Leftcoms come out you fucking liberals

Being under a local despot instead of the direct rule of the most powerful countries is just as bad for regular people, but it weakens the source of reaources/power of the main capitalists countries. It would be better an eventually lead to the collapse of the main capitalists countries if it wasn't because those same tyrants can decide new aliances with minor capitalists powers and return to square 0.

Come out you black and t-
Wait a second

Google Bookchin

nibba what?

They don't tbh I've heard many leftcoms say that proletarian revolution can only happen in the First World. I honestly think it's because they don't have any kind of development oriented model or transitional society that could work in a Third World country.

It remains to be proven that they could actually 'abolish le value form xD' even if the president of an imperialist country handed them the keys to the state.

have fun building socialism with shitty infrastructure and literally no industry.
Holy shit i just realized third worldism is the most oppurtunistic thing to ever exist.

Nice fucking argument. Socialism should be built wherever the proletariat exists and is able to seize power. Left-communism is literally the most opportunistic and defeatist type of Marxism to exist because it denies the revolutionary potential of the Third World proletariat.

It's almost like there are two poles on the revisionist left one that advocates do-nothing defeatism via utopian ultra-left nonsense and the other that advocates do-anything opportunism oriented around economistic demands and liberal reforms. It's almost like these two poles continue and reproduce each other.

It's funny too because the majority of industrial workers are actually located in the Third World and so is the majority of the modern working class. The argument your making here belongs really to the 19th and early 20th centuries; it should be buried along with the discredited work of the Mensheviks.

I´m not saying they don´t have any revolutionary potential but they wont be able to create socialism.
i would like to see those heavily industrialized third-world countries.
they´re 2nd world.
yeah… you should probably google what the word oppurtunism means.

Literally where? This has never stuck out to me from leftcoms/ultras at all. Chuang, ultra-leftist, right now are covering China for the very reason that it has massive revolutionary activity in its working class. In fact they're the only ones really covering China with so much depth, and with inside people and first hand accounts.

INB4 the retarded "Holla Forums leftcoms who spew retarded and embarrassing shit aren't real leftcoms" meme

*isn't an actual trend

that meme isn't even accurate, since the meme for leftcoms is "opportunists" or "liberals"

Not real leftcoms.

Find us a few or at least single left communist or ultra-leftist group or theorist that says only the first world can do revolution or shut the fuck up and go back to your permanent state of being so retarded that you can't even paint an accurate picture of what buttflusters you.

Read Bordiga.

Left communists don't even acknowledge the "first world vs. third world" categorization as more than a descriptive one. They believe that where there are the material conditions for communism, communism will exist, period.

They even acknowledge that you don't even need the capitalist mode of production itself for communism, just like even Marx knew that for example the Russian Obschina peasant communes (feudal societies!) could already be transformed through communist revolution:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm

Almonds status: Activated

I see you've ran out of arguments, can't show me any leftcom/ultra theorists who deny the revolutionary subjectivity of the so-called third world and are using random anti-leftcom shitposters as a distraction.

...

Yeah, there's more than enough asspain at ultra-leftism here that people are willing to spend their time and energy making low effort posts with the leftcom flag to amplify that.

What you said was
which is far from where you've backpedaled to. Still waiting on you to give us that fabled ultra-left theorist or group that talks shit about the third world proletariat then.

Again, find us an ultra-leftist theorist or group that says this or relegate yourself back to the silent state of shouting at illusions with asspain. I'll tell you what ultra-leftists do support though, and that's not alien to the Marxist communist tradition by any means: proletarian internationalism. The only way you've captured that ultra-leftist think it's either communism in a flash or nothing at all is if you've understood their assessments of history to have never surpassed capitalism as being indicative of that, or you're, again, literally too retarded to even inform yourself on the most basic positions of the ultra-left.

Pic related for your favorite leftcom bogeyman's take in particular. He even wrote an entire descriptive account of what this might look like in another text with the Jan Appel folks of the Dutch-German communist left. Again, you're literally too stupid to even attempt comprehending what it is that's impaling your asshole.

jej. And he never denied the holocaust; he fully acknowledged everything about it. What he wrote about though was the meaning of the holocaust.

Dauvé, a (post-)Situationist, also is not a holocaust denier. I was also in that thread and, it's sad that you don't understand French, but the OP ended up realizing that all the links he had posted were attempting to guilt Dauvé into being a denier through association with some ex-ultras who ended up defending Faurrisson, a denier of the existence of gas chambers. Funniest was when he found out that all the links were by anti-Germans, who in the same texts accused Marx of being an anti-semite for his On the Jewish Question.

Left communists were never against self-determination; they were entirely with Lenin on this. And just like with Lenin's own revolutionary defeatism it does not contradict self-determination; it contradicts supporting local bourgeois despots with zero communist content but supporting them because they wave red flags while exploiting their working class like any other bourgeoisie does.

Weak showing lad.

What a sleuth.

why are "leninist" (traps/literal SA goons) so booty blasted all the time?

Mostly because their organizations haven't accomplished anything in several decades. All they really do is sell newspapers and try to get people from their party onto city councils and other local positions; they're exactly like the reformists they harshly criticize and they talk shit on everyone else to try to conceal this fact.

Chapofags aren't Leninist, right?

I was never a part of SA, but I heard somewhere that Chapo was more a product of weird twitter, which was itself a product of FYAD. The whole tankie contingent of SA started in Laissez's Faire (I think?) which got shutdown for being a shithole and the people from that started tHE r H i z z o n E, which was another tankie shithole (sam kriss is a product of this side of SA).

Holy shit. Never knew SA had such a tanksphere. These are all Sakai level tankies too.

D&D was an ML hive, at the same time it was peak SJW, I feel like many of the same meme arguments they used to parrot on there are still floating around today, same exact wording and everything. creepy.

This meme was made on revleft by leftcoms

MLs are dumb, that doesn't make leftcoms any less dumb.

It's also been claimed by leftcoms on here that they personally made it. Whether it was made by leftcoms or not has little bearing on its truth.

Some douche might mutter that he's a piece of shit "ironically" and it would still be the truth.

at least they make an effort to actually read and understand Marx, which is grievously rare accomplishment among the academic left whos whole life is fucking centered around reading. ML's are among the most pathetic creatures imaginable, useful idiots autopiloted by a regime that ceased to exist almost 30 years ago.

Leftcoms all over the internet themselves make the best satire of leftcom. For some reason only they can really do it. If anyone else tries it ends up being like pic related, insulting the proletariat and making themselves look retarded.

DEATH TO AUTHORITARIAN "LEFTISTS". No seriously i can strangle you personally.

stfu, this is and always has been a fucking meme. There are those of literally every ideology that are well read in marx, Stalin, Mao hell even Chavez could recite Marx word for word, it doesn't mean shit. Stop pretending to have a big dick on the internet and try making an argument for once.

Bordiga advocated the same sort of totalitarian one party state as the USSR he just wanted them "to be more communism." He and Dauve are both incredibly idealist nonsensical authors who handwave away the problems of the workers movements as not a problem of strategies or material conditions, but a problem of mindset.

bordiga's whole argument was a materialist one, about how the bolshevik's position in the place and time forced it to capitulate to the rules of bourgeois statehood and capitalist production. and dauvé comes from the situationists, out of situationist groups, so yes for him it's important to recognise how the influence of elite "leader" cadres were huge factors in morphing revolutionary prole activity into strict rank and file stuff that sapped all of their spontaneous energy away and reproduced bourgeois ideology.

They actually say shit like that tho it's hard to satirize what's already nonsensical tbqf

i'm not a leftcom or even really a marxist friendo but they were the ones on here memeing the bare basics when dudes don't even know what a commodity is.
ok. ironic also, because he's every babby's first gateway theorist.
so your threatened by actual intellect? is that what this post was about?

Cold take

Saying "REad x, REAd Y" doesn't mean shit when you constantly contradict X and Y.

I encourage everyone here to read Marx and Engels, doing so and coming to your own conclusions is the biggest inoculation against the infantile disorder that is left communism.

Here, I'm literally only using totalitarianism in the same way Bordiga used it. See: Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party. Stop trying to gain deeper insight into someone via the reaction images they have saved to their hard drive.

are you the booty blasted "leninist" mod that banned me for triggering you ITT? why don't you explain how Dauve is a muh idealist, and what you think "material conditions" actually means, and how you can strategize or analyze without a mindset that enables said? or can you only think in memes?

I ain't a leninist faggot, for someone who accuses other of thinking only in memes, this seems to be your default method of debating. Many of modern left-communists worst aspects come from Bordiga's interpretations of lenin.

Do you wanna know why Dauve is an idealist, read him yourself:

So here we have it, revolution is not a matter defeating class enemies, it's simply a matter of *deciding to no longer be commodities*, spontaneous "communist insurrection" will somehow not only magically dissolve all currently existing political and economic structures, but will also resolve all the contradictions in interests within the working class. And we shouldn't forget, it will do this without the need to worry about logistics, command structures, or any prolonged warfare!

Lenin's revolutionary defeatism was aimed at imperialist countries at war, if the country who is attacked in not an imperialist country this defeatism is akin to advocating for neocolonialism.

Lenin's revolutionary defeatism is for imperialist countries at war, if the country being attack by an imperialist power is not itself one, then defeatism is akin to advocating for neocolonialism.

Tito was an authoritarian leftist you dumbass.

from the pic:
How can exchange of commodities take place without the law of value? The description of the law of value literally starts with simple exchange of commodities without money.

Blaming ML orgas for not achieving anything (which is an awfully eurocentric perspective btw) while being a fucking leftcom is so a level of hypocrisy beyond imagination

We are the only ones who have a somewhat coherent understanding of historical materialism

Not really, you even practiced to intentionaly mistranslate Marx work to hide original meaning from readers.

For examlpe in almost all translations of Marx work that was made in Eastern Bloc you have been hiding original usage of bürgerliche Gesellschaft, but not only that.

Leftcoms are all favvots
Im going to cuckold them and turn them into cute traps for me to abuse whenever I want

wew lad

You understand that you experess the LeftCom point of view, right?

marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm

marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/

I think, that there must be a balance.The right of nations to self-determination can/might be a bourgeois slogan, and the Soviet role in de-colonisation of the Third World and whit like that has been doubtful and not always consistent, was seen as doubtful by Soviets themselves.
But still, we see much opposite examples, when national liberation struggle grew into social struggle in the metropolis, starting from the Russian Revolution of 1905, and like even fucking Paris Commune 1871, and ending with China, Vietnam, 1968…

Centrist begone

Luxemburg was not a leftcom

Still kind concidering myself an M-L

Whut

...

I I am asked to to name famous Left-Wing communists, then I am like… R. Luxembourg, K. Liebknecht. That was it basically.

Leftcommunism didn't exist until after she died.

Yes it did, and Rosa opposed it. All Orthodox/Second International Marxists opposed the rising communist left in its mid-late period.

That autistic screenshot gets dunked on every time it gets posted.

I've only seen it posted here like half a dozen times and nobody's ever objected anything to it. There's little to "dunk on" in a bunch of basic truisms. Keep the asspain at a minimum, thanks.

Yeah, you know, except for the fact that the German revolution failed precisely because the Sparticist league *didn't* have popular support, either in the KPD or in general, and especially in the rebelling military needed to lead a successful revolution. At least in Russia, Lenin had the added benefit of a civil war which already destroyed the power of the central government. If a man kicks in a rotten door, one should at least give some credit to the door!

Her critique of the Russian revolution, including the constituent assembly was spot on, as it was only with general elections and universal suffrage that proletarian democracy could have existed at all in Russia. The soviets were after all crushed by the same motives that the constitute assembly was crushed, for the survival of Bolshevik power and the continued existence of the revolution. Why? Because authentic soviet control in the context of the civil war meant total chaos of production which would have doomed the war effort. Luxemburg was exactly right that everything that Lenin did, he did out of necessity, but this necessity shouldn't be mistaken for revolutionary goals. This is the exact same mistake that Bordiga would make when he outlined his vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat, suddenly every extreme measure the bolsheviks had taken in the heat of the civil war was glorified and elevated to a matter of theory. He rejected democracy as being abstract, and then declared the party as being the true agent of workers when the party had already done all it could to restrain and destroy worker power.

Whether you think she was overhyped because of her gender or her place in history doesn't mean shit if you don't even argue her points!

You're not addressing anything in the screenshot there. The German revolution and its failure are an entirely different point. The screenshot talks about how she opposed the original split with the SPD into the KPD, and how she came to oppose the majority communist left within it, which went on to form the KAPD (the faction of which was for instigating a revolt against the State basically since day one; it was its whole imperative, and it was also the most vocal in support for the various general strikes and factory occupations that happened).

These existed for roughly three years, after which the situation became dire.

And ensuring the existence of revolution is bad why?

Nobody said that what happened with the Bolsheviks should be the basis for anything else. Keep your head in there.

And not sure why you're bringing in Bordiga (and your shit understanding of his positions; virtually every single communist party was cool with what the Bolsheviks did, including the proto-/pre-'30s councilists in Germany, and they had no particular objection to abstract notions of democracy and workers' power meaninglessly strewn about like fetishes) just because I posted a Bordiga meme.

Nice facebook page faggot.

I think the stance is tht the revolution won't be succesful unless it is global, asin ocurring in bothe thw "1st" and "3rd" worlds

Pol pots agricultural Cambodia is Communist under this definition

Communism = Kampuchea according to leftcoms

lol.

And guess why she still supported the decisions that it made? Because she was a believer in democracy as the rule of the workers as a class. According to Bordiga's theory, she should have been thrown out with all the others who dared momentarily disagree with the majority!

And the dire situation excused much, but at a certain point, you stop accepting excuses.

Ha! Look what the Bolshevik Revolution has brought us, what wonders of Stalinist power, social imperialism, and the state clampdown of workers movements in the actually capitalist world. At best it can be said the early USSR was useful in fighting Nazis and founding the field of developmental economics (ironic considering all the leftcommunist polemics against anti-fascism and development!).