Corbynism: Leftists Illusions about Labour

Some of those who support Corbyn’s Labour do so with the idea that “it’s the least worst option”
but many more actually believe that Labour can reform capitalism in favour of those who create the
wealth that is enjoyed by a minority. This article is mainly directed at their distortions.

The Impact of Corbyn

The capitalist media expressed astonishment at the rise of a left-leaning Labour Party which appeals
more to the young than anything since Blairism when it first appeared. In reality, the Corbynite
phenomenon is not hard to understand. After decades where wages as a share of national income
have continuously fallen and after almost a decade of austerity in which the rich have got richer, it
is not surprising that many workers voted for a party which promised to “tax the rich”. The young
in particular, who face a miserable future, rushed to support Corbyn, both within the Labour Party
and among the electorate in general (where 1.7 million under 25s registered for the first time). Some
of those who support Corbyn’s Labour do so with the idea that “it’s the least worst option” but
many more actually believe that Labour can reform capitalism in favour of those who create the
wealth that is enjoyed by a minority. However behind all these are those who claim to be
“socialists” and “revolutionaries” but who in their cynical manoeuvres belie both terms. This article
is mainly directed at their distortions.

In the last few months the CWO has intervened in this debate, distributing material explaining the
case for revolutionary abstention and urging, with those who were ready to discuss the fact, that
Corbynism is a dead-end and part of the ruling class order. We have carried articles on our web site
and in our publications1 and intervened on social media. We also distributed copies of our
broadsheet “Aurora” on picket lines and University campuses as well as in our customary venues.

Some of the less politicised people we met argued in line with the standard bourgeois argument
about democratic rights and duties. Others echoed the desperate hope that somehow electing a
Labour Government would provide some relief from the cuts, crap prospects in work, cuts in
benefits and crumbling welfare services. For many of those who we met the latter was a “straw they
were clutching” in response to a lifetime of attacks seeing our class unable to sustain any adequate
resistance. We did not agree and put counter-arguments but we're able to understand the desperation
as the crisis appears to grind forward remorselessly and all the scattered “direct action” resistance to
it has no focal point around which to rally.

Counterfeit Communists
On the other hand, there was an inexcusable flood of phoney arguments from the leftists and even a few anarcho-
Corbynists who we encountered. On more than one occasion these supporters of the “democratic illusion" (some more
recent converts than others) defended themselves by explaining that voting only took 10 or 15 minutes. On that basis,
voting was at worst only a minor aberration on a par with dropping a chocolate wrapper or breaking wind in a crowded
lift. Of course such a facile defence dodged around the issues that centres on the leftists ongoing nurturing of false and
corrosive ideas over many months or even years rather than a few minutes of delinquent behaviour.
At the core of all the arguments of the “organised” Corbynists was the desire to support key
falsehoods. These regularly included nonsense about the Labour Party being a “Workers Party”,
nationalisation or state intervention being a step towards socialism and the ability of well-meaning
MPs to be the vital agents of change. Overall, the whole panoply of justification for a reformist
view of the world was expounded in the finest traditions of Second Internationalism2.

As the ruling class’s crisis has deepened the lack of any readily available economic solution has, at
least since 2015, become dramatically evident in the political “superstructure”. Obvious examples
of the bourgeois political machine not producing intended results include the near clean sweep by
the Scottish Nationalists in the 2015 General Election, the 2016 referendum vote for Brexit which
was not the preferred choice for the majority of the ruling class and the 2017 General Election
which failed to deliver a “strong or stable” government of the right or left3

Of course, the left of the political establishment was not immune from the series of unintended
consequences. The changes to the internal voting practices in the Labour Party opened the way for
Jeremy Corbyn to become the leader despite opposition from the majority of Labour M.Ps.

That last unforeseen quirk in the politics of the parties which present as options for being safe
governments for capitalism resulted in further ripples. In Britain, for many decades, the various
splinters that emerged from Stalinism and Trotskyism4 had seen their influence gradually decline.
In Corbyn’s unexpected rise they saw their chance.

The re-emergence of Left Labourism as a significant sector in British politics breathed life into the
spectrum of counterfeit Communists all vying to implement the politics of the past like the United
Front and “transitional method”. Those approaches were spawned in the degenerating Communist
International after the defeat of the revolutionary wave in the early 1920s. By the 3rd Comintern
Congress in 1921 the revolutionary essence was increasingly being replaced by adaptations to the
capitalist order. Those are the politics which symbiotically unite the epigones of the revolutionary
wave with the re-emergent left Labourism and its layers of new, often younger, activists.

The spreading of confusion by the Left

Unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been busy predicting imminent Armageddon for their
whole history, the leftists see in Corbynism the living fulfilment of decades of leftist prophecies.
Starting from Lenin’s confused and confusing description of the Labour Party as a “bourgeois
workers party”, many generations of leftists have aimed for a left-leaning Labour Party as the key to
a “British Road to Socialism” 5 (BRS).

Despite Labour’s defeat, the outcome of the General Election in June has given the Corbynite
movement an extended lease of life. The beloved leader has to deliver nothing better than well-
meaning words while all the ills of the system can be left at the door of the Tory Party or the Prime
Minister. Hyping up a demand for another run of the General Election pantomime in the next 12
months 6 , Momentum and the other camp-followers will bang the electoral drum to their heart’s
content. Their case will also thrive in a battle against “the enemy within” as the majority of Labour
MPs remain open to the charge of not being true followers of “the beloved leader”.

In the previous section we referred to the British Road to Socialism, the name of the pre-1991
Communist Party of Great Britain’s Programme. The position of the 2017 successors in the CPB
and their “Morning Star” is encapsulated on their web-site. At the end of June their site still
displayed their election propaganda, summed up by a a poster-like front page entitled “Unity!”. Half
of the page is taken up with a picture of Corbyn and the words, “Labour to Win”. Towards the
bottom CPB call their supporters to “Vote Labour everywhere for a left-led government.”
Before dealing with more fundamental arguments, we can comment on the grotesque illusions about
a left-led government. Even if the most far-fetched leftist fantasies had been realised and 326
Labour MPs had been elected then the CPB propagandists knew full well that this would have been
a Parliamentary Labour Party indistinguishable from the previous version. The political backbone
amongst the riders on the gravy train would actually have been the same factions who had tried to
remove Corbyn and forced him to face re-election by party members in 2015.

An outcome requiring a lesser leap of faith, but still more than the Labour Party could actually
deliver, would have been a minority Labour Government supported by the Liberal Democrats
and/or the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. Such a prospect would have the leftists salivating as
every disappointment would then have been blamed on the other parties restricting Corbyn’s ability
to perform miracles.

Even if a “left-led Government” had been a feasible electoral outcome it is our duty, as
revolutionary Marxists, to explain why we would not campaign for such a development.

At this point we have to reassert the basics that the cheerleaders for Corbyn have long since stopped
presenting. The Stalinists, Trotskyists and even certain self-styled Anarchists abandoned the need to
spread such basic analysis, as they tried to encourage those who would listen that voting Labour is
the path to a better future. Before the end of June a gathering called by the “Psychedelic
Bolsheviks” in Sheffield heard its young supporters proclaim the need for a further push for more
“young people and workers” to be drawn into the next Parliamentary exercise.

That endemic Leftist opportunism illustrates precisely why the organisations that operate as part of
the left wing of capitalism have long been lost as potential parts of the proletarian revolutionary
movement. If capitalism is to be overthrown – the only road to a sustainable human future – then
the essential first step is the proletariat taking control of society via its own organisation and
activity. That model will be based on mass involvement via assemblies and organisations such as
Workers Councils (“Soviets” in Russian).

The politics of left reformism/Corbynism are separated from that perspective by at least two vast
gulfs. Firstly assemblies and structures based on open participation with all representatives being
accountable and recallable is totally different from bourgeois electoral structures. In the latter
atomised individuals vote in their secret ballots for institutions all of which are designed to help the
bosses’ system of power and control to keep running.

Secondly, the critical process by which the working class achieves our potential as “the
gravediggers of capitalism” depends on the maturation of our class consciousness from “a class in
itself” to “a class for itself”. That process crucially depends on the material reality of class struggle
and the uneven manner by which sections of the class reflect on the process, absorb lessons and
develop analysis 7 It is crystal clear that the leftists who encourage false beliefs in the nature of the
bourgeois state and the usefulness of reformist strategies serve to block and divert the necessary
steps towards clarity.

In the next section we will look at how these rogues advocate electoral reformism even where their
inner circles still have a grasp of certain fundamentals. With a profound contempt for those they can
persuade, such charlatans play with “transitional” politics where the few are entitled to understand
but their followers are encouraged to remain ignorant and be loyal voters – the identical role
allocated by the bourgeoisie to the whole of the working class.

The transitional method – Trotskyist doublethink

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously,
and accepting both of them.” When Orwell wrote “1984” there is a suggestion that he was
apparently influenced by the political positions adopted by Max Shachtman and what was to
develop into a strand of critical Trotskyism that become known as “the third camp”. It is ironic that
one of the most blatant exercises in “Corbynism” doublethink has been carried out by a Trotskyist
trend that also has sympathies for the third camp8.

On the one hand, the initiates and inner circle may still maintain a Marxist analysis of the Labour
Party. For example it is still possible to find the following on the “Workers Liberty” web site.

THE LABOUR PARTY IS A BOURGEOIS PARTY

The Leninist position is that the Labour Party, judged in its role and function, and despite its origins
and special connection with the trade unions, is a capitalist, a bourgeois workers' party. Judged
politically it is not a workers' party with deformations, inadequacies (its 'inadequacies' amount to a
qualitative difference), but a bourgeois party with the special function of containing the workers -
actually it is a special section of the bourgeois state political organisation. The Labour Party is the
main instrument of capitalist control of the workers; the organisation formed out of an upsurge of
the workers, but an upsurge in which the workers were defeated ideologically and thus in every
other field, is now the means of integrating the drives and aspirations of the workers with the
capitalist state machine. It is not a passive reflection but an active canaliser of the class - against
itself, against the proletariat's own interest. (From “What we are and what we must become” – still
described as a “founding document” of the ancestral organisation of the AWL).

The description above was written in 1966. Perhaps the AWL leading lights believe that during the
last 50 years the Labour Party ceased to be “the means of integrating the drives and aspirations of
the workers with the capitalist state machine”. If so, then they could choose to explain a) the
process and b) what is the class nature of the Labour Party. However, that’s their business not ours.

What is absolutely clear is that the AWL has been very active in the Corbynite movement and in the
factional struggles within Momentum. Indeed there were weeks and months when at least one of
their activists regularly appeared on national TV. Never did any of them take the opportunity to
explain the analysis written in the epistles of the founding parents. Why not? Simply because they
were only focussed on attracting new layers who would help build, join and vote for the Labour
Party.

The doublethink is as clear as it is sickening. While the “cognoscenti” may understand the world,
they deliberately and consciously avoid explaining the nature of reformism and parliamentarianism
to their followers. Only the organisation, or perhaps its core, are allowed to understand while the
Corbyn cult followers are treated as gullible vote fodder left in a state of abject confusion and false
hopes – a situation which will inevitably lead to disillusion and the belief that people who call
themselves Marxists deal in nothing but lies and illusion.

Lest all the other 57 varieties feel left out, the AWL is of course only one of many playing the same
game. Peter Taaffe, long standing guru of the Socialist Party of England and Wales (once know by
the name of its journal as “The Militant Tendency”) was also granted his 15 minutes of fame to
argue that the Labour Party should review its decision from the early 1920s and allow his party to
affiliate. The representative of the Workers Revolutionary Party, Frank Sweeney, appeared on
BBC’s Daily Politics to explain that the problem was that Corbyn would not be able to implement
his (Corbyn’s) programme. The fact that there was a large grain of truth in that was clearly by
accident rather than design in that Mr Sweeney’s recommended solution was to vote for the WRP in
the 5 constituencies where they had candidates.
For others, half-forgotten folk memories of when their political grandparents played in the Labour
Party were awoken. The plethora of factions within and around Momentum is evidence of this
common method of swimming with the stream of bourgeois ideology and maximising the practice
of opportunism.

Parliament is not the state

There is another seriously harmful dimension to the leftists’ encouragement of participation in
elections, whether in favour of Labour or their own groups or coalitions.

The pretence that the election of more well-intentioned politicians could actually replace the
capitalist system is part of the mystification circulated by, and on behalf, of the ruling class. They
are fully aware that elected representation up to and including the “Executive” (Prime Minister and
her/his Cabinet) is only the window-dressing. The state in modern society actually exists to
maintain the domination of the ruling class.

Beyond, the layers of elected representatives lies the real power vested in entities such as the civil
service, the armed forces, the police and the secret and semi-secret state and not least the controllers
of the majority of the national capital.. These are replicated beyond the national boundaries in the
kaleidoscope of transnational institutions including the United Nations, International Monetary
Fund, World Trade Organisation, military alliances such as NATO and, of course, the European
Union and other regional trade organisations such as NAFTA.

That whole range of state institutions would still exist and exercise overwhelming power even if the
UK population were allowed to elect 650 Corbyn clones.

The leftist organisations, in their inner circles, very probably, understand that full well. Similarly
they understand that the state functions exist to maintain the control over every aspect of our lives
that flows from the means of production being owned by firms, trusts, companies and
conglomerates and in some cases by states themselves.

The pretence that electing MPs can counter those interests is a cruel deception. In most cases it only
serves to help strengthen the grip of bourgeois ideology. In other cases such as Chile in the 1970s it
meant death, imprisonment and torture for those working class people who had been persuaded that
there was a “Parliamentary Road to Socialism”.

Leftist illusions or the difficult path to the overthrow of capitalism

It does not surprise us that layers of “radical” young people including some workers have been
dragged into the Left Labourist swamp. The fact that the capitalist system has offered the vast
majority nothing substantially positive for decade after decade is the background to that
desperation. During that time the working-class has not displayed a fraction of our potential to
struggle to defend ourselves and then to overthrow this rotten system. Consequently,
Corbynism/Momentum has appeared, offering bogus promises based on the leftist recipe book for
maintaining capitalism in an imaginary “fairer” style. Without a visible alternative based on
working-class self-organisation and struggle, Corbynite Labour has been able to strike a chord. That
explanation is clear and as Marxists we fully understand secular belief in salvation. This pie in the
sky hope is just another expression of “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world” (Marx, from the introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right).

We recognise that revolutionaries have a duty to engage with those fooled by the false promises of
reformism, of either the left or right varieties. However we will not condone, let alone join with,
those corruptors of youth who encourage belief in illusions and build false expectations that will
end in disillusion and confusion. Being “where the class is at” for the leftists involves sowing and
encouraging illusions and encouraging falsehoods and confusions that cannot advance awareness of
the need and possibility of the working-class taking power. That revolutionary reconstitution of
society is the only viable path to put an end to a system that is very evidently breeding war, misery,
famine and ecological destruction across the entire planet.

Internationally Corbynism has other parallels which clearly demonstrate where support for a
parliamentary left party gets you. In Greece the financial implosion brought a supposedly very left
new party (Syriza) to power in opposition to austerity imposed by the IMF and EU. The result is
that Syriza has “managed” the introduction of the very policies they were elected to oppose. This
has been, and remains, the function of the capitalist and reformist left everywhere.

The logic of the leftists decayed political method in Britain is seen where they line up against each
other in favour of a capitalist UK in or out of a capitalist European Union or in favour of Scottish
Independence or the existing state structure in Great Britain. Their politics of “lesser evilism” do
not end there – while wars and massacres spread across the world the left chooses which side to
cheer on. The same applies when we look at the historic atrocities in the Balkans such as the
Kosovan separation from Serbia, or the current sufferings caused by the struggle between Ukraine
against Russia and its supporters, or even the Kurdish nationalist YPG military campaign now
openly part of a US-backed coalition. Wherever decaying capitalism generates conflict and misery
the leftists cannot resist choosing sides while the working class suffer.

The cause of the working class only suffers when it's false friends helps lock their followers into
capitalist structures and ideology such as the Labour Party and the reformist falsehoods that are
peddled. Of course, it is easy for those dressed in pseudo-Marxist shreds to foster illusions in
reformism or, as is their current practice, to join the Labour Party and increase the confusion of
those who are finding conditions unbearable.

Genuine Communists will not be part of those exercises in deceit. Corbyn is not a new alternative
but just a return to the same old programme of the past. For the present, we will continue to explain
that there is no quick fix to capitalist exploitation and austerity. On the contrary, the road to a better
future lies through the working class rediscovering its confidence and combativity. This can only be
achieved when workers on the ground actively shape and expand their own resistance to the
thousand and one attacks which amount to a historical reversal and decline in living standards as the
crisis of capitalism grinds on, whichever party is in Westminster. This is qualitatively different from
the headless chicken activism for activism’s sake or the short-term perspective of “getting the Tories
out”. There is a way for would-be revolutionary militants to help build up workers’ resistance to
capitalism. It lies, not in promoting a particular character or faction inside any of the established
parties, but in helping to promote the long term movement of resistance to capitalism and ultimately
a political organisation of the world working class. The CWO and our comrades in ICT are
organised to maintain and spread that theory and practice. We invite all those who share our
understanding to discuss with us in the struggle towards a truly human, classless and stateless
future.

KT

June 23 2017

1.See leftcom.org, leftcom.org, leftcom.org, leftcom.org, leftcom.org, leftcom.org, leftcom.org,

leftcom.org.
2.The Second International drew together erstwhile Socialist Parties from its foundation in 1889
until its political collapse in 1914 when the deep-seated abandonment of a revolutionary Marxist
understanding led to its large majority supporting their national bourgeoisie in the First World War.
Parties such as the Labour Party, SPD in Germany and PS in France continue to stand in that
counter-revolutionary tradition.
3.In fact a most obvious short-term effect of the loss of a few seats by the Tories is that the
Government may have to work out how to transfer some millions of pounds to Northern Ireland
“infrastructure projects” i.e. In the direction of the Democratic Unionists and other politicians and
their “business associates”. Since this article was drafted it became clear that the number involved
would be at least a million pounds.
4.Examples of Stalinist or Trotskyist organisations in Britain that have not hitched up to the
Corbynite bandwagon are few and far between. Two that have “bucked the trend” are the
Revolutionary Communist Group and the Socialist Equality Party. The former prefer to devote their
cheerleading to the state capitalist regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. The latter has in 2017 given up
its previous habit of legitimising electoral illusions by standing its own candidates as part of its own
interpretation of the Trotskyist Transitional Programme.
5.The name of the programme adopted in 1952 – issued the previous year - by the Communist Party
of Great Britain, the supporters of the state capitalist Soviet Union. It has hardly changed since
despite many rewrites.
6.The Byzantine nature of the democratic smokescreen means that the Tories would gain party
political advantage – albeit slightly less since the 2017 results - by not calling the next General
Election until the constituency boundaries have been redrawn to their advantage. This is scheduled
to take place in 2019.
7.For exploration of this see our publication “Class Consciousness and Revolutionary
Organiasation”
8.See “The Lost Marxism of Critical Trotskyism” in Internationalist Communist 17. Still available
£4, including postage, from our addresses.
Posted By
Internationalis...
Aug 11 2017 17:11

bootsy
Aug 17 2017 01:37
I've read quite a few articles like this which are aimed at leftist supporters of Corbyn and other nominally left-wing
politicians. However maybe it would be more productive to focus on communicating our anti-State Communist
perspective to the less overtly politicised Corbyn supporters, who only support him out of shear desperation for any
feasible alternative to the present status-quo. In my experience social activists who are into supporting democratic
politics are usually fairly dogmatic and well entrenched in their views and it can be fairly difficult to change their
minds, on the other hand many of the young Corbyn supporters may be less invested in their beliefs and the fact that
they're so enthused by Corbyn demonstrates that, at the very least, they are open to socialist and anti-capitalist ideas. I'm
talking of working class youth obviously, he can keep the university students.

Mike Harman
Aug 17 2017 12:53
bootsy wrote:
I've read quite a few articles like this which are aimed at leftist supporters of Corbyn and other nominally left-wing
politicians. However maybe it would be more productive to focus on communicating our anti-State Communist
perspective to the less overtly politicised Corbyn supporters, who only support him out of shear desperation for any
feasible alternative to the present status-quo.
Yes I'm not sure this is the most productive approach either.

There's a spectrum of Corbyn supporters, and I'm not sure which set this speaks to:

- some people have latched on to Corbyn because they think it's a potential platform for their own political or media
careers, exposing that opportunism/careerism is one thing but people won't abandon that unless the project itself dies.
- some people think Labour under Corbyn represents a genuine least-worst alternative that could actually win an
election. I think it's actually fine to think this, I just don't think it should be the basis of anyone's activity/efforts.

The latter group includes both some informed anarchists/communists, but also what I'd call 'default social democrats' -
in that they've not been massively exposed to anarchist/communist ideas, but have 'left' principles that Corbyn matches
closer than what else is on offer politically.

The trouble is that those of us who have little or no time for Corbyn and Corbynism tend to get frustrated with the
careerists (in the same way they in turn get distracted with centrist 'melts and slugs') and the distracted communists and
anarchists - because in the first case they're building profiles based on getting people's hopes up for something that
historically has extremely limited scope, and in the latter we know they should know better but they're letting people off
easy.

I think any criticism of Corbyn has to be backed by historical examples of where social democracy has been anti-worker
(colonialism abroad, strike-breaking and anti-immigrant legislation at home), or posit some concrete alternatives, or at
least specific anti-working class policies he supports (stricter immigration controls, more police) otherwise for the latter
group that's most weakly attached to Corbyn in the first place, it makes it too easy for the entrenched supporters to build
an ultra-left strawman.

Gooseberry
Aug 29 2017 05:08
Most of your analysis seems pretty great. However while reading I can't help but shake my head at the total inadequacy
of an alternative way forward. It's just more vague posturing of "worker struggle to overthrow capitalism!" "Workers
soviets" blah blah blah. What does any of that mean? Could u even gather 100 "workers" to have some direct
participation in creating an alternative future? What "work" are we even talking about? In the u.s. My iww friends are
dogmatic about the working class and taking over "the means of production". What the fuck does that even mean for
post industrial societies? That we'll have restaurant and retail workers band together in "the work place" and overthrow
capitalism by usurpation of "the means of production"?????? How does this sound any more sane than electoralism?
How is this any more sane than a person who thinks 10 minutes of their time might be worth voting because it might
actually ever so slightly make their conditions more tolerable? I understand that leftist politicians will ultimately
maintain the status quo. But if you're an immigrant that difference in left/right status quo might mean the difference
between deportation. My girlfriend is an immigrant I would actually feel better with sanders rather than trump in power.
What the fuck is wrong with that? How are u going to change ANYTHING!!!!! I fail to see how "workers soviets" are
even a possibility at present. Maybe it's different in Britain than the u.s.

So I'll try to offer a quick idea of a possibility I see in moving forward so I'm not just being negative.

I think we need to get property and get it collectively. This could be done through squatting or pooling money with
friends to buy it. Set up a collective property buying fund or just ha e 5-10 people put an equal amount of money in on a
house or piece of land. Turn that property into communal housing, community resource, or a co-operative business that
generates more money to get more property and resources. Like make an ice cream collective (Emma Goldman!) get
hella money cuz everybody loves ice cream and then open up an info shop next door or health facility or wtvr. Get land
make food collective that supplies ice cream collective and other affiliates. Jesus wtvr something like this. We need
tangible resources that can expand and grow. Key to this method would be to make sure no single person can put more
resources forward allowing them greater power. Also these spaces could all be designated international sanctuaries for
all peoples or anti citizenship or however u want to designate it so it's global in perspective. This model could try to
create global affiliates that all talk and learn from each other and encourage travel between each other for sharing and
learning. They could all be designated nuclear free zones.

The means of production barely even exist in the first world anymore. We need to have some sort of recognition of how
the third world is largely propping up the lifestyle of the "working class" in the first world. We need to bring back the
means of production into our lives through the acquisition of resources. Not at work but by creating our own work
spaces. We should get any rich people involved that are willing and stop looking at shit in this outdated ass working
class binary that barely makes sense anymore. I grew up in a redneck working class background and I can tell u most
people I know who are obsessed with the "working class" are college educated and couldn't dig a ditch or haul hay for
half a damn day! And I can tell u that a large portion of the working class fucking sucks! I want to build a new world
with friends who are interested and go from there. Hopefully through collectivized property models more of the
population can be reached. Trying to get the first project started in the next year.

zugzwang
Aug 29 2017 08:33
Gooseberry wrote:
So I'll try to offer a quick idea of a possibility I see in moving forward so I'm not just being negative.
I think we need to get property and get it collectively. This could be done through squatting or pooling money with
friends to buy it. Set up a collective property buying fund or just ha e 5-10 people put an equal amount of money in on a
house or piece of land. Turn that property into communal housing, community resource, or a co-operative business that
generates more money to get more property and resources. Like make an ice cream collective (Emma Goldman!) get
hella money cuz everybody loves ice cream and then open up an info shop next door or health facility or wtvr. Get land
make food collective that supplies ice cream collective and other affiliates. Jesus wtvr something like this. We need
tangible resources that can expand and grow. Key to this method would be to make sure no single person can put more
resources forward allowing them greater power. Also these spaces could all be designated international sanctuaries for
all peoples or anti citizenship or however u want to designate it so it's global in perspective. This model could try to
create global affiliates that all talk and learn from each other and encourage travel between each other for sharing and
learning. They could all be designated nuclear free zones.

Unless there's someone who's going to finance all this, you'd still need a way to sustain your housing coop or commune,
even if it's self-sufficient to a large extent, which most likely means participating in the job market. Creating a housing
coop or commune is not going to help win others to our side or help transcend capitalism, and if I'm not mistaken stuff
like this, association of intentional communities, already exist. Unless it's something niche like book publishing, I don't
think setting up worker cooperatives would generate much profit either. They would still be subjected to the same need
to expand, cut corners, etc. that any capitalist enterprise faces to not go out of business. I'm not opposed to coop living
(I think it's actually a way to ease the burdens of living under capitalism) or worker coops but I don't think these alone,
ignoring other workers' struggles, are correct strategies for handling capitalism.

Gooseberry
Aug 29 2017 11:45
I don't think other worker struggles should be ignored. Unions and workers organizing should be supported where it's
happening. But how do u see any workers struggle today realistically defeating capitalism? How are demands at the
work place not subjected to "the need to expand cut corners etc"? How are demands for higher wages and better
working conditions going to overthrow capitalism? Especially in the first world? Where the job market is
overwhelmingly service industry and retail based.

Creating an info shop or a health clinic or a free school with money funded from an ice cream collective will help win
people over to better ideas. If 10 people put $5,000 (or whatever they could) together and created an ice cream
collective on the first floor and then lived on one or two floors above it would likely generate enough money to
purchase another property. That could be an outreach property or educational source or food producing source. If the
city u live in is struggling then a lot of this can be squatted.

In the u.s. Every major city I've been to is experiencing massive gentrification. In New York the communities that have
been able to resist this the best are Chinatown and the Hasidic community. These two communities own most of the
property in their neighborhoods. I've never been but it sounds like there are some anarchist neighborhoods in Athens
that might function this way. I think that it's imperative that we control physical space and try to expand it to whole
neighborhoods. I don't see unionizing accomplishing this in any sort of fashion. At least here in the u.s. It seems far
easier for workers to create their own work space than to take over Starbucks or McDonald's.

zugzwang
Aug 30 2017 23:23
Gooseberry wrote:
I don't think other worker struggles should be ignored. Unions and workers organizing should be supported where it's
happening. But how do u see any workers struggle today realistically defeating capitalism? How are demands at the
work place not subjected to "the need to expand cut corners etc"? How are demands for higher wages and better
working conditions going to overthrow capitalism? Especially in the first world? Where the job market is
overwhelmingly service industry and retail based.
Creating an info shop or a health clinic or a free school with money funded from an ice cream collective will help win
people over to better ideas. If 10 people put $5,000 (or whatever they could) together and created an ice cream
collective on the first floor and then lived on one or two floors above it would likely generate enough money to
purchase another property. That could be an outreach property or educational source or food producing source. If the
city u live in is struggling then a lot of this can be squatted.

In the u.s. Every major city I've been to is experiencing massive gentrification. In New York the communities that have
been able to resist this the best are Chinatown and the Hasidic community. These two communities own most of the
property in their neighborhoods. I've never been but it sounds like there are some anarchist neighborhoods in Athens
that might function this way. I think that it's imperative that we control physical space and try to expand it to whole
neighborhoods. I don't see unionizing accomplishing this in any sort of fashion. At least here in the u.s. It seems far
easier for workers to create their own work space than to take over Starbucks or McDonald's.

I don't see how creating more infoshops would assist the libcom cause, which is not to say that infoshops, coops, etc.
are a waste of time. I just think energies should be directed toward creating a mass movement against capital and the
state rather than various ways of coping with capitalism. Worker coops generally aren't so successful business-wise and
would be engaging in similar anti-social behaviors as any other capitalist business. Viewing democratic worker coops
within a market system as some goal in itself has nothing in common with communism which seeks to replace the
market and exchange with a needs-based system. Any libcom vision should include decentralized decision-making as
well as a needs-based form of distribution.

Not all capitalist earnings go back into production or to expansion; the rest is pocketed by the capitalists (after paying
taxes and other stuff; they try to avoid the former). I don't see a problem with fighting for concessions like wage
increases and so on that wouldn't affect corporations in the slightest. Would mcdonald's really suffer if their executives
were slightly less rich (with most ceo's making 200-300 times more than the average worker)? "Taking over the means
of production" doesn't mean letting workers self-manage a mcdonald's, as if all things were to remain the same under
socialism; I don't think mcdonald's, starbucks, or similar corporations have any place in a post-capitalist world. What to
put in their place and how food distribution would be organized is for people to decide when and if the situation arises.

Gooseberry
Aug 29 2017 22:07
What does a mass movement against capital look like today? I'm not protesting the right of mcdonalds workers to make
more money I think they should. But my point is the majority of jobs in the first world have almost nothing to do with
the means of production. So I don't see how struggle in the work place is any direct threat to capitalism. Taking over
McDonald's is a lot different than taking over textile and steel mills or the types of farms that existed 100 years ago.

How do u get communism to replace the market? 99% of people don't even know what communism or capitalism even
mean. Like I said before all your analysis sounds really great. But I don't see any inkling of a good idea of how to
replace capitalism with communism. So it's easy to campaign against electoral politics. And take a dogmatic stance on
it. But I don't see the anarchist communist left coming up with any sort of alternative.

Also how is it "anti social behavior" to start an ice cream collective with your friends? Seems less anti social than
working some random job for people u don't like. Also most anarchists and communists start really ugly and boring
cafes that adhere to the fundamentalist worship of the colors black and red. Which aren't very appealing environments
and they tend to have vanguard elitist vibes.

I just haven't seen anything that is bigger than taking some really elitist niche knowledge analysis of society. Like
nothing. Maybe it's different in Europe.

Khawaga
Khawaga
Aug 29 2017 22:18
Quote:
Also how is it "anti social behavior" to start an ice cream collective with your friends?
You didn't interpret that correctly. When you get together to form a co-op to produce ice-cream, tables, bikes or
whatever and you sell this on the market, you are effectively just as much of a capitalist enterprise as anything else that
produces in order to sell. The problem then is that you are competing with businesses that are only producing ice cream
in order to make money and thus will cut corners, pay low wages etc. in order to outcome their competition. Now while
your co-op may initially secure everyone a nice paycheck, what happens is that as competition stiffens, the co-op
members will then have to decide how they can reduce the price of their ice cream to stay competitive. After all, since
you started this co-op to secure your means of survival (while not working for a boss), it means that if you don't
rationalize production, you'll be out of a paycheck. In the end, the co-op members will have to engage in the same anti-
social behaviours of a capitalist: reduce wages, buy cheaper raw materials, adulterate your raw materials, hire cheaper
workers to work for you. In other words, in a co-op you are both worker and a boss at the same time, and the
honeymoon period when you don't need to engage in anti-social behaviour is shorter or longer depending on market
conditions. See the experience of Mondragon.

This co-op thing has been tried and tested for decades and decades already. It's never worked.

Quote:
But my point is the majority of jobs in the first world have almost nothing to do with the means of production. So I
don't see how struggle in the work place is any direct threat to capitalism. Taking over McDonald's is a lot different than
taking over textile and steel mills or the types of farms that existed 100 years ago.
Means of production = the shit you need to run a business. Whether this is a textile mill, a software developer, a
McDonald's or an event management firm doesn't matter. There are still means of production and most of us don't own
them.

You seem to have a very superficial understanding of capitalism and of the working class, I am afraid.

Gooseberry
Aug 29 2017 22:33
How is getting a wage increase different from electoral politics?

Chilli Sauce
Chilli Sauce
Aug 29 2017 22:39
One builds a sense of power and confidence and solidarity and organization and demonstrates a class interest. The other
is alienating, atomized, and seeks to mediate the interests of the class through the state. I'll let you decide which is
which.

Snarkiness aside, I'd really suggest you re-read Khawaga's post. He's made a very clear, step-by-step argument and it
would do you well to engage with it beyond a superficial level.

Gooseberry
Aug 29 2017 22:40
Cool i probably do have a superficial understanding of capitalism. So what? What are u going to do? How do u replace
it? U haven't given a single proposition on how to move forward. As to working class yah prob short on understanding
that as well. I come from a redneck farming background. Can probably outwork u. But all the anarchist glorification of
the working class seems to constantly gloss over its vast shortcomings. And enerally in what feels like an elitist outside
"analysis" and "complete understanding" of the "situation". Yo seriously give me some ideas. I love libcom I love
anarchism. But I am just seeing a complete dirth of ideas coming from the radical left. We tend to have rest analysis and
that's it. So let's get something more. If u have links or reading recomendations great. If u have your own basic ideas on
how to move forward great! Let's get some ideas going. Cuz right now .3% of the population might be familiar with the
anarchist point of view and it's history.

Fleur
Aug 29 2017 22:43
I am confused. Is anyone here arguing against fighting for improved working conditions ie wage increase? Because
that's just silly.

Chilli Sauce
Chilli Sauce
Aug 29 2017 22:50
Well, I'd start here in terms of theory: http://libcom.org/library/libcom-introductory-guide

In terms of practicalities, I'd suggest that most libcom posters don't seek to organize politically. You don't go in talking
about capitalism, communism, class struggle, and the revolution. Rather you find common interest with your co-
workers or your fellow tenants, claimants, or students. From there you build power and organization and, from those
experiences, you can begin to open up space for deeper political conversations.

How you build that power and organization is an open question, but lots of organizations already exist that fit in with
anarchist principals - you can find information about lots of them here on this site.

I'm sure folks would be glad to offer you some more concrete suggestions in terms of ideas and organizations. If you
could be a bit more specific about what sorts of issues you think you could practically organize around in your local
area.

You said you come from a rural background? Maybe check out Redneck Revolt.
Gooseberry
Aug 29 2017 22:50
No I'm arguing against more "analysis" against electoralism. Half the voting population already doesn't vote. And I'm
arguing that although better working conditions in the first world is something we should fight for it doesn't take into
account how we are already propped up by the third world. And there are no good ideas that I can see from the left on
how to "replace capitalism with communism". Lots of great analysis. Dirth of constructive ideas. Mostly coming from
college educated people having the best analysis of everything.

I'm also not sure most people would agree with your third-worldism (see that post from Khawaga) but I'll let someone
else tackle that one.

Gooseberry
Aug 30 2017 04:08
Looking for a like button on your comment so I can like it.

I just think we need to hash out more concrete ideas of what the struggle can turn into. Like the iww in Utah is obsessed
with joe hill memorials and having meetings with less than ten people. I really don't see this developing into anything
that will ever significantly challenge capitalism. I do think getting property collectively is a better idea than joining the
iww in Utah. Maybe I know in some other places the labor movements are a bit stronger.

My other experience with unions in Utah revolve around the outdoor retailer expo. U get good pay for two weeks of
work. At the retailer there is an obscene amount of environmental waste in the form of plastic and shipping materials.
All in the name of enjoying the "outdoors". There is a flush of military manufactures hawking their war fabrics. The
majority of the products are manufactured in the third world. I'm sure my analysis isn't that on point about first and third
world "workerism" or whatever word works. But there is some dynamic there that I think is often ignored.

A significant portion of the u.s. Working class still has a capacity to buy and purchase an amount of wealth half the
world can't even dream of. So somehow that's got to be connected. Maybe the iww would work better in the third world.
Idk. I know i sound like a crazy wing nut troll on here. But I really can't go for the union thing in Utah as any relevant
way to replace capitalism. Honestly the only thing here that would pose a real alternative is the Mormon church and I
don't think that would be a better world.
 Anarcho-Corbynism and support for Labour

It is a fact that lately certain anarchists have placed themselves in the Corbyn camp. As Freedom
News admits, "lots of anarchists have decided they’re going to vote to try and get rid of the Tories".

The following article by a sympathiser of the CWO is printed as a contribution to debate.

It is a fact that lately certain anarchists have placed themselves in the Corbyn camp. As Freedom
News admits, "lots of anarchists have decided they’re going to vote to try and get rid of the
Tories"1. Lest we be accused of taking seriously a few insignificant UK internet dabblers2 and
Class War sensationalists in order to take a stick to a serious political movement for our own gain,
let us include the case of a globally known anarchist, whose weighty contributions have added to
the prestige of that political tendency. “Professor Noam Chomsky has claimed that any serious
future for the Labour Party must come from the left-wing pressure group Momentum and the army
of new members attracted by the party’s leadership. In an interview with the Guardian3, the radical
intellectual threw his weight behind Jeremy Corbyn, claiming that Labour would be doing far better
in opinion polls if it were not for the “bitter” hostility of the mainstream media. “If I were a voter in
Britain, I would vote for him,” said Chomsky, who admitted that the current polling position
suggested Labour was not yet gaining popular support for the policy positions that he supported…
But ahead of what could be a bitter split within the Labour movement if Corbyn’s party is defeated
in the June election, Chomsky claimed the future must lie with the left of the party. “The
constituency of the Labour party, the new participants, the Momentum group and so on … if there is
to be a serious future for the Labour party that is where it is in my opinion,” he said.”

This does not mean that we are necessarily condemning all anarchists as if one or two fractions
represented the whole, and we can be encouraged that certain anarchist organisations (like the
Anarchist Federation and Sol Fed) have condemned in no uncertain terms what they see to be the
error of lining up behind the Labour Party in any shape. However, there are grounds for saying that
the general anarchist movement in the UK and elsewhere has done little to clarify the attitude to be
taken to the reformist labour movement, one which we have unhesitatingly called a capitalist prison.
Also, a little examination of highly visible anarchist groups like Class War and others reveals a
highly biased perspective against the Tory party which fails to cast all bourgeois factions as equally
reactionary, cogs within a machine which exploits and oppresses the working class. In their own
words, directed at the present author;

_“Class War has a solidly 'They are all wankers' position my friend... but we reserve particular bile
for the Tories...
So you are mistaken if you think that this is "anarcho -social democratic necrophilia"...._

And then we have the issue of the Class War Party which has in the past appeared on BBC
television, breaking the abstentionist tradition by standing in the 2015 General Election. The move
obviously opens the door to further non-principled actions of which the recent Vote Corbyn calls are
a manifestation.

So even if the open call for a Labour vote, based on the supposed left credentials of J. Corbyn, is a
step beyond what we usually are served up through the anarchist groups, the track record regarding
the wider reformist Labour Movement and the attitude to the capitalist democratic process is not at
all identical to that we uphold. Some, like the relatively prominent self-proclaimed anarchist David
Graeber, have no issue with electoral participation. For him, it is merely individual and situational,
he openly says it could be a good decision4

However, we are not simply content with condemning everything that moves. We can applaud those
anarchists and others who have squarely rejected the Corbyn bandwagon. Even some clarity
emerges from the Class War camp, on this matter anyway, “For us the Labour Party is a party of the
System. Full stop. Therefore, as anarchists we totally oppose it as much as we oppose the Tories.
Our task is to prepare for a long overdue revolutionary upheaval. “5

We can only encourage such elements to further examine the flimsiness of the positions they hold,
not least regarding the capitalist left, the reformist labour movement and electoral participation in
general. Theoretical clarity is no mere bauble. It is essential.

So, to reiterate, we are not at all saying that the anarchist movement in toto is simply an appendage
of the capitalist state. It is a diverse arena whose healthiest elements may well play decisive positive
roles in the struggle to come, but only if they can escape the pull of those forces which tie us to
capitalism, its parties, trade unions, its theoretical confusions. Special mention could be made of the
Anarchist Federation who have consistently rejected the Corbyn phenomenon and electoral
participation in general, just to illustrate the point with a real example.

In one sense, the desire to play some sort of a role within the movements which attract significant
working class support and channel the very real discontent which the trajectory of the capitalist
crisis is brewing is one we can identify with. However, that participation, that intervention, can only
be within precise limits which concede nothing to the snares and illusions hiding behind sugared
phrases and “old men bearing gifts”.

For revolutionaries, withdrawal into isolated theoretical work (if that) is no solution. The point
however, is not to commit political suicide, kneeling before the five-minute fashions and the
momentarily popular, but to find ways to intervene as revolutionaries, defending revolutionary
perspectives, on the difficult terrain which is presented to us by capitalism's trajectory. This may not
yield immediate numerically significant victories but it can spread awareness that revolutionary
organisation exists and sow a seed which may sprout when the next capitalist crash smashes against
the conditions which maintain passivity and the safety nets of welfare and the ability to sleep walk
through life are definitively jettisoned by a profit desperate capitalism.

We need to win over significant numbers to the revolutionary organisation because it is key to the
success of the revolution and recognise that the numerically weak forces of today are insufficient.
We need an effective revolutionary organisation, one which has a clear perspective of rejection of
all capitalist options and the goal of class wide proletarian organs, the workers own councils which
can put our class firmly in the driving seat.

We need this organisation to be rooted in the class before the decisive confrontations that the crisis
of capitalism is brewing. We communists are not daunted by the momentary condition of the
working-class response. We know the capitalist class has no answer to the contradictions of its
system and its resorting to massive debt along with attacks on our conditions is finite.

We cannot say when the dam will burst and the tables will be overturned, but we know there is only
mounting crisis in store for us under capitalism and that the pre-constructed revolutionary
organisation, fruit of patient intervention, has an essential role as a solid political reference point for
a class driven by desperation into a fight back. A class dominated by illusions and misconceptions
carefully grafted onto them by a ruling class. Amongst these misconceptions is the snare of
democracy under capitalism, the parliamentary road to socialism, confidence in trade unions and the
Labour Party which the NE anarchists and any others who have abandoned the abstentionist
position to vote for the class enemy are fortifying.

Given an intense level of class struggle, we can get our message through to the class in general. But
the precondition is we have a significant organisation built up in the preceding period.

We call on anarchists and others to abandon their support for the capitalist labour movement.

We call on all those who recognise the validity of the central revolutionary message, the one that
contained all that was healthy in the previous revolutionary assault on filthy, blood sweating
capitalism, the power of the workers’ councils. All who subscribe to revolution, to the impossibility
of parliamentary socialism and such traps must consider smashing down the ideological prejudices
and the past errors which divide us and make common cause in a revolutionary organisation that
offers no support whatsoever to any capitalist faction, party or war and has no ambition to set up
any separate power, but rather aims at empowering the clear majority of non-exploiters through the
absolute power of the workers’ councils. Then we can build a society fit for humanity.

Ant

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

1.freedomnews.org.uk
2.We could include here North East Anarchists and Sabcat the Anarchist Workers Co-op
3.theguardian.com
4.Anarchist anthropologist and academic David Graeber talks about the choices in the upcoming
UK General Election;
DAVID GRAEBER: I'm an anarchist, so for me, that means not telling people what they have to do.
I think it's really your call….. I haven't voted but I'm not going to tell people not to. In fact, I think
that often it can be a perfectly legitimate call.
5.youtube.com
Posted By
Internationalis...
Jun 9 2017 09:08

Attached files
internationalist communist tendency's blog
Comments
Spikymike
Jun 9 2017 10:45
Can't tell if it's 'lots of anarchists' or not falling for the Corbyn line but I'm aware that most of the early 70's anarchists
locally in my past circle of political comrades and friends have abandoned any anarchist principles they ever had and
supported and voted this time for the Labour Party with some actually joining as LP members. That partly reflects a
widespread demoralisation following past defeat of important UK working class struggles and the rightward drift of
politics but also reflects a weakness in their past anarchism - more vaguely left libertarian than steadfastly communist.
We may never get (and some don't indeed aspire to) a single united revolutionary organisation but there is still much to
do in uniting our practical efforts in the class struggle around some clear revolutionary communist principles.
Anarcho
Jun 10 2017 13:05
I guess the use of the infamous 1979 Tory election poster is ironic? Anyways...

Quote:
However, there are grounds for saying that the general anarchist movement in the UK and elsewhere has done little to
clarify the attitude to be taken to the reformist labour movement, one which we have unhesitatingly called a capitalist
prison.
As a trade unionist, I do find this comment silly in the extreem. Having worked in both unionised and non-unionised
workplaces -- true capitalist prisons -- I can tell you that it makes a difference. The unionised workplace actually took
collective action, the non-unionised one did not (in spite of attempts otherwise). And I can tell you those crossing our
picket-lines were not doing so to protest the reformist nature of the union...

But, then, it is hard to take this ultra-leftist posturing seriously... particularly from Marxists, who used to lecture
anarchists in the same tones for NOT voting for the "socialist" party and for pointing out that the Marxist tactic of
"political action" would produce illusions and reformism...

We are a long way from a genuine, revolutionary, labour movement. So we need to look around and see how best to
create the pre-conditions for it. The above article is strong on rhetoric but weak on everything else, particularly a grasp
of reality.

In terms of people voting Labour (or SNP for that matter), I cannot get too bothered by that -- sometimes it is a lesser
evil (as when an authoritarian leader calls an election explicitly to crush opposition and ends the campaign proclaiming
the abolition of human rights, which requires calling a state of emergency). I would suggest that being bothered by
people spending 30 seconds to vote is just fetishism about the ballot -- it is really not that important.

After all, anarchists have been proven right while Marxists have been proven wrong in terms of electioneering. Few
people believe in "the parliamentary road to socialism" -- they were voting to make capitalism better, to save it from
itself. This is what "socialism" means now -- mostly because most Socialists followed Marx and Engels into "political
action."

So I would suggest we start from where we are -- it does not matter if you voted, it is what you do next which counts.
We need a labour movement based on direct action and solidarity, how you vote or whether you vote is irrelevant. This
does not mean we ignore the question of reform by "political action" (of course not) but we don't use it as an excuse to
remain a little sect like the CWO.

Anarchists have won the debate -- few people (the SPGB only?) think socialism can come via the ballot box. Marx was
wrong, Bakunin was right -- "political action" did foster reformism. What we need to do is to argue that what we do
when we are not putting that cross on the paper is what counts. Articles like this one do not help that process in the
slightest.

But the whole article seems to be along the lines of "oh, a few anarchists did X, how terrible and shows that anarchism
is wrong" and forgetting to mention that most anarchists did not do X. Like a particularly terrible CWO article I read on
the First World War which concentrated on the few pro-war anarchists to smear anarchism -- it failed to mention that the
vast majority of anarchists opposed the war (unlike the vast majority of Marxists).

And, to be honest, the election result was the funniest thing to happen in ages... hubris? May now have a new definition
smile

As for joining the Labour Party? Now, that is silly -- and it suggests that their anarchism is weak.

Spikymike
Jun 10 2017 13:35
I don't think what anarcho regards as the 'ultra-left' Marxists have ever been amongst those criticising anarchists for not
voting for the ''socialist party'' and the issue here is not so much whether some individuals may or may not vote but the
attempt by some anarchists to actually persuade us and other workers of the benefits of supporting the Labour Party
against the better judgement and organised efforts of both 'ultra-left' Marxists and anarchist-communists.

Noah Fence
Noah Fence
Jun 10 2017 13:46
Yes, it's not just 'a few anarchists' either, I've seen and heard of it in many places.
BTW, the North East Anarchists' FB group mentioned is nothing short of outrageous.

radicalgraffiti
Jun 10 2017 14:07
Noah Fence wrote:
BTW, the North East Anarchists' FB group mentioned is nothing short of outrageous.
north east anarchists fb group is not remotely anarchist, not sure why the guy who runs it insists on calling him self that,
but its just one asshole

radicalgraffiti
Jun 10 2017 14:11
mostly agree with Anarcho here, although talking about "anarchists" and "marxists" as if they where two separate and
coherent groups is a bit silly

Reddebrek
Jun 19 2017 00:30
Quote:
I don't think what anarcho regards as the 'ultra-left' Marxists have ever been amongst those criticising anarchists for not
voting for the ''socialist party'' and the issue here is not so much whether some individuals may or may not vote but the
attempt by some anarchists to actually persuade us and other workers of the benefits of supporting the Labour Party
against the better judgement and organised efforts of both 'ultra-left' Marxists and anarchist-communists.
I don't know about that Mike, plenty of the founders of the first wave of Left Communism definitely used non
participation in elections as evidence of the Anarchists immaturity and utopianism. Luxemburg certainly did, and I've
not yet encountered a criticism of her or any of the old guard for it by a Left Com author or group.

If anything this just seems to be something modern Left Coms would rather be forgotten, they're usually pretty rigorous
in criticism of the big thinkers of everyone else's movements, so its kinda noticeable how little is done in house.

Especially compared to Anarchists who on average seem to have few kind words to say about their founders.

radicalgraffiti wrote:
mostly agree with Anarcho here, although talking about "anarchists" and "marxists" as if they where two separate and
coherent groups is a bit silly
Yeah, one of the really tiresome and off putting Left Com stances is this insistence on a purity that just doesn't really
exist. I mean this is a blog run by the CWO on an Anarchist website, so they clearly don't think the difference is that
extreme. And I've seen them at Anarchist events and book fairs, and I remember the ICC moaning when it was denied a
stall at one.

Then theres the issue that Ultra Left and Left Communism are terms so vague and broad that no one can agree on whose
in it and whose out of it. Like every single reading list or catalogue of Ultra left thinkers or Left Com essentials I've
seen has not only been different but mutually exclusive.

Trots, Maoists and MLs can play that game but Left Coms? Not really unless you're playing the no true Left Com game.

For what its worth I've been very annoyed by seeing random Anarchists calling for a progressive vote this election, but
I've also seen Left Coms take the same position. Indeed having followed self declared Left Com blogs and organisation
websites for several years now I often find more than a few doing what groups like the ICC and CWO etc are using to
tut, tut at the Anarchist movement. Indeed I find the constant focussing on the anarchist movement like this to be a
rather poor trick.
Cleishbotham
Jun 19 2017 12:43
Reddebrek

Neither Luxemburg (whose friend and successor, Paul Levy, threw the communist left that became the KAPD out of the
KPD, despite Lenin's objections) nor Lenin can be considered part of the left communist tradition but both did
contribute something to it in their various criticisms of social democracy. And if you want a critique of parliamentarism
then the starting point is the Theses on Abstentionism of the Abstentionist fraction of the PSI (which Bordiga wrote).
The Bordigists have made a fetish of anti-parliamentarism but we have not preferring to treat each situation on its merits
(but today there is no merit in working through parliament as we will make clear in the next issue of Revolutionary
Perspectives).

The contribution to discussion is by a former CWO member who left accusing some of us of being too soft on
anarchism. The positive references to those groups like AF and Solfed for maintaining their principles were inserted at
our insistence.

I also suggest that you give up on so-called leftcom (which are usually totally ignorant) blogs - one man (always) bands
with their own agendas are no guide to clarity. They certainly don't take their lead from us.
 The Pretension of "Class Consciousness"
A critique of "class consciousness" from an anti-Leninist perspective.
In radical politics one of the most cherished, thought about, and fawned over concepts is that of "class consciousness".
It is assumed that the majority of the victims of capitalism remain victims because they haven't achieved sufficient
"class consciousness". They haven't woken up to the reality they live in and are thus persuaded by ideology which hides
that reality to go along with it. Thus the victims of capitalism must be woken up to this reality and become "class
conscious". As such the task for radicals becomes the promotion of this "class consciousness". This concept, however, is
a "bourgeois" one. It is in fact a piece of the ideology which holds capitalism together and maintains it's rule over the
system's victims.

The logical extent of this concept is "vanguardism", or the Leninist conception of the communist political party.
According to this conception radical intellectuals who have the material comfort afforded by capitalism which allows
them to spend their time thinking about grand social questions are uniquely equipped to instill in, or teach the victims of
capitalism the correct answers to those questions. Lenin explicitly said that workers' struggles at the point of production
for daily bread would only lead to involvement in trade union struggles, rather than revolutionary movements, which
thus needed to be built under the leadership of "intellectuals from the propertied classes".1

According to this conception the intellectuals supported by the capitalist system are the revolutionary agents who can
bring it down, not the victims of that system through their on the ground struggles. This is because only the intellectuals
have been able to gain the proper consciousness on their own. In creating a conception of "class consciousness" one
inherently creates a concept of those who are and are not "conscious". Thus the agents of radical social change become
those who are arbitrarily appointed as having the "correct" understanding of social questions, rather than those who
have the direct interest in the resolving of those questions.

Thus the idea behind class consciousness is that the task of ending capitalism is not that of it's victims, but actually, it's
beneficiaries. Intellectuals are members of the bourgeoisie, or "capitalists", who receive some of the proceeds extracted
from workers (surplus value) in exchange for disseminating the system's ideology. Thus they are all members of the
"propertied classes". This assumption, that intellectuals rather than capitalism's victims, are the revolutionary agents of
capitalist society, is dead wrong.

Intellectuals receive benefits from the system to toe it's ideological line while the system will only distribute benefits to
it's victims in so far as it's victims organize to fight the system. The idea of a stagnant "economism" which Lenin
criticized and upon which those he criticized focused ignores the trans-formative capacity of struggle. Supposedly
economism, according to it's critics (Lenin) and it's advocates, would prioritize trade union demands and activity above
wider social questions.2 Despite this, the most basic trade union struggles involve workers directly in the fight for their
future and thus introduce them further to the concept and reality of class struggle.

The class struggle is the process by which capitalism's victims learn to fight for themselves and learn how to exorcise
and take power. The "conscious" distinction elevates the simple status of political alignment with radical ideas to that of
the natural right to the throne of radical movements. "Consciousness" is a collective process, it is not simply present in
some individuals and not in others. How "conscious" can you and I be while most of the over victims of capitalism the
world over have not utilized their collective power to produce new lessons and examples?

The collective practice of struggle produces the collective theory that is made up of observations from that experience
and vice versa.

Notes:
1.What Is To Be Done, V.I. Lenin
2.Ibid, The Soviets, Oskar Anweiler

comradeEmma
Dec 14 2019 07:16
Quote:
According to this conception radical intellectuals who have the material comfort afforded by capitalism which allows
them to spend their time thinking about grand social questions are uniquely equipped to instill in, or teach the victims of
capitalism the correct answers to those questions. Lenin explicitly said that workers' struggles at the point of production
for daily bread would only lead to involvement in trade union struggles, rather than revolutionary movements, which
thus needed to be built under the leadership of "intellectuals from the propertied classes".
Isn't this just accepting the sort of retroactive construction of Leninism as what Lenin actually said, and not looking at
what he actually wrote. What is to be done? is after all not a handbook on building a "communist party"(a bit of an
anachronism in this context) but a critique against a specific tendency within the movement at that time and a way to
mend the disunity in the movement. He also never said as a general rule that "professional revolutionaries" should come
from the intellectual class, in fact he says the opposite and that these people should come from the working-class(I think
he cites August Bebel as an example), and being an active trade unionist is not contradictory to this form of organizing.

I also think it is undeniable that in 1902 the average factory did not have access to books or things in general to read
about workers' struggle and socialism, or society in general. What Lenin is proposing is basically that those who want to
organize the working-class be ready to fully commit themselves to do everything they can to spread the struggle of the
workers, against the bosses and state. His opposition at the time was instead arguing that workers don't care about far-
off labor struggles or what the state is doing, they really only care about the direct and economic struggle. This quote is
very good I think,

Quote:
The “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government”, about which you make as much
fuss as if you had discovered a new America, is being waged in all parts of Russia, even the most remote, by the
workers themselves who have heard about strikes, but who have heard almost nothing about socialism. The “activity”
you want to stimulate among us workers, by advancing concrete demands that promise palpable results, we are already
displaying and in our everyday, limited trade union work we put forward these concrete demands, very often without
any assistance whatever from the intellectuals. But such activity is not enough for us; we are not children to be fed on
the thin gruel of “economic” politics alone; we want to know everything that others know, we want to learn the details
of all aspects of political life and to take part actively in every single political event. In order that we may do this, the
intellectuals must talk to us less of what we already know. and tell us more about what we do not yet know and what we
can never learn from our factory and “economic” experience, namely, political knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire
this knowledge, and it is your duty to bring it to us in a hundred- and a thousand-fold greater measure than you have
done up to now; and you must bring it to us, not only in the form of discussions, pamphlets, and articles (which very
often — pardon our frankness — are rather dull), but precisely in the form of vivid exposures of what our government
and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life.
This quote I think speaks to my experiences at least.

Quote:
Intellectuals receive benefits from the system to toe it's ideological line while the system will only distribute benefits to
it's victims in so far as it's victims organize to fight the system. The idea of a stagnant "economism" which Lenin
criticized and upon which those he criticized focused ignores the trans-formative capacity of struggle. Supposedly
economism, according to it's critics (Lenin) and it's advocates, would prioritize trade union demands and activity above
wider social questions.2 Despite this, the most basic trade union struggles involve workers directly in the fight for their
future and thus introduce them further to the concept and reality of class struggle.
I think this part makes a mistake that maoists like JMP also do: confusing economism with economic struggle. Lenin
was beyond impressed with the economic struggle of the workers, he reiterates multiple times in What is to be done?
that the working-class is already much more advanced than the social-democrats, while the workers are quickly
becoming organized in much more "mature" ways(putting forward concrete lists of demands, having patience when it
comes to riots, forming workers' organisations, etc) while the social-democrats were unable to interact with this
movement because of their own inexperience and failure of class consciousness among the party members. This failure
of class consciousness among the party members, the capitulation to spontaneity, is "economism". Economism does not
come from the working-class carrying out economic struggle but from the intellectuals in the party.

If we look at the situation in Russia at the time, was Lenin wrong in saying that one of the main tasks for the labor
movement should be to attack Czarism and to fight for democratic rights?

I would also be curious to know what you think of the book One step forward, two steps backwards by Lenin. In this
books he explicitly says that intellectuals are more often than not fit for party work, they often reject basic discipline
and fail to work together since they are used to "fighting" on an individual level, while workers being schooled in the
advanced co-operation of the factory system and economic struggle are perfect for party work and therefore should be
the majority of the party and its deciding bodies.

Quote:
The class struggle is the process by which capitalism's victims learn to fight for themselves and learn how to exorcise
and take power. The "conscious" distinction elevates the simple status of political alignment with radical ideas to that of
the natural right to the throne of radical movements. "Consciousness" is a collective process, it is not simply present in
some individuals and not in others. How "conscious" can you and I be while most of the over victims of capitalism the
world over have not utilized their collective power to produce new lessons and examples?
I don't think this part is wrong, consciousness is still built on struggle and you can not really learn to struggle(political
or trade unionist) from books, only by actually doing it. But actually thinking about what this struggle entails, what
social-relations are present in society, how the workplace is structured, how the composition of the working-class
changes, evaluate your own struggles and so on are still core parts to develop this collective struggle. Lenin did not say
that it should be intellectuals or people from the middle-class always doing this part(which I think is shown by him in
the footnotes pointing towards working-class theoreticians from his time) but if we are being harsh, most socialist
theoreticians were middle-class or even aristocrats. De Leon, Engels, Karl Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, and so on. This is
also why I think political education on a mass-scale has been so present in the worker's movement. Workers want
knowledge on politics and society but are to some extent(more then than now) structurally excluded from it by the
current state. Therefore worker's with the help of people like Marx and Engels built educational centers, workplace
libraries, party-schools, publications and study groups.

Pannekoek also writes this in his text The Social-democratic party school in Berlin,

Quote:
Can the school attain its end? It may seem difficult to train in half a year those men who have simply passed through the
elementary school, to train them sufficiently in such deep scientific theories. Still, it must not be forgotten that they have
passed through the school of life, and therefore the theory of that life is easily taken up by them. Then it is possible that
socialist workingmen well acquainted with the practical side of life and with the labor movement, should have a good
understanding of the fundamental ideas of socialistic theory. The first half year of the school has shown this. A
foundation for the further study of classical and current literature has been laid; but farther study is of course necessary.
It is clearly understood in the German party that not enough can be done through this Institute alone. Everywhere
committees are springing up, mostly from unions and party branches, whose object is to provide lectures, courses and
lessons for the workingmen. Interest in theory, in the theoretical question is awaking everywhere; libraries are being
founded and lecturers provided. In this way the German working class is preparing itself for the hard battle of the
future; and the hardest task it will have to accomplish, is to be well armed.
Also I recommend this shorter text by Hal Draper on WITBD that tries to remove Lenin from "leninism" by actually
putting Lenin into his context and not the narrative that stalinists and so on try to push.

darren p
Dec 14 2019 13:26
"Consciousness" merely means "awareness" It's one thing to say that, in order to achieve socialism, the proletariat must
be aware of its situation and consciously organise to overcome it, and another to say that this awareness can come about
only if it is injected into the proletariat from above by a body that sits outside proletariat in general.

There's nothing vanguardist in the idea of "class consciousness" or "false consciousness" in and of themselves. See this
video:
http://www.theoryandpractice.org.uk/video/why-dont-people-revolt

Quote:
Intellectuals are members of the bourgeoisie, or "capitalists", who receive some of the proceeds extracted from workers
(surplus value) in exchange for disseminating the system's ideology. Thus they are all members of the "propertied
classes".
This is garbled. And you don't say what you actually mean by an "intellectual". A capitalist is someone who makes their
living through returns to capital invested, nothing more, nothing less. If you're getting paid to write articles etc, and
have no other independent means of income, you're selling your labour-power, you're a wage labourer. You do know
that work in the university is becoming increasingly precarious? Hence the recent strikes...

Plenty of types of worker, NHS nurses for example, don't create value themselves but recieve value that has been
created in other parts of the economy. Are you going to argue that nurses are members of the propertied classes?

Quote:
The collective practice of struggle produces the collective theory that is made up of observations from that experience
and vice versa.
Well, partially. But to think that consciousness appears automatically, without people actually discussing and creating
texts etc (Intelectualising?) seems as dubious as the idea that theory has to be inserted from the outside.

Ivysyn
Jan 6 2020 15:45
@LeninistGirl
You say that I'm treating Leninism as what Lenin said, rather than what he wrote. I'm not sure what the difference is
suppose to be between these two things. You don't seem to know what Lenin wrote about this issue because in What Is
To Be Done Lenin specifically says that socialist consciousness comes from the "intellectuals of the propertied classes",
not the workers themselves. This is both what Lenin said and what he wrote because they are the same exact thing in the
context of examining the theories laid out a century ago by a specific intellectual on paper. Here you should have made
use of the citation I provided, as already in the notes I cited WITBD as the source for my claim. You can read the book
for yourself and see where Lenin says exactly this. The quote you provided calls on intellectuals to educate workers;
Quote:
You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge, and it is your duty to bring it to us in a hundred- and a thousand-fold
greater measure than you have done up to now; and you must bring it to us, not only in the form of discussions,
pamphlets, and articles (which very often — pardon our frankness — are rather dull), but precisely in the form of vivid
exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life.
Even though you tried to deny that Lenin indeed said and held this you also offered arguments to bolster this
conclusion. Just because workers don't have access to books universally, doesn't mean that they can't develop their
understanding of the world and thus how to fight within it. In this sense the class struggle itself becomes their school of
liberation, as you conceded in your own comment. In addition; everything you said about economism was concordant
with everything that I said about economism.

Ivysyn
Jan 6 2020 07:56
@darren p

Quote:
"Consciousness" merely means "awareness" It's one thing to say that, in order to achieve socialism, the proletariat must
be aware of its situation and consciously organise to overcome it, and another to say that this awareness can come about
only if it is injected into the proletariat from above by a body that sits outside proletariat in general.
I would argue that "consciousness" transcends awareness in this case. When people appoint themselves as politically
"conscious", they are not simply saying they know what is going on. You can draw any conclusions you want from the
bare bones facts. In the political and social context "consciousness" implies one group that is completely deaf to extant
realities and another that has a heightened awareness. As we know, there are no exploited peoples on the face of the
planet that are completely deaf to their exploitation, since exploitation is a material experience.

Quote:
This is garbled.
It is not. I was very clear and precise. "Garbled" is not a synonym for "statement I don't like".

Quote:
And you don't say what you actually mean by an "intellectual".
Wrong, from my post:
Quote:
Intellectuals are members of the bourgeoisie, or "capitalists", who receive some of the proceeds extracted from workers
(surplus value) in exchange for disseminating the system's ideology. Thus they are all members of the "propertied
classes".
Quote:
If you're getting paid to write articles etc, and have no other independent means of income, you're selling your labour-
power, you're a wage labourer. You do know that work in the university is becoming increasingly precarious? Hence the
recent strikes...
Depends for what purpose you are being paid. If you are being paid to write analytically about reality, sure, but if you
are paid to disseminate the ideology of the system (a neoclassical economist, for example) then no. I would like you to
go back to Marx's basic text Wage Labor and Capital and show where he defines precariousness at any specific moment
in time as the basis for the class relation between workers and capitalists. Most workers actually at least have a
household that they can fall back on if they become unemployed, the same goes for capitalists if their business ventures
go bust. I'd like you to also note that this is not my crackpot theory. This was explicitly argued by sociologist Immanuel
Wallerstein in his introduction to World Systems Analysis. The comment about nurses and value you added is irrelevant
given that you didn't properly understand why I classified intellectuals the way I did in the first place.

Quote:
Well, partially. But to think that consciousness appears automatically, without people actually discussing and creating
texts etc (Intelectualising?) seems as dubious as the idea that theory has to be inserted from the outside.
Is your impression that theorizing takes place outside of struggle?
darren p
darren p
Jan 6 2020 09:46
Ivysyn wrote:
"Garbled" is not a synonym for "statement I don't like".
I said "garbled" because that passage seems to mix and confuse different categories.

Quote:
Depends for what purpose you are being paid.
No it doesn't. A capitalist is someone who makes there living from returns from invested capital, nothing more and
nothing less. If I get paid by a university to write "A primer in neo-classical economics" this does not make me a
capitalist. I can only be a capitalist by making a living from returns from invested capital. That's why I said the passage
is garbled.

Quote:
Is your impression that theorizing takes place outside of struggle?
In capitalist society there is no place that is outside of the class struggle.

Ivysyn
Ivysyn
Jan 6 2020 15:41
Quote:
No it doesn't. A capitalist is someone who makes there living from returns from invested capital, nothing more and
nothing less. If I get paid by a university to write "A primer in neo-classical economics" this does not make me a
capitalist. I can only be a capitalist by making a living from returns from invested capital. That's why I said the passage
is garbled.
Fine, so why is someone who gets a share of surplus value produced in order to disseminate the ideology of the world
system not a capitalist, simply because they don't invest capital themselves necessarily? Because those people certainly
exist. There are actual cadres of intellectuals and specialists who are organized and deployed by the system and it's
disciplines for this exact purpose.

If nothing is outside the class struggle than you don't disagree with me that theory is an out-growth of struggle.

comradeEmma
comradeEmma
Jan 6 2020 17:02
Quote:
You say that I'm treating Leninism as what Lenin said, rather than what he wrote. I'm not sure what the difference is
suppose to be between these two things. You don't seem to know what Lenin wrote about this issue because in What Is
To Be Done Lenin specifically says that socialist consciousness comes from the "intellectuals of the propertied classes",
not the workers themselves. This is both what Lenin said and what he wrote because they are the same exact thing in the
context of examining the theories laid out a century ago by a specific intellectual on paper. Here you should have made
use of the citation I provided, as already in the notes I cited WITBD as the source for my claim. You can read the book
for yourself and see where Lenin says exactly this. The quote you provided calls on intellectuals to educate workers;
I think you are still reading the pamphlet wrong. The fact that middle-class people historically played an important part
in developing "scientific socialism" is indisputable. What class did Blanqui, Marx, Engels, Kropotkin and Bakunin
belong to? This is Lenin's point but he is not making a general political principle out of it as you seem to imply. He
never says that professional revolutionaries are exclusively from the middle-class. Did you read the Hal Draper text
linked?

darren p
darren p
Jan 6 2020 17:37
Ivysyn wrote:
Fine, so why is someone who gets a share of surplus value produced in order to disseminate the ideology of the world
system not a capitalist, simply because they don't invest capital themselves necessarily? Because those people certainly
exist.
This goes back to one of the things I thought was confused in your text, you seemed to be conflating non-productive
labour and surplus extraction. Not all wage workers add new value to the economy, the distinction between productive
(types of work that add new value into the economy) and non-productive labour (types of work that do not add new
value into the economy) is an important one to understand.

A worker in the non-productive sectors (insurance, banking, armed forces, state health sector, teaching etc.) definitely is
not a capitalist, because they have to sell their labour-power to a capitalist in order to survive. But all workers in the
non-productive sector *are* getting a share of surplus value created in other parts of the economy (though perhaps this
is not the best way to put it).

The *only* criteria for being a capitalist is that you can survive solely through returns on invested capital. It has nothing
to do with ideological or political beliefs or activities. In fact it is entirely possible to be both a capitalist and a
communist - Engels and William Morris as obvious examples..