Why do you hate each other Holla Forums
T. New leftist
Why do you hate each other Holla Forums
T. New leftist
Different sects bitch at each other, but it's all with an implicit understanding that if anything major actually happens, we'll all be on the same side.
Pic related is a beginning of an answer.
lol we don't. Leftypol are mostly chill as hell just all have pretentions to being moderately intellectual so we have whiny arguments about old theories. Its all good though thats what the Greeks did and everybody loves them
Because we have significant and irreconcilable differences as how to achieve what we consider the good ethical society.
and also people haven't googled bookchin
Bookchin autists literally think ethics is the starting point for analyzing politics.
That's not what I want. If I would want that I can just shop at Whole Foods and call it a day. But not surprising coming from someone who doesn't care about class struggle but just a fetish for municipal councils
Well they are closet AnCaps as we have learned in the other thread. That's where all this Molyneux jargon about muh ethics comes from.
Its brotherly feud
We might hit each other over the head and steal their cookie but when someone else messes with one of us, they mess with all of us.
They're a bunch of retarded commies
Because sectarianism wins.
The other "socialist" groups were the Mensheviks and the SRs, i.e., the people who literally wanted to share power indefinitely with the bourgeoisie and disarm the revolutionary masses. The only actual socialists were the Bolsheviks and tiny isolated pockets of anarchists who were every bit as sectarian as the former.
Stop with the historical revisionism.
Because this kind of crap tends to be what happens after every revolution to the tendencies that didn't win.
I think we could all get along semi okay after the revolution, I mean call me naive but there might be some hurt feelings but I think we would eventually have to compromise based on armed democracy (ie. everyone in the militia votes)
Although this board specifically is actually pretty good about it. Sure there's bantz but overall we're pretty good for such a big tent board.
They were in favor parliamentarism but were absolutely in no way in favor of disarming the masses or keeping bourgeois society as-is. They just weren't anti-parliamentarians wholly like the Bolsheviks.
The right SRs? Same as the Mensheviks, except actually reactionary in some places. The left SRs? They were almost every bit as abstentionist as the Bolsheviks and wanted parliament replaced with everything put into the hands of the workers' councils. They were practically only different from the Bolsheviks in opposing the class-party.
This too. It's every leftist for himself out here.
Except in Kekalonia, where the narchos were so incompetent it still happened to them even though they did win.
Peoples front of judea mate
They were in favor of parliamentarism WITH the bourgeoisie! AFTER the revolution had already begun! That can only be considered counter-revolutionary and pro-capitalist.
The left SRs joined the Bolsheviks when the civil war started and they realized they were allied with a bunch of proto-fascist reactionaries who ran off and joined the most disgusting elements of the White Army.
are you retarded or nah
I hate everyone. People just make me uncomfortable.
Those uniforms are fucking swanky though.
Shame it's me on the right.
*except for succdems.
You should read "the democracy project". One of the earliest uses of voting was among armed people as a peaceful show of force
I should say, documented, its probably been happening forever
There really isn't any other type of parliamentarism out there fam.
I would wholly agree, but their ultimately stated goal wasn't eternalizing things as such; it was socialism. It's like the DSA today: they're principally against revolution while their motto is achieving their aims through bourgeois democracy legally and peacefully. That won't get them anywhere but they're not reactionaries.
Even Marx and Engels supported sectarianism.
Can't be arsed to find the quote, though.
That really won't happen though. It never has.
I feel like we wouldn't put up with someone like Stalin nowadays (or Lenin or Trotsky killing the black army either), call me naive again
We need another Rosa
After the USSR and Spain I will never trust tankies.
Why not? Anarchism and Marxism cannot be harmonized. No Marxist is gonna be all too enthusiastic about the idea of letting them take charge and undermine the state they just fought to take over. Neither side will just give up, so they'll inevitably come to blows.
I can dig through a whole pile of Marx and Engels history, citations and quotes to prove that shit. I mean basically the entire IWA's existence was pure sectarianism and BTFOing every anarkiddie, market fantast, stage memer, pacifist, possibilist and impossibilist, democracy fetishist (Marx coined the term "parliamentary cretinism" ffs), antiist, idpolite, and so forth.
Expelling bourgoies anti-worker women from a socialist orginisation isnt sectarian, its rational.
If you dislike that sort of thing, why are you a Trot? He was at the forefront of crushing disagreeing leftists until he got outmaneuvered by Uncle Joe.
Fuck off with muh betrayal. The Soviets were the only ones who sent military support. Meanwhile the British blockaded the Spanish fleet in the Mediterranean to allow Franco to land in Seville.
Why Spain? The USSR's position was fairly reasonable.
Are people really gonna continue the war if we could just have some kinda state lite to somewhat satisfy both sides? I mean no more capitalism, isn't that most of the way there?
it doesn't seem that people on leftypol hate each other. most shit flinging seems to be bantz
Stalinists have a history of stabbing other factions in the back.
The best thing is, they are absolutely unapologetic for it, claim it was for the best of communism/country/the current situation and openly state they would do it again.
Very trust building. The reason why it's such a huge issue, is that they are the first contact point for normies into communism and it require not much of reading to be "in". Perfect for normies and casuals, which makes them the biggest faction here around.
After Stalin blackmailed a huge amount of money (basically all of the Spanish gold) for weapons and then performed a purge in the worst possible moment?
If not for Germany and Italy's direct intervention and Britain and France's boycott, forcing the Republicans to be completely and utterly at the mercy of the Soviet Union, you could say, Stalin was the greatest ally of Franco in that war.
so instead of this, what if they worked together to build a self managing network of co-ops and free services instead of all this silly AK 47 noise
That disregards that 50-75% came out of schisms after revolutions. Pick up a fucking history book.
Because most self-described marxists want to establish a sovdem state for edgy mls to wank over after it collapses and co-ops are gay anyways.
Rosa clearly deserved worse. Because of her we inherited leftcoms.
Leftcoms come from the ravioli ravager and pancake man, all rosa gave us is a martyr for fags to cry over.
Because our BO is a tranny
The Black Army had it coming for all the shit they had been pulling.
bc fuck leftism that's why.
this is my brain on contrarianism ;)
You call it rational but refuse to call it sectarianism, but it is. Just like every other person on that list I made, they were opposed because beyond what those people and groups stood for it was perceived that they were anti-worker. Whether bourgfem idpol peddlers like Woodhull or market fantastists like Lassalle, they all got ruthless critiqued and as much as possible was done to make them as irrelevant as possible. I mean Marx got into so many bar fights in Belgium over qualms with Lassalle that he officially got banned from the country, and Engels' polemics against Hess ended with him putting the final nail in his coffin and literally cucking him by fucking his wife.
Rosa was hella anti-sectarian tho, and as is tradition leftcoms thought she was mostly shit too; the Italians because they were Leninists and agreed with the Leninist critique of her democracy-spontaneity fetishism, and the Dutch-Germans because she engaged in parliamentarism rather than councilism, especially at the most critical period leading up to the 1918 attempt.
That's what they get for appealing to the liberals when it was clear that Britain and France were not going to do shit.
This will be the 9589285th time I asked for proof of that
It was less appealing to liberals and more buying stuff like weapons, fuel, rations and medicine for the war effort.
BO is a massive faggot, but BO isn't a tranny.
Its the SPD not the SDPG you fucking sperg
yeah they can bitch
there are no unironic nazbols, anfems, or anprims on this board, though.
gay nazi speaks truth
They didn't expel Engels and he was bourgeois too. What's your point? Proudhon and Lassalle weren't purged for being bourgeois either; they were purged for peddling bourgeois politics. You can be bourgeois and be sensible, like Engels as I just mentioned, or Kropotkin (beyond being bourgeois he was an aristocrat, actually).
my reasons, which are correct:
everybody else's reasons, which are silly:
It was sectarianism, just some you agree with. Marx's treatment of Lassale or Woodhull isn't somehow better than his treatment of Bakunin because they were capitalists while Bakunin and Nechayev were right about participation in elections and terrorism.
they didn't read it either
Blame the leftcoms for leftcoms, Rosa's theory is a powerful weapon against them
uh, I don't think she ever did, and she couldn't stand for parliament as a woman
>…so long as it is possible
t. literally Marx
The KPD engaged in it, with advice from her communiqués very frequently actually (many things were done, most famously the great alliance with the SPD), and you're right that there was no suffrage or political life for women at the time in Germany, but she made the party represent itself as it would through the men in the party, with most notably Liebknecht (he was actually much more practically relevant to the KPD, but Luxemburg is today most well known for being the rare communist woman of course, but because she ran a lot of things behind the scene and wrote a lot of good theory.
Should I shitpost harder ?
You should read more.
you must be new here
With an uncommon flag you get used to it eventually.
Missing the point this hard
capitalism has private property. Within the network there won't be any, gradually more and more property will be bought into the network and therefore cease to be private
Do you know what private property implies?
Just because the firm is owned by workers doesn't make it not a firm. Also:
Do you faggots even have an ideology?
Are you retarded? If everybody who works in a place owns it, it is not owned privately, it is owned collectively
Yeah, you don't know what private property implies. Won't waste any more of my time here.
this could do with some work but thats more or less it
go on then, enlighten me, tell me how if something is collectively owned it is actually privately owned
Learn to spell. That is the worst fucking chart I have ever seen. Beyond being an absolute eyesore, it basically amounts to "guys let's make a business that also spreads revolutionary propaganda while still somehow making a profit and outcompeting everyone else until we're literally big enough to take over the world". This is the worst fucking take on dual power ever conceived
Jesus Christ it's like I'm looking at a jpeg I'd put in my PowerPoint presentation on hedgehogs for my school project. Is this how you map out theory?
its not supposed to be pretty it was supposed to be a mind map so I could think about it more clearly
and what is your take on dual power?
and the business model is completely different from a normal one, so this is a ridiculous straw man.
Are you telling me in your conception of the revolution at no point will the revolutionaries restrict their solidarity from others i.e fascists or capitalists ? Your conception of collectivisation is one in which the goods of factories are open to the entire world from the moment the revolution commences? There will always be restrictions until all private property is abolished. Private property is property is absentee property, it isn't restriction, if you don't occupy it or are not using it, you have no claim to it. You are honestly telling me there is no difference between a business owned by 20 people and making decisions and a business owned by one person making the decisions because they both operate in a world with markets and exchange?
A government is formed within the state that takes over the functions of the state before eventually overthrowing the state. Historical example: Russian Soviets during the Russian Revolution. Modern example: Rojava. Having a big-ass union of coops isn't dual power, because it isn't any form of government. It's just a worker-run business. Dual power usually happens because a state is too weak to enforce its laws or provide certain services (like, say, the anarchist hospitals in Greece). Coops operate entirely within the bounds of the state, and like all private property their existence is completely at the mercy of the state.
Idk why but this made me laugh
Which is exactly what I intend to do.
Why isn't it a form of government exactly? a federated union sounds pretty governmental to me.
That provides community services and expands not for profit but so more workers can join the union.
> Dual power usually happens because a state is too weak to enforce its laws or provide certain services
most states already are struggling to provide basic services and the state will be made weak.
Remember i'm not talking specifically about the structure of dual power, but a method for getting there.
How are you going to build up your movement to achieve your dual power? You can't just say "a governmnet is formed within the state" without any detail about structure, organisation, recruiting etc, but then poo poo what I'm saying by saying "well its not any type of government"
It is isn't really any type of rebuttal and you didn't answer my question
It is still subordinated to the laws of capital you retard.
Everybody has their own ideas about what methods are best (and what details of the end result are best), but there aren't enough real world examples to support or refute those ideas, so all we can do is impotently argue about the best ones.
Personally I'm all for attempts at communism over and over until we finally get it right (and maybe I'll be wrong about how to get it right), because barring "how do you do fellow leftists" tier movements life is usually better for most people after the revolution.
Where in that flow chart does "get crushed by the CIA" belong?
So has every socialist experiment ever, and they will all continue to do so until the majority of the worlds economy is collectivised. This is pretty basic stuff.
and yet none of these have lasted bar Cuba,
"get crushed by the CIA" for what? The west isn't some Banana republic, if there was a network of co-operatives providing help for people who need it, people wouldn't just let it be crushed. They would try sure, but they would be much less likely to win the media war against a co-op union than a militant outfit.
Also to effectively subvert it they would have to subvert near enough every business individually.
I dunno where you are from but in Britain I really don't think people would stand for such an obvious abuse. Largely because it would not materially benefit anyone, its destroying jobs and services, while not increasing their taxes, so why would they give a fuck it exists? There is only reason to support it, it is in their own self interest for this network to exist. It is not in their own self interest (supposedly) to have to fear their kids will be the victim of some bombing or whatnot.
Also, if the public found out about a co-op union providing services being shut down, it would expose porky for what he truly is and still be a win. The alt right built an entire movement on being shut down and the reaction to that.
Leave while you can