Another Communization Theory thread because why not?
Talk about anything relating to Communization Theory! Talk about how Communization Theory is great or how its shit!
Texts regarding Communization Theory and its many sub-sects will be attached in the replies.
[NOTE: Not every Communizer believes in the same things, e.g. some emphasis class struggle while others don't]
explain to me in one sentence that a child could understand what is communization theory and how is it different from communism, marxism, marxism leninism, marxism leninism mao zedong thought, maoism third worldism, and so on
>>2890552communization theory rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition stage towards communism, and sees communism itself as a means to combat capitalism; this will be done through "communist measures" (
https://www.sicjournal.org/communist-measures-2/index.html) which are communist social relations implemented within the areas under revolutionary control.
>Let’s not get rid of the bourgeoisie: a thread
Great
Why do ultras hate communizers to the point of hounding you out of their image board? Feels like some real friendly fire shit.
>>2890578sounds cool although from my understanding this debate between if the transition stage should exist goes back to the 1st international. tbh based on previous periods of transition between one mode of production there a ton of geographic variation where historical circumstance and material conditions can produce sudden sea changes and slow trickles and just about everything in between. This is why the debate has struck as pointless since trying to copy and paste shit across time and space strikes me as a doomed to fail.
>>2890662>pointless since trying to copy and paste shit across time and space strikes me as a doomed to failyou are talking about people unironically citing value form theory 100 years after lenin's writings on imperialism. seems like a regression to stirnerite voluntarism but now with a theoretical apparatus that comes as close as possible to say that capitalism subsumes everything and therefore efficacious communist praxis is impossible
>>2890652>Feels like some real friendly fire shitIt’s not. Ultras don’t like idealism. They may sympathize with the communizers potential passion for living in a communist society as soon as possible, but they’re still at the end of the day idealists who ultimately ignore the threat the bourgeoisie poses against said society.
the outcome of every kind of struggle is determined by which side has the greater force and force is a function of mass and speed. thus, for a smaller force to overcome a greater force it must either increase its mass or increase its speed. the system we live under is incomprehensibly massive, it's not just the elite minority we are up against, it is the system that they have built around themselves which is much bigger than all of the people in the world put together. therefore, we need to forget about strength in numbers, that's off the table. no matter how effectively we organize, no matter how big of an army we manage to amass, we will never outmass the system. so that only leaves speed. speed is what allows a smaller mass to overcome a greater mass, what allows a tiny pellet of lead to destroy a full grown human being, what allows alexander and his small army to conquer all of the greatest empires in the known world - speed. speed of hand and speed of mind. so how do we obtain speed?
human thought is not one thing, the brain is a fundamentally dualistic system, all the way from the lowest level - its actual physical structure, to the highest level - the way it thinks and processes information. cognition can thus be divided into two basic kinds, the slow conscious deliberate predictive kind, and the fast reflexive instinctual reactive kind. one is not better or worse than the other, they are equally important and essential when it comes to general action. some situations call for slow cognition, like a chess move where the player must plan and predict and consider all of the possibilities. other situations call for fast cognition, like a baseball swing where the player has no time for conscious deliberation and must empty their mind and be one with the moment and feel it out. the ruling class operate solely on slow cognition, scheming and predicting and building a huge elaborate system that accounts for every possible eventuality. they are not stupid. there is no such thing as stupid. every chess move you can possibly think of, they have already thought of it and amended their system to account for it. so you can't beat them at chess, you have to play a different game, you have to adopt a totally different mindset, you have to rely on fast cognition that cannot be accounted for by any system, something the ancient chinese would call "wu-wei" which is very difficult to even explain because western language has no words for it, but the closest approximation is "action through inaction".
the revolution, the true revolution that actually succeeds and destroys the system rather than being crushed or undermined or perverted into another iteration of the system, is something that cannot be planned or structured or even talked about. it just happens automatically when the moment is right. it has no leaders or followers, nobody has a job, nobody tells anybody what to do or when to do it. there simply comes a moment where everyone just knows exactly what needs to be done and they all do it, fully autonomously. for this kind of revolution to be possible, everyone must be in a state of constant readyness. not waiting, not anticipating, not planning, just ready, like the baseball player watching the pitcher and ready to swing the bat, totally immersed in reality and free of all abstractions and distractions that slow them down and trip them up and divert them from the true objective. nobody knows anything about what they are about to do, nobody knows about any plans or secret meetings or leaders or any kind of knowledge that could be a liability, that could be extracted by an interrogator or an informant, everyone is a good obedient conformist as clueless and harmless as a baby. then when the moment finally comes and they all stop what they're doing and make their move, the ruling class and their system are completely unprepared and they are utterly destroyed in the blink of an eye. that is speed.
>>2890632Communist measures are obviously generalized, i.e. practiced in other regions and countries. If communist measures are not generalized then they fade away and the revolutionary struggle ends. I didn't mention this in the original reply because I didn't know how to mention it.
>>2890646that is not what we mean retard
>>2890708>that's not what you think it meansI know the exact definitions.
>>2890706That’s exactly what you mean, unintended or not.
>>2890578>>2890707>communization theory rejects the dictatorship of the proletariatThe imposition of communist measures
is the DotP and vice versa
>>2890707how do they get generalized without central organization or some other system of propagation? you could easily also say socialism in one country must get generalized by having socialism in different countries
>>2890701You are basically adapting Kahnemann's "Thinking Fast and Slow" to explain class struggle dynamics. While I agree in-part with Kahnemann's observations, they also show an endemic loyalty to discrete states that is widespread in most of pre-contemporary thinking. There is no discrete category of fast and slow thinking, there is a continuos quality of speed. And this sort of loyalty to discrete states seems a big wedge in your ideas. The ruling classes are just as dynamic and prone to spontinaity as the opressed, the difference is just how the flow settles - usually in some distribution where both enter into a lul thay will be inevitably interrupted by permanent internal contradictions which may or may not destabilize the system to become fluid again (and which may or may not be revolutionary), at which point dynamics shift unpredictably. Eg, quick on their toes elites or middle managers that felt disgruntled by the old order can attempt their own fast powerplays along with the proletarian upsurge which subvert it. Groups with pre-established capital (economic, social, structural, human) can come out winners automatically by the sheer aspect of being the first to mobilize this capital to establish their presence. There is no clean short vs long term planning hear, but a mess where every faction will try to improvise according to their habitus, which will fall everywhere and in between the fast and slow.
I guess ultimately my point is this - I entertain your idea of speed - it is indeed an important factor for a revolution - but I think your ideas underscore the importance of structural readyness that can only be achieved by some kind of pre-revolutionary organizing that would provide the necessary platforms for the actual moment of crisis (what that organizing should be is another question, one that likely has the answer of "it depends")
>>2890578How is this meaningfully different from Anarchism?
>>2890938It is anarchism but Marxist the difference is that it rejects the formalism of the party or councils or any other speculation on how the people will organise themselves. That's not the only difference apparently they have some issues with Marx's labour theory.
>>2890341I really like
d Rojava due to focus on communes and confederations of communes. The commune should be the political unit everything else is built on. When it comes to economics use smaller cooperatives where commune owner enterprises fail.
>>2891023Oh you like the anarchist open sky squat with Proudhonist economics and friend of the US armed forces?
>>2890632>but when communizers start talking about fully abolishing the value form in one locality, as though you do not need to interface with the global capitalist system that has subsumed everything, everyone takes them seriously[citation needed]
>>2890552>>2890578Relevant Phil Neel quote:
>I actually do not think most “communization” thinkers argue for “immediate abolition of the value-form” in the temporal sense of, as soon as the revolution begins, you will stop using money, stop treating things as commodities, have no wages or alternative means of remuneration, etc. If you read what they write, it’s usually a bit more of a philosophical sense of “immediacy,” as in operating without the “mediation” of either a revolutionary workers’ state or without the specific hybrid stage of socialism in which the conditions for abolition are first put into place. So the point is more that the abolition of value doesn’t require these forms of mediation which pose intermediate goals that then become ends in themselves. In the temporal sense, we could say that the difference is simply that communism can immediately become the end goal of proletarian organizing. The transition can begin on day one, rather than first requiring the construction of some intermediate society.
>I’m not sure if it’s an intentional or malicious misreading, if people just don’t actually read the theory, or if they have problems with reading comprehension, or maybe it’s just the poor philosophical writing, but you do see this common confusion where people pretend that what is meant is “immediate” in the temporal sense and use that to criticize a strawman argument that doesn’t really exist. If we compare the process of social transformation to the process of an unhealthy person wanting to get healthy, for example, people imagine that communization is saying that we will go from unhealthy to healthy overnight. And they’ll counter that of course this is a fantasy, you first have to have initial steps toward healthy living, that these need to be incremental, etc. But the communization critique is that these incremental steps, as “stages” mediating the process, tend to become ends in themselves. In fact, the critics are like those people who are continually saying that they will get their shit together and start working out, but they need to wait for certain conditions to be met. Once they move to a new apartment, once the new year starts, once they switch jobs, etc. Or, if they do start working out, they just sort of do the same basic things without progressing: they get on the treadmill for half an hour, they lift the same weights and go through the same motions without variation, they add some salad to their diet. So the communization people would say something like: stop focusing on the initial steps and indefinite preparation and instead focus on actually progressing toward the end goal. Stop talking about getting into shape and actually do it. Begin the transition now, don’t defer it via endless intermediate stages. >>2891032>Oh you like the anarchist open sky squat More like Paris Commune.
>with Proudhonist economics Economics that works and doesnt collapse society.
>and friend of the US armed forces?Couldnt care less.
>>2891032>anarchist open sky squat with Proudhonist economicsAs if. The Rojavites renounced class struggle and refused to expropriate the local bourgeoisie, instead opting to include them as partners in the co-ops and giving them a cut of profits in exchange for generously leasing land. The "anarchist" signalling was just a larp: just look at the international volunteer martyr videos where avowed anarchist YPG volunteers were forced to proclaim themselves democratic socialists or social democrats and express gratitude for "ideological training"
https://libcom.org/article/rojava-reality-and-rhetoric-gilles-dauve-and-tl I agree with Alice in Monsterland for the most part, unironically.
I just realized that I forgot to name the thread, fuck.
>>2890934western language is based on discrete binary thinking and describes things as "this" or "that" and gets very clunky and wordy when it comes to describing holistic interwoven dualities, and english is the only language i know and i didn't want to veer any further from the main idea into the complexities of neurology than i had to, so i simplified it for the sake of clarity.
the kind of readyness i was talking about isn't structural readyness but individual readyness, every individual person having a genuine, intuitive, autonomous understanding of what it's all about, without the need for any authoritarian cognitive shortcuts like groupthink and coercion and propaganda, without any of the "you must do the following because we said so and you don't need to know why", without any of the ends-justify-the-means irrational bullshit that plagues every kind of political movement.
>>2891489Okay, point taken, but what about that structural readyness, and more importantly, how do you see the rise in the individual readyness? Because both are intrinsically linked and both, likely, can only be developed through a repeated forging of a communist movement. I don't see how this feigned innaction you propose achieves this, as the only thing that we can be guaranteed of is the eventual rise in subsistance struggles of people who are more or less forced into revolt when the system contradictions put it into a moment of crisis. However, nothing guarantees the readyness and eventual success of these struggles - that cannot be taken for granted. Most likely they will fail after which, hopefully, their failure will be used to strengthen and evolve the movement for the next crisis.
>>2891070Anybody who finds it scandalous either didn't understand it or is a moralfag. Not that it's a particularly good text. He name drops Reich but the essay could have been much further enriched by including Reich's theories about the social consequences of child sexual repression for example.
Also it was a little cringe when he writes that "crime" isn't only a result of class society (um hey there existential alienation didn't see ya) and it will always exist to some degree even in communism. What actually is crime anyway? What use do we have for that concept as communists who understand the laws of the bourgeois state to be the terms of the usurpation of our personal autonomy and collective means of sustenance? Just like "democracy", idealist concepts like "crime" and "justice" are malignant vestiges of bourgeois ideology within the Movement and they must be thoroughly critiqued and thrown to the dustbin.
>>2891530>the only thing that we can be guaranteed of is the eventual rise in subsistance struggles of people who are more or less forced into revolt when the system contradictions put it into a moment of crisis.Not eventual but exponential.
>Most likely they will fail after which, hopefully, their failure will be used to strengthen and evolve the movement for the next crisis.To win the game we need to uphold and nurture militant proletarian cosmopolitanism and from that distill the invincible globohomo proletariat as a positive negation of itself. Ever their own gravediggers, the bourgeosie are driving us there. Trust the plan. Globalists in control.
>>2891037Thanks for the quotes, they're very informative. Where did you get them?
>>2891530we've already seen the repeated forging of communist movements throughout contemporary history and they've all failed to achieve what they were supposed to achieve, because the whole ideology suffers from a fundamental flaw that i described earlier, adopting the same playbook as the system it is meant to replace, speaking the same language of authoritarianism and top-down hierarchy and nationalism/imperialism/social centralization that got us into this mess to begin with. people need to realize that the root of all of our miseries is much deeper than just a structural problem, it's not just a problem of bad leadership or inadequate dogma, it goes all the way down to basic human psychology and our linguistic and epistemological frameworks by which we understand and describe reality, our arrogant anthropocentric teleological thinking that makes us believe that we know what is best for everyone and everything in the universe. if we as individuals figure out how to address the problems of our own psychology then as a society we won't need to draw up any blueprints or appoint any representatives or adhere to any dogma, the structure will emerge organically from the bottom up, as systems in nature do, with a level of pluralism and complexity that makes it extremely resilient to any kind of usurpation or central governance. nothing is more resilient or efficient than an organic system that builds itself autonomously from the bottom up; a single human brain achieves with 20 watts of energy what all of the hundreds of terawatts of manmade computing power in the world cannot achieve. the authoritarian thinker dismisses self-governance and autonomy as inefficient and unpredictable, but what they really mean it is that it is inefficient and unpredictable for them and their personal agenda. in the grand scheme of things, the self-governing autonomous system that grows out of foundational chaos is the ultimate ideal, the fundamental structure of the universe itself and no conceivable anthropocentric top-down model can ever even come close to that level of perfection - the real dilemma is whether the average human being would rather be the god of a shitty false reality that falls apart or be a humble participant in the real one that endures forever.
I dont get it, council communism just sounds like anarchism with extra steps
>>2891649How is it like anarchism
>>2891037ok but how is this non-immediate immediacy supposed to look like when you are in lenin's shoes? if it doesnt mean stopping using money immediately, then lenin would still have had to have established state capitalism, but i guess now the idea to spend time creating some communes here and there?
>>2891661I *think* (not that anon, but familiar with Neel's work) the idea is that you just have to never stop trying to take it as far as it can go and let it die. I am quite possibly missinterpreting, but the takeaway I get is that it would have been more productive if Russian revolution died a bloody death trying to push it forward than for it to re-constitute itself as a self-protecting project. Idea being that in its death, it would have contributed to building the movement by creating more hardened remnants. He talks about it in his Theory of the Party that the worst thing an ephemeral communist party could do is to become obsessed by its own survival or to glorify itself as the be-all end-all of the communist project. Basically, I think he envisions it as a recurrent tide that grows stronger or weaker that at some point will be strong enough.
>>2891570Worth noting that the exponential aspect can be reset, as it was over our last century. We are now among the wreckages of the movement, about in the same place as in pre-Marxian times.
>>2891640Interview he did here
https://terrabayt.com/dusunce/english/crisis-capital-and-hell-on-earth-an-interview-with-phil-neel/>>2891661Phil acutally gives a bit of Leninist critique in the next paragraph:
>That said, I’m not a communization theorist. I do not like the framework or the term. I do not think there is anything special about our era that makes us any more (or less) prone to building communism today than we were in the past, though perhaps the possibility becomes more clearly visible or more necessary. I certainly draw a lot of influence from theorists associated with the current, but that’s simply because they are good, interesting, and rigorous Marxist thinkers. As for myself, I consider myself an entirely orthodox communist. That includes both the Marxian aspect, as well as the sequence of practical lessons learned in the long history of struggle and elaborated in theories of revolutionary organization. In this respect, I think many within the communization current do not focus enough on the frictions that arise in the pragmatic process of building power in a hostile world, even if they do a great job of symptomatizing the limits faced by existing uprisings and relating them to large-scale, structural trends. In other words, while they’re very good Marxists, they’re often not very good Leninists.
>It is necessary to think quite hard about the likely sequence of social transformation, the forms of revolutionary organization that would be needed to channel that process, and the geopolitical, administrative, and economic demands placed on any revolutionary force that emerges and holds any territory. In this regard, we still do not have any better living examples than the saga of the Soviet Union, the protracted people’s war in China, and the struggle for survival by isolated revolutionary states like Cuba. These are also case studies in the extreme ways that revolutionary societies can degenerate, either into bizarre chimeras like North Korea or, more conventionally, by melting back into the liberal order, as in Russia and China. Similarly, in both the far hinterlands of capitalist society and in the deindustrialized, metropolitan cores, very rudimentary issues of access to basic social infrastructure remain primary. These are, classically, questions of “development” and even “(re)industrialization.” Liberals are essentially the only ones able to even broach these questions, and the currently ascendant current of liberalism (which describes itself as “socialist” or even, sometimes, “Marxist”) at least offers an attractive idea of what this process might look like, with case studies in places like China and Vietnam. >>2890768When has a centralized form of organisation led to the propagation of communist measures? When has it led to communist measures at all? Your second point contradicts itself, also
Le ICP status?
>>2899827From what I've heard from they're involved with the union movement and usually pull them towards "the communist programme," or at least towards their interpretation of it.
>>2891851Currently reading through the crisis theory part of the interview, it's a very informative article. I might read "Hinterland" later on, when I have the chance.
>>2891545Reich was a retard whose only real contribution was being the first to try doing marxism and psychoanalysis at the same time. Žižek solos.
>>2891851> As for myself, I consider myself an entirely orthodox communist>That includes both the Marxian aspect, as well as the sequence of practical lessons learned in the long history of struggle and elaborated in theories of revolutionary organization>In other words, while they’re very good Marxists, they’re often not very good Leninists.A Leninist is a Leninist
>>2901919Phil Neel's Hinterland, the very first chapter. The answer is simple. To quote Bordiga - we live in a society. Capitalism is, despite all conceptions of it as an alien god or a rogue inhuman algorithm, still just a product of human social interaction.
>>2905335FUCK, not Hinterland but Hellworld
This seems an awful lot like utopian socialism
bump
>>2914701That really wants me to not read this. Is this similar to Mark Fisher too?
>dark alien godSounds retarded. Capital is made up of value production, which is a human social relationship abstracted. Change social relations, it's sublated.
>>2905335>To quote Bordiga>Capitalism […] still just a product of human social interactionWas Bordiga a sinbad poster?
>>2890632Absolutely not missing anything. It’s because they’re very familiar with sources that are critical of the USSR, which we can and often do learn from ourselves, so we become familiar the nuances of concepts like SIOC. Meanwhile, most study of anarchism or syndicalists completely erases any concessions they made that could resemble state socialism like the USSR. They see an anarchist say they completely abolished the value form, and they simply believe it even if other sources directly contradict it and make it sound much more like ML experiments
https://www.communisation.org/This communisation guy in tiktok who's always beefing with Marxist Leninist teenagers on the app has started a
vanguard party communizer collective.
>>2914701>>2914718retard wonders why someone who believes that socialism has never worked and all socialist projects were evil frauds has no practicable solution for how to achieve socialism
their total terrified awe of capital and the "dark alien god" shit is the direct consequence of this pessimism: the recognition of their own impotence and total co-optation is sublimated into the image of capital as a cosmic god-like totalizing entity from which there is no escape
>>2891037>immediate abolition of the value-formlol
>>2914904nobody can answer these basic theoretical questions smdh
>>2905756The premise of utopian socialism is to simply create an alternative bubble mode of production and watch it grow.
>>2914701You've definetly missread him there with the "dark alien god" thing. His point is exactly that its a retarded concept. First chapter retraces the steps of Camatte to why it might appear that capital is a Landian alien AI that has vome to kill us all, but then cuts through the bullshit word for word with what
>>2914859 said: its all ultimately human relations, or to rephrase it in Bordiga's / meme words - "we live in a society".
>>2918880Indeed. These stupid leftcoms will do anything but accept that Kaiser Wilhelm was successfully building socialism until the damnable libsoc ultras stopped him.
>>2891661The motivating premise of communisation is that we aren't lenin shoes. Communisers believe that the mass party politics of old was historically contingent - that is contingent upon the organised labour movement which in turn was contingent upon mass semi-skilled industrial factory workforces. Capitalist restructuring has decomposed this reality and thus decomposed the possibility for the old communist projects.
>In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a whole historical period entered into crisis and came to an end — the period in which the revolution was conceived … as the affirmation of the proletariat, its elevation to the position of ruling class, the liberation of labour, and the institution of a period of transition.<Editorial - SIC 1
>Everywhere, the working class is less homogeneous — it is stratified across high- and low-income occupations; its work is more precarious; and it switches jobs more frequently. More and more workers feel like work has no purpose; for more and more are employed in dead-end service jobs, or are unemployed or unemployable. Like the housewives of an earlier era, they produce little more than the everyday reproduction of the class relation itself. For these reasons, we cannot follow the autonomists in supposing that an “objective” recomposition of the class will find its correlate in a new “subjective” affirmation of class identity.
>It’s not that it’s impossible today to glorify work or workers; it’s that those who can do so are necessarily a minority. They can no longer pose their activity, or the activity of any concrete fraction of the class, as having universal significance. The workers’ movement rested on a vision of the future that turned out to be a dream. In the second half of the twentieth century workers awoke from this dream to discover that all that was supposed to bring them together had actually separated them.<A History of Separation - Endnotes 4As opposed to previous era of struggle we have entered a new era in which the factory no longer serves as the germ of a new society in waiting. Masses of workers are expelled from the process of labour, either entirely, partially or intermittently. Confronting capital doesn't now take the form of confronting the valorisation process of capital on the shop floors but confronting the reproduction of the class relation as such.
>Our contention is that, if the historical workers’ movement is today alien to us, it is because the form of the capital–labour relation that sustained the workers’ movement no longer obtains … the social foundations on which the workers’ movement was built have been torn out: the factory system no longer appears as the kernel of a new society in formation; the industrial workers who labour there no longer appear as the vanguard of a class in the process of becoming revolutionary. All that remains of this past-world are certain logics of disintegration, and not only of the workers’ movement, but also of the capital–labour relation itself.
>[…]
>Struggles within and against this world are just beginning to take on a greater global significance, but they have not found a coherence comparable to that which pertained in an earlier era. A key feature of struggles today is precisely that, although they remain the struggles of workers, they present themselves as such only when they remain at the level of sectional struggles, that is, struggles of particular fractions of the class, which are almost always defensive struggles against ongoing “reforms” and “restructurings”. When struggles take on a wider significance, that is, for the class as a whole, then the unity they present, both to themselves and to others, goes beyond a class identity. Workers find a shared basis for struggle, not by means of the class belonging they have in common, but rather, as citizens, as participants in a “real democracy”, as the 99 percent, and so on. Such forms of identification sharply distinguish these workers’ struggles from the core struggles of the era of the workers movement. They have also made it difficult to see the way forward, to a communist future.<A History of Separation - Endnotes 4This is the fundamental problem that communisation is trying to analyze and find answers to. We are early into this new cycle of struggle and as such no easy answers are forthcomming, we can only study social explosions as they happen, find what worked, what didn't, what limits were met, what were overcome. The goal of the communist i.e the conscious militant is to intergrate with this movements and push them toward a dissolution of capitalist relations. Jutting up against the limits of these movements, and the limits of what capital can bear is imperative for elucidating how struggles may succeed in future and posing new problematics which need to be explained and anylysed.
What communisation is is not a program, some final theory, it is the process of articulating theory based on the reailty of struggles as they presently exist. What needs to be done is an inherentlly practical question to specific struggles themselves, and can only be articulated through struggle. Immediacy is not about a lack of organisation, precluding this or that tactic, precluding parties or collectives. It is that the content of revolution can no longer be the affirmation of labour and therefore must be the negation of capital.
>It should be clear that the immediacy of the revolution is not simply a matter of lacking organisation (although any revolution will be chaotic). On the contrary, disruptive activities must be highly coordinated and extensive — in a word, organised — so much so as to precipitate a desertion from the armed forces (which is the sine qua non of a revolutionary moment). Nor is this point clarified by saying that the revolution will take place without an intervening, or transitional period. Because in fact, there will inevitably be a transition, even if there will be no “transitional economy” or “transitional state” in the sense these terms had in the twentieth century. The communisation of social relations among seven billion people will take time. It will involve sudden surges as well as devastating setbacks, zones of freedom emerging alongside zones of unfreedom, etc. Even if communisers were to rout the counter-revolution, there would inevitably follow a period of de- and reconstruction. Relations among individuals, no longer mediated by markets and states, would have to realise themselves, in the world, as a thoroughgoing transformation of material infrastructures.
>For us, it is not so much the revolution as a process that should be understood with the category of “immediacy”. To speak of immediacy, with respect to the revolution, is merely a shorthand for the fact that the revolution abolishes the mediations of the modern world … There is no neutral ordering of this world that can be taken over by the working class and run in its interest. Thus, the revolution cannot be a matter of finding new ways to mediate relations among workers, or between human beings and nature, the state and the economy, men and women, etc.< Spontaneity, Mediation, Rupture - Endnotes 3 are french communizers in control of the riots right now? are we trusting the plan?
>>2919142How about addressing what he's actually saying instead of some retarded eye rolling sarcasm joke? Getting a straight answer out of leftcoms instead of a shitty meme response is like pulling teeth, mostly because their ideology is just threadbare idealism
>>2925124Some French communizers and appelistes (the latter being god awful people) may be participating in the protests but they definitely are not the main "ideological" force of the protests.
Unrelated to this, does anyone know any communizers orgs? The only ones I know of are the Internationalist Perspective (internationalistperspective.org) and the one commiespontex is trying to create (communisation.org.
>>2890578So just the book of acts from the bible?
>>2925124the riots are rad lib petite bourgeois who want mass immigration to drive down wages
>>2929011>who want mass immigration to drive down wagesThe students have made it clear that the reason that they are protesting is because of the decreasing quality of their schools, and now due to police violence.
Also, as communists, our aim is to abolish the wage system, as it is a product of commodity production and a product of bourgeois productive relations, and because it maintains the existence of said relations.
To worry about decreasing wages, and blaming such a decrease on a section of the proletariat and not on the bourgeois who took advantage of such a sects precarious financial situation to exploit them more than the "native" proletariat, is stupid and gets in the way of achieving a communist society.
Stop being a chauvinist.
>>2929361third-worldists and social chauvinists truly do be two sides of the same coin
>its the brown proletariat that oppresses me!!!!>its the white proletariat that oppresses me!!!! >>2929363today in shit no one says
>>2929011The idea that immigrant laborers are responsible for driving down wages is rejected by Marx, and he regards the hostility between native and immigrant workers as an "artificial antagonism" that is exploited by the bourgeoisie to "maintain its power"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm>Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York (1870)<The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life.<The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.<This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.You retards are all just socdems . the absolute state of the europoor "communists"
READ MARX >>2929380>The idea that immigrant laborers are responsible for driving down wages is rejected by MarxWhat? Read a bit further from your own source:
<Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htmFascinating how you lecture others to read yet can't do it yourself.
We can read Engels on the same topic decades earlier:
<Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him. And these branches are many.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htmDoes this fact mean you should hate immigrants? No.
Your issue is that you fail to broach toward an internal contradiction.
>>2890552there is no transitional stage to societal transformation, all progress toward said transformation is transition in and of itself, where transition from every aspect of the current state of things is transformative
>>2929382conserva-communist squad activate
Unique IPs: 54