I have for a long time used council communists and left communists interchangeably, without ever looking deeply into whether they truly are similar or not. I am not knowledgeable enough to act as if I understand the intellectual jargon and prose of Bordiga and Pannekoek etc. So, can any good souls here tell me the differences between the two and similarities (if any) in simple language please?
Peace and love to all
>>2382511thanks for the reply
1. So did council communists approve of Stalin stopping the NEP and collectivisation?
2. Did leftcoms find common ground with Trotskyists in the opposition to socialism in one country?
>>23825221. No, because of the lack of power that gave the working class, it was a process of industrialization similar to that of other capitalist countries, workers worked long hours in possibly unsafe working conditions, and the soviets never really regained political power outside of approving what the central leadership of the Communist Party decided after the 1920s, which meant the workers who were lower ranking in the Party as well as the non-party workers did not have much political power, and that's why the Party was to constantly lead campaigns of criticism and self-criticism, as people were afraid to criticize them outside of certain boundaries and the party needed to set those boundaries.
2. They did find common ground initially, but Trotsky's emphasis on entryism into social democratic parties led them to split, as they saw this as counter-productive and similar to the tactics of the Second International. They also disagreed with Trotsky's theory of the USSR as a "degenerated workers' state", they didn't believe there could be a workers' state where the workers didn't hold power, that would be a contradiction in terms.
>>2382542Understood, thanks.
What about council coms and leftcoms in the 21st century?
Is it still relevant, and if yes, what are their analysis of today and course of action?
>>2382557Neither are really around anymore and they don't do much, their movements have for the most part been overshadowed by Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism.
Council communism has the quality of only really being relevant to a revolutionary situation, so there aren't much of them around these days.
Italian left communists have political parties that exist, although they mostly work alongside unions/advocate the formation of workers' councils, or criticize other left-wing organizations.
>>2383128Council communists are not anarchists at all. Council communists emphasize the masses of the working class, anarchists emphasize the individual. Council communists support the dictatorship of the proletariat and communist organization of new state organs, anarchists do not. Council communists support proletarian revolution with a communist political program, anarchists do not, they believe in revolutionary spontaneity.
The reason people don't call themselves "councilists" is because council communism is unique to a revolutionary situation. There are no workers' councils right now, there are only unions and mainstream labour parties, hence council communism is not a popular movement, but it was in the 1920s-30s as well as in the 1960s because the working class movement was stronger and more revolutionary back then.
>>2384479>>2384482Syndicalism is a dead ideology from the 1930s, most anarchists today are individualists and most anarchist theory reflects that.
>'dictatorship of the proletariat' can be interpreted anarchistically as when the proletariat suppresses the bourgeois during the revolution not literally a dictatorship of a party, clique or person but one class over another by force.That's not anarchistic, the Marxist conception is literally that.
>>2384493>Syndicalism is a dead ideologyAs opposed to the very lively ideology of council communism of course.
>most anarchists today are individualistsBlatantly wrong, and even if it were true you are not making a point.
>most anarchist theory reflects that.How would most anarchists today being individualists retroactively change the fact that the vast majority of anarchist theory is social-anarchist.
>That's not anarchistic, the Marxist conception is literally that.Both anarchists and Marxists have always believed in a DOTP, Marx just coined the term.
>>2384535The marxist conception of the DotP is not just proletarian dominance over the bourgeoisie in the abstract. It's the establishment of proletarian class rule through the seizure of the state apparatus. As bourgeoisie society is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so will proletarian society, at least in its early phases be a dictatorship of the proletariat. For councilists n shit this is all about direct democracy, worker's councils running things. For Leninists it's about the vanguard party and centralized consolidation under proletarian rule. But all of this conceived under statist consideration. Anarchists basically reject anything to do with the DotP as conceived by marxists, as they see it is a form of state power.
This is why I say if you change the meaning methods and words that describe the DotP then you can say that Marxists and anarchists both uphold it. It's not just a quippy oneliner retard lol
>>2384549Marxists don’t necessarily want a centralization of production either, it could be argued that production might actually decentralize over the development of the communist epoch, however what is necessary to destroy Capital is a central totalizing structure capable of waging war against capital and its offshoots across the entire planet
Anarchists are more content to form little communes and let capital continue dominating the Earth
>>2384568im using the Z flag as a meme
Now I ask you again, why do you use 'mongoloid' as an insult?
>>2384572mongoloid means 'retarded' according to you?
Ahh so you are French, where 'mongole' means Down syndrome. And that's why you worship Sorel as well, because your are a franchiotte.
Mongoloid does not mean 'Down syndrome haver' in English, however.
>>2384563It's about as statist as marxism is yes, that's why marxists use it and anarchists dont
>thanks for using your big boy words this time you troglodyte mongoloid retard.Lmaooooo you are so mad. It's not my fault you're too stupid to know the basic differences between anarchists and marxists and their political concepts
Left means left opposition and there are strong similarities in some points, like opposition to bourgeois electoralism or bourgeois national liberation. The reason for that being that it's straight up Bernstein or Lassalle to think you can leverage the bourgeois State to build socialism for you. They were the same wing but not the same in totality.
Council communism wasn't some hardline, for lack of a better term, ideology because they progressively became more and more skeptical of the Bolshevik strategy as it became more obvious the USSR strayed from the path of an actual proletarian revolution. It eventually became synonymous with people critical of Lenin's opportunism. Yes, he was an opportunist by the definition of the word, it's just argued that it was necessary due to the situations he was in. It's also most notable that they came to be skeptical of the vanguard party, especially an "international" party after the Bolsheviks were clearly purely interested in the Russian revolution and did not aid with anything else. This wasn't hidden, the Bolsheviks were open that the Russian revolution was to serve as a light post for everyone else. You can see how socialism in one country came after shit like that or the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Council-coms get interchangeably used with ancom, generally by people that don't understand what Marx meant by a proletarian "State", but that's a big error born from a lack of understanding of Marx. They weren't a bunch of cuckolds for peasants like the anarchists were and the actions against the petit-bourgeois peasants wasn't the focus of their criticism against Lenin. They're firmly Marxist, just anti-Bolshevik and stressed that the soviets themselves were responsible for the early socialism of the USSR and not the party. Most of the stuff you people consider core to Marxism actually came from Lenin, like the active role of the Communist vanguard vs the supportive/theoretical role of the Communists which is how the party operated in the IWA with Marx and Engels. The name itself, "council", is the form of the proletarian State, which was explicitly said by Engels here.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htmItalian-left are (generally) optimistic Lenin supporters. Not uncritically, as Bordiga was critical of democratic centralism and theorized organic centralism as the alternative. It still believe that there will eventually be some (has to be Italian of course) political party that represents the world's proletariat. It would be easy to confuse them with Trotskyites because of that but historically they've had poor relations with the Trotskyites and them trying to remove Bordiga from history. Other big steps away from Trotskyism is rejection of seeing the Stalinist USSR as a "degenerated worker's state", rejection of united fronts since they lead to falsification and some of the more democratic and entryist stances the Trots take. If you want it summed up quickly, just think about early Bolshevism.
The general theory on both sides is to not get distracted by liberalisms like supporting bourgeois reforms/nationalism over international working-class revolution. Deviation leads to falsification, which was Stalin's greatest sin after purging all of the Bolsheviks and actual Marxists. If you want a clue that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, look to see if they call councilcoms "anarchists" or Italian-left "trotskyists." Same thing with anyone bringing up the "great butcher" quote because that was a statement given to an actual fascist cop and was in direct contradiction to *all* of his writings.
If you have problems with anything I wrote, just read a book on the subject because this is what you're going to get asking a Deprogram fansite to sum up a shitload of history.
>>2384577no
in the past, the word 'mongolism' was used for Down syndrome
'mongoloid' meant the 'yellow race', that is Chinese, Japanese etc back when race science was a thing. You had 'caucasoid', 'mongoloid', 'negroid'.
>>2384576Great post comrade. CouncilCom is underappreciated imo.
Out of curiosity, what do you think about communization theory on the one hand and cyber-communism/socialism on the other?
What's a good way forward in this century of immense proletarianization and electrification, digitization, climate crisis and profit rate tendency nearing zero with a bureaucrat-monopoly capitalist bourgeoisie-led PRC taking a "snails pace" in the eastern hemisphere?
>>2384582>>2384691It won’t last
Anyway I will submit my personal favorite post-Lenin theorist to the discussion, the deceased Hungarian Marxist István Meszáros, who wrote two excellent texts, Beyond Capital: Towards a Theory of Transition, and Beyond Leviathan: Critique of the State; the former primarily builds upon the foundations of Marx and Lenin and Lukács and integrates a lot of the ideas of that revolutionary wave, pre-Stalinist and Fascist consolidation era that theorized on the possibilities and necessity of international revolution, looking also at the ideas of both the Italian and Dutch leftcoms, thoroughly critiquing both social democracy and Stalinism, while analyzing the start of what Meszaros saw as the breakdown, or at least the first major signal for looming historical conclusion for the capitalist epoch in the great economic and political transformations of the 1970s to 90s; Beyond Leviathan more thoroughly builds upon Meszaros’s own ideas of the State as one of the primary mediations of Capital’s social system or, more simply, one of the necessary components for securing Capital’s rule
>>2382468Both are leftcom, you're comparing dutch german and italian, the difference is between no party and party and that Lenin didn't write infantile disorder for the italians or Bordigga (who is more lenin than lenin) but for Pannekoek
Bordiga is Lenin 2
Pannekoek is LE INFANTILE and he shoulda stuck with astronomy
>>2384151councilcucks infantile disorder googoogaga
Lenin and Bordigga mog you
>>2384875It really is, considering he was soyfacing from industrial-capitalist Italy, not some underdeveloped backwater.
Dutch-German were right and if you read Gorter's response the rationale of argument not only holds up for the time when studying in context of the following decades of Europe, they also hold up today, while Leninism ended up having been great for anti-colonialism, bourgeois national revolutions and capitalist developmentalism in agricultural economies without either a sizable proletariat or entrenched finance-capitalist bourgeoisie.
Left Communism as a word has two general meanings.
It's used to refer to Marxist traditions to the political "left" of Marxism-Leninism as a whole, or as is now more often the case, specifically the Italian, or "Bordigist" branch of Left Communism.
Meanwhile Council Communism is another name for what was the Dutch-German branch of the Left Communist movement.
Today (Italian) LeftComs are found in small numbers globally, they have a few websites with very dated UI, occasional stalls and pamphlets, etc.
Councilists, while also found in similar numbers online, lack any real world organisation of their own, although individual Councilists are often found in various broader Socialist organisations.
Furthermore, both ideologies have had an impact on later movements such as Situationism, Autonomism, Communization theory, etc.
I'll do my best to outline the similarities and differences below, apologies for bad spelling and mistakes etc.
First of all let me list out the similarities:
>Internationalism
Both Leftcoms and Councilists, just like the Trotskyists, are Internationalists. They reject Socialism in one Country as a Stalinist revisionism and modernisation of Marxist theory, and point to the fall of the USSR and failures of other Marxist-Leninst states as proof that SIOC is unworkable under current conditions.
>Anti-Stalinism
Like Trotskyists, both Leftcoms and Councilists see Stalin and his policies as revisionist, they view him as a betrayer of the revolution, the leader of a Capitalistic SocDem personality cult.
Although he did beat the Nazis so there's respect for that at least.
>Commodity production and wage labour
Both believe that the Communist party must have a plan in motion for the replacement of the capitalist mode of production - commodity production and wage labour - and the introduction of a Socialist mode of production. This transition to a Socialist mode of production must begin immediately, but it won't be instantaneous.
Any so-called Communist regime that is not actively working to end commodity production is just Social Democratic welfare capitalism, merely co-opting Communist language and aesthetics.
>Anti-Electoralism / Revolutionary Socialism
Both reject participating in the electoral process, viewing the Parliamentary system as built to favour bourgeois interests, bourgeois candidates and parties.
Policies of reform by DemSocs are still good in that it eases the transition to a Socialist (and ultimately Communist) society, but reform will not bring an end to Capitalist exploitation and economics in itself, only revolution will be capable of such a transformation.
Parties should exist outside the electoral system. Some Councilists take this further by rejecting the existence of any party to organise through altogether, although historically speak some Councilist parties have existed.
>Opposition to United Fronts / Opportuinism
Both reject coalitions, pacts, alliances with bourgeois parties and bourgeois movements.
Communist Parties that collaborate with DemSocs and SocDems typically end up reforming their platform and eventually become DemSocs / SocDems themselves.
Support for any bourgeois group or movement, no matter how just their cause may seem, has no class basis and will only replace one group of the bourgeoisie with another.
That said, it is perfectly acceptable to work alongside other Revolutionary Socialists as they share the same goal.
This is one reason they are often hated by other leftists. For example - they oppose the genocide in Gaza, but are unwilling to support any Palestinian liberation movement that isn't of a Marxist character, since they believe groups like Hamas are also bourgeois and brutally oppresive, even if they are far better than the mass murderers of the IOF.
>Worker's Self-Emancipation
For the Party to start the revolution is simply a form of opportunism and adventurism by bored comrades who want war right now and can't handle sitting in the armchair any longer.
However, a revolution not backed by the masses is doomed either to fail, or to resort to extreme violence and brutality in order to survive.
The Party exists to educate the masses on Marxist theory, it must give them an organisation to work through, it can give information on tactical matters during the revolution. The party can enourage the masses to revolt, but it is the masses that must initiate the revolution by themselves.
Now for the differences:
>Structure of governance
The most glaring difference, by far.
<Left Communism
Total rejection of both liberal democracy and Stalinist bureaucracy. Bourgeois and reformist parties would be prohibited since they seek the restoration of Capitalism and rule by the bourgeoisie.
There would be no Soviets or Worker's Councils nor would there be any elections. The party is to consult with the Workers directly on matters which concern them.
Decisions are made via the Party, of which all people are free to apply to join and participate in.
Ideally the state will be abolished ASAP, and so this is only a temporary state of affairs until the capitalist mode of production and pro-capitalist forces are eliminated.
This may seem authoritarian, that's because it is. "Authoritarian" isn't a slur to Leftcoms like many MLs see it. It's a necessity, but only for a brief period until the transition away from capitalist production is completed.
<Council Communism
Each industry and each neighbourhood is to elect Councils, consisting of directly elected & directly recallable delegates with a specific mandate.
Each Council is part of a federation or union of regional Councils, to which a number of lower level delegates are elected to.
Finally there is the national Council, consisting of those elected from the regional councils.
Hypothetically there would be a 4th, international layer of Councils if multiple Councilist nationstates existed.
There is no "head of the Council" or head of state - all members are equal, and duties of members may be swapped regularly (although people will always be placed in a field they have competence in).
All political parties are forbidden. Each council candidate stands on their own individual platform, on their own merit, and each candidate gets the same amount of advertisment for their campaign.
This is still a class dictatorship of the proletariate however, because only members of the proletariat class may stand for election, and if they use their position to further capitalist / bourgeois interests, they will be recalled and have to face justice for their misuse of power.
>Trade Unionism
<Left Communism
Leftcoms view most modern trade unions as largely controlled or exploited by bourgeois interests, and consider the top figures of most unions to be corrupt very wealthy people who exploit unions for their own profit.
Under our current societal conditions, you should still be a union member, and support your union. But when the revolution happens, then it will be time to dismantle the unions.
<Council Communism
Councilists fully support unions and see any corrupt elements as an issue that can be dealt with on an individual basis. Unions would be permitted and supported after the revolution.
>When did the USSR go wrong?
<Left Communism
Roughly speaking, 1917-1921 was the golden era of the USSR. Almost all Leftcoms are Leninists. However, things started to go really badly with the introduction of the NEP, when the plans to end commodity production and wage labour were stalled / abolished.
Stalin then took things further and took a massive shit all over Marxist theory and turned the USSR into some type of SocDem dystopia.
<Council Communism
The USSR was bad from the very start, and the Bolsheviks were authoritarian state capitalists from the very start. (But we're still going to get really mad when Lenin throws us out of the 2nd International!).
Most Councilists are not Leninists, but may still reference individual points he makes as useful or valid.
I know its a long read but I hope that helps :)
>>2384952>Now for the differencesMost of what you write in regards to Council communism here (which is not merely about what a council/soviet is) is just your personal head-canon, most probably resulting from a mix of online hearsay by political opponents working to slander it. This section really makes that especially clear:
>>Trade Unionism[*?]>Councilists fully support unions[?] and see any corrupt elements as an issue that can be dealt with on an individual[?] basis. Unions[*?] would be permitted and supported after[???] the revolution.Should've kept the post to defining the Italian leftcom position, of which is clearly your dearest.
>>2382511>>2384151>>2384576CouncilCom is actually a living tendency, it is survived by Initiative Demokratische Arbeitszeitrechnung (IDA).
IDA today participates in the INDEP network, joined by Cockshottists (cibcom), parecon libsocs as well as especifist ancoms.
IDA's website:
https://arbeitszeit.noblogs.org/Recent video of practical experimentation from their youtube:
https://youtu.be/IJxQqrflVDE >>2385097>Councilcucks reject the party form you retardOkay my bad. Let me turn a sentence where the intention is very clear into an entire paragraph for the sake of being technically slightly more correct.
>Both believe that the Communist party (in the case of the Italian LeftComs) or the similarly responsiple grouping within the highest level of the Council body (or perhaps the entire council as a whole depending on the form of the structure) that is responsible for domestic economic structuring and policy decisions (in the case of the Councilists) must have a plan in motion for the replacement of the capitalist mode of production.Also, being generous I assume that by "reject the party form" you mean speicifically in the post-revolutionary era that there will be no parties within a Councilist state.
But it's entirely possible to read your post as meaning Councilists reject the party form on the whole, which would make you the retard given theres many Councilist political parties which have existed historically, on the basis that they would help educate and organise the revolution and be abolished once the revolution succeeded.
To name but a few:
>Communist Workers' Party of Germany>Labour Abstentionist Party>Workers' Socialist Federation>Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation>Communist Party (British Section of the Third International) (1920-21)See how it works retard? I can point out how you're also factually wrong on minor points where the intent is clear too. I can do it all day.
But what does it benefit either of us? Maybe in future tone down your autism and desire for debates given we're all on the same damn side and all understand what we're trying to say.
>>2385163>Also, being generous I assume that by "reject the party form" you mean speicifically in the post-revolutionary era that there will be no parties within a Councilist state. No you fucking retard, have you read anything of the Dutch-German school? They explicitly reject the party - the revolutionary vanguard, not in the "post-revolutionary era" - AT ALL. Why do you think Lenin wrote infantile disorder?
>which would make you the retard given theres many Councilist political parties which have existed historicallyCouncilism is not the same as council communism, they themselves consider it a degeneration.
>>2385340>>23853441. Pannekoek isn't the "head" of CouncilCom like in revisionist schools
2. He was objectively a worse at theory and practice than Gorter and Appel.
3. His tendency
started the (anarchoid-)"councilism" degeneration
4. Party-oriented CouncilCom is how CouncilCom STARTED, distinguished from later Leninist and ML
vanguardist parties.
Now adhom me, Timmy! Keep "contributing" like a 12 year old.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1921/class-struggle.htmThe Organisation of the Proletariat's Class Struggle, Herman Gorter<3. The Unity of General Union of Workers and Communist Party>[…]>Factory organisation or union together with party! The unity of both! And through both and the unity of both, the dictatorship of the class!>There can be no clearer tactics, no clearer plan.>And so when Zinoviev and the Third International ask us 'left-wingers' (in his exposition of the 21 conditions) who we think will be responsible for economic administration, feeding and educating the populace, etc. during the period of transition – tasks which in their opinion only the party can accomplish – we reply that the factory organisation and the party together will carry this out in Western Europe and North America. That means, for those who have followed our argument, the proletariat. And when they ask us who other than the party will establish the red army, we reply: the union and the party together, that is to say the proletariat. And when they ask us who other than the party will overcome the counter-revolution, we reply that in Western Europe and North America it will be the union and the party, that is to say the proletariat. And when they ask us how iron discipline and absolute centralism will be possible here if the party is not dictator, we reply that the union and the party together will certainly ensure centralisation and discipline, but not in the form you have them. The class relations dictate that this should be so. By the numbers involved alone, for 70 per cent of the population are proletarian here, and only 7 per cent in Russia! Anybody who cannot comprehend that discipline and centralisation will therefore be different here is a dunce.>And when they ask us what is the overall plan for the organisation of the revolution and the way to communism, and mock and insult us because they believe we have no such plan, we reply that it is their fault if they do not understand us. They see everything in such obscurity that they believe only the Russian way is possible. But we have a clear plan and a clear way forward: unity of party and union – that is to say the proletariat – and dictatorship by the proletariat. We will add just one thing more for the benefit of our Russian friends.>Now that the proletariat in Kronstadt[11] has risen up against you, the communist party, now that you have had to declare a state of emergency in Petrograd against the proletariat (things which, like all your tactics, were necessary in the conditions you face), has the thought still not occurred to you, even now, that dictatorship by the proletariat really is preferable to dictatorship by the party? Or that it would perhaps really be preferable if class- and not party-dictatorship were to develop in Western Europe and North America? Or that perhaps the 'left-wingers' here are in the right?>Perhaps this idea has occurred to you; but even if it has, you have still not completely understood the issue. For the dictatorship of the class is not only preferable here, it is absolutely necessary.>This can best be understood in terms of the factors already mentioned: in Russia you were still able to suppress the counter-revolution when a section of the proletariat rose up against you in Kronstadt and Petrograd, because it is weak in Russia; but if a section of the proletariat were to rise up against us under the conditions prevailing here, the counter-revolution would be victorious, for it is powerful here.>For this reason too class dictatorship is necessary here, absolutely necessary. And party-dictatorship impossible.>The 'left' therefore not only has a good and clear plan, it has the only one possible and necessary. A plan that is the opposite of yours, which means nothing but harm for the revolution in Western Europe and North America.>And on this point we will conclude with a word on the Russian tactics for Germany, for Western Europe, to the German, English, the Western European, the North American, the world proletariat.>Workers of Germany and England, of Western Europe and North America, you were recently able to witness the consequences of the tactics espoused by the Russians and the Third International and those of the 'left-wingers' in Germany in March 1921. Of the Third International, which uses parliamentarianism and cell tactics, and the 'left', which is anti-parliamentarian and advocates factory organisation. The Third International, which seeks dictatorship by the party, the 'left', which seeks the dictatorship of the class. The consequences of the tactics espoused by Moscow, by Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek and the Third International, those tactics of party-dictatorship, etc. were a putsch ordered from above, a terrible defeat, the fiasco of cell tactics and parliamentarianism, betrayal by one section of the leadership (Levi), the downfall of a communist party (the VKPD), a weakening of communism.>The consequences of the tactics of the 'left' – although everything did not go entirely as planned – were the unity and solidarity of the communist party, the reinforcement of this party and of the union: an advance for communism.>We say to you: the tactics of the 'left' have not only been demonstrated as the best in terms of theory, in terms of historical materialism, but in practice too. And they have proved the best in practice for the very reason that their theoretical basis is sounder.>Factory organisations with the union built up upon them, a party like the KAPD that is anti-parliamentarian and not dictatorial, the unity of both; and both pursuing and developing the class-dictatorship of the proletariat, by word and deed, by theory and struggle – theory and practice show clearly that this is the way to victory.>The course espoused by Moscow, by the VKPD and the Third International, is clearly the way to defeat, to downfall.>Workers of Germany, England, Western Europe and North America! Victory is only assured you if you unite on scientific tactics, that is to say tactics in conformity with historical materialism, with the class conditions! Only these scientific tactics can bring you unity.>Workers of Germany, England, Western Europe and North America, unite in the KAPD or in parties like the KAPD, and in unions like the General Union of German Workers, the AAUD! >>2385725That lie led directly into framing the mass transition of peasants into proletarians and then inserting them into the economy as such for the appropriation of surplus labor under the reign of “necessity” and calling this socialism
The specific exigencies that led to such decision making were dealt with by extreme force against both the peasants who were to be transformed and the newly created proletarians who were to be made to enlarge the national industry and coffers and of course the old communists who were appalled by such endeavors
>>2385953>3. His tendency started the (anarchoid-)"councilism" degenerationThat's the point, OP flaunts councilism and fails to distinguish it from council communism.
The tard doesn't even know councils is the same as soviets.
>>2386248Why are Stalinists consistently staunch anti-intellectuals is my genuine question?
Modern stalinists specifically seem intent on being the polyps of the communist movement, it’s just absurd to see people so pathologically attached very specifically to failure
Why do you frame successful socialism as simply doing capitalism competently and make that the entire horizon of specifically the 21st Century’s future?
I don’t expect you to respond honestly or even rationally, but I’ll take a chance since even five years ago MLs were less shamelessly moronic and dishonest
Unique IPs: 40