre configuration had planning connected them. I just think that Maoist China is overlooked as an excellent attempt making it happen, even with its flaws (again China was even backwards than Russia, it was amazing what they accomplished before the tragic famines)
Just found out that one can divide the historical councilcoms (pre-S.I.) into three categories. ( https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/1978/council-communism.htm ) 1/3 >The party-organizational / Leninist/post-Leninist council communists >Party-Leninism >At the time when council communism was incarnated in a genuine movement, roughly during the 1920s, there was a great temptation to construct a councillist party. This tendency was represented by the KAPD leaders, and especially their theoretician, Herman Gorter. [...] He began to play an active role in the SDAP (Dutch Social Democratic Party) from 1896, opposing the revisionist tendency. After 1907 he joined the oppositional group which was to found the tiny Socialist Party (SDP) in 1909 (with Pannekoek, Van Ravesteyn and Wynkoop). In 1918 he took part in the foundation of the Dutch communist party, before travelling to Germany, where he joined the left wing of the KPD. From 1920 on he became the theoretiaan of both the German KAP (Essen tendency) and its Dutch counterpart, which he managed to bring together to form a Communist Workers' International (KAI) in 1922.[87] [...] In April 1920 the expelled group founded the KAPD (German Workers' Communist Party). The party within which the left-wing communists now found themselves was supposed to incarnate the principles conceived and propagated since 1915. Its programme (inspired by Pannekoek) utterly rejected parliamentarianism and the unions. It sought to remain a party of confirmed communists working to develop the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and the struggle on the shop floor through organizations within the enterprise (Betriebsorganisationen). The new party was not organized along federal lines, as some might have hoped, but along the lines of 'proletarian centralism', the decisions of the highest bodies being binding.[56] Its refusal to work with the reformist unions led the KAPD to assume the programmatic leadership and long-term direction of the new factory organizations as well. [...] In Gorter's view the proletariat needed two kinds of organization: those based on the place of work, the factory, and those bringing 'enlightened' militants together. The former would constitute workers' leagues while the others would form the party. The workers' league is a mass organization concerned with every-day struggle in the factory. But the drawback of the league is its tendency to reformism, confining itself to wage claims. Or, conversely, as a result of an erroneous evaluation of the situation, it is liable to utopianism. The party, on the other hand, is there to steady the helm: it is capable of pointing the way ahead since it is composed of that fraction (however minimal) of the working class which possesses the knowledge and a clear consciousness of the revolutionary objectives. The Western proletariat needed these 'pure' parties, reminders of the one formed by the Bolsheviks in 1902-3. But the party must not seek to gain power for its own ends, for the revolutionary dictatorship is to be that of the entire class. In any case, Gorter prophesied, the proletariat of the industrialized countries of Western Europe and North America is far too numerous for a dictatorship of the party to be possible. The party of pure communists prefigures the political councils, while the unions anticipate the advent of economic councils.[88] [...] Gorter's organizational conceptions were not all that different from Lenin's own; a party-union duality, with the former taking precedence over the latter had after all been set forth in What is to be Done? as early as 1902. [...] <Emphasis mine, as I found this fascinating for my own theorizing. These are the councilcoms, along with Jan Appel (who defended the Party-organizational position against Pannekoek's later anarcho-councilism), whose theory got synthesized successfully with Italian leftcom (Onorato Damen) into the presently continuing international leftcom organization ICC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_Current#Foundation_of_the_ICC,_1975 Here's their stylish, active website with a billion translations: https://internationalism.org/
>>268971 2/3 >''The intermediate conception, halfway between the "organizationalists" and the "spontaneists"' >...was developed by Pannekoek, arising logically from his views on the nature of the revolutionary struggle, which he tied directly to class consciousness. Anton Pannekoek (1873-1960) was an astronomer of world-renown and an historian of science; throughout his life he pursued a dual career as militant and scientist. He was active in the socialist movement for over half a century. He joined the Dutch SDAP in 1912 and, in the following year, began developing his theory of mass spontaneity. He was invited to Berlin in 1905 in order to teach at the party school, and henceforth he became active in both organizations. He became involved in the Bremen left-wing radical circles from 1906 onwards, contributing a large number of articles to the party journals. He was expelled from Germany in 1914 on account of his Dutch nationality, but he carried on his activities in Switzerland and Holland within the Zimmerwaldian left while keeping up his contacts with the German international socialists. He withdrew from active militant work after 1921 to devote himself to astronomy, which he taught at the University of Amsterdam from 1925 onwards. He nevertheless contributed to the theoretical work of the Dutch council communists, the GIC (International Communists Group), and published numerous articles in various council-communist reviews in the 1930s and 40s. <Pannekoek was a future inspiration (along with the other councilcom/western Marxist/proto-Frankfurt School Karl Krosch) of the writings and activity of Guy Debord, with his Situationist International that was mainly managed by him and the Stirnerite anarcho-insurrectionist Raoul Vaneigem. <In his later life Pannekoek drifted from his earlier explicit theorizing of concepts like party-oriented 'proletarian centralism', which became fundamental for the councilcom KAPD party in 1915, to in the late 40s expressing hostility to parties and even orgs (councilism).
>>268973 3/3 >The anarchistic, federalist, councilists >During the period 1917-23 one encounters conceptions which more closely resemble certain anarchist tendencies than the prevailing Marxism. As early as 1917, Julian Borchardt, for example, stated that all parties were alike and proclaimed the right to autonomy in the face of all authority, even that derived from the revolutionary party. Borchardt even rejected the form of the party itself, retaining only its 'executive organs' (Ausführende Organe).[94] [...] [D]isappointed, from a trip to Soviet Russia [Rühle] separated his regional group from the KAPD and, in 1921, realized his project of creating a unitary organization with the foundation of the AAU-E.[89] This incarnated Rühle's underlying belief that the organization of the revolutionary vanguard (which he considered indispensable) should not take the form of a political party. It was in the enterprise that the primary battlefield in the struggle against the power of capital was to be found, and it was on this basis that conscious revolutionaries would seek to unite. The BO (workers' organizations) federated and gradually formed the Unitary Workers' League (AAU-E). This League took on the characteristics of revolutionary struggle—economic and political—and concerned itself with both. It was governed by the federalist principle: no centralism, no leadership 'from outside', no interference by intellectuals not belonging to the plant. Delegates could be revoked at any time, while the leaders were no more than spokesmen for the rank and file, its executive organs. The task of unitary organization consisted of developing class consciousness and a feeling of solidarity among workers. Neither a party nor a union, the AAU-E was the revolutionary organization of the proletariat. It dissolved itself with the appearance of the councils which, in some ways, it had prefigured.[90] [...] [A] fraction developed inside the 'unitarist' branch of the council communists (AAU-E) demanding the dissolution of all general organizational structures (i.e. ones bringing together rank-and-file groups).[95] But these two tendencies stood at the outer edges of council theory. On the other hand, a certain number of councillists put forward ideas in the 1930s derived by strict interpretation from the very heart of this theory. For these people, it was impossible to distinguish between the class struggle and the acts of the workers; the workers' movement coincided with the movement of the workers. It is governed by its own laws tending toward the appropriation of the means of production. Not only does it create its own organs of material struggle (factory or action committees) but also its own organs of intellectual knowledge: working groups. These groups are no longer gatherings of individuals external to the class but constitute an instrument forged by the class itself and within its own ranks. This will lead to the autonomous organization of the masses into councils, and the autonomous organizaton of revolutionary workers into working groups.[96] In other words, all intervention from outside is eliminated; all efforts in the direction of the final objective must come from within the class and any exception to this can only be inspired by the 'ex-workers' movement. When leftcoms more generally speak derisively of "councilists" as opposed to "councilcoms", I'm now realizing that they're referring to the latter two groups; especially the third. I've also read insurrectionary anarchists texts that express favor of specifically "councilism" in the last couple of years, so this seem to be a thing that's still going on.
>>268971 >[KAPD's] programme (inspired by Pannekoek) utterly rejected parliamentarianism and the unions. It sought to remain a party of confirmed communists working to develop the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and the struggle on the shop floor through organizations within the enterprise (Betriebsorganisationen). The new party was not organized along federal lines, as some might have hoped, but along the lines of 'proletarian centralism', the decisions of the highest bodies being binding. Its refusal to work with the reformist unions led the KAPD to assume the programmatic leadership and long-term direction of the new factory organizations as well. [...] In Gorter's view the proletariat needed two kinds of organization: those based on the place of work, the factory, and those bringing 'enlightened' militants together. The former would constitute workers' leagues while the others would form the party. The workers' league is a mass organization concerned with every-day struggle in the factory. But the drawback of the league is its tendency to reformism, confining itself to wage claims. Or, conversely, as a result of an erroneous evaluation of the situation, it is liable to utopianism. The party, on the other hand, is there to steady the helm: it is capable of pointing the way ahead since it is composed of that fraction (however minimal) of the working class which possesses the knowledge and a clear consciousness of the revolutionary objectives. The Western proletariat needed these 'pure' parties, reminders of the one formed by the Bolsheviks in 1902-3. But the party must not seek to gain power for its own ends, for the revolutionary dictatorship is to be that of the entire class. In any case, Gorter prophesied, the proletariat of the industrialized countries of Western Europe and North America is far too numerous for a dictatorship of the party to be possible. The party of pure communists prefigures the political councils, while the unions anticipate the advent of economic councils. >Proletarian centralism This is brilliant. It's fucking crazy that I've never even read this in passing for the past 4 fucking years of browsing this useless fucking site. Marx, Engels, De Leon, Lenin, Gorter/Pannekoek, Chirik, Cockshott COMMUNISM OF THE 21ST CENTURY
Leftcom Reading list
Honestly at this point leftcom is a pretty dated term, considering how little bordigists have in common with other theories.
>>306300 It is but we're sticking with it. When something concerns councilcoms or Bordigists (even though Bordiga-adjacent peeps don't like it) specifically I'll be using those terms, but 'leftcom' is just too useful and regularly understood to be replaced. >>288959 Add Dietzgen and maybe Luxemburg for some sections of councilcoms and Damen and that list at the end is perfect.
>>288959 >>307667 Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, De Leon, Luxemburg, Lenin, Gorter/Pannekoek, Bordiga, Damen, Chirik, Cockshott COMMUNISM OF THE 21ST CENTURY Completed.
>>307871 Leftcoms: >hurr dialectical materialism was a Stalinist mechanistic deviation and not Marxist!! Also Leftcoms: >read Dietzgen the founder of dialectical materialism
>>307913 >Thinks his Twitter feud with 'leftcom' in their description is reflective of reality. Read any leftcom of note (early Pannekoek, Bordiga). I've never read any leftcoms implying that Stalin either invented diamat or that it's to be discarded. Engels also contributed to diamat before Stalin.
(44.94 KB 879x454 cockshott nk.png)
>>307871 >Cockshott He doesn't seem like a leftcom
>>307973 >He doesn't seem like a leftcom If that's the case (as I initially assumed, until people ITT claimed otherwise due to him getting kicked out of an ML party for 'ultraleftism' -- too bad he didn't take the hint and pick another school of Marxism more suited for his theory here...) I will personally make a critique of his socialist/communist cybernetics and synthesize his contributions with party-oriented left-communism, as it is already there in all practicality but historical analysis of the 20th century and its "socialist" states. The theory is way too important to be locked away in the canon of ML, where it will never be utilized by 'orthodox' ML parties and governments alike for its "revisionism" (his deadly sin of improving Marxist strategy and ridding it of opportunist reactionism like the institutionalization of bourgeois democracy through demcent at the expense of the dictatorship of the proletariat). Gorter/Pannekoek's 'proletarian centralism' and Bordiga's 'organic centralism' could both use his theory of cybernetics (the present-day leftcom orgs like ICC or ICP already utilize international organizations) - cybernetics is perfect for such a conception of international struggle and revolution in practice (both for logistics and programmatic implementation of the DotP and communism).
(9.83 KB 251x242 Pepe_laughing.jpg)
>What is the difference between Bordigism, councilism and communization? ALL ARE SHIT LMAOOO
Proof that anti-leftcoms are illiterate: >>308219
>>308219 That would be a 'similarity', anon.
So what do leftcoms actually support doing?
>>288959 >It's fucking crazy that I've never even read this in passing for the past 4 fucking years of browsing this useless fucking site. It's because this site is filled with dogmatics tankies.
Bumping due to the councilist shitposter bringing in confusion again See these posts for "what 'leftcom' is": >>268971 >>268973 >>268975
h
>>308669 Revolution.
>>339139 this, pretty much
Someone please, explain to me like I am braindead what exactly left coms advocate? Thank you
>>339175 thank
>>189149 >and communization also has some of the best critiques I've ever read of other tendencies (specifically.... Communalism, Like what?
>>306089 grabbing this image, thanks anon
What would Leftcoms say to this criticism? >The relationship of forces would not have been so bad if the PCI had had an aggressive but flexible strategy for winning the workers who followed Serrati. But it had no such strategy. The dominant force in the PSI left, now the dominant force in the new Communist Party, were the supporters of Amadeo Bordiga. Imposing as a man of iron principle, Bordiga was also an unbendable ultra-left dogmatist. His faction in the PSI had originally been formed on the basis of abstention from parliamentary elections on principle. He had condemned the Turin factory councils as ‘economistic’. Now he was to be absolutely opposed to any united front approach to the Socialist Party. >It was not until the mid-1920s that the hold of the ultra-lefts on the PCI was finally broken. By then it was too late. Fascism had triumphed.
>>341588 They would say that facsism is just capitalism and fighting it is pointless because whatever they're the same lol
>>341608 Wrong.
>>341608 Fascism is capitalism though
bump
EPIC BORBIGA (COMPILATION 10 BAZILLION HOURS) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aF1jKeXMjU&t=392s
>>307973 Neither is De Leon...
What relations do Leftcoms and Trotskyists have?
>>373251 Leftcom here. My roomate is a trot. We get along pretty well although we get in pretty heated arguments about certain things.
(88.49 KB 1600x1570 8ht1kxiyaik31.jpg)
>>377033 What do you argue about? I tend to view myself as a bit of a Trot and I find myself agreeing with Bordigists about most things. As for leftcoms in general I have read through this article >>373594 and while I find the criticisms fair, I can't help but think they are more aimed at the soviet state capitalist apparatus and not Trotsky himself. Not to mention Mattick fails to acknowledge the split in the Right leaning and Left leaning Bolsheviks and rather generalises a bit too much. Trotsky opposed the NEP and the State Capitalist economy so to lump him in with Lenin and Stalin seems a little unfair. The other half of the article being a strange take on deifying leaders and the 'great men' way of thinking. None of which I think Trotsky ever tried to make himself a part of and something I, and others that appreciate his work, don't really even tend to do. In fact in: https://libcom.org/library/trotsky-question-1925-amadeo-bordiga Bordiga came out in support of Trotsky during the Soviet party infighting, which was only one of the many times Bordiga came out in support of Trotsky. It went both ways too. >The Italian Left had already solidarised with the Russian Opposition “in defence of the victorious principles of October” but had underlined that “there exist differences”. Trotsky, for his part, warmly welcomed the existence of the Italian Left. In his reply to Prometeo of September 25th, 1929 he stated: "The Platform of the Left (1926) produced a great impression on me. I think that it is one of the best documents published by the international Opposition and it preserves its significance in many things to this very day."-Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1929 p.318 So where do the Italian left really differ from Trotsky? Oh and I really don't care about the Council leftcoms, they differ way too much from the Italian left and to be honest are basically just AnComs
(210.13 KB 480x720 communist-international-1919.jpeg)
>>307973 >>372950 Both Cockshott and De Leon were heterodox for their respective schools (orthodox Marxism and Marxism-Leninism) and their theoretical uniqueness gravitates towards solid principles found within left-communism. That is why I include them, along with figures like Dietzgen and Luxemburg, to the broadened left-communist canon of deepened theoretical comprehension. De Leon utilized similar organizational principles, as well as impossibilism, as the subsequent council communists -- while Cockshott radically reinterprets ML "democratic" (representative) centralism into a new type of radical cybernetic direct democracy (digitally randomized / by sortition), drifting his communist assumptions leftward from the ML center. >>373251 Here's Trotsky's opinion on the KAPD / Herman Gorter / council communism (very negative, in line with Lenin's critique via An Infantile Disorder) >On the Policy of the KAPD, by Trotsky (1920): https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-1/ch13.htm And here's the more sympathetic relationship, again like Lenin, towards the Italian left-communists (Bordiga & followers) >Correspondence between Bordiga and Trotsky (1926): https://libcom.org/library/correspondence-between-bordiga-trotsky >Letter to the Italian Left Communists, by Trotsky (1929): https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1929/09/ital-lc.htm Here you get an overview of Bordiga, in hindsight, of all the tumultuous twists and turns that took place in Russia within the party, from the civil war and to Stalin's seizure of power; maintaining that both the right opposition and the left opposition were relying on principles found in Marx, while the center drifted successively further anti-Marxist by each mediation carried out by Stalin between the sides through time: >The Solutiom of Bukharin, by Bordiga (1956): https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1956/12/bukharin.html
>>377141 The main differences within the Italian Left and Trotskyism is: Leftcoms all reject Democratic Centralism since they see it as a way for the Party to collapse into Bourgeois Opportunism with the Italian Left supporting Organic Centralism. While Trotskyists still uphold it LeftComs all reject any sort of Electoralism since it legitimizes Bourgeois Democracy while I've seen this position mostly vary in Trotskyist groups. All LeftComs see the USSR as State Capitalist while the Trotskyist line with the USSR as Stalinist and a Degenerated Worker's State. Anyway those are the main differences I can think of.
Are there any decent Leftcom groups out there or are they just memes?
(1.54 MB 3840x2160 _Manifesto_Chapter_Two.jpg)
>>377033 {me} >>377141 My main beef with trots is their tendency to avoid words like communists, and to simultaneously have these delusional fantasies that their parties are going to be the vanguard party. You aren't going to attract the most advanced and resolute sections of the proletariat if you are trying to bring liberals into your organization by calling yourself "socialists" and constantly bashing Stalin (not that I like Stalin that much, it's just a tactical failing).
>>380310 {continued} >>377141 That's not what we argue about though usually. I don't think he'd disagree with me there. We usually argue about the news tbh. He's my best friend and a much better organizer than I am so I shouldn't talk too much shit. He unironically likes Sam Seder tho which always makes me angry. I tend to take sorta ML-lite positions on stuff like the Syrian civil war which I think get's under his skin (especially since the org he used to be a part of is most well known around these parts for accidentally endorsing al-Qaeda to own da tankies)
>>380338 {continued} >>380310 <- the point here applies to some crypto-trot ML parties too like PSL.
>>240191 Sauce?

Delete
Report

no cookies?