Hate AnarKIDDIES with a burning passion

Bordigists like Lenin because he managed to preserve Marxism extremly well in his developments, while simultaneously destroying opportunists and SocDems, AND a managed to pull of an actual revolution. Since then, they have been trying to emulate this and create a some unorthodox form of Leninism that lacks the revolutionary edge, but have been thoroughly unsuccessful with it because they decided to rid of all the striking incentives Leninism has, like the anti-imperialism. If you want your organic centralism to be actually revolutionary, you are better off with Maoism.

Then there are council communists like Pannekoek. I think out of all the Leftcom tendencies they make the most sense but they tend to be impractical in terms of organisation and are in practice often indistinguishable from Anarchists.

Finally there is the most obscure strain, adherents of Dauve and communization theory, it's mostly utopian speculation about some direct spontaneous transformation into communism that only existed in the heads of some French students in the 70s but is politically absolutely irrelevant and exists purely in philosophy or in the situationist art scene.

all leftcom parties i know lasted for decades and didn't manage to surpass the hundreds of militant. Bordiga was an idiot who refuted to ally with the other democratic forces to fight fascism. Him and his other accolites were totally useless wrapped in a stupid dogmatism before and after the war.

better be a ripped no gf tankie than a skinnyfat manslut leftcom

The only decent strand was Leninism and we've been in a mess ever since, including MLs. We need some great new combination of revolutionary praxis and consistent application of Marxist theory to new forms of capitalism. This can really only happen with a major revolution, Marxism can't subsist in pure theory by its definition

nigga I read marx and ultra left theory, what more do you want

What more do you honestly need, this is the theory of the revolution that failed to even start. Now anarkiddos can't fight imperialism, and tankies are borderline imperialists themselves, but at least they both controlled territory and infrastructure to an extent where they could begin to lay the foundations for the abolition of value. No leftcommunist can make this claim

So alongside the spontaneous revolution which you refuse to agitate for, you expect it to be organically central AND disunified. All at the same fucking time? Leftcom is a bad meme at this point.

maoism dude why isn't anyone here a maoist geez fellas get it together

*wow, such unique position*
*let's judge tendencies by their negative relations*
*also, let's kill ourselves*

wot, we have at least one unironic maoist here

the real solution is based Luxemburgism

The true solution is joining De Leon gang.

Not a thing

Irrelevant

Bordiga was a pretty cool guy but his cultists on the internet are insufferable.

We have several. Many don't use the flag because they get bullied to death by sparrows and things like vid related.

Rosa would never say that, in fact shes the radical, the one sympathetic to old soviet systems, even if she didnt approve mostly how it was implemented
SPD killed her for this

Just become a Trot.

You mean the same democratic forces who later formed a government with the fascists?

The two places where the leftcom theorists come from are the two places which fell to fascism most easily

It's mostly a meme just like the armchairs. He was a very good theorist but people calling themselves "Bordigists" are ridiculous IMO.

this lmao

Then tell me where popular front antifascism has actually managed to prevent a credible fascist threat? Fascism rises when the democratic bourgeois state can't no longer protect its class interests so joining forces with it is pointless. Italian workers and the communists among them fought against both fascists and the state cops while social democrats and liberals suppressed them.

Sounds familiar, i think a certain German guy with a beard was also very critical of the "socialists" of his time.

anarchists of all people should know popular fronts are a failure as reformists backstab your ass

World War 2 after you retards failed to nip the problem in the bud

You are deluding yourself if you think the world powers fought against each other in the name of antifascism.

If anyone here wants to know more about the particulars of the subject here's a great essay: libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die

Also in audio frormat: youtube.com/watch?v=h6bnmDc7xhI

Still waiting for an answer to this.

Leftcoms somehow manage to combine the impotence of anarchism and the love of despotism of tankies into one shitty mix.

Everyone says luxemburgism isn't a thing and yet these same people get irreparably buttmad when you bring up her critiques of the Russian revolution and arguments for democracy.

sage

No, market socialism is.

That doesn't make Luxemburgism a thing. Camatte had his own ideas but Camattism isn't a thing.

Damn straight.

You can speak of Rosa Luxemburg but not "Luxemburgism". She was not unique enough to have inspired anything special, especially compared to literally almost every other relevant firgure in the Marxist Orthodoxy (Second International).

Let's take a look at things she was utterly bland (and awful) on:
>only left the SPD against her own will; she was a trenchant defender of the idea that the SPD needed to be reconquered, and she attacked vehemently the idea of splitting up until the point the leadership actively excluded the oppositional elements, she was even personally opposed to splitting the USPD and founding the KPD (which is ultimately what destroyed any chances at the KPD having much of a chance to fight the SPD later)
>also see this text: marxists.org/subject/germany-1918-23/dauve-authier/ch06.htm#h3 for a good look at the founding KPD conference; abstentionism was already an issue discussed and favoured by the majority (the majority of the KPD membership at this time was the main body that would later form the KAPD), and Luxemburg argued against it; KAPD was the only communist faction to properly survive and lead the communist movement after the reneging KPD got culled for basically being spontaneity and unity fetishists
Let's look at that:
There is a tendency among some elements to see all criticism of the Bolsheviks as essentially revolutionary. But the criticisms advanced by Luxemburg are no different to those advanced by Kautsky and the Mensheviks (admittedly within the context of "critical support" rather outright condemnation).

I think the Luxemburg cult has various aspects. On the one hand there are the various "libertarian" and "anti-Bolshevik" tendencies who seem to intentionally misunderstand Luxemburg's politics, especially on those points where she was a "centrist" in contrast to Lenin. With regards to that, there is also the fact that Luxemburg is "pure". She never held any real position of authority and she died quite early in the history of the German revolution. In contrast to Lenin or Trotsky she was never confronted with a situation in which power had actually been seized. In contrast to other Spartacists like Levi, she never lived long enough to actively oppose the emerging communist left (on a large organisational scale – as noted, she did already oppose the left within the KPD founding congress).

One factor might be the effort Stalinists put into besmirching her name. Certainly it was this that led Trotsky to write occasionally in her defence and later Trotskyists to regard her as one of their own. But whatever the case, I think this is one idol that needs to be smashed, or at least taken down and put on a slightly less ornate pedestal. Nobody here has investigated into what her peers were like at the time so they basically without knowing it suck up to vanilla Orthodox Marxism; the type both the communist left and Lenin were against. Her best contributions, which are still very relevant today, are her critique of reformism (trade unionism, horizontalism, cooperatives, etc.) but that's really it tbh.

Kek wut
Leftcom a stupid

Lenin should have learned from your genius.

It is, yeah. Communism != the horizontalization of things. It's the abolition of private property. She reneged anarchism on just blindly trying to make any type of structure "ethical" and "fair". She went as far as to call this the parasitic nature of anarchist ideology.

marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm
>Co-operatives and trade unions are totally incapable of transforming the capitalist mode of production. This is really understood by Bernstein, though in a confused manner. For he refers to co-operatives and trade unions as a means of reducing the profit of the capitalists and thus enriching the workers. In this way, he renounces the struggle against the capitalist mode of production and attempts to direct the socialist movement to struggle against “capitalist distribution.” Again and again, Bernstein refers to socialism as an effort towards a “just, juster and still more just” mode of distribution.
Luxemburg, no matter her faults (and she had many), at least understood that socialism meant no such notions of perpetuating value production under a cooperative mode. It meant perhaps first turning property cooperative, but doing just as Marx said and using this as but one of many particular bases for little more than centralizing all of production into society (via workers' councils or State) rather than keeping it decentralized into mere "nicer" firms as such.

Let's just face it already.

Anarkiddies are retarded
ML's will never be in power again
LeftCommunism is Utopian dogshit

Accept the theoretic perfection that is Market Socialism. Even papa Richie Wolff is over here with us.

Read a book my friend ;)

Google J. Posadas.

but market socialism is only a transitional phase to a cybernetic planned economy
t. based WPC

Read what? Mises? Rothbard?
Markets are dogshit, read the poverty of philosophy.

Praise CC

So she made a giant Holla Forumstier strawman of anarchists then? I understand and accept the failings of anarchist movements but generally the complaints are the other way, that they were in fact too authoritarian and barely anarchist. Or the classic "cannot fight imperialism" lark.

...

Marx reading GNarkiddie reporting in

...

read marx faggot

Name something Utopian about it.

You are a cultist

...

Although i'm not a market socialist, the co-operative scheme i believe is the exact opposite of utopianism. Utopianism is thinking we are going to have some kind of spontaneous uprising when the workers suffer hard enough, but the workers have been suffering long and hard enough. Not since the 70's have our wages gone meaningfully up and stayed that way. All that technology we invented has meant we only work hard and longer as we compete with our own machines for money.

The co-op scheme is precisely the opposite of utopian, it is a practical, very achievable and tried and tested to some extent, method of organisation.

You use "utopian" like a buzzword like a polack says "cultural marxist" It doesn't mean anything

It is premised on an idealized economic system rather than analysis of actual conditions. That's exactly utopian socialism as distinct from scientific socialism.

It's not that I'm against it, it's just impossible lol.

Basically his whole polemic against proudhon.

That's far too vague to comment on. Elaborate.

I've read
What about you?

And yet in all that you didn't read about the Marxist concept of the Withering away of the state?

lol are you a computer science student by any chance?

None of those texts mention the withering away of the state AFAIK, it's mostly a leninist meme

What does being a CS student have to do with that?
My point is why would Anarkiddies tell people to read a theorist who contradicted their entire ideology.

Pretty sure its premised on, there is no need for private owners and we can do without them, which has been a condition now for a very long time.
Opening co-ops is impossible? But i supposed armed rebolooshun is just right around the corner?
Which part specifically? The part where he Jewd the international because most people favoured Proudhon and associates rather than Marx and associates?

"scientific socialism" The co-op experiment has to some extent already been carried out and been successful at least in its core function of maintaining business. Granted, other features like funding survival programs etc have not been tried to the extent most people here believe, but I've worked in these places, I have to some extent looked at the numbers in my own area, what it would cost, what you would gain. Its like this, imagine you are paying the workers at least living wage or slightly above now, or whatever form renumeration from their shares takes, essentially, you are taking away the largest salary, the private owners, and can then use this for survival programs etc, for your average small cafe that is probably about £40k for a larger one maybe up to the 60-80 region. That is a lot of cash for survival programs, agitation, etc and pay increase. Say you employ 4 people in a small cafe, to pay them 1000 pounds a year extrea each you only have to take 4g out that 40, still leaving you with 36. The numbers work

We have reached levels of not reading fucking books that shouldn't even be possible.

the kiddies maybe. anarchism has really good theorists (bakunin, kropotkin, malatesta, goldman), nobody except tankies can deny this.

they are already still in power. whether they are socialist or not is one thing, but they are in charge and acting according to ML doctrine in cuba, which is doing well economically (better than anything in the region).

i have no clue what definition of utopian you have, because left communists if anything are anything but utopian.

all respect to wolff (economic update is great) he's just an academic with a radio show who dumbs down all rhetoric and uses marx as authority to figure to sell his coop fetish. no doubt this will improve the lives of workers but that has nothing to do with socialism (socialism is about abolishing the worker because it abolishes private property).

why don't you tell us what book to read?

another one with a weird definition of utopian. utopian does not mean "not pragmatic". utopian means fictitious. "market socialism" is utopian both because its adherents think it goes anywhere beyond cooperatively/democratically managed private property and because they (some, not even all) think you can have a stage with this supposed socialism that will somehow lead to the end of private property.

this sounds like a strawman of what marxists think is the opposite of utopianism. yes you need conditions to create revolutionary activity. but who the heck is suggesting this means having workers suffer? they already suffer all the time, as you said it. nobody except impossibilists think this will produce revolutions, and nobody here is impossibilist. immiseration has also not consistently produced revolutionary action. political or economic instability yes (wars, economic crises), but not immiseration itself.

yeah, socialists for ethical business. but they can't even be ethical at all. no coop ever can be, because capitalism doesn't let you be ethical. even the most paradigmatic coop, mondragon, is a hellhole as any other when you research them: libcom.org/files/The myth of Mondragon Cooperatives, politics, and working class life in a Basque town.pdf.

Actually I think according to LeftComs, in particular the Bordiga types they do actually believe that the workers will spontaneously organize and end Capitalism free of leadership.

Being "ethical" is an entirely subjective concept but most would agree that there are levels to how "ethical" something can be. Coops are more ethical than Sole Proprietorship businesses or Shareholder owned businesses, which are controlled mostly by individuals who don't even work there.

What about it is fictitious?

look at this thread. It is a way to fund agitation and a revolutionary party by providing survival programs etc.

When property is not owned privately it is not private property. If no single person owns it and has absolute domain over it it is not private property. It may not be completely public property but it isn't private. Pretending its the same as private propperty completely lacks nuance. It represents a very real, very tangible gain for the workers in terms of their property relations. Furthermore, even if we accept that it is just democratically managed private property, that is much better than privately managed private property, and is more able to be revolutionised. On top of this, it makes things better work the workers, YES I am aware of the problems with the Mondragon Corporation, I'm not saying they will not still be subject to Market pressures. One thing I would say is that its hardly a radical form of co-op business. I would still rather work there than somewhere else.

The great majority of socialists and marxists believe in two staged revolution m8 even many anarchists. Marx himself thought of a lower stage and higher stage. Lenin.. everyone else etc.

Why is democratically managed capital worse than privately owned captial and how is it not an improvement?
it really isn't, this is a pretty common position here often advocated.
everyone who says conditions aren't ripe for worthy of revolution right this second.
is a total strawman, trying to paint people as wilting flowers talking about "ethics" and "morals" and "being nice". I'm not, I'm talking about worker self management. Nothing more nothing less.

that's just a strawman of them, just like it's also a strawman of marxism and what they mean with utopianism. and if there's a leftcom side which has a focus that you (might) say are obsessed with spontaneity if anything are not the italian leftcoms but the german councilists. they are completely non-political.

"ethical" isn't subjective at all. ethics are always based on universalist understandings. for example: comparing a coop to and Ltd. the coop is much more ethical. but socialism has nothing to do with ethics within the sphere of types of private property. it is even hard to say it's in the realm of discourse ethics to be for the complete abolition of private property, no matter what form. that's a point of affirming that the only way to achieve a real freedom is to completely transform society in every way.

and coops exclude non-employees from accessing their private property. it's still private property. you have to be one of the many private proprietors of that particular business to work there. it is an isolated producer.

everything after the part you quoted.

wew. one reply. i'll humor you with one more reply.

it is private property because i am, as non-employee, excluded from accessing the means of production in your cooperative business (private property). if it weren't private property the means of production would be owned by nobody.

because it doesn't lead to anything further and is perfectly congruent with capitalist society. is this fine man our comrade now: youtube.com/watch?v=06vP84SqnS4 ? the bourgeoisie is in large part desirous of making private property in ethical form. it's one the main things marx critiques in his most popular text (the manifesto), precisely because it ensures the mainstay of private property and the society of commodities. it does not one inch improve the prospect of ending it.

and it really doesn't. it is only by having a discourse that elevates private proprietor to more than but a function that such words can come from your mouth.

then do it. don't try to act like enforcing the misery of self-managed capital upon the world is in any way a positive change, much less a type of step forward.

first of all, you are misreading marx. for marx, lower and higher stage simply speak of different phases of the communist mode of production. it is in any case operating on communist principles. second, if you lump lenin in here, it is he who said "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.". you won't find such a description of socialism coming out of marx's mouth (for who socialism and communism were synonyms for a society totally absent of all private property forms).

nothing more nothing less? so you're doing it for its own sake? you can't even argue why you're doing it here, but before said "i'd rather because it's nicer". you can't even argue for how it would be desirable, much less understand that it's just different private property. you can't even say how this would be more useful as a private property form for actual abolition of private property.

and mondragon is just as awful as any other cooperative. because capitalism simply is.

I feel like history says otherwise here.

Socialism isn't just what you say it is, and in this case I'm assuming it's the LeftCom original Marxist definition of Socialism. The majority of people haven't used that definition of it in about 150 years now. Socialism can mean a range of things but for most people it means the liberation of workers whether it be in the context of private property or not.

So? Just because they retain a notion of private property doesn't inherently make them anywhere near as bad as the sole proprietor businesses of today. At least in their case the property is shared among them.

So you hate their people, and then base your political beliefs around those people you hate? I highly doubt that

here? i don't know. i don't think the fact that leftcoms are critical of things means they don't do anything. i mean every time there's a thread where someone suggests impossibilism there is a leftcom in the thread saying it's retarded.

marxist. i don't think leftcoms have a special definition.

why appeal to the majority here, exactly? doesn't help your case. indeed the majority thinks socialism is "when the government does stuff". what matters is how is socialism used as a term that describes something meaningfully different from capitalism. if during feudalism you said "capitalism is when the lord's house is democratized" actual bourgeois revolutionaries wouldn't think you're retarded but it would be inconsequential. you would just reproduce feudalism differently. feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. mean something specific. why go full pomo with definitions here?

you rejected ethics before but are now speaking in terms of "as bad". for what it's worth i have mounds of evidence showing coops are just as hellish as any other type of private property. this is because no matter who does the function of allocating private property it's the reality of it needing to be done that defines capitalism and what makes life shit. i posted a text above which critically assesses one of the most cited by market socialists and really the second you look at them it's the same as any other business. we are socialists, so we are against businesses as a whole, this thing which is barely 350 years old.

...

That's literally it though. As far as actual revolutionary organization goes they're useless, and historically most of them have been, just look at Bordiga and the Italian Communist Party.

I have never once recalled seeing this in all the two years I've been on here. But reforms aren't the problem with LeftComs. The problem with them is that even active organizing and revolution to them is a bad idea.

LeftComs are usually pretty adamant about sticking to the Marxist definition

Because the favour of the majority is what's needed to have a successful society. Revolutions with a lack of class consciousness and understanding of what has to be achieved always result in Fascism.

We already have a term for that though, Communism. Having Socialism and Communism mean exactly the same thing is redundant.

I never did. I reject the idea that any system could be inherently "ethical", that's ridiculous utopianism. Even Communism will have its internal contradictions. What I said was that cooperative would be more ethical than what we have now.

So you're saying that even in a enterprise where the workers would receive a compensation far closer to the value of their own labour, would possess a far greater control over their own means of production, and would have much better resources to regulate their own exploitation by higher ups. Life would still be just as shit as it would be working at the counter at McDonalds just because of private property?
Yeah. Nah. I'm not seein this.

Because it's impossible for a Coop to function effectively as a Coop when it has to compete in a market with Centralized Corporations that have immense amounts of power. We have to stop sole proprietor business altogether so Coops can develop.

By the looks of it, that list would include almost everything to Marx.

Because it's impossible for a Coop to function effectively as a Coop when it has to compete in a state that is dominated by Centralized Corporations*

Yes I will fight people fighting to preserve capitalism and the capitalist establishment under the guise of "government doing stuff for me" while wearing a red star.

Its not about "as bad" or "as good" in the sense of some objective criteria, beyond of course, the criteria of every socialist, which are, to elevate the conditions of the worker. If you put the worker in control of his work, and his comrades, they will be in a better position to elevate their conditions and they do, based on actually existing co-operatives. As you have pointed out there are still problems, and I accept those. The thing is, we aren't talking about co-operatives for co-operatives sake, we are talking about co-operatives as a means to an end. A means that you can legally access and enter into while still working in your own self interest and seizing to a degree a portion of the productive forces

Monsanto, with its faults, its I think the 10th largest company in Spain

Also Stalin robbed banks to fund the Bolsheviks. I think co-op opening is a much more community friendly idea. Its seems to be like you people are suggesting we somehow do the latter.

Yes but it's adopted a lot of more centralized policies since its inception to better compete.

i don't really see a problem with centralisation if it is agreed upon. Consensus centralism is the ideal goal we should try to achieve, so long as there are still avenues for the constituent parts to self manage