Leftcom's conception of revolution?

most MLM parties in the west dont participate in reforms and elections, but they have very little potential to create any substantial change. rosa luxemburg did say she didn't oppose participation in parliament as long as its not turned into the party's only mean of struggle.

when someone invents a motorized armchair

...

That's not even an argument against what I said. Appealing to the "will of the people" is a way to justify your actions without needing to have any actual theoretical basis for them, it's horseshit. I'm not decrying all abstract concepts, just the ones that make people act against their own-self interest.

since when do you get to decide what other people's self-interests are?

also this
if a group has a genuine chance of winning a popular victor then thats a decent reason to participate in elections i m o
but doing what a large amount of socialist groups do and help the neo-libs form coalition govs is a no no
i m o in those scenarios when the neo-libs need socialist cooperation to prop the gov up the socialists should just allow the p o s gov to fail t b h

I don't and never claimed to, idiot. "The will of the people" is always an excuse to impose values onto others, and that necessarily entails disregarding other people's values.

so you're against people working together toward a goal because they're "working against their self-interest", even though you yourself cant decide what their self-interest is that they're working against?

You're fucking retarded, I never said that. People work together towards a common goal because it's in their interests to do so. If they're working towards a goal and it's not in their interests to do so then they've been coerced somehow. I'm against coercing people to do things against their will.

Or really against coercing people to do things in general.

right, but who are you to decide that them working toward a goal is against their interest? how do you decide whether a goal is in one's interest or not?

Of course revolution is inevitable but it won't be lead by the proles

'There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.' - Warren Buffett

Afroplasm you're a fucking retard, you ought to start reading the posts you respond to some day.

...

He's caught on to the fact no one likes him but he just continues to samefag every thread he makes and use the Pan African flag, although he's no doubt the only person in this board who uses it.

sounds like a bretty cool guy

You're not fooling anyone Afroplasm

What about it?

There's nothing inevitable about revolution; it all depends on particular conditions. Communism is not some holy prophecy either.

I don't want to "make revolution happen". It doesn't work that way; revolution happens because particular conditions produce a class conscious and organized proletariat. It's never been different. Me and other communists will join their ranks and tail them, ensuring their revolutionary demands are met and formulated into a programme to be upheld and safeguarded in the event of revolution.

versobooks.com/blogs/3190-let-s-lose-interest-in-elections-once-and-for-all

Revolt and seize control of armchair factories, and make sure that everyone has access to an armchair. Once everyone has their own armchair to sit in and do nothing, the revolution has succeeded.

Capitalism's eating the planet and making everybody's lives miserable in the process. How many cycles of economic growth and devastating recession do we have to go through before we get tired of capitalism's inherent instability? We gonna overthrow it in my lifetime or is actually doing something before October 2917 opportunist?

revolution? That's opportunism i tell you! OPPORTUNISM!
kek of course it had to be a fucking southern italian saying those types of things. Bordiga was a douchebag, lazy bastard like everybody that comes from Napoli.

Keep my good name outta your mouth, hoe.

I thought the whole north/south Italy divide thing was just a meme.

Either way we ain't got the time to read theory till capitalism fizzles itself out on it's own. Not at the rate which it's causing problems for the whole world at.

leninism with less bureaucracy

the self-negation of the proletariat

this is genuinely getting spooky

Vague

your answers is "it will just happen bro trust" "just trust me the state will whither" "just trust me we won't end up with technofasicsm and super-hyper-exploitation we just have to wait" What is it with Marxists and "just have faith in the prophet Marx and his prophecy will deliver" I mean the man analysed capitalism extremely well but this is what you guys sound like in all honesty.

so what can be counted as a peoples revolt?

t.invisbile traintrack destroying comittee

hearing a lot about what you reject… but what do you propose?

This whole post is just wildly incoherent, at first you say that revolution is not inevitable and that you can't make revolution happen, but then you go on to say that when the conditions are revolutionary it is yourself and other communists who will formulate the true revolutionary program. Seems a little dishonest. Wouldn't the true organic revolution be if you did not exist at all. You are basically saying "you can't make the revolution just happen but what you do is jump in while it is already happening and try to tack your ideas on" sounds.. well pretty opportunistic to me

youtu.be/tqVGZhI5GY8?t=26m40s (26:40 and on).

The reason nobody humors you is unironically because of pic related. You don't make any meaningful effort of understanding the theoretical foundations behind a person's position and unless that position is just as leftoid LARP-tier blueprinted as yours (queue your ebin "market anarchist mind map jpeg" which, by the way, nobody actually takes seriously) you seem to fold in. I'm not sure you even properly understand what I'm saying and where I'm coming from at all.
No, don't reply yet. Watch a few minutes of the video above and let it sink in and make your next post actually count, e.g. look at the historical merit behind the argument and so on and prepare either your own world historical counter-argument or find good grounds upon which to refute it.

How about you actually counter any of the shit I said, which wasn't about some video, it was about your own words.

I'm not the only one here who thinks you are basically an arrogant piece of trash.

What you have done here is not engage in a debate, but just a whole post of salt. Nice going buddy, glad to have triggered you however. Tbh it's all too easy.

Also don't speak for other people, you are not everyone, and can therefore not make judgments as to what "nobody takes seriously" it's funny, because the proletariat have never in history taken left com seriously enough to abide their ideas. Some food for thought

Your argument is basically "you just don't understand how unfathombaly well read and clever I am and that is the reason you disagree" not that you fail time and time and time again to actually say anything even close to coherent

Here is what I would like the audience to take careful note of: I was referring without malice, merely critism, to the actual words mr leftcom wrote. I engage directly with what they said in order to counter them. Did he do the same? No, in fact, his post makes no effort at all to actually engage in the points made. Instead, like the toxic poster he is, unable to actually argue in good faith, ever, presents a bunch of ad hominems, look through his reply to mine, you will not find any direct references to the arguments or statements I made, you will not fine counter arguments, you will not even find any theory, instead you will find temper tantrum and autistic screeching of a pretentious douche who had had his precious worldview questioned and can't handle it and respond like any other poster would with a rebuttal. I would say this is extremely telling.

Another thing, if you can't explain what you mean without referring to somebody else, then you are flat out pretending to understand what you are talking about. I'll repeat that, if you cannot explain a concept yourself, you do not understand it. If you bang on about concepts you do not understand, to the point where you will become insulting of other people, then you are a pol tier pseudo intellectual.

This is the thing about my position, I will sit and argue every facet of it and never have to refer to somebody else, these aren't conclusions I've come to by worshipping some old dead theorist and acting like their word is law, it's a position I've come to, reading these people, but also experiencing how a firm works and how it could be changed, in the world of work, alongside talking to other working class, in attempt to actually present a new revolutionary platform.

on the other hand, leftcunt physically cannot make a point without it being accompanied by a link.

This is somebody who name drops instead of making arguments but then uses pictures to call other people thick. Most likely a spoiled middle class kid, who spent high school lamenting just how much smarter he was than the stupid proles around him, was just so frustrated by their lack of culture and appreciation of the finer points of some obscure philosophy, philistines, animals.

I realise I have now sunk to his level, but originally I just rebutted his points, he chose to act like a woman scorned so this is the result

He's right tho. He linked to like a few minutes of someone explaining the exact same argument he made in a little more detail. You just decided to only accept it in his words but when he said the exact same thing in his own words before you said it was incoherent although it was pretty straightforward and that vid elaborates on it well.

I mean this just proves again that you didn't get his point. He explicitly stated that it will never be a matter of anyone's ideas in specific, especially his own. He and I hope nobody else cares about that shit. It's nothing personal in any way. The character of a revolution or whether it even happens at all is all decided by the conditions revolutionary subjects find themselves in. If there's one thing in history workers have and will never take seriously it's some screaming retard and his utopian masterplan.

And stop redditspacing jesus christ.

I didn't get that air at all, and there's nothing complicated in what he's saying either. I did however get the same reaction he got to your post, which is that of someone who writes two sentences in reply to posts that basically come down to "das vague becuz i don't get it" but then goes on to whine about people dropping short material for you to engage with (not even much, just a few minutes of a video).

Quote the part of his post where he actually refers to something I said and rebuts it

I mean besides linking, he hasn't actually replied to my post

This is all assertion. Someone as thick as you (yes, you're thick, I've seen your dumb redditspacing ass before and you are) is barely worth the energy, and in general it's ridiculous to assume that sharing something while knowing it's a good way of informing you of the position is necessarily going to mean they don't get it. I could understand it someone's saying "go read this entire book" but he didn't do that.

You lack the coherence or even really the discipline to really make an effort to understand the opposing argument. You want everything worded and suited to your demands and will make zero effort to grapple someone's prose.

The content of the link does. Again it's incredibly short. He's not expecting you to read The German Ideology for fuck's sake. Stop being a fag and realize that nobody wants to engage with you because they've detected how you are and how you post and that it's not worth the effort.

And I remember you got banned for being such an autist that you started spamming. Try to do even the basic amount of self-reflecting if everyone thinks your posts are cancerous.

And shit like this qualifies as spam. You're such a sperg that you can't even condense your terrible and lazy replies into a single post. There was more than enough space there if you didn't redditspace or you for who knows why decided to not put that all in one post, because even with all the pointless line breaking you still had the space. That shows just how glaringly shit your attention span for your own autism even is.

And take a good look here: even if you do have to come back to respond to something you failed to get in a previous post right after, have the decency to sage instead of bumping the thread multiple times in a row with your shit.

"Me and other communists will join their ranks and tail them, ensuring their revolutionary demands are met and formulated into a programme to be upheld and safeguarded in the event of revolution."

Which is EXACTLY what I was critiquing, but you completely fail to even read my post.

It is incoherent because he directly contradicts himself.

Also i'm aware that you two regularly suck each other off, most likely a samefag, if not why post with an ancom flag?

Yet again, you have failed utterly to actual engage with the words im saying, instead reffering to a bunch of other irrelevant ass shit

I like that you ignored this post

because it shows the true nature of where you are coming from. I.E not rebutting what I am saying and directing attention elsewhere

I don't care about your image board etiquette not one little bit this place is a cesspool why on earth would I give a shit?

no, if you are physically incapable of explaining something, you don't understand it, or at least, you do not understand it in any useful way that you can communicate. He may well understand it in his own head, but if hes going to get public he better get better at communicating.

So… no points to be found here… just calling me thick again.

an assertion. My postion is on the contrary, extremely coherent. (You didn't present an argument as to why I am incoherent, you i will merely state the contradiction, with no evidence, like the pair of you do)

this is fucking hilarious. I am the one here who took issue with the words said and pointed out that they contradict each other.

I did this by pointing out that he said peoples ideas do not shape revolutions, but then said that in the end, he and other communists would be on hand to ensure a succesful revolution. Both of these things cannot be true in the same world.

Literally all I have done is grapple with his prose. NEITHER OF YOU HAVE AT ALL grappled with mine, it is what I am asking you to do, and you are refusing, instead reffering to my general etiquette and demeanour, like the crypto SJW you are

Quote which part

Like you just totally didn't get his position at all and then said it was incoherent [sic]. He linked you to that video to clear it up. Nothing's incoherent in his post.

Like you said
Where is this contradictory? That revolution isn't inevitable doesn't conflict with the view that if it does (not inevitable != impossible), it will be because certain conditions made a working class revolutionary, and from that communists will spawn who will organize them, make a revolutionary group, party, program, etc.

Then you go on and talk about organic revolution or some shit which he never talked about and say that communists tailing or aiding workers is opportunism, which isn't what opportunism is at all. Opportunism is when you try to inject your personal ideals into a revolutionary movement, which is the shit I've historically seen you do all the time in your shitposts and schemes.

If you don't care why are you here and why do you expect the respect and attention of others, and most importantly why did you have a meltdown when you got like 1 day banned after your epic spergout?

Yeah you're cancerous, and really thick in the fucking head. Don't ever take that flag off so I know to ignore you in the future too.

which part of his position didn't I get? I have now typed out twice exactly what I found incoherent, so here it is again:

To talk about leftism, what attention is there to be had here? This place is anonymous.. are you retarded? Projection I think.

because I like to post here?

LMAO

oh and also I said this was vague

because it is pantenly fucking vague "the proles will do this OR this" can hardly be said to be specific. It includes the word OR for christs sake.

also the waves of salt from multiple people here is really proof to me you guys don't have to brain cells to rub together between you, if I am so thick, it would have been easy to simply quote and debunk.

but for some mystical reason neither of you could do that. Funny

you know there's a perfect place for you to go back to right

and I pose one final question (and I even saged this one, a little olive branch for you).

Assume there has been a revolution, the end result of which looks like most of the proletariat will be pretty happy with allowing their hard fought gains to manifest as the co-operatisation of the industries, they are now run democratically and paid in shares rather than a wage, there is still markets, money and exchange of goods. There is a state of sorts, which oversees public services, it has however been disarmed, the co-operative bloc holds the real power, setting its own taxes and deciding state expenditure, what is left of the state more or less administrates its will, it is more or less a purely bureaucratic body

Do you consider this state of affairs an improvement? At this stage of the revolution, what action would you take to

" join their ranks and tail them, ensuring their revolutionary demands are met and formulated into a programme to be upheld and safeguarded"

???

don't think I've been exposed as a faggot and certainly did not bring the tantrum, you can thank Mr "Painfully Thick" over there about that

also I didn't call everyone here an idiot, I like a good many of you

oh and

the best part

of all

is that

i didn't even know this was reddit spacing

because I had never used reddit

until you fags told me

to go back to reddit

ask yourselves

how do you know what reddit spacing is? and maybe,

just

maybe

GO BACK TO REDDIT WHERE YOU EVIDENTLY CAME FROM

I would consider this blueprint you've laid out to be a definite material improvement, but ultimately a waste of revolutionary forces that will be highly susceptible to hidden forces of reaction that will ultimately attempt to dismantle it, as had happened to historical market socialist societies in the past, and critique it as such.

But the question is what critique would you bring and how would you communicate that to the proletariat in order to formulate their demands into a program and uphold and safeguard it? What the guy up there said is that when the organic revolution happens he will be there as a sort of guide and helper. So, the revolution has got to that point, what does the guide/helper do when he realises that the proletariat do not mean to abolish the value form, assume you have a position of influence in IDK the transport union. A grand revolutionary council has been called and you are to speak, how do you address the issue to the rest of grand council?

fuck

off

bitch

I

do

what

I

want

faggot

black solidarity.

damn. this thread proving board stereotypes don't lie.

I hope by this you mean a failure on the part of leftcoms to have a real conception of revolution

Anarcho-solidarity

stay butthurt tbh couldn't give less of a fuck.

tbh they're just the same as marx. you can only go so far in conceiving of revolution because revolution takes form mostly based on place and time (paris commune was different from october revolution was different from spanish revolution) and you can only go so far to describe socialism because a world without the essence of capitalism is something we can only hypothesize (marx only even wrote critique of the gotha program because he needed to critique a utopia and to describe the most basic standards for a meaningful socialist society).

what's really much more important than imagining the revolution is first "imagining" who's gonna do it (not imagining, because we should just be able to see who is likely to go beyond a basic visible struggle). the fact that there hasn't really been any real revolutionary activity in decades save for maybe in rojava (though it's hard to call that first a class/socialist revolution, more of a very progressive anti-islamic fundamentalist movement first that wants a safe land where it isn't persecuted by the arab and turkish states). if you at least had a revolutionary subject today you could actually confirm is revolutionary then you could say "okay, this will likely explode this way and might end up like so, and we should do this, etc." but it's not the case at all, and even then it's much more important to make sure this revolutionary energy is being supported and kept alive for there to even be a meaningful activity. like zizek says we have to go further than marx who refused to write a manual for revolution and said "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it!", but perhaps first update our understanding of the world. we don't just not know who is gonna do revolution, but we don't even really know why it seems nobody wants to do it.

and i looked at the leftco'ms post and it's not incoherent at all, plus the video is interesting and expands on it with evidence. the black is just like every other black flag without exception a terrible poster.

how can you at once say that we need a revolution and at the same time that there is no revolutionary subject? If what you say is true than why bother with socialism at all? The revolutionary subject is the exploited masses who make up most of the world. The reason they are not revolutionary is because they have been suppressed and for this region are unorganised. All the revolutions were different sure, but we also live in an age of rapidly declining living standards across the board, throw in all the other meme issues like the environment, there really is no reason that the people should not be revolting right now. The proletariat need a guiding force.I found the post extremely incoherent, while the black flag has sperged out certainly (in what looks like a battle that has been long fought, cos half the shit seems to be inside personal references. Also looks like there is two of them) his point stands, the leftcom claims one thing but then contradicts it certainly. While this might not be necessarily a leftcom position or anything, the position of the poster is contradictory. He clearly states the need for at least some kind of ideological input, but also says that this impossible, or not desirable

see the fact you're saying something like this as if it's contradictory again exposes why people think you're retarded. when communists today ask "where is the revolutionary subject?" it is obviously asked in the sense of "where is the proletariat's desire for revolution under these conditions it obviously suffers from?" and doubly "where in the proletariat must we look?". it's completely evident to anyone who heard zizek say the phrase "where is the revolutionary subject today?" but somehow excluding you. it's like you're either trolling or are just too stupid. can you imagine having a convo with you where it's constantly spoonfeeding you and you are under the assumption that everyone contradicts themselves or says dumb shit? like seriously dude get an autism check or something.

so yeah, where is the revolutionary subject today, because when you say "The revolutionary subject is the exploited masses who make up most of the world" that's vague bullshit if i ever heard of it. if they are all revolutionary, and inherently so, where is their activity? do le dumb masses need educating to understand they're getting fucked? is this what you're suggesting? and do you have again a single historical example of a revolution that started because utopians like you riled them up with their hot ideas? i think not.

well then why aren't they? they are getting decades worth of social benefits bourgeois society conceded to them in immense struggles taken away from under their noses but they give almost no fucks. joker movements like occupy failed to go beyond sitting in somewhere. do you understand the magnitude of this problem now and why this is more worth our energy?

like what? nobody else is seeing it. only you.

rofl where? for the leftcoms it's a matter of supporting what revolutionary aims workers already express. it means joining them when they look for avenues outside bourgeois politics to fight for even basic things like a higher min. wage. this is a revolutionary form of politics. if it succeeds and survives with such demands it can evolve, and this must be protected. you will notice all communists did the same ultimately, including marx. the most revolutionary movements started without truly revolutionary aims. these came when the situation itself showed the less revolutionary aims were insufficient, and as such exposed what can truly be done and what would really be different.

so now back to your dumb shit, and nice job cloaking yourself with the mautist flag you samefag, how do you even hope to begin this process without understanding why the world is the way it is and why it doesn't produce much or really any real revolutionary activity at all.

Looks like you kinda just outed yourself as the leftcom or the ancom flag guy (or both) with a dropped flag though with all that aggression. You ask "if they are all revolutionary, and inherently so, where is their activity?" which I already explained by saying they have been suppressed. You didn't answer my question though, "if what you say is true than why bother with socialism at all?", so I'll answer the one you have asked me after you answer that, even though I already told you where there activity is. In the third world it has represented itself in some revolutionary forms like in Rojava. However in most places the tools of repression are too strong, the media is in too much lock step. This is what keeps the proles in line. Its really not as vague as "there will be some kind of an organic revolution that I will try my best to be a contributing part of" or at least, if I'm vague, then that is vague. You ask me if I think the dumb masses need educating.. yes to a degree, but mostly I think they need organisation which they currently lack and which you reject. Educate, Agitate, Organise.
And no I can't name a single revolution like that but I never suggested one existed either. I could name for you a great many revolutions which involved a strong party with a distinct ideology that the proletarians organised around, which is what I think we need. Also could you drop the buzzwords please everything is UTOPIAN this or OPPORTUNIST that its a little hysterical. You also tell me to get an autism check when you are clearly extremely angry at the content of an image board. Think on that. You also say "well then why aren't they" when I clearly gave a reason. It seem you have a tendency to just batter out a bunch of angry stuff without actually reading what was written. Also I count at least 4 or 5 people in this thread who find what the leftcom said contradictory. And yeh just this bit "for the leftcoms" completely gives you away. Also according to leftcoms fighting for a min wage is good and revolutionary but Rojava is bad and not really revolutionary.. do I have that about right? I agree obviously with fighting for a min wage but again, this seems extremely contradictory and incoherent. It seems to me like you're just kind of picking "stuff I like" and claiming that to be revolutionary and then picking "stuff I don't like" and saying it counter revolutionary. Overall yeh, incoherent for sure.

man you really really don't like me at all do you, its not even about ideology is it really, this is clearly a personal issue, I feel like I once insulted your mother or something really

TBH I can see why the black faggot sperged out with you coons