Hey, leftcoms listen up. Just because you disagree with some types of socialism. It doesn’t mean it isn’t socialism

Hey, leftcoms listen up. Just because you disagree with some types of socialism. It doesn’t mean it isn’t socialism.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm)!
marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

wtf i hate the real movement now??

Leftcoms are infantile and their ideas has never worked irl.

...

please stop

No, you see, socialism means a couple of personal sliding scale of "freedumbs-nofreedumbs" or "tolerating Poles-enslaving Poles" and has nothing to do with the the successive reaction to generalized commodity production as a movement, but is a blueprint to apply to a future hypothetical society (that will still definitely be qualifiable as a nation state BTW).

...

Which ones?

Well, the Spartakusaufstand was probably the closest we get to a proletarian movement that was leftcommunist in character, and it failed. Leninist movements have been proven more vigilant.

Another example would be the PCI under Bordiga which had a significant following, which failed even worse, it surrendered to fascism. Leftcommunism has an even worse track record than anarchism, idk why people still think it's relevant today

The thing that irks me about them is that when you confront them about what types of organizational structures they want to implement after the end of capitalism they constantly give you a cop out or talk around the question, or else they toss some platitude at you about not reading enough Marx.

People like that are exemplary of Zizek's accusation that most leftists don't actually know what they want.

This is down to every leftists, even the most realistic kinds, the tankies.

They are utopians and if you keep pressing the questions, they will imagine some sort of utopia where everyone is equal, happy and have a job (but they don't have to work cuz automaton duh).

Yet Žižek openly says in every interview that he has no idea what is to be done. However, I've seen people thinking that Žižek is some sort of Leftcom, but this is bullshit. He openly says that the idea of a spontaneous workers uprising is utopian nonsense, stale social determinism.

actually if you press the tankies they say they want to shoot all the liberals and everyone who was ever mean to them

Well the idea of Marxism-Leninism is that building socialism is dependent on the country in which revolution happens. I'd generally suggest that the scale of free democratic expression is to be lowered or increased depending on how backwards society is, and also on how intense counter-revolutionary siege is. If there was a Marxist-Leninist revolution in, let's say, Britain, I think it wouldn't entertain any deficit in democracy once things settled down.

Meant to say: "dependent on the conditions of the country in which revolution happens"

That actually work, because it's violence is what keep people in line thorough history.

The more advanced a country, the less it is to embrace Marxism-Leninism.

nope. Read "Towards a New Socialism"

Is USSR with a computer the new meme book around here?

Are you comfortable being ruled by a machine?

Are we that stupid?

False conclusion. The more advanced the country, the less it is to embrace socialism in general as long as it has access to imperialist exploitation. Remember that most western countries have been de-industrialized through outsourcing of productive forces, if there were to be a revolution, it would have to develop some productive forces again to become autarkical not to become Venezuela 2.0. Marxism-Leninism usually takes care of that very well.

Secondly, I believe your statement is a little dishonest considering that socialist organizations in most evolved countries are usually Marxist-Leninist in some form or the either, at least Marxist-Leninists are the most numerous - well, unless you count SocDems and DemSocs as revolutionary.

You haven't actually read that book have you?

edgy

literally this idiot has no idea what he's talking about. you would have a better argument citing the spartakusbund's refusal, under the influence rosa luxemburg and others', to separate with social-democracy and form the communist party until it was too late (1919). those "characteristic of left communism" opposed this delay. "orthodoxy" of some second international sort was more to "blame" for this.
are you fucking stupid? if you're going to say something as ignorant as this, why aren't you arguing over the entire movement's failure to hold back fascism even when you know that those to the right of bordiga held concrete positions in the communist party longer than he did in order to address it? and bordiga did not "surrender to fascism", the opposite really but he did not resort to idiotic and pointless tactics in observation of the factors at the time. why even make such a stupid reply?

This isn't even my biggest problem with leftcoms. They are utopian in the fullest sense of the word in that they act as if communism will spring forth from socialism fully developed as a positive transcendence. They may protest, but take note at their reluctance to support anything that begins IN the present state of things to change things. They will support nothing short of the positive expression of communism as if we were starting a new society from scratch. They forget that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still capitalism and the lower form of communism still operating under the logic of private property. They do not realize that states need markets as much as markets need states.

Equally bad, as much as they like to cite zizek most don't even recognize their own ideology is ideology. No, it's SCIENTIFIC socialism…

Rosa was not a leftcom and she would be disgusted by your anti-democratic (and yes i mean proleterian democravy) elitism

Agree. Leftcoms suck.

Rosa was, through most of here years of political activity, what we'd now consider a Council Communist. Indeed most of her strategy going into the to-be German Revolution was in line with that program except for embracing the utility of (non-vanguard) party-form and was in frequent communication with other prominent Councilists of the time. This of course continues to highlight the fact that "leftcom" is an entirely useless term that attempts to associate all manner of Marxist (and sometimes even ancom depending on how broad your definitions get) factions under the banner of varying degrees of separation from the Leninist program (ranging from only slight revisions for Bordigists to nearly wholesale rejection by most other sub-ideologies).

Oh dear it's this brainlet again.

Rosa more like Nosa.

on second thought, this one is better

Good, because leftcoms wouldn't want there to be "leftcom ideas" working IRL; they'd want, like any other communist should, to see the manifestation of working class desire to "work" IRL (be realized).


Not left communist. In that period of time almost every workers' movement either stood in Marxist orthodoxy of the Second International or was some type of trade union Marxist or anarchist group.

What is literally every workers' movement that nominally associated itself with the communist left after '21? What is every defacto left of communism-like movement such as Chen's faction in the early CPC? What are the Lettrist, Appelist and Situationist Internationals (all nominally left communist)? What is the Chinese ultra-left of the cultural revolution and the Shanghai commune?

Two of the above were Leninist movements that stood with Lenin and were recognized by Lenin personally.

The PCd'I actually violently opposed all those who ended up against it, from the fascists to bourgeois democracy to the social democratic party. So much so that unlike with Luxemburg's KPD, the PCd'I actually had a months-long bout in the streets against both the fascist blackshirts and cops of bourgeois democracy before its demise. The Orthodox, democracy-fetishizing line of the KPD failed to secede from the social democrats fast enough and it's basically what let its paramilitary wing become strong enough to wittle it down bit by bit until by the time there was a real tension between them it was an instant massacre. Meanwhile, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had consciously abandoned parliamentarism after obtaining a nucleus of ready workers in the Party, and assaulted Russian parliament and the state headfirst, completely ignoring the fact that they were a minority faction minus the majority approval in only their locality (St. Petersburg/Petrograd), giving them victory.

This is beyond laughable, not just because it compartmentalizes the workers' movement away from being workers' movements and into purely nominal entities, but because it almost entirely ignores historical conditions and is prepared to tell us that "success" for what is supposedly a workers' movement, actually means nominally being in power ("the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism won because it managed to centrally allocate capital for almost 9 decades!").

Spontaneity was precisely the point of contention between Luxemburg and Lenin (marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm)! Left communists are not maximalists: they do not want to wait until everyone agrees to get things done. The debate here between the two was decisively vindicated by Lenin when the KPD died on spontaneity, and in accordance the parties in the communist left learned the lesson, too. You don't even have the most generic understanding of what you're critiquing and put on a pedestal that which best fits the description of what you claim to dislike.

See also lol at having a problem with anti-blueprint determinism. It was by the way a left communist collective in the early period of its existence that wrote the first highly descriptive example of what communism could look like: marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm.

(Cont.)

Lenin ruthless critized bordiga for refusing to work with actual working class militancy against the fascists, both the syndicalists and the ardtiti

They are blueprinters of a hypothetical society?

lol. Communism and socialism are synonymous to any Marxist. It's just that we, starting with Marx, prefer to use "communism" as a polemic against the hijacking of the term "socialism" by the bourgeoisie.

No, just like for Marx, communism is a negative and sublating movement: it first abolishes all things upon which the capitalist mode of production stands through the negative proletarian element, after which the state's existence also with every category withers away more and more, until communism as a real material and human community arises.

Lmao if only. Just because left communists don't cling onto everything vaguely (and even then) socialistic from a fucking Democrat candidate to a third world despotic abuser of his working class because >muh (vulgar) anti-imperialism doesn't mean they don't support anything. The simple fact that left communists were conducive to half of Europe's communist workers' movement should be proof enough, but even today left communists participate for example in the Sol Cobas class union movement in Italy, Chuang and ULTRA with the Chinese workers' movement, et cetera. Let me know how your "socialism building" is happening in your local Trotskyist party, buddy. I'm sure the revolution is just a a few newspapers sold away.

Left communists support any authentic workers' movement, even reformist ones, like FF15, or the few class (not trade!) unions emerging in the US.

Nope, we remember this, and on the condition that a proletarian dictatorship actually be a proletarian dictatorship and not merely a representational or substitutive one.

It doesn't. Read Gothakritik on the lower phase, Capital vol. 2 chp. 28 on the lower phase and system of labour notes. Also read the text I posted before on the first large-scale depictions of a potential lower communist phase.

Nope, this is entirely consistent again with the understanding of capitalism as class society (determining the apparition and existence of a state), and a market as the relationship between two isolated producers producing and exchanging commodities.

Thanks for the facts, fuck.

Too bad that, as Lenin predicted, her democracy fetishism cost her, her party and the workers in it. I'm still a huge fan of Rosa in spite of this, Reform or Revolution is still a timeless text (especially the chapter on trade unions and cooperatives, and the one on the subject of opportunism are great) and in spite of her flaws she was a historically important, unique but also principled revolutionary until the end.


Lenin also ruthlessly criticized Rosa for democratic fetishism, not splitting with the SPD, not starting the establishment of Soviets years before and finally for having her party not just be abstentionist and tribunal, but be almost entirely impossibilist.

Bordiga's position was that of the trade union front (all unions alligned under the PCd'I and those willing to join), what he refused to do was form an outright alliance with those also opposing the fascists and the state, but he did not oppose them on their own. In transcriptions of party texts and in a few correspondences with the Comintern becomes clear why: for the Arditi he was skeptical of an organization consisting of ex-militaries who had served in the imperialist war in Libya turned paramilitary, led by an actual Blackshirt sympathizer right before in its previous incarnation, and he did not want an alliance with the anarchist trade union movement because he saw their allegiance as inherently being two-sided: they would in all cases oppose state seizure meaning this "alliance" would in any long term mean more bloodlust (as such, he saw a defacto allegiance, as both ultimately fought the Blackshirts, as most deisrable).

meant to write capitalism not socialism.

Marx clearly describes the negation as a process where private property becomes universalized not abolished.

Personally, I am not a Trotskyist. Although, that seems to be a common insult throw at me, oddly enough. I should have expected you were a european, however. And if sol cabas is anything like it's social media and online pics, I'm not exactly inspired. Reminds of the tin pot party unruhe is a member of.

Lol, I've never seen so much as a whisper of supports from leftcoms for ff15. Nothing but autistic screeching. Same goes for DSA, and the single payer fight.

Go tell bordiga that then.

See pics related, economic and philosophic manuscripts of 18844, volume 3

My apologies for any typos, I'm on mobile atm