How do we fix the LeftCom problem?

So in essence it's nothing more then intellectual masturbation? Who would have thought…. : ^ )

tbh I think leftcommunism is objectively the most ethical philosophy ever

By what standard of ethics? Legitimately curious.

The standard of human essence, i.e. free labor and creativity.

...

...

: ^ )

...

...

I'm kind of a newfag, but I've tried to figure this out and just got nowhere… What the fuck are leftcoms? What distinguishes them from leftism or communism generally?

"Leftcom's" isn't a thing. It's a name given by their opponents to a wide range of Marxist tendencies (so wide that they pretty much contradict each other on almost everything). Here, OP seems to want to talk about Bordigism.

So you're saying it's just a word for people who read theory.

Huh… no. More for people who agree with some theories.

ITT: Frontism and solidarity are conflated

see:

This. Leftcoms are right in brutally criticizing the failed, reactionary, and counterproductive tendencies that the left still exhibits today (national liberation, reformism, anti fascism, united fronts, democratic centralism etc.). These are remnants of 20th century ideological dogma and have jack shit to do with Marxism or progressing towards communism.

If Marx were alive today, there's no doubt he'd be a left communist.

If Marx were alive today he still wouldn't be a Marxist, and considering his life activity he would definitely not be a leftcom. Marx wanted, above all, to be >practicaltoday

Do you mean the whole "sorry I don't meet your standard of 'purity'" meme?
It seems like you think we reject frontism because we are elitist, or are after the "perfect party" or something, rather than because we reject opportunism and will always put the communist program first.

Nah man, he'd totally be a cultural marxist

You do realize capitalism has changed since the 19th century, correct?
What do you mean by that?
Can you describe how leftcoms don't have unity of theory and praxis (I think you mean action?)?

Sadly A.W. has nothing valuable to say like 99% of all tripfags, hes nothing more than a attention whoring shitposter.

I'd say the same thing, with the modification that it isn't even restricted to Marxists. Just about anyone who is vaguely against capitalism and not a follower of Stalin can be called a leftcom.

The only people who embrace the term for themselves (instead of saying e.g. they are council communists like Antonie Pannekoek was) are those who choose to be vague, because being unclear in your words and having a mysterious aura makes you more interesting when you have no idea about anything.

I always knew you were a faggot AW but this is too much

Cart before the horse as usual.

The mealy-mouthed platitude of every SJW, ever.

I don't really 100% agree with them but leftcoms are cool for generally being the most self-aware and critical Marxist tendency. They recognize doxa when they see it and aren't afraid to critique their own held perspectives and opinions.

WEW

Can someone explain to me why left-coms are so garbage when it comes to the question of oppressed nationalities? Do they just think that national oppression will automatically disappear after the revolution?

Ironically they have that in common with Stalin, who thought that recognizing oppressed "nationalities" instead of integrating them into a unitary state would lead to, well, what happened in the breakup of the USSR – the Leninist state-lets of Ukraine, etc. forming their own "nation"-states while, funnily enough, other unrecognized ethnicities remained within the Russian Federation.

Nations themselves will disappear after the revolution.

"First" as in "more important".

this thread seems to be attention whoring by a fellow leftcom or someone is genuinely butthurt by our invariancy

?????????????

market 'socialists' are suckdems in denial.

Our means and ends are completely different. Not to mention market socialism is actually capable of solving the contradictions of capitalism.

That's absolutely not what left-coms are about. Sure, there's the infantile leftcommunism that sticks to its purity of heart but doesn't make the leap to romantic Utopianism but Bordiga/Lenin loving leftcoms are just being real. Communists given current conditions are largely irrelevant. Communism has been soundly weakens by counter-revolution at the hands of the bourgeois and its left-partners in social democracy and Trotskyist/Stalinist opportunism.

All communists can do now is consolidate the remnants of the self-conscious movement, follow the development of capital, trace out class forces and the various forms they take, and connect with other communists.

It's not that engaging in the existing movements is sinful, it's that communists don't have the strength to execute communist measures from within those movements. To be relevant, they invariably have to become indistinguishable from opportunists, only reproducing what should be temporary forms the class struggle takes.

Work within existing proletarian movements should be undertaken only on the condition that they'll help such movements develop past their given form.

Communists in the US should absolutely right now get involved in police and prison abolition struggles. Housing is another possible area for intervention. Parliamentary politics is a dead end for communists in the US, but may be fruitful in the U.K..

Particular actions of specific communists are dependent not on correct ideas or will but on how communists can work with the developing material that is given.

i agree the meme was made by us making fun of the typical view of leftcoms

Stop killing Marx.

It really isn't tho.
Jesus Christ you could at least read Marx chapter on Capital from Grundrisse or something.

if this is you I wouldn't talk big.

Well there are definitely modern organizations that define themselves as leftcoms, and try to synthesize councilism with Bordigism, but it's often only as far as the former is compatible to the latter. I'd also say these organizations are the "worst" left communism has to offer, as they often fall into the same problem as (other) Leninist currents, solipsist dogmatism.

In the same way, the French councilists (through the Situationists such as OJTR) and Bordigists embraced the term "ultra gauche".

we dont

Are the Italian n+1 and the non-ultra Bordigists pretty much the only commies that (1) uphold Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution and (2) hold that the proletariat will need a party despite it's current impossibility (without devolution into opportunism)?

it depends on what you mean by "Boridgists"

And some (including myself) think that the party could form sometime in the near future, and that it is of upmost importance that the party is formed and ready before the revolutionary period. I would argue that is an imperative lesson from the experience of the proletariat in the last revolutionary wave (the lesson most obvious from the experience of the German proletariat, the party was simply not mature, part of the expression of the immaturity of the historical period was the immaturity of the party).

The Bordigist view, and that of other leftcoms who would side with the faction that left the Internationalist Communist Party when Bordiga did, would say that the Party can not be formed during a counter-revolutionary period, and that the only thing revolutionaries can really do is retreat to study. The infamous article by Bordiga, "Activism", was a (strawman) attack of the Internationalist Communist Party from this time.

Does that explain what you were looking for?

he's my least favorite tbh. Pseudo-intellectual, "lol anarkiddies," generally pretty self absorbed.

At the very least he encourages people to read which this board needs. It's just a shame that he has to be all around trash in nearly every other respect

I'm not a marxist. He can be too romantic and idealist at times although he did have some good analysis.

he says while using a corbyn meme

Lol sure Corbyn is guilty of both those things but I shouldn't have to defend every person who's in a meme I post, hell what would we do without all the stalin and mao memes?

He isn't "guilty" of both those things, you are for seeing anything in him.

He is a bourgeois state functionary, can you, on a materialist basis, explain why any socialist should support them?

Serious question leftcom, do you not see there being the possibility of communist work within the factional Labour struggles?

I'm unconvinced that any work would *have* to take on the kind of trot opportunism that latches onto and reproduces limited expressions of proletarian struggles while failing to develop the underlying content/forces/line of march.

Is your electoral abstentionism a matter of principle or rather a tactical assessment based on the extreme weakness of communists in the given English conjuncture?

How and when can communists develop past consolidation and development of the theoretical body of work?

How should communists relate to communizers who make virtue of current moment of particular weakness and romantic communists who eat tiqqunist/heidggerean shit up?

mistake

He is more into telling people not to read "wrong" works, to ignore reading important prior philosophy that would help them understand the works they are reading and indoctrinating others into personal interpretations than encouraging them to read.

Most importantly don't read anything about physics, kek

There is so much in these questions, that I am going to answer them separately, just so I can get a response out sooner, and you know I am not ignoring you

No.

When capitalism was still in its ascendant phase and the nation-state was still solidifying itself, it would be more of an open question, but not anymore.

It isn't even justifiable on the grounds of immediate improvements.Because it will always be at the cost of building a class movement against the state. And so when the state eventually caves back in to international capital, the working class movement will have been tied to the state and can't defend itself. Same goes for unions.

Working within the state and its appendages (unions, "revolutionary"/"red and black" or not) inevitably means confining the class movement to the state, and the movement ceases to be communist, and is guaranteed impotence.

They will always be fighting for relevancy, and that means, in non-revolutionary periods, a gradual abandonment of the program, to reach and maintain a wider and wider audience.

And part of the struggle is the struggle against the state, the working class must completely smash the current bourgeois state machinery.
I can't think of an instance in the imperialist/decadent stage of capitalism where funneling the movement into bourgeois democracy doesn't inherently mean a complete abandonment of the communist program

The Italian communist left in the beginning were abstentionist on more of a tactical basis. But I think the German-Dutch communist left had it right.
I oppose it on principle. In every conceivable form it means a minimization and dulling - if not complete abandonment - of the fight against the state.

We must, obviously, base our work on the struggle of the class, and this obviously means that our theoretical advancement, on average, in times of retreat are going to be minimal. I think we are nearing a point of rupture with the past period of class retreat though. So we might soon be able to make real advancements.

See, I'm inclined to agree with you *tactically* but I think you're extending the particularity of these tactics during these given conditions to the level of generalities. As to the movement being communist or not communist due to its expression in a particular form or other, this is blatantly wrong and of a family resemblance with the line that any struggles that originate from within production are logically necessitated to remain within the capitalist horizon (TC "end of the program"). All class struggles will inevitably take on forms immediately shaped by the logic of capitalist social relations. To disregard certain expressions of the class struggle because of the forms they might currently take is to also fail to recognize and to that extent possibly develop the communist content tending within.

Guess that's where we part ways. I fall in with Lenin on that whole debate.

I don't entirely disagree with the communization currents' attempts to find a material basis for the present period of non-communism (the movement has all but disappeared) I might disagree with their anti-organizationalist conclusions, but I think the communization currents have something to offer (specifically with their critique of work).

How we should relate to them? I try and reach out. but they usually don't want much to do with us, so its pretty much a dead end. I think we kind of need to rescue their theoretical advancements (insights into insurrection, parties, work, etc.) from their completely anti-organizationalist surrounding.

I would hardly call that lot "communists"

Anyone who thinks that the communist mode of production can be established without a conscious effort by the working class are anti-communists and can go fuck themselves.

Have you ever looked into the Communist League of Tampa or similar orgs?
communistleaguetampa.org/about/

← you see this? I made this because I read a direct source instead of reading second hand interpretations.

You should always just read the primary source with charity. Marx, Hegel, Plato, anyone.

People on this board are very afraid to read the direct sources of their ideologies and counter ideologies.

I may insult you, but you deserve it and it doesn't absolve you of the duty to think for yourself and engage real thought.

Daily reminder that leftcoms did nothing wrong. They are my tsundere comrades

Thank you

same @ u my fam

who made this ?!

How do they resemble each other?

Yes, of course.
I am not disregarding forms of class struggle, I am simply not supporting the integration of class struggle into the mechanisms of democratic mystification.

Well, why so?

(BTW I am a baby leftcom, I don't want to speak on behalf of most leftcoms, I am just starting to dig into it)

Can you post all of the diagrams you have made somewhere? Perhaps you can make a blogpost. I want to use it when I get to read Hegel in the future.

If your argument is that the Party of the 2nd International was immature, you seriously need to reconsider your theory.

What's the deal with that shit picture? I'm 94 % sure the background picture is not of Stalin's thugs, which would be fitting for the sarcastic recycling of rightwing "left of Blair = Stalinist" hysteria, but it shows actual fascists.

web.archive.org/web/20160112000701/http://www.timecube.com/

no the KPD/Cominterm

I am not sure why you linked me to timecube, I want your Hegel diagrams.

Although you do love to spam Bernstein's and Winfield's interpretations of Hegel (which are second hand interpretations) all over the place that is not really what I was going on about.

It is more about the absolute disregard you have for prior reading which is a disaster in the making for people who are new to philosophy.

You have shown this in the past before here on Holla Forums, in this thread (archive.is/0VseH) you get rather angry at someone whom is questioning your authority on Hegel due to your own personal neglect of reading those who come before him and respond saying:
Instead of denying what was stated you defensively decide to respond stating only in more eloquence that prior thinker’s works are not required when reading Hegel, which leaves one with the impression (which is likely correct) that you have not read those previous works at all.

Also while unrelated to this point but amusing to note you also state the following in order to raise your own authority on the subject:
But once asked for names of those professors you refuse to give them and instead we are left with the impression that you were just lying in order to raise your own profile.

Another example is in your interactions on reddit under your account “Althuraya” which can be seen in this thread.
reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/53vu4y/how_to_study_hegel_and_get_him/
In your post you claim that one does not need to have any background in philosophy to understand Hegel and even recommends that the person who is a self proclaimed "philosophy newbie" read the "Logic of Science" one of the more difficult works of Hegel, (You even promote second hand material on Hegel in your very own post). This is quite different from the two people whom have common sense whom are responding to the OPs concerns. They both suggest that reading Hegel at his current level is bad advice and give much more reasonable advice than you ever do on the subject.

Philosophy in most cases is a continued conversation between thinkers through history and Hegel in particular heavily references past thinkers and assumes the reader is well read on the subjects of the conversation. If someone decides to read Hegel without at the very least first reading the major thinkers leading up to him of which his work is reliant on they will most likely end up have great trouble understanding his works, especially if they are new to philosophy and don't have much of an idea how to read philosophy.

Also if you only hear one side of the conversation how do you know that the person is being charitable enough to the one he/she is having a conversation with? How do you know that they are fully understanding the points that they are responding too?

I thought you had nothing of worth to say, now I know it.

Bet you have never even read Socrates AW, cause you seriousily need to realize your ignorance.

Pls

...

What the fuck..?

I'm only commenting because Socrates didn't write anything to be read…

Still waiting on the names of the professors that have considered your article to be "one of the best introductory elucidations of dialectics they've ever read".

Gregory B. Sadler and Daniel-Pascal Zorn.

You've also, never once attacked his interpretation of Hegel, leading one to believe you might just be really fucking butthurt that someone else might be more well read on him than (or actually read him compared to) you.

I'm presuming the image represents yourself?

Good post, friendo.

Very convincing.

There's nothing really that wrong with left com ideas (especially in comparison to stalinists), it just so happens that left com's on Holla Forums are often retards.

Compared to what, the tankies or anarchists?

Not comparing to either. Retards all on their own, in their own special way.

...

You kinda got me curious so I started to check out his history and it seems that he both heavily relies on second hand literature and is less read in Hegel directly than he usually claims, its sorta funny because he claims so himself!

The thread that is barely 4 months old too.
reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/comments/4ilc85/any_good_intros_to_hegel/

Its kinda bad of AW to give advice to people who are new to philosophy to start with works which he has not finished much of himself, and you can just assume really that most of what he understands is from second hand sources by now rather than directly from Hegel which he has constantly claimed in the past.

Isn’t this where you are meant to think about it yourself instead of just reading second hand literature to interpret those meanings for you.

Exactly, what makes you think that he would have understood most of those questions already about Hegel’s philosophy if he read the works Hegel builds his principles on, goes deeper into the idea’s he critiques, references, or uses for himself.

It seems to me that AW is more concerned with studying second hand sources than reading Hegel himself.

wat

reddit.com/r/hegel/comments/4z0oo0/read_commentaries_or_just_hegel_himself/d6s8hmt

Haha holy shit, one minute he is saying that he has not read much and needed 2nd hand literature to understand anything while referring to the same old works that helped him understand in the first place, and the next minute he's saying that he read Hegel directly without reading any 2nd hand interpretations. He can’t even get his lies straight at this point. Knowing him and his behavior, is it really hard to say that he uses 2nd hand knowledge to pretend hes something he is not?

Holy shit, my sides. Quite fitting that A.W. has not read nearly as much as he has let on to of, him being an intellectual fraud is an amazing find.

I wonder if A.W. has even finished the logic of science or if he is currently undertaking the 5th or 6th slow listening of Bernstein's lectures, if you ask me it is way more likely

Both Sadler and Zorn are not professors to my knowledge
From this archive which was posted earlier archive.is/0VseH:
Additionally while Sadler did comment on A.W.'s blog he never stated that claims to the extent that A.W. was bragging about.

Also according to Zorn's linkedin he speaks German, French, Latin, Ancient Greek but not english. I am not too confident in his English skills and I would like to see some proof of this claim as I am highly skeptical of any claims that A.W. has and you should be too.

Critiquing A.W.'s interpretation of Hegel is far the point of my post and is not necessary at all, I am more concerned with him giving people shit advice when it comes to learning philosophy. That said due to recent revelations critiquing A.W.’s interpretation would be more like critiquing a mix of Winfield, C.Smith and Bernstein's interpretations of Hegel than an original one.

4 months ago he had not completed the Science of Logic yet had a large amount of time to waste listening to Bernstein lectures on the subject, I seriously doubt that he has finished reading that work and I even more strongly doubt that he can go from that to an authority figure on Hegel in such a short time.

If anything it seems much more likely that A.W. is nothing more than an individual who loves to LARP as a philosopher.

...

Then it's not good theory.

Man holy shit, tell us where A.W. touched you?

If Althuraya is really him, A.W. seems to be very interested in mushrooms. That explains everything.

His best post:
reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/4eln7t/til_when_einstein_was_told_of_the_publication_of/d21icli
Our intellectual leader schooling the reddit noobs about what was truly "oroginal" in Einstein's work.

The amount of butthurt in this thread about me is almost amazing, but then I remember it's the internet. You guys are so desperate to get something on me that you have to go trawling through the internet.

I'm interested in a lot of things.

Holy shit how do you not realize that meme is satire?

...

It tru tho

A.W. trying to talk about science is fucking hilarious.

your stupid "criticisms" of leftcoms have been appropriated by us through memes, you are now validating their appropriation.
Congratulations?

You can't be more reddit than this, you are stupid enough to use social media and be an easy target for lels at same time.

Uh, why would I hide my ideas? It's not like I'm afraid of learning or something. The point of knowing things isn't to keep it to yourself and never engage it. You people think everyone is some loser that has an ego problem because you have such.

Ok, so by laughing at the fact that you're all a bunch of useless babies you're suddenly not a bunch of useless babies?

EXTRA EXTRA! LOCAL GIGANTIC FAGGOT TURNS OUT TO BE GIGANTIC FAGGOT!

If you didn't realize this about AW months ago you're a fucking retard.

This is really quite unfortunate. it is interesting to hear an educated leftcom's views on a topic sometimes.

...

As a native German speaker, that plot twist felt telegraphed to me. A.W. often addresses people with "mein Camarade", which is fake German for "my comrade".

Problem with that is that Camarade isn't a German word, we got the following two for comrade: Kamerad and Genosse. Kamerad is used by very oldfashioned people, it is also used in team sports, in the military, and by Nazis (the real historical ones, as well as the pathetic wannabes today). Genosse is used by hard left and mainstream pseudo-left, when referring to members of your own party.

So, for me reading that "Camarade" thing, just looked like:
What a douche canoe.

I am okay with this. Pogrom for tripfags when?

It can't come soon enough.

Any answer I give will just be me riffing off Lenin's Left-Wing Communism and readings of it by Bordiga and Negri. If that's not enough to persuade I'll draw up some points soon.

Have you read any of the German-Dutch tradition or Italian tradition leftcoms (besides Bordiga) on abstentionism?

...

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/23rlze/is_marxism_in_todays_world_too_intellectualized/ch0auh7
reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/21in65/minimum_wage_should_be_around_21/cgdkwwn

LEFTCOMS DID NOTHING WRONG

Tbh ignore the stupid arguments between christcom and AW let's all be friends okay?

Kill off every last philosowank for spreading pseudoscience.

...

...

reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/48w4qa/dialectics_an_introduction/d68zafh
Seeing AW lose his shit when encountering people who actually understand what they talking about will never not be funny.

depends if the philosophy is based on materialist questions, or absolute bullshit based on 19th century concepts of neuroscience.

It's confirmed

You do tend to show one

AW is the sort of pseudo-intellectual that can only converse with people online because otherwise he would have the shit beaten out of him.

...

reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/3vg3su/dialectics_help_me_understand_it/cznbmih
Yeah I completely believe that the reason AW stopped was due to getting too "excited”… Maybe he needed to do another infamous listening of Bernstein tapes in order to calm down.

The only reason he “stopped” at 1/4th was that he needed to wait for Greggy B to read out and interpret the rest for him via his Half Hour Hegel series. :^)

youtube.com/watch?v=toj-am7OP-g
top kek, considering what we know about AW this can’t really just be a coincidence

...

I'm waiting for a real bomb to be found about me other than finding things I've said which are non sequitur to what you claim about it. I find it funny you guys are trying to really make something interesting of me.

From the looks of his goodreads he hasn't read much, and I also doubt he could get as well read as he claims to be in such a small time since July.
goodreads.com/review/list/57217101-a-w?shelf=read

He had not even started reading science of logic and it's only in his "to-read" section at this time.
goodreads.com/review/list/57217101-a-w?shelf=to-read

I forget I have a goodreads account. It's such a shit site, jesus fucking christ it's awful.

So this is 2 years ago and he clearly he did not know much about marxism here, he tends to say a lot of bullshit regarding anarchism and marxism without actually reading much of their works.
Like
Or
Seriously what?

I'd read capital like two years prior. I'd also considered myself more an ML for most of that time, at the point of those comments I had gained an appreciation for "materialism" in the sense of Marx's aim of a practical science. I criticized idealism there, and I stand by that criticism you fucking dirty idealist.

Stop bullying A.W.

At least it's a CRT.

This.

We need to stop making fun of retards.

Agreed. He's an idiot, but so is every other tripfag in history. Don't bully the poor kid too much he's probably like 19.

laughing_girls.jpg

Exactly, let's say he did read the first volume of Capital as he asserts, it’s clear that he did not even understand a lick of it.

This isn't even funny, it's sad. The butthurt here can only have been produced by years of sexual abuse from "daddy".

I am ignoring this sectarian thread

I guess this pretty much explains his nonsensical behavior when it comes to physics.

Honestly how does somebody become this scientifically retarded, is he lost on a shroom trip and is unable to return home?

I mean this is by Glenn fucking Borchardt, the guy seriously believes in aether and in gravitational push instead of gravitational pull.

ITT everyone realizes A.W. is a narcissistic fuck who doesn't know a fucking thing

welcome to last year, fucking newfags

Neomechanics is such a complete joke, one of authors talks about their absolutely ridiculous theory of how gravity “really” works in this video.
youtube.com/watch?v=jxzLf8TdvWE

That you can't even refute Borchardt's simplistic philosophical system says a lot about your poverty of mind, lad.

This nigga thinks you should still believe in something even when there is evidence to the contrary!

Here are some videos on the Universal Cycle Theory, they’re pretty funny to watch.
youtube.com/watch?v=CNLzeaiJ_tI
youtube.com/watch?v=L7ZceLA6dWw

youtube.com/watch?v=UXAeap0a1MI

Also this is the site of the “great minds” who came up with UCT.
scientificphilosophy.com/