/gulag_archive/ - Gulag Archive

No. Everything Bordiga did was a failure. History has proven left communism to be wrong. There's really nothing else to discuss.

Bordiga and unironic self-identified "left-communists" will go down as the biggest clowns in the history of the movement. Like at least Trotsky had a period of being kinda good before getting high on his own fumes and derailing a large chunk of the movement with his beef with Stalin.

>>2054
>Or it's like Trotskyism and should just be ignored .
Basically

I disregard any and all Western Marxist on the spot because their class position under imperialism wants them to preserve Western social-democracies (because they offer more breadcrumbs to the intellectual stratum) and is always linked to the petty bourgeois of their nation, directly or indirectly, and to the safeguarding of the exploitation of the periphery.

History has proven that between Marxism and anarchism, Marxism is correct; and that between Eastern and Western Marxism, Eastern Marxism is proven every single day.

they are based not like liberals such as Stalin and Mao

>>2059
based totalitarians

My question is if these folks had an actual ideological movement, how come they never came to power anywhere at all? or is there some secret leftcom bunker somewhere with a perfect communist society in it.

>>2058
Marxism was so right China is now capitalist , USSR dead , DPRK autocratic monarchy whit marxist characteristics and Cuba is Cuba

>>2062
China is not capitalist. Read this thread >>1542607

i once made out with a left communist
he stole my heart and left me a husk of a man i was hoping that he'll return the feeling of love

>>2059
Holy shit my eyes who choosed these colors

>>1562657
Ah, a fellow Pol Pot appreciator.
So happy to see you!

>>1562657
Don't you know anon? Pretending to be a BASED soviet revolutionary from your bedroom, gorkyposting and reenacting irrelevant Stalinist vs Trotsyist beef is the only way to achieve real grassroot gommunism!

>>2067
Whatever it takes to suck the yoof in.

btw, leninhat poster is based.

Key phrase: Stochastic terrorism

>Were the so called "left-communists" like Bordiga on to something when they opposed ML and social democracy and presented a valuable alternative to those two
No

>Or it's like Trotskyism and should just be ignored .
It's like trotskyism in that it is dogmatic. Every meme "alternative" to principled Marxist-Leninism is quite literally a dogmatic version of it. "Maoism" is similarly a dogmatic trend … but this is not to say that Mao was a dogmatist or that Mao wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Maoism is something that people only started to identify with after the Sino Soviet split. Khruschev was widely regarded to be a revisionist. The "Maoists" were people to understood Marxism to be a scientific method and Marxist-Leninism as a scientific method for revolution that is built and enhanced with each subsequent and successive revolutionary experience, whether in Russia, or in Cuba, Burkina-Faso, Guinea, Angola, etc. Nowadays, the "Maoists" are dogmatists, just like how the "Trotskyists" have all basically become dogmatic. Every non-dogmatic Marxist has understood that the Marxist method must be applied to the time and place in question, that you cannot simply interpret everything through the experience of the Russian revolution, or the Paris Commune, etc., because of material conditions. That being said, it is a framework, and you can find many parallels between the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Paris commune, the Cuban revolution, etc., but you do not want to use Marxism like one of those absolutist bourgeois moral principles where it is taken to be "universal" because it's connection to the material has been undermined for the sake vibes.

Personally I think the term "Marxist-Leninism" is mostly redundant, except when talking about tactics of the vanguard party form, because Lenin was basically affirming what Marx and Engels had already proved, and was merely applying the Marxist method to his time and place. Lenin's name gets to be on the tin because he did innovate vanguard party form. Mao Tse Tung doesn't get to have his name on the tin any more than Fidel Castro or Tito or Thomas Sankara because they didn't innovate the vanguard party form, they were just applying the Marxist method to their circumstances.

>>2069
>Thomas Sankara
Talking of Burkina Faso, their young president is quite based.

>>2070 (me)
Reminds me of Kim Jong Un when he was younger.

>>2058
pseud

>>2068
>Stochastic terrorism

if leninhat finally snaps and goes federal include me in the screencap guys

>>2072
Maybe, but they're not wrong.

>>2074
>>2058
That would necessarily include and ML or MLM if they happen to be born and live in the west? Who is a worker living in the West supposed to place their hopes in?

>>2074
Yes they are. Most "Eastern" Marxist theorists and many leading revolutionaries were members of their own country's middle class intelligentsia.The only difference from the imperial core in this regard is that the intellegentsia is larger, but if they had wanted, Castro, Lenin, Marx, Che, and others all could have lived comfortable lives in the urban centres of their respective countries.

>>2076
>The only difference from the imperial core in this regard is that the intellegentsia is larger
No it's that the interests of the intelligencia in western countries is continued imperialism and the interests of the "eastern" intelligencia is overthrowing imperialism

>>2077
>the interests of the "eastern" intelligencia is overthrowing imperialism
How do you figure that? Fidel Castro was literally born into a comprador plantation owning family, and was trained as a lawyer. How would the interests of of his class be served by the revolution he led?

>>2078
The Batista regime alienating the entire political spectrum in Cuba, including liberals

>>2079
Fidel Castro wasn't a liberal though, and he didn't lead a liberal revolution. He was a traitor to his class, just like Engels, Zhou Enlai, and many others. Such people have always played prominent roles in the formation of communist movements and theory. It makes no sense to decry theoretical contributions of Western Marxist writers on that basis alone. Shit even Xi says he's a fan of Herbert Marcuse.

>>2080
Fair enough, what would make sense is throwing out western Marxist contributions because they've been made from a position of utter powerlessness. Communists in the West can barely take power in school board meetings. Why take people seriously who have never been in charge of anything?

>>2055
Everything Lenin did was a failure. History has proven marxism-leninism to be wrong. There's really nothing else to discuss

>>2082
Lenin liberated half the world from colonalism, even if he failed at establishing world communism that's a far bigger accomplishment than any worker's or socialist movement in the imperial core

>>2083
Ah yes, Lenin the white savior.

>>2081
Why take people seriously that have failed to actually build socialism either?

>>2086
You have to take SOMEBODY seriously

>>2054
not like trotskyism. most leftcoms are not for antifascism or united fronts. that said, some are ok with united fronts in the trade union struggle and are good with intervening in trade union work and expanding militancy there. bordigists are very anti-democracy, as the correctness of positions cannot arise from democracy but from scientific analysis. they do share some positions with trots re state capitalism and bureocracy. they do properly call out USSR post 1919 for taking the capitalist road and becoming social imperialist. they get a lot of flack for not choosing sides in imperialist wars, including ones that have genocides happening in them. that makes them some cold motherfuckers but you gotta be a cold motherfucker if you are a real revolutionary. they did have great successes during the 1970s in Italy and are currently active in many countries, including non-western and non "white" countries. they will take strong stances against idenity essentialism and place class politics before everything else. they are pro-Lenin and pro-Marx on most things and also were appreciative of the left opposition. Frankly much of what leftcoms have to say is way over people's heads and that's really their only big issue but they are correct on most things and can easily out-organize anarchists, but that's hardly much of a challenge, considering how chaotic and self-defeating that tribe is for refusing to have a party, even if some anarchists do place class politics first. Lefts will be anti-tankie to the death and depending on which type of left you mean may be just book nerds afraid to talk to a worker or actually active militants, but that's true accross orgs of different flavors too. Anyway, widely slept on group that gets shit on a lot but without deserving it. People prefer Stalinist strongmen because they had military chops and expanded state capitalism but those people are not my comrades.

They were right to criticize Stalin for revisionism on the question of commodity production, but their split beyond that is nonsense.

>>2081
>what would make sense is throwing out western Marxist contributions because they've been made from a position of utter powerlessness
So should we throw out everything Lenin wrote prior to 1917 as well? That would include some foundational ML texts.

>>2088
Excellent excellent, I'm so glad to see even more Pol Pot appreciators here.

>>2089
where did stalin commit revisionism? His idea of commodity production can co-exist with socialism is consistent with Marx and Lenin.

>>2092
Taken from another thread, but Im pretty sure Marx and Lenin argue that commodity production may exist in the DOTP- which was the transition from capitalism into socialism as opposed to it existing under socialism itself.

>>2059
suggestion to leftcoms: maybe don't use black font with red background and i might be able to read your theory

>>1563357
Can you supply some evidence to your argumentation, or you going to act like a smug bitch and contribute nothing?

>>2096
you already know what's coming

>>2097
Then Im sure it won't be a struggle to ask for the text and provide it.
Again, as i said- under the DOTP there may be commodity production- but I would argue based on what I've read from Lenin that a DOTP isn't socialism in it of itself.

>>2098
Forgot quotes related

>>2055
History isn't over yet. Stop living vicariously through a foreign state.

>>2098
Lenin is essentially arguing that society can have multiple modes of production and yet still advance towards communism. What matters is what economic system is predominant as it is only when the law of value does not have commanding heights of the economy is it possible to build and establish socialism.

>>2101
Ok, so how is that antithetical to suggesting that Lenin argued that a DOTP may have commodity production within it, if it means allowing multiple MOPs to be used to advance towards communism?

>>2101
>Lenin is essentially arguing that society can have multiple modes of production and yet still advance towards communism
Hasn't this been disproven by the history of the 20th century?

>>2088
Only good post of this thread. Can you give us a run down of the conflict that existed in the PCI represented by picrel?

>>2104
who is the junior soprano looking guy in the top left?

"Left Communism" = Trotskyism without united fronts, which was actually one of Trotsky's better points.