Left communism

They are.

I think the point is that the shopper is a redditor (r/socialism logo) and that their idea of picking an ideology is like picking and matching your favorite flavor based on questions like "uh, how authoritarian do I want to be?" and "do I want some culture changing on the side?", which subconsciously reveals that they're not really arriving to their ideal type of revolutionary politics through really questioning how society works, which by consequence never alters their unconsciously liberal conception of politics on the whole.

The "free market socialist" badge, SAlt and social democracy are three undeniably liberal categories, though.

Liberalism is definitely not a mode of production, but liberalism and its underlying principles are the generic ideology of capitalism which is one.

They are if you're a Marxist who is familiar with the basic conception of the capitalist mode of production: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm, marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm.

You don't have to be a marxist to be a socialist or against capitalism. Go bring you're everyone I don't like is a liberal autism somewhere else.

I don't care if you call yourself a Marxist, attack helicopter or obese lardass. What matters is that you don't delude yourself into defining that which is socialism/capitalism improperly and by consequence define that which would not be capitalism improperly. It has little to do with what I like or to not like, but what I understand to be correct or incorrect. I argue because I care.

Don't be so pretentious, almost everyone here argues because they care.

I'm not a Marxist because after reading Marx, I found I didn't agree with everything he said, though he made plenty of good points. I have little concern over identity, if I did, I'd wear a flag. I don't think I can say the same of leftcoms.

Like Badiou's own quote says, common nouns here are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, even socialism and capitalism, for their meaning has been distorted to almost nothing. Their only use now should be however it is politically useful. Here is a proper noun for you, Private Property, the abolishment of which is the goal of almost everyone here. Say what you will of market socialism being improper definitions or what not, getting organized, fighting for cooperatives in the short term, and for the universalism of basic goods and services, engaging in political debate and propoganda are steps in the right direction. These are deeds in politics.

Liberalism is the ideology of Capitalism, it's the cultural logic of Capital, and by extension the Bourgeoise, so in a sense, yes, it's the mode of production manifested in culture.

Capitalism has worked quite well without liberalism. Fascism, Neo-liberal dictatorships and even theocracy has been shown to operate with capitalism very effectively.

Liberalism is the logic of Capitalism tho. The reason Marxists don't see too much difference between Liberals and Fascists is because they advocate for nearly identical systems of political economy, the only difference is that it's two different flavors of idpol. Read Marx you brainlet.

Dumbass, that's because Liberalism and Facism are both capitalist ideologies. It's circular reasoning. It's like saying that every ideology that justifies capitalism is liberalism, why? Because every ideology that justifies capitalism is liberalism. It makes the term almost meaningless.

That's fine.

They are irrelevant in the real political process of things. The fact that their meanings have been distorted is the real problem: we have no way of identifying a proper politics from these nouns anymore on top of the fact that these nouns have little more than a defining function.

How can we when their definitions are so completely muddled that the term "socialism" has become near-universally synonymous with welfare capitalism? That goes without all the other terms connected to the term socialism as one may use them, such as for example private property as you said. And it is when we define private property improperly that we imagine that models for market socialism do away with private property.

Cooperatives still have wages and abstract value extraction. So yes, it is still a form of Capitalism, or in the least "market socialism".

I have to agree with the leftcom this time.

t. anarchist

Every ideology that justifies Capitalism is a form of Liberalism, Fascism is a form of Liberalism, just a far more racist one, but even this highly racialized violence that supposedly distinguishes Fascism from Liberalism already exists within Liberalism itself, because it exists within Capitalism itself. All Fascism wants is to accelerate a series of social relations and circumstances that already exist within Capitalism, as well as a false promise to somehow have Capitalism without the social ills ("degeneracy") of Capitalism. What I'm saying is that the way Ideology works, it isn't like we're in a market where there are tones of different options, there's only Capitalism, and the various different flavors of it, and the abolishing of Capitalism, which is what Leftists should strive for.

that's true.

(liberal meme, presented without comment)

I think looking at who actually touches upon institutions of property and ownership, as well as who speaks in terms of political universalism, is a fine way of doing it, those who are only concerned with redistribution and bourgeoisie opportunity are those we can throw into the trash.

It's quite simple. You allow socialism to be all of those things. It becomes the socialist position not just to support social democrat reforms because everyone deserves a right to x, but to go further, to critique private property, or as Marx said, to use the logical of universalism to create universal private property, the first step to its negation and communism. What I mean in practical terms is to support anything that brings property and ownership away from the abstract individual, and to either to a person who has a direct relationship to the thing owned or to the community at large.

let this word die already

k

from a leftcom standpoint is Deng good??

...

that was an ironic shitpost but it still pissed me off because for I moment I realized there is somebody on this board who would unironically ask this

Definition of constitutionalism
: adherence to or government according to constitutional principles; also : a constitutional system of government
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_history_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union

Activism is alienating.

how so?

Leftcom and Libertarian Marxism are actual valid tendencies. The leftcom posters on this board are just shitposters soiling the flag.

thats a bit of a paradox considering reform will pacify the workers and put us in even more trouble

libcom.org/library/militancy-ojtr

Then what's the point of having a party, of being a "communist" if the sole role granted to those bodies is trailing after the paths the proletariat has already cut? The party anticipates during times of a tendency towards conjunctural crisis, maintains the highest lines and lessons learned after defeat and stabilization, and leads and opens itself up to energies of the most advanced sections of the class when a revolutionary break immediately presents itself.

A party or a communist that parrots yesterday's truth is worthless at best and serves to slow the development of class power at worst.

This, Bordiga is not even representative of most left communist tendencies, ultimately he was a weird leninist of sorts. Communization, Autonomism, Situationism, Luxemburgism, Castoriadis, are some of the most interesting communist tendencies but unfortunately they aren't good shitposting material like bordiga

Except most modern leftcom tendencies are influenced by bordiga to some extent, even if they reject the party/organisational aspects of his theory.
Also there's no such thing as luxemburgism. Just saying.

How? It doesn't abolish private property.

The bourgeoisie?
As Badiou says, politics may know nothing of identity, but a proper reference point of propaganda is needed. There needs to be a proper consensus.

That heavily conflicts with
unless you fell for the "private property = when a minority has shareholding" meme instead of the proper definition in which private property is any instance in which free access is restricted, which you get with cooperatives.

wat.

How does that work with cooperatives and other petit-bourgeois ideas of socialism that function on model thinking and that socialism begins at how profits are distributed?