Why are you guys agaisnt council communism and market socialism

Alternate timeline user, tell us what your world is like.
Does Yugoslavia still exist?

First is impotent and dogmatic.

Second is lukewarm Capitalism with volatile SocDem politics that will implode without external pressure.

Because it's the only logical choice and because it works.

No.

I am. They are divisive, cowardly, and brainwashed by Bourgeois propaganda machine.

True.

Nope. During Cold War population of First World got coddled and thought "we civilized nao!" But this time had passed. We are back in pre-Bolshevik era. I would not be surprised if within 5 years US will have demonstrations being gunned down by police as in old times.

One moron I know already got himself killed because he looked pro-Communist at the wrong time in the wrong place. Politically, he was a lukewarm SocDem at best.

Take off your rose-tinted glasses for your own safety.

Who are "we"?

Attached: political compass.png (705x767, 62.9K)

Look at this stiffler.
There is a difference between democracy and authoritarian rule.
Council communism= democratically ran coops/councils deciding democratically how to manage the economy.
In other words a democratically planned economy.
It makes logical sense.

Stickler*
Typo

Lol. Peak enthusiasm for socialism in the western world was probably 1920s to 40s. Any socialist economy faces constant sanctions, slander by the media, sabotage etc. A Marxist-Leninist state is basically worse than Hitler.

Dude it's the 21st century. We are bound to see new synthesis of marxism and other socialist tendencies. Most people here don't understand that the single most relevant reason MLism was and is the most popular communist tendency is because the USSR was MList, so they just helped (mainly, not always) spread that particular ideology. If the USSR had been leftcom this would be the mainstream communism today.

What a shitty analysis. If the USSR was left communist they would have fell apart immediately, since leftcoms think a communist revolution needs to immediately abolish commodity exchange or it will turn into "state capitalism". The idea that you can directly distribute goods like this in a backwards economy is ridiculous, even today it wouldn't probably work, maybe in some fantasy dreamland where a communist uprising happens immediately in America and western Europe at the same time.

ML states are the only ones that achieved anything for a good reason, they're the best practical arrangement to defend yourself against international capital.

the only reason ML was successful in the first place is because it worked. it didn't spread just because its the ideology that the soviets chose, it spread because it was one of the only tendencies that achieved something the early 20th century.

If the USSR had been leftcom it wouldn't have been socialism so no.

What-if's aren't whataboutism just to be clear about what you mean

yeah i got them mixed up didnt feel like correcting myself sorry

I'm sure that made sense in your mind, you wanna try again?

This isn't necessarily true. For instance, Bordiga mentions a transitionary period where commodity production would be phased out over a protracted period of time.
libcom.org/library/bordiga-passion-communism-jacques-camatte#footnote18_sicww3y

read a bit up on
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/
ML is very adaptive and changes its appearance, but is very precise in this and not arbitrary
on the example of why not market socialism there's some explanation by Engels for this in there, but it's also part of basic Marxism so … just give it a read
its just if you're interested and want something more concise and short to read referencing ML more than having to go through the source texts straight up
just meant as a help

Capitalism is the rule of capital, not the rule of capitalists.
Market "socialism" still bows to the rule of capital. The interests of capital as an abstract force still exist under market-anything, and thus capitalism remains.
Nevermind that it makes zero sense to use markets if you could just collectivise and plan everything.

As said: market socialists of any stripe aren't welcome here anymore, due to being BTFO repeatedly by supporters of cybernetic planning. Also, I don't know why you've lumped in council coms with "market socialists", as they're against the market like all actual communists.

Attached: please leave.jpg (680x383, 24.83K)

ML is the best way to stave off decadence, as well as being the most advanced form of Marxism practically available to most of the world.

Nice pic and kudos for council communism, anarcho-communism, libertarian marxism, democratic marxism, and I guess Trotskyism. But I'm a little bummed there's no love for anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, or green anarchism.

Why are *you* for capital, my dude

Well i could be wrong but my understanding of market socialism is a market economy composed exclusively of coops.
And to me that sounds awesome.

Attached: 1306667159932_disgust.jpg (330x276, 26.1K)

This isn't really true if we're talking about "market socialism" in the Langian sense. You're probably thinking of mutualism. It's still capitalism either way though, as the capital accumulation cycle still exists in both examples.

Capitalism is not awesome.

Then let us spare no effort in inflicting grievous bodily harm on all who try.

We don't need any new Kautskis, Titos, Gorbachevs, and SYRIZAs.

It's the opposite: the reason USSR existed in the first place was because it was Marxist-Leninist. It's not like other attempts at Revolution didn't happen. They simply couldn't get off the ground or crashed and burned.

It wouldn't exist, as Soviets wouldn't have survived until 1922.

Extremely dogmatic attitude would've prevented pacification of rural Russia through NEP until Soviets would be strong enough to collectivize, while extreme belligerence would've forced Bolsheviks to suicidally declare war on everyone by 1918.

I hate it when Bordiga is presented as LeftCom. I mean, the only reason he is considered one is because he left ComIntern. His position is very different from council-communist.

Stop conflating market (anarchy of production) with Capitalist mode of production (which you can't have without someone owning Capital).

Attached: 03991.png (307x354, 122K)

ML parties are comprised of democratically elected officials. Like the user above pointed out in his picture, democratically elected organs and representatives have to make authoritarian decisions at times of war. Makhno conscripted soldiers in his anarchist army to fight the soviets, since it was necessary.

Attached: 10235889.png (600x600, 268.5K)

You don't need to have de jure private ownership for de facto capitalist social relations to exist. If different state owned or cooperative firms interact with one another in a market manner capital accumulation can still exist.

You've got this the wrong way around, most left communist currents owe more to bordiga than they do to pannekoek.

So he says the exact same shit like Stalin then, but Bordigists still pretend to be one true vanguard against capital. Stuff like this always reaffirms my suspicions which I always had, that most arguments Trots and Leftcoms make are blatantly dishonest. In some ways they are even worse than anarchists, because anarchists reject the state outright, so you know at least what they stand for.

A state-owned firm is still capitalist and accumulated surplus value is still capital, even if it's owned by the state.

That was my point exactly. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

No. Stalin mixes the transitional stage and the lower phase of communism together, and insists that classes and commodity production still exists in that stage. Bordiga insists this is incorrect.

Bordigism makes more sense to me and probably most people.
You need a small window of time to atleast get things in order.

Bullshit, give me evidence of that. Where the fuck did Stalin insist that classes exist in socialist society? Where is the difference betweens Lenin's conception of a transitional phase (NEP) and socialism?

my bad, i thought you were arguing the opposite position, just read it better

Right here:
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm
He's talking about "non-antagonistic classes" of course, but classes all the same. He says that the lower phase of communism has been achieved despite the lingering division of society into workers and peasants.

As for commodity production:
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

Depends who you ask. Stalin clearly believes the difference is the lack of privately owned enterprises in "socialism". Bordiga and other leftcoms obviously believe this is insufficient, noting that the agricultural sphere is still separated into separate collective firms engaging in commodity production, and that many of the state owned enterprises were still operating in a de facto commodity producing manner (buying and selling between firms). For Bordiga, the USSR never left the transitional phase, whereas Stalin very clearly believes they were in a socialist society.

It's pretty fucking obvious that class struggle exists under socialism. Only whwn it becomes a global mode of production can we hope to eliminate all potential for capitalist restoration.

Absolutely. But I'm not sure it makes sense to consider the transition complete if you're still waging class war.