Leftcoms

'Left com' is an umbrella term for anti-Bolshevik communists that had fallen out of line with Lenin's leadership. They come from either the Dutch-German (council communist, autonomist) or Italian (Bordigist organic centralist) tradition. The latter falls very much in line with the Leninist idea for a revolutionary programme, but either varies in it or is much more extreme or mild with certain aspects, while the former comes closer to libertarian communism or even Marxist syndicalism.

There is therefore no unified 'left communism' or merely one idea behind it; it is simply just this umbrella term describing a multitude of communist tendencies and ideologies that have anti-opportunism, internationalism and an adherence to the general orthodox idea of socialism/communism sitting central as the goal.

The original left communist faction, which had split from the Bolsheviks, had significant influence on the revolutionary discourse during the Third International/Comintern period accross Europe and Russia in the early 20th century.

More reading, if anyone is interested: libcom.org/library/left-communism-its-ideology

ebid memes guise. xd

Left communists are way ahead of you here; they saw it as dead the second the Comintern fully excluded outside influence from it, and the final nail in the coffin was Stalinism.

Nostalgia-blind FDCKs/tankies and lifestyle 'Marxists', maybe. 🐸☕️

Meme perfetto.

marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/11/revolution-betrayed.htm

Do you even bother to read things before you shitpost? Lazy fucking leftcoms.

What? That's not what LeftCom's are.

Do you understand 'consolidation' here means the logical result of 20th century Bolshevism (as led by Lenin) into Stalinism? Mattick had always been in favor of the Soviet (council communist) model of the Third International (he is a left communist), simply not Lenin's one of vanguardism and the Stalinist one it ultimately produced.

Perhaps instead of criticizing my apparently incorrect interpretation you could put some effort in, rather than pontificating as if your point of view were self-evident.

And to speak of "logical results" sounds an awful lot like Stalinist "historical inevitability" – as if there was a straight line from Bolshevism into Stalinism.

Stalin positioned himself as Lenin's student whereas Trotsky presented himself as Lenin's equal or even superior. Stalin took everything that was Lenin and made it his own but Bolshevism was a lot more dynamic and heterogeneous. Stalin had to work hard in order to consolidate his effective control of the party within the party, not to mention he gained by others' mistakes or oversights. There was nothing predetermined in Bolshevism, or the vanguard party, that lead to Stalinism.

Sure, what do you need to know?

One is a direct cause and effect (of Lenin's structuring of the Russian political state aparatus culminating into Stalin's rise, seating and ability to do what he did), the other a Stalinist fable used to justify opportunistic practices in the name of socialism and 'the immortal science of """"Marxism""""-Leninism, while there is not an ounce of socialism there (once again, the left communist orthodoxy, of which Mattick is a part of, is useful here: sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipo/lipoebubie.html).

This was theorized by the left communist dissent within the Third International (that Lenin's structuring, if left unchanged, would as-is lead to nothing but opportunism and ruin the slim chances of a successful European revolution, as the rest of the communist movement in Europe was already very weakened), and it happened.

libcom.org/library/lessons-counterrevolutions-amadeo-bordiga

i dont think you know what a leftcom is

How about instead of posting links you actually articulate your positions and then justify them. I'm through arguing with pseudo-intellectuals.

As far as I'm aware this is what I'm doing. However, whenever there is fully-sourced text that will be much more articulate than a single image board post ever will be, I don't know why I should bother spoonfeeding you something you could effectively be reading like I have, and then we discuss its contents (as we would then both have read what my position is).

First of all, it sounds like you've both come to the wrong place for in-depth theoretical discussion if it was what you hoped to find in high doses on an anime image board. Then, your elitist attitude also isn't helping. Take the content of people's posts for what they are and reply to them instead of getting asspained at their use of reading material and sources.

Fuck off, cunt. It's not hard to talk about things provided you actually understand them in the first place. I can do it and I know others can too. Yui might be a fucking retard, but he was right that people here post articles and books expecting it to argue for them. Lazy fucking shit that you are, you think this is acceptable.

It's the substitution of material and sources for argumentation which is elitist. You haven't explained a god-damn thing – probably because you can't – you've just posted other peoples' positions in the most shallow manner possible. It's not just leftcoms who do this either. Like I said, I won't waste my time.

I don't see the issue with leftcomm's post. He essentially summarized his thoughts and THEN gave a link to something to read for further information. it's not quite the "le read nigra xD" shit people here say when they don't want to discuss or debate their politics.

Leftcoms are better than stalinists and anarchists. Anarchists are better than stalinists. Stalinists aren't better than anyone.

Really good post thx