I'm going to write a bit about the trend known broadly as left communism. It seems to me that left communism has now basically become this newest trend in opportunism. Back in the day, there were barely any left communists - there still aren’t many - but every now and then you see one. I’ve seen lots of opportunists retreat from their previous positions (whether they were anarchists, Trotskyists, or what-have-you) and switch to left communism. I suppose it is appealing to some people.
It’s basically an anti-Leninist trend and against any historical form of socialism - any kind that has ever existed. So what exactly is left communism? It is an anti-Marxist, revisionist trend that capitulates under the pressure of anti-communist propaganda. It’s not the only trend that does this, but that is its most characteristic feature.
Left communism likes to present itself as theoretically genuine Marxism. People who aren’t well-read theoretically or lack a firm grasp of Marxism’s core principles seem to fall for it. In reality, though, it’s just revisionism and a vulgar distortion of Marxist ideas - especially Marx’s message and the essence of Marxism. In particular, left communism is the most extreme defeatist trend in revisionism and opportunism. It sees literally all socialist revolutions and socialist countries as “not real socialism.” This includes all Marxist-Leninist countries, other socialist experiments, and even anarchism.
Left communism has never had major historical or theoretical relevance. It is entirely isolated from real political action and only appeals to petty-bourgeois-minded opportunists. Some people - and by this, I mean left communists - might find that insulting, but it happens to be the case on purely theoretical grounds. These seemingly negative traits are actually left communism’s strength. Why? Because left communism is on a crusade against reality. It crusades against any socialism that has ever existed or will exist. Since left communists themselves have never had (and never will have) political relevance, their ideas will never become reality.
Left communism relies on abstract theoretical arguments out of touch with reality - meaning none of its conclusions ever need to be proven. If left communism did become reality, it would implode. Left communists would attack it as “stalinoid.” Left communism doesn’t exist on its own terms; it only exists as a parasitical opposition to actual socialism. That’s the only role it has ever played, even historically - see, for a particular example, the Brest-Litovsk days.
You might ask: If left communism is so irrelevant, why talk about it? Precisely because it doesn’t exist as a movement in itself. It exists solely as opposition to actual socialism - a stance more parasitical than any other movement. Trotskyism may oppose Marxism-Leninism; anarchism may oppose state socialism. But at least they have independent substance. Left communism is nothing except opposition to existing socialism. Left communism and its variants constitute a revisionist trend characterized by capitulation to anti-communist propaganda and a total lack of real political activity. Its defining features are distrust of the masses, isolation, pessimism, and defeatism - demonstrating its thoroughly petty-bourgeois nature. It is the ideology of the petty-bourgeois opponent of really existing socialism
152 posts and 20 image replies omitted.>>2431022Oh yeah!
>MLism is national socialism >China is fascist Some more leftcom retardation gems
>>2431036Liberals like you think they can supplant Marx's critique with trash like this
>>2430965The common ML slur against us is "Marx worshippers"
Nice projection
>>2431041Literally nobody calls you that retard 😂😂😂
You just think you're like Marx, you believe yourself to be on his level (as evidenced by your continued referal to his method of critique when cornered "well if I'm a retard I guess Marx' ruthless criticism was retarded then too" type shit) because you are arrogant and childish, one might even call you infantile
>>2431053 (me)
Also just another point on the absurd "marx worshiper" claim. It is actually leftcoms who call other people worshippers. Particularly worshippers of Stalin ofc, but also other so called butchers of the proletariat. It's pure unadulterated projection
>>2430984>Marxism-Leninism worksWhere is the Soviet Union and any of our allies? Where is the socialism? Is it with America’s biggest trading partner?
> It worked for the Trotsky's entryists who went on to form the core of the neocons after planning a Leninist takeover of the republican party, the platform itself is probably still availableTrots are barely distinguishable from MLoids, their shared commitment to the liberal reich is noted
> Leninism works, the burgers are dementedly dancing into fascism; which is great because fascism is incompetent and therefore acts like indiscriminate firebombing on the best citizens, except for all the suffering Americans MLism is such a catastrophic error the average MLoid will try appealing to the average American by telling them their life will be mostly identical but they’ll have better welfare and can’t listen to rap music anymore and will probably be poorer if they’re any kind of professional (“but you deserve it!” lmao)
> Perhaps you should take a page from Marxist Leninism and Bolshevik Leninism and do something about instead of indiscriminately destroying civilian neighbourhoods for well over half a century non-stop now?But I thought ethnically cleansing proletarians is ML praxis from the father and pathfinder Stalin himself? Don’t MLs already believe in ethnically cleansing reactionary ethnicities and bombing proletarian neighborhoods from the wrong national background to begin with?
>>2430977Thus far nobody, from Marx to Lenin, has completed a successfully implemented theory of transition, if MLs read Marx, which they largely despise, they would start to understand Marx recognized immense challenges in creating a theory of transition when history is fundamentally open by nature, much of his critiques were of contemporary attempts at or theories of transition; what we can do are analyze the various failures and why they failed; MLs are among those failures, so far among those the extreme cynical absurdity of ML historical and contemporary rhetoric, namely, MLs have to justify why the most brutal impositions on proletarians, domination of their labor-power, and domination of their political life, was in fact towards the construction of a future diametrically opposed to such things that also failed to materialize due specifically to the ultimate actions of the party-states themselves (self-abolition to resolve the contradiction of maintaining “socialism” when it’s actually the opposite of socialism that is being maintained and it is globally opposed by the more normal and already dominant manifestations of the capital system)
It’s so absurd MLs of the contemporary age, totally awash in so much cynicism I think MLs generally hold both proletarians and communism in dual hateful contempt, they actually have to frame China’s success at maintaining and developing a capitalist economy, as itself the development of socialism (this is where MLoids actually do become virtually indistinguishable from hitlerites at least in how they define “socialism”)
>>2429259The Russian and Chinese revolutions were bourgeois revolutions wrapped in red paint. Lenin and Mao were basically biff from back to the future using Das Capital to speed run 100 years of industrialization in the span of a couple decades.
And to make it perfectly clear, I believe Lenin and Mao were communists and the USSR and PRC are great achievements that show communist absolute do capitalism better. I “critical support” (talk good about them online) both of them.
>>2431225>Thus far nobody, from Marx to Lenin, has completed a successfully implemented theory of transition.you still didn't answer what must be done, all you did, and seemly all you can do is critics of what was NOT done, and empty platitutes of how they are wrong, yet that is not an anwser to nothing they did wrong.
again, what is the answer, if marx and lenin were so truthful and is only MLs that were wrong tell the truth in their theory.
>>2431242> you still didn't answer what must be doneThere is nothing you as an individual, nor a party you personally like, nor a hypothetical government you would wish to see installed, can do to “create socialism”
If you were a literate Marxist you would be close to getting this, but you’re committed to defending your own sentimental attachment to failure
The leftcommunist critique of the USSR and equivalent states has nothing to do with what they “should” or “should not” have done, anymore than Marx’s critique of capital was about what the bourgeoisie “should” or “shouldn’t” do
>>2431240>Socialism is the abolition of commodity exchange That would be the Marxist stance, yes, market socialism was actually the position of Proudhon most famously
>>2431237Damn you’re actually right, saying it was just propaganda from Greyzone would imply the average MLoid has serious convictions, principles, or more than a vibes based concept of socialism, the “failed PMC liberal finding out China is rich and controlled by a ‘communist party’” to “devoted Dengoid promoting the victory of Chinese national-market-socialism in one country” is the real pipeline with a single pit stop
>>2431240Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
Are you implying the MOP isn't even owned under socialism?
>>2431259>There is nothing you as an individual, nor a party you personally like, nor a hypothetical government you would wish to see installed, can do to “create socialism” so it's all useless idealism, correct ?.
you can't do anything other than empty critiques with no answers.
>anymore than Marx’s critique of capital was about what the bourgeoisie “should” or “shouldn’t” doyet marx supported, participated and gave answers to what he thought was to be done in organization and the development into communism many times, support for the Chartists to ending secret societies into parties where some, his theories about what needed to be abolished were too such answers.
yet again, you have none even when claiming the theories of marx and lenin was all that was needed, so they had the answers, which where ?.
>>2431259>Damn you’re actually rightDuhdoi I've been right about everything and you've been a retarded faggot 😂😂😂
But thanks I accept your concession to defeat and I will expect your apology in the form of ritual suicide by self disembowelment aka harakiri
>>2431241Just put any part of it in google with quote marks it will show you
Its from the manuscripts
>>2431213Holy ideology store shopper
I thought this uygha was an ultra for a sec
>>2431824What the fuck does that mean? Really, what is being argued?
Marx was not sufficient back in his own day, hence all the political struggle.
He did not get far politically. Marx as politician is anything but a success.
As a theoretician, he was and remains the GOAT. Quirked up white boy GOATed with the sauce.
Chew on that. I can't understand you (people) and I don't think I really want to.
"Marx alone" also is strongly reminiscent of "sola scriptura", I don't think that's an accident.
>>2431835>>2431839>word saladNice
>white He was mena, stick to your own kin kkkrakkker.
I still, coming back to this hours later, do not know what he even thinks he is arguing.
I have a strong suspicion we are dealing with an american here but it is not yet fully american hours.
https://blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution
>Being asked questions regarding this or that, he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-wriggling: ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’ -Buddha
>Nowadays many people are calling for a transformation to a national, scientific and mass style. That is very good. But "transformation" means thorough change, from top to bottom and inside out. Yet some people who have not made even a slight change are calling for a transformation. I would therefore advise these comrades to begin by making just a little change before they go on to "transform", or else they will remain entangled in dogmatism and stereotyped Party writing. This can be described as having grandiose aims but puny abilities, great ambition but little talent, and it will accomplish nothing. So whoever talks glibly about "transformation to a mass style" while in fact he is stuck fast in his own small circle had better watch out, or some day one of the masses may bump into him along the road and say, "What about all this 'transformation', sir? Can I see a bit of it, please?" and he will be in a fix. If he is not just prating but sincerely wants to transform to a mass style, he must really go among the common people and learn from them, otherwise his "transformation" will remain up in the air. There are some who keep clamouring for transformation to a mass style but cannot speak three sentences in the language of the common people. It shows they are not really determined to learn from the masses. Their minds are still confined to their own small circles.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_07.htm>>2431256I cannot imagine how they came up with their policies. No one ever went
>We can either do this right or we can do it fast?
>Fuck it>Year Zero >>2431926That seems to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I just fundamentally can't understand what the purpose of it is (or could conceivably be). I am a reasonable guy and I assume others have a reason to behave the way they behave as well.
I dunno, there's worse irrationality out in the world, in real life. So I suppose it fundamentally doesn't matter. People sure are a strange species.
>>2431942Yes, I am in total agreement and have been for some time. This is notable as I oftentimes do not even agree with myself perfectly.
As to the last part, I think it shows in a most striking manner the importance of holding a position (I see the so-called leftcom as a fringe position but there are other less extreme, stubborn or demented forms of this, like baby marxists).
Unique IPs: 23