What is the appeal of LeftCommunism?
Never do anything
Other urls found in this thread:
the fact you are fully justified to
Not sure where this meme of Bordigism having a monopoly over left-communism came from. Still a useless title today though, the 3rd International is a corpse.
Most people here don't actually know what they're talking about.
Because out of four leftcoms on the internet three are Bordigists .
Because Council Communism is completely dead whilst Bordigism is only mostly dead.
BORDIGISTS INVENTED VACCINES(LITTLE UFOS) BECAUJSE THEY ARE CONTROLLED OPPOSITION FROM ALIENS
The fact that it's actual communism and opposed to liberal lifestylism and childish delusions of egalitarianism, perhaps
comfy armchairs and a smug sense of moral superiority
"Nothing" like organizing a gigantic communist party, editing a communist theoretical circle and translating Marx and writing theory? Italian Bordigist left has done loads for the communist movement.
No, Bordiga's critique is that Lenin made the mistake of making the vanguard function on democratic principles. Bordiga simply differed on how centralized power should function.
It's hard to speak of left communism as synonymous to left communism. Left communism before was just a faction in the Comintern opposed skeptical of Lenin's vision and direction of post-Russian revolution, and a general anti-Stalinism/opportunism. It had more than just Bordigism; it had council communists, Marxist syndicalists, etc. When we speak of left communism today, we simply speak of a tendency within communism to continue this tradition, and it is more broadly the ultra left; Bordigism, communization and (very minorly) council communism, although the general consensus is a mixture of all these movements into one. Left communism means continuing the critique of the left as imperfect and following completely dead-end ideas like Stalinism, Maoism, most anarchisms, reformism in all its forms (e.g.: bourgeois parliamentary politics, social democracy, "market socialism"), etc.; it means staying true to the Marxist tradition of critique before anything, if anything simply to aid the left as a whole. It is, for left communism, where everything begins: critique.
As synonymous to Bordigism/Italian communist left* oops
And I think Zizek in part embodies this Marxist tradition, as you can tell from reading "In Defense of Lost Causes":
Zizek, as much as I like him, as an idiotic obsession with non-violent protest. Anyone who isn't retarded knows that both Ghandi and MLK had a violent movement with the same goals at the same time which actually forced the american government/the british to make concessions.
i wish i could be ultra left so i could not feel bad about doing nothing
He is not principally against violence at all. I mean, the guy is a communist. He just asks us to really think about what our supposed violent acts do and what they signify; what they truly invoke and where they are interpellated from. It's easy to dress in black, don a keffiyeh and go out with banners and smash windows, beat up Nazi LARPers and provoke cops, but where truly is the politics in it, and what does it concretely mean in the long term of emancipatory politics. It is here that we find out that it is much easier to do just this and go smashie smashie than comprehensively challenge the prevailing ideology…
He literally thinks Robespierre did nothing wrong.
This is true.
From what I understand, Bordigism is anarchism but with the catch that you have to form one giant party before you do anything
From what I understand, Bordigism is Leninism except with a completely dysfunctional decision making process and better memes.
>The mistake of Anarchist politics derives both from a doctrinal sterility, in its incapacity to comprehend the dialectical stages of real historical evolution, and from its voluntarist illusions, which cherish the fond hope of being able to speed up social processes by the force of example, and of sacrifices made by the one or the many.
t. Comrade Danny Devito (marxists.org
Please take off that flag and do not put it on again until you actually start reading the fucking theory.
I agree. LeftCom flag and Marx flag are the only flairs which seem to consistently signify that the user isn't a completely illiterate idiot.
It's literally just for armchair posers
leftcom is the flag of reddit SJWs who don't want to stick out by using the other flags for reals
I find it hard to call leftcoms SJWs, especially the leddit leftcoms, considering the leftcom subs all consistently make fun or /socialism/'s identity politics and they made leftcom catgirl OC to mock the entire catgirldrawfag debacle that happened their. Their shitpost subs (/ultraleft/) literally have a leftcomcat flag and there's still posts making fun of the reddit tankie obsession with anime as "sexist and anti-communist".
what OC is this?
This was one of the most retarded things I've read today.
Is that guy at the furthest right Big Daddy Proudhon?
Yes, and behind that Kautsky. It's supposed to be an IWA meeting painting.
DELET THIS ONE
Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.
But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.
Based Luxemburg coming through with the critique of reformism there.
and what, exactly, have fucking anarchists done since 1936?
This is a nice appeal to authority but unfortunately the reasoning is stupid.
Sorry but this is the fucking point. That the people govern themselves.
Workers in a co-op don't truly govern themselves though, they're still subject to capital (capital as an automatic subject, not individual capitalists). Rosa isn't saying they're really in control, she's saying that if they fail to meet the demands of capital they'll be ejected from the market. That isn't self government in any meaningful sense of the term.
So long as the means of production are owned by the workers capital can exist as a good market mechanism to determine what products are in need or not and other things which are hard to measure otherwise.
Problems of work: Loss of creative freedom because of management, loss of freedom to change jobs because of fear of poverty, profit/product expropriation from management. If we're slaves to our work it's because we're afraid to leave. Reducing scarcity and ensuring life without work should be accomplished by the state or community outside of businesses.
Corporate coops can't be the *only* structure of society. This isn't anarcho-capitalism. This solves one aspect of our issues - it greatly reduces income inequality, increases personal autonomy, and to some degree helps make work more meaningful.
The other side of this coin is the governmental organization. You can argue how that should be set up. Personally I like Communalism. The point of the governmental side is the same as the coop side: How do we maximize freedom. The idea of state organization has to be abstracted from other political agendas in this way. It's not whether or not the state will be giving people free education, healthcare, or even the means of production to the entire community. The point of the state organization and the primary objective of the theory of the state should be this: How can we allow the people to govern themselves, and make those choices for themselves? If the people want free education and want to work out a way for that to be possible, how do we create a state structure that allows them to pursue this and move in the directions they want?
We are being exploited by the state and we're being exploited by capitalism and they are not the same thing and don't necessarily have to be killed by the same stone. I think coops are the solution to the latter and should be pushed NOW. They are already viable.