Benutzer:PaulWalter/Linkskomm2

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen


Linkskommunismus...

...

(Zu Quellen siehe MIA:Left Communism)

Entwicklung linkskommunistischer Positionen bis zum 2. Weltkrieg

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Vorläufer

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Impossibilism is an interpretation of Marxism. It emphasizes the limited value of reforms in overturning capitalism and insists on revolutionary political action as the only reliable method of bringing about socialism.

The concept - though not the specific term - was introduced and heavily influenced by the American Marxist thinker Daniel De Leon, on the basis of theory that De Leon generated before his interest in syndicalism began (see De Leonism). It came to be focused especially on the question of whether socialists should take part in government under capitalism. At the Paris Congress of the Second International, in 1900, those who favoured entry into government, with all the implied compromises, called themselves Possibilists, while those who opposed participation became known as Impossibilists.

Impossibilism was particularly popular in British Columbia in the early 20th century, through the influence of E.T. Kingsley. It is also the basis of the theory and practice of the oldest British Marxist party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which was founded in 1904.

MIA Encyclopedia of Marxism, Impossibilism: "Impossibilism means the advocacy of a purist doctrine of socialism from which it can only be concluded that socialism is impossible. Henry Hyndman’s S.D.F. was accused of impossibilism and the S.D.F. made the same charge against Jack Fitzgerald and others who went on to found the Socialist Party of Great Britain on impossibilist doctrines – typically that “socialism is impossible until the working class understands what socialism means.” But of course, the working class cannot understand what socialism means until socialism is already a well-established social formation and way of life, so one can only conclude that socialism is impossible.

"Other varieties of impossibilism include such demands that under socialism there can be no state of any kind, even simply for the provision of social services, etc.; or that socialism can only be achieved by a thoroughly egalitarian movement of the working class as would have no place even for any political party, etc. See Sectarianism.

"See Theo Rothstein’s sympathetic treatment of the S.D.F.’s impossibilism in Marx, Engels and the SDF and a critique of impossibilism published in the US Socialist: At the Parting of the Ways, by Hermon Titus."

MIA on the SPGB: "The Marxism of the SPGB is a continuation of that of the extreme leftwing of pre-WWI Social Democracy, rejecting all Leninist accretions (vanguard party, Bolshevik seizure of power as proletarian or socialist revolution, distinction between socialist society and communist society, theory of aristocracy of labour maintained out of superprofits of imperialism, transitional demands). The SPGB pioneered the view in Britain that Russia was neither a “workers state” nor socialist, but state capitalist. It advocates no minimum programme of reforms to be achieved within capitalism, but only socialism. It endorses trade union action on sound lines."

Siehe auch: De Leonism, Socialist Labor Party of America, World Socialist Movement, De Leon, Thomas J. Hagerty

Ein Exempel für die Auseinandersetzung in der SPD pre-WWI: Luxemburg, Ermattung oder Kampf?, auch Massenstreik, Partei und Gewerkschaften

Sowjetunion: Die linken Bolschewiken

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Lenin: "The struggle that Bolshevism waged against "Left" deviations within its own Party assumed particularly large proportions on two occasions: in 1908, on the question of whether or not to participate in a most reactionary "parliament" and in the legal workers’ societies, which were being restricted by most reactionary laws; and again in 1918 (the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), on the question of whether one "compromise" or another was permissible." "In 1918 things did not reach a split. At that time the "Left" Communists formed only a separate group or "faction" within our Party, and that not for long. In the same year, 1918, the most prominent representatives of "Left Communism", for example, Comrades Radek and Bukharin, openly acknowledged their error. It had seemed to them that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a compromise with the imperialists, which was inexcusable on principle and harmful to the party of the revolutionary proletariat. It was indeed a compromise with the imperialists, but it was a compromise which, under the circumstances, had to be made."

Works of Bukharin prior 1921

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Arbeiteropposition

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

See en.wikipedia, see [1]

MIA, Workers Opposition:

"A group within the Russian Communist Party that struggled to achieve workers rights and trade union control over industry – by 1922, the Communist Party had condemned their ideas and forced the group to disburse.

"The Workers Opposition began to form in 1919, as a result of the policies of War Communism, which had set a precedence for the domination of the Communist Party over local party affiliates and trade unions. Near the end of the Civil War, the Workers Opposition began agitating against the control of the party, seeking to restore more power to local party affiliates and trade unions.

"A sharp controversy, of which accusations of factionalism abound, began over this issue beginning at the Ninth All-Russia Conference of the Communist Party in September, 1920. While all sides recognized the growing Soviet bureaucracy, all sides claimed to offer the only path that would defeat this bureaucracy.

"Trotsky with the support of Bukharin, supported transforming trade unions into government organs, and in this way giving unions some control over industrial administration. Lenin and the right wing of the party, including Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, and Stalin, stated that unions should not be a part of industrial administration, but that it was the role of the party to teach unionized workers how to administer the whole national economy. They explained that with workers control, the needs of the community and the rest of society could not be controlled; that factories were the property of the community as a whole, and not only the workers who worked in them. Lenin explained: "Why have a Party, if industrial management is to be appointed by the trade unions, 9/10 of whose members are nonparty workers?" (Collected Works, V. 32, Page 50)

"The Workers' Opposition represented the left wing of the party, composed almost exclusively of unionized workers, and was led by A.G. Shlyapnikov, S.P. Medvedev, and later Alexandre Kollontai. The group demanded that industrial administration be made the responsibility of unions, which would not only mean that workers of a particular factory would have control over that factory, but also that unions would control the national economy as a whole. Kollontai explained that only workers could decide what was best for workers – that it was not for party bureaucrats to decide what was needed for the whole society, but it was for workers themselves, the producers of the wealth of society. The Workers Opposition had substantial support among the members of the Communist Party, however the major leaders of the party refused its platform.

The basis of the controversy is namely this: whether we shall realize communism through workers or over their heads by the hands of soviet officials..... The solution of this problem as it is proposed by the industrial unions, consists in giving complete freedom to the workers as regards experimenting, class training, adjusting and feeling out the new forms of production, as well as expression and development of their creative abilities, that is, to that class which alone can be the creator of communism.
There can be no self-activity without freedom of thought and opinion, for self-activity manifests itself not only in initiative, action, and work, but in independent thought as well. We are afraid of mass-activity. We are afraid to give freedom to the class activity, we are afraid of criticism, we have ceased to rely on the masses, hence, we have bureaucracy with us. That is why the Workers' Opposition considers that bureaucracy is our enemy, our scourge, and the greatest danger for the future existence of the Communist Party itself.
In order to do away with the bureaucracy that is finding its shelter in the soviet institutions, we must first of all get rid of all bureaucracy in the party itself....
Wide publicity, freedom of opinion and discussion, right to criticize within the party and among the members of the trade unions -- such is the decisive step that can put an end to the prevailing system of bureaucracy. Freedom of criticism, right of different factions to freely present their views at party meetings, freedom of discussion -- are no longer the demands of the Workers' Opposition alone. (Alexandra Kollantai, Worker's Opposition)

"In addition to the dispute on union control over industrial administration, the Workers Opposition strongly opposed the separation of the Soviet state from the workers it claimed to represent, i.e. the growth of the Soviet bureaucracy. The Workers Opposition put forward four points to free the Soviet state from the death grip of bureaucratization:

1. Democracy at all times, even in an internal and external tension. 2. Expelling all nonproletarians from the Communist Party. 3. Expelling all nonproletarians from administrative positions in government. 4. Appointments only as exceptions, otherwise people should be elected (appointments, Kollontai explained, "disrupt the relationship of equality among the members by rewarding friends and punishing enemies")

"At the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) the positions of the Workers Opposition were rejected, its ideas condemned, and it was ordered to disburse. Its members refuse to be deterred, and continued to agitate for their beliefs, focusing more and more on the growing bureaucracy and the lack of democracy in the Soviet state, the separation of Soviet bureaucrats (including the central leadership) from workers and local autonomy, and the growing Soviet suppression of dissident ideas.

"At the 11th Party Congress (March-April 1922), the Workers Opposition would essentially be crushed. The Communist Party, recognizing that their former order to disburse was not adhered to, made a motion to expel the leaders of the Workers Opposition from the party – however the Workers Opposition still had too much support from the rank-and-file membership of the party, and the motion failed. To silence their dissent, the Congress was able to censure the group and forced them to curtail their activities.

"In 1926, the remaining members of the Workers' Opposition briefly joined the Left Opposition led by Trotsky, who had by now began to struggle against the growing Soviet bureaucracy and the lack of Soviet democracy. Only Kollontai would survive, in virtual exile, from Stalin's mass trials and executions of dissidents.

Further Reading: Alexandra Kollontai on The Workers Opposition; Russia in 1919 by Arthur Ransome; Alexander Shliapnikov Archive"

Rätekommunisten: Der holländisch-deutsche Linkskommunismus

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Lenin: " On the other hand, the difficult position of the Communist Party of Germany is aggravated at the present moment by the break-away of the not very good Communists on the left (the Communist Workers’ Party of Germany, K.A.P.D.) and on the right(...)

"Beginning with the Second Congress of the Communist International, the "Leftists" or "K.A.P.-ists" have received sufficient warning from us in the international arena. Until sufficiently strong, experienced and influential Communist Parties have been built, at least in the principal countries, the participation of semi-anarchist elements in our international congresses has to be tolerated, and is to some extent even useful. It is useful insofar as these elements serve as a clear “warning”to inexperienced Communists, and also insofar as they themselves are still capable of learning. All over the world, anarchism has been splitting up—not since yesterday, but since the beginning of the imperialist war of 1914-18—into two trends: one pro-Soviet, and the other anti-Soviet; one in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the other against it. We must allow this process of disintegration among the anarchists to go on and come to a head. Hardly anyone in Western Europe has experienced anything like a big revolution. There, the experience of great revolutions has been almost entirely forgotten, and the transition from the desire to be revolutionary and from talk (and resolutions) about revolution to real revolutionary work is very difficult, painful and slow.

"It goes without saying, however, that the semi-anarchist elements can and should be tolerated only within certain limits. In Germany, we tolerated them for quite a long time. The Third Congress of the Communist International faced them with an ultimatum and fixed a definite time limit. If they have now voluntarily resigned from the Communist International, all the better. Firstly, they have saved us the trouble of expelling them. Secondly, it has now been demonstrated most conclusively and most graphically, and proved with precise facts to all vacillating workers, and all those who have been inclined towards anarchism because of their hatred for the opportunism of the old Social-Democrats, that the Communist International has been patient, that it has not expelled anarchists immediately and unconditionally, and that it has given them an attentive hearing and helped them to learn.

"We must now pay less attention to the K.A.P.-ists. By polemising with them we merely give them publicity. They are too unintelligent; it is wrong to take them seriously; and it is not worth being angry with them. They have no influence among the masses, and will acquire none, unless we make mistakes. Let us leave this tiny trend to die a natural death; the workers themselves will realise that it is worthless. Let us propagate and implement, with greater effect, the organisational and tactical decisions of the Third Congress of the Communist International, instead of giving the K.A.P.-ists publicity by arguing with them. The infantile disorder of "Leftism" is passing and will pass away as the movement grows." (Letter to the German Communists)

s.auch Rosa Luxemburg ([2]), Luxemburgismus

Die italienischen Linkskommunisten

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Linkskommunismus 1939-1945

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Linkskommunisten nach 1945

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Vertreter

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Russische Linke:


Holländisch-deutsche Richtung:


Italienische Linke:

Zeitweilige Vertreter linkskommunistischer Positionen:

s.auch List of left communists

Organisationen

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Mitgliederzahlen vor dem 2. Wk

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
  • KAPD:"Die KAPD erreichte 1920/21 mit rund 40 000 Anhängern das Maximum ihrer Mitgliedsstärke (die KPD hatte dagegen im November 1920 etwa 100 000 Mitglieder). Analog zur "KAPD" entstanden Kommunistische Arbeiter-Parteien auch in den Niederlanden, in Dänemark und Bulgarien, die aber alle im Vergleich zur "KAPD" unbedeutend blieben". Akademie für Gesellschaftswissenschaften beim ZK der SED (Hg.), Linksradikalismus. Linksradikale Kräfte in den gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen. Berlin, Dietz Verlag 1989; S.46
  • AAUD: bis 1923=200.000, 1924/25=12.600

AAUE: bis 1923=75.000, 1927/28&1930/31=800

nach: Akademie für Gesellschaftswissenschaften beim ZK der SED (Hg.), Linksradikalismus. Linksradikale Kräfte in den gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen. Berlin, Dietz Verlag 1989; S.45 (dort beide unter "anarcho-syndikalistische Organisationen")

Stellung der Realsozialisten zu Linkskommunisten

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

[18]: Ultra-leftism has two, overlapping uses. It is used as a generally pejorative term for certain types of positions on the left that are seen as extreme or intransigent in particular ways (see far left). It is also used – whether pejoratively or not – to refer to a particular current of Marxist communism, which is closely related to council communism and left communism. ...The term originated in the 1920s in the German and Dutch workers movements, originally referring to a Marxist current opposed to both Bolshevism and social democracy, and with some affinities with anarchism. The ultra-left is defined particularly by its breed of anti-authoritarian Marxism, which generally involves an opposition to the state and to state socialism, as well as to parliamentary democracy, and to wage labour. In opposition to Bolshevism, the ultra left generally places heavy emphasis upon the autonomy and spontaneous organisation of the proletariat.

Used pejoratively, the term generally identifies and criticizes positions, especially by those in the mainstream historical Marxist parties, to describe a position which is adopted without taking notice of the current situation or of the consequences which would result from following a proposed course - leftist positions that, for example, overstate the tempo of events, propose initiatives that overestimate the current level of militancy or which employ a highly militant tone in their propaganda.

The mainstream Marxist critique of such a position began with Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, which attacked those (such as Pannekoek or Sylvia Pankhurst) in the nascent Communist International who refused to work with parliamentary or reformist socialists.

Trotskyists and others see the Communist International’s Third Period -when it described social democratic parties as “social fascist” and therefore essentially no better than Hitler’s Nazis - as a strategy of ultra-leftism.

The term has been popularised in the US by the Socialist Workers' Party, who have used the term to both describe opponents in the anti-war movement and opponent Trotskyists including Gerry Healy. Ultra-leftism is often associated with left sectarianism, in which a socialist current might, for example, attempt to put its own short-term interests before the long term interests of the working-class and its allies.

Siehe auch

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Fußnoten

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]


Literatur

[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]
  • Bock, Hans-Manfred, Syndikalismus und Linkskommunismus von 1918-1923. Ein Beitrag zur Sozial- und Ideengeschichte der frühen Weimarer Republik. - 2., erw. Aufl. - Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993. ISBN 978-3534120055
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Gruppen

Kategorie:Kommunismus Kategorie:Marxismus Kategorie:Marxistische Strömung

en:Left_communism et:Vasakpoolne kommunism es:Comunismo de izquierda fr:Gauche communiste it:Sinistra comunista ru:Левые коммунисты fi:Vasemmistokommunismi sv:Vänsterkommunism

Abgerufen von „https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:PaulWalter/Linkskomm2&oldid=58549484“