Reminder that the differences between Marx and the anarchists are almost-superfluous when we mostly talk about them;...

Reminder that the differences between Marx and the anarchists are almost-superfluous when we mostly talk about them; muh authority, muh violence, muh defending the revolution, et cetera, are already in the superstructural domain of their differences.

The real differences start in an area that is both semantic and a matter of theoretical practicality. Here, Marx tells us that his differences with Bakunin are merely one of the immediate abolition of the State or the immediate starting of a gradual negation of the State starting at the very beginning of any revolutionary action: All the things I dubbed superstructural are indeed but different potential types of expressions of the consequences thereof.

Does this mean "solidarity" between the red and the black now? Is that what went wrong; we just weren't nice enough to one another? That would both sound idealistic to the Marxist (the history of all hitherto societies is the history of being nice to one another) as well as insinuate that all injustices and expressions of repression were mere happenstance to the anarchists; that there was no origin point of it all and that were merely were oppressed because of opinions and because we thought we were.

No, this means that for anyone that fancies themselves a revolutionary, this must be kept in mind, and why I think it's important to take from Marxism the theoretical foundations (historical materialism, ruthless critique, critique of political economy, etc.) and from anarchism the very discipline and consequently the spirit of real freedom wherever it may already be called into existence towards the aim both Marxists and anarchists have: a society of the free association of individuals with neither State nor any of its vile offspring: property, value, the commodity, institutional hierarchy, and so on. To vulgarize and borrow from the pseudo-libertarians: fiscally Marxist, socially anarchist.

(Full Althusser interview transcript with link to the video in there as well:

Other urls found in this thread:

sounds good

Althusser was one of the most based Marxists of all time,

I like this, leftcom.

Pretty much

Interesting post.
I suppose this is where communization comes in, as some kind of a synthesis or a point of unification between leftcom and anarchism?


It is where communization comes in, but not as synthesis of left communism and anarchism in particular.

What left communism originally and always has been is "we need to be further left than those who are currently shifting right"; it's a reaction to developments that out of a perceived inaccurate and ultimately self-detrimental deviation towards "pragmaticism", opportunism and ultimately counter-revolution itself. Consequently, "ultra-leftist", now a badge worn proudly by ultra-leftists, was originally a term used by precisely the "right" communists (n.b. Stalinists) to say to other communists: "you are being too left wing!". In communization ultra-leftism, left communism, et cetera, are nothing more than terms that describe how communization theory got where it is today: by building off of the positions that fell under the umbrella, not some desire to "be more left wing for its own sake", like the original left communists and those accused of being as such were.

No, communization is really just theoretical Marxism + discipinary anarchism, the latter perceived as increasingly needing to be an essential part of any revolutionary politics as we look back at decades past (in turn requiring us to revisit Marx, draw different conclusions to the question "what is to be done?", and so forth).

And that's just my position. What I want to shill for here is just this principle: theoretical Marxism + disciplinary anarchism. That is not attached to just communization theory (communizers already existed at the time of Althusser, but he was not one; he was what I would describe as a neo-Leninist!). You can theorize anything with this as principle. What matters in the end is whether or not the product of your theories hold water or not versus the others.

Althusser was not a leftcom in any way, he despised the humanism of leftcommunists.
He was a Leninist ,and defended Stalin and the USSR when all western Marxists were rejecting it.

Althusser was the second coming of Lenin.
His wife deserved it

He just despised humanism; rarely ever said anything about left communism, and humanism is not a foundation to left communism at all (see: Camatte) and at best some individuals describable as left communists like Dunayevskaya, who were not a part of the left faction in the Comintern, are actual Marxist humanists.

This describes the entire Italian left of communism to a T: they were Leninists, they defended things like Kronstadt suppression, sending in the tanks against le degenerate councilists in Hungary and most of all: every Italian leftist coming out of the left communist parties and left communism-deviating parties like the PCd'I and ICP maintained dialogue with the Stalinist USSR constantly and supported one thing or the other in them, depending. Most famously, Bordiga himself was a member of the Comintern until the death of Stalin, and had many good things to say about the USSR along the way, though most famously he was also the one to say to Stalin's face that he ultimately became gravedigger of the revolution.

The humanist all call themselves Left-communists
Yes, I now that Brodiga was a Leninist of sorts, but Althusser was the western ideolog of Marxism-Leninism (for what he recieved lots of shit from Leftcoms, read tha article I linked comrade.

That's just plain wrong. Italian leftcoms defended Lenin, and that's it. Everything that came after was a product of the "Stalinist counter-revolution".

This is an early Althusser work explainig his ideas of Marxism (wich in my opinion is a new development of Marxism-Leninism ),

yeah this, Althusser was basically a maoist

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The left communists don't call themselves humanists, though. That's what I'm getting at: most humanists are quite likely going to be left communists of some sort (or post-Trots, actually, see: CLR James), but most left communists are not at all even humanists (they never even pondered the question of humanism versus anti-humanism at all!).

I know all of the rest.


Let's have a peek:
So here's one side saying it's sad that it had to happen, but was for the good. Also notice how the Italian left here acknowledges the USSR as proletarian state.

Another faction of the Italian left:
Are you feeling it now, Mr. Krabs?

No, the problems left communists in Italy, Leninists, had with the USSR was that it wasn't Leninist enough; it went out of its way to be pragmatic for no reasons consistent with the programmaticism Leninism instates.

Non related Leftcom comrade but you call yourself a Leninist??

I know all of this.

Thanks, nice arguments.

Say, to everyone ITT: can we not deviate the discourse towards misinformed left communism versus Stalinism hot takes and stick with the subject at hand: the Marx versus anarchism divide, and the arguments for it put forth by Althusser?

In a time past, perhaps, but now no. I don't even think Leninism is dead, I just think it's no longer the most desirable first option (still a close second tho).

Yes please:


I fail to see how denying the idea of alienation leads to "an elitist conception of the struggle against ideology."

>This leads to several equally elitist options for defeating the hold of ideology. One can capture the existing structures in order to use them to promote a different ideology. […] Or one can get rid of those structures and replace them with new ones that promote a different ideology or even a “science.”

So what is it now? Does he deny that the working class can challenge the hold of ideology? Or does he say the working class can go ahead and topple the structures creating said ideology? Because to me it definitely sounds like the latter and I fail to see how this necessarily leads to a "Stalinist" or elitist conception of revolution.

Of course they're defending Kronstadt, since that happened under Lenin, while the USSR was still a "proletarian state", as you pointed out. But you're going to have a hard time finding me an example of the Italian Left defending the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution.

Do you honestly believe ruling the USSR from afar would've been a feasible option? Holy shit.

I'm not defending it at all. I'm saying that the Italian left, like good Leninists, defended it.

I am indeed having a hard time finding back that ICP article defending the suppression of the Hungarian revolution on the grounds that it was never going to go anywhere and its suppression was for the good of the whole movement, and that it was inflicted with the poverty of councilism. Check back here in a while and I might have it for ya!

Yes. Why not? If not fully doing everything from afar, at least establishing the international movement's decision-making as a whole internationally, following the supposed namesake. Stalinism here proved itself to be incapable of properly upholding the basics of Leninism, as Lenin himself held the Comintern as a truly international organ, which often internationally concluded what the international communist movement should do. The seclusion and isolation of the Comintern made it an almost pointless organ; it was just there to say "communist parties in the communist international, BTW we decide everything for everyone kthxbai". I'm not even a Leninist or agree with the Italian left on much when it comes to stuff like this but for an international movement based on universality to truly be as such, it best be to the best of its ability following that damn enduring maxim!


pretty much half of leftcoms are leninists. italian leftcoms were leninists while the dutch/german leftcoms weren't.

I wholeheartedly agree. There is little difference (most of it being about semantics) between marxists who embrace communization and anarchists who embrace materialism. Ofcourse, the problem lies with post-leftist anarchists, smashies, mutualists, anarcho-liberals on one side and stalinists, maoists, trotskyists on the other.

I agree totally, now what activities should these Marx appreciating anarcho-synthesisers engage in?

Leftcomrade surely

I am a booklet in terms of leftcom and anarchist literature, but would it be fair to say that for the two groups, the revolution can't stop before 'the proletariat is the revolutionary subject' or all unjust hierarchies are abolished, respectively? Seems like the ideological divide between these two groups and the MLs is mostly a question of the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. So should one want to bring these groups (back) together that is the real question to answer.
Can't really say much about the non-materialist anarchists, except for 'stop being idealists'.

The transitionary period question is a critical one for broad-based radical left movements, maybe even the key for a reunification, if only partial and situational. Perhaps it warrants its own thread but this is a good one so might as well bump again and see if there is any conversation.
I actually came across this randomly profound comment on an article about some bike entrepreneur capitalising on ostalgie in Romania, made me think about the transitionary period question and the leftcom/ML divide thanks for reading my blog
-Hanuman_le_Singe, the Guardian below the line commenter


stop being a market "socialist" and google communization

stop being utopian and embrace the shortest way to removing the profit motive and the elevation of use value


This thread is a good example as to why communism is irrelevant today. Pseudo-intellectual discussions about semantics and wether or not Marx idea of a DotP was more libertarian or not. Big news guys, Marx died before he could actually flesh out these issues, and libertarian vs authoritarian is a false dichotomy.

The idea of immediate communization is extremly utopian, and historical evidence of the biggest proletariat movements in Russia and China prove that it is unworkable unless capitalism as a global system collapses, communization is theoretical speculation, as it is describing the transition from socialism to communism more than the transition from capitalism to socialism. Yes, socialism has its own contradictions as well, mainly since it is forced to exist in a capitalist world, and only when capitalism is utterly defeated and can not get off the ground communization may happen and socialism will die down in itself and communism will be established. Global revolution, kids, will never happen. To theorize about it is pointless, you may as well theorize about the colonization of other star systems. Modern capitalism adapted a global system far beyond Marx' imagination, who was living in a time of classical nation states. Modern capitalism (as in that form of capitalism which was predominant since 1900) has the ability to "outsource" its own contradiction into one place, and therefore concentrates the revolutionary potential into very specific places, as Stalin said: "Revolution will happen where the chain of imperialism is the weakest". Yet if you point that out its hilarious how angry so-called ultraleftists get, smear you as "nationalists", but guess what: "Socialism in one country" isn't an ideology, it's the fucking reality of how things will play out, always.

>spontaneous organic global proletarian revolution that eliminates property relations any day now, comrades

Uphold the eternal banner of anarcho-marxism

Our tankielogic friend is 100% right

Stopped reading there.

FBI out in force today

Q.E.D., we both know you wouldn't have written that comment if I wrote "lower stage of communism" instead. Proving my point that it is more about autistic semantics for you guys.

Leftcom-kun, please recommend us some books!

What a pointless interview. Why do you keep spamming that webm?

Marx was a fucking retard and no, the state will not wither by itself.

The state exists before "capitalism" (per Marx's definition) and it will outlive it.

if only you'd read a book

Yeah, reading a book will make the state wither away, I'm sure.

Reading book will solve all problems.

It'd stop you from looking like a retard. That's a start. It's the little things that count, comrade.

There's nothing wrong with looking like a retard, comrade.

Most communists already look like one.

I'm starting to think this is a plot.