What's with the anti-LeftCom hate?

Not in the slightest, but the board is a platform for them to speak which is a really good way of see why they arnt relevant :^)

top kek

and Adorno and Bordiga etc..

Just face it man, your only relevant on here and the only reason thats the case is because your almost universally hated, probably in the top 5 with the polocks and nazbols.

… As opposed to everyone else on Holla Forums? Gimme a break.

Do you even know why you hate LeftCom's?

familia there are few leftcoms but this is a gross underestimation

Your right, you arnt even relevant on here :^)

Understandable, but even so, wouldn't it be it a bit easier with some minimum degree of organization? Or is it also too "activistic"?

I didn't say "on Holla Forums", I'm talking about a general trend. Leftcoms irl are probably even harder to find than Hoxhaists.

I have a few reasons, mainly what the hate boner they have against cooperatives. Since the board mostly consists of anarchists and Marxists, and since leftcoms can be equally hated by both main factions for different reasons theyre always going to get shit on.

well the whole communism thing is pretty irrelevant right now so there's that.

oh there are various organizations though. the ICC, the ICT, the various ICPs etc.

struck a nerve, didn't we? :^)

Uh? Why so?

Because they are insufferable faggots

They don't seem too active afaik
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Left_communist_organizations_by_country
How inaccurate is this thingy?

You, on the other hand, seem like a pleasant fellow.

This

He's alright in my book

Nah, that like if an autistic kid calls you a faggot. It kinda cute they can even articulate a statement like that. Thats what leftcoms are, a tiny irrelevant autistic minority, you can disagree with everyone all you want and it doesn't matter in the slightest. And you know it too, you know theirs pretty much no leftcoms with any kind of power whatso ever, historically or in the present day, i can name all prominent leftcom organizations on one hand. So the fact that a small minority of them say retarded shit on a internet board doesn't really bother me, id just want to point out that it is actually retarded.

there are more orgs, but most are just sects imo.

definitely struck a nerve lol
instead of being butthurt you could however read and see for yourself why coops are bullshit. But as I see you'd rather stay buttmad than actually engage with marxist theory.

So are you dissagreeing that your an irrelevant minority that has historically never had any political power and in the present day is even more irrelevant than ever? Do you really want to argue that? Because you know its true, you can argue about theory all you want, it dosnt mean anything if you don't do anything with it.

Italian leftcoms are called "italian" for a reason. But I'm not going down that rabbit hole and spoon-feeding you the history of communism. Go and read for yourself.
But just so I don't let it pass without comment: communism is IN GENERAL completely irrelevant right now and you're being delusional if you believe anything else.

Kind of expected. It really feels like most leftcoms are dormant now. And do autonomists count as leftcoms? I'm pretty sure they are active to an extent, but I'm not sure about their classification.

Theyre more anarchist in practice and marxist in ideas.

co-ops have proved time and time again to give workers the ownership of the means of production and let them keep the surplus value that had been stolen by the capitalist time and time again

you don't any ground to stand on

You know, heres the thing, i dont actually disagree with a whole lot of leftcom ideas, in particular i like Gramsci's prison writings. This doesn't change the fact that leftcoms are entirely irrelevant or the ones on this board are fucking retarded. Saying communism in gneral is irrelevant dosn't help you much either, that means your even more irrelevant than ever.

yeah, because deciding "democratically" what happens with the exploited surplus value is definitely what socialism is about.

I kinda knew that you got no clue what left communism is and now here's the proof lol

Hint: surplus-value can literally only be produced under capitalism.

Also
Maybe you want to move to Qubec, Spain, or somewhere - see how well they're doing with the "overthrow capital" thing.

Holy shit I know most of Holla Forums has read nothing but wikipedia articles but come the fuck on.

hilarious innit lol

"i dont actually disagree with a whole lot of russian left opposition ideas, in particular i like Stalin's Foundations of Leninism"

"i dont actually disagree with a whole lot of Kautsky's ideas, in particular i like Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky"

Actually, he's one of the big revivers of anti-activism here in The Netherlands. The Dutch communist movement has loved to adopt his concept of interpassivity into criticism of activism. He [Zizek] is also staunchly against pseudo-activism like pushing for cooperatives and market socialism, especially as he experienced the latter himself and knows what kind of a gigantic failure it was. Check out nl.internationalism.org if you're interested.

- t. one of the few left coms who lurk here

as opposed to moving to North Korea where they have a central authority deciding over the central planning ??

honestly keking at how classcucked both of you are

Haha. Made that for the libcom.org forums and it found its way here within a matter of days. Based.

will do, but honestly I don't have any form of cult personality to him, I agree with some of his ideas and this doesn't mean I have to agree with him on others

there is no value production in socialism.
fuuk :DD leftcombs subbortin north kerea xD

cuz it's funny fam

there absolute is

""fuug :DD market socialists support every single bourgy co-op :DD"

^can't actually produce an serious answer because he has never read Marx.

Yes, how could I have forgotten the ceaseless leftcom support for DPRK.

Except communism is literally the abolition of the value form, had you even glanced at Grundrisse you'd know this.

So I suppose you're more fond of this guy then?

This would be a self-strawman, but it's true I guess. You do indeed support private enterprise, wage labor, the money value form and market exchange. It just needs to be horizontally organized and called a co-op.

marx states use-value comes only from the use given to commodities, in order be able to make use of commodities you need either to acquire them and in order to be able to acquire them you either become self-sufficient or have some form of exchange with workers that produce other commodities

I have already pointed this out and no one has been able to reply with anything but pure sophistry

too bad we are not arguing about communism, but socialism, market socialism specifically

as opposed to every single marksoc supporting bourgy co-ops? can't have it both ways

not really

==WEW LAD== we have an austrian here

It feels like marksoc/leftcom divide is actually based on activism/inactivism dichotomy, correct?

dam nigga u dum

don't think you need to even arguee that

Holy shit this is gold, how fucking bad of a misreading do you have of Marx?

Here's a hint:
There
are
no
Commodities
under
Communism
:)

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't use the name Marx when talking about socialism and market in the same word, or when trying to distinguish between socialism and communism?

So, does there actually exist any co-op that you support? Or can market socialism only be established after a global market socialist revolution?

I mean, if you consider co-ops the tactic, you shouldn't be so defensive when we ask where said co-ops are?

What is with this retarded new meme that market socialists and leftcoms have anything in common?

Private enterprise (n.): business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than being controlled by a state.

Wage labour (also wage labor in American English) (n.): the selling of labor under a formal or informal employment contract. These transactions usually occur in a labour market where wages are market determined.

Here's another hint:
We
are
talking
about
socialism
more exactly market socialism

why not? just because I am not an orthodox marxism doesn't mean I cannot understand how most of his ideas were correct

localized co-ops that actually try to engage at solving alienation and exploitation of the workers, instead of simply trying to achieve size

lrn 2 read

We're gonna stop the bad parts of capitalism with ethical capitalism! The answers lies somewhere in the middle! Praise the market; through its controllable forces and contradictions, we can achieve a more just and fair system!

...

I believe both are some kind of anti-capitalists and such. In fact, if you make a "what does Holla Forums think about market socialism?" thread, then many people, not even necessarily marksocs, will say that it's good as some kind of transitional system between capitalism and e.g. planned socialism.

You only needed that part, because you're actually not showing any proof of understanding his arguments. Marx leaves no room for a democratically governed capitalism, because it's the very capitalist production process that is the problem.

Again, which ones? Are these the one's which are going to out-compete capitalism? Vegan cafés and locally produced fanny-packs?

leftcoms think we're ancaps or some shit. no marksoc thinks everything should be left to the market or market socialism is a final stage (except for mutualists maybe)

Again, where does leftcoms fit into this picture? Beyond our opposition it.

Then why even have it in the first place? Why not just have syndicates?

Market Socialism is an idealistic idea of wanting (as we can clearly see from Piratefags posts) all the commodities you love in capitalism but just more money to buy even more of them.

the idea of market socialism is that the market is a more efficient distribution method in certain sectors, at least until post scarcity is reached and it can be converted to a gift system. we don't worship the market; we just prefer it to planning when allocating certain goods

It's about (opportunistic if you want to call it) idea to get to it and then to planned socialism and then to communism in comparison with leftcom immediate planned socialism and then communism. For leftcoms and many marksocs the goal is common.

holy fuck and these kind of people think they can claim anyone else but them should read marx

I already proved how wage labour would exist in a planned economy and you faggots got so mad you reported the thread

>we will solve capitalism, and the made up term ethical capitalism with central planned economy that takes care of the market relationship for us

top kek

What's the point of Communism if I can't have commodities I love?

market socialism isn't democratic capitalism

nice strawman

the one I buy my food from for example, they use the ejido to produce food, then they sell it on a market, nobody gets to keep the surplus value of anybody, and they are not using private owned land

Literally how? Why would there be any need to add a mystifying mediating step of a exchange commodity when communes can just communicate and organize on a greater scale i.e plan their production? You literally can't transfer resources across continents without planning in the first place.

You're thinking about Trots/MLs, leftcoms don't have any socialist stage, nor do we distinguish between socialism and communism.

Because commodities are literally only commodities because they're sold on a market.

Whatever you say man.

Where am I going to get my things-formerly-known-as-commodities under Communism? Will I be able to get more of them?

How is central planning more efficient? You still need to produce commodities and exchange them for others, the difference being you need to meet production quotas, istead of producing stuff that has usevalue for you

No, thats central planning :^}

pls respond leftcom-kun

leave, you arnt welcome here.

resources with limited demand or fluctuating demand, ie things that planning is inefficient at providing.

yeah sry did it here:

Are srsly suggesting that modern corporations don't plan their production? They just "produce"?

And what exactly are said resources? supply and demand are not relevant concepts outside of a market, because people will produce what they need. The concept of buyer-seller does not exist when those who need are those who produce.

Leftcoms are idealist and anti-dialectical. Their ideology prevents them from any meaningful action. Also they're total downers and we don't need their negative energy.

Are you suggesting that, due to the fact that present companies engage in planning, planning is a response to market forces?

Then how isnt a central auth?ority not responding to market forces in a planned production economy

He's said repeatedly that making a reasonable demand is the most radical thing we can do atm.

most consumer goods. do you think that a planning authority can decide how many green pencils to make, how much resources should be allocated to making them, and where they should be distributed in a timely fashion? maybe in a small town, but goods are distributed worldwide. it would be even worse if planning was done by individual communes that all had to give their inputs on global production.
guess what demand is
I need a car, I don't know how to make a car nor do i have the resources. If the product is not essential or widely used, then why can't I just get one from an individual or coop that makes them

I know, you just have a transitional phrase between capitalism and communism. So, to rephrase that, in leftcom terms the idea of marksoc would be probably capitalism -> market socialism/le ethical gabidalizm -> transitional phrase/lower-stage communism -> actual/higher-stage communism

Most of the shit that gets attributed to leftcoms here is just orthodox marxism, but for some reason every time piratefag and his fellow marsocs gets told commodity production is incompatible with socialism they start sperging about leftcoms as if they're the only ones that hold that position.

Tbh those labeled (Italian) "leftcoms" are the only ones holding Marxist positions. Or, which is the same, those holding Marxist positions are all labeled "leftcoms".

This isn't something new, you can trace it back to Stalin's counter-revolution.

Literally the only reason why people hate leftcoms is because they kill your LARPer buzz by pointing out how destitute our chances are for achieving communism, based on them actually understanding Marx unlike most of you.

It's like most "radical leftists" absolutely want a revolution in their lifetime. Once confronted to the impossibility of such a revolution, they're inclined to change the definition of the revolution they desire (making it, in fact and despite all their claims, not a revolution), instead of working today, in a long-term perspective, on the preparation of the actual communist revolution.

What the fuck even is a "left communist"? It's hard to get more left than a communist already is.

A communist isn't right or left in the way you mean it – that is: in the bourgeois political spectrum. A communist doesn't have a place in this spectrum, because he rejects bourgeois politics and "democracy" altogether.

Now a "left communist" would be someone who's on the left in a communist political spectrum. The problem, there's no fixed definition of such a "left". A lot of people with very different views have called themselves or have been called "left communists" in the history of communism.

This is probably one of the best and least inflammatory summaries.

Left communism emerged in the 20th century as a communist tendency that was at first critical (but not in complete disagreement) of Lenin's programme and then went on to oppose Stalinism and its explicit opportunist and defacto nationalist and anti-socialist leanings.

libcom.org/library/left-communism-its-ideology

I don't get it either. Compared to most people here the leftcoms seem pretty knowledgeable and reasonable. I guess the hate stems from the amount of coop-obsessed anarchofags here and the market "socialists".

Agree, I dont hate you guys even when I disagree strongly with you as I am a strong supporter of Rojava. But more often that not the criticism leftcoms bring up against other movements is to be considered.

But a co-op will? There is no way or form an answer here. Markets rn into exactly this problem all the time, their solution has been to hide it behind a massive surplus, the efficiency of a market is rotting food and rusting cars.

Except it's literally here planning becomes vitally important, you need planning if you want to manage shipping lanes, fight routes etc.

Just sign up that you want a car (provided there's an actual need for you to have one).

What are you on about? When I say, leftcoms don't have a any stage between capitalism and communism I literally mean what I say. Marx literally defined the "transitional period" as the revolution, and nothing more than that. Lenin's lower/higher distinction makes no sense within Marx theory, but is just a continuation of Kautskyist social democratic ideas.

No I'm saying if you want to manage resources you have to plan, and that a market is just a extra addition to accumulate capital. "Market forces" are not relevant to speak of in an economy where people are constantly subjugated to a production of demand through media.

The "Market" is nothing but some mythical animist beast, which subjugates the proletariat to "it's will" through commodity fetishism. Market socialism would not mean the abolishment of classes, but rather the proletariat simultaneously serving as capitalists.

Neither does the term "planning authority" makes any sense when the planners (whose main job will probably be keeping the computers running, as they do today) are elected by the very commune itself, there is no nomenclature.

It sounds to me like you think we should just do nothing because we are doomed to failure.

Letcoms are the inverse of Stalinists. They cry opportunism instead of revisionism, but the goal is the same: delegitimizing everything but themselves. All-round fun guys who literally believe that contributing to obscure online journals on the value-form constitutes praxis.

This is very true.

This is not true. Marx was quite literal about this distinction in the Critique of the Gotha programme. Both stages are still communism though.

An "obscure online journal on the value-form" is what made me a Marxist btw.

But this "first phase" still entails the abolishment of a universal exchange commodity, making it very different from how it's envisaged by Lenin.

I fail to see how it's different from what was envisaged by Lenin. Do you have a source on this?

there absolutely isn't. Read the fucking Grundrisse for fuck's sake

Read Critique of the Gotha Programme and State and Revolution?

Lenin wanted money to be maintained during the "lower phase", Marx didn't, this should be common knowledge. It's not a very complicated distinction, but one that has huge consequences for the production process.

I'm sorry but I seriously doubt that you understand the implications of "idealism" and of being "anti-dialectical".
Hate to break it but you just as much deserve ruthless criticism as other communists. If you can't stand it you probably shouldn't engage with revolutionary politics.

I've read these several times, and I'm genuinely pretty sure he didn't. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me; could you point to me a specific citation?

I don't remember Lenin mentioning money in his transition and it wouldn't make sense as money can't exist in socialism unless you subscribe to some non-Marxist theory(market socialism). Maybe he mentioned labor vouchers or something similar?

He did distinguish between communism and socialism, but the terms were used interchangeably by Marx and Engels. This makes sense when you understand the meanings of the terms. Socialism refers more specifically to an economic system while communism is a stateless classless social structure that itself operates under a socialist gift-economy. One is an economic system and the other refers to something a bit more broad. This explains the interchangeable use by Marx/Engels and allows Lenin's distinction to make sense seeing as communism is itself socialist. Lenin isn't wrong in distinguishing the two when explaining his theory(though he could have been a bit more clear) and Marx/Engels aren't wrong in using the terms interchangeably.

I suppose the actual meaning of the terms was better understood back then as most leftists appear to be very confused by the terminology.

Going to be honest here and say you're probably right, I'm re-reading relevant passages from his letters and State and Revolution, and so far I've found nothing on the topic either way.

It honestly wouldn't be the first time MLs attributed some USSR policy to Lenin's writings, thought (for that very reason) we can instead criticize the way things transpired in the early USSR and his responsibility.

Well the early USSR wasn't even capitalist yet, so getting to socialism wasn't really an option. In his position, I don't see what could have been done better tbh.

I generally share that sentiment, but the fact of the matter still remain - USSR was state capitalist. And with MLs taking "Repeating Lenin" a bit too literally, it thus must be constantly scrutinized and critiqued.

I agree.

Well I… fuck, guess you win this round.

its like the alt-right. actual leftcoms dont even call themselves leftcoms, its the retarded pure ideology edgy newfags and non-leftcoms who brand themselves/people as leftcoms.

yes

You may want to double check that one, fam…

leftcom.org/en/about-us