There are 'libertarian Marxists' browsing this board right now

...

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=A87ECBB483BF27F182F31626527035A6
thecharnelhouse.org/

...

...

...

hello, you called?

Haha what

Communism is as left as you get

How do you be left of communism

Take this shit to >>>/leftyb/

revolution is authoritarian.

revolution is violent, not authoritarian
the point is to establish a society more free than the previous, doing away with structural violence
read zizek

you're probably a tankie using a leftcom flag anyway

fucking hell I hate this site's formatting

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Fuck off

idiot

...

Read a book, cretin. DoTP IS the revolution. When the revolution is succesful, there's no proletariat or bourgeoisie left to impose class rule over each other.

Well that didn't work out too well then, now did it?

Last time i checked we live in a capitalist world.

...

What do you think the state is?

Exactly

Then i don't see what your objection is.

much history
much dialectics

Virtually all previous revolutions have failed to completely abolish class rule. From this, either revolution does NOT create DoTP, or a DoTP does jack shit to stop porky. Or when you say "the revolution" are you referring to a global revolution?

I'm guessing that's some kinda oxymoron…

What other revolution there is except the global revolution? Socialism and abolishment of classes in one country is utopian.

Ah shit there I am

I agree but it wasn't clear from your initial post.

That said, I don't see a pragmatic path to a global revolution.

...

...

SATAN CONFIRMED

damn these intellectual leftcoms and their witty counter arguments

I think he's implying that Marxism's socialist transition state implies a totalitarian government.

Once countries like the US collapse, every other country will have no choice but to revolt.

...

inb4Bookchin, that guy is a fucking retard and proof of how anarkiddies can't read a fucking book to save their lives

GENERAL STRIKE!

Is there some imperative for people on imperative for people on imageboards to act like smug assholes?

"I don't want people to be free, I want to hold them at gunpoint until we win Cold War II and subordinate all economic and political decisions to a global cybernetic supercomputer (which I will program and oversee myself, of course :^) )"

TFW there are people on this board who are for bourgeois freedoms

...

He also wrote hella dank books, comrade.

Yeah man Bakunin was super insightful.

Not all Marxists are LARPing children.

Not all anarchists are LARPers

Only anarkiddies needlessly project the term "tankie" onto anyone that isn't an anarchist faggot.

Do you deny that Jewish banking was a major wing of the forces of Capital?

...

thx fam

We just understand that the Tankie stage is the final stage of Marxist revolution.

reddit get out

...

How would you prefer it, comrade?

...

Yes, because that is how we ended up with Stalinism, no? The Bolsheviks in the Politburo after the civil war were like "fuck it, let's destroy everything we worked so far! It will be fun!"
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=A87ECBB483BF27F182F31626527035A6

Your photoshop skills are triggering tbqh fam

That's not what he's implying, comrade.

This is so fucking cliché, and frankly: impossible, amounts to clairvoyance. He theoretically laid down very common sense risks involved in revolutions and centralization, then proceeded to create his own secretive and centralized anarchist group – around himself! Frankly, I prefer a fucking party.

This is the key point, comrade. Such concentrated power is dangerous. Indeed, I overstated when I used the word "exactly." But reading his writings today, its impossible not to think "Wow, this is what happened in the USSR."


Yeah, that's why insurrectionism > platformism


Parties are just another sort of cult, really.

Read a fucking history book.

But how is Lenin's (self admitted) revision of DotP, involving an educated vanguard of middle class revolutionaries and some proletarians comparable to Marx's writings, and how do you account for abuses in states without vanguard parties? Remember: The CNT-FAI and Makhnovists still utilized gulags, still performed summary executions and still did terror killings.

Make a fucking point.

Right the problem is with Marx's revolutionary strategy itself, not with Lenin's revisions of that strategy, nor his implementation.

This mang
will say that you are correct and those anarchists weren't anarchists enough. While what really happened is that the anarchists you cited actually had to participate in history, face the political realities, the white opposition, etc.

I have infinitely more respect for Makhno than for any individualist/post-leftist scumbag. He too realized that most of his contemporaries had zero, z - e - r - o organized praxis, that they were totally removed from the workers and peasants. He didn't trust at all anarchist intelligentsia.

After he escaped to France the fucking intellectual types tried to school him. Completely disgusting sight: people who never participated in a revolution, in a civil war, never met with historical necessities trying to school a man who did all these things.

1 platformist anarchist > 100 post-left/individualist anarchist

...

Maybe study the history of the Bolshevik party, their never ending disagreements, their schisms over theory, and finally, over the revolution. In a cult there are no opposing and constantly battling theories and practical ideas: the head honcho says something and everybody praises him. This is nothing like the Bolsheviks.

I'll be the first to critique them, but critique them based on facts.

Such as?

So were anarchists allowed in the party or naw? Were criticisms of Marxist's socialist transition state revolutionary strategy accepted or naw?

Maybe instead of misrepresenting Lenin's vanguard, actually engage the book and make up your own critique instead of regurgitating parodies of Lenin.

Creating a centralized socialist transition state centralized power too much, effectively establishing a new nobility of bureaucrats and party leaders.

Bogatsky
Bleikhman
Shatov
Iatshurk
Zheleteznyakov

Yes, they were allowed in the party. Many anarchists joined the Bolsheviks after the revolution, and they were good comrades. Many anarchists (the not doing anything types, and the >not real revolution types) criticized them.

Look at Reds, the movie, one of the western anarchists' favorite, with the usual trope of the "revolution betrayed" – while the civil war is raging! Anarchists left the country when the real work began and are proud of this. Despicable.

Read Lenin. Or Engels, even.

It is the act of one section of society forcibly imposing it's will on another by means of violence.

And what is this "real work"? Establishing a socialist transition state?

First? Oh, I don't know, defeating the 12+ capitalist invading nations?

Which is a structural problem of Marxisn-Leninism/democratic centralism and has nothing to do with Marx seeing as how he didn't lay out a formal revolutionary strategy.

Yeah but like, those were capitalists doing that.

Not to mention the internal enemy that aids them.

What is your point?

Nothing, enjoy your private property.

I wouldn't have fought that fight myself. Non-cooperation is the more effective long-term strategy. Otherwise, even if the Communist army wins, they will have to spend the rest of their days fighting all the time to protect their territory, which requires a massive military apparatus and bureaucracy.

Ultimately you get into an unwinnable arms race with the rest of the world, which the population resents because of guns and butter.

Didn't he coin the term "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Didn't he insist on a socialist transition state? Isn't that the main disagreement with Bakunin and the anarchists?

What is Libertarian Marxism? Were people like Luxemburg 'Libertarian Marxists'

Seeing how Marx didn't lay out a formal revolutionary strategy (which isn't completely true, but whatever) you can not say that democratic centralism has nothing to do with it. The aim was clearly giving a political form that could invoke and aid the historical task of the proletariat as diagnosed by Marx.

You could say that this form isn't correct, but not that it has "nothing to do with Mar," because that's factually incorrect.

...

DUDE GANDHI LMAO

DUDE STALIN LMAO

Yeah, but dem trips of truth doe…

At least you are honest about being a scumbag that.

Again, clairvoyance & muh fixed future.

insurrection tho

He insisted on a party as well.

kek

Thread ended here, btw. Comrade leftcom had precognition about what the main theme of the thread will be.

...

makes you think

The DotP isn't a strategy. It's a state of affairs established when the proletariat supress bourgeois class interests. You could have a decentralized, horizontally structured appartus and it would still be a DotP.
Marx didn't differentiate between socialism and communism (other than to say socialism was a lower phase of communism which implies that it's still communism) or call socialism the transitional state. If anything was the transition to Marx it was the DotP.
The problem there was Bakunin not understanding Marx's definition of a state. Like a lot of anarchists his definition was vague and almost mystical in nature.

Pretty hard to have never read a book, user. Why do pseudo intellectuals think they're smart for reading books and flaunt it around like if they're special? You do realize there are a ton of shitty books too, right? It's like if you're a hipsterfag that thinks he's cool for liking retro shit.

Deep AF. At least anarchists are honest about their anti-intellectualism and utopianism.

...

Your little playground would not have lasted long. By all means go ahead and engage in some petty insurrection which will get crushed soon after, at least you had communism for a while.

kek

Delusional.

...

C'mon lad. You can do better than that.

Lad, I was mocking him.

makes you think

A few are.


We don't actually know what went on socio-economically in his communes. Makhno wasn't a theory nerd so he had no ideas what needed to be documented in order for others to describe what kind of society he was participating in. See .pdf related.


Yes but see Marx(ist)'s reflections on the Paris Commune.


You learn from shitty books as well if you realize they are shitty books. To realize you are reading a shitty book you need to have read a lot of books that give you the mental toolset to detect signs of its errors. After a while this will become trivial, but still, in the midst of a trash heap that is a shitty book you can find a gem. Same with having these repetitive arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with faggots who refuse to read.


books: the vinyl of 2020

How would it last long if it would be invaded and was disorganized to hell? I don't know how you can take such lack of any real plan seriously. Not to mention that Makhno was messing with the Soviets as well.

~ William Blake

Surely we can modernize and make more concise the ideas contained in the classics of leftist literature so that we can better educate the people? Who can deny that the style of works over 100 years old are less than accessible to the average worker?

He had two communes. After he lost the first due to enemy trickery (and not least because of his shitty organization in which all orders were given by him, thus the enemy only had to fake his signature) he learned his lesson and when he came back to create the second one he created a much more organized army with mandatory enlisting.

The lack of real planning was most visible in his "economics:" looting banks and giving the money to the locals, making money printing and forfeiting legal, thus creating artificial inflation, devaluing worker's wages; not being able to organize a systemic trade between his peasants and workers (thus not being able to get proper weaponry) and so on. It was a mess. The dude wasn't a theory nerd, but a great military tactician with the right intentions and the ability to learn from his mistakes.

I will get to read that PDF you linked later to get a little background on the history of communism. mail

Has anyone(s) ever tried to write a concise history of leftism? One that actually tries to honestly represent the various schools of thought in proper context, and that includes sections of the most important writings? I feel such a work would be tremendously helpful.

Leszek Kołakowski - Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origins, Growth and Dissolution

I haven't read it so don't take this as an honest and full blown recommendation. I read a review that put it in a favorable light and implied that Zizek might rely on the work to a certain degree.

Probably you'll find more modern and better works over at Ross Wolfe's den:
thecharnelhouse.org/


I don't do mails.

Add an "e" before the word.

We can't see your email. Holla Forums doesn't support the email field.

I-uh don't-e do a-mails!

...

Muke, come to America so I can teach you how to shoot and molest you after.

>sure I might be using force to crush the counterrevolutionary opposition, but it's not real authoritarianism

it's 2016 again

I sure hope it was

heh

No, just Tankies

...

if abolishing authoritarianism is authoritarian then everything might as well be authoritarianism.

Not if the state of affairs it leads to isn't authoritarian.