The Class Struggle Action Network we will be having an organizer's roundtable discussion where we will all have the opportunity to share about the organizing we are apart of; whether that be moving forward class unionism (https://class-struggle-action.net/?p=1863) in our unions or in-process unionization campaigns. Giving us the opportunity to connect across workplaces/organizing efforts, get support/problem solve challenges, get into the nitty gritty of worker organizing, and show up in solidarity for each other.

When: Thursday, August 8th, 6:30pm PST

Where: Online via Zoom

Fill out this form to be sent the meeting link: https://class-struggle-action.net/?p=2451

Tuesday 9 April, 8pm Central European Time (+1 GMT) Google Meet platform:

for the link write to icparty@interncommparty.org

The imperialist clash final act of the crisis of Capital

Communists historically condemn and oppose all wars between imperialisms, which represent the highest point of the degeneration of the capitalist world. 

In imperialism, wars between bourgeois states see only one, single loser, the international proletariat. 

Communists do not call the workers to stand for the victory of one or the other imperialist front, both reactionary and anti-proletarian.

They have always waited and worked for the war of the working class for communism. 

For all the bourgeois parties and false communists, however, it is irresistible to submit to either side, no one manages to rise above the huge fray. 

Only those who place themselves completely on the side of the proletarians - who have no homeland and no flag because all homelands and all national flags are against them - are allowed to be against each side in the war. 

The solution to the ongoing imperialist wars is: against the Ukrainian and against the Russian bourgeoisie; against the Israeli and against the Palestinian bourgeoisie. Which on a practical level means being, in each country, against its own bourgeoisie. 

The deadly machine of war is not stopped by appealing for peace, but by the proletariat's struggle against its own ruling class. This means rejecting the 'defence of the fatherland', spreading the strikes from the cities to the army, uniting civil and uniformed proletarians in the struggle, turning the gun: not against the proletarians of the other country but against their own bourgeois regime. As in Russia in the Red October of 1917: not against the German proletarians but against the bourgeois government of St. Petersburg and the Tsar.

However, the immediate impact of the Russian gas cut-off and the disruption of food supplies imposed a cost estimated last year by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) at between EUR 100 and 160 billion, or around EUR 2,000 per inhabitant. 

Even in the face of an occupying army, the struggle to be waged is a class struggle, strikes in defence of wages and living conditions, all the way to social revolt, appealing to the civilian and uniformed proletarians of the occupying army, forced to perform police functions, to revolt against their bourgeois regime and to solidarise with the proletarian revolt of the occupied country. This can only be done by rejecting the calls of the bourgeois parties to fight to 'drive out the invader' and their typical infamous terrorist methods, which sow death among the proletarians of the occupying country, both civilian and uniformed. 

For the union of Russian and Ukrainian proletarians - For the union of Israeli and Palestinian proletarians - Against their own national bourgeoisies - For the proletarian defeatism of the imperialist war

International Communist Party

www.international-communist-party.org

I have been reading Origins of the Family and came across the statement that Athenian state fell due to slavery making the labour despicable. I want to find more information about how it was crumbling. Thanks in advance.

Do they mean that communist society will lack concentrated population centers such as cities? Or do they refer exclusively to the differences between rural and urban society, such as isolated farms and the uneven distribution of public services?

Came across them recently and they seem pretty alright, just want to see here if anyone has any critiques or has even heard of it.

I'm still new to all this Left Communism stuff so this might sound dumb but here I go anyways.

I've seen LeftComs say that they have that name because of their opposition to the left of Leninism in the International. I just want to know, what are the main Leninist points/ ideas/ tactics/ etc etc that the Left Communists disagree with the Leninists and what are their opinion on them. Reading suggestions would be very much appreciated.

I often see people say that Napoleon supplanting the French republic in favor of the empire caused him to be less historically prpgressive than he could have been, and something similar about Cromwell. How true is this, and is it realistic?

I swear I'm going insane trying to make sense of this. I'll try to be as complete as possible and going reference The Kurdish Question in the Light of Marxism, La Successione dei Modi di Produzione nella Teoria Marxista and Peculiarità dell’Evoluzione Storica Cinese (two of these works haven't been translated in english so I'm sorry if my translations won't be as good). I also already discussed these topics with TheAnarchoHoxhaist and Surto-EKP, but the more I read the more confused I get, so I want to put all my doubts so far in one single post instead of many separate comments.

It all started when I read the article on the kurdish question. Most of it I had no problems with, but in the section titled "The Prehistory of the Kurdish Nationality" I read something that immediately seemed strange: the article defined the Hurrian Kingdom, which existed during the Bronze Age, as "feudal", and claimed that Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire (VI century BCE), waged a "revolutionary war against slavery in the Middle East". TheAnarchoHoxhaist shared my same doubts about the possibility of Feudalism in such ancient times and such undeveloped productive forces, but after Surto-EKP, in different occasions, clarified that Feudalism is what naturally occurs whenever a barbarian society invades and conquers one built on slavery (whose existence today we have evidence for, an example being the Assyrian Empire), and that the Asiatic (or rather Patriarchal) Mode of Production corresponds to Higher-Stage Barbarism and is the first form of class society which emerges out of Primitive Communism, my curiosity was momentarily satisfied.

But it obviously didn't end here, since yesterday I decided to read the article about chinese history, which only exacerbated my doubts. While being ab interesting and in many ways enlightening read, it fleshed out the same points I didn't really understand about the Kurdish Question. It claimed that China was able to skip the Ancient Mode of Production thanks to its geography, which allowed it to exist without having to constantly deal with or wage wars of expansion. The article doesn't expand further on the origin of chinese Feudalism, but talks extensively about its evolution and, under emperor Qin Shi Huang of the Qin dynasty (III century BCE), its transformation from Aristocratic Feudalism into State Feudalism:

The Qin revolution results, thus, in the foundation of the chinese national State, absolute and hereditary, which – although remaining the organization of the power of the feudal classes – introduced a substantial limitation to the periferic and centrifugal power of the feudal lords. Absolutism is a form of State that appeared in several historical epochs. But chinese bureaucratic absolutism cannot be compared to the absolutism of the classical states of Antiquity – to the Roman Empire, for example, which was contemporary to the Han dynasty. And this becomes evident if one thinks about the different economic foundations of these societies: slave-based in Rome, feudal in China. The chinese bureaucratic State doesn't announce roman caesarism, but rather the absolute monarchy of the XV and XVI centuries.

This looked reasonable, Surto-EKP already provided evidence for the existance of serfdom in achaemenid Persia, it's not that hard to believe that Feudalism existed in such an advanced society like ancient China too. The problem, however, is that the whole article never even mentions the Patriarcal Mode of Production, instead only talking about Primitive Communism, Aristocratic Feudalism and State Feudalism, thus contradicting Surto-EKP's claim that the Patriarcal Mode of Production always emerges as the first form of class society.

Another of Surto-EKP's previous claims was that India was an example of a society remaining in the Patriarchal Mode of Production until the Modern Age, but again, the article did not mention this even once, instead only arguing that the Mughal Empire, just like the Qin and Safavid dynasties in China and Persia, tried to centralize power and establish State Feudalism, but wasn't as succesful as the other two examples due to strong resistance by local aristocrats.

This, however, has just gotten even more complicated, as I just finished reading an article I found on the 79th number of Comunismo, the afore mentioned "La Successione dei Modi di Produzione nella Teoria Marxista", specifically the chapter about the Asiatic Mode of Production. This, again, was very helpful in clarifying what the AMP is (since both of the previous works refused to acknowledge its existance), but it directly contradicted many of the precedent claims. For example:

The primitive and complex chinese documents extensively deal with artisans. The bronze vases of the Shang period and the early Zhou period show extraordinary refinement. However, unlike what happened in medieval Europe, chinese artisan activities didn't develop in feudal dominions or guild-controlled urban communities, but in great administrative centres controlled by the sovereign, territorial governors or their officials. These governmental artisans carried out their activities under the direction of the Minister of Works, the shu-gong, alongside common manual labourers that thus fulfilled their corvée obligation.

If I understand correctly, this passage denies that Feudalism existed in the Zhou period, while the previous article claimed that, in this stage, Artistocratic Feudalism was the dominant mode of production in China. Not only that, but in a section that describes indian society the Comunismo article writes:

In India a characteristic form emerges initially: a territorial lord, who disposes of an armed force, obligates the villages, that already have a sufficient quantity of artisan produce, to become his tributaries, at first of products, then of money and precious stones. A system of princely statelets is thus formed, which are every now and then subjugated and associated into bigger kingdoms by a more powerful chief, who was able to better arm himself thanks to his subjects' tributes. This typical asiatic form thus differs from the slavery of classical societies, as well as the feudal serfdom of the European Middle Ages, but largely develops in both slave-based and feudal aspects.

The same form of government that the previous article termed "Artistocratic Feudalism", this one calls a "typical asiatic form". The same transfer of power that in the previous article was even called a revolution is here referred to as just a periodical occurrence that doesn't substantially modify the mode of production. This is in accordance with Surto-EKP's claims about India, but completely contradicts the previous article's claims about China.

And I'm sure tomorrow I'll find even more contradicting evidence that will raise even more questions and further push me down an endless abyss of historiographic despair. I hate the day when I discovered what a Marx was.

Edit: I also forgot to mention that the Comunismo article defines Assyria as an asiatic society, not a slave-based one, and the Achaemenid Empire as asiatic, not feudal.

Title

Edit: (full disclosure, I was raised as an American Southern Baptist so I could just be biased and wrong about this. And this might not be a relevant post for this sub but I want to share this here because this sub is prolly the most knowledgeable on something like this.)

It seems like capitalism, liberal ideology, consumerism, commodity fetishism, etc., killed most religions off without the help of a communist movement. Pretty much from the beginning of liberalism, in many national liberation wars (like the American War for Independence, French Revolution, 1848, etc.) secularism was part of liberal ideology along with basically the reform of Christian religion, which used to serve feudalism, but then to serve the capitalism. Now, I do recognize that admitting that raises serious questions about the authenticity of Christianity and its claim that it is an absolute unchanging truth throughout all of history, and frankly disproves that notion altogether. But from my knowledge, (that I had been taught for many years in a Christian school, in my local church, and from reading on my own, which still isn't a lot compared to "seminary school"), it seems pretty clear to me that the commodity society is fundamentally opposed to Christianity and vice versa. And the commodity society seems to fit the category of some of the most "serious" sins: idolatry and usury and related activity. I'm aware of liberation theology, but idk what it is and I don't have much faith in it because I know it has been a part of "communist" national liberation movements in some places like South America. But again, we have yet to see one of those movements challenge the commodity form.

The Soviet Union was always capitalist. It was just in the early years before Stalin that the government intended to establish socialism, hence the name. What made me make this post in the first place was the persecution of religious groups under Stalin's regime. I don't understand what the reason was. Was the goal just to have the aesthetic of achieving communism by destroying religion even though that failed? Because neither the Soviet Union nor the religions in it actually challenged the existence of capitalism as far as I know. And to be clear, both the Christian and Marxist conceptions of anthropology know full well that the commodity form has not always existed and couldn't exist without a state power.

This is prolly a low quality po. I just find it weird that, speaking from the religious non-Marxist perspective, neither the supernatural (God) or the natural (workers movement) have been able to defeat the unnatural, decrepit machine that not only kills many more humans than ever before seen but is also destroying the planet.

Is religion permitted in the communist movement if it opposes the commodity form? I think that Christianity was like that maybe in the 1st century. I'm disappointed in Saint Paul's half-assed condemnation of slavery (he basically just suggests class collaboration, "masters love your slaves, slaves love your masters," "pious wish" type stuff etc.). But I am aware that the Bible was in part comprised by state officials of Rome or people related to such, which leads me to suspect that maybe parts of it that challenged class society, which somewhat seems to logically flow from Christian principles, were removed or rewritten. This is only a conspiracy theory I have because I know almost nothing about the history related to this. But it does raise the same question of religious persecution in the Soviet Union about Saint Paul's imprisonment and persecution by Rome. If he was only suggesting class collaboration and not actually challenging class society in Rome, why would it be necessary to imprison him etc.? Is there something obvious that I am missing that I overlooked?

I understand the left communist opposition against collaborating with sections of the small bourgeoisie in the struggle against the big bourgeoisie due to the small bourgeoisie's conservative motive of reverting capitalism to a less developed state instead of abolishing it. I wonder however if someone as an individual could join the communist party even without being a proletarian, granted they agree to follow the party's program. I hope this doesn't sounds like a bad faith question, I'm just new to this and would like to know the party's stance.

Slightly confused on how exactly decisions are made within the party if not through democracy. I understand the opposition to factionalism, but without coming to some sort of consensus, how can any idea be put into motion?

It doesn't take a genius to see that the majority of questions being asked on this sub have been very much sub-par as of late. A lot are completely unrelated to this subreddits' subject matter, other are either so incoherent or vague that there's really no reason to waste time to try and answer them.

So, essentially, if your question is something very easily googlable, something which was already answered, something too vague or incoherent or unrelated to the subreddit, you should either ask it elsewhere, use reddit's search function or reword it in a way that would make sense.

To be even clearer, if your question is something along the lines of "Thoughts on Noam Chomsky?", it will be removed.

Some examples of good questions are in order:

https://new.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/1b47la1/marxengels_on_the_class_party/

https://new.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/1b1mcmy/recreation_under_the_transition_and_the_endgoal/

https://new.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/1ajqwn8/reading_what_is_to_be_done_right_now_and_question/

https://new.reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/1aysqeb/what_can_an_individual_militant_start_doing_to/

These are just random questions I picked from the top of the month.

Questions related to specific pieces of theory (i.e. I'm reading Capital and I don't understand wage labor, what am I missing?), questions related to class struggle (i.e. How to function within a reactionary union?), questions related to the ICP specifically and other similar topics are allowed.

Feel free to discuss the change below and, well, ask questions.

title. Reading suggestions would be greatly appreciate as well.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, ICP etc

The people's republic of walmart is dogshit I'm interested if there's any text(s) that refute the austrian notion

My current opinion is that a ceasefire is the immediate desirable goal of the Palestinian proletariat. And is what they should advocate and fight for with arms if necessary.

If theoretically the Palestinian proletariat seized control of Gaza from Hamas it would be better to accept a Brest Litovsk with Israel rather than continue the struggle right now.

A struggle which seems doomed to me without aid from the Israeli proletariat. (A struggle that also appears to me to be genocidal from the Israeli bourgeoisie)

But as there is no basis for joint Israeli Palestinian proletarian action. I think it would be much better to procure a halt to the genocide and a peace with which to forge a class ally in Israeli.

But I am not very well read and am curious about what the official positions are of the various leftcom orgs and their reasoning.

title.

I have searched about the ICP online in greek but nothing came up. I would love to meet some actual communists here in my country as most "communist" organisations I have encountered are MLoids. If you have any information it would be greatly appreciated

I’ve read a few chapters of the history written across different issues of Communist Left, is there anywhere where it’s put together in an east-to-follow manner? If not, at what issue did this study start?

I know the ICC has a section in the Philippines called Internasyonalismo and I thought that put out interesting work, especially with regards to a communist analysis of nationalism in the Philippines. There's quite a lot going on in the Philippines, with the left largely split into Reaffirmist and Rejectionist blocs. Are there any analyses from the ICP on these matters?

I'm looking for any texts on the specific *organisation* of the communist party as envisioned by marx or engels. (and specifically how organic centralism is in line with/different to that).

title

Also, when people ask anarchists, “Who will make penicillin in an anarchist society?” what exactly are they entailing

I ask this because I've read a wiki and posts on social media that modern Russia is not imperialist because it doesn't fit Lenin's definition of imperialism. However, wouldn't this mean the Russian Empire of old wasn't imperialist? I need explanation.

title

MTA workers are striking today over the danger they face operating in the NYC subway system. While it is nowhere close to what right wing propaganda would have you believe, and although it is not as bad as it was in earlier decades, there has been a deterioration in public security since COVID and since the NYPD essentially decided to stop doing any part of their jobs.

This got me thinking about how this deterioration in public security both exclusively harms the proletariat, and is allowed to occur because doing so benefits bourgeois interests. And in turn how a communist society would be a secure society, for any number of reasons which we are all familiar with, but ultimately because proletarian interests would dictate policy.

What do leftcommunists think of this argument? Since it has presumably been made before, where can I read about it?