Recently published article on Paul Mattick, German communist...

Recently published article on Paul Mattick, German communist, one of the bigger names in the communist left (Italian wing, but definitely had sympathies for the Dutch-German council communists too) of the 20th century. Very interesting read if you want to know more about them.

After you read the article, some of his more notorious works are:
>Introduction to Anti-Bolshevik Communism:
>Council Communism:
>The Nonsense of Planning:

Other urls found in this thread:

armchair socialists btfo!

Yeah, that part is dubious. Zizek is the first communist figure today to totally brand the 20th century Marxist-Leninist experiment as both tragedy and failure, and Badiou never defended Mao or Maoism at all; he simply takes the few good lessons we can take from things like the cultural revolution and its emancipatory potential.

The rest of the article, however, is a great biography of Mattick and his position in the communist left.

FYI the guy who runs this blog is a Zionist and a sntich.

Citation needed, I guess? I suppose you're referring to that RedKahina weirdo who gets to post there, but that doesn't mean the whole blog is Zionist. I mean they discussed Marx's and Mandel's takes on the Jewish Question on that blog ffs. Hard to believe it's Zio.

I bet it's Ross Wolfe himself that always posts links to his blog here, I mean who else can shill

No RedKahina is the Tankie who attacked Zizek at Left forum 2016 with her SJW friend. Ross Wolfe holds a typical (garbage) leftcom position on Israel

Nah, I'm not Ross Wolfe or w/e rofl. I just follow the blog, have no idea of the blog's perogatives otherwise. This is a fine article without any biases whatsoever.

Which would be entirely against it… I mean, left communists are consistently anti-nationalist, and reject the idea of anti-Deutsche and the "right" for a Jewish homeland, because it's based on national liberation and is explicitly capitalistic and tribalist in nature:

I also doubt him posting on Bunkermag means he lurks leftypol. Bunkerchan's affiliation to leftypol is very thin; it is perceived as "one of the" left publications out there otherwise.

It's almost like leftcom is a stupid term. If only there was another term for council communism than leftcom. Try to imagine such a world, if you can. Imagine you could just point your finger at Bob, the council communist, and then say, "That's Bob, the…" and there would be just one or two words there, not a long rant, and everybody would then instantly know that Bob was a council communist, and not a follower of Bordiga. Sadly, such a term does not exist. Maybe the existence of such a term is mathematically impossible. 😢🔫

Left communism is just a historical term for the left of communism; an organized faction of communists which took a united stand against the "right of communism"; what they saw as opportune takeovers of Lenin's ideas, and Stalinism and Bolshevism as a whole, as fundamentally anti-communistic movements, or movements that became as such.

Today, it simply refers to this whole umbrella of differing ideology. Council communism was one of them, just like Bordigism (Bordigist Leninism) was one, as well as Marxist syndicalism, etc. They all exist separate of these, and you can definitely do as you said and name them separately.


That's the leftcom position I'm talking about, they totally ignore the National question and promote an abstract internationalism for the palestinian working class is also oppressed and exploited upon by national lines.

Actually I'm pretty sure some anti-Deutsche groups are left-coms.

Israel is not based upon "National Liberation" but a colonial-settler state

This is the language of right-wingers,
wow I expect this language from anti-semitic right-wingers not from commies

The national question is necessarily a bourgeois question. This means that they reject both the idea that Jews deserve a homeland, but also Palestinians. The workers of the world have no country whatsoever, and waging the class struggle using national lines is in the leftcom view no longer viable at all, since capital is so fully globalized that it is a step towards regression.

The internationalism of the communist movement. Nothing abstract about this.

Nope, most anti-Deutsche groups are anti-fascist primarily, and then the most dominant "communist" tendency within them is Marxism-Leninism (which the communist left rejects as a perversion of Marx and Lenin for opportune ends).

In the view of those perpetuating the state, the "liberation" of the Jewish people with its own nation state falls in line with the national liberation idea, or the struggle of cultures and the liberation of a people across bourgeois national lines.

What? Critique of tribalism has always been central to the communist movement; that tribes are little more than a reflection of the prevailing ideology and economic system and its ruling class. Again: the workers of the world have no country; their struggle lies in labor, not purely capitalistic constructs like nations.

illiterate newfag detected.

Where is the empirical content behind that belief? Is it based on more than your impression when you glance at some fruits in the super market? Or some article about some multi-national big company that is more powerful than some country, according to several measures? Because that's a bit flimsy.

There is a German sociologist named Michael Hartmann who does empirical research mainly about who is part of the elite in Germany. A more recent work of his looks into how cosmopolitan the leadership of companies is, and how many in the top positions are married to people from other countries and so on. It's mostly home-grown, not very surprising, but it's interesting just how pure it is. It's very homegenous.

If the top German players have very special relations among themselves and to the German government, and similar in France and so on, that means the mobility of the elites is vastly exaggerated in the cosmopolitan self-image. That means the old STAMOKAP theory looks useful. Which makes me wonder how people come to leftcom "analysis". It seems to be nothing more than an aesthetic hipster reflex, not wanting to have anything to do with grumpy old stalinoids. But sometimes the truth is what dull old people believe and not something innovative and sexy.
(interview in German)

Explanation for abandoning any kind of praxis along national lines is outlined in the link I gave earlier.

I'm also very suspect of a supposed communist alluding to "empirical" evidence for a Marxist (philosophical) argument, which is material analysis, not this positivist bullshit and "empiricism".

Ah, of course, the age old communist movement (has nothing to do with this left communist split at all, as I've explained before) which was always in rejection of national struggles, is "hipster" and is simply about not wanting to associate with Stalinoids… Do you hear yourself speak?

Someone twee this shit to Wolfe and also Cutrone:

From the interview mentioned in

Translation: "Nine out of ten CEOs live and work in their home countries. The percentage among the board of directors is even higher and among the 1041 most rich billionaires just 90 live outside of their countries of origin. That four out of five top managers haven't even spent more than an uninterrupted span of over six months in a foreign country completes the picture."

No need to tell me that, abandoning any kind of praxis along national lines is logically implied by the statement of abandoning any kind of praxis.

He said similar things about Czarist Russia and the USSR. Something along the lines of there being no difference between the USSR and Czarist Russia from the workers' point of view. Superficially this is true. But only superficially. From Mattick's perspective there was no point to the Russian revolution; the Nazi's winning or the Allies, it makes no difference. At least Badiou and Zizek say there was a point even if it all went pear shaped, and most people have enough sense to feel relief that the Nazis lost and Hitler put a bullet in his own head.

>always in rejection of national struggles
Except for Lenin, for example, and it's not like he was against proletarian internationalism.
Hence why social democrats get the bullet too.

So… a statement like
is not something that in your view relates to anything that be measured and shown to happen or disproved or what? What does it mean then? In my view, an increase in the proportion of marriages with pairs from different countries would be a point in favor of that statement and a decrease a point for the trend going in the opposite direction. Data regarding the amount of children born to immigrants relative to children born among natives would also be useful. Likewise, the stuff Michael Hartmann has done about the lives of the elites looks useful. What's your problem? You argue like a religious nutcase.

Capitalist Communism when?


gooby, plz

The lifestyle choices and home of the individual capitalist is irrelevant to the movements of the economy. You're clearly grasping for straws


Where people live isn't simply a lifestyle choice. You wouldn't call Syrian refugees lifestylists, would you? (Unless you are Bordiga, risen from the grave to shitpost here.) Michael Hartmann's research strongly suggests that the fattest of the fatcats have good connections to the governments of the particular countries where they live and the other fatcats living in the same region. Their power is linked to the region they live in.

It appears Paul Mattick lived in Vermont. Is there a chance that he met and discussed some of these things with Murray Bookchin?

Because, his ideas of council communism and Bookchin's ideas of libertarian municipalism seems to have cross-over appeal.