[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1687203319937-0.jpg (31.51 KB, 360x277, IMG_4116.jpg)

File: 1687203319937-1.jpeg (36.68 KB, 539x569, images (64).jpeg)

File: 1687203319937-2.jpeg (27.5 KB, 384x450, images (65).jpeg)

File: 1687203319937-3.png (119.6 KB, 1200x1066, ICC_Logo.svg.png)

File: 1687203319937-4.jpeg (43.75 KB, 631x486, images (66).jpeg)

 No.20240[Last 50 Posts]

I couldn't find any left-com threads in the catalogue so I decided to make my own.

Also, can we get some flags to differentiate between the only 3 left-com internationals? The current left-com flag is that of the PCInt and Bordigism.
I suggest for Damenites use the ICT logo and for the whatever ideology the ICC is use the guy with the hammer.
I know the council coms have a pancake flag but I think the logo on the council-communist reader goes hard. Just a thought.


File: 1687203458017-0.jpg (163.55 KB, 1080x1465, FyiMl-0XoAAUyVF.jpg)

File: 1687203458017-1.jpg (82.95 KB, 750x607, cyberpolice.jpg)


Why? These are even more irrelevant than being a tankie or a trotskyist
Also it's funny that they harp on about internationalism (which is good) but they still need to distinguish the fact that they originated from Italy or Germany/the Netherlands


>they still need to distinguish the fact that they originated from Italy or Germany/the Netherlands
that's not what they need to distinguish, it just refers to being a bordigist vs a council com


File: 1687204889492.jpg (226.55 KB, 720x1037, 20230613_211941.jpg)

"Let he who is without an armchair, commit the act of sectarianism"


what's the leftcom position? what are their tactics and strategies currently?


Your mom


Carry water for NATO


The bordigist master plan for world domination:
>step 1 - read
>step 2 - write


Okay, genuinely, fuck yeah
More leftcommunism in the west please, like actual historical materialists


writing is kind of getting out of your armchair though


File: 1687213997540.png (1.71 MB, 1280x1659, 1602863637783.png)

>being a tankie


File: 1687215313329.jpg (15.42 KB, 230x190, read_bordiga.jpg)



When is op going to start reading Murry Bookchin hmm?


Communization guys and gals reject the classical party form and unions as reformist in essence so they graft themselves to "insurrectionary" movements that have some class struggle aspect, agitating, educating and forming people on how to organize. They did some work in BLM and Yellow Vests. They tend to be pretty below the radar.


File: 1687218497400-0.jpg (252.5 KB, 1137x1200, IMG_9691.jpg)

File: 1687218497400-1.jpeg (73.93 KB, 500x718, download (17).jpeg)


File: 1687221082331.png (774.31 KB, 780x1200, xdvt76ry2j301.png)

bookchin more like nochin am I right


>what's the leftcom position?
Too long to post here, go to the ICP website ( any of the four ICP is fine)

>what are their tactics and strategies currently?

Anti popular fronts, trade union United front, organic centralism, revolutionary defeat ( which tankies have abandoned), the rest is pretty standard Lenin shit, i.e. a centralized party, trade union fights for more pay, shorter day, etc.

They are not the most influential party, but they are the only non opportunist party in many places. Like when the ICP coordinated a strike in OR, and DSA and CPUSA opposed it because the governor was a democrat, and they had popular front with them (even going as far to burn copies of the ICP paper in the pocket line)


>Like when the ICP coordinated a strike in OR, and DSA and CPUSA opposed it because the governor was a democrat

strike for which company and unit?


I do not know the name of the company, here is the ICP report on it. The burning of the paper thing was an anecdote one of the party memebers said in a meeting


Bordigism seems like far right version of communism. Council communists are cool [spoiler] though [/spoiler].


>the left cant meme: the post


Do people really think Bordiga wanted a top-down, authoritarian, hierarchical party because he was "undemocratic"?

Like, he just wanted to replace the term "democracy" because he hated bourgeois liberalism that much, he never wanted to get rid of democratic functions such as voting even if he knew it would not be the perfect system. Though of course, he theorized that a better system could come about in the future. We just don't know what it would look like.

Pics related


That's not an accurate assessment of Bordigism. Most of that confusion is from either 1) ML slander, 2) historically contextual statements disproven by subsequent activity (what Bordiga said under direct, personal repression by the fascist police that not only imprisoned him but subsequently prevented him from participation in politics 3a) false attribution (The Great Alibi) to a controversial text 3b) that doesn't say what skim-readers thinks it says.


File: 1687259139377.jpg (207.76 KB, 1280x992, zulo81l8ylr81.jpg)

I think ultra/communizer discourse is important for pointing out two contradictory points:

1. That previous organizational forms (the party, the union, the state) have all had conservatizing effects on the workers' movement, accommodating and integrating them into capitalism and serving as roadblocks to communism.

2. That an immediate, insurrectionary transition to communism would be profoundly traumatic and would probably result in mass famine or the collapse of human society.

The first point is argued pretty well by ultra groups; the latter isn't but can be inferred by their commentary.


That is why it's the duty of left-communists (party-oriented, industrial union based) to criticize ultra-leftists (anarcho-councilists, communizers, rewilders, tiqqunists)


Tangentially related, for a time the KKE in greece also opposed the term democracy for its connotations of the elitist demos of the greek city states and used the term Laocracy in their program instead to refer to popular rule


The negative influence of Kautsky was larger than most contemporary communists understand.
And Engels warned, but it went on deaf ears including those of Lenin.


>left-communists (party-oriented, industrial union based)
Such as who? Some tiny ICP sect consisting of 5 people that's split a dozen times?


Why is this worthy of a thread, much less treating left wing communism like an ideology worthy of serious consideration? What leftcom states have ever come into existence? What revolutions can they claim?


Well the trots manages to get finally get a win after a permanent record of Ls in Venezuela with Chavez

I think they're silly but we should give them a chance


Oh wait no the ultras did get a win in Cambodia so they are definitely relevant

Sorry m8 looks like you're just going to have to put up with this threads existence


nobody cares, thats not what determines what is an appropriate thread on the board or not. fuck off


The Trots already have Nazi Germany as a shining example of their beliefs, bringing up the Venezuelan narco-state just feels redundant

Actually I’d argue it’s much closer to anarchism as achieved by Left-Maoist revision


If you think your revisionism is so worthy of a thread wanking it off and crying about Stalin, the least you could do is allow the rest of us sane people to confront your tendency with its failures


make your own anti-ultra thread then, retard


>Actually I’d argue it’s much closer to anarchism as achieved by Left-Maoist revision
Those all sound like ultra leftist tendencies to me
Cambodia even abolished the value form
>2. That an immediate, insurrectionary transition to communism would be profoundly traumatic and would probably result in mass famine or the collapse of human society.
Apologies for the gallows humour here but as it turns out the full value of an urbanites labour on a farm may not be enough to sustain life


This is a communist board so we’re dedicated to “ultra hate” by default, you’re the one forcing a reactionary tendency on everyone else so you justify it


Nazi Germany was Stalinist. Ever hear of the Molotov Ribbontrop Pact?


>This is a communist board so we’re dedicated to “ultra hate” by default


Leftcoms are the only real communists. Cope and seethe.


Comrade Mao expressed sympathy for Pol Pot's fuckups saying he was young and his country was being firebombed

This is constitutionally an ecumenical board where for example Trots and MLs can discuss theory together without being judged by their peers
It serves an important role that way
Trotsky did some great work on uneven development that I would have missed entirely if it wasn't for this board

Anyway in casual pub talk ultra means stupid kid

Let the kids explore theory
Being an ultra and trying to win an argument in theory is like shit for a pig
Gets them reading Marx, Lenin at all hardcore

We should encourage it

Fortunately for us and them they're not in charge of a country being carpet bombed from border to border by burgers


You do realize you've got a lot of building of productive forces to do to abolish the value form unless you want your parents to have to live with you in their old age yeah?


File: 1687351956904.png (652.28 KB, 754x496, ClipboardImage.png)

>You do realize you've got a lot of building of productive forces to do to abolish the value form
i agree


They barely have anything to do with communism.


That’s funny, because if they were communists they would have accomplished something. Even anarkkkidies had a few revolutions


>communists is when ur a trophy winner



Communists are winners son


Communism is the real movement of the people which abolished the present state of things. The unipolar order is defined by division, exploitation, imperialism, and poverty, all of which things present day ML states and those aligned with them have spent the past century actively fighting, building some of the most powerful nations in the world and presiding over the final collapse of the west. As all words are defined on an objective level not by words on paper but by action, by action these left “communists” haven’t done anything remotely resembling communism


thats a nice speech is communism also when u orgasm to self-masturbatory monologues too


>communism is when something changes


And this friends is why Marx himself dedicated an entire chapter of the german ideology to demolishing Max Stirner


The Khmer Rouge "abolished the value form" and people got around it by trading literal fucking rocks.

Anyway, even though I'm a left-com I actually prefer working with ML's over Maoists because I'm a Southeast Asian and you can put two and two together.

Il Partito actually does some serious work for its size when compared to other groups in the west. Take the IMT (trot sex cult) for example, I was a member for years and it was only in hindsight that I realized they were way too focused on reading theory and practical work was superficial. We would spend most of the time in our bimonthly meetings discussing readings, then we had to do one-on-ones to discuss more readings, then there was the book-club where we discussed readings with sympathizers. It was no wonder so many people came out of the IMT broken and burned out.

Il Partito puts practical activity first and has a philosophy of learning through practice. It's how they have grown from basically no presence in America to 50 members in 6 years without doing any recruiting work. They'd probably have more people if they had halfway decent web design or any social media presence at all.


Without Stirner Marx would have never written this gem
>The modern state, the rule of the bourgeoisie, is based on freedom of labour. The idea that along with freedom of religion, state, thought, etc., and hence “occasionally” “also” “perhaps” with freedom of labour, not I become free, but only one of my enslavers — this idea was borrowed by Saint Max himself, many times, though in a very distorted form, from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. Freedom of labour is free competition of the workers among themselves. Saint Max is very unfortunate in political economy as in all other spheres. Labour is free in all civilised countries; it is not a matter of freeing labour but of abolishing it.


I'm not sure how long you've been on here, but I'm and on-and-off oldfag from 2016 and there have been plenty of left-com threads over the years. We literally wouldn't have all the great Bordiga shitposts without leftypol.

My theory is that there's been an influx of dengoids from twitter ever since the nocomradesunder1k explosion of the Covid era. While they do need to lurk more, we have failed to properly teach the newfags of our ways.


Pol Pot was not a Maoist and was funded by Deng and the USA. Read up before making definite statements blaming currents for things. He was an opportunist that took whatever funding he could to carry out his ethnic war not grounded in materialism or scientific socialism.
Was "Marxism" to blame for Fascist Italy? ᴉuᴉlossnW was a "Marxist" in his youth after all!



I don't care if he wasn't a Maoists the maoists will defend him and that's not even the only reason.

There are literally jungle maoists in Thailand and Cambodia that are fucking monarchists and they have been sitting on their asses for 30 years.


File: 1687374834668.jpg (373.3 KB, 1800x1800, laborwave-mlm-cpp.jpg)

Thank you for the pleasant nosequitor comrade, Moranbang Band indeed makes great music.


>the maoists will defend him
Do these "Maoists" lead protracted people's struggles and defend revolutionary base areas or are these "Maoists" on your social media feed with shady usernames, shady utterances and three followers?
>There are literally jungle maoists in Thailand and Cambodia that are fucking monarchists
I don't know where you get your information from but that sounds like bullshit to me. Please enlighten me with what I take to be your carefully scrutinized sources.


Good article.
I found the following section particularly interesting, it touched upon a theoretical/tactical area of Bordiga that I always found contemptible and unacceptable (with the hismat power of hindsight) and a definite point in the council communists and Onorato Damen's favor:


>Bordiga opposed the ‘democratic centralism’ characteristic of the early Communist Parties in the name of his own ‘organic centralism’. This placed priority on a party of well-trained cadres loyal to a fixed programme, as against mass numbers or indeed the twists and turns of democratic decision-making. As Jacques Camatte’s work strongly emphasises,8 this fitted with Bordiga’s strong focus on preserving an already-established correct theory, rather than accepting innovation or adapting theory to contingent situations.

<Hell, the Maoist Mass Line + their understanding of the importance of anti-fascism places them above Bordigism due to this alone, but that's another tangent

>Nonetheless, while this was in later years a model for many a small Left Communist sect, it was a pious wish rather than the real culture in the Bordiga-era PCd’I, which was in fact a turbulent mass of branches inherited from the PSI and older anarchist circles and strongly characterised by local traditions and loyalties. This lack of top-down control was fortunate in many ways, not least as the leadership (and indeed that of the PSI) were opposed to their members’ participation in the most important working-class anti-fascist movement: the Arditi del Popolo (AdP). This was an armed movement uniting anarchists, communists and socialists, which fought heroic pitched battles to defend working-class areas and meeting spaces from fascists, with no official party apparatus to help.

>Bordiga is often, for this reason, characterised as passive in the face of fascism, insisting that it was nothing new. Indeed, he - along with all the other PCd’I leaders - thought it likely that the Italian bourgeoisie would attempt a social-democratic solution to the crisis of the postwar liberal state, perhaps but not necessarily including the fascists. Indeed, none of the Comintern leaders grasped the mass character or strength-in-depth of fascism before ᴉuᴉlossnW was in office, tending to portray it as a reactionary-capitalist combination similar to the Russian Whites or Black Hundreds. Bordiga favoured self-defence against the fascists, but exclusively under the Communist Party’s own control. Gramsci was less hostile toward the AdP, but his criticisms of the party’s stance were hesitating and voiced in only general terms.

>Rejecting any such sophistry, many PCd’I branches took their own initiative, and indeed most AdP militias in any case included communist militants. While this was not enough to stop fascism - and it is far from clear what the working class, defeated in 1919-20, could have done - undoubtedly these militants should have been listened to by the party leadership and their efforts championed rather than simply tolerated.

>Indeed, the December 1922 Fourth Congress of Comintern, held just weeks after the fascists’ so-called March on Rome9 and ᴉuᴉlossnW’s appointment as prime minister, saw harsh reproaches for the Italians’ failure to engage in the AdP.


>The Weekly Worker
Oh man, those guys are literally where the term "tankie" comes from (CPGB). Ian Wright is associated with them too.

Still not reading all that shit though lol.


Any leftcom can enlighten me on the differences between italian and dutch-german leftcoms?


File: 1687380638454-0.jpg (346.21 KB, 1536x2048, media_FxZPlylWcAAmtTT.jpg)

File: 1687380638454-1.jpg (557.71 KB, 2048x1536, media_Fxd2XkoX0AEwAMp.jpg)

File: 1687380638454-2.jpg (550.01 KB, 2048x1536, media_Fxd2XknWwAEFUtn.jpg)

ICP comrades need to step up their pamphlet game


This is the funniest shit I've ever seen


The Italian School of thought is Bolshevik and Leninist. The Dutch-German School is anti-Bolshevik.

Only one of these schools is still around with 3 internationals, the other has been relegated completely to the online sphere. I'll let you guess which one.


>Only one of these schools is still around with 3 internationals, the other has been relegated completely to the online sphere. I'll let you guess which one.
Simplistic, incorrect analysis.
ICP exists as a shell of its former self, split into three parties, never amounting to any significant influence in any country outside of their own native Italy (ironic, for a party whose main purpose is to be an international one).
The others, ICT and ICC, are synthesis parties that combine different currents between the historical left-communist tendencies under singular new parties. The particular currents drawn from are party-oriented council-communism as well as anti-Bordigist Italian leftcom (Damen-influenced), as well as particular points from Luxemburgism (national question).
A breakout anti-Leninist, quasi-anarchist "councilism" subsequently went on to influence Guy Debord, the Situationist International, post-left anarchy and communization theory; say what you want but councilism's influence in the last 100 years far exceeded anything Bordiga ever wrote or did and that's a fact.


>>20306 cont.
Even in Italy the ICP hasn't had significant influence in the last century when compared with other, independently generated ultra-left tendencies, namely operaismo (Eng: workerism), subsequently autonomism.


>The current left-com flag is that of the PCInt and Bordigism.
there's the pancake flag also


and Rosa flag




Unironically true. We've reached the point where liberalism has made sure nothing can ever really be changed. Maybe only administrative reforms that change none of the effects and underlying social dynamics. Look at >>20269 for example:
>What leftcom states have ever come into existence?
This guy (crypto-liberal) thinks the only metric of support for something is if they managed to reform capitalism in some way through a state.



This flag is yours




I feel like ulra-leftism/leftcoms are becoming more and more popular as ive noticed increasingly, am I wrong on this or nah? I might just be going around the same groups/circles


>I couldn't find any left-com threads in the catalogue so I decided to make my own.
The REAL communists strike again.


File: 1687450611084.mp4 (1.6 MB, 640x332, bordiga_china.mp4)


Depends where you live and I suppose if you're in trot circles a lot of trots cross over to the communist left, even Trotsky's wife N. Sedova did!



I'm 1/5th on the way into reading Bordiga's
>A Condemnation of the Renegades to Come: A Reflection of 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder' (1960)
and I have to say it's a great read so far, very good writer.
I completely agree with his reiteration of the critique of the liquidationist tendency in "left-wing communism" (here to mean German-Dutch council communism)
He definitely is defending Lenin at great lengths from all sorts of falsifiers, whether from the left, right, Stalin, ""Leninists"", etc.
HOWEVER I do think that councilcoms like Herman Gorter and Jan Appel are correct in their rebuke of the differential tactics needed between a semi-periphery country like Tsarist Russia and Wiemar Germany leading to a relatively greater emphasis on spontaneity while not going as far as to go liquidationist, i.e. critiquing the notion of the vanguard party or even leadership itself. The councilcom concepts of "mass action" are definitely onto something. Subsequently vanguard-party led insurrections/protracted people's wars have also successfully utilized spontaneity to various degrees (Mao, Cubans, Ho) to a degree that goes beyond what Lenin or Bordiga are defending here. Bordiga/PCd'I's track record of being responsive to change (the new situation of fascism) also speaks to itself imo on his problem of developing a too wooden of a conception of a party.
Go away liquidationist falsifier




File: 1687469354116.jpg (88.62 KB, 1080x811, 20230623_042855.jpg)

>lot of trots cross over to the communist left,

I used to be a trot and I still agree with Trotsky on a lot. Most left-coms of the Italian School will.
Read "the Trotsky question" by Bordiga
And peep the letters that they exchanged.

Despite this Organic Centralism and Trotskyism are not compatible for theoretical reasons, but you can still read Trotsky as a Bordigist.

>even Trotsky's wife N. Sedova did!

I believe you but can you give me a source on that?


"Of course, the fascists first came to power in Italy in 1922, preceding the rise of Stalin by some years. Here the problems were a capitulation by reformists and an ultra-left refusal to defend democracy on the part of the communists. By mid-1921 the reformist socialists were beginning to cave in in the face of fascist violence, before eventually signing a pact with the fascists in the hope that they could avoid conflict. So they pulled back from supporting the Arditi del Popolo (ADP) – the armed anti-fascist fighting force – and ordered their members to put their trust in the laws of the state and the parliamentary process. This argument effectively led Italian workers to the slaughterhouse.

Tragically, the Italian Communist Party (PCI), led by Amadeo Bordiga, also argued for communists to withdraw from the ADP. This conservative policy was coated with revolutionary rhetoric and bombast about the need to establish exclusively “communist” squads. This approach was challenged inside the party by rank-and-file communists and by the Comintern (which was not as yet Stalinised), both of whom could see the disastrous consequences of such an approach. Despite this, the communist militants withdrew from the coordinated militias and vowed instead to fight in their own cells run by the PCI. This sectarian approach failed to fight fascism and offered no strategy to win over more reformist workers to a revolutionary worldview by uniting with them in struggle."- Vashti Fox, Stalinism's Failure to Fight Fascism

"Just one year after the Nazis came to power, the Russian ruling class changed tack. As with the previous turn, there was nothing in the objective situation that necessitated such a dramatic change; rather it was prompted by the requirements of the Stalinist ruling class.16 By 1934 Stalin had definitely defeated his rival Nikolai Bukharin and set out to smash any further real or potential opposition. Inside the USSR, brutal purges of the state bureaucracy were accompanied by high-profile show trials of former leading Bolsheviks. The most prominent former Bolshevik who came under fire was Leon Trotsky, who had been driven out of the country in 1928 and was organising anti-Stalinist opposition. Internal political considerations were only part of the picture, however. The inter-imperial power plays were Stalin’s prime consideration. Hitler’s policies had made it clear that Germany was preparing for war and that the USSR would be a target. Although Stalin had no in principle objection to an alliance with Nazi Germany, he had to look elsewhere for diplomatic and military support. His only alternatives were Britain and France.

These intersecting dynamics provoked a new political turn designed to reorient the Comintern parties. This turn, announced at the Seventh Comintern Congress, denounced the “ultra-leftism” of the earlier phase. Alliances with social democratic parties and even openly capitalist forces were now mandated."- Vashti Fox, Stalinism's Failure to Fight Fascism

"World War II was a contradictory beast. For the Allied powers, the war was a straight-up imperial battle. They wanted the war fought through formal national military structures which they could politically and socially contain. In several countries, however, the war was more than a simple imperial conflict. Countries that were occupied by the fascist forces, such as Poland, Greece, Italy, France, Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Albania and the Netherlands saw the proliferation of significant partisan and local resistance movements. This contradiction is well expressed by the British socialist Donny Gluckstein:

"The Allies fought for imperialism – their imperialism against a rival imperialism. The masses fought against imperialism (of the Axis variety). They frequently discovered that this brought them into conflict with Allied imperialism too. The notion of wars running along parallel lines (but simultaneously intersecting) may not sit well with Euclidean geometry, but it rips apart the circle…the common view that Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Franklin D Roosevelt and the ordinary people were “all in it together”.36

These partisan movements were mixed socially and politically but, in many countries, the workers and peasants played a decisive role in the defeat of fascist forces. The active mobilisation of the population, from the factory floor to the streets of their suburbs to their villages, often transformed these struggles. Many felt they were fighting not just for their country, as their rulers would want it, but for a post-war society they could have some say over. For large numbers, a socialist society was their goal. In this sense, anti-fascism became a dynamic part of the struggle for a better world: a world not just better than fascism, but a world better than what capitalist democracy could offer.

Tragically, the CPs were incapable of supporting and expanding this kind of anti-fascism. Although communist networks organised many tens of thousands of bold, brave and self-sacrificing militants, the politics of Stalinism ensured disastrous defeats for the working-class movements and the left. It is beyond the capacity of this article to detail the specific dynamics of each partisan movement but the Italian example is emblematic."- Vashti Fox, Stalinism's Failure to Fight Fascism

"Fascism was not purely a military or wartime phenomenon. Rather, fascism in the 1930s was a mass counter-revolutionary middle-class movement that could have been defeated by significant united working-class action. In many instances the political will was there from workers, but what was lacking was a strategy, ultimately committed to working-class revolution and fundamental social transformation.

By the 1930s the leaders of the Stalinised Communist Parties were almost entirely concerned with meeting the geopolitical needs of the capitalist USSR. This informed every aspect of their politics and had disastrous consequences for the working class. Indeed, as this article has argued, it facilitated fascist counter-revolution.

Unfortunately, however, the ideas of the Comintern did not disappear with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. The politics of the popular front have left a legacy. In the United Kingdom prominent journalist and former socialist Paul Mason has for the last few years been campaigning to resurrect the popular front for today’s conditions. Indeed, his latest book, How to Stop Fascism: History, Ideology, Resistance, devotes a whole chapter to extolling the virtues of the popular front governments in France and Spain.46 Mason argues these were the gold standard of how to develop a mass popular, anti-fascist culture. He goes further than offering his own dubious take on the history though, by suggesting that in the absence of a strong working-class movement, the radical left needs to pursue alliances with liberal capitalists and their institutions. In doing so, workers will need to forgo their own demands.

Such arguments are disastrous. History has demonstrated that, even when confronted with a mortal threat, liberal institutions of capitalism are unwilling and incapable of resisting any fascist threat. To orient an anti-fascist movement, regardless of its size, in this direction is merely to disarm it.

Although we are not confronted today with the same conditions as we faced in the 1930s or 1940s, the history offered above is vital. We face unprecedented capitalist crises on multiple fronts, which are feeding the growth of the far right in a number of countries. At the same time, we are witnessing something of a revival of interest in Stalinism in the English-speaking world. This current presents itself as radical and uncompromising, an alternative to years of failed social-democratic experiments. We must ensure that a left is built that rejects this bankrupt tradition and its legacy of gulags and gas chambers."- Vashti Fox, Stalinism's Failure to Fight Fascism

Leftcoms ;handshake; MLs: Having a conservative and bureaucratic method against fascism

I agree fighting fascism to defend liberal democracy is garbage, but if you don't at least do anything to have a workers united front so we can be fighting fascism because it can galvanize class consciousness and communist action is fucking absurd


Every contextless quote by Marx posted on the internet delays communism by another day


I've tried reading Bordiga a bunch of times and idk if it's the translations but his writing is the biggest stereotype of dry, Marxist-sounding drivel. He doesn't seem like he knew what he was talking about. I think he only has the novelty of calling Stalin a "gravedigger of the revolution" to his face.


File: 1687481058461-0.png (418.45 KB, 640x627, 1686288139080.png)

File: 1687481058461-1.jpg (208.89 KB, 1080x1080, 1686969220224.jpg)


> I think he only has the novelty of calling Stalin a "gravedigger of the revolution" to his face.
>The USSR lasted for 69 years after that and expanded.
It's like God was doing it out of spite against Bourdiga


Last I checked the USSR doesn't exist anymore and the latter half was increasingly decadent.
Stalin was the counter-revolution - he opposed proletarian revolution anywhere outside the USSR, he supplied fascism, and so much more.


I'm winning


File: 1687485911576-0.jpg (241.52 KB, 828x812, 20230623_090213.jpg)

File: 1687485911576-1.jpg (942.14 KB, 830x830, 20230623_090309.jpg)

File: 1687485911576-2.jpg (147.8 KB, 1127x1437, 20230623_090312.jpg)


File: 1687491363879.jpg (104.34 KB, 600x704, bitchesdontknow.jpg)

Here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/sedova-natalia/1951/05/09.htm It's not totally a leftcom text more like a rejection of "critical support for deformed workers' states" but she was also close with G. Munis in the last years.
>I'm a Southeast Asian
Can you suggest any good groups/blogs/publications from SEA?


Side note: I want to clarify that I am Thai diaspora in America with a chip on my shoulder, capitalism has failed us (I've seen the poverty with my own eyes) and our family in Thailand is so poor we have to send them money for books and school uniforms.

>Can you suggest any good groups/blogs/publications from SEA?

Any sort of movement in Thailand is basically dead, but I actually do know a good blog. It is run by a Burmese-Shan guy who lives in Thailand because of the Tat coup a while ago.

The domino effect really could have taken place in Thailand and the reasons why it didn't deserve their own post that I might make later.


Thanks for the link!
>The domino effect really could have taken place in Thailand and the reasons why it didn't deserve their own post that I might make later.
Please do, that would be a welcome contribution. Do you mean domino effect as in the possibility of a revolt that could have generalized across the national boundaries of the thai State? Or a tendency in the local proletariat towards rupture with the left wing of capital?


>Do you mean domino effect as in the possibility of a revolt that could have generalized across the national boundaries of the thai State? Or a tendency in the local proletariat towards rupture with the left wing of capital?

Probably revolt across the Thai state. The overthrow of the Monarchy, the establishment of a DotP that may or may not have followed Vietnam in the return to capitalism. Though having a historically rich but inequal country turn socialist would certainly change the complexion and prospects of a more global revolution.


Hello there
I've always liked leftcoms even though I think you're wrong
Anyway some epater to the denizens of this thread

to keep it bumping


I can say with full confidence than more leftcoms and "ultras" have read Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder than the "marxist-leninists" who reference it as a thought-terminating cliche


Why Thailand isn't communist

1. Concessions.
The previous King of Thailand, King Rama IX came to power after King Rama VIII (who was only 11) died under mysterious circumstances. King Rama IX, or King Bhumibol, was a populist. He was the first King to really acknowledge the struggle and poverty that most Thais endure especially in rural areas. He started many programs to raise the productive forces (yes I'm using that term, no it does not mean I support monarchy) in the Thai countryside. Most notably teaching the farmers how to grow and process silk so that they could have more selling power. My Dad used to tell me that my grandfather was a socialist and a Monarchist, but it's just that it's only for the specific monarchy that he supports.
So as this is going on, there is in fact a communist insurgency going on. This period was from about the 1950s-1980s. While they did have an armed struggle with the communists, much of which was lead by the then Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, King Bhumibol made many concessions to the communists. You can listen to him talk about it in an interview here:
He was very charismatic and talented in the arts. So it is not hard to see how he became popular. Eventually, his charisma would win out and in the 80s, the CPT jungle maoists would give up their insurgency having been pacified. They were never killed off.
Note that two years ago there were mass protests in Thailand over monarchy reforms. The maoists never showed up.
Also I still think the Milk Tea Alliance was an op.
2. Authoritarianism
Thailand is authoritarian. That is the most simple way I can put it, it is more authoritarian than the DPRK. You do not understand what a cult of personality is until you've seen portraits of the King everywhere you go. Lese-majeste will get you thrown and prison and shanked. Thai communists get shot trying to escape across the Mekong. Hue and cry over East Germany, I don't want to hear shit if you don't know about Thailand. Everybody knowssl the Tiananmen Square Massacre, yet nobody knows about the Thammasat University Massacre which had a similar number of casualties. The story is that some students recreated photos of police killing two labor activists, one of the students remarked (probably over the radio) that one of the victims looked like Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, the Thai Royal Army was sent in, escalation occured, and hundreds of students and communists were slaughtered and lynched. We even have our "tank man equivalent" of a man getting lynched and beaten with a chair.
There even used to be a "Che Guevara" of Thailand. He was a poet named Jit Phumisak who got shot in the chest in the northeast Isaan region (the jungle).
If the media gave half as much attention to authoritarianism in their little puppet as it does in the DPRK things might look very different…
But they won't, and this post won't change anything either. It will all be lost to the void like it always does, and the status quo will take over again, and corruption will run rampant. The people of Thailand have become so used to this that they have simply given up fighting.
3. Culture
One time my Dad sat me down and told me what his Grandfather told him. "Never trust a Thai person". We think we're special because we were never colonized. And in a country that is basically coated in gold, it reflects our attitudes very well. All we care about is getting that bag. It's the reason my Dad was a Reaganite in the 80's. It's for these reasons that it makes sense why the Thai people elected Pita. He's a young capitalist that says "it's ok to be corrupt as long as you play by the rules." He's the new kid on the block, the hungry new money. He is what many Thai people aspire to be, sometimes living under the humiliation of poverty makes us idolize the sauce and "become lost in it".

Honestly I probably could stretch this post out longer but I'm happy with the length, this should give you a pretty good idea as to why Thailand tragically never fell in the domino effect. The communist insurgency was once powerful and forced many concessions, but they were slowly pacified eventually many of them became royalists themselves. It's too late for us now bros, we're ngmi.

I'll leave you with a song by Jit Phumisak, "Starlight of Faith". Which reflects an historical truth, that the far-right will always appropriate from the far-left. This song was written by a communists and it is now sung by all political groups including the yellow shirts. The lyrics are about the humiliation of poverty, and how the stars and the sky look down on us indifferently…


Posted your video on Twitter, someone else made this gem.


File: 1687639183873-0.png (1.5 MB, 930x1640, creep_1.png)

File: 1687639183873-1.png (1.5 MB, 930x1640, creep_1.png)

these parts are fucking creepy.


I don't know. Isolated, it could be read that way; within the pamphlet, it reads like part of a joke that only the parents could potentially understand, although most parents wouldn't get it either. Children won't understand it, so I'm not exactly sure who the audience is supposed to be.

My guess would be "other communists," and that this pamphlet was never actually distributed except perhaps as a joke to other people on the left.


bump, based thread


So far the leftcom posts ITT have only been soapboxing
Can you guys reply to each other so that a dialogue can get going?


File: 1687719052681.jpg (75.2 KB, 738x401, bordiga.jpg)


That's actually quite smart in some ways
Every country ever occupied by the Soviet Union after liberation from the Nazi menace would have automatically ascended to membership in the union

Would that soviet union have one in the first place though?


Then I'm all for it


<"Informal" party "revolutionary" (eschatological-idealist) immediatism, tactics that have never worked in the history of class struggle
>I'm all for it


who are you quoting




Did I stutter


>They did some work in BLM and Yellow Vests
No they didn't. Show proof.


As an anarchist, an ML, and an opportunist, i beg of you ultras; please teach /leftypol/ how to read books again ;-;


File: 1687736053448-1.pdf (521.78 KB, 180x255, SLVMT.pdf)

Are you angry that leftcoms are doing more than you? It's not hard you know, to do more than worshiping faraway bourgeois dictatorship and traditions of dead generations on the internet that is. If it's a genuine question then you can read Hinterland of Phil Neel to get a feel of what these sort of groups are thinking and doing in the US, and Soulèvement from Mirasol for France.


Hinterland is a favorite among the current crop of CPUSA members too


Good, may they start attaching themselves only to your projects and not ours!


>Posts le theory and no proof that these people ever actually influenced any social change in a mass of people ever at all
I don't think you comprehend what you responded to. Either that or you constructed a particularly subtle type of ironic reply…


File: 1687913003610.jpg (292.83 KB, 1669x1471, leftcom.jpg)

can any of you recommend like a short youtube video or a pamphlet that actually explains your beliefs as someone who knows little about left-comism
furthermore, how exactly do you plan to bring about revolutionary change? politics, direct action? is it true left coms refuse to do anything in case that means working with people who might not be ideologically as pure as you?


>is it true left coms refuse to do anything in case that means working with people who might not be ideologically as pure as you?
I don't know much about left-coms eitherbut I hear that about every sect, can't imagine left-coms being anymore aggregious in that regard.


Idk about BLM though I have seen some afro-identiarian texts with a clear communization influence around that time but comrades that could be called ultraleft had a substantial influence on the Yellow Vests in various regions:
It really depends on the group. Hardline Bordigists tend to be like that but other groups are much less sectarian and the groups I work with use the slogan "anarchists for communism, communists for anarchy" and often involve ourselves in heterogeneous protest movements as long as they are class-oriented and seem to contain the potential to be nudged into a more radical direction. This is, of course, without joining any sort of coalitions with leftist unions or parties.


File: 1687953089561.png (554.3 KB, 936x694, leftcom intro.png)

Have an old screencap

Honestly most 'ultras' these days aren't part of a specific tendency, but boil down to people who have actually read Marx, and advocate for economic and social revolution (and not just reformism or death to Amerikkka).


>Which is precisely the problem, you hold on to Marx dogmatically
No, we uphold and defend the intransigent revolutionary program of the global proletariat steadfastly
>Marx’s original ideas were improved upon by Lenin, who’s contributions were further refined by Stalin, then Mao then Deng and finally Xi
"improvement" meaning gradual rejection of everything revolutionary in the name of developing the capitalist productive forces of the nation-state


And that's why communizers like Neel, Clover, the Endnotes people, etc. are so interesting, because they're actually analyzing current conditions of global capitalism, understanding and moving on from the 20th century and proposing new strategies for the current moment. Those strategies are worthy of criticism, but it's better than the Trot/ICP/Maoist sectlets that are regurgitating century old theory.


What does communalists think of Cockshott and cybersocialism?


We're not interested in nation building. Communist revolution will be globalist in character or it will not be.


One lil problem: CO2



Bitch ass blogspot says capitalism isn't adecuate to deal with climate change. Yes. It has nothing to do with what I said. Energy use of humanity must be at least limited.


Wasn't intending to refute your point there. Clearly abolishing markets and thus competing firms would vastly reduce CO2 emissions
We're a lot more anti-national than the Trots. Sorry but I don't feel like debating with you. We're just not on the same page at all.


>leftcom thread
>hammer and sickle
every time


Real redpill is realizing that thirdies cant reduce carbon emissions until america decides it doesnt need millions of poop emoji pillows and football team support shirts every time there's a new football season. Impossible to reduce production without reducing demand


demand doesnt drive production


well, that plus america holding a gun to the head of every other country, which further incentivizes development in ones aspiring to (keep) sovereignty
in capitalism a market that can be profitably sold to does drive production…


What did this retard mean?
Are you aware various left com parties use the hammer and sickle symbol? That it's used by basically all communists?


Yeah. It must be a coordinated decission made by a hopeful united world


Those poop emoji pillows and football team support shirts are driving the growth of industrial production in the developing world. Cutting it back would cause a massive economic contraction in the global south.


Damn, if only we had another economic system in mind that wouldn't be based on commodities.


What's /Ultra/'s take on Angry Workers?
I'm just starting to read this book and some of their earlier texts and so far I'm impressed! They have a lucid boots-on-the-ground analysis of the potential and of the difficulties for modern day labor organizing outside the limitations of unions, with an eye to building autonomous class power.
Should we all move with our tightest bookclub homies to go work in a factory town? Is this leftcom praxis for the 21st century?



It’s 2023, not whatever newsboy cap fantasy world you inhabit fucktard


> The Trots already have Nazi Germany as a shining example of their beliefs


Definitely one of the more useful contemporary communist texts, and definitely a good read for anyone interested in organizing.

The fact that both institutional labor organizers and ICP fossils have criticized them means they're definitely doing something right.


>marx failed to consider that poop emoji pillows keep the third world employed

its over commiesisters….


this is the only good non-ml & non-ccru theory thread currently


>wikipedia link

sorry buddy, no wikipedia.


>ultra-leftists (anarcho-councilists, communizers, rewilders, tiqqunists)

anymore like them ?


Can we elaborate on the likeness, distinction between
1. demcent and orgcent
2. Leninism and Stalinism
from the POV of ICP/Bordiga's contribution / critique?

Unique IPs: 58

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]