Post a valid critique of left communism that doesn't involve le epic armchair memes

Post a valid critique of left communism that doesn't involve le epic armchair memes.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm
marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/
quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/left_wing_communism_00.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It's non-existent outside some very obscure corners of the internet.

Uhhhhhhhhh, shit

Post a valid leftcom revolutionary strategy that doesn't involve armchairs

...

This

It's a tired meme that debunks itself if you read a book

marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

Post a valid ML revolutionary strategy that will actually abolish private property

Can't come up with any, I find myself agreeing 99% of the time with leftcoms

Hard to find. Lenin's LWC is still the best and contemporary communisation and ultra-left currents have all since long digested it. Read Dauvé for more.


There it is. LWC is not bad at all, but principally a theoretical critique and one first aimed at the Dutch-German currents (the founders of the left communist opposition) and their anti-partyism. The biggest critique of Lenin's against them was that the success of the October revolution never translated to Europe at all, with the rise of social democratic paramilitarism against the communists and the rise of fascism being too strong and too surprising of a force.

Consider Gorter's response to LWC: marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/
And Bordiga's: quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/left_wing_communism_00.htm

"Post a criticism of this thing in the torture chamber for this thing that meets my arbitrary standards which I will determine on the fly to show you how great Communism is."

Okay, my valid critique of left communism is that it's always run by fundamentally dishonest people like you, OP. You don't give a single fuck about the little people, you just want to feel oppressed because daddy didn't give you enough attention.

...

Their refusal to participate in electoral politics, the bordigists insistence on Party and centralism, their refusal to even model or describe beyond tired platitudes what socialism will look like.

Because strict adherence to the Comintern line totally worked and definitely didn't fail.

Because the best way to achieve socialism is to legitimize bourgeois politics
You're aware that Bordiga isn't the only leftcom theorist, right?
Now this is just pants-on-head retarded. We have no fucking way of knowing what a socialist society will look like beyond broad strokes. Making plans for after the Revolution is pure utopianism.

The other two are valid but bourgeois democracy is a farce.

...

their refusal to even model or describe beyond tired platitudes what socialism will look like

Honestly, I largely agree with them on the first few things you describe, but every single leftcom text I've ever read goes exactly the same way:

1st half: Incisive, pretty much entirely correct critique of other tendencies, excellent deconstruction of their positions, along with a demonstrably thorough understanding of history. Gives you a great deal of hope for what you assume will be a rollicking second half in which they put forward a coherent alternative vision.

2nd half: Mystical posturing about the wonderful potentiality of a communism described entirely in negation, followed by a total refusal to give any hint about how the really obvious practical problems of the system they exuberantly describe would actually be solved. More mystical burbling about how the working class will start the revolution and 'just figure everything else out in like the process, man', despite the fact that after 200 years and several extensive rebellions, the working class has very clearly never spontaneously figured out shit about how to make an entirely new system, and has suffered dearly for it.

Lefty pol in general tends to have a very cartoonish and innacurate view of leftcom. Bordiga was not a leftcommunism but rather a weird Leninist who influenced some sectors of leftcommunism. I lean more towards Situationism, autonomism and council communism, which unfortunately aren't as good for shitpost purposes. I think the only people who had a clue in pre fascist Italy where actually the anarchists. IMO, centralised parties are a relic of the 20th century.

...

I don't know, maybe if you got off your armchair for once we would have other valid criticism.

Left communism is fine and its descendants are good tendencies (their existence alone is a counter to like half of all normie criticism of communism). Leftcom posters are retarded.

I specifically requested the opposite of this

This sounds more like having beef with Marx and Marxism than left communism tbh. Marx literally said that attempting to model socialism is always going to be utopianism.

The armchair meme is so popular because leftcoms have nothing to criticize. Their on contributions as leftcoms is to criticize other tendencies (this is a good thing). They have zero positive contributions (in the sense of creation vs. destruction - criticism is a negative contribution) specific to their tendency. They're useful for keeping other tendencies on our toes but without the oyher leftist tendencies to use or criticize they are worthless.

...

Stop posting you fucking newfaggot.
Lurk more.

A critique of a model for socialism.

Haven't read it and don't care. I tend to obtain my image of an individual's positions through primary literature, not exterior accounts.

why would I do that when I'm not an ML?

Critique of the Gotha Programme is primary literature. It's pretty important too.

I said the PDF he posted wasn't primary literature. I know that Gotha Programme is valuable.

Didn't see his attachment wasn't CotGP. Was gonna say nigga

Every economic policy put forth by it ignores the physical reality in which we occupy.

That book came up in another thread, the following is a repost.

Went straight to Hudis' description of the Gotha Critique:

False. Marx on the lower phase of communism:
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural priviIege.
So not only did Marx expect that in the lower phase people will get more for working longer, but that they will also get more for working in a more intensive way. He expected that only the part from income differences that comes from owning land and means of production will be done away with immediately.

Hudis, again:
>The worker receives an amount of means of subsistence based on the unit of time worked, not on the amount of productive output within that unit.
I agree the productive amount of your unit according to some market shouldn't determine your remuneration. The output of where you work depends on the combination of workers and the quality of equipment. Workers shouldn't be punished or rewarded based on the good or bad quality of the equipment they work with. But it doesn't follow that everybody has to get the same per hour to ensure that. The measure is: Given this equipment here, what output could we expect from a regular joe? The trick, and here I'm not basing the argument on Marx but my own brain, is that the voting procedure about productivity norms for this or that equipment and remuneration and the assignment of people to this or that task with this or that equipment should be not something done by a tiny group, but one big unified process. By that I mean you can only have an effective vote for making some productivity standards less forgiving or lowering remuneration if you yourself are up for doing these activities according to these less pleasant standards you propose.

The writing style is really shitty. Hudis does some half-assed backpedaling about intensity of work mattering after all, he gives the example of a teacher having more stress than others, because he deals with autistic kids.
But it wasn't just that difference of intensity as stress in Marx. The "natural priviIege" means of course genetic endowment, so if some people have a very easy time being more productive than others due to inborn difference, that still counts in renumeration in the lower phase as expected by Marx.