Left communism thread

Attached: bad_theory.png (504x250, 69.94K)

I always found this meme hilarious, I like MLs more than leftcoms but it's still true.

How's ansyn even left, let alone com?

I think a strong case could be made.

So Lenin thinks of himself as "right-communism"?

I see you're looking to end it here.

What is this "left-com"?

I'll bet this is right.

My question is, how long do leftcoms think the transition to socialism would last? Because I've read in various texts that it needs to be this instantaneous abolishment of value and instituting direct exchange of goods or otherwise it immediately becomes worthless state capitalism. They can't actually believe this would ever happen… right?

Why don't you actually read Lenin and see what he meant?

You mean the abolishing of currency?
Thats not as important as having society be run democratically by workers councils.
T. Council communist

Basically people who aren't ML's anarkiddys, or any other established communist group

leftcom = people who disagreed with Lenin and believed that embracing trade unions and political activity (in specific times and places) was actually regressive, and a more radical program needed to be pursued. leftcom is split between German/Dutch leftcoms (i.e. council communists) and Italian leftcoms (i.e. Leninists who don't want to work with liberals and who believe the USSR was actually just the capitalist mode of production with state regulation.)

It's a good question. With modern technology it wouldn't take long to transition assuming that one had the political power to push through the change. The more developed a country, the easier it would be on a technical basis. Largely due to modern telecommunications plus means of accounting for inputs and outputs.
I don't know if I've ever read that. But if one's goal is to create a transition to socialism then abolishing money, commodity production, wage-labor, and so on would pretty much be among the first things you'd want to do.

Could he be considered a leftcommunist? He often cites communism nihilism by Monsieur Depont as his main influence

Attached: JimProfitSexe.jpg (1944x2592, 1.12M)

Ha! Old meme.

Thank you.

That would win over quit a lot of people. Getting this to happen in "the western world" would radiate out rather nicely. Not instantaneously everywhere, but in the more powerful beast nations. So the for-profit wars would abate right at the start too.

Nihilism is nothing to me.

Attached: Leninism.jpg (2400x1944, 398.32K)

Lenin was…afraid of ice?

Someone trying to explain a part in the film WR, told me that Lenin had a phobia of ice skating. All I'm going on there.

Attached: wr 01.jpg (720x1024 64.08 KB, 550K)

That’s strange. Whoever said that to you must have been mixed up. Lenin was actually a pretty skilled ice skater; he learned how to do it while in Siberia.

I swear to God I read that first pic as "WR: Mysteries of Dengism".

so many buzzwords just to make a terrible point
that user's point is still valid, you should actually read lenin before making such claims
I admit I haven't read more than better fewer, but better but I'm not gonna make grandiose claims about what Lenin thought and claimed when I don't know

Just because you like reading doesn't mean everyone else does.
You should explain the concept in simple terms so people who don't like reading like me can understand.

Attached: c65bc916f1d6d167a5a027f35557f983.png (480x352, 187.25K)

holy FUCK you are a turbo-brainlet

this is really, really fucking rich coming from the same retard that was telling people to "READ PROUDHON OR ARE YOU TOO SCARED"?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (655x59, 7.19K)

What do you expect from an anarchist? They’re all like this.

The OP literally shows he is opposed to leftism.
I don't even need to read him, I see what he birthed, and it was state authoritarian capitalism and an abysmal failure.

I like reading, but not wasting my time.

I am libertarian-socialist.

Attached: 5jzn5udpz.jpg (320x240, 13.11K)

That is so bizarre OP. I just closed a tab on this very book and came here. Huh.

Guilty. But who was I talking to there? I thought it was some tourist from Zig Forums who didn't want to read Stirner.
Show me the failed empire Stirner built. Show me his preserved corps in his mausoleum.

...

This level of memery is strangely fascistic, as in, they're short and stupid just like Zig Forums humor, and would be very good at appealing to ordinary brainlets in order to fool them into something stupid. That's all left-coms have though, is shitty memes.

Attached: 5f85f374cf3df10b7c79438bc0df7d5ca87ee712472f413436ce1697efc33370.jpg (1395x1536, 290.2K)

Still no argument.
But then, the OP said this thread isn't for your bullying daddy issues ass

i misread someone's name on another site as "radical enema" (it was actually emma.)

i feel like we've really lost the dialectical science of memes over the past two years.

Attached: leftcom.jpg (2339x1378, 178.45K)

Next computer I get, I should just get me Photoshop.

Attached: The Scarlett Anarchist.jpg (780x1017, 93.19K)

dont laugh at the name but, GIMP is actually a decent freeware alternative.

Attached: c9153cc48fa302f978fe2ff3c3041d4d7f66185c011993895f9de9fcf811ddc8.jpg (855x539, 52.86K)

Attached: 1517318638211.png (645x773, 107.2K)

...

Rafiq, is that you?

LMAOing @ your lack of praxis

Attached: 04669e9d3de28729e241e392c3ddc956742ae91c7606d493313b6e5502916cd1.jpg (212x220, 10.54K)

Is there a difference between leftcoms and ultralefts?

Same thing

Who said that, though? Where did I ever imply that I was arguing in favour of left-communism, or that the failure of the anarchists was anything other than the failure of the anarchists? Are you wilfully misreading my post, or something?

That's the thing though.
We're not a feudalistic society. We're a late capitalist society.
We also have nukes.
That's why we can left communism.

The "failed empire" of the USSR, however, began in feudalistic Russia, hence the challenge.

I understand lenin's pragmatism.
But times change.

I'm not denying that conditions change with time, though. I'm simply asking that poster for evidence of the historical success of anarchism as compared to the supposed "failure" of Marxism when the opposite is true.

...

Catalonia and Makhnovia wouldn't even have lasted as long as they have without M-L gimmies

Attached: l-32757-nope-even-i-dont-want-this-one.jpg (700x606, 30.38K)

Revisionism

Attached: Oh snap.webm (960x720, 606.86K)

And no, Lenin rejecting left communism doesn't mean he was a "right" communist. His criticism of "rightists" was even harsher, "right communism" being social democracy. The point of his criticisms was that leftcoms were committing the same mistake as socdems by giving up one of the aspects of revolutionary struggle. The difference being that, while socdems rejected revolutionary agitation for the sake of electoralism, leftcoms rejected party-building and participation in bourgeois politics in favor of armchair revolutionism. Lenin posited both were instrumental for revolution.

So if anything he was a "centrist communist". Or a realist in other words.

Attached: 55adfa8c0976e1b2d22f30f5ddf2c21bed15751650cde26ebf7e9adda3e42e82.jpg (540x810, 43.01K)

council communism is a form of government in which each workers council is ran democratically and a representative is voted by the council to represent them in worker's congress.
The main problem with this is defense, since in a war time economy there would have to be a command economy to maintain and organize an army.
But like I said we have nukes so that'd be enough of a deterrent and we could have militias instead.
Also the world is more open to alternative forms of government nowadays anyways.
Look at the kurds for example.

Jesus fucking Christ. You keep proving, thread and thread again, that you are an abject fucking idiot who consistently refuses to understand historical context and the board is worse off for having to suffer your aggressive brand of brainletism. Lenin was not a "right" communist or a "left" communist - he was a fucking COMMUNIST working within the objective material conditions of the time.
You take pride in your ignorance. How about you read Lenin, read and understand his theory - unless you're "too scared", or whatever - and then look at the actual fucking material conditions that confronted the revolution so you can understand WHY things happened the way that they did, instead of just covering your ears and repeating "EVERYTHING BAD THAT HAPPENED WAS THE FAULT OF ONE MAN I DON'T NEED TO READ A THING" - a manifestly fucking idealistic position for a person that claims themself to a materialist.
This - coming from a fucking anarkid who refuses to engage in the most basic historical analysis and makes massive far-reaching conclusions while not only ADMITTING that they have no fucking idea what they're talking about, but also making no effort to educate themselves.

Ah. Thanks for the serious answer.
So the right-communist soc-dems are wrong for believing in a political solution, the left communists, socialists are wrong for believing in a social solution, IE social revolution.
Hence why everyone must stop what they're doing and turn into left authoritarian liberalism spreads over the world, then we execute all the middle-class and the state will magically vanish! –No?

Thank you. It was obviously too centralized. Too tsarist. I like what the Kurds seem to be doing. Worried about their future.

I keep proving that I want some things explained. I try to explain to you.
I believe I have done this actually.

No, what you're saying is closer to the leftcom position which Lenin criticized. Lenin merely believed that, for as long as proles believe in the legitimacy of the bourgeois parliament, it is an useful tool in the revolution. BOTH "social" and "political" means should be used in a revolution, without sacrificing one or the other to idealism and dogmatism.

Well I believe his main arguments rested on
1.the industrialization of russia
2.its self defense and expansion
and I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to modern countries not for idealistic reasons but because those conditions are no longer relevant.

You prove that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Where did ANY Marxist EVER say any of this? Are you actually fucking trolling? How was Lenin's position "left authoritarian liberalism"? Do you even know what liberalism means?

Fucking where? All you've done is screech about Lenin being an authoritarian "right-communist" capitalist bourgeois bureaucrat while admitting you have no idea what it is that you're talking about. Have you read any Lenin? Do you understand his positions and how they changed over the course of the revolution? More importantly, why they changed? No, you haven't. All you've done is make massive statements based on things that you admit that you do not understand - is this your historical analysis?

We are arguing about different things. I think. Lenin's arguments in "Infantile Disorder" definitely have nothing to do with industrialization of Russia, nor do they represent some sort of wartime concession. The book largely concerns revolutionary theory and anti-electoralism, not state organization.

First we're told we're utopian, then we're all actually bourgeoisie and now we're authoritarian imperialists.
On behalf of the "left-communist" I deny the charges.
As long as the people believe in the legitimacy of laws, laws of state and commerce, we have our chains. It has always ALWAYS been a hindrance on our freedom.
The squishy words of "social" and "political" ought to be merged and the people "govern" or organize themselves, democratically, on local levels. That's how they should be used.

THIS–>

OH! Dear. Good thing that didn't go to press. Thanks for saving me.

Absolutely nonsensical. I guess we're done here, then.

Okay you're just baiting at this point, I'm outta here

Seriously. Marx called the non-Marxists utopians
Little while ago some user was arguing that all individualists are just bourgeoisie, and then you just now claim the anarchists plan is to do what the ☭TANKIE☭s are planning.
Yeah, outta here, please.

Don't be ridiculous. First of all, forms of organization cannot be simply local. What you are proposing is something like a regression to mankind's initial primitive existence. The level of organization for mankind must be global, internationalist. Secondly, laws, the state, and capital does not exist because people "believe in them". That is pure idealism. Those things emerge out of definite historical conditions, and will fade away when those conditions give way to something new. Let me ask you something. What do you think is the MATERIAL BASIS for the existence of the state? The answer is class society. "Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another". Do you think that class society will disappear on the day of the revolution? No, of course not! Class society will still exist, and so the state must still exist until class society is defeated. But the difference is this. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with be replaced with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead of the bourgeoisie using the state as a means of suppressing the proletariat, the state now becomes an instrument that the proletariat uses to destroy the bourgeoisie. Once that happens, once of material basis of the state is destroyed, ONLY THEN can the state truly disappear.

Attached: Commune_de_Paris,_barricade_passage_Raoul.jpg (2232x1534, 1.52M)

You're not a left communist, stop saying retarded shit and read a book

The best way to spread communism internationally is by showing it offers a superior quality of life.
Also by spreading propaganda.
It's called soft power bruh.
Also there'd still be a state, it'd just be a democratic workers state.

I do like to be ridiculous at times, but here I was being too brief. I do believe in the localization, but in this interconnected world, the local can be very much global when it needs to be. trade unions of a kind would share supplies and make plans together, why they would have elections for directors and such. I don't see decentralization regression.
That is the point I make. The only exists because it is believed in. Same as god and any idealism. I think nothing should be written down, and local custom should prevail. Though the populous should understand determinism, compatibilism and free will. (I would prefer the deranged be treated not ripped apart in primitive revenge)
Actually got something of this from The World of Odysseus by M.I. Finley.
The revolution is not completed till class society is a thing of the past. It can happen as fast as one generation, but not till all laws are challenged and we rid ourselves of these little systems that have shaped our brains.
DotP is unnecessary and asinine, and so is your revenge scenario.

>calls withering away of the state "magic" while saying laws only have power because people believe in them and not because they're backed with the full force of the state
You really need stop calling yourself a materialist until you've read a book or two. Maybe start with this one, if you aren't "scared" of reading a "right-communist capitalist bourgeois bureaucratic ☭TANKIE☭ revenge fantasist". It is, after all, only a book.

Marx said socialism would take place after the worlds advanced capitalist economies collapsed and proles were left with no choice but take over the means of production and start socialism.
And there are doomsdays people that claim that after the everything bubble pops we'll go into the worst depression in history.

Attached: image.png (833x499, 61.42K)

Okay
But yes, the system is literally in place because of faith, conviction, ideology.
I am a simple uneducated (self educated) prole and know a simple, basic, form of materialism. Why have you not read Stirner?

Marx's predictions seem less realistic by the year. The next collapse may be papered over and we get that much closer to a Blade Runner like world

what timeline are you living in, my nigger?

Attached: black lenin.png (512x259, 210.32K)

…literally in chapter one, yes. Not sure where I called the book "magic" though.
And what is the material base for this ideology? "The system" is not something that projects itself onto society from outside, it is the product of very real material factors that form and shape human relationships.

That can patch this shit system up over and over. The media and the Pentagon can get real tough or buy people people off just as easily, or a combination of the two. ☭TANKIE☭s will preach their revenge ideology and never unite. Overseas labor may seize tmop, but the robots will make them all expendable. Nothing is certain.

The very real and the very imaginary have intermingled over the centuries and produce the society we live in today. Metals were valuable as tools and weapons. Mankind's brutishness gave way to ever growing brutality. The soft decorative metals became jewelry and later currency. Pictographs became more sophisticated so more complex laws were set in stone, and metal, but later paper.
Another interesting book; by a brain surgeon amateur historian named Leonard Shlain, called The Alphabet vs the Goddess has some interesting ideas on the malleability of the brain and what these early inventions did to us

...

…and from where did those laws arise? Were they a product of objective social conditions, or was it just "well we have language now so let's make some laws lol".

Laws arise from custom, traditions, rules, all the way back to orders from your mother.
So perfectly justifiable social hierarchies grew and grew, from an ordinary vine to a choking weed.

And these customs, traditions, rules, they just popped into existence one day?

capitalism has done more to get rid of culture and tradition than communism did ironically.
Atleast the communists had a communist culture.

So this is the power of anarchist analysis

Attached: 7fe.png (514x352, 30.02K)

this is some nationaI socialism = socialism tier shit

That's right.
You're all missing the point of leftism.
The point of leftism is not muh industrial outputs or muh gulags.
The point is easy work and sharing.
You know be like john lenon not stalin.
Decolonize your brain man.

Attached: The_Dude.jpg (300x300, 27.88K)

The difference between leftcoms and MLs is that the former read shitloads of theory but have no understanding of history, while the latter prioritise understanding socialist history over reading 10k pages of esoteric pseudo-orthodox marxists. The second option makes for reasonable people.

Well tell me why we need a vanguard party

Whereas orthodox trotskyism is the synthesis of the two :^)

Attached: alanwoods smug.jpg (480x360, 17.58K)

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=9ABE14F146B94268B8AA60B7DD8778F5

Anarcho-syndicalists and trots aren't leftcoms. I don't even know what parecon means.

Also a reminder that "an infantile disorder" was written against the leftcoms of his time, namely council communists. Later leftcoms (Bordigists) are leninists themselves.

Daily reminder the Spanish Republicans lost because they didn't have glorious M-L. They literally lost because they were too disorganized. If you can't even win your civil war what makes you think you can lead your country, especially against flat-out organized governments? The only successful socialist states that have lasted at least somehow have all been M-L.

Like I said we got nukes.
What else do you need.

Ironically, it was the MLs convincing the anarchists and communists to support the bourgeois Spanish Republic in order to fight fascism, whereas a demsoc like Orwell believed that the social revolution occurring in Spain was more important than saving the Republic.
The Bolsheviks won because the Russian Empire had already collapsed due to WWI and the Provisional Government (like idiots) wanted to continue the war. This made it pretty easy for the Bolsheviks to topple the government. Later, they won the civil war because the White movement was basically just a broad coalition of anti-Bolshevik forces that shared very little in common.

Who are "we"? Because I'm quite certain I would've known if I had any nukes.

What is "ironic" here?

No need to fight everyone, if you can avoid it. Soviets wouldn't have increased their chances of victory, if they had declared war on UK and US after being attacked by Axis.

Which is why Republic was betrayed by Trots and Anarchists. But then there was nothing left to defend shitty "revolution" of Anarchists. Now that would count as ironic, if you ask me.

Of course the only succesful "socialist states" were ML, because only MLs believe socialist states isn't an oxymoron

I mean holding any territory at all, like Makhno. CNT-FAI never established their own "Free Territory" in Iberia.

You know…we

Attached: warheads.jpg (593x333, 28.75K)

Medicate yourself.

Ironic that "Marxist-Leninists" wanted the Spanish workers to put off the revolution and save the bourgeois Republic, when the point of everything Marx and Lenin did was to organize towards such a revolution.
…proof? evidence? facts? The Trots and Anarchists were in the trenches fighting fascists.
This is one of ML's problems: choosing to categorize people into political blocs rather than classes. There was a social revolution happening in Spain and it was a revolution of working people. Whether or not those people are Anarchists is of lesser importance.

Nobody was "putting off" the revolution.

Defeat of Fascism was a necessary precondition of revolution, and, consequently, revolutionary. The fact that SocDem of Spain were forced to support such a fight does not make this fighting somehow "sinful" or counter-revolutionary.

The fact that you don't understand this means that you have cargo-cultist understanding of Socialism.

Barcelona, for example.

Marxists, you mean. Because the concept of all politics being extension of class struggle is Marxist.

Transition from Capitalism to Petit-Bourgeois "Socialism" (the one Anarchists advocate for), that practically immediately implodes into Capitalism, is no revolution.

So - yes. It is important.

We have to go back as far as pre-speech primates now? Or single cells? What are you trying to say?