Can someone explain exactly what leftcoms mean by "opportunism"?

Can someone explain exactly what leftcoms mean by "opportunism"?

Other urls found in this thread:

insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/.

Essentially pursuing short term gains for an organisation or faction at the expense of the broader communist movement. For example a party dumbing down it's theory and pursuing social democratic goals, or jumping on whatever "social movement" bandwagon that comes along (eg. idpol). It may lead to more people joining your organisation but it ultimately it defeats the object of the exercise.

Is there anywhere to read more about Bordiga and the context of his writings? I was reading some of the recommended works from /r/leftcom, but I wasn't really getting the full picture of his writing.

It means doing anything other than bitching about other leftists.

It means they have no struggle and can sit comfortably while telling people that small gains that bring up the quality of life of workers are bad.

Opportunism = doing anything

Leftcoms are literally the most opportunistic leftists. Their entire praxis rests on them opportunistically seizing power from organic worker organizations and retarding the revolution to their petty boug aims.

It's their version of "revisionism".

Here's an example, showing the dangers of opportunistic alliances:
Excerpt from: insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/.

bumpo

I imagine the ideal example would be the bureaucrats who stifled the idea of a Soviet Internet so they could maintain control of the economy, and thus remain relevant.

There's a number of ways that leftcoms/ultras use opportunism.
The primary way it's used is in reference to subverting an organization for one's own goals, i.e. feminists/other identitarians who subvert militant workers organizations so as to make the female/other identity's condition better under capitalism, rather than the original goal of doing away with and replacing capitalism or when SocDems come to power by riding on the back of worker militancy.

Not OP, but thanks for clearing this up for me too. I've been hesitant to make a thread about it because it's a rather specific question.

While you're at it, mind doing the same for "activism"? Also, you leftcoms frequently talk about spontaneous, simultaneous international revolution as the sole means by which the working class will overcome the capitalist class, but what reason have you to believe that they will come to the conclusions that wage labour, private property, and so forth is what exploits, divides and oppresses them without communists educating (not to mention agitation and organization)?

who makes all these logos

doing anything at all

Psuedo_intellectual.
There is a reason why soviet tech was built like indestructible iron boxes, its 'cause you are a tyrant.

For the reasonable leftcoms it means
For the autistic leftcoms it means 'doing anything at all'

"activism"

Let me play leftcom's advocate here, what they mean by 'activism' is something very specific. It's not just doing things, it's doing things without actually thinking it over and having a good plan, this is harmful to your movement in the long run as it attracts a lot of lifestylists liberals who just like 'doing things' instead of thinking through if it's really useful.

Confirmed for having never read anything by a leftcom.


Well that was one hell of a non-sequitur…

look i agree with this and with many leftcom talking points but they recently had an article that said that stealing petty cash from the cash register at work is a valid form of class struggle.
leftcoms are excellent critics but never should they be in charge of any sort of praxis whatsoever