Leftcoms, why even bother to read theory?

If leftcom is the thesis and accelerationism is the anti thesis what is the synthesis?

Anarcho-egoism, acceleration without expectation.

I still don't know what the black flag represents, btw.

thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/

leftcoms believe (at least the ones inspired by the italian left) that its the communists task to understand how past attempts at resistance and revolution have worked and failed in the past, and to critique and help groups that are currently doing resistance and revolution.

anarchism

makes sense i guess, thanks

backseat drive?

I mean you can recognize the limited power of people who understand themselves as communists while still thinking they can aid the revolution should it come. The point is that they can't "raise class consciousness," rather they can help organize those who become class-conscious or critique their practices such that they become more successful, further disrupting the workings of capital and bring more people toward the cause.
Of course, aside from a couple of councilcoms, leftcoms really don't believe what you posted here.

or at least that's my trash understanding of what marx says in the commie manifesto:
(though looking back at what I wrote, I probably could have phrased it better, it's much more that it becomes rather easy when you live in a capitalist society to not properly understand your interests beyond this form of society in the way marx describes with commodity fetishism, the point of theory is to clarify what those interests are and how they manifest themselves in practice for the party, conscious proles, etc.)
the point is that it's not just a matter of communists finding ways to convince people. That's utopian trash. You need to understand how crises and shit play a role in revolution.

Well it seems like with all your theory and activism everything you ever did ended up being a waste of time yes?

...

Are you talking about me personally or anarchist communism in general?

Cos you don't know who the fuck I am. And Anarchist Communists did more historically than any leftcom

Communization Theory. not even kidding

i can finally use this meme

If you seriously believe that communism is inevitable because of le historical determinism meme than yes, there is no fucking point in activism. Marx himself had cognitive dissonance about this.

Nigga, you better delete this thread.

You're missing the point entirely. The "real movement" does not have to be a prophecy of some sort; in fact, it is already ongoing.

Marx notes that capitalism has a tendency to collapse and class antagonisms may spiral out of control during each collapse. The bourgeois class has made great and successful efforts in quelling revolutionary sentiment but the chance of a proletarian revolution is still there.

inb4 >it'll happen this time

This would be true only if the next efforts made by the communist movement do not stagnate in fits of of social democracy whose revolutionary goals are yanked rightwards by liberal and/or class-collaborationist reformists. Vanguards and decentralised revolutions can be successful if they are coordinated and do not stagnate.

You're missing the point entirely. The "real movement" does not have to be a prophecy of some sort; in fact, it is already ongoing.

Marx notes that capitalism has a tendency to collapse and class antagonisms may spiral out of control during each collapse. The bourgeois class has made great and successful efforts in quelling revolutionary sentiment but the chance of a proletarian revolution is still there.

inb4 >it'll happen this time

This would be true only if the next efforts made by the communist movement do not stagnate in fits of of social democracy whose revolutionary goals are yanked rightwards by liberal and/or class-collaborationist reformists. Vanguards and decentralised revolutions can be successful if they are coordinated and do not stagnate.

You're missing the point entirely. The "real movement" does not have to be a prophecy of some sort; in fact, it is already ongoing.

Marx notes that capitalism has a tendency to collapse and class antagonisms may spiral out of control during each collapse. The bourgeois class has made great and successful efforts in quelling revolutionary sentiment but the chance of a proletarian revolution is still there.

inb4 >it'll happen this time

This would be true only if the next efforts made by the communist movement do not stagnate in fits of of social democracy whose revolutionary goals are yanked rightwards by liberal and/or class-collaborationist reformists. Vanguards and decentralised revolutions can be successful if they are coordinated and do not stagnate.

Cybernetic Marxism is the synthesis you seek, my child.

We recognise that the switch to the communist mode of production will be spontaneous once the material/economic framework capable of supporting it has been created under capitalism. We conclude that we have to create that framework ourselves.

If the leftcoms' 'communism will happen spontaneously once the material conditions allow it' is the thesis, and the accelerationists' 'we have to make the material conditions right' is the antithesis, then the Cybernetic Marxists' 'we have to create the material conditions that will enable the spontaneous transition to communism' is the true synthesis.

In the past, we have seen that spontaneous workers' revolts have failed or recapitulated capitalism because an alternative mode of production had not matured. Accelerating to another capitalist crisis is useless, since without a viable alternative mode of production to replace it even a totally defunct capitalism is capable of reforming itself (at great human cost).

Our tasks are:
1) To study this framework where it already appears under capitalism (such as in the FLOSS community and wikipedia), and to identify any emerging phenomena that might point the way to the communist mode of production arising in the realm of material goods production.

2) To create, both theoretically and in practice, an economic framework capable of managing the communist mode of production in material goods (ie, what people are trying to do in the cybernetics thread )

3) To find ways of implementing these systems under capitalism such that the spontaneous transition to communist production can be enabled/hastened (arguments vary on how to do this: some want to create a network of co-ops that co-ordinate production using in-kind accounting methods, some want to get the capitalists to start using these systems as a sort of 'poison pill', and others simply want this system developed for rapid deployment in support of a workers' uprising)

And what will we do after the revolution? That's the problem I have with you leftcoms, you focus so much on the spontaneity of the revolution that you forget to question whether there actually exists a viable new mode of production to take over in the wake of a capitalist crisis. Without a new way of doing things, we've seen time and time again over the 20th century that the revolution will die on the vine and revert to capitalism.

You're just as bad as the hardcore Stalinists who decry the magical revisionists that suddenly popped up as soon as Uncle Joe carked it and ruined everything forever.

You both need to realise that the repeated failures of these movements was not solely due to contingent forces - the same patterns have repeated themselves too many times for this to be a reasonable explanation.

The problem is that the new mode of production, and the material means of organising it, do not substantially exist yet. Capitalism has unlocked the resources and the raw productive capacity to transition to communism - it is up to us to create the systems that can marshal this capacity to communist ends.

Who's the guy next to Assad?

Robert Mugabe

Good lord, I tell everyone on both sides of the leftcom/tankie aisle they're wrong at best and counterproductive at worst and I get tumbleweed. I provide possibilities for new praxis and back it up with new theory and I get crickets.

Sometimes arguing with Marxists feels like talking to a chatbot. If you don't phrase your criticisms in such a way that their internal dogma parsers can understand they just sit there stone silent.