#REDIRECTLeft communism
Communism
Left Communism is a term describing a whole range of communism viewpoints which oppose the political ideas of the Bolsheviks from a position which is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and proletarian than the views held by the Communist International after its first two Congresses. Mainly represented by Council Communism in front, Left Communism is also sometimes referred to as the Communist Left. ==Introduction== Two major traditions can be observed within Left Communism, the Netherlands-Germany tradition and the Italy tradition. Their political positions have little in common except for a shared opposition to what is termed ''frontism'', but there is an underlying commonality at a level of abstract theory. Crucially, Left Communist groups from both traditions tend to identify elements of commonality in each other. The historical origins of Left Communism can be traced to the period before the World War I, but it only came into focus after 1918. All Left Communists were supportive of the Russian Revolution of October 1917, but retained a critical view of its development. Some, however, would in later years come to reject the idea that the revolution had a proletarian or socialist nature, asserting that it had simply carried out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution by creating a state capitalism system. Left Communism first came into being as a clear movement in or around 1918. Its essential features were: a stress on the need to build a Communist Party entirely separate from the reformist and centrist elements who were seen as having betrayed socialism in 1914, opposition to all but the most restricted participation in elections, and an emphasis on the need for revolutionaries to move on the offensive. Apart from that, there was little in common between the various wings. Only the Italians accepted the need for electoral work at all, and the German-Dutch and Russian wings both opposed the "right of nations to self-determination", which they denounced as a form of bourgeois nationalism. ==Russian Left Communism== Russian Left Communism began as a faction in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1918, logically named the ''Left Communists'', which opposed the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany. The Left Communists wanted international world revolution. The leader of this faction, in the beginning, was Bukharin. They stood for a revolutionary war against the Central Powers; opposed the right of nations to self-determination (specifically in the case of Poland, since there were many Poles in this communist group and they did not want a Polish capitalist state to be established); and they generally took a voluntarist stance regarding the possibilities for social revolution at that time. They began to publish a newspaper, ''Kommunist'', which offered a critique of the direction in which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was heading. They argued against the over-bureaucratisation of the state, and further argued that nationalisation should proceed at a quicker pace than Lenin desired. The Left Communists faded as Lenin proved too strong a figure to argue against. They also lost Bukharin as a leading figure, since he moderated his own position and eventually came to agree with Lenin. Being defeated in internal debates, they dissolved. A few very small Left Communist groups surfaced within the RSFSR in the next few years, but later fell victim to repression by the state. In many ways, the Left Communist faction's positions were inherited by the Workers Opposition faction. ==Italian Left Communism to 1926== The Italian Left Communists were named Left Communists at a later stage in their development, but when the Communist Party of Italy was founded they were actually the majority of Communists in that country. This was a result of the Abstentionist Communist Fraction of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) being in advance of other sections of the PSI in their realisation that a separate Communist Party had to be formed which did not include reformists. This gave them a great advantage over the sections of the PSI who looked to figures such as Serratti and Antonio Gramsci for leadership. It was a consequence of the revolutionary impatience common at a time when revolution, in the narrow sense of an insurrectionary attempt at the seizure of power, was expected to develop in the very near future. Under the leadership of Amadeo Bordiga, the Left was to control the PCd'I (Communist Party of Italy) until the Lyons Congress of 1926. In this period, the militants of the PCd'I would find themselves isolated from reformist workers and from other anti-fascist militants. At one stage this isolation was deepened when Communist militants were instructed to leave defense organisations that were not totally controlled by the party. These sectarian tactics produced concern in the leadership of the Communist International and led to a developing opposition within the PCd'I itself. Eventually these two factors led to the displacement of Bordiga from his position as first secretary and his replacement by Gramsci. By then, Bordiga was in a fascist jail and he was to remain outside organised politics until 1952. The development of the Left Communist Fraction was not the development of the Bordigist current (as it is often portrayed). The year 1925 was a turning point for the Italian left as it was the year that the so-called Bolshevisation took place in the sections of the Communist International. This plan was designed to eliminate all social democratic deviations from the Comintern and develop them on Bolshevik lines or at least along the lines of what Zinoviev, the secretary of the International, considered Bolshevik lines. In practice, this meant top-down bureaucratic structures in which the members were controlled by a leadership approved of by the Comintern's International Executive Committee. In Italy this meant that the leadership which had formerly been in the hands of Bordiga was given to a body that came into being when the Serrati-Maffi minority of the PSI joined the PCd'I, although Bordiga's group were in a majority. The new leadership was supported by Bordiga, who, as a centralist, accepted the will of the International. Nevertheless, Bordiga fought the IEC from within, only to have an article of his which was favourable to Trotsky's positions on the disputed Russian questions suppressed. Meanwhile, sections of the left motivated by Onorato Damen formed the Entente Committee. This committee was ordered to dissolve itself by the incoming leadership, led now by Gramsci who only then opposed Bordiga's positions, which had gained prestige after a successful recruitment campaign. With the party Congress of 1926 held in Lyons, crowned by Gramsci's famous Lyons Theses, the left majority was now defeated and on course to becoming a minority within the party. With the victory of fascism in Italy, Bordiga was jailed and when he opposed a vote against Trotsky in the prison PCd'I group, he was expelled from the party in 1930. He took a stance of non-involvement in politics for many years after this. The victory of fascism also meant that the Italian left would enter into a new chapter in its development - this time in exile. ==German-Dutch Left Communism to 1933== The German-Dutch tradition of Left Communism was so named because the movement in both countries was very closely connected. Among the leading theoreticians of the more powerful German movement were Pannekoek and Gorter (for example) and German activists found refuge in the Netherlands after 1933. This current could trace its origins back before World War I, since in the Netherlands a revolutionary wing of Social Democracy had broken from the reformist party even before the war and had built links with German activists. After the beginning of the German Revolution in 1918, a leftist mood could be found among sections of the Communist Parties of both countries. In Germany this led directly to the foundation of the Communist Workers Party (KAPD) after its leading figures were expelled from the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) by Karl Levi. This development was mirrored in the Netherlands and on a smaller scale in Bulgaria, where the Left Communist movement was to mimic that of Germany. When it was founded, the KAPD included some tens of thousands of revolutionaries. However, within a few years, it had broken up and practically dissolved. This was because it was founded on the basis of revolutionary optimism and a purism that rejected what became known as frontism. Frontism was seen as the idea of working in the same organisations as reformist workers. Such work was seen by the KAPD as unhelpful at a time when the revolution was thought to be an imminent event, and not merely a goal to be aimed at. This led the members of the KAPD to reject working in the traditional trade unions in favour of forming their own revolutionary unions. These ''unionen'', so called to distinguish them from the official trade unions, had 80,000 members in 1920 and peaked in 1921 with 200,000 members, after which they declined rapidly. They were also organisationally divided from the beginning, with those unionen linked to the KAPD forming the AAU-D, and those in Saxony around Otto Ruhle who opposed the conception of a party in favour of a unitary class organisation being organised as the AAU-E. The KAPD was unable to reach even its founding Congress prior to suffering its first split when the so-called National Bolshevik tendency around Wolffheim and Laufenburg appeared (it should be noted that this tendency has no connection with modern political tendencies in Russia which use the same name). More seriously, the KAPD lost most of its support very rapidly as it failed to develop lasting structures. This also contributed to internecine quarrels and the party actually split into two competing tendencies known as the Essen and Berlin tendencies to the historians of the Left. The recently established Communist Workers International (KAI) split on exactly the same lines as did the tiny Bulgarian Communist Workers Party. The only other affiliates of the KAI were the Communist Workers Party of Britain led by Sylvia Pankhurst, the KAPN in the Netherlands and a group in Russia. The AAU-D split on the same lines, and it rapidly ceased to exist as a real tendency within the factories. ==Left Communism and the Communist International== As discussed above, the Left Communists initially rallied to the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and to the new Communist International. In fact, they controlled the first body formed by the Comintern to coordinate its activities in Western Europe, the Amsterdam Bureau. However, this was little more than a very brief interlude and the Bureau never functioned as a leadership body for Western Europe as was originally intended. The Vienna Bureau of the Comintern may also be classified as Left Communist, but its personnel were not to evolve into either of the two historic currents that made up Left Communism. Rather, the Vienna Bureau adopted the ultra-left ideas of the earliest period in the history of the Comintern. Left Communists supported the Russian Revolution, but did not accept the methods of the Bolsheviks. Many of the German-Dutch tradition adopted Rosa Luxembourg's criticisms, as outlined in her posthumously published essay entitled "''Marxism or Leninism?''". In this essay, she rejected the Bolshevik position on distribution of land to the peasantry, and their espousal of the "Right of nations to Self Determination" which she rejected as historically outmoded. The Italian Left Communists did not at the time accept any of these criticisms and both currents would evolve, as we shall see, over the course of the coming years. To a considerable degree, Lenin's well known polemic '''Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder'' [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm] is an attack on the ideas of the emerging Left Communist currents. However, it would be incorrect to see it exclusively in such a narrow focus, as the pamphlet also contained polemics against other currents such as the De Leonism Socialist Labor Party, the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World, the KAPD and Sylvia Pankhurst's Workers Socialist Federation. His main aim was to polemicise with currents moving towards pure revolutionary tactics by showing them that they could remain based on firmly revolutionary principles while utilising a variety of tactics. Therefore Lenin defended the use of parliamentarism and working within the official trade unions. As the Kronstadt rebellion occurred at a time when the debate on tactics was still raging within the Comintern, it has been wrongly seen as being Left Communist by some commentators. In fact, the Left Communist currents had no connection with the rebellion - although they did rally to its support when they learned of it. In later years, the German-Dutch tradition in particular would come to see the suppression of the revolt as the historic turning point in the evolution of the Russian state created after October 1917. ==Italian Left Communism 1926-1939== After 1926, Italian Left Communism took shape in exile and without the participation of Bordiga. Contacts between the Italians and the Germans had been made and were developed in France, but the Italian Left saw the KAPD's stress on factory organisation as being similar to the ideas of Gramsci's L'Ordine Nuovo and therefore rejected closer contact. Attempts to work with the group around Karl Korsch also failed. The Left Fraction of the PCd'I was formally established in July 1927 by a number of young militants. This new group had members in France, Belgium and the USA and published a review entitled ''Prometeo''. It was estimated in 1928 that it had at most 200 militants, but it would seem that while it never had more than 100 militants active at any one time its influence was actually far greater. The control of the PCd'I apparatus by the Stalinists, however, meant that attempts to reach other exiles was almost impossible and they were driven back into small circle work. The Italian Left Fraction was for the rest of the 1930s led by Ottorino Perrone, although it was fiercely opposed to the cult of the personality which was developing in the Comintern around Stalin in these years and resisted similar pressures in its own organisation. The Fraction had members in France, Belgium and the USA; how many in Italy looked to it cannot be ascertained (since all communist activities there had been driven underground by the fascist government). The main activity of the Fraction through these years was the publishing of its press, which consisted of the paper ''Prometeo'' and the journal ''Bilan''. With its establishment as a group, the Fraction also looked for international co-thinkers. Seeing the International Left Opposition, led by Leon Trotsky, as central to the non-Stalinist Communist movement, they sought contact with it. These contacts were to be severed when agreement on basic principles proved impossible (see Left communism#A Note on Left Communism and the Left Opposition below). The political distance between the Fraction and other communist currents would deepen throughout the 1930s as the Fraction declared itself opposed to the tactics adopted by the Left Opposition to broaden its support (i.e. the Fraction affirmed its opposition to fusion with centrist groups, opposition to entryism, etc.) Always opposed to the United Front tactic of the Comintern, the Fraction now declared itself firmly opposed to the Popular Front after 1933. Like the Trotskyists, it saw the failure of the Communist Party of Germany in the face of fascism as its historic failure and ceased to consider itself a fraction of the Communist Party from the date of its 1935 Congress, held in Brussels. Isolated, the Left Fraction sought to discover allies within the milieu of groups to the left of the Trotskyist movement. Typically these discussions came to nothing, but they were able to recruit from the disintegrating Ligue des Communistes Internationalistes (LCI) in Belgium, a group which had broken from Trotskyism. A loose liaison was also maintained with the Council Communist groups in the Netherlands and in particular with the GIK. However, these discussions were pushed into the background as the attempted fascist coup in Spain led to revolution and civil war. Immediately after the civil war began, a minority emerged within the Left Fraction whose members sought to participate in the events in Spain. This minority, including long time members of the fraction, numbered some 26 militants mainly belonging to the Parisian federation of the Fraction. They traveled to Barcelona to enlist in the workers militias and after a fruitless meeting in September with a delegation from the Fraction back home, they were expelled. The problem for the Fraction was that the military support given to the Republican forces by this minority was accompanied by political support (in that the minority wished to halt Strike actions among loyalist workers in the name of military victory against fascism). According to the Fraction, no support could be given to a bourgeois state, even in a struggle against fascism. The question of Spain forced the Belgian LCI to clarify its positions and a split ensued as a result of debate within its ranks. At its February 1937 conference a minority of the LCI led by Mitchell defended the positions of the Italian Left and were expelled. Although less than ten in number, they formed a Belgian Fraction of the Communist Left. It was at this point that the Italian Left learned of a group called the Grupo de Trabajadores in Mexico with very similar positions to their own. It was led by Paul Kirchoff and had left the Mexican Trotskyist movement. Kirchoff had formerly been a member of the KAPD in Germany, then a Trotskyist in the USA but his tiny group would seem to have disappeared at the outbreak of war in 1939. In early 1938 the Italian and Belgian Fractions formed an International Bureau of the Left Fractions which published a review called ''Octobre''. During this period the Italian Left also reviewed a number of positions which it thought had become outdated. They rejected the idea of national self determination and began to develop their views on the war economy and capitalist decadence. Much of this was carried out by Vercesi, but Mitchell from the Belgian Fraction was also a leading figure in the work. Perhaps most dramatically they also reviewed their understanding of the Russian Revolution and the state that had emerged from it. Eventually they came to argue that the Russian state was by the late 1930's state capitalist and was not to be defended. In short, they believed there was need for a new revolution. ==Left Communism 1939-1945== Many small currents to the left of the mass Communist Parties collapsed at the beginning of the Second World War and the Left Communists were initially silent too. Despite having foreseen the war more clearly than some other factions, when it began they were overwhelmed. Many were persecuted by either German Nazism or Italian fascism. Leading militants of the Communist Left like Mitchell, who was Jewish, were to die in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Meanwhile, in Germany the final council communist groups had disappeared in the maelstrom and in the Netherlands the International Communist Group (GIK) was moribund. The former "centrist" group led by Henk Sneevliet (the Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party, RSAP) transformed itself into the Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front. But in April 1942 its leadership was arrested by the Gestapo and killed. The remaining activists then split into two camps, on the one hand some turned to Trotskyism forming the Committee of Revolutionary Marxists (CRM) while the majority formed the CommunistenBond-Spartacus. The latter group turned to council communism and was joined by most members of the GIK. In 1941 the Italian Fraction was reorganised in France and along with the new French Nucleus of the Communist Left came into conflict with the ideas which the Fraction had propagated from 1936: of the social disappearance of the proletariat and localised wars, etc. These ideas continued to be defended by Vercesi in Brussels. Gradually the Left Fractions adopted positions drawn from German Left Communism. They abandoned the conception that the Russian state remained in some way proletarian and also dropped Vercesi's conception of localised wars in favour of ideas on imperialism inspired by Rosa Luxemburg. Vercesi's participation in a Red Cross committee was also fiercely contested. The strike at FIAT in October 1942 had a major impact on the Italian Fraction in France, which was deepened by the fall of Mussolini's regime in July 1943. The Italian Fraction now saw a pre-revolutionary situation opening in Italy and prepared to participate in the coming revolution. Revived by Marco in Marseilles, the Italian Fraction now worked closely with the new French Fraction, which was formally founded in Paris in December 1944. However in May 1945 the Italian Fraction, many of whose members had already returned to Italy, voted to dissolve itself so that it's militants could integrate themselves as individuals into the Internationalist Communist Party. The conference at which this decision was made also refused to recognise the French Fraction and expelled Marco from their group. This led to a split in the French Fraction and the formation of the Gauche Communiste de France by the French Fraction led by Marco. The history of the GCF belongs to the post-war period. Meanwhile the former members of the French Fraction who sympathised with Vercesi and the Internationalist Communist party formed a new French Fraction, which published the journal ''L'Etincelle'' and was joined at the end of 1945 by the old minority of the Fraction who had joined ''L'Union Communiste'' in the 1930's. One other development during the war years merits mention at this point. A small grouping of German and Austrian militants came close to Left Communist positions in these years. Best known, to those few who know of them, as the "Revolutionary Communists", these young militants were exiles from nazism living in France at the start of World War II and were members of the Trotskyist movement but they had opposed the formation of the Fourth International in 1938 on the grounds that it was premature. They were refused full delegates' credentials and only admitted to the founding conference of the Youth International on the following day. They then joined Hugo Oehler's International Contact Commission for the 4th Communist International and in 1939 were publishing ''Der Marxist'' in Antwerp. With the beginning of the war, they took the name Revolutionary Communists of Germany (RKD) and came to define Russia as state capitalist, in agreement with Ante Ciliga's book ''The Russian Enigma''. At this point they adopted a revolutionary defeatist position on the war and condemned Trotskyism for its critical defence of Russia (which was seen by Trotskyists as a Degenerated Workers' State). After the fall of France, they renewed contact with militants in the Trotskyist milieu in Southern France and recruited some of them into the Communistes Revolutionnaires in 1942. This group became known as ''Fraternisation Proletarienne'' in 1943 and then L'Organisation Communiste Revolutionnaire in 1944. The CR and RKD were autonomous, and clandestine, but worked closely together with shared politics. As the war ran its course, they evolved in a councilist direction, while also identifying more and more with Rosa Luxemburg's work. They also worked with the French Fraction of the Communist Left and seem to have disintegrated at the end of the war. This disintegration was speeded no doubt by the capture of a leading militant, Karl Fischer, who was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp where he was to participate in writing the ''Declaration of the Internationalist Communists of Buchenwald'' when the camp was liberated. ==Left Communism 1945-52== The closing stages of the Second World War marked a watershed in the history of Left Communism, as was true for every other political tendency. Left Communists, like the Trotskyists, expected the war to end with at least the beginnings of a revolutionary wave of struggle similar to that which had marked the end of the First World War. Therefore strikes in Italy from 1942 onwards were of intense interest to them. Many Left Communists formerly in exile, in jail or simply inactive due to repression returned to active political activity in Italy. This had the result that new organisations identifying with Left Communism came into being and older ones dissolved themselves. We look at these organisations and in particular at the Internationalist Communist Party below. If for the Italian Left the end of war marked a new beginning, for the German-Dutch Left it also marked something of a revival. Although in Germany it was the case that the Communist Left tradition was all but extinguished (surviving only in the form of a few scattered groups holding councilist views). France, by comparison, saw an interesting development with the beginning of a conscious attempt to develop a synthesis of the two strands of Left Communism in the form of the ''Gauche Communiste de France'', which built on pre-war contributions. ==Left Communism 1952-1968== The year 1952 signaled the definitive end of any remaining mass influence on the part of Italian Left Communism, as its sole remaining representative, the Internationalist Communist Party, split in two sections. By coincidence, the Gauche Communiste de France (GCF) also dissolved in the same year. Left Communists entered a period of constant decline from this point onwards, although they were somewhat rejuvenated by the events of May 1968. ==Left Communism 1968-present== ''To be written.'' ==A Note on Left Communism and the Left Opposition== Following his exile from Russia, Leon Trotsky and his supporters formed the International Left Opposition as an external tendency of the Communist International, aiming to reform it. This has caused some commentators to confuse the Left Opposition with Left Communism. However, the difference between them is quite significant: the Trotskyist Left Opposition is a branch of Leninism (they clearly defined themselves as the heirs of Lenin and the Old Bolsheviks who had been purged by Stalin), while Left Communism has always opposed Leninism (in fact, as discussed above, Left Communism was formed as an opposition to Leninism within the Communist movement). ==See also== * List of left communist internationals * Council Communism == Further reading == Outside the pages of the publications of modern day Left Communist groups, which are obscure, there is very little avaiable on this political tradition. However the [http://www.internationalism.org International Communist Current], itself a Left Communist grouping, has in recent years produced a series of stuiudies of what it views as its own antecedants. The book on the German-Dutch curent in particular contains an exhaustive bibliography. *''The Italian Communist Left 1926-1945'' *''The Dutch-German Communist Left'' *''The Russian Communist Left, 1918-1930'' *''The British Communist Left, 1914-1945'' Also of interest is volume 5 number 4 of Spring 1995 of the journal Revolutionary History. This volume may be usefully read in conjunction and for reasons of chronology after the ICC book referred to above. *Through Fascism, War and Revolution: Trotskyism and Left Communism in Italy Left Communism
I hope people don't mind my outline for a contribution to 1952-2004? I firmly feel that the Bordigist style left-communism is limited (see my contributions on the topic to council communism) and doesn't particularly represent the initial broad spread of left-communism in the 1916-23 revolutionary upsurge /let alone/ the theoretical and material underpinnings of the left-communist groups. Today, when the Bordigist positions are largely irrelevent to workers, and radicals, and are barely relevent to workerist communists and anarchists we should recognise the actual use of "left communist" in modern parlance as a way of denoting more worker-oriented, more democratic and anti-cooption communist movements. Where else would you fit Autonomism if seriously approaching the issue?User:Fifelfoo 23:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm sorry but I do objedct to your outline for the period 1952-2004. When I wrote the orignal article I intended to continue the story to date. And the story relates to the Left Communist traditon of the groups coming from or relating to the KAPD and/or the Italian left associated with Bordiga. if we follow your outline where now am I tpo place this material? I also object to many of your suggestions for inclusion because they deal with groups and individuals who are not part of the Left communist tradition although they may draw on that tradition. I can only suggest that you create new entries for many of those you mention in your outline. I hope to do some more owrk on the ntry over the course of this week and I'm afraid i shall delete much of your material. I hope you can move it elsewhere. Perhaps I should also add that a great deal of your material is couched in such a fashion as not to be NPOV which is the polict here. For example you refer to the Bordigists as sectarian. Sure they are but without explanation and used as condemnation such a terminology has no place here. Jock Haston :Dear Jock, :I actually disagree with you about where to include those other guys, and I'll lay that out below. Just to begin though, I'm quite happy for you to heavily edit the article. You seem to have a more immediate connection with Left Commos than I do. The Bordigists (ICC and ?ICT?) are pretty much sectarian in every instance I've run into them. Given, however, that that means one old fart and a single rack of outdated journals in a single bookstore in Australia, this ain't good. The ICC etc. pubs are, however, objectively sectarian at the moment--that needs to be argued out in more than just one line though. (I never meant it as derrogation, the ICC etc just don't play nice / democratically with other revs at the moment). : :Who should be included in Left Communism? :My central argument is that the current LC trends are almost entirely disconnected from the intial "Zimmerwald" style internationalist LCs. As much as current Trots are disconnected from 1904 Bolshevism. Additionally, putting Pannenkoek & the other councilists in an LC article is a bit iffy if we're taking a historicist definition of what LC is. Whereas, if we compare movement in their activities and platform to the activities and platform of the LCs, and note any movement accepting that they draw on the LCs, or arising in their own historical moment as "left" communists, we should have a broader article. :I can accept your argument that the article should deal fundamentally with historically linked LC (the year dot to 1945 section for example). But we should have sub-sections stubbing off to other commo/anarcho movements that claim, or organically took up, LC positions. :User:Fifelfoo 23:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) To return to the fundamental point the various tendencies which draw on Left Communism are not in fact Left Communist and rarely make such a claim. And the authentic Left Communist groups such as the ICC and IBRP strongly dispute such claims. A claim which historians of the revolutionary movement would largely agree with in my experience. You refer to the article I've written thus far as having an historicist view of LC and if you wish to use such a terminology then I'll plead guilty. But LC is a tendency, or set of tendencies, that claims to be Marxist and therefore historical materialist. For my part I dispute their clams to properly understand Marx but I concur with with them that Marxism is based on historical materialism and, in your terms, is therefore historicist. Theres no getting around that. That the ICC and IBRP, who are not Bordigist by the way, and the various ICP's are terribly sectarian is of no concern to this entry. The policy of this wiki is that entries are NPOV and it follows that stating that these tendencies are sectarian is not NPOV. What can be said and will be said is tht many consider them to be sectarian. One minor point you raise is the mention of Pannekoek in the article. Your absolutely correct that his work is best discussed in the entry dealing with Council Communism and in a biographical entry. That wil be done I hope in the course of time. One of the themes of this article is that Councilism as a tendency came out of Dutch-German Left Communism which is why specific discussion of that current ends, properly speaking in the aftermath of WW2. The problem is at the moment that I have not completed the section on the German-Dutch LC or the later post WW2 sections. Bear with I'll get to it! Where I agree with you is that the article needs to point oput that LCism has been an influence on a number of other tendencies and currents. This is best done in a concluding section which I'll incorporate into the structure either today or tomorrow depending on the pressure of time. Your also correct that I have some connection with Left Communism in that I'm friendly with one of them and have read their lit in the past. But my main connection with them is as a subject of historical study. I have no time for the groups that stand in the LC tradition today. My assumed name will give you an idea of my politics but only a rough idea I must warn you. Check the entry on the real JH which I mostly wrote btw. Jock Haston (who was a registered user but fogets passwords and never writes them down) ---- I've inserted a comment at the end of the article, which I also wish to reproduce here: :Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for whoever wrote all the above sections - his or her knowledge on the history of Left Communism is truly encyclopedic. However, this is too much. The article is an information overload even for one with an interest in politics - not to mention the casual reader! It goes into FAR too much detail over the most obscure little groupings. Most readers will get terminally bored before they finish reading the fist half of the article. A shorter article which presents the history of Left Communism in more general terms and which pays more attention to Left Communist views and ideas would be preferable to what we have now. :User 86. ... was you Jock, right? I agree from an editorial perspective. When we reach a critical mass with subsections they should be spun off into articles. Wikipedia is trying to be ''an encyclopedia of'' '''all'' ''human knowledge''. We shouldn't remove the minutae (though we should say "these groups had less than 10 members" when that's true). But the main article should summarise the entire history, and use the national article style for subarticles (see Australia for an example). How about that idea? I think there's too much here, but that wikipedia can cope with subarticles on history 1930-1945 etc.User:Fifelfoo 23:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) No User 86 was not Jock Haston. And I do not like the edits which I consider vandalism. If I get the time I intend to recvert to the earlier version of the article and add more detail. This is for the following reasons. 1 Objections to too much detail are not valid. The wiki can take masses of information and there is no set length for an entry. And I wopuld argue that this entry has an integrity that I think stands on firmer ground than most of the rather dodgy entries in the Communism series. I mean communist states! An idiocy how can there be a communist state? Such a oafish idea should not be in any kind of an encyclopedia. 2 Much of the detail cannot be hived of into separate spin off articles as these tiny groups were intimately related to each other. Separate articles for say the French Fraction of the Communist Left and the Italian Fraction would be meaningless given that they shared ideas and personel. 3 The conception of a Communist Left must be historicaol given the tweo strains that contribute to its formation. Therefore they must be dealt wioth together up until the demise of a specifically German-Dutch Left Communist current circa 1933 and the development of Council Communism out of it. However to reassure you guys things get simpler after 1945 and even more after 1968. The reason for this being that after the war no more than a cursory reference is needed to the German-Dutch current. More importantly after 1968 the current groups begin to take shape and they can be easily dealt with in articles specific to them ie ICC, IBRP, ICP(PC) to mention only the most important. Relatively speaking of course! Numbers in the Left Communist groups will be mentioned at the end. I would have included such data where avaiable in the article but felt it distracted from the flow of developments. Jock Haston As I was about to go off line I realised that in fact if you look at the little paragraph on the Revolutionary Communists in the tnry you will find 3 or 4 links to blank articles. But in fact there is so little about this current available in English that any article on them would barely be any longer than the material in this entry and cutting the amount of data on them here would be tantamount to eliminating them altogther. In other words rather than being over burdened with too much detail I believe this article has stripped the story of Left Communism to bare bones already. Any less detail or information and things would be badly distorted. Anyhow I hope to get back to the article in the next 48. But real life politics may make than difficult. Jock Haston (not a Left Communist) == Merger == Should this article by merged with Council communism? --User:Soman 18:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :No. Different phenomena, although elements of one are a subset of the other, and vice-versa. As currently, they should link to each other where relevent. User:Fifelfoo 02:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::And if they are to exist as separate articles, some material needs to be shifted from one to the other and differences needs to be clarified. --User:Soman 07:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == 84.160.224.182 == I reverted additions by 84.160.224.182 for chronological and POV reasons. 84.160.224.182 mentioned the split between Bordiga and Damen in the 1950's paragraph, but it is previously descussed in the Italy and the 1920's section. Which is correct? Also the POV introduced "by the way Stalinism invented Leninism" is too complicated to shoehorn in here. User:DJ Silverfish 15:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == Lenin == How about some mention of Lenin's "Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" paper, which greatly influenced mainstream Communists against this movement? User:Rlquall 23:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Jock's Back == I've updated the bibliography at the end of the article. In a couple of weeks I'll expand the article again and bring it up to 1968. Hopefully it will be easy enough to cover post-68 developments. Above the question is asked as to when the damen group was formed. The answer is that Damen helped lead the Fraction from 1926 onwards. he was then a leading member of the ICP. The split in the ICP in the fifties might then be seen as the founding of a Damen group with positions distinct from those of Bordiga. Hopefully I can make things clearer after some more work on the essay. Someone else makes the point that Lenins Left Wing Communism is not mentioned. A major error on my part I confess and easily rectified. Jock Haston
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Left_Communism:
Left-communism
Left_Communism
Left_Communism
Left_communism
Left_communism
Left Communism
#REDIRECTLeft communism
Left Communism
Communism
Left communism
Left Communism is a term describing a whole range of communism viewpoints which oppose the political ideas of the Bolsheviks from a position which is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and proletarian than the views held by the Communist International after its first two Congresses. Mainly represented by Council Communism in front, Left Communism is also sometimes referred to as the Communist Left. ==Introduction== Two major traditions can be observed within Left Communism, the Netherlands-Germany tradition and the Italy tradition. Their political positions have little in common except for a shared opposition to what is termed ''frontism'', but there is an underlying commonality at a level of abstract theory. Crucially, Left Communist groups from both traditions tend to identify elements of commonality in each other. The historical origins of Left Communism can be traced to the period before the World War I, but it only came into focus after 1918. All Left Communists were supportive of the Russian Revolution of October 1917, but retained a critical view of its development. Some, however, would in later years come to reject the idea that the revolution had a proletarian or socialist nature, asserting that it had simply carried out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution by creating a state capitalism system. Left Communism first came into being as a clear movement in or around 1918. Its essential features were: a stress on the need to build a Communist Party entirely separate from the reformist and centrist elements who were seen as having betrayed socialism in 1914, opposition to all but the most restricted participation in elections, and an emphasis on the need for revolutionaries to move on the offensive. Apart from that, there was little in common between the various wings. Only the Italians accepted the need for electoral work at all, and the German-Dutch and Russian wings both opposed the "right of nations to self-determination", which they denounced as a form of bourgeois nationalism. ==Russian Left Communism== Russian Left Communism began as a faction in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1918, logically named the ''Left Communists'', which opposed the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany. The Left Communists wanted international world revolution. The leader of this faction, in the beginning, was Bukharin. They stood for a revolutionary war against the Central Powers; opposed the right of nations to self-determination (specifically in the case of Poland, since there were many Poles in this communist group and they did not want a Polish capitalist state to be established); and they generally took a voluntarist stance regarding the possibilities for social revolution at that time. They began to publish a newspaper, ''Kommunist'', which offered a critique of the direction in which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was heading. They argued against the over-bureaucratisation of the state, and further argued that nationalisation should proceed at a quicker pace than Lenin desired. The Left Communists faded as Lenin proved too strong a figure to argue against. They also lost Bukharin as a leading figure, since he moderated his own position and eventually came to agree with Lenin. Being defeated in internal debates, they dissolved. A few very small Left Communist groups surfaced within the RSFSR in the next few years, but later fell victim to repression by the state. In many ways, the Left Communist faction's positions were inherited by the Workers Opposition faction. ==Italian Left Communism to 1926== The Italian Left Communists were named Left Communists at a later stage in their development, but when the Communist Party of Italy was founded they were actually the majority of Communists in that country. This was a result of the Abstentionist Communist Fraction of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) being in advance of other sections of the PSI in their realisation that a separate Communist Party had to be formed which did not include reformists. This gave them a great advantage over the sections of the PSI who looked to figures such as Serratti and Antonio Gramsci for leadership. It was a consequence of the revolutionary impatience common at a time when revolution, in the narrow sense of an insurrectionary attempt at the seizure of power, was expected to develop in the very near future. Under the leadership of Amadeo Bordiga, the Left was to control the PCd'I (Communist Party of Italy) until the Lyons Congress of 1926. In this period, the militants of the PCd'I would find themselves isolated from reformist workers and from other anti-fascist militants. At one stage this isolation was deepened when Communist militants were instructed to leave defense organisations that were not totally controlled by the party. These sectarian tactics produced concern in the leadership of the Communist International and led to a developing opposition within the PCd'I itself. Eventually these two factors led to the displacement of Bordiga from his position as first secretary and his replacement by Gramsci. By then, Bordiga was in a fascist jail and he was to remain outside organised politics until 1952. The development of the Left Communist Fraction was not the development of the Bordigist current (as it is often portrayed). The year 1925 was a turning point for the Italian left as it was the year that the so-called Bolshevisation took place in the sections of the Communist International. This plan was designed to eliminate all social democratic deviations from the Comintern and develop them on Bolshevik lines or at least along the lines of what Zinoviev, the secretary of the International, considered Bolshevik lines. In practice, this meant top-down bureaucratic structures in which the members were controlled by a leadership approved of by the Comintern's International Executive Committee. In Italy this meant that the leadership which had formerly been in the hands of Bordiga was given to a body that came into being when the Serrati-Maffi minority of the PSI joined the PCd'I, although Bordiga's group were in a majority. The new leadership was supported by Bordiga, who, as a centralist, accepted the will of the International. Nevertheless, Bordiga fought the IEC from within, only to have an article of his which was favourable to Trotsky's positions on the disputed Russian questions suppressed. Meanwhile, sections of the left motivated by Onorato Damen formed the Entente Committee. This committee was ordered to dissolve itself by the incoming leadership, led now by Gramsci who only then opposed Bordiga's positions, which had gained prestige after a successful recruitment campaign. With the party Congress of 1926 held in Lyons, crowned by Gramsci's famous Lyons Theses, the left majority was now defeated and on course to becoming a minority within the party. With the victory of fascism in Italy, Bordiga was jailed and when he opposed a vote against Trotsky in the prison PCd'I group, he was expelled from the party in 1930. He took a stance of non-involvement in politics for many years after this. The victory of fascism also meant that the Italian left would enter into a new chapter in its development - this time in exile. ==German-Dutch Left Communism to 1933== The German-Dutch tradition of Left Communism was so named because the movement in both countries was very closely connected. Among the leading theoreticians of the more powerful German movement were Pannekoek and Gorter (for example) and German activists found refuge in the Netherlands after 1933. This current could trace its origins back before World War I, since in the Netherlands a revolutionary wing of Social Democracy had broken from the reformist party even before the war and had built links with German activists. After the beginning of the German Revolution in 1918, a leftist mood could be found among sections of the Communist Parties of both countries. In Germany this led directly to the foundation of the Communist Workers Party (KAPD) after its leading figures were expelled from the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) by Karl Levi. This development was mirrored in the Netherlands and on a smaller scale in Bulgaria, where the Left Communist movement was to mimic that of Germany. When it was founded, the KAPD included some tens of thousands of revolutionaries. However, within a few years, it had broken up and practically dissolved. This was because it was founded on the basis of revolutionary optimism and a purism that rejected what became known as frontism. Frontism was seen as the idea of working in the same organisations as reformist workers. Such work was seen by the KAPD as unhelpful at a time when the revolution was thought to be an imminent event, and not merely a goal to be aimed at. This led the members of the KAPD to reject working in the traditional trade unions in favour of forming their own revolutionary unions. These ''unionen'', so called to distinguish them from the official trade unions, had 80,000 members in 1920 and peaked in 1921 with 200,000 members, after which they declined rapidly. They were also organisationally divided from the beginning, with those unionen linked to the KAPD forming the AAU-D, and those in Saxony around Otto Ruhle who opposed the conception of a party in favour of a unitary class organisation being organised as the AAU-E. The KAPD was unable to reach even its founding Congress prior to suffering its first split when the so-called National Bolshevik tendency around Wolffheim and Laufenburg appeared (it should be noted that this tendency has no connection with modern political tendencies in Russia which use the same name). More seriously, the KAPD lost most of its support very rapidly as it failed to develop lasting structures. This also contributed to internecine quarrels and the party actually split into two competing tendencies known as the Essen and Berlin tendencies to the historians of the Left. The recently established Communist Workers International (KAI) split on exactly the same lines as did the tiny Bulgarian Communist Workers Party. The only other affiliates of the KAI were the Communist Workers Party of Britain led by Sylvia Pankhurst, the KAPN in the Netherlands and a group in Russia. The AAU-D split on the same lines, and it rapidly ceased to exist as a real tendency within the factories. ==Left Communism and the Communist International== As discussed above, the Left Communists initially rallied to the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and to the new Communist International. In fact, they controlled the first body formed by the Comintern to coordinate its activities in Western Europe, the Amsterdam Bureau. However, this was little more than a very brief interlude and the Bureau never functioned as a leadership body for Western Europe as was originally intended. The Vienna Bureau of the Comintern may also be classified as Left Communist, but its personnel were not to evolve into either of the two historic currents that made up Left Communism. Rather, the Vienna Bureau adopted the ultra-left ideas of the earliest period in the history of the Comintern. Left Communists supported the Russian Revolution, but did not accept the methods of the Bolsheviks. Many of the German-Dutch tradition adopted Rosa Luxembourg's criticisms, as outlined in her posthumously published essay entitled "''Marxism or Leninism?''". In this essay, she rejected the Bolshevik position on distribution of land to the peasantry, and their espousal of the "Right of nations to Self Determination" which she rejected as historically outmoded. The Italian Left Communists did not at the time accept any of these criticisms and both currents would evolve, as we shall see, over the course of the coming years. To a considerable degree, Lenin's well known polemic '''Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder'' [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm] is an attack on the ideas of the emerging Left Communist currents. However, it would be incorrect to see it exclusively in such a narrow focus, as the pamphlet also contained polemics against other currents such as the De Leonism Socialist Labor Party, the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World, the KAPD and Sylvia Pankhurst's Workers Socialist Federation. His main aim was to polemicise with currents moving towards pure revolutionary tactics by showing them that they could remain based on firmly revolutionary principles while utilising a variety of tactics. Therefore Lenin defended the use of parliamentarism and working within the official trade unions. As the Kronstadt rebellion occurred at a time when the debate on tactics was still raging within the Comintern, it has been wrongly seen as being Left Communist by some commentators. In fact, the Left Communist currents had no connection with the rebellion - although they did rally to its support when they learned of it. In later years, the German-Dutch tradition in particular would come to see the suppression of the revolt as the historic turning point in the evolution of the Russian state created after October 1917. ==Italian Left Communism 1926-1939== After 1926, Italian Left Communism took shape in exile and without the participation of Bordiga. Contacts between the Italians and the Germans had been made and were developed in France, but the Italian Left saw the KAPD's stress on factory organisation as being similar to the ideas of Gramsci's L'Ordine Nuovo and therefore rejected closer contact. Attempts to work with the group around Karl Korsch also failed. The Left Fraction of the PCd'I was formally established in July 1927 by a number of young militants. This new group had members in France, Belgium and the USA and published a review entitled ''Prometeo''. It was estimated in 1928 that it had at most 200 militants, but it would seem that while it never had more than 100 militants active at any one time its influence was actually far greater. The control of the PCd'I apparatus by the Stalinists, however, meant that attempts to reach other exiles was almost impossible and they were driven back into small circle work. The Italian Left Fraction was for the rest of the 1930s led by Ottorino Perrone, although it was fiercely opposed to the cult of the personality which was developing in the Comintern around Stalin in these years and resisted similar pressures in its own organisation. The Fraction had members in France, Belgium and the USA; how many in Italy looked to it cannot be ascertained (since all communist activities there had been driven underground by the fascist government). The main activity of the Fraction through these years was the publishing of its press, which consisted of the paper ''Prometeo'' and the journal ''Bilan''. With its establishment as a group, the Fraction also looked for international co-thinkers. Seeing the International Left Opposition, led by Leon Trotsky, as central to the non-Stalinist Communist movement, they sought contact with it. These contacts were to be severed when agreement on basic principles proved impossible (see Left communism#A Note on Left Communism and the Left Opposition below). The political distance between the Fraction and other communist currents would deepen throughout the 1930s as the Fraction declared itself opposed to the tactics adopted by the Left Opposition to broaden its support (i.e. the Fraction affirmed its opposition to fusion with centrist groups, opposition to entryism, etc.) Always opposed to the United Front tactic of the Comintern, the Fraction now declared itself firmly opposed to the Popular Front after 1933. Like the Trotskyists, it saw the failure of the Communist Party of Germany in the face of fascism as its historic failure and ceased to consider itself a fraction of the Communist Party from the date of its 1935 Congress, held in Brussels. Isolated, the Left Fraction sought to discover allies within the milieu of groups to the left of the Trotskyist movement. Typically these discussions came to nothing, but they were able to recruit from the disintegrating Ligue des Communistes Internationalistes (LCI) in Belgium, a group which had broken from Trotskyism. A loose liaison was also maintained with the Council Communist groups in the Netherlands and in particular with the GIK. However, these discussions were pushed into the background as the attempted fascist coup in Spain led to revolution and civil war. Immediately after the civil war began, a minority emerged within the Left Fraction whose members sought to participate in the events in Spain. This minority, including long time members of the fraction, numbered some 26 militants mainly belonging to the Parisian federation of the Fraction. They traveled to Barcelona to enlist in the workers militias and after a fruitless meeting in September with a delegation from the Fraction back home, they were expelled. The problem for the Fraction was that the military support given to the Republican forces by this minority was accompanied by political support (in that the minority wished to halt Strike actions among loyalist workers in the name of military victory against fascism). According to the Fraction, no support could be given to a bourgeois state, even in a struggle against fascism. The question of Spain forced the Belgian LCI to clarify its positions and a split ensued as a result of debate within its ranks. At its February 1937 conference a minority of the LCI led by Mitchell defended the positions of the Italian Left and were expelled. Although less than ten in number, they formed a Belgian Fraction of the Communist Left. It was at this point that the Italian Left learned of a group called the Grupo de Trabajadores in Mexico with very similar positions to their own. It was led by Paul Kirchoff and had left the Mexican Trotskyist movement. Kirchoff had formerly been a member of the KAPD in Germany, then a Trotskyist in the USA but his tiny group would seem to have disappeared at the outbreak of war in 1939. In early 1938 the Italian and Belgian Fractions formed an International Bureau of the Left Fractions which published a review called ''Octobre''. During this period the Italian Left also reviewed a number of positions which it thought had become outdated. They rejected the idea of national self determination and began to develop their views on the war economy and capitalist decadence. Much of this was carried out by Vercesi, but Mitchell from the Belgian Fraction was also a leading figure in the work. Perhaps most dramatically they also reviewed their understanding of the Russian Revolution and the state that had emerged from it. Eventually they came to argue that the Russian state was by the late 1930's state capitalist and was not to be defended. In short, they believed there was need for a new revolution. ==Left Communism 1939-1945== Many small currents to the left of the mass Communist Parties collapsed at the beginning of the Second World War and the Left Communists were initially silent too. Despite having foreseen the war more clearly than some other factions, when it began they were overwhelmed. Many were persecuted by either German Nazism or Italian fascism. Leading militants of the Communist Left like Mitchell, who was Jewish, were to die in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Meanwhile, in Germany the final council communist groups had disappeared in the maelstrom and in the Netherlands the International Communist Group (GIK) was moribund. The former "centrist" group led by Henk Sneevliet (the Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party, RSAP) transformed itself into the Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front. But in April 1942 its leadership was arrested by the Gestapo and killed. The remaining activists then split into two camps, on the one hand some turned to Trotskyism forming the Committee of Revolutionary Marxists (CRM) while the majority formed the CommunistenBond-Spartacus. The latter group turned to council communism and was joined by most members of the GIK. In 1941 the Italian Fraction was reorganised in France and along with the new French Nucleus of the Communist Left came into conflict with the ideas which the Fraction had propagated from 1936: of the social disappearance of the proletariat and localised wars, etc. These ideas continued to be defended by Vercesi in Brussels. Gradually the Left Fractions adopted positions drawn from German Left Communism. They abandoned the conception that the Russian state remained in some way proletarian and also dropped Vercesi's conception of localised wars in favour of ideas on imperialism inspired by Rosa Luxemburg. Vercesi's participation in a Red Cross committee was also fiercely contested. The strike at FIAT in October 1942 had a major impact on the Italian Fraction in France, which was deepened by the fall of Mussolini's regime in July 1943. The Italian Fraction now saw a pre-revolutionary situation opening in Italy and prepared to participate in the coming revolution. Revived by Marco in Marseilles, the Italian Fraction now worked closely with the new French Fraction, which was formally founded in Paris in December 1944. However in May 1945 the Italian Fraction, many of whose members had already returned to Italy, voted to dissolve itself so that it's militants could integrate themselves as individuals into the Internationalist Communist Party. The conference at which this decision was made also refused to recognise the French Fraction and expelled Marco from their group. This led to a split in the French Fraction and the formation of the Gauche Communiste de France by the French Fraction led by Marco. The history of the GCF belongs to the post-war period. Meanwhile the former members of the French Fraction who sympathised with Vercesi and the Internationalist Communist party formed a new French Fraction, which published the journal ''L'Etincelle'' and was joined at the end of 1945 by the old minority of the Fraction who had joined ''L'Union Communiste'' in the 1930's. One other development during the war years merits mention at this point. A small grouping of German and Austrian militants came close to Left Communist positions in these years. Best known, to those few who know of them, as the "Revolutionary Communists", these young militants were exiles from nazism living in France at the start of World War II and were members of the Trotskyist movement but they had opposed the formation of the Fourth International in 1938 on the grounds that it was premature. They were refused full delegates' credentials and only admitted to the founding conference of the Youth International on the following day. They then joined Hugo Oehler's International Contact Commission for the 4th Communist International and in 1939 were publishing ''Der Marxist'' in Antwerp. With the beginning of the war, they took the name Revolutionary Communists of Germany (RKD) and came to define Russia as state capitalist, in agreement with Ante Ciliga's book ''The Russian Enigma''. At this point they adopted a revolutionary defeatist position on the war and condemned Trotskyism for its critical defence of Russia (which was seen by Trotskyists as a Degenerated Workers' State). After the fall of France, they renewed contact with militants in the Trotskyist milieu in Southern France and recruited some of them into the Communistes Revolutionnaires in 1942. This group became known as ''Fraternisation Proletarienne'' in 1943 and then L'Organisation Communiste Revolutionnaire in 1944. The CR and RKD were autonomous, and clandestine, but worked closely together with shared politics. As the war ran its course, they evolved in a councilist direction, while also identifying more and more with Rosa Luxemburg's work. They also worked with the French Fraction of the Communist Left and seem to have disintegrated at the end of the war. This disintegration was speeded no doubt by the capture of a leading militant, Karl Fischer, who was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp where he was to participate in writing the ''Declaration of the Internationalist Communists of Buchenwald'' when the camp was liberated. ==Left Communism 1945-52== The closing stages of the Second World War marked a watershed in the history of Left Communism, as was true for every other political tendency. Left Communists, like the Trotskyists, expected the war to end with at least the beginnings of a revolutionary wave of struggle similar to that which had marked the end of the First World War. Therefore strikes in Italy from 1942 onwards were of intense interest to them. Many Left Communists formerly in exile, in jail or simply inactive due to repression returned to active political activity in Italy. This had the result that new organisations identifying with Left Communism came into being and older ones dissolved themselves. We look at these organisations and in particular at the Internationalist Communist Party below. If for the Italian Left the end of war marked a new beginning, for the German-Dutch Left it also marked something of a revival. Although in Germany it was the case that the Communist Left tradition was all but extinguished (surviving only in the form of a few scattered groups holding councilist views). France, by comparison, saw an interesting development with the beginning of a conscious attempt to develop a synthesis of the two strands of Left Communism in the form of the ''Gauche Communiste de France'', which built on pre-war contributions. ==Left Communism 1952-1968== The year 1952 signaled the definitive end of any remaining mass influence on the part of Italian Left Communism, as its sole remaining representative, the Internationalist Communist Party, split in two sections. By coincidence, the Gauche Communiste de France (GCF) also dissolved in the same year. Left Communists entered a period of constant decline from this point onwards, although they were somewhat rejuvenated by the events of May 1968. ==Left Communism 1968-present== ''To be written.'' ==A Note on Left Communism and the Left Opposition== Following his exile from Russia, Leon Trotsky and his supporters formed the International Left Opposition as an external tendency of the Communist International, aiming to reform it. This has caused some commentators to confuse the Left Opposition with Left Communism. However, the difference between them is quite significant: the Trotskyist Left Opposition is a branch of Leninism (they clearly defined themselves as the heirs of Lenin and the Old Bolsheviks who had been purged by Stalin), while Left Communism has always opposed Leninism (in fact, as discussed above, Left Communism was formed as an opposition to Leninism within the Communist movement). ==See also== * List of left communist internationals * Council Communism == Further reading == Outside the pages of the publications of modern day Left Communist groups, which are obscure, there is very little avaiable on this political tradition. However the [http://www.internationalism.org International Communist Current], itself a Left Communist grouping, has in recent years produced a series of stuiudies of what it views as its own antecedants. The book on the German-Dutch curent in particular contains an exhaustive bibliography. *''The Italian Communist Left 1926-1945'' *''The Dutch-German Communist Left'' *''The Russian Communist Left, 1918-1930'' *''The British Communist Left, 1914-1945'' Also of interest is volume 5 number 4 of Spring 1995 of the journal Revolutionary History. This volume may be usefully read in conjunction and for reasons of chronology after the ICC book referred to above. *Through Fascism, War and Revolution: Trotskyism and Left Communism in Italy Left Communism
Left communism
I hope people don't mind my outline for a contribution to 1952-2004? I firmly feel that the Bordigist style left-communism is limited (see my contributions on the topic to council communism) and doesn't particularly represent the initial broad spread of left-communism in the 1916-23 revolutionary upsurge /let alone/ the theoretical and material underpinnings of the left-communist groups. Today, when the Bordigist positions are largely irrelevent to workers, and radicals, and are barely relevent to workerist communists and anarchists we should recognise the actual use of "left communist" in modern parlance as a way of denoting more worker-oriented, more democratic and anti-cooption communist movements. Where else would you fit Autonomism if seriously approaching the issue?User:Fifelfoo 23:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm sorry but I do objedct to your outline for the period 1952-2004. When I wrote the orignal article I intended to continue the story to date. And the story relates to the Left Communist traditon of the groups coming from or relating to the KAPD and/or the Italian left associated with Bordiga. if we follow your outline where now am I tpo place this material? I also object to many of your suggestions for inclusion because they deal with groups and individuals who are not part of the Left communist tradition although they may draw on that tradition. I can only suggest that you create new entries for many of those you mention in your outline. I hope to do some more owrk on the ntry over the course of this week and I'm afraid i shall delete much of your material. I hope you can move it elsewhere. Perhaps I should also add that a great deal of your material is couched in such a fashion as not to be NPOV which is the polict here. For example you refer to the Bordigists as sectarian. Sure they are but without explanation and used as condemnation such a terminology has no place here. Jock Haston :Dear Jock, :I actually disagree with you about where to include those other guys, and I'll lay that out below. Just to begin though, I'm quite happy for you to heavily edit the article. You seem to have a more immediate connection with Left Commos than I do. The Bordigists (ICC and ?ICT?) are pretty much sectarian in every instance I've run into them. Given, however, that that means one old fart and a single rack of outdated journals in a single bookstore in Australia, this ain't good. The ICC etc. pubs are, however, objectively sectarian at the moment--that needs to be argued out in more than just one line though. (I never meant it as derrogation, the ICC etc just don't play nice / democratically with other revs at the moment). : :Who should be included in Left Communism? :My central argument is that the current LC trends are almost entirely disconnected from the intial "Zimmerwald" style internationalist LCs. As much as current Trots are disconnected from 1904 Bolshevism. Additionally, putting Pannenkoek & the other councilists in an LC article is a bit iffy if we're taking a historicist definition of what LC is. Whereas, if we compare movement in their activities and platform to the activities and platform of the LCs, and note any movement accepting that they draw on the LCs, or arising in their own historical moment as "left" communists, we should have a broader article. :I can accept your argument that the article should deal fundamentally with historically linked LC (the year dot to 1945 section for example). But we should have sub-sections stubbing off to other commo/anarcho movements that claim, or organically took up, LC positions. :User:Fifelfoo 23:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) To return to the fundamental point the various tendencies which draw on Left Communism are not in fact Left Communist and rarely make such a claim. And the authentic Left Communist groups such as the ICC and IBRP strongly dispute such claims. A claim which historians of the revolutionary movement would largely agree with in my experience. You refer to the article I've written thus far as having an historicist view of LC and if you wish to use such a terminology then I'll plead guilty. But LC is a tendency, or set of tendencies, that claims to be Marxist and therefore historical materialist. For my part I dispute their clams to properly understand Marx but I concur with with them that Marxism is based on historical materialism and, in your terms, is therefore historicist. Theres no getting around that. That the ICC and IBRP, who are not Bordigist by the way, and the various ICP's are terribly sectarian is of no concern to this entry. The policy of this wiki is that entries are NPOV and it follows that stating that these tendencies are sectarian is not NPOV. What can be said and will be said is tht many consider them to be sectarian. One minor point you raise is the mention of Pannekoek in the article. Your absolutely correct that his work is best discussed in the entry dealing with Council Communism and in a biographical entry. That wil be done I hope in the course of time. One of the themes of this article is that Councilism as a tendency came out of Dutch-German Left Communism which is why specific discussion of that current ends, properly speaking in the aftermath of WW2. The problem is at the moment that I have not completed the section on the German-Dutch LC or the later post WW2 sections. Bear with I'll get to it! Where I agree with you is that the article needs to point oput that LCism has been an influence on a number of other tendencies and currents. This is best done in a concluding section which I'll incorporate into the structure either today or tomorrow depending on the pressure of time. Your also correct that I have some connection with Left Communism in that I'm friendly with one of them and have read their lit in the past. But my main connection with them is as a subject of historical study. I have no time for the groups that stand in the LC tradition today. My assumed name will give you an idea of my politics but only a rough idea I must warn you. Check the entry on the real JH which I mostly wrote btw. Jock Haston (who was a registered user but fogets passwords and never writes them down) ---- I've inserted a comment at the end of the article, which I also wish to reproduce here: :Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for whoever wrote all the above sections - his or her knowledge on the history of Left Communism is truly encyclopedic. However, this is too much. The article is an information overload even for one with an interest in politics - not to mention the casual reader! It goes into FAR too much detail over the most obscure little groupings. Most readers will get terminally bored before they finish reading the fist half of the article. A shorter article which presents the history of Left Communism in more general terms and which pays more attention to Left Communist views and ideas would be preferable to what we have now. :User 86. ... was you Jock, right? I agree from an editorial perspective. When we reach a critical mass with subsections they should be spun off into articles. Wikipedia is trying to be ''an encyclopedia of'' '''all'' ''human knowledge''. We shouldn't remove the minutae (though we should say "these groups had less than 10 members" when that's true). But the main article should summarise the entire history, and use the national article style for subarticles (see Australia for an example). How about that idea? I think there's too much here, but that wikipedia can cope with subarticles on history 1930-1945 etc.User:Fifelfoo 23:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) No User 86 was not Jock Haston. And I do not like the edits which I consider vandalism. If I get the time I intend to recvert to the earlier version of the article and add more detail. This is for the following reasons. 1 Objections to too much detail are not valid. The wiki can take masses of information and there is no set length for an entry. And I wopuld argue that this entry has an integrity that I think stands on firmer ground than most of the rather dodgy entries in the Communism series. I mean communist states! An idiocy how can there be a communist state? Such a oafish idea should not be in any kind of an encyclopedia. 2 Much of the detail cannot be hived of into separate spin off articles as these tiny groups were intimately related to each other. Separate articles for say the French Fraction of the Communist Left and the Italian Fraction would be meaningless given that they shared ideas and personel. 3 The conception of a Communist Left must be historicaol given the tweo strains that contribute to its formation. Therefore they must be dealt wioth together up until the demise of a specifically German-Dutch Left Communist current circa 1933 and the development of Council Communism out of it. However to reassure you guys things get simpler after 1945 and even more after 1968. The reason for this being that after the war no more than a cursory reference is needed to the German-Dutch current. More importantly after 1968 the current groups begin to take shape and they can be easily dealt with in articles specific to them ie ICC, IBRP, ICP(PC) to mention only the most important. Relatively speaking of course! Numbers in the Left Communist groups will be mentioned at the end. I would have included such data where avaiable in the article but felt it distracted from the flow of developments. Jock Haston As I was about to go off line I realised that in fact if you look at the little paragraph on the Revolutionary Communists in the tnry you will find 3 or 4 links to blank articles. But in fact there is so little about this current available in English that any article on them would barely be any longer than the material in this entry and cutting the amount of data on them here would be tantamount to eliminating them altogther. In other words rather than being over burdened with too much detail I believe this article has stripped the story of Left Communism to bare bones already. Any less detail or information and things would be badly distorted. Anyhow I hope to get back to the article in the next 48. But real life politics may make than difficult. Jock Haston (not a Left Communist) == Merger == Should this article by merged with Council communism? --User:Soman 18:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :No. Different phenomena, although elements of one are a subset of the other, and vice-versa. As currently, they should link to each other where relevent. User:Fifelfoo 02:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::And if they are to exist as separate articles, some material needs to be shifted from one to the other and differences needs to be clarified. --User:Soman 07:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) == 84.160.224.182 == I reverted additions by 84.160.224.182 for chronological and POV reasons. 84.160.224.182 mentioned the split between Bordiga and Damen in the 1950's paragraph, but it is previously descussed in the Italy and the 1920's section. Which is correct? Also the POV introduced "by the way Stalinism invented Leninism" is too complicated to shoehorn in here. User:DJ Silverfish 15:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == Lenin == How about some mention of Lenin's "Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" paper, which greatly influenced mainstream Communists against this movement? User:Rlquall 23:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Jock's Back == I've updated the bibliography at the end of the article. In a couple of weeks I'll expand the article again and bring it up to 1968. Hopefully it will be easy enough to cover post-68 developments. Above the question is asked as to when the damen group was formed. The answer is that Damen helped lead the Fraction from 1926 onwards. he was then a leading member of the ICP. The split in the ICP in the fifties might then be seen as the founding of a Damen group with positions distinct from those of Bordiga. Hopefully I can make things clearer after some more work on the essay. Someone else makes the point that Lenins Left Wing Communism is not mentioned. A major error on my part I confess and easily rectified. Jock Haston
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
L
LA | LB | LC | LD | LE | LF | LG | LH | LI | LJ | LK | LM | LN | LO | LP | LR | LS | LT | LU | LW | LX | LY | LZ |Words begining with Left_Communism:
Left-communism
Left_Communism
Left_Communism
Left_communism
Left_communism
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
