>>2809451unit 82000 isnt sending their best .
>>2809464 (me)
also for context /thread/575 is your typical "brown migrants aren't real proles they're filthy scabs" bait that we've had on leftypol over 9000 times. It's probably still up (not gonna check)
Also I'm willing to bet that the pedo invasion we had on here yesterday was the bordy crew's doing
>>2809464both of you should be executed
>>2801832because it's not spontaneous even the anarchists have a ton of organization and infraestructure behind
>>2809457that jannie speaks my kind of language
>>2801832because americans are stupid
>>2809952Thank you, I think Endnotes is one of the most interesting groups dealing with Marxist theory today, and I should read them more.
I specifically recommend "A History of Separation: The Rise and Fall of the Workers' Movement, 1883-1982" in Endnotes 4 as a critique of the traditional labour movement.
And if you want a short blackpill about activism, open the Endnotes 5 PDF and Ctrl+F "The Impotence of the Revolutionary group?", enjoy.
I find it weird this topic doesn't get much discussion here, its the kind of thing that I would expect people with fringe politics would be into
>>2801461>The communizer idea that we could "riot our way to communism" is pretty weak. There are glaringly obvious problems with this idea, which were partially demonstrated during the Floyd protests in 2021, which is probably why interest in communization theory petered out during the Biden yearsI guess it has to do with this, not just in burgerland but on an international scale I remember there were lots of riots a few years ago, and it all went nowhere
>>2810006>I find it weird this topic doesn't get much discussion hereFrom what I've seen most leftypol users are MLs or porn addicts so this lack of discussion (up until now) isn't surprising.
I'm also interested on why all the riots stopped. I think its because the rioters had no concrete goal, they didn't know what to do after burning down the stores and breaking through the barricades. They had no vision and their demands were vague (e.g. with the Floyd protests demands ranged from police abolition to police reform).
Dauvé talks about this vagueness leading to the revolution dying in "Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement," though I wouldn't be surprised if some other theorists made the same claim before him.
Another example of this revolutionary vagueness leading to failure could be the German Revolution of 1918-1919 where the communists distinguished themselves from the social democrats quite late. This made the workers of Germany confused on which side to support, which was made worse with the social democrats supporting the newly formed soviets. (
https://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2001-08-01/1921-beginning-of-the-counter-revolution)
>>2810006They didn't just fizzle out on their own. The international wave of rebellions from 2018-2020, which were spreading, was crushed by the COVID measures and the "covid relief" bailouts (massive liquidity injections) which delayed the immanent financial crisis that would have very possibly fanned the flamed and turned the wave of rebellions into a revolutionary tsunami.
>>2810284> I think its because the rioters had no concrete goal, they didn't know what to do after burning down the stores and breaking through the barricades. They had no vision and their demands were vagueThere was a clear process of insurrectionary clarification going on, at least from the accounts I've heard from comrades the uprising in ecuador and chile and from the Yellow Vests in france. Apolitical proles were organically building radical class consciousness through participation and there was a real potential for these "hunger riot" movements to spill over into something much bigger. Of course the opportunist, reformist, counterrevolutionary elements contributed to extinguishing the flame as well but imo the COVID measures were the biggest factor.
For anyone who is interested in reading a critique of communization theory you can read the ICT's article called "The Disappointed of 1968: Seeking Refuge in Utopia" (
https://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2020-08-28/the-disappointed-of-1968-seeking-refuge-in-utopia).
Its more of a critique against communizers who have abandoned class struggle or believe that there is no such thing as a "working class" anymore but if anyone is interested they can read it.
bump
>>2810286very convenient how covid happened just in the right moment haha
bump
>>2809408Could you provide a source for these claims?
Im currently reading Bloom Theory by Tiqqun and its an interesting piece of work. I simultaneously feel like it actually has something to say and also that it has nothing to say. Im kind of conflicted on how to feel about it, but the idea of Bloom seems interesting but its has such a vague definition imo. I wonder if their is a companion reader for the book that would make stuff a bit more understandable, as the book is too vague.
>>2821001You have spent much time reading this and thinking about it and you can't say you have gotten anything out of it, but you feel that somehow there must be a payoff at some point down the line and so you keep going? Well, I have the perfect companion piece for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost >>2821481That perfectly describes my current situation with this book lol. It does have some good points and arguments but, like I said before, its too vague. At least, if I am ultimately not satisfied with the book, I'll know that Tiqqun and its affiliates are shit theorists.
>>2822941The question is, which ICP does the road lead to?
yo thanks for recommending proles.info , clicked out of curiosity but im really enjoying their writing. does this mean im a communizer now.
>>2824883Depends on whether you'd define yourself as one. I would like to ask, what does prole.info defend? What aspects of their theory did you like as I myself have never read them before.
bump
>>2799435Funny considering that Marx never mentioned DiaMat.
>>2839011Anon did just make some random claim without sourcing an example tho
none of this is leftcom though?
>>2839570Depends. Ultimately though, this entire conversation is stupid.
uuhhh okay buddy so lemme see if i got this straight…
because if your ideology can't be put in simple enough terms, it is never gonna work anyways
my understanding is that communization is an insurrectionary theory / ideology stating that, unlike traditional marxist and anarchist thought, there can be no transitional stages, no waiting for a program, or to do things once we've won so to speak, because then shit just never ends up working out and reverts back to capitalism, the revolution is always derailed (USSR, China, etc) or defeated (Catalonia, etc).
so come revolution day, as every town, village, city, is liberated, the way things work need to be communized immediately.
you don't wait until total victory and you don't keep a monetary system in place until after the war and then come up with a plan on how to abolish it, you just do away with it from day one of the revolution in all the areas you control.
and of course, once all these things have been abolished, you have to ensure they stay dead.
so, what does that mean? what are we communizing and abolishing exactly?
it means immediate abolition of wage labour, and immediate abolition of the state, the immediate abolition of private property, the immediate abolition of commodities, the immediate abolition of the value form and division of labour - instead moving to a system of production for use value, it means mutual aid, it means not waiting for change to be implemented after victory - but replacing all the functions of capitalism and the state as you seize them
and according to communization another failure of previous marxist states was that idolisation of the proletariat, which is contrary to the goal of abolishing class and creating a classless society. therefore instead of making the proletariat the new rulers, the proletariat must self-abolish itself, as must all classes be destroyed. and this is done by the aforementioned death of capitalism economy - ie the immediate ending of wage labour, the value form, private property. with these abolished, there can be no proletariat and no classes.
is that, roughly speaking, on the mark?
and how exactly, do you plan on achieving anything in any case? what are you even doing??
>>2842505You’re thinking too hard about this
>>2842474Communizers believe that the workers movement that we are usually familiar with (the vanguard party, workers striving to be the dominant class within society to establish communism, working class identity etc.) is a part of the formal domination of capital, which lasted from the 1800s to the early to the mid 20th Century, fully ending with the neoliberal wave of the 1970s (
https://www.sicjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Sic-1-what-is-communisation.pdf) and with (according to Camatte [
https://libcom.org/article/organisation-jacques-camatte-gianni-collu]) the full abstraction of capital (the gold standard being replaced by the US dollar).
With the class no longer identifying themselves as workers, the only way forward is seen with communization, which is the introduction of communist social relations from the start of the struggle (which can be any struggle). The initial aim of the struggle isn't important but its content is, i.e. whether its introducing communist measures and expanding the enactment of such measures so that the revolution isn't just limited into one place. (
https://www.sicjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Sic-2-communist-measures.pdf)
When it comes to the party, communizers believe that the idea of the vanguard party was the product of the formal period of capitalism (similar to the conclusion that you came to). They also believe that workers already have class consciousness, and that theory only helps the class articulate their situation better. This is in contrast to the Kautskyist-Leninist conception of class consciousness, which the worker only gains through the guidance of the vanguard party (
https://files.libcom.org/files/peterloo3_dauve_barrot_leninism_or_communism.pdf).
Overall, the forms of organization and struggle adopted by the class is determined by the conditions of the epoch they are/were residing in. (
https://files.libcom.org/files/Dauv%C3%A9%20with%20Martin%20-%20Eclipse%20and%20Re-emergence.pdf)
>>2842474communist parties in the late 19th early 20th centuries were no less 'glow opped' than today. in many cases subversion by domestic intelligence agencies often backfired and helped the communists, ex. Roman Malinovsky
>>2842804>They also believe that workers already have class consciousness, and that theory only helps the class articulate their situation better. This is in contrast to the Kautskyist-Leninist conception of class consciousness, which the worker only gains through the guidance of the vanguard party someone (maybe you, I dont feel qualified enough) should make a thread centered about this topic, it pisses me off how leftoids always think they are "ahead" of workers and use this supposed lack of class consciousness to justify all sorts of shit (like being sheepdogs for bourgeois electoralism)
>>2842825Camatte also mentions this critique against communists in his work On Organization (
https://libcom.org/article/organisation-jacques-camatte-gianni-collu). In it, he talks about how party members usually flaunt their membership to non-members, seeing themselves as more intelligent than them, resulting in an exterior vs interior divide. This divide is also seen within the party, a divide between the mass of militants and between the inner leading clique of the party, e.g. the Central Committee.
This division within the party is caused by the different levels of theoretical knowledge between party members, which causes some to hide behind certain member when they are faced with theoretical questions which they do not have the answers to. This ultimately leads to a division of labor forming within the party, with high levels of theoretical knowledge helping some members to become the leader of the party or helps them overthrow the current head of the party.
>>2842846Oh, wouldn't it be nice if everybody just got along in the cutey lovely party that loves everybody and rejects no one? The historical communist parties just have some really bad vibes is so annoying
>>2842862prove your party has not been hijacked by socdems or gtfo
>>2842846>division within the party is caused by the different levels of theoretical knowledge between party members, which causes some to hide behind certain member when they are faced with theoretical questions which they do not have the answers to. This ultimately leads to a division of labor forming within the party, with high levels of theoretical knowledge helping some members to become the leader of the partyROFL
Do you think Keir Starmer has become leader of the Labour Party because of his high-tier theoretical knowledge. How about Corbyn before him.
Do you think George W. Bush has great theoretical insights. Or at least rhetorical gift.
People become leaders because of wealth & networking & luck.
>>2842863ok, but you go first. deal?
>>2843336Camatte is talking about communist parties, not bourgeois democratic parties. Obviously being party leader or getting into high roles within such organizations is through the amount of capital and influence one holds.
I'd like to put emphasis on the "influence" part of the previous sentence, as the Bolshevization (i.e. Stalinization) of the parties of the 3rd International was achieved through pressure from Moscow, to make the communist parties not act according to the principles of class struggle but to act according to the Soviet state's interests.
Whether this can disprove or at the very least put Camatte's hypothesis into question is up to you, as some could say that this Bolshevization happened when the USSR was State Capitalist/State Industrialist and when they no longer aimed towards communism; thus the communist party in the Soviet Union and the Stalinist parties abroad were bourgeois, meaning that Camatte's critique can't be applied to them.
Either way, I find Camatte's critique of the party form to be compelling and, at the very least, the points made highlighting some of the problems of the party form, capturing a small part of the bigger picture. I suggest you read the article yourself as I might have glossed over some important points that Camatte may have made.
>>2843350>Camatte is talking about communist partiesI know. And I tell you it's the same.
>>2843564Look at the CPGB-ML or the WSWS guys. Neither Harpal Brar nor David North have made any theoretical innovations. They are (or were, Brar is dead now) business owners.
>>2842804>workers already have class consciousnesscan they hurry up with the revolution then?
>>2842505was polpot the first communizer?
>>2844083Then I guess his critique was against the Italian Communist Left, primarily against the various ICP's. This would make sense as he specifically calls them out in the text. Either way, I think this text of his is one of the best critiques against the party form.
>>2844150Slow and steady wins the race!
>>2844151No, that was just a dictatorship with a planned economy centered around commodity production.
>>2844350>Slow and steadywhy? they already got class consciousness what else do these fuckers need?
Unique IPs: 37