Why people become left-coms?

Id be better off Reading Gramsci honestly.

This is the best answer i Will probably get.

Mao championed the idea that a society based around class collaborationism and commodity production was socialism. If disagreeing with that makes one a left-com then Marx was a left-com. "Peoples democratic dictatorship" instead of DotP should be rightly regarded as hogwash by any self-respecting communist.

lmao you can be against class collaborationism and not be a leftcom m8

There are non-Boriga leftcoms. Like the Council Communists, and the Situationists.

I know, I'm just slinging shit at the maoist who thinks their in a position to criticize anyone.

They're*
shit

Oh boy…

SHE IS LEFTCOM ACCEPT IT

You are part of the problem. Novices are not fit to understand, and interpret marx

Mao called for colaboration with the shen Kia shek becouse there was a biger external force threatning China at the time. Mao tried many times to do improve relations with the KMT to try to have a coalition goverment like the times before the civil war but shen denied. The Alliance with the National burgeoi is only a temporary one becouse the burgers Will allways go for their self interest rather them national one.

You are the problem

It also works for succdems

Mao called for class collaboration long after the japanese threat was dealt with, and it never ended. Mao began as a class collaborator and only went further right with time.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

What could possibly go wrong? Not to speak of the fact that the revolution wouldn't have been possible in the first place without the help of the small bourgeoisie and peasantry.

...

People just like the aesthetic of it.
First you become a member of X ideology, and only later you learn what the fuck its even about.
Everyone pops their ideology cherry just based on aesthetics. Its why there are so many nazis on the chans, their are more pleasing to a young man.

You are lying by omission. You forgot "patriotic elements of the bourgeoisie". Not just petty bourgeois.

Allying with the peasantry is fine. That's not the issue here. And you still haven't mentioned the fact that Mao considered commodity production to be socialist.

I take it you became a Maoist because you like killing sparrows then?

this board is full of succdems and leftcoms. So you are going to get answers that ultimately show most leftcoms never got up from their armchairs. Unfortunately /marx/ is slow but have higher quality discussion (which funny enough is a ML )

If I was in it (solely) for the aesthetics I would be a NotSoc.

Naw, NotSocs had shit aesthetics, they were kitschy as fuck and were LARP-tier as fuck. Their uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss, but that's as far as the Nazi aesthetic really goes. They stole most of their shit from others who did that shit better first.

I confess I'm still not entirely sure what the leftcom ideas are, as I always interpreted it to be a purely relative political position. As in, it's literally someone to the left of Lenin.

Black is a cool color sure but the french revolution and Napoleon had the best fashion. Easily.

This

post more commie akko

good post

Because I love the taste of cum.

Of course you're an anarchist. I mean Jesus Christ this is such shit and childish taste.

Why are anarkiddies always so fucking dumb

Fascist aesthetics were literally designed to be trash that appeals to people without taste

So I take it you like it.

If it wasn't for getting killed by socdems she'd be unknown. She is certainly nowhere near the ravioli ravager or pancakeman in terms of influence. So much for the knowledgeable leftcom.

looks homo erectus as fuck dude

...

...

...

Idk fam, I used to respect tankies until i found out the majority of MLs on this board essentially unironically believe "you need authoritarian State Capitalism till you have post-scarcity, until then Communism is impossible", after that I realized most of them are beyond autistic, and usually just become MLs because a.) they're more interested in fetishizing the aesthetics of armies, tanks, dictators, and other Statist bullshit then actually reading Marx, or b.) they became Stalinists just so that Liberals couldn't laugh at them for using the "not real Socialism" argument.

They were shit
youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1ZM01oroU

Not going to disagree there. But it doesn't actually deal with the Situationist views.

Honestly, the idea that Bookchin would accuse anyone else of being insufferable is beyond comical.

Forgot shitposting flag

Bookchin's full of shit, he was notoriously combative and impossible to work with. The fact that he'd call the Situationists "Stalinist" is proof of just how intellectually dishonest he could get when talking about other Leftists. Here's an interesting essay on what a weird and angry guy he was, and how it negatively affected his ability to actually organize and get shit done.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chuck-morse-being-a-bookchinite

It was more that they operated as a cult then anything.

I'm not disputing that he was combative personality, but that doesn't mean that the situationalists weren't shit.

Because we actually read and don't pop a boner for soviet uniforms, propaganda posters and the fantasy of sending our highschool bullies to the gulag.

FTFY. You guys shit on anarchists just as much. Don't pretend like you are all just a bunch of anti-ML crusaders.

Leftcoms shit on Anarchists for pretty much the same reason MLs and most other Marxist do it's not something unique to Leftcoms to dislike Anarchists for being idealistic and liberal.

At least the Situationists had some very interesting ideas. Bookchin was a boring liberal with an unhealthy fetish for muh democracy.

The world will not be changed by millions of people voting for change, or demonstrating for change, because capitalist power is not constituted with reference to human feelings: political desires and demonstrations, which are the social forms consciousness takes, cannot touch capitalist domination but are merely determined by it. We have no place for consciousness in our scheme, we see no need for a generalised formulated desire for revolution. Revolution belongs to the mute body and its resistance to, and its giving out to, the imposition of work. What is needed in the revolutionary struggle is precedence given to the needs of the body (consumer culture is a contemporary echo of this). The slogans are not inspiring or romantic: more rest, more pay, less work, no deals on productivity. However, once this demand-regime is set in motion it cannot be side-tracked except by counterfeit political demands, or formulations of radical consciousness made by those who seek to lead it. Once the body tends toward rest, it cannot rid itself of that inclination unless it is roused again to work for some political vision. In short the struggle of industrial workers against capital will be conducted entirely in selfish terms, which in the end describes itself as the struggle against work in the interest of highly paid sleep. In the present nothing has significance but the desire to extend half-hour lunch breaks into hour lunch breaks.

For us the revolutionary function of the proletariat is very mechanical, and only a relatively small number of people will be significant in the mechanism. On the other hand we think it is important that other groups also act selfishly (the disabled for example, or local communities) and so drain energy from the authorities: these other social and political struggles are marginal and cannot finish the job (they cannot seize the means of production) but they are never-ending in that they are concerned with the articulation of needs which cannot be satisfied. However, we think the damage caused to capital by the anti-capitalists is outweighed by their falsification of their own role, that is their false representations of, and hopes for, consciousness and the political sphere in general and their neglect of production.

Incidentally, it may seem that our formulations of how a revolution could take place are rather dystopian, a-human; certainly it gives us little pleasure to slowly erase our previously held leftist tendencies. But at least our concepts are clear and lay down precise criteria. This cannot be said of most pro-revolutionaries, who get extremely vague when discussing how such-and-such of their gestures will engage with, let alone overthrow, present conditions. We would, perhaps, place more trust in pro-revolutionaries and thus in a human-based, participatory revolution, if it were not for the lamentable history of ideas-led revolutions. Pro-revolutionary practice is synonymous with rivalry, personal ambition, corruption, stupidity, and failure.

We view revolutionary and anti-capitalist movements not as mistaken forms of otherwise correct positions but as capitalist movements in themselves; revolutionary movements effect only the reorganisation of capitalism and as such, at the end of their acts, words, and breath, are pro-capitalist. To be a Leninist is to be as much a capitalist as a Keynesian, Trotsky was as capitalist as Ford; to be an Anti-capitalist is to be as much a capitalist as any other liberal reformer. There are different forms and interpretations but the theoretical maintenance of the working class as workers (whether for state owners or green collectives) and the emphasis on the re-organisation of production (whether in terms of nationalisation or with reference to the environment) means they are always within the capitalist frame of definition.

The situationalists borrowed a lot of their ideas from others and then harassed anyone for doing the same to them. Dialectical Naturalism > Dialectical Materialism

The hammer and sickle prove yet again that it's nothing but a front to the mustache

Good thing alot of leftcoms don't even want a vanguard party at least not in the traditional sense its actually Anarchists insistence on immediate dissolution of the state, staunch anti-hierarchical stance and non-materialist view of the world we find idealistic and unsustainable not to mention them having the opinions of your typical liberal teenager on pretty much everything from animal rights/environmentalism to identity politics to religion just makes them an easy target of ridicule.

Christ, Bookchin really comes off as a smug cunt in this.

Because I don't want to join a cult full of larping faggots paying dues and selling fucking newspapers like 1920's paper boys for the benefit some petite bourgeois "professional revolutionaries" that run said cults.

Also commodity production is incompatible with socialism, and you dense mother fuckers can't seem to get that through your heads.

Other than immediate dissolution of the state (and we have a different view of the state) and an anti-hierarchical stance, none of those things apply to anarchists. None of them.

Says the guy that that think any attempt whatsoever at agitating is doomed to failure from its inception and that we should wait because the revolution will just pop-up like a daisy

Geez, can you get even more disingenuous?

...