Is LeftCommunism fundamentally unworkable and utopian?

Flag for future OC btw.

Leftcom is a pretty meaningless category.

Left communism has never been tried.

Ideologies don't drive revolutions. Classes do.

How many of you have actually read this book?

It's mostly a critique of leftcom praxis. Lenin doesn't draw any distinction between Bolshevik socialism and leftcom socialism, the critique of Left communism mostly centers around them being overly doctrinaire and purist, and honestly a lot of the criticism Lenin had for the leftcoms a century ago could be more readily applied to the ☭TANKIE☭s of today. There's multiple instances where he basically calls leftcoms LARPers.

t. Lenin

I get more and more of an impression that ☭TANKIE☭s and their fellow travelers think of political works as things to be praised and not necessarily read, and simply assume that the contents within align with their own politics. That the only reason I can think of why they keep bringing up a book that is essentially a hundred pages of Lenin roasting their politics.

Remember when 1917 happened because the peasantry and proletariat read Marx and Engels? Yeah, me too.

Read What Is To Be Done?.

I have. WITBD? was meant for the context of autocratic Russia in 1901 and 1902. Iskra's (Russian Marxist SocDem's journal) aim at this time was to construct a nationwide Social Democratic organisation as best as could be done under the conditions of absolutism. For this reason the book is most significant for historical reasons rather than theoretical ones. As conditions changed in Russia the book ceased to be that relevant. That which still is notable for theoretical reasons, however, is Lenin's criticisms of "Economism" and his brief explanation of Kautsky's formula that Social Democracy, or Marxism, should be understood as "the merger of socialism and the workers' movement."

While it was the bourgeois intelligentsia that had first conceived the notion of socialism, Marx and Engels had shown that the working class that must liberate itself through the class struggle in order to realise socialism, culminating in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. It is therefore the task of Social Democrats, ie. Marxists, to agitate for socialism and embolden the working class to facilitate this struggle. In other words, the aim of revolutionaries is to organise a proletariat already situated in revolutionary times. This is not a worshipping of spontaneity; this is taking an actual, real close fucking look at the way history operates, and it's not on "this sounds nice, let's do it!", but through the alignment of circumstances and the prospensity towards revolutionary activity in class subjects they enable.

If you'd have actually read WITBD? and especially Lenin's later commentaries on it (c.f. Second International congress transcripts, State and Revolution, texts on Kautsky and his influence) I wouldn't even need to waste a few minutes here saying this to you. No, wait, never mind, your derelict militancy and repeated shouts of "educate, agititate, organise!" now in the streets will spark the revolution any time now, comrade!

Read a book faggot, not everyone in the French revolution read fucken all the enlightenment lit in order to be subject to its ideas

...

The only thing i need to read is my tank manual

No more than the rest of leftism tbqh

Oh look, we have visitors making their obligatory post-mass shooting damage control tour

Leftcommunism is more like a critique on the communist movement. It's not anymore utopian than vanilla Leninism.

What exactly is it? It seems like a catch all term for statist socialism that doesn’t call for a vanguard party.

I agreed with this when I first read it, but then I saw a video on how the bolsheviks orchestrated revolution by taking advantage of the war. Who knows what would had happened if they weren't read lads during that time.