Why do people hate leftcoms so...

Why do people hate leftcoms so? I'm pretty new to leftism in general and I have to say that they are the most attractive and the ones who make the most sense out of all other denominations.

Is it just a meme or am I missing something?

Other urls found in this thread:



Because they tell the truth.

Because they actually read theory.

He said leftcoms, not an-fems

I like them for their critique and memes, but their esoteric, fatalistic attitudes and strange proletarian fetishism puts me off the tendency. For the record, I haven't read any actual leftcom books, only snippets, articles and assorted texts some of the well-arguing leftcoms have posted on this board.

I like council communism just I don't really see them presenting a viable way to get there

A major driver of leftcom literature is critique of everything, themselves included, which generates a lot of butthurt.

They're very well-read on Marx, Engels and their current's thinkers (Gorter, Bordiga, Pannekoek, Dauvé, etc.) and offer a good critique of many things on the left, but the problem is that a few of them on the board really stick out when they smugly shitpost. Since left communism functions as a unifying term for a bunch of different ideas and viewpoints, they even up shitting on themselves too.

Their hard fatalism and impossibilistic attitudes are also, despite being founded, very annoying, and it's basically what gives them the armchair stereotype.

Got you covered OP, hardly anybody can compete against them without getting buttfucked into oblivion aside from the likes of Ismail or other actually literate MLs.

literal atheist Calvinists

something something armchairs xD

Leftcoms are wealths of information. By far the best read posters on this board.

That being said, and this is just my interpretation of their theory, but it seems they think communism will simply happen and that you shouldn't get involved. Activism is pointless sort of idea.


Stop this opportunism.

LeftComs tend to have decent posts which have some actual theory backing them, and their critiques of shit like activism or the USSR are valid. They're also invaluable for reminding all the idiots here that socialism isn't just coops or when the state does everything and spreading more advanced concepts around through constant autism. However, their own proposals just end up coming across like a sort of religious fundamentalism where we must all passively await Rapture when the proletariat will suddenly decide to implement socialism out of their own initiative in response to the worsening of material conditions, with anything other than that being decried as opportunism.

Because every leftcom on this board so far, when asked to elaborate on their methods of actually achieving communism, end up spouting either Leninism-but-this-time-we-won't-compromise-no-seriously-we-won't, some vague bastardized mishmash of reformism and accelerationism, or what mentioned. Their politics and organization are dangerously under-discussed.

Leftcoms do nothing but criticize. Their criticism is usually laser-focused and correct, which makes it more upsetting. The real hard truth that capitalism has to break down on its own is too much for a lot of people to accept, because nobody likes to feel powerless. The sanest coping mechanism is unironically accelerationism.

Anyone spamming the "do nothing" meme doesn't know what they or Bordiga is talking about, or they haven't looked at Bordiga at all outside of memes.

A few of Bordiga's statements on tactical issues from the Communist International:

"it is necessary to win the greatest possible influence for the revolutionary party during capitalism's heyday, in order to be able, at the moment when crisis breaks out, to draw economic organisations with us into a process of revolutionary action."

"As a result of the danger of new wars, discontent will grow not only in the proletariat but in semi-proletarian classes. The great task is to shape this chaotic discontent into a form suitable for revolutionary struggle."

"Winning the masses is our main goal. But this does not mean that this goal can be achieved necessarily in a steady mechanical development. It does not mean that we will necessarily find, at any given moment, a way to advance toward this conquest in broad stages. It is possible that we will be placed for a certain time in conditions where we do not see the party grow, but where we will be able during this interval to carry out efforts that can give us confidence that we will be able to win the masses later on."

"Our tactical initiative can speed up this process [of winning the masses] within definite limits or, to be more precise, given certain conditions that we take for granted.
Our tactical initiative - that is, our party's adroitness in action, is effective only with regard to developments in the proletariat's psychology, using this term 'psychology' in its broadest sense, including its consciousness, its spirit, its will to struggle."

Posting with a leftcom flag is the equivalent of putting on a pair of glasses and expecting people to think you're smarter than you are.

the only ones that exist are on leftypol.


I've been a leftist for over a decade now and I don't know much about council communism. What books should I check out on the subject?


Because they are a bunch of lazy pretentious faggots who deride anything that doesn't immediately abolish the law of value as social democracy/capitalism.

let's post the whole song, why don't we


How is that not true though?

It ignores and shuts down any attempt to transition from capitalism to communism. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ect,

leftcoms want a dictatorship of the proletariat, they just don't want a dictatorship of the vanguard

yes they do.


Bordiga doesn't represent all leftcoms. Most leftcoms (like Rosa) are opposed to the vanguard

Rosa predated leftcoms, she's not one of them. The fact remains however, that leftcoms present little strategy beyond, "just let it happen, lmao", while simultaneously deriding those who attempt to organize and develop proletarian institutions/power. Their version of hard economic determinism bellies Marx and and anyone with half a brain. Fatalism is a disease, not just in regards to political action, but is a philosophical dead end .

Leftcoms are not economic determinists

Because they read too much theory, so they become retards who can't neither talk to actual working class people, nor think by themselves. They simply become what they read.Complete useless bunch.
Also…they share the same dream with porky and want a standardized world.

the one's I've talked to sure are.

You all hate porky, because of his endless flow of cash. The only way to make sure porky works for cash into make cash only available through labor, not usury.

Wonder where that idear came from?

There's something called the means of production that porkies own and are depriving the workers by state violence and can basically hire others to do the dirty work while he profits from surplus value.

In other words, lurk moar faggot.

embarrassing tbh

What's wrong with being an economic determinist? All the successful revolutionary struggles of ages past were predicated on the sufficient development of the productive forces creating the opportuinty for a new mode of production to arise.

Every dumb faggot on this board keeps bleating about how communism won't be possible without full automation of labour, so what's the point in fighting massive bloody civil wars only to rebuild capitalism for some pack of bureaucrat cunts?

Unless you actually have some idea of how the new mode of production is operating/will operate and you've been hiding it from us and the rest of the class all along, of course.

Now you're just making shit up about leftcoms

leftcoms need to bully MLs harder IMO

Pretty much, MLs really don't cop enough shit for being irrelevant failures who only ever succeeded in creating capitalist dictatorships.

"21st century Marxism can no longer push to one side the details of how the non-market economy of the future is to be organised. In Marx's day this was permissible, not now. We can not pretend that the 20th century never happened, or that it taught us nothing about socialism. In this task 20th century Western critical Marxists like Cliff, Bettleheim or Bordiga will only take us so far. Whilst they could point out weaknesses of hitherto existing socialism, it did this by comparing it to an ideal standard of what these writers thought that a socialist society should achieve. In retrospect we will see that these trends of thought were a product of the special circumstances of the cold war, a striving for a position of ideological autonomy ‘neither Moscow nor Washington’, rather than a programmatic contribution to Marxism. The very psychological detachment that such writers sought, deflecting from their own heads the calumnies directed at the USSR, prevented them from positively engaging with the problems faced by historically existing socialism. It is only if you envisage being faced with such problems oneself, that one would come up with practical answers" - Dave Zacariah, William Paul Cockshott

Because that's not what leftcoms seek to do. You see the "we call communism the real movement…" quote thrown around a lot in ultra-left circles because that quotation is probably the best representation of left-communist thinking; rather than seeking to establish a certain state of affairs by some specific means like many other leftist tendencies, ultra-left thought seeks to ruthlessly critique all that exists.