Template talk:Left communism sidebar

(random heading)

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

The picture is ugly and doesn't mean anything. I don't know what to pu instead, but something must be done. --Inbloom2 12:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is a raised fist and a hammer, it resembles to class struggle which is at the bulk of left communism. I don't think it is ugly.

Also, SouB is removed because it was a local tendency and there are many local tendencies which we can add if we are going to start adding them. Situationist removed because it is considered rather as "councilist-anarchism" than "left communism". However we can create an "Events" section and add May 68, as well as other major struggles.

Also, Lenin added as he is considered influential by some Left-communists, and Lenin himself is influential by and defends Pannekoek in "State and Revolution". I find it necessary to stress that I am not a Leninist of any sorts, and I have added him because objevtively he was influential. --Mayis

So you want to do a template:bordigism ? Left communist is first and primarely anti-leninist communism ! --Inbloom2 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer no image than an ugly one that had never been used before. --Inbloom2 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an anti-Leninist current in it, but left-communist organizations such as the ICC and the IBRP and of course all of their splinter factions also hold Lenin as an important figure. After all, they all took the side of Lenin after Zimmerwald Conferance. Besides, this is not and what I want is not a "Bordigism" template as all currents and influential people from all currents are represented. Also situtionists would not consider themselves "left communist" and left communists would not consider themselves left communist as well.

On the picture, I don't know why you find it ugly, it is a hammer in a fist and it represents the ideology rather well?

--Mayis

Lenin was the first to attack the left communists !

Situationists is a related subject, and Socialisme ou Barbarie had been (and still is) very influential, for example througt Solidarity.

The image means nothing, had never been used by left communists, and we don't need an image. --Inbloom2 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The solidarity in England? They made the ICC in England. Lenin was not the first to attack the left communists - it was the social democrats.

The ideology of SouB (the rejection of the crisis in capitalism) died with May 68. They are not influential on anybody (also they are considered as anarchists rather than left-communists), Debord and situatonists are still influential, they are the survivors of the old paradigm, but not the SouB.

I can't understand why you oppose the picture. What is so disturbing about a fist raising a hammer?

--Mayis

About SouB, that's only your POV... No reason at all to remove, also for Situationist.

Lenin was against Left communism, so he clearly doesn't belong to the template !

The image isn't necessary, and doesn't mean anything.

This is not your template, by the way. --Inbloom2 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not your template either, by the way. That's not my point of view on SouB - that's your point of view about them. They were a small group of intellectuals who would be best defined as "libertarian socialists". They rejected the crisis of capitalism, they rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat and they rejected Marxism. If SouB is going to be here, there are many other other local organizations which should be here before SouB, such as the Spartacus League, Workers Group of the Russian Communist Party, Communist Party (British Section of the Third International), KAPD, Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front, Wildcat, Forment Ouvrier Revolutionaire, Sheng-wu-lien, External Fraction of the ICC (Internationalist Perspectives), Kolinko, Aufheben, ProlPosition, Groupe Communiste Internationaliste, etc. etc. all of which accepted as much more 'left communist' that SouB.

Saying "Lenin was against Left communism therefore he can't be influential to any left communists" is simply dogmatic, biased and wrong - he was influential to some left communists and he is respected by many and this is not my point of view, I am not a big fan of Lenin either, this is simply the truth. I don't see a need in excluding him just because I don't like his policies when he was seriously influential to at least half of the left communists. After all, only the left communists were with him in the Zimmerwald left in Europe and only left communists supported the Bolshevik Revolution in Europe. Even Gorter was praising Lenin sincerely at one point for example.

Perhaps you can explain why you want the image removed rather than saying "I don't like it so I will remove it." It would be more constructive and polite if you did not debate in a manner of "I'm the boss and what I want will happen". --Mayis

What you say about SouB shows only that you don't know what was SouB : there were workers groups, it was a left marxist organisation.

Lenin wasn't a left communist, wasn't even close to left communism main options. --Inbloom2 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding the KAPD is useless since there's already the Communist Workers International.

About the picture : first, where it comes from ? --Inbloom2 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On SouB, wikipedia article says: "Socialisme ou Barbarie (Socialism or Barbarism) was a French-based radical libertarian socialist group of the post-World War II period." They were around 100 people. There were workers in the group, but it wasn't a workers group. About Castoriadis, this is written: ""His line clearly converged with that of anarchism, but although he made occasional references to the anarchists, like many former Marxists he had little respect for them, and in return they took little notice for him." I don't think SouB belongs here, they are remembered for being libertarian socialists, not left communists. I understand that you like them but really, they weren't left communists. They ended up rejecting Marxism.

On KAPD, actually it might be even more meaningful to put it here rather than KAI if it wasn't a local group as KAI was founded by only one faction (Essen Faction) of the KAPD which had been splitting frequently. When KAPD split from the KPD, they were about 200,000 people (they were in the majority of the KPD), KAI was, internationally, much smaller than that.

True, Lenin wasn't a left communist, but some would argue that Marx, Engels and even Luxemburg wasn't either. The point was that they were all influential to left communism. Lenin was too, whether we like it or not.

--Mayis

For a french group, you should look the french wikipedia - it's said that it was an anti-stalin marxist group, close to council communism.

About the KAPD, it's arguable : we can put it if you want.

You didn't answer : where's the picture coming from ?

Marx and Luxemburg' politics were lefts communists. It's not that clear for Engels, and it's clear that's not the case for Lenin. The point to know who's been influential to some lefts communists (not all !) should bring us to put Freud, for example... --Inbloom2 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I made the picture, I think it resembles left communist ideology rather well. I agree that Marx and Luxemburg's politics were left communist for the most part and I also think Engels was like that too but that's not the point - most people would argue against that. Most people would say that it is a POV issue. As for Lenin, all of the left communists whom he ended up opposing probably were influenced by him initially, and he was influenced by some like Pannekoek for example. Bigger left communist organizations (Bordigists for example) were influenced by Lenin, so were Chinese ultra-leftists opposing Mao, and they numbered several million. Also Freud? Which left-communist tendency was influenced by him? Is there one which calls itslelf "Freudist"?

SouB started of as an anti-stalin marxist group, that's true; at that time they were Trotskyists. Then they debated with some Neo-Bordigists and Pannekoek and they flirted with "councilism". Ultimately they shifted to "libertarian socialism", they rejected Marxism, they rejected the crisis in capitalism. It is said that SouB was an anti-stalin marxist group, close to council communism. This doesn't make them a prominent left communist organization. There is a huge list of different groups which should be on the template than SouB.

Anyway, let's make a "deal". Situationist International and Dictatorship of the Proletariat stays in the template, Lenin and SouB is out, is that good?

--Mayis

In 1949 SouB wasn't trotskyist, and SouB didn't reject marxism, but the usual "marxism" of that time. It was an important left communist group.

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not a "Basic concept" since some left communists don't use that words anymore. --Inbloom2 11:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the image comes from nowhere, it has to be removed. We don't need a picture, after all. --Inbloom2 11:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

SouB did start off as Trotskyists. From wikipedis: "The group originated in the Trotskyist Fourth International, where Castoriadis and Claude Lefort constituted a Chaulieu-Montal Tendency before breaking away." They did reject Marxism, they declared that they had to completely reject Marxism and the crisis in order to be revolutionary in their time. They weren't important, and they weren't left communist - they were "libertarian socialists", they are what people think when they hear the word "libertarian socialism", they are considered rather anarchists and it was in no way a "prominent" left communist organization. There is a huge list of real local left communist organizations we should put here before we would even consider SouB and being a left communist myself, I haven't met a single left communist or council communist who considers SouB left communist. Even situationists consider the SouB as an anarchistic group.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a basic concept of left communism and Marxism, again even the situationists would not reject that. The fact that you personally don't like it shouldn't be important in my opinion.

I'm putting Lenin back to the template, he influenced far more left communists than SouB ever did - and he influenced the bigger half, that's for sure.

I seriously can't understand why you are taking the picture out without making any decent explanation. No offense but you are acting as if you are the owner of wikipedia, you are not even bothering to discuss decently.

--Mayis

Did you ever read what SouB wrote ? I did, and it was clearly left communist, one of the main and the most influential left communists currents in the 50's and 60's, where Guy Debord was formed to marxism, Pannekoek liked what they said, and so on...

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a "basic concept" of left communism, since some left communists don't use this anymore. It's not a matter of what we like or not.

Lenin wasn't a left communist, so he don't belong to this template. It's as simple as that.

The picture means nothing about left communism : if it's used only on wikipedia, that's a problem ! We don't need an image at all, but if you insist we can put the hammer and sickle, that's the best. --Inbloom2 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read Castoriadis, who was the most influential member of SouB and I did not find it left communist. In the sixties he goes on rejecting the crisis of capitalism and rejecting Marxism. It was "libertarian socialists" as I said they are what people think in Europe when they hear the term "libertarian socialism". There are many other local left communist organizations that should be on the template before SouB. I understand that you like them but this is no reason to put them here, really.

Lenin was as left communist as SouB was =P

Which left communists do not use the dictatorship of the proletariat? All of them use it!

What Castoriadis wrote after SouB (meaning after 1965) is something else than what SouB wrote. It has an international influence.

World Socialism, for example, don't use "dictatorship of the proletariat" anymore. --Inbloom2 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SouB does not really have that much of an international influence. It's major area of influence was the French intellectual left and the only other formation which was influenced by them internationally was Solidarity in England and now those people made up World Revolution of the ICC so that influence died out. Also from wikipedia article: "In the early 1960s, disputes within the group around Castoriadis' increasing rejection of Marxism led to the departure of the group around the Pouvoir Ouvrier journal. The main Socialisme ou Barbarie journal continued publishing until a final edition in 1965, after which the group became dormant and was then dissolved." Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against SouB, I just think that there is quite a lot of other more left communist organizations that should be here before them.

World Socialism also advocates participating in elections where one of the most major themes of left communists is anti-parliamentarianism and the rejection of democracy. It is a unique tendency of which we can't generalize their concepts as major concepts of left communism.

--Mayis

I think that you're wrong about what's Left Communism : "the most major themes of left communists is anti-parliamentarianism and the rejection of democracy" !!! Anti-parliamentarianism is shared by most of the left communism, but "the rejection of democracy" is only shared by borigists and the ICC... --Inbloom2 23:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I said "one of the most major themes", and the point about anti-parlimentarianism stands still. Some factions of the German left communism also came to reject democracy, specifically the Berlin faction of the KAPD. And today, only a small percentage of those who identify themselves as left communists talk about "workers democracy" etc.

Rubel is more of an academician and in the article about him the word "left communist" doesn't even exist. Chirik is a famous figure, although probably not big in wikipedia, to my knowledge there is even a novel about him, and he is a much more prominent figure in the left communist movement than Rubel. Mayis 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite hard to work with... I let it go for Socialisme ou Barbarie and Rubel (even though you're wrong), but dictatorship ain't a "basic concept" for all the left communism, not at all ! --Inbloom2 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm doin my best. I still think that DoP is a "basic concept" for left communism (heck, it's a basic concept of Marxism) but I'll let it go.

Red

I like the colour Red, but this template is just too much and it actually hurts my eyes. I would use less red and more white. See template talk:communism for an interesting discussion on how to structure and colour political templates. C mon 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Um - there is very little red in this template. Just a thin border, and the image of a hammer and sickle. Template talk:Communism hasn't achieved any consensus on colouring - and the current template is very ugly. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a similar discussion at template talk:ideology. Honestly, my Mac renders this template: small red border, larger white border area and then around the links a huge red area. The coding "style="background-color:#red"" sort of leads met to believe that it was programmed to be that way. A code like "style="background-color:#white" " would have rendered the background of the concepts. I don't think this healthy to look at. BTW with the link communism's talk is just to see the problems raised with too much colouring, not to copy it or anything. C mon 08:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see - it sounds like an issue with the template being parsed differently by different browsers. We should ensure that the background is consistent and looks reasonable on all browsers! Warofdreams talk 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ICC Logo

It would be a great mistake to use the logo of the ICC, particularly when many people have disputed the need for any form of logo. The idea is that this is NPOV not promoting one little group.Harrypotter 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is promitng "one little group" (although ICC is the biggest left communist group - that is not the issue), I think it looks nice and it is not just the ICC logo, it is an old graphic from the early days of Communist International which no other left-communist group would object, from the Bordigists to the council communists. This doesn't has anything to do with the ICC, first of all the fact that the ICC is using that logo does not mean it belongs to them, secondly many people don't know it is the ICC logo and it is there simply because it reflects the left-communist ideology well and looks really nice there. It doesn't have anything to do with any POV. I don't think there is any problem about this, it's not like the logo has "International Communist Current" written in any place on it. Mayis

I am afraid you are misinformed on this thorny topic. The image is derived from one originally produced by Boris Kustodiev and used as the cover of Communist International, "Monthly Journal of the Executive Committe of the Communist International". If you are arguing that the ECCI was Left Communist, then . . . well I can't imagine how anyone could put forward a cogent argument for that viewpoint. Of course, discussion of the image has linked it the myth of Prometheus, and as you maybe aware, the Bordiguists drew on this symbology when they named their journal Promoteo. However that then raises questions about whether its use an image would favour an "Italian Left" take on Left Communism. In fact this particular image was designed by the same graphic artist who produced the hedehogs for Solidarity. As regards as it having any neutral use, I think a mere perusal of World Revolution No.199, where the ICC assert that Kustodiev's image "is the ICC image" is enough to settle the argument.Harrypotter 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not obviously arguing that ECCI was left communist but left communists came out the Communist International. This is a very commonly used and popular image among left-communistic groups even if they don't make it their "logo". The image is usually used with the slogan: "emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself" and I remember seeing even Crimethinc use this logo at one point so it is not limited to the Italian left. Besides, as I said, it is most commonly used today, referring to the slogan: "emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself" and I think this is an appropriate slogan for left communism and this is why I think the logo would be a good representation. Most people doesn't know about left communism to begin with, let alone knowing about the ICC, let alone knowing that this is the ICC logo and let alone that in World Revolution No.199 the ICC asserted hat this is the ICC image! I am putting the logo back, please lets not turn this into an edit war and discuss and decide first and then act on it. Mayis

Invariance

Invariance clearly isn't a left-communist group anymore as stated in the article so they shouldn't belong to the list of prominent organizations at all. Mayis

Clearly the Communist Workers International "isn't a left-communist group anymore", yet it is on the template. Therefore your argument is invalid. The fact is that both of these organisations were at one time influential left communist groups. (You may recall excellent article on the KAI published in Invariance!) So I think it is best if we include it.Harrypotter 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Communist Workers International doesn't exist anymore but it existed and died as a major left communist organization however Invariance changed their ideology from left-communism to primitivism but according to the article they still publish so they still exist, they just aren't left communist anymore. Besides it was a small group around Jacques Camatte who were far more influential towards the primitivist movement than to left-communism. Besides, including organizations like Socialisme ou Barbarie has been discussed and it was decided that there are hundreds of small groups based on single countries. I am removing the link, please let's first finish talking about it and then act on it. Mayis

Moving Forward

I have removed the ICC logo, but not restored Invariance in the spirit of "please let's first finish talking about it and then act on it." as proposed by Mayis.

Firstly the specific image is the ICC logo. Whilst this is derived from Boris Kustodiev original on the cover of the ECCI publication, it is a different graphic. Of course the Kustodiev image has been used by all sorts of people, and as far as I know Crimethinc are not a left communist group. So for example it also appeared on the cover of Revolutionary Perspectives No. 1 first series, (publication of the Communist Workers Organisation and the trotskyist Farrell Dobbsused it on the cover of Revolutionary Continuity. So to the extent that the original image has a more general usage beyond Bordiguism,, it also has a more general usage outside Left Communism. The remarks about what most people know little about do not seem to lead anywhere, unless the template is to be deleted on account of non-notability. In fact it seems away of ignoring referenced eividence that the ICC have claimed ownership not simply of their logo, but indeed of Kustodiev's original. So let us go without any image, unless a more non-contentious image can be found.

Secondly, I take Mayis suggestion that few people have heard of the ICC as a refutation that they are a prominent organisation, and I think certainly compared to the KAPD this is true. But then that would be comparing a significant workers organisation with a heritage groupscule. Proposals:

• We should have separate sections for historic organisations, heritage groups and groups or currents coming out of or influenced by Left Communism (where we could include Invariance and N+1). I think Communist Party (British Section of the Third International) deserves its own page, instead of the dismissive remarks on the Workers Socialist Federation, as the coming together of grassroots groups, disparagingly dismissed as "local groups" is of significance.

• Anti-parliamentarianism also deserves its own pages and to listed as key concept
• Soviet (council) should be merged with Workers Council

I hope these comments are useful.Harrypotter 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the image, I am starting to think that Harrypotter might have a personal opposition to it because it is the ICC logo. There has been a hammer and a sickle as the logo for months and not one single person have said a thing about it and 1) about the fact that it was the USSR flag and the logo of thousands of Stalinist organizations and 2) that it was something left-communists opposed as opportunism. Now we do have a logo which used by the very early Comintern in which both the German Communist Left and the Italian Communist Left existed, used specifically by the Italian Communist Left, by Revolutionary Perspectives (a publication of the second biggest left communist organization today, the IBRP) and is currently being used by the biggest left communist organization in the world which claims to be a heir of both German left communists and Italian left communists, and suddenly this user comes up with vehemently opposing it. I honestly don't see why there is any other reason for anyone to oppose it - it actually looks nice, it doesn't promote a group because the "International Communist Current" is not written in any part of it, and it doesn't declare any point-of-view whatsoever.

On the comment about the comment that because few people have heard of the ICC as a refutation they are a prominent organization, first of all this doesn't make any sense at all! Very few people know about the KAPD or KAI as well! Much less people know about N+1 (although there is a subtitle about it in the page about the bordigist ICP) or Invariance or the IBRP or the Bordigist International Communist Party or any of their fractions coming from it. The ICC, because it is the biggest left communist organization today, is in fact known more than all the historical left communist organizations, including the KAPD which was massive! Whenever there is something about left communism, their name comes first. I am not telling this because I specifically like or dislike the ICC, I am telling this because it is a fact. Invariance is an unheard group compared to the ICC, so is N+1 and I find the suggestion to remove the biggest and most influential left communist organization [as little as it might be compared to other Stalinist or Trotskyist or Maoist groups] from the "prominent organizations" and adding an organization as irrelevant to left communism now as Invariance to be completely biased in favor of those small groups and against the ICC and unfortunately this opinion I have on the poster Harrypotter's bias on this issue is strengthened by his completely dismissive and unnecessary comments about the ICC. I don't think this user is approaching this issue from a non-pov perspective.

Now, to come to the point raised on the supposed "dismissing" of small groups; this is not about dismissing. It is simply about the fact that there are too many left communist groups which had been very significant historically. There can be links to left communist groupings in Bulgaria, left communists in China, left communists in Scandinavia, left-wing Bolsheviks during the Baku commune and at the Tashkent soviet, the "left communists" in central Asian CPs which Stalin denounced in 1923, Early Koryo Communist Party which opposed the national liberation of Korea and was attacked as "leftists", left communists in Venezuela, left communists in Mexico, left communists in India, and if we start talking about left communists groups today, there are left communist groups in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Korea, Bosnia, Turkey, Philippines, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and so forth, there are several left communist tendencies on individual countries in Europe, significantly in France and of course quite many in Italy. Do you know where this is going? We would have an awfully long list if we included every tiny local group, but instead putting two big mostly remembered historical international organizations (KAI and the ICP) and the two most significant and biggest left communist international organizations of today (the ICC and the IBRP) is enough. There is a Category:Left communism page as well, and I think all those local groups should be there, but there are far too many local groups to be in the "prominent organizations". I certainly think that should be in the category, but I would not accept not putting all the different local left communist groups, historical and current from all around the world if we are putting some local groups like Invariance which has nothing to do with left communism today. I definately agree that Communist Party (British Section of the Third International) deserves a page, so does Workers' Group in Russia for example and quite many other groups. I think they would all be just fine in Category:Left communism. If possible, we might also give a link to the Category:Left communism in the template.

I definately agree that anti-parliamentarianism should have a page about it and should be on the template. I think it is a very important concepts. Another interesting idea would be having something like "decadence and invariance" which would explain those concepts from an objective perspective. I also think that "Soviet (council)" could be merged with "Workers Council". I am not sure if other contributers would agree with that though.

Lastly, as although I fear the user Harrypotter who raised those topics is biased, I think that he had a mostly productive attitude towards discussing about template so I will not re-add the image as long as there is significant talk on this issue yet I do not approve with user Harrypotter editing out the logo before the discussion was over despite the fact that I specifically asked him not to turn this into an edit war. I don't think this attitude is good at all because first of all it is not a productive behavior, secondly because he started editing it out first, he should have waited until the discussions was over and thirdly had I kept doing what he was doing, this issue would have turned into an edit war. I don't think his was a responsible behavior. -Mayis

Well, I would just like to say as regards both the Logo and Invariance, one of which I am against including, and the other which I have been in favour of including, in the spirit of avoiding an edit war, I went for the option of ommitting both.

So as regards the ICC logo, the specific graphic is their logo. It is not the image which has had a much broader use before, and hence I feel a lot othe points raised above fall by the wayside. And yes, I do have political opinions, as do other people.I have not been flattened out into a wikipedia page with no point of view. However it is not that I want the page to express those opinions, but I do reject the use of an image which is the logo of a specific organisation which, in my view, is busy trying to exercise hegemony as regards Left Communism. I don't know if it is true whether more people have heard of the ICC or the KAPD, and I am not sure how the question would be resolved. However I do consider there is a qualitative difference between Left Communism in its heyday i.e. during the revolutionary wave which brought the first world war to a close, and what I regard as heritage groups around today. In fact I would regard Revolution International as more significant than the ICC, as they played a significant role in May 1968. I am not aware of the ICC, or any of their respective sections having played a significant role in any struggles since then (If I amwrong, please correct me on this).

Taking the point of May 1968 further, clearly Left Communism had a big impact onthe thinking of people like Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who wrote Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing Alternative with his brother, covering the 68 events. Clearly his political trajectory since then is another matter, as is that of Invariance, albeit in another way. However, Invariance, through publishing the booklet La gauche allemande in 1973 - along with La Veille Taupe was significant, and I disagree with the ommission of SouB, which was closely tied up with VT and should not be reduced Castoriadis' vagaries. I think some way of dealing with how the struggles of 68, particularly in France led to a renewal of Left Communism, which should not be confined to heritage groups like ICC and IBRP, who in my opinion have abandonned materialism for traditionalism.

So I see our task in developing a NPOV template is tosee if we can find away that allows the material to be presented in a way which is useful. Perhaps we could use collapsible sub-topics, allowing the querent to interrogate the box to follow their interest, but without making all the material necessarily visible on the template all the time?Harrypotter 13:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Karl Korsch

"In 1926 Karl Korsch formed the Entschiedene Linke (Determined Left) with Ernst Schwarz in 1926. It initially attracted 7,000 members, before joining the Communist Workers Party of Germany in June 1927." So let's keep him in!Leutha (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much redundant content

I merged some nearly-identical lists from {{Communism}} into this template using labeled section transclusion, but these transclusions were removed here. Should the redundant lists in this template not be merged and transcluded? Jarble (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)