/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Ideology on the internet is a costume you put on for trolling and nothing else, you become a leftcom because you aren’t laughing at xi jinping SWCC memes anymore and they don’t make anyone mad.

>What causes someone to become a left communist?
autism score above average

>>2890255
>No, seriously. What causes someone to become a left communist?
Reading Marxist theory + the belief that we should actually put said theory into practice, instead LARPing as a Soviet/Mao era revolutionary online while in reality just doing a hecking wholesome vote once every few years for your local social democrat candidate.

I'm not claiming many leftcoms can't be insufferable individuals but I think that holds true for chronically online people of all kinds of political positions outside of the Overton Window, you can't deny there's certain types of Anarchists, MLs, etc who can be just as autistic and insufferable, surely?

>>2890258
>Ideology on the internet is a costume you put on for trolling and nothing else, you become a leftcom because you aren’t laughing at xi jinping SWCC memes anymore and they don’t make anyone mad.
this. in fact any time anyone on here claims to be [X] I assume they secretly hate [X] and are pretending to be [X] in the most obnoxious way possible to make [X] look bad. Case in point: pic related.

There are no "leftcoms," only spergy loser "Bordigist" autists and sexy intelligent councilcom/communizer chads.

>>2890292
TRVKELEAR BOMB! TOTAL TRUTHNUKE ARMAGEDDON!!!

>too mich reading
I'd believe this if leftcoms didn't make basic errors like commodities=capitalism or abolish=negate, etc.

>>2890306
Commodity production - that is production for exchange value - is LITERALLY the capitalist mode of production, as outlined by Marx in the very opening sentences of Capital.
Amazing how anyone who doesn't understand this outs themselves as never having read core theory - yet they keep doing it, and believe themselves to be Marxists all the same!

>>2890316
Live reading comprehension test:
Does this passage imply that the existence of commodity production means the economy is capitalist?

>>2890326
>Does this passage imply that the existence of commodity production means the economy is capitalist?
If you want to be autistic then sure, let's go there. I'll explain it.
It's not the existence of commodity production alone that signifies a capitalist economy. I never stated that.
Commodities predate capitalism, people produced them in feudal times as serfs and peasants selling their own homemade goods at village markets etc, rather than exchanging goods for use value.
And of course there's much more to capitalism that commodities alone.

But as Marx says, commodity production is the *distinctive* form of production under capitalism.
Why is that? Because under capitalism, as Marx says, commodity production is the *dominant* form of production.
Any system where commodity production is the dominant form of production is capitalist, which is different to saying all commodities are capitalist.
Commodities are indicative of capitalism but that doesn't mean non-capitalist commodities can't exist.

However that doesn't allow for an economy based predominantly on commodity production to be socialist - neither the USSR nor modern day China can be said to utilise a socialist mode of production.
Why? Because as explained above, any economy where commodity production is the dominant mode of production is a capitalist economy.
That is what Marx is saying in the images you posted.

Rather than having to explain all this time and time again it's easier just to state that "commodity production is capitalist production" or something along those lines because it is short and snappy, gets the left communist arguement across, and is correct for the overwhelming part, and for all cases that matter in the modern world, even if not strictly accurate from a pedantic/autistic POV.
Where are the non-capitalist economies that utilise commodity production?
You're either talking about pre-capitalist ie. feudal production, or else some non-existent entirely hypothetical form of "market socialism" where commodity production makes up a minority part of the economy in what is still a predominantly for use value based system.

Hope that answers your question.

Now, is it your position that we shouldn't move beyond commodity production (what is for all intents and purposes capitalist production), and into production for use value (ie socialist production)?
Why? How do you justify that position as a Marxist? What is your point in trying to defend economic models based on commodity exchange?

>>2890353
Cope

>>2890362
>quotemining MLoid is a bad faith coward
tale as old as time

>>2890373
I mean you failed the literacy test, marx clearly says *two* distinctive features of capitalism, it's the first sentence in the image.
Second, you're making a basic logical error in the form of "birds have wings, therefore all winged creatures are birds"
Third, you're arguing backwards from a conclusion. Instead of an immanent critique of the soviet economy, you start from "ussr wasn't socialist" therefore "commodity production = capitalism" and what marx said doesn't "really matter"

So you're the falsifier and should kill yourself

picrel

>>2890362
I accept your concession.
>>2890397
Literally none of this is true and speaks to your own lack of reading comprehension.

>>2890400
I see, guess mattick was a racist
"We have nothing to learn from those brown subhumans, we have our own Exceptional Destiny"

>>2890397
you can keep aurafarming all you want, anyone thats not braindead can see you are not able to actually engage in the theorical discussion you opened via quotemining

>>2890405
Cope.
Reading comprehension test 2:
Since M&E didn't specify "abolish commodity production" and "abolish the value form" in their revolutionary programme, but instead some bullshit about banks, does that mean they were advocating for capitalism to be replaced with capitalism?

>>2890409
since you seem to have trouble parsing text, and only respond to cropped text, here, I'll help you out

>>2890421
We already know from existing ML governance that keeping commodity production slowly introduces revisionism and destroys the party from within, no amount of purging or cultural revolution fixes it.

>>2890410
Marx and Engels didn’t live to see the 20th century, you have to deal with contemporary realities

>>2890450
Bourgeois subjectivity is reproduced well into the transitional period according to marx himself, so saying that ussr fell due to the economic relations reproducing bourgies is almost fatalistic: makes transition impossible due to mere fact of being "stamped with the birthmarks of the old society"

Rather, USSR fell because they *lost* the ongoing political struggle against inevitably reproducing bourgeois elements.

The failure was political: precisely too much preoccupation with economy and production, not enough class discipline

>>2890255
I have long wondered the same thing, the conclusion I've reached is that they are severely autistic

>>2890493
Then clearly the next revolutionary wave, if it is to have any hope at all, needs to make that transition so sudden and rapid that you’re basically a Vanguardist Anarchist.

>>2890259
it may sound pedantic or whatever but this is kind of true, I just dont see how a non-retarded leftist person would not naturally arrive to the same or similar conclusions leftcoms of the 20th century did after falling for socdem and nationalist psyops just a few too many times

Just cut the birthmarks out, it’s easy, you literally just need a knife and a flame to cauterize

>>2890496
My proposal is more realistic: the party just has to lock tf in

Marxists describe the beast well but they don't explain how to fell it. In many ways it sounds like their solution is an outgrowth of the beast. No wonder some would prefer to tame it instead.

>>2890410
>>2890421
Putting it on record that you keep asking these condescending questions in an attempt to quote-mine leftcoms, probably so you can share selective screenshots on your MLoid/Dengist discord server/reddit sub, while you are also directly refusing to answer any questions asked of you.
Isn't that interesting? Why won't you answer any questions???

Anyway, you asked the question:
>Does this passage imply that the existence of commodity production means the economy is capitalist?
To which I explained how while it's not strictly the case, commodity production is in practice almost exclusively a feature of capitalism, and when Marx was writing, that the non-capitalist commodity production he was refering to was feudal markets and not a form of socialism, although you could argue hypothetical forms of socialism where commodity production plays a minority role could still technically meet Marx's definition.

That Marx stated the second characteristic of a capitalist economy is the motive of generating surplus value is not a point that was necessary to raise to explain the above.
Your functionally illiterate, zero reading comprehension, MLoid-Dengoid ass is trying to claim my failure to mention an additional point surplus to what was necessary to explain my answer means I've failed to jump through some imaginary ever-moving Dengoid goalposts of yours.
Well in regards to that, I simply do not care.
Where will you shift your little Dengoid goalposts too next?

And since you've brought the point up, it should be obvious that the generating of surplus value is in practice always the motive of commodity production for exchange value.
Given that Marx wrote that passage in 1863 it can't be expected he'd know what capitalism would look like in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's simply impossible.
Like another anon said, you aren't considering contemporary reality at all in your analysis but are looking at the text through a lense or mechanical materialsm, not dialectical materialism.

My questions for you:
Can you provide any examples of states which have an economy based on commodity production but without said production having the motive of generating surplus value?
If yes, then which states, and how so?
And if no, then will you admit that there has not yet been a state which adhered to a socialist mode of production?

>>2890509
You think you’re better than all the others that came before you and failed?

>>2890500
>Just cut the birthmarks out, it’s easy
there is a difference between struggling to cut them out and even accepting tactical retreats into capitalism like the NEP to saying "socialism is when you uphold and reinforce the birthmarks forever"
>>2890511
>image
kek

>>2890520
No concessions, no surrender, no “tactics” (weasel word for cowardice), struggle until and after death for the end of the status quo

>>2890255
It doesn't advocate inaction, it just sets dispels illusions about what are effective means to put your energy to or not. Just as any ML would laugh at reformism or socdem as actually a viable means to bring about communism although still offering critical support, we say the same thing about ML.

>>2890513
Ye. I've got cricial advantage: hindsight.

Do you think lenin was absolutely confident he'd win? He simply said yes to history.

>>2890493
>>2890496
Isn't this basically the idea behind communization theory? To communize all social, economic, and political relations as fast as possible - to immediately sweep out all elements of the capitalist mode of production, immediately swap to production for use value as soon as revolution starts, to start abolishing very notion of class (ie self-abolition of the proletariat) asap?
Although I think they tend to be against the idea of a vanguard/platform and are like the council communists in expecting the proletariat to just kinda rise up via direct action, if a party exists it's no higher in the hierarchy to anyone else and exists basically to publish theory, news, etc…

>>2890522
>struggle until and after death for the end of the status quo
what if you are in a thirdie shithole that can't export revolution and you would simply get crushed and millions of workers killed for nothing? I really dont see a viable alternative to NEPing it out for a while in this scenario

>>2890274
This is the correct stance to take.

>>2890526
Proles have to work for money or die. Under socialism they have to work for labor vouchers or die. Is that it?

No pussy

>>2890570
Get a nuke, it’s really that simple, the DPRK are economically prosperous now because of it

privilege. that's all it is. there's a reason why every communist revolutionary vanguard party in history has been composed of middle-class intellectuals and not actual laborers. the communist intellectuals are not really that different from the capitalist ruling class they despise, they have the same mindset where they see themselves as part of an elite minority of smart people who are above the common masses who aren't "properly educated" and aren't capable of "intelligent decisionmaking" like they are. they think that human intelligence is a rare discrete commodity like gold or silver that only certain special people have locked up inside their heads, instead of an immaterial network of cognitive relationships spread out across the entire spectra of all human activity regardless of social status or formal education. they're experiencing premature enlightenment like the narrator in fight club when he becomes enamored with his newfound detachment from his banal establishment lifestyle as a fun exciting escape from reality, completely missing the point and climbing even further up his own ass by thinking he's now part of a cool secret club of edgy badasses who are above it all and looking down and laughing at all the pathetic normies. they haven't actually let go and let themselves truly hit bottom, thrown out all of their longheld beliefs and values and attachments and experienced the pain of total ego death and started over from square one. to achieve true enlightenment you have to become nothing, you have to lose everything and become like the homeless street person who sleeps under a bridge and eats out of garbage cans, yet still manages to preserve his own sanity and not completely snap and end up dead or in prison or permanently insane. for the blue collar digger of the ditch this isn't such a tall order because they're just one step away from being the homeless bum, they've already experienced a life of hardship and suffering, many of them probably have lost everything and become homeless bums at one time or another. but it's not such an easy thing to do for the middle-class insurance adjuster who has never really known what it means to lose everything they ever had in life, not just their money and their possessions but everything, to completely hit bottom and be confronted by the ultimate truth of the world - that they know nothing and they have nothing and they are nothing and they are going to die. this is the kind of knowledge that can't be written down in a book for you to read or spoken into your ear by a teacher, it can only be learned from personal experience. this is why intelligence isn't like wealth, not something that fortunate privileged people acquire and share with the less fortunate masses. intelligence is more like air - everyone breathes it and nobody owns it and it moves around all the time and if you're in some small stuffy closed-off space for too long you will run out of fresh air and get dizzy and lightheaded, you have to get out of there and go somewhere else, even if that somewhere else is a place that you consider low and beneath you.

>>2890584
>the DPRK are economically prosperous now because of it
ok can they help realizing international revolution now or is line going up your end goal? they could at least liberate south korea

>>2890598
South Korea is running out of young people, all the DPRK has to do is wait.

>>2890601
>all the DPRK has to do is wait.
ok, so its two more weeks of 5D chess until the internationalism starts, thanks…

>>2890353
>>2890512
where are the subhumans that are always crying "muh leftkkkoms are all le sharty trollzz reeee!!" now? will they actually engage with this anon's effortposts and the questions formulated at the end? of course not

>>2890579
Don't think communizers support labour vouchers but I honestly don't know enough about their theory

>>2890588
> to achieve true enlightenment you have to become nothing, you have to lose everything and become like the homeless street person who sleeps under a bridge and eats out of garbage cans, yet still manages to preserve his own sanity and not completely snap and end up dead or in prison or permanently insane.
literally me lol gutterpunx represent homey

I read Marx

how can the USSR be capitalist when
1) total employment meant no labor market
2) no labor market means no labor power as commodity
3) no labor power as commodity means no generalized commodity production
4) no generalized commodity production means no capitalism
can anyone explain?

>>2890684
>total employment meant no labor market
They’re back everyone

>>2890274
>>2890571
This is cope for vast majority of posters. Yes, there are trolls. Yes, there are even glowies using leftcom rhetoric.

But leftcoms routinely spring up in response to Western decline. Like clockwork. Glowies aren't smart or well-read enough to engineer this themselves.

Sure, leftcoms read Marx, but they see what they want to see. And what they don't want to see is that the "real" movement is in complete opposition to the "ideologically pure" movement. This clashes with their Christian upbringing. The unwashed masses outside the West rising up against it are not ideologically pure enough to justify their resistance, so leftcoms oppose it. Worse still, some of them are openly reactionary, making alliances of convenience.

That's why leftcoms keep bringing up the example of Hitler against the British Empire. The moral character of this argument, and Leftcoms themselves, is obvious. They are more concerned about proles than thou. More ideologically pure than thou. More communister than thou.

>>2890712
Moralist*

>>2890713
Copioid addict, you just rebranded the “communists are acktually religionoids” from the cuckservatives. Explain why that is.

tankiddie flag anon is such a coward he hasnt even tried to defend his beloved multipolar porky in the board of peace thread, he is afraid of even clicking on it lmao

>>2890719
Leftcoms do treat Marxism as a religion, yes. I don't.

>>2890735
You may not appreciate facts and logic, but my views are objectively sound and truthful. Also, you are wrong.

>>2890735
everyone who has interacted with you here knows you are literally too dumb to understand even the manifesto bro stop the larp lol, be honest with yourself and admit you are just a nationalist, come out of the closet already, you will feel better

>>2890739
Which nation?

>>2890745
The one with a capitalist MoP

>>2890769
>Umm, I don't know
>you just ARE!
>because I SAID SO!
Yeah, that's what I thought.