Is there any resource that maps out all the tendencies of the left? It doesn't necessarily have to be a literal map with lines, but it could be something like a brief essay that outlines all the tendencies. I know there is a 'libertarian marxism' map on this website, but I think there should be one with all currents associated with the left.
Edited to exlude additional questions about specific tendencies.
Basically, I don't think it…
Basically, I don't think it would be possible to do it comprehensively. The left is too big and complex to include everything.
Also, are you including anarchism here within the syndicalism strand? Or you counting that not as part of the "left"?
I don't think it would be accurate to describe council communists as left communists, no. Council communists are anti-party, whereas most (all?) left communists seem to be pro-party
Steven. wrote: Also, are…
I count anarchism as part of the left, but I list those three since they were the main ones to be significantly organized. I mean, anarchist communism never really achieved the success of syndicalism. Also, by syndicalism, I mean both revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism.
Steven. wrote:I don't think…
Hmm, aren't left communists just critics of Bolshevism but come out of Marxism? By Party, do left communists aim at capturing state power, or do they just refer to political groupings? Do council communists and left communists have any relationship?
Steven. wrote:I don't think…
Left communism originally refers to those currents within the Third International which opposed its degeneration from early on. The most famous and enduring of these were the Italian Left and the German-Dutch Left. The latter is also known as council communist, but initially it was very much pro-party - that is why many of them ended up in the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD). As an illustration, have a read of their theses on the role of the party from 1921. Only over time did some of the German-Dutch Left become anti-party (this current is often called councilist and Otto Rühle was its early proponent).
In other words, council communists were also left communists, yes.
Agent of the International…
Depends on the left communist group in question. Here's how the Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT) sees it: On the Future International (see also the articles recommended in the intro of that article)
The Dutch-German and Italian…
The Dutch-German and Italian Left Communists were always different tendencies with different politics. And those that adopted the term Council Communist did so because they no longer saw themselves as in the left wing of the Third International so it's ahistorical nonsense to call them Left Communists.
Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism…
Lenin's "Left-Wing Communism" (which popularised the term) was primarily aimed at the German-Dutch Left, so it's not ahistorical. At least according to Marcel van der Linden, the term council communism appears from 1921 onwards (same year as the KAPD leaves the Third International and the AAUE separates from the KAPD), so there's an argument to be made it's only following this that the German-Dutch Left can be called council communist as such (but to say they never were left communists would be ahistorical). However, over time left communism as a term also evolves beyond its original association since all left communists sooner or later find themselves outside the Third International (e.g. it's in the 1930s, already after being expelled from their respective communist parties, that the Italian Left regroups itself as Fractions of the Communist Left). All in all, these terminological distinctions were not that clear at the time and, as we can see here, can still cause confusion today (might be more useful to look at the actual political evolution of the various groups that had a common heritage of once being a left communist opposition).
In my view the simplest…
In my view the simplest formulation is: Council-Communists were ex-Left Communists.
That is, as Dyjbas has more or less intimated, the positions of Pannekoek, Rühle ... about the Russian Revolution, about the role or not of 'the party' etc etc, were not in, say, 1919, what they came to be later.
( And the *word* 'party' is not that important. Council Communist Paul Mattick's group was called ['the United Workers] Party' from formation in 1934 until 1936. For details (amid a discussion of what constitutes 'vanguardism'), see https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/glasgow-cop26/page/12/#post-243752 . )
Dyjbas wrote: Steven. wrote…
Not a very good or accurate definitions since most of the syndicalist unions in Europe would be considered left communists given they were briefly involved in the Soviet internationals and clashed with the bolsheviks immediately. While the Italian Communists would be excluded since they did not oppose "its degeneration from early on" they spent the early years as a loyal formation.
"that is why many of them ended up in the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD)." Out of curiosity, what do you think the KAPD's position on Unions was?
Reddebrek wrote: Not a very…
But doesn't it refer to those that come out of the Marxist tradition, therefore not including the syndicalist unions? What would be your definition of left communism?
Agent of the International…
"But doesn't it refer to those that come out of the Marxist tradition" I'm sure there are people out there happy to tack on an extra qualifier like that, but that wasn't in the definition I was critiquing. And I don't think adding a contentious term like "marxist tradition" onto the confused term left communism helps with clarity much either.
Reddebrek wrote: Not a very…
Sure, we could keep refining the definition. The point though is that left communism arose as an opposition from within the Third International, out of Marxist elements which took an internationalist position on WWI and were some of the first to rally around the Russian Revolution.
The Italian Left only accomplished their task of forming a separate communist party in 1921 (nearly two years after the formation of the Third International to which it affiliated). By 1922 they were already raising criticisms during the debates over the united front and the concept of workers' government. You can read more about it in the introduction to this pamphlet.
Per their 1920 programme, unions are "one of the principal pillars of the capitalist state", instead they proposed the formation of factory organisations allied to the KAPD.
I believe most major…
I believe most major currents of the Left can be traced back to the two main rival tendencies in the first International Workingmen’s Association: social democracy and anarchist collectivism. That split would be the starting point. I don’t think the picture would become too complicated because not much evolves from either of these traditions.
What evolves out of anarchist collectivism consists of anarchist communism, revolutionary syndicalism, and anarcho-syndicalism. Some argue that anarcho-syndicalism is a synthesis of anarchist collectivism and anarchist communism.
What evolves out of social democracy consists of the various Leninist politics: Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Then there are the ultra left Marxists, such as the council communists, that are to the left of the various Leninist politics. Some might object that all these things can’t be related to social democracy but all of the original founders considered themselves as part of social democracy. I’m thinking of Lenin, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc.
Not much really exists outside of the political traditions outlined above. Maybe we can speak of utopian socialism as a precursor to modern socialism, which I date from the first International. There are other things like Blanquism and mutualism, which are either irrelevant or not socialist at all, and therefore not Left. Then there are pet ideological projects such as Communalism and democratic confederalism which are influenced by a lot of the ideas outlined above, but are not really popular, and not really socialist as well.
If we do every minor sect, then it becomes a quite tedious task. But it would be ultimately fruitless. Like if we map every Trotskyist sect, which some people have done, it wouldn’t change the big picture of where Trotskyism is located. Anyone have any thoughts to add?
Agent of the International…
Yet Marx was vehemently opposed to social-democracy and pro the party of anarchy:
Are you familiar with Marx’s…
Are you familiar with Marx’s history in the First International? If he was “pro the party of Anarchy”, then why did he clash with the “Bakuninists”, as he called the anarchists, or anti-authoritarian socialists? It seems pretty clear that he advocated the working class forming political parties to conquer the state, to win the so called battle of democracy, as a means to achieve socialism. Did he not? What else did Marx propose throughout his life?
Perhaps he ensured that the…
Perhaps he ensured that the International was dissolved because he foresaw its fall into petty ideological battles between Marxists and anarchists?
By democracy, Marx did not understand it as representative government. Democracy, as in the "battle for democracy", cannot be understood in the bourgeois sense of supposed rule by the electorate but as rule by the people, i.e. by those with no special status within civil society, i.e. by the working class. It is dictatorial because it imposes the will of one class over the others.
Perhaps he ensured that the…
Why were those ideological battles “petty”? Why was he against the anarchists if he was “pro the party of anarchy”?
All ideology is petty by the…
All ideology is petty by the mere fact that it is ideology and not the real class struggle, which is fought materially, not in the realm of ideas.
Marx was against the nascent anarchist ideology, as he was against nascent Marxism. These are both ideologies, separate from our class struggle.
Instead of mapping out Leftism let's just assign it to the ruderalis!
Your responses to threads…
Your responses to threads like these are just poorly thought out. You seriously think political ideas are just “ideologies, separate from the real class struggle?” You don’t think they are born in the material world and play an influential role in it?
And you think Marx shared your view, as if he was beyond the “petty” ideological divide, and so undermined the organization of the International because it was beyond saving?
Marx did what he did because he saw first hand a majority of internationalists embrace a current of thought contrary to his own. He didn’t want to allow the majority to pursue the logical course of action that would have been expected to follow in an international federation.
Your responses to threads…
Please provide references. It is impossible to respond to a vacuum.
Indeed, political ideas are ideology. What else are they? Ideology is not only separate to real class struggle, it forms the major obstacle to our class struggle over capital.
What logical course of action do you refer to?
Yours truly, "on behalf of the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism."
What logical course of…
You truly have no familiarity with the history of the first International. I would advise you to read up on it rather than commenting on things you don’t know about.
Your comment doesn't address…
Your comment doesn't address the question posed to you. What logical course of action was the International bound to follow, hypothetically? Enlighten us from your superior familiarity.