why does it seem that whenever marxists post relevant studies, articles, books it's always very precise, to the point, relevant to the topic at hand; while when leftcoms post books here, they are usually not relevant, or a debate from 50 years ago in one sect, pseudointellectual nonsense? has anyone else noticed this? it seems like they haven't read the books they spam and are very ecclectic in their takes (i've seen them post anarchist alongside left-communist literature, indicating their ideological confusion).
i've also noticed that the leftcom spazs around here just scream at clouds at this point because almost everytime their replies reduce down to accusations of taking perverse pleasure in the genocide of proletarians, which is completely ridiculous. and i've noticed leftcoms never have anything relevant about organization to say. i also do not know any leftcom that is organized or isn't a complete social outcast.
why does this happen?
posting two rare lenins alongside
>>2372136As the bourgeois pour an unlimited
amount of money into the election circus,
hundreds of millions of dollars in perverted
propaganda is forced upon the public to tell
us that to save the nation is to save
ourselves and to do that we must “Vote or
Die”. This famous slogan of the, selftitled,
bipartisan electoral activist campaign
fronted by Sean P. Diddy Combs, now
forever lives on in infamy as the debauched
hiphop mogul and cultural representative
of the American bourgeois, is charged with
innumerable sexual crimes following a
similar exposé of bourgeois insider and sex
trafficker Jeffery Epstein. As the Caligulalike depravity of the representatives of
American bourgeois is increasingly
exposed year after year, and the edifice of
American imperial hegemony continues its
sharp decline, each passing election cycle
only confirms the total moral degeneration,
incoherence and senility of the entire
putrefying bourgeois order
>>2372151You can ask them anything but if you ask them dumb questions they've already answered to they will just redirect you to articles from the site.
They also don't want to talk about the party split.
>>2372159>Why would anyone message them if there are articles in their site? Not for general inquiries on theory that they've already answered and written about for sure. Scheduling meetings, invitations to events / dialogue or other serious matters are probably what it was intended for. Though they would probably respond to a subject they haven't covered if it peaks their interest.
>I guess there are enough marxist smartasses in the world who could ask them questions they didnt answerThey always answer, but if its already been answered they will just redirect to an article or tell you where to look at the site.
>>2372105>>2372168Because they were not and are not ever meant to be a serious movement. They're nothing but a meme/troll tendency whose only purpose is to distract and buy time for the Bourgeois. Just a reminder that the Italian fascist regime wrote in their police files about Bordiga that they did not consider him to be a threat.
>>2372213>the real workers' movement which abolishes the present state of things*Are you going to be doing that by shitposting on the Internet and telling Palestinians to give IOF soldiers a hug?
>>2388785That was deliberate.
>>2388756Well, it's sad but true. At least as long as I am here. I do not see anything better. If there was a superior alternative I'd be there. Hence this must be it.
>>2388792Yes, no, maybe. I said much the same thing above however
Let's try putting the cart before the horse. It is true they are an irrelevance. They do not exist as a force for itself, as it were. Rather they are a collection of different groups, groupuscles and mostly disparate individuals. What interests me and what I quipped about above is the psychological need the anti-politics serves. Or the stress that is eased by it. Hypothesis: Most people "on the left" believe themselves more left than they are. I am for example interested in the overlap between this or that expression of purism and liberal ideology.
The standard liberal is not a deliberate liberal. It is rather an involuntary act. They would rather be something else. Yet they constitute the majority and dominant force in the west. Here's where the false consciousness operates in a "pure" (for lack of a better term) form.
So it is not that they are politically or ideologically interesting, rather the overlap with the real (liberally dominated) colonial, capitalist world system is what we can potentially get useful information out of.
>>2388802>Well, it's sad but true. At least as long as I am here. I do not see anything better. If there was a superior alternative I'd be there. Hence this must be it.again with the question about alternatives.
>ideological argument 1: if something exists it must be justified and rational, similarly if something doesn't exist it's yada yada yada. >2: if you critique something but don't have an alternative your critique is wrongMf please. Read once in a while.
https://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/alternative.htm >>2372105Leftcoms are more like Marx and Lenin in the regard of ruthless criticism, rather than being professional ass kissers desperate for approval from “authorities” or “leaders” or whatever the fuck (MLs absolutely love being in a low I.Q. circlejerk where everyone parrots the same thoughtless reactionary nonsense and some idiot thought leader whose probably a sex pest themselves says how great they are lmao)
Imagine seeing someone not being a sycophant as a flaw lmao what a bitch
^
lmao ok
I am p sure I've done more critical theory and forgot more "critical theory" (where for example the immanent critique idea comes from) than you'll ever do/read in your life.
Anyway, you're not Lenin, Marx or Engels, you're not even Adorno.
So yeah be as criticful as you please but can you do it over yonder?
As to the alternatives mentioned it was decidedly not a question of politics. Let's try a "close reading" of my text.
>>2388802 (You)
>I am here. I do not see anything better. If there was a superior alternative I'd be thereThen notice what it is replying to
>>2388846>As to the alternatives mentioned it was decidedly not a question of politics. Let's try a "close reading" of my text.then that's more of a matter of your will to actually question what you've been believing up until now, but most likely you won't do shit cause everyone here is already lost to begin with.
The Left and its arguments are both just an inversion of the Right and theirs, therefore both are Ideological either way.
the worst part about it is the new crop of leftcoms seems entirely unfamiliar with the endnotes/chuang/phil a neel tendency which produced excellent contemporary marxist writing that could broadly be called left-communist. i think it might be because those journals are a decade old at this point, and many if not most communists posting around on the internet at this point tend to be young enough that they were actually children at that point especially leftcoms, funny infantile joke but also the young tend to be more drawn towards percieved "purism" ideologically
endnotes/chuang is very good stuff, and very worth engaging with even if you disagree with the tendency or their conclusions. i do for much of it, but it is still better historical materialist analysis than the VAST majority of contemporary marxist journals produce, which is a low bar since most of them are just polemics about current events.
though be careful bringing it up, because the overlap here with no-books twitter flagheads means that youll be told that Chuang in particular is a CIA project because it translates contemporary chinese communists texts that are critical of the PRC's governance and circumstances. there are cases of projects like that, like Lausan, that came out around the same time, and was promoting Hong Kong radlib narratives with a much more suspect background and editorial staff. obviously there is a ton of straightforward anti-china propaganda floating around all the time, some of it geared towards the western left. Chuang is not one of them, it is just a broadly left-communist journal that grew out of the Endnotes collective/their circles engagement with chinese leftcoms/ultras etc. at the very least read and decide for yourself instead of using "glow" as an excuse not to read. it can be wrong, bad analysis, etc. without being CIA work, but calling it CIA is convenient because then you dont need to actually engage with the text and disagree with it. inb4 derailed by arguing about Chuang or glow, i bring it up because it is relevant contemporary leftcom publication as related to the thread topic. obviously a left-communist publication dealing with the PRC is going to be at odds with PRC orthodoxy
>>2388877Well thank you for that question
I mean like a couple things at the same time. Apolitical critique for one thing is a special bugbear of mine. I suppose that is a personal problem or failing. I say something like "ignore it" to then proceed to do the opposite. Earlier in the thread I started out justifying it with a connection to the dominant liberal ideology more generally.
Lemme quote myself thanks to the search function working again
>I think the problem people have with "real socialism" is not in the socialism part but the "real". Most everyone has some idea what communism is. It's pretty simple. To me it remains like this: If communism can't exist in reality, which it evidently can't (first, you need a country of whatever form to exist in this world of countries as well as an army and so on) then how is the admission (which I am prepared to make for any actually existing country or formation of any sort) that such-and-such is not "real communism" even a meaningful statement? I never got any answer to that. You are saying nothing at all. "Talk loud, say nothing" is all it amounts to.
>How is saying that such-and-such is not "real communism" meaningful or of any consequence? Uygha you made the sub, conceptually.By your definition we will not see communism except when let's say, the world's problems are solved. Then we can do away with countries, war, exploitation etc. etc.
This is not gonna happen for you, in your lifetime. Hence it's just not bloody relevant.
>>2388961alright so nothing you just said actually responded to what I claimed but I think we both know we both don't care about that
as always, the arguments put forward by the critique remain untouched, and to debunk them you actually have to understand them first
And of course the answer remains the same always. I would never expect anything else.
Let us turn to my favorite thinker, myself
>It's a Sisyphean exercise to try to make anti-politics thinkers into something else by persuading them of the argument and the "salience of reality". For "real change" you gotta wait for reality to bite them in the ass. It's like talking to the common liberal. It'll be something like, they heard about authoritarianism, undemocratic behavior, oppression and what have you. Then you may try to tell them how we have much the same in our own country and it isn't that simple and what have you. They will agree with you, nod their head but never really get it. The urge to put things into the authoritarian / democratic boxes is too strong with them. And their own country can do no wrong, oh sure it does wrong (here and there, but you know, they are real people with hopes and dreams, not like those impure darkies) but their evil is never of the same quality as the others. It is not "real evil". It is just different, they know. Why? How? Who knows.
>>2390878Well, it's good we are agreed. And I suspect most people are already in a similar place. This ain't rocket science after all. I don't believe I posses some esoteric knowledge of any kind.
I'll still keep banging on about it for the foreseeable future or until this site becomes intolerable to use (which it is on a rather steep trajectory to).
Firstly and probably most importantly out of sheer habit. Secondly, there are always people that are new and inexperienced on any level. Third, I'll clarify things for myself.
>>2395567Some examples
these guys really aren't leftcoms no matter how much they flirt with endnotes, there are no leftcoms that support natlib or religious indoctrination like they do
>>2395567In fact, there is no "even", it is CIA
they have China Labour bulletin as a resource. China Labour Bulletin was founded by Han Dongfang, in 1993 he received the Democracy Award form the U.S National Endowment for Democracy.
They also list China Dialogue as a resource, the CEO of Chinadialogue is a recipient of the Officer of the Order of the British Empire, she also worked for openDemocracy, which got some of its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy as well.
National Endowment for Democracy is a known CIA front organisation.
Unique IPs: 32