Communism is neither related to "Leftism" nor "Socialism", in fact these reformist movements are antithetical to Communism.
Before some illiterate dumbass takes this as lazy "sectarianism", this was the key issue the Communist International meant to settle. In fact the entire Comintern was born out of the contradiction between the revolutionary content of Marxism and reformist nature of leftism, the murder of German communists at the hands of their left-socialist "comrades" cemented this seemingly forever (clearly not)
>In this connection all those parties that wish to belong to the Communist International must change their names. Every party that wishes to belong to the Communist International must bear the name Communist Party of this or that country (Section of the Communist International). The question of the name is not formal, but a highly political question of great importance. The Communist International has declared war on the whole bourgeois world and on all yellow social-democratic parties. The difference between the communist parties and the old official 'social-democratic' or 'socialist' parties that have betrayed the banner of the working class must be clear to every simple toiler.
<Twenty-one Conditions, Comintern 1919
Going further back to Marx, this distinction was evident (hence the "communist" manifesto)
>in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
<Preface to the 1872 German Edition
>But why were the terms later used exchangeably by the early days of Lenin?
Simply, they were not. By "social democrats" Lenin was strictly referring to the membership of the SPD and its analogous party in Russia who upheld the doctrine of Marx at the time until the German SPD broke away from it.
>But why did Marx and Engels approve of the name SPD in the first place (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands)?
They did not. Both explicitly called the name unscientific and should always be treated as such by the party:
>The dialectician Engels remained true to dialectics to the end of his days. Marx and I, he said, had a splendid, scientifically exact name for the party, but there was no real party, i.e., no mass proletarian party. Now (at the end of the 19th century) there was a real party, but its name was scientifically wrong. Never mind, it would "pass muster", so long as the party developed, so long as the scientific in accuracy of the name was not hidden from it and did not hinder its development on the right direction!
<The State and Revolution, Chapter 4
They were the ones to re-name the League of Just to the Communist League of that wasn't obvious enough.
>acktuly Marx, Engels and Lenin were wrong. Leftist unity (class collaboration) now!!111
Okay. Just don't name yourself after the movement they represented then.
This is more than enough evidence to convince any serious communist that still using terms such as "Leftist" and "Socialist" or to identify with organisations that do, after this split was officially settled for over a century, has nothing to do with communism. This is not even to touch on the popular front slogan which is laughably opportunist.
>At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship, and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all shades of democratic opinion; that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social-democratic phrases prevail while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace, the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy. This unity must therefore be resisted in the most decisive manner.
<Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, 1850
good post.
if communism is being this linguistically pedantic, then i am not a communist.
"the real movement that abolishes the present state of things" reduced to the editor of a thesaurus insisting that you may not use great as a synonym for grand to a committee of irrelevant anonymous weirdoes so afraid of having an impact on the world that they delete 95% of what they say every 3 months.
>>2611371Then communism is a third position?
"Left unity" (=socdems dominating communists) was pushed by the majority anglo-saxon moderation team for years and vocally opposed by the Marxist minority. You just have to accept that in online spaces dominated by anglo saxon cultural, student, reformist, and labor aristocrat politics Marxist will always be sidelined so that our dear friends can crucify the userbase on the next hottest succdem cross: Bernie's, Corbyn's, Zohran's, AOC's…
>>2611400Communism is not on the bourgeois political compass.
>>2611401>Left unity" (=socdems dominating communists) was pushed by the majority anglo-saxon moderation team for yearsAnd Stalin before them
>>2611371>Communism is neither related to "Leftism"Ok
>nor "Socialism"Another falsifier gem
Remind me, who was obsessed with popular fronts in interwar europe to appease capitalist countries and save liberal democracy?
Shadowboxing thread.
>>2611394Critical support to the US foreign policy for impacting the world (AES)
>U are not right
>U are nor left
Maybe we should all just accept that the political compass is bullshit and that the concepts of left and right were invented to divide people into two groups without alternatives?
>>2611446Who are you quoting?
>>2611400Third position is a 'compromise' between capital and labor (absolute bourgeoisie dictatorship but red)
Communism cannot be positioned in bourgeois politics
Communism is the dream of the bourgeois
"Reform is left! Reaction is right! Revolution is not to the left of reform! It's not to the right of reaction! It's entirely outside the paradigm of politics! Trust me on this! Don't comment on my positions on existing issues! Please don't lump me in with the gays!!!! Please don't apply colloquial definitions of left and right to me!!!!!"
This cope is always funny because you know the nazis are always going to see you as left, correct? And even the gay liberal imperialists you're afraid of being lumped in with are going to see you as "left on labor, right on everything else", correct? It doesn't matter how much you deny being left, you'll be seen as left. It's childish to cry about this on leftypol.org for the 99999999999th time.
>>2611513
>ok then what's your idea of abolishing the existing social structure?
<KILL DAAAAAAA JUUUUICEEEE (with aid of my wholesome war production companies and multinational bankers)
>>2611471>Communism cannot be positioned in bourgeois politicsyou can declare it entirely outside of everything that exists, but that sacrifices materialism. communism clearly has had historical manifestations already that places it in a context. you can say it doesn't represent you, but you can only deploy that cope so many times.
>>2611527Who are you quoting? Doesn't seem like a response to the Marx, Engels and Lenin quotes in OP
Surely they're not the voices in your tiny libtard head :/
>>2611513
>a utopian dream, and the logical conclusion of liberalism and christianity,
that's utopian socialism you're describing, not scientific socialism. the traditions broke up there for a reason
>>2611532I want every factory and every office gone, I don’t give a fuck about your ethnicity, Marx was wrong about workers being able to reshape these things from the inside because he was a bourgeois reformist at the end of the day
>>2611535There’s no such thing as scientific socialism, factories and offices are inherently liberal, physically liberal
>>2611534none of the appeal to authority quotes in OP say anything about whether communism is "left" or not. The word "left" never appears once. So the assertion in the thread title is entirely unrelated to the content of those quotes.
That being said, I have seen the particular form of bait this thread represents hundreds of times, and no amount of crying "you're a radlib!" is going to change the fact that you typed
leftypol.org in your address bar or clicked it in your favorites menu to post it. Pretending proletarian revolution cannot be placed to the left of reform and reaction is delicious cope. You just don't want to be seen as to the left of the people with rainbow flags because you're afraid of being seen as soy. It's a fundamental insecurity. You're also afraid of the real history where Joseph Stalin teamed up with the liberal bourgeoisie to defeat German National Socialism and Italian Fascism, which was a good thing.
>>2611541give it a rest bait boy
>>2611539>>2611541Refer to
>>2607395Read Marx instead of watching YouTube videos on him
>>2611548
the attack on the firm already took the form of the cooperative movement where instead of having a CEO and board of directors, you have a collection of workers who own the firm together. ML criticisms of the cooperative movement notwithstanding, Engels said towards the end of his life that cooperatives were interesting and that their particular manifestation in England was good whenever they weren't getting sabotaged by police.
>>2611573
who should one read?
>>2611543>Marxists: Communism is the real movement, every other movement is conservative and defeatist under the idealist banner of class collaboration >Libtard: This says nothing about excluding the interests of my wholesome small business >"appeal to authority"lmao
>>2611586
be the change you want to see in the world.
>>2611588
Yeah "Marxists" as in Stalin who believes socialism can be achieved in one country with commodity production and wage labor intact (liberalism) and other splendid revolutionaries such as Mao who admitted to never having read Capital in his life :3
>>2611592I've yet to see someone explain to me then, if the USSR had a planned economy, if there was guaranteed employment, hence no labor market, and if the money-form circulating was just a reflection of value (abstract human labor power measured in time crystallized in commodities) and not a commodity you could speculate with, if there was no capitalist class (in the political sense) commanding/dictating the economy - how it was still capitalism.
>national liberation
National liberation ended with colonialism. The conditions that allowed for national liberation made workers revolution fundamentally impossible (feudal, semi-feudal and colonial structures that hampered the development of an independent working class movement). These countries had to develop a working class before they can carry on a revolution. The national bourgeoisie was the historical actor in the progressive transition of these places to capitalist nation states.
Every country in the world today by its very existence as a nation state has gone past that point.
>>2611606>if things the USSR wasn't how was it this thing?The Soviets had production for exchange and their economy relied on the trade of commodities. The law of value persisted. They had a bourgeoisie managing said production and a petty bourgeoisie, private commodity producers in the countryside (kolkhoz).
>>2611653You can say it was state capitalism. Doesn’t make it true, but you can say it. I already went over this in the other thread.
Look, in the USSR there was no private appropriation of surplus by a capitalist class. There was no owning class or its political parties dictating what got produced. Labor power wasn't a commodity. There was guaranteed employment, no labor market in that sense, and money basically functioned as a unit of account, a reflection of average labor time embodied in goods. It wasn't a speculation vehicle. That's just not capitalism.
Even economists like Cockshott who critique the USSR argue it was a form of socialism. Calling it capitalism just because there was some commodity production is pushing it to a silly extreme.
And on that note, people keep quoting Marx saying capitalism presents as an "immense accumulation of commodities." Yeah, but that's an if-then statement, not an "if and only if." He's describing capitalism, not saying that anytime you see commodities you must have capitalism. It's a one-way conditional.
Plus, there's a real confusion between simple commodity production and *generalized* commodity production, where labor-power itself is also a commodity. The USSR didn't have that. So if there was planning, no labor market, no capitalist class running the economy, how exactly was it capitalism? Nobody's given a convincing answer to that.
>>2611658
The west bank is de facto nation state with its own bourgeoisie, etc.
>but Gaza
Gaza was like that before it was annihilated and it will be rebuilt into an seemingly an international investment zone on the backs of Gazan workers with its ruling class serving the same role as that of the west bank.
It's not a semi feudal state in need of bourgeois revolution. It's a micro bourgeois state where workers are regularly slaughtered by imperialists when they're not being oppressed by their capitalist class. International revolution is the only way to stop the genocide.
>>2611371Linguistic autism like this is the exact thing Engels warned against. Definitions follow from common usage, not the other way around. The vast,
vast majority of people in the English speaking world refer to Marxism as leftist and the Soviet Union as socialist. You can sperg out over it until the cows come home, but reality is not going to magically alter itself to fit your whims.
>>2611687Try joybaiting for a change. Tis the season
>>2611696This.
I'm joining the National Socialist German Workers' Party
>>2611706Words are a tool to communicate, they are not things that actually carry substance unto themselves. If you cannot agree with this very basic point, then I can't imagine you'll be capable of accomplishing much of anything at all.
>>2611706But you are not German, esteemed comrade.
>>2611446They were invented by the French in order to distinguish between supporters of the monarchy (right-wing) and opponents of the monarchy (left-wing).
So to be left-wing in its simplest terms is to be anti-monarchist. Which should not be a difficult task for any serious communist.
>>2611931If the CIA is against leftard class collaboration, proletariat genocide and is well-read enough to accurately reflect the opinions of Marx and Lenin, I will fly to the burgerstan rn and join them. Please send instructions
>MUH SEMANTICS
Nice deflection, too bad Marx, Engels and Lenin all made sure to point out the concrete distinction between communism and left-wing of capital movements.
>>2612118None f them are alive continue correcting the record and you will never have their social capital, you lost before this battle ever even started
>>2612125>Marx is outdated because capitalism is dead we live in neoliberal billionaire techno feudalism labubu dubai gold machaHang.
>social capitalStop using terms you don't know the meaning of.
>>2612148Fuck you, I live to spite people like you
>>2611371This would be believable if socialists didn't side with the left on every hot button social issue. Unless you're about to tell me you're anti abortion, anti gay rights, you believe in race science, or you don't care about environemtnalism.
>>2612341What did the homos and women do to you?
>>2611371lol something so basic about communism is getting this shithole riled up jfc
>>2611446>and that the concepts of left and right were invented to divide people into two groups without alternatives?uh no its a leftover from the french revolution and "people" are already divided, its called classes lmfao
>>2612118rofl its not semantics, communism as a movement has nothing to do with leftist ideologies (or any ideology really)
>>2612341>This would be believable if socialists didn't side with the leftAHAHAHAHAH holy shit you actually believe this shit?
>>2612341Communists don't give a fuck about your precious bourgeois rights lmao
>muhhh rightzzZ>muhhh cucktivsmThe legal struggle did wonders in liberating women, black people and stopping the climate catastrophe so far
Bro dropped the biggest labor aristokkkrat coal this year
You right?
Revolution = Left
Reform = Center
Reaction = Right
Bordigists = Cry "noooooooooooo but muh left wing of capital" forgetting that the left wing of capital is just reformism, and revolutionaries are to the left of reformists.
>>2611584<Communism is the real movement, every other movement is conservative and defeatist under the idealist banner of class collaboration conservative? Ah, so on the right. So revolutionaries are on the left, reformists are in the center, and reactionaries/conservatives are on the right? Got it! None of the quotes in OP say "communism isn't hecking left!" you just insist they do.
>>2613431>polsci retardation>>2613433all bourgeois politics are reactionary today imbecile, feudalism isnt a thing anymore
>>2611371All this valid argument just to defend stalinism, aka social democracy at the barrel of a gun
I hope your end is painful, OP
>>2613552>Stalin not mentioned onceu ok?
>>2613554This is leftypol, you know what that man believes in, I know what he believes in
Ah yes, wage slavery with a side of red flags please, ho boy!
>>2612400>Communists don't give a fuck about your precious bourgeois rights lmaoWhy lie? Socialists are the biggest bourgeois right worshipers around, even more than the liberals who will sacrifice yesterday's sacred cow when convenient. Marx praised freedom of speech, said women's rights were indicative of societal progress, and didn't think religion should play a role in whether someone is a citizen. Every socialist state tries to get women out of the home to work.
>The legal struggle did wonders in liberating women, black people and stopping the climate catastrophe so farRight, you don't disagree with bourgeois rights, you just think they're not as effective as you could be. Just like socialists don't disagree with the industrial system, but just think they'd be better managers.
OP is correct
It is a fact
>>2613433The left of capital is conservative. It conserves the status quo.
Stupid burger
>>2613552Stalin was a leftist, just like you.
>>2613597>liberalism is progressive compared to feudalismBig… almost like communism is born out of its contradictions or something
>>2611371Its useful for the communist movement to position itself against worst enemies of non-owning classes. Not sure what you are trying to achieve here.
>Secondly, we must expose the error of those who fail to see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country. But the petty bourgeoisie, i.e., all the heroes of the Second International and of the “Two-and-a-Half” International, cannot, by the very economic nature of things, be anything else than the expression of class impotence; hence the vacillation, phrase-mongering and helplessness. In 1789, the petty bourgeois could still be great revolutionaries. In 1848, they were ridiculous and pathetic. Their actual role in 1917-21 is that of abominable agents and out-and-out servitors of reaction, be their names Chernov, Martov, Kautsky, MacDonald, or what have you.
<The Tax in Kind
Petty bourgeois reformism is more historically reactionary than liberal conservatism.
>>2618375Yeah the Freikorps were commanded by the Social-Demonrats
fucking moron
>>2618384Then the Nazis put socdems in camps, while after the war they merged with the KPD to form the government of the GDR. People relentlessly repeating this thoroughly debunked third period nonsense are so tiresome. There are far, far more dangerous enemies for communists than social democrats.
>>2618389Stalin (socdem) purged the KDP then merged them with other socdems??? No way…
>>2618389The Nazis fucking up the naive SocialDemonrats does not change the fact that the Demonrats were imperialists on the eve of ww1 and unleashed the Freikorps on the revolutionaries just after ww1.
>>2618393While your uyghur Bordiga was hiding like a rat. Conveniently retreating from political life for the whole of the fascist period.
>>2618395Yes, social democrats have done reactionary things and been the enemies of communists. They've also formed united and popular fronts with them and helped govern AES countries. They're far from the worst and most dangerous enemies we have, even if they are sometimes our enemies.
>>2618399>socdems formed united fronts with socdems and helped govern commodity producing socdem countries that rape workers I AGREE!!111
>>2618397Do you think putting down an insurrection and then allowing the German communists to operate legally is worse than hunting down every single communist and trade unionist and sending them to extermination camps?
>>2618399In Finland communist revolution was started by Social Democratic Party. Sadly they lost when Germans made a beach landing in their backs and took Helsinki.
>>2618406The Finish revolution was started by communists and opposed by international social democrats
See OP for clarification on the name
Socdems will talk about their noble support for quelling revolution and restoring the global order that will murder and rape billions of workers in their attempt to appear friendly to communists
Hitler's illegitimate sons really have zero self awarness
>>2618414Make all the non-arguments you want, but it won't change the fact that you're clearly just regurgitating third period rhetoric without actually understanding any of the analysis behind it or the history of the relationship between social democracy and communism.
>>2618415It was a inter-socdem conflict.
>>2611696you have anglobrainrot
>>2611734>Words are a tool but that's where you are wrong
you do have anglo brain
>>2611543As far as I can tell this attitude originates from the chronically online who are obsessed with aesthetics and online culture war shit to the point of still being beholden to the based-cringe dialectic. These are the same people that have been using women with dyed hair as there Der ewige Jude since 2016
>>2618518>>2618521Wrong wrong anglo anglo wrong. See, I can spout nonsense too. Engels agrees with me, not you, get over it.
>>2611696Goddamn I have to say this like once in a week. Meaning depends on the
context. If you are speaking to a low I Q trump supporter then hillary clinton is literally communism. If you are speaking to another marxist then use the proper marxist jargon.
>>2618554Google any word and the definition of it and you will find out there are, surprisingly, many different meanings to one just one word. Wow! Use the correct definition in the correct discussion.
>>2618433Too bad the Comintern founding text calls you subhumans
>>2618471Trve cummunism is when I cum in your mom and give her a literate child who can grasp the world beyond bourgeois politics this time
>>2618614
mad
>>2618526chronically online such as Marx, Lenin, and the founding members of the Comintern whose texts are cited
They were on-line to your fuck your mom
>>2618609I'm pretty sure it doesn't since I'm an ML, and even if I was a social democrat or an anarchist it still wouldn't.
>>2618870>In this connection all those parties that wish to belong to the Communist International must change their names. Every party that wishes to belong to the Communist International must bear the name Communist Party of this or that country (Section of the Communist International). The question of the name is not formal, but a highly political question of great importance. The Communist International has declared war on the whole bourgeois world and on all yellow social-democratic parties. The difference between the communist parties and the old official 'social-democratic' or 'socialist' parties that have betrayed the banner of the working class must be clear to every simple toiler.<Twenty-one Conditions, Comintern 1919
>I'm an MLMakes sense since regular socdems aren't as reactionary and anti-communist as you original;ly
>>2618925>Makes sense since regular socdems aren't as reactionary and anti-communist as you original;lyWhat have I said that's anti-communist?
bumping best thread in the history of the board
Based
Total succdem death
>>2631461You're the liberal I'm arguing with in the other thread btw
strength in numbers kill yourself
>>2631472we're all anons you retard
>>2631472What other thread?
>>2631482The one about dead AmeriKKKnSS being progressive (more or less)
>>2631483You aren't arguing in the other thread, you are just autistically screeching
>>2631485crying about dead prole-murdering petty bourgeois mercenaries is pretty autistic, nationalist cringe lord.
>>2631496>CryingHuh?
I want all bourgeois soldiers executed, not just american ones.
>>2631510I don't want war in Venezuela, I don't fancy the idea of the place being filles with mines, with farmer's kid losing a limb after stepping onto one, I don't want another refugee human crisis, I don't want taxdollars ro be spent on the MIC.
simple as.
>>2631512nice doge, faggot.
>>2631510posting twitter screen caps should be a bannable offence tbh
>>2631516>>2631517>ESL??? In my western amerifag military bootlicking shithole?Sorry for party rocking
>>2631521I'm ESL too faggot.
>>2631522The revolution inches closer with every dead americunt soldier
>>2611931For years we have head these threads "arguing" against using left-right. In the first iterations, OP even claimed that Marx and Engels
never used the term "left" lol
>>2631526Be serious now, do you unironically believe international capital is going to wither away once America collapses?
>>2631546delulu, capitalism will keep existing everywhere else in the world and will join forces to sabotage the US in case a proletariat revolution arises, capitalism must be exhausted.
>>2631546stop answering for me, retard.
Hair splitting and word games. Communism is the only leftist position.
>>2611371If commumism isnt left why is it called leftcom?
It is pretty sus that different nation states lay aside their differences when it comes to commies. To be a commies is to declare war against the whole world it seems.
>>2631565>youre doing word games<le one TRUE leftoidismXD
communism is about the proletariat alone anything else is anticommunist definitionally
>>2631552>>2631552Wrong. Capitalism dies with amerika. All freedom loving peoples, even capitalist ones, on this planet want to see amerika burn.
>>2632133>even capitalist ones, on this planet want to see amerika burnwow almost like countries compete with one another under capitalism
>>2611371Then why is it called leftcommunism.
>>2632121I thought it was about a classless society ?
>>2632396Why is that german drinking piss?
>>2632482Beer is worse than piss, drinking piss doesn’t destroy all your organs if it isn’t infected with chronic wasting disease, not even piss fetishists are physically addicted to drinking piss
>>2632546Go drink mushroom eating deer urine you weeduyghur.
i miss when this canned thread had the hilariously wrong assertion that neither marx nor engels ever even used the phrase "left" in the political sense of "left-wing".
i saw the anarchists do this too we should do it as well FUCK THE LEFT
>>2632561from engels' 1889 letter to gerson trier:
<If the proletariat is to be strong enough to win on the crucial day, it is essential – and Marx and I have been advocating this ever since 1847 – for it to constitute a party in its own right, distinct from and opposed to all the rest, one that is conscious of itself as a class party.<This does not mean, however, that the said party cannot occasionally make use of other parties for its own ends. Nor does it mean that it cannot temporarily support other parties in promoting measures which are either of immediate advantage to the proletariat or spell progress in the direction of economic development or political freedom. I would support anyone in Germany who genuinely fought for the abolition of primogeniture and other feudal relics, of bureaucracy, protective tariffs, and Anti – Socialist Law and restrictions on the right of assembly and of association. If our German Party of Progress or your Danish Venstre were genuine radical-bourgeois parties and not just a miserable bunch of windbags who creep into their holes at the first threat uttered by Bismarck or Estrup, I would by no means unreservedly reject any kind of temporary collaboration with them having a specific end in view.…
<In my opinion, therefore, you are wrong on when you elevate what is primarily a question of tactics to the level of a question of principle. And so far as I'm concerned, the only question that confronts us at the start is a tactical one. A tactical error, however, may in certain circumstances, lead to an infringement of principle.<And here, so far as I can judge, you are right in criticising the tactics of the Hovedbestyrelsen. For years the Danish *Left* has been acting out an undignified comedy of opposition, nor does it ever tire of demonstrating its own impotence to the world at large. It has long since missed the opportunity – if ever it had one – of avenging the infringement of the Constitution by force or arms; indeed, an ever increasing proportion of *the Left* would seem to be yearning for reconciliation with Estrup. A genuinely proletarian party could not, or so it seems to me, collaborate with a party of that kind without in the long run forfeiting its class character as a working men’s party. Hence, in so far as you stress the class character of the movement as arguing against this policy, I can only agree with you.generally for marx and engels the phrase "links/left" is employed to denote a parliamentary faction united by opposition to a society's ruling element. the degree to which they are "left" is proportional to how radically they oppose the ruling element. engels is using the term in this letter specifically to refer to the danish social democratic party because they represented at that time the element most radically opposed to the constitutional monarchy within the danish folketing in spite of the fact that they purged trier from the party for being too radical (i.e. further left).
>>2633294>Engles calls the left impotent reformist bourgeois parties that shouldn't be collaborated with outside of the progressive bourgeois struggle against feudal structures (that no longer exist in our age)>this somehow debunks OPOP should've cited this text since it only further supports their argument
>>2632559I still have my response saved, together with a snippet from OP. Enjoy! Mostly Engels. (Another person had something by Lenin, but I didn't save that.)
>Protip: not ONCE did Marx, Engels, Lenin, (etc.) called themselves >lefty< or "left" or "leftish" or what fucking ever. This is a documented fact, FYI. You can literally DL M/E/L (or Mao, Stalin, Hoxha, etc.) texts in total and ctrl+f your way through it (like I did), and it still remains a fact.Marx-Engels-Werke:
1.
<Endlich deckten wir den parlamentarischen Kretinismus (wie Marx es nannte) der verschiedenen sogenannten Nationalversammlungen auf. Diese Herren hatten sich alle Machtmittel entschlüpfen lassen, sie zum Teil freiwillig wieder den Regierungen überliefert. Neben neugestärkten, reaktionären Regierungen standen in Berlin wie in Frankfurt machtlose Versammlungen, die trotzdem sich einbildeten, ihre ohnmächtigen Beschlüsse würden die Welt aus den Angeln heben. Bis auf die äußerste Linke herrschte diese kretinhafte Selbsttäuschung. Wir riefen ihnen zu: ihr parlamentarischer Sieg werde zusammenfallen mit ihrer wirklichen Niederlage.Engels in MEW volume 21, page 21
2.
<Einen rechten und einen linken Flügel hat jede Partei, und daß der rechte Flügel der Sozialdemokratie kleinbürgerlicher Art ist, liegt in der Natur der Sache.Engels in MEW volume 22, page 84
3.
<Wenn dagegen die Bewegung wirklich national ist, werden unsere Leute dabei sein, ohne daß sie dazu aufgerufen werden brauchen, und unsere Teilnahme an einer solchen Bewegung versteht sich von selbst. Dann aber muß man sich darüber im klaren sein, und wir müssen es offen verkünden, daß wir als unabhängige Partei teilnehmen, für den Augenblick mit den Radikalen und Republikanern verbündet, aber völlig von ihnen unterschieden; daß wir uns im Falle eines Sieges keine Illusionen über das Resultat des Kampfes machen; daß ein solches Resultat, weit entfernt, uns zu befriedigen, für uns nur eine gewonnene Etappe, eine neue Operationsbasis für weitere Eroberungen sein wird; daß sich noch am Tage des Sieges unsere Wege trennen; daß wir von diesem Tage an der neuen Regierung gegenüber die neue Opposition bilden werden, keine reaktionäre, sondern eine fortschrittliche Opposition, eine Opposition der äußersten Linken, die zu neuen Eroberungen vorstoßen wird, über das gewonnene Terrain hinaus.Engels in MEW volume 22, page 442
4.
<Es ist falsch, daß die „Neue Rhein. Zeit." „sämtliche" Parlamentsmitglieder „angriff". Sie stand in der freundschaftlichsten Verbindung mit vielen Mitgliedern der äußersten Linken.Marx in MEW volume 30, page 508
5.
<Die fieberhafte Tätigkeit Bismarcks, die alles in Unordnung und aus den Fugen bringt, ohne das geringste Positive schaffen zu können, die die Steuerkraft des Philisters für nichts und wieder nichts bis aufs äußerste aussaugt, die heute dies und morgen das Gegenteil will und die den Philister, der so gern zu seinen Füßen schwanzwedeln möchte, mit Gewalt der Revolution in die Arme treibt - das ist unser stärkster Bundesgenosse; und daß Sie mir die dabei unvermeidliche Linksschiebung aus eigner Anschauung als tatsächlich bestätigen können, freut mich sehr.Engels in MEW volume 34, page 446
6.
<Darüber, daß es eines Tags zu einer Auseinandersetzung mit den bürgerlich gesinnten Elementen der Partei und zu einer Scheidung zwischen rechtem und linkem Flügel kommen wird, habe ich mir schon längst keine Illusion mehr gemacht und dies auch schon in dem handschriftlichen Aufsatz über den Jahrbuchsartikel gradezu als wünschenswert ausgesprochen (…) Haben sie sich erst als aparter rechter Flügel organisiert, so kann man mit ihnen von Fall zu Fall eine, soweit zulässig, gemeinsame Aktion verabreden, sogar Kartell mit ihnen schließen usw. Obwohl dies kaum nötig sein wird: die Trennung selbst wird sie in ihrer Ohnmacht bloßlegen. Sie haben weder Anhang in den Massen, noch Talente, noch Kenntnisse - sie haben nur Prätentionen, die aber dicke. Indes, das findet sich. Jedenfalls wird dadurch Klarheit in die Sachlage gebracht und wir von einem Element befreit, das gar nicht zu uns gehört (…) Wenn es zur Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Herren kommt und der linke Flügel der Partei Farbe bekennt, so gehn wir unter allen Umständen mit Euch und das aktiv und mit offnem Visier.Engels in MEW volume 35, pages 334–336
7.
<Politische Stagnation, d. h. zweck- und zielloser Kampf der offiziellen Parteien, wie jetzt, kann uns auf die Dauer nicht dienen. Wohl aber ein progressiver Kampf dieser Parteien mit allmählicher Linksschiebung des Schwerpunkts. Das ist, was jetzt in Frankreich geschieht, wo der politische Kampf sich wie immer in klassischer Form bewegt. Die einander folgenden Regierungen gehen immer mehr nach links, das Ministerium Clemenceau ist schon in Sicht; es wird nicht das äußerste bürgerliche sein. Mit jeder Verschiebung nach links fallen Konzessionen an die Arbeiter ab…Engels in MEW volume 36, page 160
8.
<Die Tätigkeit der Opportunisten (neben ihrer flagranten Korruption) treibt die öffentliche Meinung immer mehr nach links und zwingt zur Nominierung immer radikalerer Regierungen.Engels in MEW volume 37, page 47
Pin this thread
>>2639762t. person who hasn't read the thread or even just the comment right above him
>>2639763I made the thread?
>>2639763The comment above is a schizo replying to himself unrelated to OP
Unique IPs: 56