What is Luxemburgism?

I think the key to the debate is how to act (we more or less agree on the facts : unions often betray workers, parliamentarism and mere reformism are not the solution...). However, you think we should not participate at all in elections, parliaments, unions... and in anti-fascist struggles. I am for it but at some conditions.

In a revolutionary period, workers are well aware of their goals or are at least, in the beginning searching for them. The bourgeoisie will use all it can (unions, parlamentary bourgeois elections...) to make promises to workers and make them deviate from a revolutionary path. If this does not work, then you can have fascism : attempts to create a totalitarian dictatorship banning all unions, strikes etc.

This is more or less what happened in major revolutions.

In such period where workers have constituted their own councils, elections and unions are exclusively aimed at taking their power away and bring them back to bourgeois system. Here, we oppose elections and unions, because the class struggle has reached its climax and they become an obstacle.

But before such a period (like today) where there is an aggressive attack on workers, all means that can be useful in any way (this excludes terrorism since it is useless) should be used to defend ourselves and fight back. For example, if revolutionaries are elected in the parliament, they should use it as a tribune to speak to a larger number of people (the same goes for participation in elections) and use workers' movement (demonstrations, strikes) as a pressure weapon to back up positive reforms. But we should never say pure bourgeois parliamentarism and reforms are enough.

Why? Because at some points reforms are impossible within Capitalism (are we in such a period? I think so because it seems it is impossible to increase profits without destroying previous social reforms). But this does not mean that we should not fight back when the make our lifes more precarious and that we should not struggle for bettering our pays. We won't sit back and wait untill revolution magically occurs.

As reforms get approved due to mass movement, workers will see that they have to go further. But until then, talking about revolution and refusing to demand social reforms and protect those that have already been achieved will make no sense to proletarians (they are right).

As for Fascism, it is indeed a historical phenomena. It is part of class struggle and refusing to act against it is avoiding the fight. This struggle should be kept even now when fascists are ridiculously insignificant.

The reason why some left communists oppose being part of anti-fascism is because they see that as taking side in war waged between different bourgeois groups/countries. That would be accepting the official anti-fascism (ie Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle were "anti-fascists" because they opposed Hitler, forgetting that Stalin sided with Hitler and that Churchill admired Mussolini before WWII).

Our anti-fascism is revolutionnary since we see Fascism not as an opposition to Bourgeois system but as an aspect of it when bourgeois democracy fails to keep social order during a revolutionnary process. As such, we fight it as part of Capitalism.

As for Left communism I distinguish between Dutch/German Left and Italian Left. The latter is not interesting to me at all since it is based on Leninism and rejects anti-fascism. But as far as the Dutch/German left is concerned, I find it quite interesting but I disagree on union, elections and reforms : this current initiated in a revolutionnary process in which it was normal to oppose unions and elections (German revolution 1918 - 1923 ?) because workers were strong and armed. Today, it is not the case.

But before such a period (like today) where there is an aggressive attack on workers, all means that can be useful in any way (this excludes terrorism since it is useless) should be used to defend ourselves and fight back. For example, if revolutionaries are elected in the parliament, they should use it as a tribune to speak to a larger number of people (the same goes for participation in elections) and use workers' movement (demonstrations, strikes) as a pressure weapon to back up positive reforms. But we should never say pure bourgeois parliamentarism and reforms are enough.

It is interesting that you exclude terrorism 'since it is useless'. Why do you consider parliamentarianism to be different? I don't really but the tribune argument.

On the point of strikes, of course we support them. As communists we support the working class in every defence of its living standards. The question about the unions is different.

Why? Because at some points reforms are impossible within Capitalism (are we in such a period? I think so because it seems it is impossible to increase profits without destroying previous social reforms). But this does not mean that we should not fight back when the make our lifes more precarious and that we should not struggle for bettering our pays. We won't sit back and wait untill revolution magically occurs.

We believe that we are in such a period, and it has political implications. Of course the working class should fight to defend its living conditions. Not only does this defend living conditions, but it is also an indispensable part of the development towards the mass strike.

The reason why some left communists oppose being part of anti-fascism is because they see that as taking side in war waged between different bourgeois groups/countries. That would be accepting the official anti-fascism (ie Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle were "anti-fascists" because they opposed Hitler, forgetting that Stalin sided with Hitler and that Churchill admired Mussolini before WWII).

Yes, the left communists did reject support of the 'democracies' in WWII. Incidentally the fact that the bourgeoisie are not consistently anti-fascist comes as no surprise.

It is also a question though of joining in with bourgeois fronts today, 'vote social democrat to keep the fascists out' for example.

Our anti-fascism is revolutionnary since we see Fascism not as an opposition to Bourgeois system but as an aspect of it when bourgeois democracy fails to keep social order during a revolutionnary process.

Historically, fascism emerged after the revolutionary movement had been defeated.

As for Fascism, it is indeed a historical phenomena. It is part of class struggle and refusing to act against it is avoiding the fight. This struggle should be kept even now when fascists are ridiculously insignificant.

In our country they are not. They are the third party in parliament, and were in government the time before last. That said, I don't believe that fascism, in its historical sense, is in anyway on the agenda today. In the last crisis in the South East of this country, the anti-Kurdish pogrom mentality was not hyped up by the fascists. It was created by all bourgeois parties.

I think there are many lessons to be drawn from the struggle between the left and right in Turkey in the period leading up to the 1980 coup. One of the most important ones is that 'anti-fascism' can become gang war with the working class just looking on passively.

As for Left communism I distinguish between Dutch/German Left and Italian Left. The latter is not interesting to me at all since it is based on Leninism and rejects anti-fascism.

At first glance the Italian left seems like ultra-leninism, and certainly has problems like that. However, there is much of interest there too.

Devrim

It is interesting that you exclude terrorism 'since it is useless'. Why do you consider parliamentarianism to be different? I don't really but the tribune argument.

Terrorism is useless in the sense that we believe socials problems are due to social relations and not people. Murdering specific bourgeois leaders (as in propaganda by the deed) or putting a bomb somewhere will not blow up social conditions. It can only put off workers and spark repression at a time where workers are not at all organised for revolution.

On the other hand, all the laws that passes are part of class struggle. For instance in France, at this moment the bourgeois parliament with the government is planning to attack the pensions for workers. Isn't that an attack of one class against another? Can't we try to counter them in any way?

As for the "tribune" effect issued from participating in elections, there can't be no doubt about it. In France, the two main trotkyst parties managed to gain a lot of votes (3 millions) because during the election they are allowed to speak on TV and many people got to hear some proposals no other party defended : distributing wealth for example. This surely contributes but it is not enough.

I repeat myself, elections and parliamentarism are NOT the solution. But they are part of the class war before a revolutionary period. When we'll reach that point, we should not take part in bourgeois elections. Why? Because workers would have set up a revolutionary form of power : soviets.

Yes, the left communists did reject support of the 'democracies' in WWII.

I oppose them too. I don't buy the lie that they tried to protect democracy and Jews.

However, it is a very difficult point. How can we fight Fascism without supporting bourgeois state? Doing nothing is not a solution. I have difficulties accepting the view that the civil war in Spain was not part of class war... as it is said by some left communists.

It is also a question though of joining in with bourgeois fronts today, 'vote social democrat to keep the fascists out' for example.

In France too there is a very strong far right party (not fascist but having some of them as members). I keeply reject the "vote social democrat (here it was conservatives) to keep fascists" away. Today's government has used the fear on foreigners and stole their rethorics to raise racism and win votes.

But our anti-fascism is far more far reaching. Anti-fascism is today fought on the streets in Europe. Look at the "Antifas" : http://www.antifa.net , specially in Germany.

Shouldn't workers and revolutionaries be active in this?

At first glance the Italian left seems like ultra-leninism, and certainly has problems like that. However, there is much of interest there too.

What is there beyond Leninism and opposition to anti-fascism and elections? Do they oppose joining unions? I read about them long time ago.

And where does the EKS stand for, is it near the ICC or IBRP or none (or both)?

And where does the EKS stand for, is it near the ICC or IBRP or none (or both)?

The EKS is close to, but not a part of, the ICC. Having said that we also have reasonable relations with the IBRP too.

I think that we have clarified what the mains differences between us are, anti-fascism, and Parliamentarianism. Your position on parliament is quite clear, but I don't quite understand what you are saying about anti-fascism:

But our anti-fascism is far more far reaching. Anti-fascism is today fought on the streets in Europe. Look at the "Antifas" : http://www.antifa.net , specially in Germany.

Shouldn't workers and revolutionaries be active in this?

I have no idea really about what 'Antifas' are. We don't have them in Turkey. Could you explain what it is about, please.

What is there beyond Leninism and opposition to anti-fascism and elections? Do they oppose joining unions? I read about them long time ago.

There is a lot really, but I would recommend some of Bordiga's writings especially about the nature of communism. I think that there are more in French than in English. This pamphlet offers an interesting comparison of Bordiga, and Pannekoek's works on party and class.

Devrim

In some states, "anti-fascism" has its legitimacy and is acceptable for Luxemburgu today, others, like in Spain, is fighting windmills, like Don Quixote: it makes it comfortable to be Stalinist antifascists, in fact never been something else ... revolutionaries. Today the "fascism" is in the EU and its governor, in neoliberalism, the Stability Pact of the EU, supranational bodies to raise the undemocratic public policy, social, etc..
health comrades: this translated Poire the machine: not English. JM

En algunos estados "antifascismo" tiene su legitimidad y es de recibo para los luxemburguistas AL DIA DE HOY, en otros, como en España, es luchar contra molinos de viento, como en El Quijote: se les hace cómodo a los estalinistas ser antifascistas, de hecho jamás fueron otra cosa...revolucionarios. Hoy el "fascismo" está en la UE y sus GOBERNANZAS, en el NEOLIBERALISMO, el Pacto de Estabilidad de la UE, en elevar a instancias supranacionales NO DEMOCRATICAS las politicas publicas, sociales, etc.
salud camaradas: esto traducido por la maquina: no leo inglés. JM