Ultra-leftists are silly.
If you're going to think of "socialism" and "communism" as the exact same thing, and reject any transitional stages (market socialism or state capitalism, depending on your preference), then how the fuck are you actually going to build a socialist world? Capital isn't going to stop unless you make it stop, and actually give some method of doing so.
There is no unified ultra/left communist strategy for a post-capitalist society, but there are several. The fact that you're annoyed by ultra/leftcom criticism doesn't mean that you can just weasel out of reading about them. Lazy!
Gimme a strategy. Do it.
Council communism.
How do these workers' councils differ from syndicalism?
...
So we have to wait for complete automation of all industry for socialism? Fuck that, and it sounds riskier than useful.
Bordiga and a lot of the Italian left communists were staunch vangaurdists who believed in the dotp. So your charge of not believing in a transitional period doesn't hold much water. You should probably read what they think before trying to critique them.
So how exactly is that different from Leninism?
no left communist rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat. moreover, from italian left communism grew ideas such as organic centralism and revolutionary totalitarianism
...
It's honestly not that much different at it's core. Bordiga was a big Lenin fanboy.
...
How do you expect to create a society where people want to work for their own fulfillment if you don't automate all the shitty jobs that nobody wants to do?
How to you expect to transition from fully automated labor, where there isn't even a proletarian class to start a revolution?
*capitalism not labor
Only the basics needs of society would be automated (not including whichever private sector jobs are automated). From there you can actually create a situation where if you quit your job, and will still have a home with food, water and electricity. We need to demand automation of basic needs in order to create an environment where people can do any job that they want to do and have the ability to achieve.
But the capitalists still have control over those essential services, unless you're getting the state to do them. Why should they provide them for free?
Stalin was the pinnacle of leninism.
The state should be the ones doing the automation of those services. And even the state could charge for them, just undercut the supermarkets, and then make it free once you've driven them out of business or you've paid off the cost of the initial automation.
...
Supermarkets, water services, energy industry etc.*
But the state is currently a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. They wouldn't have any inclination to automate those services, because they're treading on the ground of corporations. How are you going to break their hold?
I'm an ultra
I think vanguardism produces it's own demise and people who try to justify it's failure in russia and china with "it only really went wrong when so and so got into power" are undialectic
that said I support all genuinely socialist movements (YPG and Naxalites for instance) and wish for them all well
I think you need to take a look at your ideology again fam.
This is not what we believe.
You don't really mean this, this is a joke, r-right?
They're not ideal, and I doubt nationalist movements can successfully lead to socialism, but they CAN improve conditions for these people and I'm not going to dismiss them for the sake of purity
I don't think reform in my country can bring about socialism either but I still support raising the minimum wage
I think you'd be a libsoc rather than an ultra, then.
Lenin opposed the permanent revolution for a reason.
the 20th century is over faggots
It will be over when the last guerrilla in Philippines will be forced to stop his armed struggle against the government. Until then marxism-leninism-maoism will live on.
But that's wrong. Lenin's reorientation of the party on his return to Kerensky's Russia was in every meaningful sense based on the theory of permanent revolution.
It's just silly to deny that capitalism is an inherently international system. Mountains of history, and the postcolonial third world in particular, have thoroughly vindicated this view. Their national bourgeoisie was and is simply incapable or unwilling to achieve bourgeois-democratic revolution "within the nation" due to these international pressures and the execution of capital.
Material conditions, production, and the social relations surrounding them are all solidly international phenomena, and more so today.
The revolutionary significance of the minuscule Russian proletariat derived directly from this international character. It's literally the basis for the rejection of Menshevism.
who woulda guessed?
Organic centralism rather than democratic centralism. No opportunism allowed.
Ouch…mama me need a bandaid
Is this conspiracy? Fake news? Are you Alt Right!!!????
Im calling the FBI and CNN's Wolf Blitzer!!!
More like Starcucks
fuck these niggers and their overpriced donkey shit coffee