/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2894372
It makes him shit, it makes you shit, it ruins everything it’s ever touched. Why do you think the biggest consumers of Marxslop are the bourgeois? marxslop is THE weapon preventing proletarian revolution, that and nukes.

excessive praise and excessive critique of Stalin are both dead giveaways of being an Idealist hack and Stalinism isn't an actually existing Ideology

Marxists become Weberians as they approach power. No one has figured out how to get out of the iron cage.

>>2894375
t. annihilated by Marxgods

>>2894382
You mean the bourgeois? Yes, it’s why we’re headed for civilization collapse

>>2894387
No I mean prolerichads

>>2894390
The proletariat doesn’t give a fuck about anything outside paying their bills, gambling, and getting high

>>2894391
So? They're based just like Marx

<In his private life he is a highly disorderly, cynical human being and a bad manager. He lives the life of a gypsy, of an intellectual Bohemian; washing, combing and changing his linen are things he does rarely, he likes to get drunk. He is often idle for days on end, but when he has work to do, he will work day and night with tireless endurance.

>>2894367

popular socialist workers movements go all the way back to ancient times in the form of craft guilds which first arose in india and china over two thousand years ago, which were essentially the predecessors to labor unions. you're thinking in terms of Great Man Theory, only giving credit to singular named historical figures instead of the nameless common people. you've got to get out of that if you really want to take your leftism to the next level, stop thinking of history as a series of Great Men who singlehandedly accomplished everything, that's right-wing authoritarian thinking.

>>2894399
Every epoch had class struggle sure, I don't see how that's relevant to the post Marxist world. Non scientific socialist movements are irrelevant to the current struggle and actively arguing we have to go back to them is just reactionary

You're using great man theory as a buzzword

>>2894402
The supposedly scientific socialists are in an even worse position

>>2894403
No they're not. They're still around and have eclipsed the utopians entirely. dustbin of history, etc, etc

>>2894369
>ideas create material conditions
NGMI

>>2894404
Around where? In Chinese factories making plastic bullshit to fill the homes of American hoarders?

>>2894405
Personality disorders are material reality and Marx had them in spades

>>2894406
Yup!

>>2894402
>I don't see how that's relevant to the post Marxist world.

everything is relevant. there is no cutoff point where history stops mattering, the world doesn't really change. the problems humans had to deal with in ancient times are the same problems we are dealing with in the modern era, it's just a matter of degree. the compulsion for the common folk to band together and support each other and resist a tyrannical empire is as old as the empire itself, the need for freedom and autonomy is hardcoded into our dna.

>>2894363
>I do
With not basis
>I just asked for a reason to care
You said he was unknown, that he was a literally who, and that you didn’t care for care for a “dutch nobody”. You gave every impression that you were a know nothing, and then you proceeded to say no actually it’s all slop and that you are actually well versed on the theory.

Here’s a question: If you’re so well versed, why didn’t you tell me a specific complaint or reason why you didn’t like it or found it impractical? Why the fuck would I ever make you care about something you already read? You already read it. You already made your opinion that you won’t even share in detail. There is nothing more to be done from me. Period.
>Specifically he thought it subordinated worker's power of the soviets to the communist party and that was le bad
Oh wow, it’s the first actual complaint you had all thread.

Give me a moment for a more detailed response.

>I have fun talking to retards
Reactionary
>That's just your cope for being honest
Meds
>I am having fun and being myself
Deranged response
>Just say what you mean bro
Link

>>2894415
Yeah that's class struggle bro, the more things change the more they stay the same. That does not mean we have to give outdated models the same credence as currently relevant ones

>>2894416
>With not basis
Plenty of basis

>You said he was unknown, that he was a literally who, and that you didn’t care for care for a “dutch nobody”. You gave every impression that you were a know nothing, and then you proceeded to say no actually it’s all slop and that you are actually well versed on the theory.
Yes and? Just because I happen to know this niche figure doesn't mean he's not an unimportant nobody who produced only slop

>Here’s a question: If you’re so well versed, why didn’t you tell me a specific complaint or reason why you didn’t like it or found it impractical? Why the fuck would I ever make you care about something you already read? You already read it. You already made your opinion that you won’t even share in detail. There is nothing more to be done from me. Period.
I was genuinely curious what people found appealing about this irrelevant asshole, beyond his anti Lenin stance. You were unable to provide anything substantial at all, instead you started to seethe and cope. Typical

>Give me a moment
Take your time

>Reactionary
You are an anti-leninist, you are one of the most reactionary posters on this board

>Meds
Nonsensical non-sequitur
>Deranged response
It's the truth, why else would I be posting here? Are you not having fun? If so you can just stop the cope and stop posting

>Link
To what? The definition of ultra? Just say what you mean lil bro, stop with the gimmicks pls

>>2894416
>>2894363
So, did the vanguard party actually subordinate the worker’s power of the councils? Ultimately yes.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2000/isj2-086/trudell.htm

>In assessing the trajectory of the revolution, however, it is important to separate similarities of form from social and political content. Clearly Stalin’s regime in the 1930s did draw on measures introduced under War Communism in its drive to industrialise the Russian economy in competition with the West. Lenin and Trotsky were driving in a different direction in the hope that certain developments – international revolution most crucially – could have made dispensing with those temporary measures a real possibility. That they did not was no more ‘inevitable’ than the rise of fascism in Germany was an ‘inevitable’ result of the First World War because war economies existed in both.
>The tragedy of the civil war is precisely that the impact of the war and isolation on Russian society increasingly reduced the scope of political decisions and choices available. The Bolsheviks’ politics and organisation, and the conviction of the mass of workers and peasants in Russian society in the project they were embarked on, enabled them to continue to fight for the survival of the revolution for an astonishingly long time. But ultimately they could not break out of the cage of material circumstances, and neither could they remain unchanged by life as it really was.

<In a country where the productive forces were already devastated, the blockade, far from being symbolic, was a mortal blow. The journalist John Reed wrote, ‘The conscious Allied policy of blockading Russia against medicines killed untold thousands.’ [38] The historian E.H. Carr argues that the blockade was also a central factor in necessitating the continuation of War Communism: ‘Soviet Russia’s complete economic isolation at this time was a powerful contributory factor to economic experiments which could scarcely have been attempted or persisted in except in a closed system.’ [39]

>This policy was not and never could be in accordance with the economic mission of the proletariat. It was merely a provisional measure.’ [56] There is no doubt that the policies of War Communism did not promote coherent economic reconstruction in Russia

<The revolution was victorious in the civil war, but at an enormous cost.
<The civil war shattered industrial production: total industrial output fell to 18 percent of its already extremely low pre-war levels. In 1920 production of pig iron was a mere 2.4 percent of its pre-war figure, the corresponding figure for coal was 27 percent, for sugar 6.7 percent, for electrical engineering machinery 5.4 percent and for cotton goods 5.1 percent. [110]
<The foreign blockade reduced imports and exports to a tiny fraction of their 1917 figures, resulting in widespread hunger and disease. At the end of the war 350,000 were dead in battle and 450,000 had died of disease. Between the end of 1918 and the end of 1920 hunger, cold and disease had killed 9 million people – typhus killed one million in 1920 alone. The war effort had ‘plundered all of Russia’ and destroyed much of its industry. Fan belts were torn out of machinery in the factories to make boots for the army; 64 of the largest factories in Petrograd were forced to close for lack of fuel. For economic historian Kritsman, ‘Such a fall of the productive forces … of a huge society of 100 million people … is unexampled in the history of mankind.’ [111] <It is difficult to express the full magnitude of such horror on Russian society. Read sums this up well: ‘Terms like crisis and collapse are used frequently today, even to describe situations where economic growth falls below 2 percent. There is no word of strong enough force to use when one comes to the situation of Russia in these years’. [112]
<The impact of the war was not solely economic. All the major classes underwent enormous upheaval:
<Russia’s social structure had been not merely overturned; it was smashed and destroyed. The social classes which had so implacably and furiously wrestled with one another in the civil war were all, with the partial exception of the peasantry, either exhausted and prostrate or pulverised. The landed gentry had perished in their burning mansions and on the battlefields of the civil war; survivors escaped abroad with remnants of the White armies which scattered to the winds. Of the bourgeoisie, never very numerous or politically confident, many had also perished or emigrated. Those who saved their skins … were merely the wreckage of their class’. [113]
<Though victorious against its class enemies, the working class was also devastated. In Russia as a whole it was reduced to 43 percent of its former number. The population of Petrograd fell from 2.4 million in 1917 to 574,000 in 1920 – cut by 76 percent from its October 1917 figure. Those who worked in the factories were often not the same workers who had made the revolution. The army had drained the urban centres dry of the most militant workers, who were replaced in the factories by peasants often lacking the same revolutionary commitment. <By the end of the war, the Bolsheviks were ruling in the name of a class which was at best a shadow of its former self: ‘The world’s first proletarian government had to watch the class on which it claimed to be based diminish from its already weak minority position’. [114]
<Naturally, the party itself changed as the working class disintegrated. The distortions within the Bolsheviks were not ideologically motivated. A revolutionary party rests on its links and roots in the working class, learning from the class as well as leading. Without that class, the party becomes isolated – the blood supply necessary to maintain its health greatly reduced. In addition, as the crack troops of the Red Army, an estimated 50 percent of Communist Party members who fought in the civil war were killed, wounded or ill after major battles. The party branches outside the army were also hit hard by the war. The working class membership of the party eroded. In 1917 workers had made up 60 percent of the party; by 1920–1921 that had fallen to 41 percent, the bulk of whom worked for the state or the army rather than in the factories. Careerists joined in large numbers, further diluting the composition of the party. At the same time, the Soviet government was presiding over an increasingly hostile peasant majority. There were strikes in Petrograd, revolts in the countryside, and the garrison at Kronstadt mutinied in March 1921. Once the immediate enemies were defeated, the hardships the population had endured for three years became the cause of dramatic conflict with the government.
<To understand the changes in the party it is essential to understand the impact of social degeneration and economic disaster on political principles and ideology. The gap between dreams and reality had widened dramatically in the course of the war, at times leading the Bolsheviks to extol the virtues of policies enacted from dire necessity. There were deep political shifts in the circumstances – it would have been incredible if there were not. But this does not mean that the rise of Stalinism was inevitably the result of Bolshevik politics, or that revolutionary Leninism contained the seeds of its own destruction. As Victor Serge put it, ‘It is often said that the germ of all <Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs – a mass of other germs – and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in a corpse – and which he may have carried with him since his birth – is this very sensible?’ [115]
<Political will and the revolutionary impulse achieved miracles in the course of the civil war, in the context of appalling social conditions. But the Bolsheviks could not build a socialist society from sheer willpower. It is an incredible achievement on the Bolsheviks’ part that they held out as long as they did, and it is testimony to the party’s organisation and discipline, and the powerful impetus the revolution had given to creativity and commitment, that even as late as 1928, with Stalin’s consolidation of power, he was forced to physically wipe out the last vestiges of it by murdering or exiling the old Bolsheviks.
<It is to be regretted that so many historians, lacking clarity about the nature of the regime which finally beheaded the revolution, have given ground to the theory of an inevitable connection between revolutionary and Stalinist Russia. By locating the civil war period in its historical context, by attempting to draw out the relative weight of objective circumstances and ideology in the most dramatic period of the revolution’s history, it is possible to counter those arguments with a more thorough understanding.
<Fortunately, Stalinism is now dead, and in the context of the resulting ideological ferment, there is huge potential for a genuine reading of the Russian Revolution to gain wider currency, not as a history lesson but as a guide for revolutionaries today.

>>2893668
Commies have only one win and they want to give it to chuds

I see the Pannekoek poster is now coping calling Marx sloppa and demanding a retvrn to pre-scientific socialism. Truly the most advanced sect.

>calling Marx sloppa and demanding a retvrn to pre-scientific socialism.
No one is saying this

>>2894433
>So, did the vanguard party [of the workers] actually subordinate the worker’s power of the councils? Ultimately yes.

So? This was a good thing. The party and the soviets became intertwined as to be basically indistinguishable, fused if you will. They tried to do the multiparty thing in the beginning but it didn't work for obvious reasons

>The revolution was victorious in the civil war, b…but at what cost???

What does this polemic about how the civil war being le bad have to do with Pannekoek though? Can you just make an argument with your own words please?

Marxism is nothingness, a not even clever disguise for ego

>>2893671
I wish shitty sectarian bait threads like this were banned, but that would imply jannies actually enforcing the rules

>>2894469
>multiparty thing in the beginning but it didn't work for obvious reasons
yes, because that is bullshit libtard bougie idealism. A real communist country would have no parliament or soviets or congress or whatever. Just the King and the technocrats. Be honest, any "parliament" in a communist state is just there to give appearence for "demucrazy" and to rubber stamp everything the politburo (the oligarchy) has decided. Communism is a retvrn to feudalism as G*d (pbuh) intended
~Bordigafags
/s in case you are all stupid faggots

>>2894339
>Stalin is anti-imperialism
lmao keep telling yourself that, he would be writing love letters to ziohran if he was alive just like he did to FDR

>>2894468
>>2894474
It's a shitty thread but at the same time its one of many that presents the mods with a Catch 22 type scenario. If they leave it up, the thread just gets filled with bait and people talking past each other and nothing gets accomplished. If it gets taken down though, the original poster will just ban evade 30 seconds later anyway and remake their thread multiple times while crying about what an injustice they've gone through, as though being banned for a few days from an imageboard for being an obnoxious bad faith cunt is comparable to being black during the Jim Crow era

>>2894479
yeah i know, the thread got saged so maybe there is hope kek.

>>2893668
You are wrong. State capitalism is what existed during the NEP in a limited grain market, giving preference to the formation of cooperatives among poor peasants, as well as acquiring technology to connect the country's remote regions with electrification and means of production in order to coordinate the economy in the backward regions in the future, adapting them to collective work in state capitalism, which is superior to private capitalism and small-scale commodity production, and is also easier to socialize.

Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union where private property was abolished, anarchy of production was abolished, and the social classes of owners were abolished. The socialization of the economy made capital accumulation impossible, and there was no competition for profit among agricultural cooperatives. Therefore, it was not capitalist. Economic planning in the Soviet Union bore no comparison or resemblance whatsoever to the sale of goods in the market for profit that characterizes capitalism. The modes of production prior to capitalism were not capitalism, so the Soviet Union was neither capitalist nor state capitalism.

The Soviet Union had no elements of state capitalism after the end of the NEP because state capitalism has the same problems as private capitalism, and in the Soviet Union production followed a collective plan rather than selling for profit in the market. There was no financial speculation or methods of accumulating capital. Cooperatives had an exclusive relationship with the state, not competing with each other, with workers receiving the surplus after deductions from the total labor according to their labor and needs in the means of consumption, while the rest was public right returning from society to the worker to meet their needs. If you think that socialism depends on workers receiving the profits from the sale of everything produced in a society of cooperatives that compete with each other, then you are wrong.

The Soviet Union abolished private property, unemployment, and all features of capitalism for the planning of the economy. The cooperatives that existed after collectivization no longer competed with each other and had exclusive relations with the government, with equalization of gains and losses. There were no social classes of owners nor the anarchy of production to sell on the market. The government had a monopoly on foreign exchange using an external ruble currency pegged to gold or through barter, while the internal ruble did not circulate, preventing capital accumulation. The state capitalism, small commodity production, and private capitalism of the NEP by peasants in the rural sector were eventually abolished by Stalin, who reorganized the rest of the economy as a socialist economy according to an economic plan with state farms and agricultural cooperatives that do not compete for profit. There was no way to accumulate capital because everything was public property or private property for use or collective property of cooperatives that did not compete with each other. Health, energy, education, housing, childcare, paternity, maternity, industry, technology, transportation, communication, community, leisure, and food were all socialized and collectivized to meet the needs of workers in the planning of the economy, and workers received their means of consumption according to their work. Commodity production was quite limited to the relationship between cooperatives and the socialist state, while the masses who accessed the means of consumption were separated from this.

It is worth remembering that land was also public property in the Soviet Union.

Let's look at a quote from Marx about the lower phase of communism:

<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Now, regarding the question of commodity production in the post-NEP period with collectivization, this quote answers any questions you may have:

<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.

[…]

<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.

<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distribution

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm

>>2893668
Continuing what I'm writing here.
>>2894496
Now I will leave you with quotes explaining commodity production and capitalism so you can stop vulgarizing what you consider "authoritarian" with your opportunism:

<Both commodities and money are the elementary presuppositions of capital, but they only develop into capital under certain conditions. Capital formation cannot occur except on the basis of the circulation of commodities (which includes the circulation of money), hence at an already given stage of development of trade in which the latter has achieved a certain extension. The production and circulation of commodities, however, do not conversely presuppose the capitalist mode of production for their existence; on the contrary, as I have already demonstrated, they also “exist in pre-bourgeois social formations”. They are the historical presupposition of the capitalist mode of production.>> [442] On the other hand, however, it is only on the basis of capitalist production that the commodity becomes the general form of the product, that every product must take on the commodity form, that sale and purchase seize control not only of the surplus of production but of its very substance, and that the various conditions of production themselves emerge in their totality as commodities which go into the production process from circulation. Hence if the commodity appears on the one hand as the presupposition for the formation of capital, the commodity also appears, on the other hand, as essentially the product and result of the capitalist production process, in so far as it is the universal elementary form of the product. At earlier stages of production, products assume the commodity form in part. Capital, in contrast, necessarily produces its product as a commodity. [Sismondi] Therefore, to the degree that capitalist production, i.e. capital, develops, the general laws developed with regard to the commodity — for example, the laws concerning value — are also realized in the different forms of money circulation.
[…]
<The conversion of’ money, which is itself’ only a converted form of the commodity, into capital only takes place once labor capacity has been converted into a commodity for the worker himself; hence once the category of commodity trade has taken control of a sphere which was previously excluded from it, or only sporadically included in it. Only when the working population has ceased either to form part of the objective conditions of labor, or to enter the market as a producer of commodities, selling its labor itself — or more precisely its labor capacity — instead of the product of its labor, does production become the production of commodities to its complete extent, over the whole of its length and breadth. Only then are all products converted into commodities, and only then do the objective conditions of each individual sphere of production enter into production as commodities themselves. Only on the basis of capitalist production does the commodity in fact become the universal elementary form of wealth. If, e.g., capital has not yet taken control of agriculture, a large part of the product is still produced directly as means of subsistence, not as commodities; a large part of the working population will not yet have been converted into wage laborers, nor will a large part of the conditions of labor have been converted into capital. This implies that the developed division of labor, as it appears accidentally within society, and the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, conditions and produces each other. For the commodity as the necessary form of the product, and therefore the alienation of the product as the necessary form of its appropriation, imply a fully developed division of social labor, while on the other hand it is only on the basis of capitalist production, hence also of the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, that. all products necessarily assume the commodity form, and all producers are therefore necessarily commodity producers. It is therefore only with the coming of capitalist production that use value is first generally mediated through exchange value.

<3 points.

<1) Capitalist production is the first to make the commodity the universal form of all products.

<2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labor power itself in general becomes a commodity.

<3) Capitalist production annihilates the [original] basis of commodity production, isolated, independent production and exchange between the owners of commodities, or the exchange of equivalents. The exchange between capital and labor power becomes formal:

<Economic Works of Karl Marx 1861-1864, The Process of Production of Capital, Draft Chapter 6 of Capital, Results of the Direct Production Process, Chapter 1: Commodities as the Product of Capital

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htm

Let's take Capital so you can read Marx using the term generalized commodity production:

<This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.

<Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Chapter Twenty-Four: Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital, 1867

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm

>sage
kek, MLibs are so fucking bitchmade its unreal

>>2894514
anticommunism (antistalinism) should've landed you a ban and not a sage you salty cunt

>>2894469
>This was a good thing
That was a very bad thing. It defeats the entire purpose of having a communist revolution.
>The party and the soviets became intertwined as to be basically indistinguishable
The above could not have happened then. And this is not a inherent quality for vanguard parties.
>They tried to do the multiparty thing in the beginning
Rosa Luxembourg wanted fucking soldier’s councile. They ALL were failing from the get go. The multiparty thing should not have even existed in the first place.
>The revolution was victorious in the civil war, b…but at what cost???
The text provided literally states that a white victory would have been far worse than a return to the older order. It has no problem stating that the revolution was historically progressive. Not a single problem.
>have to do with Pannekoek though
The result of this revolution was part of the reason why Pannekoek wrote against the idea of vanguard parties. Stalin was able to push into power utilizing systems already in place. The party ended up becoming too consolidated in the end to actually push back against careerists and opportunists. Their top down approach ended up leaving the bolsheviks surrounded and vulnerable. Party leadership and composition was not ubiquitous to stop the influx of unintegrated peasants.

>>2894529
See
>>2894348

>>2894529
>anticommunist
its was shitalin that sold revolution out because it was going to make his daddy churchill angry, not me

>>2894535
>That was a very bad thing. It defeats the entire purpose of having a communist revolution.
No it doesn't, the worker's councils become fused with the worker's party. Thus becoming organs of each other. What's the problem?

>The above could not have happened then. And this is not a inherent quality for vanguard parties.
Well it's just "subordinate" has a negative connotation, it's more that they become intertwined, with the party having an arguably leading position. I(t being an inherent quality or not is not relevant

>Rosa Luxembourg wanted fucking soldier’s councile. They ALL were failing from the get go. The multiparty thing should not have even existed in the first place
So? Those existed during the revolution, soldiers in those circumstances were even vital for seizing the revolutionary moment in the first place. The bolsheviks were the ones who advocated all power to the soviets, as such when the dust settled they and the soviets had become all but one

>The text provided literally states that a white victory would have been far worse than a return to the older order. It has no problem stating that the revolution was historically progressive. Not a single problem
It basically just says the revolutionary civil war was bad because at the end of it it had changed the character of the population so much, that it laid the groundwork for some sort of overturn. ie, "stalinism", which it celebrates the defeat of lol

>The result of this revolution was part of the reason why Pannekoek wrote against the idea of vanguard parties. Stalin was able to push into power utilizing systems already in place. The party ended up becoming too consolidated in the end to actually push back against careerists and opportunists. Their top down approach ended up leaving the bolsheviks surrounded and vulnerable. Party leadership and composition was not ubiquitous to stop the influx of unintegrated peasants.
Without the vanguard party the revolution would have resulted in victory for the whites though. All other parties were aligned with them in the end
Stalin didn't "push into power", he was chosen by the party because he was good for the position. The dude tried to resign 4 times and was unanimously rejected, this was with trotsky in the committee still mind you.
In the end the critique from pannekoek is moot as it doesn't provide a valid alternative to how the bolsheviks should have operated differently. Similar issues could have happened regardless of the vanguard party model, except then there would be no centralized revolutionary leadership and the revolution would be dramatically lost immediately ala the paris commune, with all participants being gunned down in the streets

>>2894371
You are a cretin

>>2894371
you are not a cretin

>>2894555
>the worker's councils become fused with the worker's party
Except they didn’t. Vanguardism is designed for leadership control, not class control. War communism did not help.

>it's more that they become intertwined
>with the party having an arguably leading position
You contradicted yourself here. The Soviets, the councils are not only the organs of the party, they are the party. If they were truly intertwined, the party would not be able to take a leading role in such a manner because it would be taking control from itself to give to itself, which is impossible in a actual revolutionary worker’s party, but is very much possible in a vanguard party because it is not about class it is about leadership.
>Those existed during the revolution
Which is not good
>soldiers in those circumstances were even vital for seizing the revolutionary moment in the first place
And are also part of the reason why it fell to pieces.
>The bolsheviks were the ones who advocated all power to the soviets
Talk is cheap
>It basically just says the revolutionary civil war was bad because at the end of it it had changed the character of the population so much, that it laid the groundwork for some sort of overturn
It did not say most of this. It has not in any instance stated that the war was bad. What it did say was the side effects of the war were not exactly the most pleasant, and the effects on the population were not the most ideal. It still did say that the devastation helped lead to a overturn, but it is not dissing on the bolsheviks for that. It outright praises them for their length of survival against less than ideal conditions. And it also give the finger to stalinism at the end, yes.
>Without the vanguard party the revolution would have resulted in
Undefined. We don’t know the true result of that outcome because it wasn’t even attempted.
>Stalin didn't "push into power", he
Pushed into power
>he was good for the position
The position shouldn’t have even existed
>The dude tried to resign 4 times
Not genuinely

>In the end the critique from pannekoek is moot as it doesn't provide a valid alternative to how the bolsheviks should have operated differently
What do you think council communism is? That is the valid alternative. It literally addresses wrong with vanguard parties and then some.
And also Bolsheviks weren’t even working within the framework. Vanguardism itself is invalid.
>The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
>They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
>They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
>The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
>The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
>The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
>Similar issues could have happened regardless of the vanguard party model
I don’t think you understand how ripe the vanguard party formats is for opportunists and careerists. Sure, devastation would have likely affected other formats as well, but I don’t see how opportunists are going to deal with that many bodies.
>except then there would be no centralized revolutionary leadership and the revolution would be dramatically lost immediately ala the paris commune
Guess you disagree with Marx then.
>with all participants being gunned down in the streets
The proletariat is supposed to be armed for a reason.

>>2894585
>Except they didn’t. Vanguardism is designed for leadership control, not class control. War communism did not help
Nope it is designed for class control. Just say you wanted the whites to win lol

>You contradicted yourself here. The Soviets, the councils are not only the organs of the party, they are the party. If they were truly intertwined, the party would not be able to take a leading role in such a manner because it would be taking control from itself to give to itself, which is impossible in a actual revolutionary worker’s party, but is very much possible in a vanguard party because it is not about class it is about leadership.
No you are just retarded. They are intertwined while being separate things, the party takes a leading position because it is a centralized body. The soviet's were never "in control", that's why the slogan was all power to the soviets, this happened, it just turned out to be the bolsheviks who commanded that power. There's no issue, you just don't like the bolshies

>Which is not good
I know for you communist victory is certainly not good, for you are an anticommunist

>And are also part of the reason why it fell to pieces.
No they're part of the reason the revolution was even able to happen at all

>Talk is cheap
Cheap rhetoric is even cheaper. Obviously they did more than just talk, they made it happen

>It did not say most of this. It has not in any instance stated that the war was bad. What it did say was the side effects of the war were not exactly the most pleasant, and the effects on the population were not the most ideal. It still did say that the devastation helped lead to a overturn, but it is not dissing on the bolsheviks for that. It outright praises them for their length of survival against less than ideal conditions. And it also give the finger to stalinism at the end, yes
That's dumb. The war wasn't bad, just the effects and the circumstances and the result were bad. What a load

>Undefined. We don’t know the true result of that outcome because it wasn’t even attempted
We have the paris commune as an example, or germany when they could not scramble a sufficiently independent party to lead the revolution. Total devastation

>Pushed into power
>The position shouldn’t have even existed
>Not genuinely
Pure idealism cope. Who cares if it was genuine on his part, they could have gotten rid of him 4 times and chose not to unanimously

>What do you think council communism is?
Retarded

>That is the valid alternative. It literally addresses wrong with vanguard parties and then some.
>And also Bolsheviks weren’t even working within the framework. Vanguardism itself is invalid.
It's not a valid alternative at all lol. It's just some mulling about potential this and that's. As if no leading central party to guide the people through the war would have resulted in anything but a white victory. Just be an anarchists dude sheesh

>I don’t think you understand how ripe the vanguard party formats is for opportunists and careerists. Sure, devastation would have likely affected other formats as well, but I don’t see how opportunists are going to deal with that many bodies
Why would more bodies lead to less opportunists? If anything it provides less oversight. Again, this is just anarchism. Advocating for a more decentralized approach, just for the sake of it, there's no concrete benefit that you can point to other than that it feels good to you

>Guess you disagree with Marx then
Nope Marx actually agrees with me and I with him

>The proletariat is supposed to be armed for a reason
Communards were armed, they still got shot down like dogs

>>2894714
>Nope it is designed for
Control by a specific leadership group. I didn’t know how this is hard for you to understand.
>They are intertwined while being separate things
That doesn’t even make any sense. They have to be one and the same, no exceptions.
>the party takes a leading position
That doesn’t make any sense either. The party is the proletariat and vice versa. How can it take a leading role over itself?
>I know for you communist victory is certainly not good, for you are an anticommunist
The armed proletariat exists in place of soldiers and the military.
>No
Yes. Another organization separate from the proletariat, another organization that ended up stabbing over the proletariat.
>they made it happen
They explicitly stuck with war communism and Vanguardism.
>The war wasn't bad, just the effects and the circumstances and the result were bad.
I literally just stated this in the greentext you just posted above.
>We have the paris commune as an example, or germany
Neither examples are in the same scenario, and you seem to be under the assumption that I have deemed the paris commune perfect. It is simply a closer historical example example of what Marx actually wanted as a dotp.
>Who cares if it was genuine on his part
If it wasn’t genuine, it would mean that he was purposely orchestrating events to his benefit, and that he was still a power chaser.
>As if no leading central party to
There’s no such thing as a valid central party, period. The communist party does not go against other worker’s parties under any circumstances.
>Just be an anarchists dude
And you dare consider yourself a communist.
>Why would more bodies lead to less opportunists?
It would mean more people that opportunists would to physical remove.
>If anything it provides less oversight
It’s literally more eyes on the problem.
>this is just anarchism
You are not a communist.
>Advocating for a more decentralized approach, just for the sake of it
For the sake of it? Are you genuinely that stupid? You are supposed to be a fucking communist fool, one who progresses the real movement. You are supposed to be fucking helping lay down the conditions of a stateless, classless, moneyless society by utilizing existing material conditions and contradictions. You are supposed to be all about decentralization and rendering state structures obsolete moron.

>Nope Marx actually agrees with me and I with him
>They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement
And
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm
>Communards were armed, they still got shot down like dogs
Guess you’re doomed then, aren’t you?
Anyways, begone from here foolish larper. I have no more time for your nonsense.

>>2894755
>Control by a specific leadership group. I didn’t know how this is hard for you to understand.
Nope the leadership group is just an extension of the working class, easy-peasy


>That doesn’t even make any sense. They have to be one and the same, no exceptions.
It does make sense, you're just retarded. They don't have to be one and the same at all. That's just some arbitrary rule you made up lol

>That doesn’t make any sense either. The party is the proletariat and vice versa. How can it take a leading role over itself?
The working class is obviously larger than the party? The party is a subsection that is representative of the whole.

>The armed proletariat exists in place of soldiers and the military.
Those soldiers were just drafted proletarians, there's still no issue other than you arbitrarily deciding it's not good. You are such a fucking idealist to the core man, it's crazy

>Yes. Another organization separate from the proletariat, another organization that ended up stabbing over the proletariat.
Stabbing over is not a turn of phrase. do you mean stepping over or stabbing in the back?

>They explicitly stuck with war communism and Vanguardism.
Warcommunism was abandoned after the war obviously. Vanguardism, as it was in the prerevolutionary era, was also all but abandoned. That in particular was probably more of an issue than anything you have mentioned so far

>I literally just stated this in the greentext you just posted above
And it's literally a total load of shit, try to keep up dude jesus

>Neither examples are in the same scenario, and you seem to be under the assumption that I have deemed the paris commune perfect. It is simply a closer historical example example of what Marx actually wanted as a dotp.
They are examples of attempted proletarian revolutions, what other scenario could we be talking about? I don't care that you wish for your misinterpretation of marx's will to be done. Communism is not a set of rules and prescriptions to be established you idealist fuck

>If it wasn’t genuine, it would mean that he was purposely orchestrating events to his benefit, and that he was still a power chaser.
That's just irrelevant psychoanalysis, we have no way to know what his internal rationale was when he offered to step down. They could have easily taken him down, he had plenty of rivals like trotsky that could have voted him out. Nobody did

>There’s no such thing as a valid central party, period. The communist party does not go against other worker’s parties under any circumstances.
You are an idealist. Marxism is not a dogma and there certainly are moments when the communist party goes against other "worker's" parties. for instance when those parties are in league with the royalists and bourgeoisie to destroy the revolution and the party. Was Marx not a communist anymore after he kicked out the anarchist retards like you from the association?
>It would mean more people that opportunists would to physical remove
>It’s literally more eyes on the problem.
This does not even make sense as a sentence. You are really grasping at nothing here. More people? More people also just means there's more opportunists to join, with no central oversight to identify and remove them

>You are not a communist
You are literally an anti leninist retard, you have no right to speak on who's a communist. You would have joined the reactionaries to destroy the Bolsheviks guaranteed

>For the sake of it? Are you genuinely that stupid? You are supposed to be a fucking communist fool, one who progresses the real movement. You are supposed to be fucking helping lay down the conditions of a stateless, classless, moneyless society by utilizing existing material conditions and contradictions. You are supposed to be all about decentralization and rendering state structures obsolete moron.
Quit spazzing out retard. You can't even defend your own position. The state must be seized by the working class to enforce their class dictatorship. This cannot be done in a decentralized manner, a centralized group would just come and butcher everyone like they always do. The state will wither when the conditions allow for it to be done so. Until then the DotP must be defended through any means necessary regardless of your personal preferences for decentral this and that

>They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement
This is not incongruent with vanguardism. You just see them as sectarian shapers/moulders when they are not. RSDLP was the principal working class party of russia. Other socialist workers parties joined with the whites of their own accord. This does not make the bolsheviks sectarians

>Guess you’re doomed then, aren’t you?
No retard. Did you think this was a gotcha? Lmfao

>Anyways, begone from here foolish larper. I have no more time for your nonsense
You are such a pretentious projecting faggot man I swear, one of the most annoying self congratulatory retards on this site and there's a lot of those types here. "I don't have time for your nonsense" give me a break with the endless coping about your own retardation man. As if you came out of this discussion on top lmfao

>>2893668
Let us continue with what I am writing here:
>>2894496
>>2894503
Now responding to another opportunist who does not understand the supremacy of the proletarian class organized as a class in a distinct party independent of the bourgeoisie.
>>2894755
The First International, where Marx and Engels were involved, disagrees with you. Communists need a workers' party that is separate from the bourgeois parties. This way, the working class can gain political supremacy by spreading its ideas to create the dictatorship of the proletariat. It also prevents the masses from being co-opted to support the bourgeoisie.

<Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes.

<This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes.

<The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists.

<The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes.

<The International Working Men's Association, 1872, Resolution on the establishment of working-class parties

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/parties.htm

The communist manifesto is at odds with any concept of liberal or petty-bourgeois socialism. Besides, you don't know what it means to be a communist:

<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
[…]
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
[…]
<The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
[…]
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
[…]
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

You do not understand the obligation to install the revolutionary government of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

<While this utopian doctrinaire socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another – the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.

<Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, (1848 to 1850)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htm

Another quote from Marx that proves my point against decentralization:

<The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.

<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

[…]

<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.

<The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.

<Karl Marx: The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May, 1871, [The Paris Commune]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Another quote criticizing the Paris commune wasting time holding elections:

<It appears that the defeat of the Parisians was their own fault, but a fault which really arose from their too great honnêteté [decency]. The Central Committee and later the Commune gave the mischievous abortion Thiers time to centralise hostile forces, in the first place by their folly in trying not to start civil war–as if Thiers had not started it by his attempt at the forcible disarming of Paris, as if the National Assembly, which was only summoned to decide the question of war or peace with the Prussians, had not immediately declared war on the Republic! (2) In order that the appearance of having usurped power should not attach to them they lost precious moments–(they should immediately have advanced on Versailles after the defeat (Place Vendôme) of the reaction in Paris)–by the election of the Commune, the organisation of which, etc., cost yet more time.

<You must not believe a word of all the stuff you may see in the papers about the internal events in Paris. It is all lies and deception. Never has the vileness of bourgeois journalism displayed itself more brilliantly.

<Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht In Leipzig, (London, April 6 1871)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_06.htm

>>2894529
people should be allowed to be anticommunist on /leftypol/ so long as they're acting in something resembling good faith. this site was at its best when we had unironic socdems and liberals alongside anarchists, syndicalists, ecologists, and various other moderately interesting weirdoes instead of the same generic hotchpotch of generic apologia for dead states, russia simping, contrarianism, and insular channer masturbation.