← This man (Richard Dien Winfield) has done more for theory than you fucks and your dogmatic mongrel abstract...

← This man (Richard Dien Winfield) has done more for theory than you fucks and your dogmatic mongrel abstract idealists have ever done. He has thought systematically more widely and more deeply than any of you ever will. How can you offer a future that you don't know a thing about to the people?

What do you have to say in defense of your theoretical heroes and yourselves, leftypol?

Other urls found in this thread:

endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=lightsource&pid=0
8ch.net/leftypol/res/931812.html
libcom.org/library/communisation-vs-socialisation-suspended-step-communisation-theorie-communiste
libcom.org/library/intervention-communising-current
youtube.com/watch?v=jy1iudsIKa8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

ITT: We rate Holla Forums's board personalities in terms of how well they know theory.

I'll start:
1. Me
2. Rebel
3. Yui
4. Muke
5. A.W. Root Beer Man

Woops forgot to take off the an-fam flag :^)

Rebel is way better than you tho.

m8 pls Rebel himself will admit that I know more than him. He's just more obnoxious about it ;^)

10/10

hegelian idiot

1. Space_
2. Yui
3. A.W
4. Muke
5. Rebel
6. N1X

Anyone who does tho is unintellectual tho. All positive programs are based on pure speculation.


1. Marx Poster
2. Tripfag Marxist Leninist
3. Not Me
4. Absurd_Rebellion
5. Not you.

So how do you speculate communism at all? Even a negative speculation is too positive. Why should absolute absence of 'x' be an acceptable answer? That's abstract and pointless.

...

I dont speculate it, i dont play around with what i dont have controle over. (The Future) There are far to many conditions wich will be obstacles towards the realisation of the ideas that have been created in the past existing society. (Making it allready not revolutionary as its just a radical reformed system based on the dominant idealogy thus from the French Revolution) And even so society itself and especially our advanched techno-industrial society is to complicated to even theorize about on what will be set up cause it will not happen as you would like it.

All positive programs only create Cruel Optimism and the results always will be ironic tragedy at all our attempts to controle everything with idea's wich materialism doesnt comply to. Only positive program is a spontaneous one in the present time. (Meaning not in future) and this can only happen after tje negative program has cleared the way.


All future is science fiction fam, enjoy your novels.

"Space is literally the most stupid thing there is " Comrade Slavoj "Bunker Buster" Žižek

Dont know the right word for it actually.
Cosmic idealistic pessimism or some kind of word soup.

Listen up, as far as theory goes Muke is number one and the rest of you know none

Why are you asking an anarcho-nihilist that when they're whole ideology is based around the fact that revolution is impossible?

source?

You should become either an anarcho-anarchist (Stirner), or a nihilo-nihilist (Nietzsche).

...

Truth doesnt exist.


1. Space
2. Stalin poster
3. Rebel
4. AW
5. Muke
6. Yui
7. You

Just wait until you read the dialectics shit he wrote

sigh

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the guy that you have been posting all around that claims that Hegel was more more Materialist than Marx? That we need to criticise Marx from the standpoint of Hegel?

He sounds like a rather interesting guy, where should I begin with his work?

SAGE SAGE SAGE

He may browse reddit but I really don't care considering that his theoretical aptitude and grasp of theory outweighs any negatives. Not all tripfags are the same, or are you going to lump A.W with n1x & the Stalinist tripfaggot?

Hi rebel, stop bumping your boyfriend's thread.

How does one managed to get triggered this badly?

What kind of objects must have been pushed into one's colon to produce this kind of anal pain?

Tell us n1x, where did A.W. fuck you in the ideology?

What the heck is going on in this thread?

Non-ironic ranking:
1: Freud
2: Marxhead
3: you
4: A.W.
5: Yui

551: Xerox

N1X GETTING EXPOSED

Is Xerox the Stalinist or?

Marxhead is goat - there's multiples of them though. The one who posed the critique of Austrian economics wasn't the OG.

Xerox = Xexizy = Muke. The unread faggot that actually got humiliated in a 'debate' with ekiddie fascists.

Yeah the OG Marxhead.

I agree with pretty much everything said in there.

Where would you place Stalinstache?
I don't know where he's off to, I haven't seen his post on the board in a long time. But his successor(who posted the critique in the Bohm-Bawk thread) is a good one.

Not top 10, that's for sure. One of the left com posters is also really good. Actually, now that I'm reminded of him I'd say the top 3 is:
1. Freud
2. Marxhead
3. Left com
and the rest in no particular are anfem, Yui and A.W.

Why not top 10? His post are usually structured coherently.

...

Maybe you're right; there's not enough good posters on the board for there to be more than 10 good posters so he ought to deserve a top 10. Despite him being a Stalinist, his posts are at least properly argumented most of the time.

What''s wrong with Stalinist?

Good list tbqh.

It's just militant socdem and LARPing.

How did the workers not control the MOP in Russia?

The USSR were state capitalist, it maintained the production process of capitalism, where the state itself served as one large capitalist. Communism is not merely the workers perpetuating the exploitation under capitalism, it's the abolition of the value form itself: endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory

That the workers had no control of said production process is blatantly clear if we look at the way the USSR handled dissent: the methodology of secret police, secret camps, and show trials betrayed the regime's fear of it's own people, and it's disillusionment with communism.

During Lenin and the Revolution there was no hesitance to gun down counter-revolutionaries behind the church, during Stalin however there was a constant urge to maintain a mask of humanity, of everything being in it's place - they weren't assured that the people would support open rooting out of what was perceived as a danger to the revolution. Thus the the show trials and the need for a confession, thus the secrecy about what happened to these "traitors".

Beyond the façade of "totalitarianism" there was a wretched heap that was constantly under the assumption that they where on the brink of collapse (remember how Stalin fled to his summer house the moment Hitler crossed the border - assured that his deputies would take the chance to depose him!) and that everyone was out to get them. Guy Debord makes a pretty good point of the fragility of the nomenclature in Society of the Spectacle - unlike the capitalists, they simultaneously must prove themselves experts, yet not really in charge.

It is rather in the shadow of this failure of a party, that we can see the strength of the communist project, how people worked themselves near-death for a project that they believed so much in. Wasn't this what we saw in the cultural revolution? The party thought it could harness this power, to purge itself, but found that they'd unleashed the same force that tore the Tsars, Kaisers, and Sons of Heaven from their thrones - and thus they stem the tide with tanks and artillery in Shanghai.

For further reading I'd recommend Zizek's Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism, and Badiou's The Communist Hypothesis.

I think that refers to the Anarchist point of view there are only Anarchists and SocDem.

It is irrelevant if you overthrow Bourgeoisie violently (as Marxists suggest), if you intend to use state (for reforms from top-down) - you are still Reformist, aka SocDem. And Bolsheviks did call themselves SocDem until they created Third International and renamed themselves Communist. Thus Communist = militant SocDem.


Either way, I must point out, that I'm not particularly interested in "theory". My interests lie in practice (primarily Soviet, yes) - organization, planning of economy, and so on. Not liking RDW and pointing out the most glaring mistakes is more of a distraction.

Are you ready to substantiate your post?

I'm not going to listen to your mental gymnastics and complete lack of understanding of Marx.


Ftfy, the ML are completely depended on dogmatic Orthodox Marxist misreadings of Marx.

Seriously, get with the times, Grundrisse is the core work of Marx, and Orthodox Marxists didn't even know it existed.

Well, explains a lot.

There were pretty bold claims about Soviet history. You are the one who'll need mental gymnastics.


Theory was in quotes for a reason.

A.W. didn't do anything to me. In fact, I've hardly spoken with him.

The Root Beer Man didn't need to do anything to me. His mere existence is a travesty, and it offends me personally that someone such as him is allowed to exist. He deserves nothing more than to be ground under the heel of my boot for being the arrogant little Hegelian stooge that he is, and when cybernetic post-left anarcho-nihilist communism inevitably wins, the first order of business will be to ensure that A.W. is put in a milk shop gulag where he will be forced to read Nietzsche and Deleuze in between milkboarding sessions.


I'm okay with this. But Freudposter and Marxposter haven't been around for awhile.


Space_ how does it feel to know that no one will ever notice you or Bunkerchan? :^^^^^^^^^^^)

Modern Technology is codeword for Anti-autonomy.

Gimme a fucking source already

Get in #anarcho faggot

Only thing i know is that the charrachter is called Murasaki

According to Prickly_cactus I apparently have a cult of personality :^)

Literally who gives a fuck about anything Prickly_Cucktus has to say

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=lightsource&pid=0
here ya go comrade

Thanks famalam

I've heard about people talking about themselves in third person, but talking about yourself in second person plural is new to me.


>Communism is not merely the workers perpetuating the exploitation under capitalism, it's the abolition of the value form itself: endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory
You already posted the link to that wall of text here:
8ch.net/leftypol/res/931812.html
It is a pretty stupid article as can be seen by the reply you got.

Communisation guys claim to be the true Marxists. They figure there was a distortion of Marx by Stalin, after some research they see the distortion happening already with Lenin, then Engels, and finally, Marx himself. Given that Marx was for Labor vouchers, he was a pro-capitalist stooge by your own standard.

Apply yourself.

Which critiques the concept of communization sure, it does not actually deny their explanation of Marx. Maybe you should, you know, read an article before being smug about it?

Ahahahaha what the fuck are you smoking?

It's not a question of being "true" to Marx, but it's however necessary to know what Marx actually believed for there to be a serious application and critique of his work. The fact that Marx has been misinterpreted by Orthodox Marxists and it's variants (largely because, as previously said, they didn't have access to his entire body of work) is one of many reasons why MLism is so theoretically poor (which is not helped by it's zealous dogmatism).

Modern "leftcoms" are absolutely open with that Marx is being used in a much larger body of communist theory, such as Deleuze, Camatte, Negri, etc.

As it says in the fucking article: "Marxian theory as a radically open project, and developing areas of enquiry which were barely touched upon by Marx himself."

Please, if you want to make a critique, at least know what your opponent has actually said and stand for.

I've never claimed to be the expert on Marx, but this attitude of lazy navel-gazing and lack of serious engagement outside your party-approved body of works is why the left is a fucking corpse.

Communization theory might not stand the test of time, but it's blatantly clear that Orthodox Marxism (and it's offshots) hasn't - yet you cling to the ruins like the fucking historical larpers that you are.

I liked your post on the USSR especially


do you mean how Stalinists always tried to prove that the party were "servants of the people" (with Stalin, the party leader being the perfect servant of the people)?

However does communization theory support progressive national liberation movements? The only thing I know about communization theory is that Giles Dauve is garbage, especially his chauvinism towards Kurds.

I'm actually interested in hearing you substantiate your claim. This is coming from someone who's on the fence about it not being socialist.

← We may disagree, but you deserve it lad.

This has got to be one of the most autistic images I have ever seen you post and that is quite the achievement.

As one with valid cognitive skills it is my moral duty to recognize and encourage others with valid cognitive skills on this shitty site.

You're just jealous I'll never hand such a prestigious public award to you.

Can you and your friends stop with the reddit tier memes? On second thought, just keep making a fool of yourselves

You of all people complain about lack of serious engagement with people outside one's own circle? It is clear from the reply you got in that other thread that the endnotes text misrepresents Grossman. The text makes the preposterous claim that almost all Marxists fail to understand that in capitalism, the law of value operates behind people's backs, which is one of the few things De Leonists and Trotskyists and Council Communists and whateverelseists actually all agree on.

And how did you engage with the reply? You fled from that discussion and now you just spam that link as if your anal annihilation didn't happen.

Is this you?


Great post, comrade.

How mad are you? Someone makes a post telling you to READ the shit he posts (it's not that long, about 20 pages). I saw that thread, I've read that very same page and have made comments critiquing it, but at least I've read it. The people in that thread clearly didn't, and if they did, their dogmatic beliefs about Marxism blinded them to what was theoretically important and pointed out in the text.

No one cares about "awards" from the lolcow leader of a small group of redditors.

I didn't engage with the reply bc I had 0 interest to engage with it at that moment. I actually consider (small parts of) the critique worthwhile and will have it in mind in further reading of Grundrisse and Capital.

However, again, you don't seem to actually be replying to either my argument or central point. I posted for no reason but to dispel the common notion that LTV was applicable outside of capitalism, and that communism didn't entail the abolition of the value-form.

Any critique of the text (some quite irrelevant such as: x said it first) beyond that is really beyond my own skill I'm afraid, but that is again beyond the point, the criticism never once actually disagrees with my claim (or well, correction).

There is, in other words, no reason to reply.


What exactly are you interested in having substantiating beyond what's posted here?

It's well worth to note that TC (and I) don't claim USSR was a failure, it was the best it could tbh. But we should definitely not use it as a model today, nor should mistake that the theories of then can be smoothly placed in our current context.


I'm not much of a fan of Dauvé either (tho for different reasons), but rather I consider my interested mostly in TC. Communization for TC is (and they frequently admit this) primarily a negative theory - they critique that previous communist movements has positioned a "counter-state" program, that perpetuates the capitalist value-form and forcing the proletariat to affirm itself as a class - rather than seeking it's own abolition.

TC thus doesn't really have a clear vision of communization (more than the need to implement a communist mode of being asap "Communisation is not the struggle for communism; it is communism that constitutes itself against capital." libcom.org/library/communisation-vs-socialisation-suspended-step-communisation-theorie-communiste ). There is as noted a lot of references to autonomist projects such as squats, autoredcution, refusal of work etc, but unlike other theorists like Tiqqun, TC does seem to envision a Revoluton "proper" beyond this, as can be gleamed from the above article and libcom.org/library/intervention-communising-current .

My personal opinion is that communization theory is very much a work in progress that (as mentioned earlier) become replaced by something more coherent. For now however, I feel it serves it's primary purpose (to emphasize communism as a mode of being against the traditional idea of it as something in a ever shifting horizon).

Not really, I am just highly amused by the complete lack of self-awareness that you display and the horribly autistic leddit tier memes you post non-ironically.

Another brilliant insight by A.W.

Thanks for long reply but what is TC's stance on resolving national questions, how about your opinion on national questions/national liberation? Does TC see that supporting national liberation movements can win them over to a communist line?

ML here. Do you disagree with the following statement by Stalin, then:
>Every child knows that a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a week, would perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products corresponding to different needs require different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labour of society. That this necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws assert themselves.

LTV isn't a natural law it was just the explanation for the law of value in capitalism. It wouldn't apply in a slave economy for example. If that is actually a Stalin quote that just sounds like him trying to justify that the law of value was present in the USSR.

Give me an example of the workers not owning the MOP.

Marx means that as long as work needs to get done, socially useful labour will need to be performed in order to sustain ourselves. The law that socially useful labour will need to be performed, it says nothing about the value that labour produces as being determined by labour(such as in the LTV, which only applies to capitalism and doesn't exist in other modes of production).

This does not mean that the "labour" will exist in communism.


However he does write in volume one of Capital


tldr; Marx means work without a labour market, is a positive thing that can't be done away with. When we say that the Soviet Union was Capitalist we mean that the LTV persisted, there was commodity production.

Nigga what?

forgive me for being stupid but does that mean that the LtV is basically that wages are what create value in capitalism

give it a rest you big fat autist
n1x was right in saging

and it's gone

that's not what anarcho-nihilism is, it's more like "everything is meaningless including the state". post-left is "the left's way of doing things is fucked".
by the way i'll try not to be offended by nobody including me in their rankings

For some reason, people prefer to claim that it is "blatantly clear", instead of explaining why do they have such an opinion.

Half a century old is still better than two or three century old.

Which was propaganda garbage from top to bottom.

Well you have swallowed North Korean Juche propaganda. I suggest you look at BR Myers lecture disproving that Juche has anything to do with socialism/communism

youtube.com/watch?v=jy1iudsIKa8

You should go to /r/communism where you belong with all the other tankies.

Post was bait to see if people would dismiss the words based on who said it. There was a reply that said something like: If this is a statement by Stalin, then it's clear that it's just some poor justification. That post was deleted. Haven't been online the past couple hours, so maybe I missed some others.

Is that a true statement?