>This movement among the left-communists is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of the proletarian dictatorship and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. […] Although in all these countries there are many bolsheviks every whit as bad as the worst of the left-communist revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
>>2455451>Left-communists. Write an article against this tendency that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from Russia with the exception of those individuals married to bolshevik women. Abolish the worker opposition and not admit them to any employment. Demand their expulsion. Finally, pursue the abolition of this tendency. It’s not without cause that the anarchists called them librecides. The left-communist is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Germany or be exterminated. Trotsky, Bukharin, and others are nothing but secret spies; Spiridonova, Cherepanov, Myasnikov, Sapronov, wicked, bilious, envious, bitter, etc. etc. beings who hate us. >>2455451>as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French RevolutionThis is Nesta Webster he's talking about who was a literal pro-Hitler fascist and aristocrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesta_Helen_WebsterAt least the second avthentic moment from Lenin, he also supported Gabrielle D'Annunzio's proto-fascist state of Fiume.
https://barteredhistory.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/the-league-of-fiume/ >>2455569>Furthermore MLs like to forget Lenin once said "All power to the Soviets!". Sloganeering is a dangerous tendency.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/15.htm<Too often has it happened that, when history has taken a sharp turn, even progressive parties have for some time been unable to adapt themselves to the new situation and have repeated slogans which had formerly been correct hut had now lost all meaning—lost it as “suddenly” as the sharp turn in history was “sudden”.<Something of the sort seems likely to recur in connection with the slogan calling for the transfer of all state power to the Soviets. That slogan was correct during a period of our revolution—say, from February 27 to July 4—that has now passed irrevocably. It has patently ceased to be correct now. Unless this is understood, it is impossible to understand anything of the urgent questions of the day. Every particular slogan must be deduced from the totality of specific features of a definite political situation. And the political situation in Russia now, after July 4, differs radically from the situation between February 27 and July 4. <The substitution of the abstract for the concrete is one of the greatest and most dangerous sins in a revolution. The present Soviets have failed, have suffered complete defeat, because they are dominated by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties. At the moment these Soviets are like sheep brought to the slaughterhouse and bleating pitifully under the knife. The Soviets at present are powerless and helpless against the triumphant and triumphing counter-revolution. The slogan calling for the transfer of power to the Soviets might be construed as a “simple” appeal for the transfer of power to the present Soviets, and to say that, to appeal for it, would now mean deceiving the people. Nothing is more dangerous than deceit. >>2456130Yes all of them
>>2456131Obviously you have to include everyone who is being affected by policy being decided on
>>2456130> "the workers"? all of them?Imagine asking such a stupid question, yet I’m sure you would never hesitate to “post Marx” against an anarchist
Yes all of them you fucktard, that is the point of socialism, not to give power to the workers in some idealist magical thinking sense, but in the real literal sense, read Marx’s response to Bakunin
>>2456708The contradiction is between Labor and Capital, not a magical substitution for the Jew (Capitalist) but an actual social relation.
The ML mangling of Marx is designed to conflate the expropriation of capitalists with the abolition of capital, specifically to disguise the failure to take even a step toward achieving the latter
How different even are Left Coms and Trots anyway?
>Both accept Marx & Engels
>Both accept Lenin
>Both supported the Bolsheviks / the Vanguard party and consider all the actions they undertook in Russia as necessary
>Both oppose the USSR, ML states, Stalin
>Both are Internationalist and reject the concept of SIOC as revisionism
>Both are fairly popular with the youth and have a lot of theoretical work, but have no real world successes
But from what I gather:
>Trots support activism, Trotsky even advocated for terrorism (although real world Trots don't go that far and prefer to hand out newspapers outside of university campuses)
>Left Coms believe that revolutionary action must start spontaneously from the masses and until the party only serves to educate and direct those masses
<Trots are fine with united fronts when goals overlap with non-Communists, and broadly support national liberation movements
<Left Coms believe fronts only harm the proletariat by strengthening non-Communist movements and weakens socialism by bolstering liberal groups and bourgeois nationalism
>Trots are fine with electoralism and promoting reforms until the revolution occurs
>Left Coms believe electoralism merely strengthens capitalist democracy so won't stand themselves (although Bordiga did say reforms could ease the transition to socialism so voting for Socialist candidates may be tolerated even if Left Coms standing themselves is forbidden)
<Trots support minority rights, LGBT, ethnic minorities explicitly as progressive movements in their own distinct right, and claim that opposition to these rights is fueled by the crisis in bourgeois society and it's need for exploitation and scapegoats
<Left Coms support minority, LGBT, ethnic minority rights, not out of any progressivism, but because the struggle of the working class includes the struggle of its weakest and most vulnerable members who are being targeted by the forces of reaction and capital
>Trots see the abolition of wage labour and commodity production as something that should happen when the conditions make it possible, whenever that may be, just trust us bro, just like MLs also say
>Left Coms the end of wage labour as something that cannot be postponed, and which must be begun starting immediately, although unlike communization theorists, they recognise it needs to be done orderly, by a state, and will take time
<Trots see the USSR as beings overly bureaucratic and want a more democratic political structure than what Stalin offered, while retaining some form of DoTP
<Left Coms openly admit that tolitarianism and brutality will be needed under the DoTP to transform society and remove the bourgeoisie and capitalism, and are quite open about their support for totalitarian control until capitalism is eradicated as a threat, at which point we can transition to a democratic or stateless structure
Is this correct? I may be wrong here. I am only trying to learn.
Unique IPs: 22