so just communism?>>957581
my eyes glaze over everytime i read the word “wrecker” because i know a moron wrote it
also that first reading list is all over the place, including “leninist” thinkers despite claiming to be against 2nd International influence and using the term “left” in the exact single-paintbrush sense that lenin used it
Bordiga is trash, and only retarded anglos bother to read him.
does ultra rightist dengism count?
Non riesco a sentirti oltre il suono di queste deliziose lasagne, compagno
this thread isn't about half-assed analysis of geopolitics so that's at least 95% of the board traffic passing it by
Smartest poster on leftypol has blessed the thread
>>957722>>957718>muh russia>muh china
Fuck off NATOids.
Interesting, thank you
Though I'm curious why you chose to upload those texts as pdf's instead of just linking to the marxists.org pages, did they get taken down following the copyright strike?
no, i just think portable pdf's are nice
>>957578>reading list >the third section is about "restaurant work"
Ah yes, that really concerns the world-historic mission of communism, being extremely opinionated about fucking restaurant work. Other gems:>Perlman who compared Lenin to Hitler >libcom >article about organizing your workplace doesn't tell you how to organize an enterprise council but tells you "have a bit a humor">the Reddit reading list links to Anal Waters >Trotzki
Ah yes, that really concerns the world-historic mission of communism, being extremely opinionated about fucking […] work
we all know communism is really about which head you put in the head row or picking out symbols for an emblem, more world-historic stuff like that
Are there any continuity from the theory of Gorter/GIK councilcom on the communist left today? All living leftcom and ultra tendencies that I have come across are worse and developed in uniquely worse directions. Back in the 1910s-20s you had councilcom "proletarian centralism" and an organizational theory of communization (GIK).
Since then the umbrella "developed":
anarchoid deviations (what became of councilism, S.I. after), prole-fearful cults (Bordigism), PoMo Proudhonism (autonomism) and zine eschatology (what's today regrettably called "communization theory").
Why did leftcom fall so far?
Also Lenin's critique of Pannekoek and Gorter in Left-Wing Communism makes zero sense and amounts to ignoring differential material conditions between semi-feudal Russia and highly advanced Germany/Netherlands under the heel of bourg/labor arist. dominated social fascism. It's Lenin at his worst moment thinking his bolshevist strategy was applicable in western Europe (100 years later it has still not worked once in such a way btw. The boshevik strategy has proven to only fit populations with a high % of peasants in an economy of semi-feudal and comprador hardship).
councilism of the KAPD/KAPN type died out in the 40s, however it filtered through, extremely faintly, to some New Left movements via Situationism
Operaismo came out of internal divisions in the youth wing of the Marxist-Leninist, Eurocommunist PCI, and Tronti himself consistently grounded himself in Lenin. They kind of followed the trend of Bordigists and some Maoists in just presuming the vanguard party would organically form out of working class struggle, which is mindboggling levels of seeing Bolshevism as some universal, ingrained phenomenon or whatever>Why did leftcom fall so far?
it never existed
oog ooga booga urgh
(thank you camatte poster)
There is nothing theoretically wrong with the KAPD councilcom line if you live in an industrialized, urbanized country. In fact it is even more relevant today as the calculation problem and logistics for communism isn't even an issue anymore due to electrification, digitization and automation. >it never existed
Then it needs to be resurrected. The only reason it didn't take off was because it was strangled in its cradle by the influence of
1. Luxemburg and Liebknecht, whose electoralist communism was bulldozed by Kautsky-sanctioned social fascism, leading eventually to Nazi Germany.
2. Lenin, whose strategy never succeeded in the material conditions relevant to what we're talking about.
was there ever really a line in the KAPD?
>>957971>There is nothing theoretically wrong with the KAPD councilcom line if you live in an industrialized, urbanized country. In fact it is even more relevant today
Can you elaborate, for people not familiar with councilcom?
It's weird as hell to single out restaurants like that. Plus, those guys claim that they wanna "abolish restaurants", it's not just about a concern for the workers there.
restaurants are uniquely sadistic towards workers
The only "leftcom" even remotely worth respecting is Bordiga, and that's before his increasingly absurd takes while Stalin was around. Pannenock is retarded and council communism as a whole is wholly inadequate at its very foundation at organizing not only society, but revolution itself. There should be absolutely zero "democracy" involving elections when it comes to the DotP, and permitting democracy can only ever lead to capitalist reaction and reform inserting itself into the structural fabric of society under the guise of "democratic" values and the obfuscation inherent to a democratic system.
>>958730>There should be absolutely zero "democracy" involving elections when it comes to the DotP
<If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as [the Paris Commune] has already shown.
t. Engels, Critique of the Erfurt Program
>and permitting democracy can only ever lead to capitalist reaction and reform inserting itself into the structural fabric of society under the guise of "democratic" values and the obfuscation inherent to a democratic system.
Capitalist reaction does indeed claim to represent "democracy" these days, but the Marxist meaning of a democratic republic is very different from that of the US state department. Under bourgeois "democracy", the judiciary and upper chamber reserves the right to veto legislation, a system of legalized bribery exists to buy politicians and the media, the list goes on. There's obfuscation, yes, but it's not "inherent to a democratic system". To quote Marx, the electoral system must be "transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation".
>>958110>Can you elaborate, for people not familiar with councilcom?
Soviet but no vanguard. Hints of Kronstadt.
You focus on that and not fucking Jim Jones lmfao
I think that's the joke
The SLA were glowies as well
This could be a non-clarifying description as "soviet" during the first year of the October revolution meant something radically different to what it came to mean under the USSR's "soviet democracy". The first is working class organs of direct power, the second is within a representative democratic framework with great abstraction of power between the factory floor -> the upper echelons of the bureaucracy -> party / general secretary. >Hints of Kronstadt
This would be a fair comparison to the councilist
turn of the renegades from the original council communist (KAPD) line. These individuals did indeed did turn against the Marxist party to instead focus on the "unitary revolutionary organization" as a synthesis of the party and union and is organizationally very similar to class struggle anarchists. Later on these councilists would be found further intermingling with anarchists in the Situationist International.
None of the people on the left are "ultras". "Ultraleft" doesn't mean extremest.
Pol Pot was ultra (ultra-good)
>>958855>If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as [the Paris Commune] has already shown.>t. Engels, Critique of the Erfurt Program
This is Engels arguing that a bourgeoisie republic is at first required for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be realized, not that the DotP should be a republic. <As to pure democracy and its role in the future I do not share your opinion. Obviously it plays a far more subordinate part in Germany than in countries with an older industrial development. But that does not prevent the possibility, when the moment of revolution comes, of its acquiring a temporary importance as the most radical bourgeois party (it has already played itself off as such in Frankfort) and as the final sheet-anchor of the whole bourgeois and even feudal regime. At such a moment the whole reactionary mass falls in behind it and strengthens it; everything which used to be reactionary behaves as democratic. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/letters/84_12_11.htm>Capitalist reaction does indeed claim to represent "democracy" these days, but the Marxist meaning of a democratic republic is very different from that of the US state department. Under bourgeois "democracy", the judiciary and upper chamber reserves the right to veto legislation, a system of legalized bribery exists to buy politicians and the media, the list goes on. There's obfuscation, yes, but it's not "inherent to a democratic system". To quote Marx, the electoral system must be "transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation".
Again, this is arguing in favor of creating proletarian parties in the context of an existing bourgeoisie government so as to overturn it later on, not to preserve the electoral system itself within a DotP. The issues of democracy are inherent to it; there is no way to exorcise it's revolutionary impotency when its processes perpetuate such. The system itself incentivizes election by means of mongering and ideological bribery, and dissuades members from fufilling the communist program that they must commit to despite the difficult nature of such, instead making the ease of bourgeoisie reform a more seductive option. Why commit oneself to a wholly revolutionary program that ensures results decades later, when you very well could engage in petty capitalist reform that gives the proletariat some false sense of ease now? The former is unlikely to get you re-election, while the latter provides you "results" that can be used to forward your own campaign.
kampuchea under angkar was higher stage communism
science and passion is an awful translation of bordigas work, it's practically a cashgrab
True. Sadly it seems that true communism is only achievable by the spiritually and genetically superior khmers (unlike those smelly viets)
This video was a excruciating experience. Got any more?
These days "ultra" = to the left of Deng. uyghas call even the certified liberal Mao an ultra.
even liberals have appropriated this term to call any communist/anarchist criticizing fucking liberal governments
literally who that isn't a bot or an ned uyghur?
Ah yes "tolerance" is the same as "fatherland", wanting to end the "glass ceiling" is the same as nazi conspiracies. Do you guys even listen to yourselves?
I can't argue against that. Radlibs, to their credit, tend to not go on murder sprees. That is, unless they are in uniform.
Hmmm… Well, they are all made-up bullshit, so there is that.
>I also hate black people.
What about the fact that Marx was black though?
wasn't there some FTM mass shooter a while back?
though he could have been a nazi since nazi transhumanists are a thing for some retarded reason
What do you guys think about the ICPs thesis that WW2 was the point in which *all* capitalist countries became anti-democratic due to imperialism and that fascism in Italy, Germany and Japan were just the most extreme examples of it? I think its become a lot more clear and true nowadays with neoliberalism, in fact, I would go as far as to say neoliberalism is fascism stabilized. Anti-democratic, anti-communist, markets must be enforced, more than willing to work with overt fascists if it achieves their goal, rabidly anti-immigrants and racist. I don't disagree that neoliberalism is fascism in a form it can sustain itself.
Radlibs 100% are JUST as horny for imperial murderkilling as Nazis are.
>Gay people being thrown off rooftops? Fuck that, that's not on my empire, those guys don't have American passports>A homeland for black people? that sounds like black nazism to me!>Anything but the two-state solution? NOOOOO we must uphold settler-colonialism in the middle east>Vote for the democrats, there is literally no other choice>Yeah, US is bad, but (x country that the US opposes) is even worse and we must support the struggle against it>Abortion in the US matters a whole lot more than the famine-genocide in Afghanistan>NATO is just a defensive alliance>We need to share the wealth (but we shouldn't stop stealing it from the third world)>Settler-colonists have rights too! You cant just ask them to leave
Literally what does any of this shit have to offer the precarious workers who have lived under neoliberal domination for that past half-century?
what are you referring to?
>>957578>"Sleep tight, left side."
Wait, that doesn't even rhyme, this line is garbage.
There's a difference between radlib proles and radlib politicians/regime change twitter. Many people in the antiwar movement are what you might call politically misinformed radlibs
Any of these pdfs written in the 10s and 20s about bolshevism for one
this site is still influenced by stormfag chan and conservative is le new punk rock as well as the usual meme common with men especially that progressives or some caricature of "sjws" specifically are annoying party poopers that demonize them for being men or for being white men, which is actually true of some self described progressives, or like a meme about it that I think is kind of a reaction to having to deal with bullshit for not being a white male, however obviously it is counter productive and divisive and a proper anti-idpol would seek to overcome this by not treating people as lesser or "bad" or even inherently different whether they are white men or not. It should be obvious why if someone is demonizing you and calling for reducing your standard of living that if you see that person ad attached to progressivism or "sjws" then you would not be a big fan of progressives/"sjws".
Also I will add, the "divisive progressivism' and demonizing of white cismen reeks of controlled opposition even if it is a natural reaction to chauvinism. It serves to defang and dirty real progressive action that will help eliminate inter-proletarian division and chauvinism that negativel effects these oppressed groups progressivism seeks to represent.
Because they are trying to recuperate 'Good Night White Pride' but they are not very creative people.
and why wouldn't they be relevant now?
they had pdfs before the civil war?
Honestly, "night" and "pride" don't really rhyme either.
Might makes right
You tried, Nazi shite
its just a joke
Actually, the original phrase was "Good night, alt-right" instead of "Good night, White Pride." And that sounds hella based. I guess the /pol/tards are the ones who lack creativity after all.
>Actually, the original phrase is "Good night, alt-right" instead of "Good night, White Pride."
What? No it isn't, are you 14?
"Good night, White Pride." was a phrase and that one graphic that is being riffed on were coined a very long time (multiple decades) before the american 'alt-right' repackaging of far-right ever existed. Alt-Right is a very new phenomena, you should really understand the basic history of the right, anon.
"Good Night Alt-right" rhymes at least.
Bolshevism isn't extant anymore, least of all in the neoliberal core, you've basically shown no way of organizing outside of unions and other types of reformism
i wasn't the one who posted the pdfs
The radical left is in a catch-22 right now, as the old forms of organizing have obvious demonstrated limits and are easily capable of being recuperated into bourgeois civil society. But on the other hand, more radical attempts at a communist rupture are rejected by a majority of workers, who still insist on somehow returning to the postwar prosperity and labor peace of social democracy, even though it is categorically impossible for that to happen.
Yes that's true, the point i was making was that it cannot possibly be older than the 'good night white pride' because 'alt-right' is like <8 years old at most.
I know that alt-right is pretty young. Just thought that maybe "Good night, White Pride" was made by them to mock "Good night, alt-right" instead. I mean, they do shit like that all the time. Like what they did to the okay sign.
The phrase/logo is from late 90's german punk scene
Sup fellow ultras, Camattean here, let's get some sectarian shitflinging flowing!
I wish Maoists were anywhere near Ultras, then they'd be actually Marxist instead of adventurist Stalinists
What is an "ultra" even? Besides some made up boogeyman term for one sect to tar everyone who disagrees with their hot takes?
it's a made up term, and anyone who unironically calls themselves a "ultra" or "leftcom" is a retard
they do it to piss idiots like you off
Well glad to know they were merely pretending
if that's the case then it's doing a very poor job
seems like it still works judging by this thread
i haven't checked the rest of the thread so i'll take your word for it
Anyone who actually agrees with Marxism to its full extent and meaning rather than people who constantly find every single way possible to capitulate.
prominent leftcommunists like bordiga agree with that text, that text is lenin talking about the dutch-german council communists. In a 100 page text, lenin talks about bordiga for literally two sentences
Like this guy, who hears that Marxists find every possible way to capitulate and then runs off to find some text that (he thinks) justifies the capitulation, rather than to illuminate anyone.
Did you read what you just linked?
nobody posting links to marxists.org actually reads
1. Nonsense statement
>>973945>There's a difference between radlib proles and radlib politicians/regime change twitter.
Have you argued with them before? Because "radlibs" are more than willing to justify American intervention and empire, even after they're informed. Even after you factually undermine or refute the basis for their argument, they just go on arguing the exact same thing on a different basis, often without even admitting that they were wrong. I've had this happen countless times; if they run out of steam, they just give up reading without changing their views. It isn't a matter of information; there's no agreement on the fundamentals.>Many people in the antiwar movement are what you might call politically misinformed radlibs
Yes, and they're exactly the sort of people who get weak-at-the-knees when complex situations like Russia's invasion of Ukraine have to be judged. Many paleoconservatives and some right-wing libertarians are also largely or entirely antiwar, but I don't expect to hear you sing their praises any time soon.>>973963
If anything, the site has become more influenced by radlib nonsense over time, leading to a kind of "critical support for radical liberalism to own the right" among some people here. People are thinking too much in terms of "left" and "right," with radical liberals being more "left" so closer to "the left."
>>973963>, which is actually true of some self described progressives,
ah you had me
>third category already
<Marcel – Hamburgers vs Value
<prole.info – Abolish Restaurants
<Müller – Do Chefs Dream of Cloned Sheep?
what if i have a dog and i risk rolling over dogshit if i touch grass
Is Mechanical Materialism ultra or revisionist?
it's wikipedia and retardpilled
Comfy old recliner, Capital and Community, Bordiga stack for reference, cup of tea, cat on the lap.
Why does it have to offer them anything? This is the least revolutionary period in human history. Even the most radical communists are essentially Lassalians or social democrats with red flags. Revisionism and oppertunism seep through every crevice of society to such a magnitude you can't even point out 1% of it. The biggest "victory" leftists can think of is a Korean boy band owning Drumpf by going to the white house. All you can do is read and teach Communist classics to keep the flame alive for better days.
People don't need to be of a revolutionary mindset in order for revolution to happen. Never forget that Parliament was saying "God save the king" a week before they lopped Charles I's head off.
Alright buckos, there's been over a hundred replies and still little to no actual theoretical discussion, time to change that
>The Lyons Theseshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/lyons-theses.htm>The Democratic Principlehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm>Dialogue With Stalinhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm
All of these are relatively short and quick reads, ultras and leftoids alike are welcome to read and share their thoughts. Was Bordiga correct? What did he get wrong in his criticism of the Soviet Union?
The C0ommunist Left and Bordiga's writings on them are correct for the most part. I feel like they're even "common sense" in most leftist movements now, although people still fall prey to them. The unfortunate thing about Bordiga is his tendancy to make short and to the point denunciations of things that absolutely should be denounced (democracy as a principle, modernizers ect) have kind of backfired because people don't read what he actually meant and think he is proposing unworkable methods.
If we examine his rejection fo democracy for example, in the text he is rejecting democracy *as a principle the party must always follow*, not that majoritarian decisions cannot ever be used if there is no better method of organization. He clearly thinks that democracy is only to be used if there's no clear way forward, but when something is clearly right and another is clearly wrong, then democracy doesn't need to be consulted or obeyed because just because majority thinks something doesn't mean they're right.
Also, his rejection of parliamentary democracy, I would think that question is pretty much settled and agreed upon by most Communists today, that's not really controversial anymore.
Another big one is the rejection of united fronts with liberal, oppertunist or modernizer parties. Again, everyone always freaks out about this but in practice, almost every Communist obeys this *in theory* (not always in practice) today. Bordiga did not think the party always had to refrain from joint action, his main contention was that the Communist Left party cannot under any circumstances submit its program to liberalism in the pursuit of "unity", even if it splits resistance to fascism.
Imagine if you were part of a party, and Agent Kochinski came along and said "we need a united front against fascism in the US and we're organizing a general strike and violent protest, can your party participate?" That might be something that you could work with. But if he came along and said do all that stuff, but also that you must change your line on abstaining from democracy and tell your supporters to vote for Joe Biden, then that would be a definite red line because it compromises the program. In that case, the movement should split even if fascists temporarily gain momentum from it.
I think the Communist Left's most controversial lines are those on national liberation and anti-fascism being the worst product of fascism. But this post is long enough.
So basically the points are more finessed, but Bordiga was just too grumpy and Italian to explain more than once so he'd deliver little one liners and expect people to read.
I think its more that these were contentious issues at the time, so he felt the need to repel groups he didn't like by making his position clear. I feel like as well a lot of people just don't read him and mostly know about him through memes. Obviously anyone who wants united front tactics is going to make him out to be a do-nothing dogmatist.
Bordiga agreed with Rosa Luxembourg, Trotsky (though not Trotskyists, who he decries), Bukharin, lots of people, although they might not agree with everything they said they agreed with a lot of their ideas. Gramsci as well (Bordiga and Gramsci were good friends), though not Gramsci's agreement with a united front.
>>1002261> Bordiga agreed with Rosa Luxembourg, Trotsky, Bukharin
can you show me any bordiga quotes where he agreed with these people?
He in agreed with Rosa Luxembourg on the national question:https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1912/balkan.htm>What stance must the socialists take on so-called “wars of independence”, which aspire to the liberation of an oppressed nationality from the foreign yoke?>Does the party have to support the war, in order to accelerate the development of the bourgeoisie in a country that is still feudal?>the idea that war accelerates the coming of socialist revolution is a vulgar prejudice. Socialism must oppose all wars, avoiding captious distinctions between wars of conquest and wars of independence.
Trotsky:https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1925/trotsky.htm>Trotsky must be judged on what he says and what he writes. Communists should not make questions of people; if some day Trotsky betrayed, he would have to be unmasked and scorched without regard. But one should not be convinced of treason by the excesses of his contradictors or their privileged position in the debate. All the accusations about his past are bowled over by the simple observation that they have all been provoked by his foreword to 1917 which does not refer to this question at all, whereas previously these attacks were not considered to be necessary.
He also remarks that Trotsky or Bukharin should have moved to overthrow Stalin from his position sooner.
>Bukharinhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1956/12/bukharin.html>Bukharin, who was often mocked by his master Lenin, knows his Capital perfectly. He knows that the classical primitive accumulation was born of the agrarian rent, as in England and elsewhere, and it is from this origin that the “bases” of socialism were born. He is nourished by other correct theories: that it is madness to think of having a tremendously expanding business, to treat in a mercantile form, as Trotsky justifies it, the industrial production itself, and not to see the growth of capitalist forms, state or private, but always capitalist. If in industry passing from private forms to state forms represent a progress in the countryside, yet there is no capital, neither private nor owned by the State, it is laughable to think that one can have not only socialism but even simply the statization of capital.
>Bukharin is in line not only with Marx but also with Lenin. In the countryside you have to go from form 2 to form 3: from peasant petty production to private capitalism.
>>1002261>Gramsci as well (Bordiga and Gramsci were good friends)
Interesting, I for some reason always had the feeling they hated eachother's guts.
Gramsci was a straight up retard, like not even just when it came to politics (which he was also supremely retarded when it came to politics, the very first article he ever wrote as a political journalist was a article where he defends Mussolini and agrees with his stance that italy should join ww1), there's no way he wasn't like legitimately autistic, he espoused an extreme subjectivism to the point of claiming that the properties of steam that allow it to animate machines only manifested once human science found out about them, or thinking that objectivity is purely a question of how many people feel something to be true through something you'd call "lived experience" today. He's influenced far more from the likes of Bogdanov's Proletkult and Empirio-Monism than actual Marxism.
He was a stalinist hatchet man who helped in completely ostracising and crushing bordiga and his faction of the italian communist party (gramsci and his clique expelled bordigas faction as "opportunists" at a party meeting where none of bordigas faction were even present, due to the fact that they had gone to ground because the italian fascists were cracking down on them) after they were kicked out they lost any support from the party apparatus and one by one they either retired from political action, were imprisoned or executed by the fascists.
Gramsci was without a doubt, a supreme retard, like i'm not even exaggerating when i say that the average twitter leftist retard is as smart as Gramsci was, which probably explains why he's gained so much popularity with people like that. Still on a personal level him and Bordiga were friends and they apparently reconciled (after gramsci helped neuter bordigas faction) when they were sent to the same prison labour camp.
Yeah I completely agree, I'm just surprised Bordiga and Gramsci remained friends in spite of all this shit.> the very first article he ever wrote as a political journalist was a article where he defends Mussolini and agrees with his stance that italy should join ww1
What in the fuck? Link?
And as a follow-up question, what is it that followers of Gramsci and Bordiga actually agree on? To me it seems like the two are pretty irreconcilable
>>1002908>What in the fuck? Link?
i can't find the article itself without buying a "gramsci collected" archive book, but the article is called "Active and Effective Neutrality" and was published on a news paper called Il Grido del popolo in 1914, if you're interested you can try and find the whole article if you can, i remember a gramsci archive website used to have it but i can't seem to find it.> what is it that followers of Gramsci and Bordiga actually agree on?
nothing, bordiga was an actual communist and gramsci practically believed in pseudoscience > To me it seems like the two are pretty irreconcilable
it's worth noting that the role gramsci played in the itanlian communist party is very often grossly overstated, he wasn't nearly as important or influential as people think in his time. Bordiga probably held more personal hatred for the counterrevolutionary bureaucrats in Moscow than he did to gramsci personally
>>1002961>nothing, bordiga was an actual communist and gramsci practically believed in pseudoscience
That's what I figured, it's just that the anon over at >>1002261
said the two do agree on some things. For example, what do Bordigists think of Gramsci's concept of hegemony, or the war of position/maneuver stuff? I'd imagine they consider it basically idealism, no wonder Gramsci paved the way for the New Left, but I'm curious if there's anybody that has written criticism on Gramsci's thought in detail.
>>1002968>but I'm curious if there's anybody that has written criticism on Gramsci's thought in detail.
Libri Incogniti translated a very indepth gramsci critique https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/christian-riechers-antonio-gramsci-marxism-in-italy-part-i/
what does abortion have to do with famine in afghanistan? false equivalence
trotskyists and “marxist-leninists” will almost certainly try to impose their reactionary bourgeois socialism onto a rising communist movement, they need to be distrusted completely and their tactics and ideas revealed for everyone to see
Its funny that left communism began to get popular on twitter until people found out that also means repudiating bourgeois nationalism, so now they all became third wordists and are running around screaming that left communists and Bordiga were "racist". For what, rejecting nationalism? What did you expect us to say "oh yeah, Sinn Féin are great, the party founded by a guy who said literally anyone who loves all countries equally loves no country at all is definitely a model for internationalism and communism".
>>1002473>>the idea that war accelerates the coming of socialist revolution is a vulgar prejudice
It's a fact though, both world wars led to communism advancing.
Its not a fact given that Lenin and the Bolshevik's position was always in opposition to the war whereas west europe and Britain had the biggest density of war hawks and they never had a revolution. Opposing all imperialist war is an absolute requirement for a socialist movement.
They didn't have revolutions because they didn't have Bolshevik leadership although it was on the cards in 1919. It's one thing to oppose wars but that's not all the Bolsheviks did, turning imperialist war into civil war is a basic Marxist-Leninist tenet. Communists ended both world wars. It's callous but from a historical perspective necessary. Revolutions are not going to happen in peacetime, the world wars and their aftermaths are the only times when the majority of the working class has been won over to communism. The world wars also had the positive side effects of demolishing Kautskyist influence in 1914-1918 and then demolishing Trotskyites predicting the downfall of the evil Stalinists in 1941-1945. Similarly today the growing NATO-Russia war is exposing the frauds.
When Bordiga said "oppose wars" he meant capitalist-imperialist wars, obviously not civil war. Also, if you hope for war top "bring revolution", it inevitably means picking sides, which negates the Bolshevik and Communist line entirely.
>>1007937> oh yeah, Sinn Féin are great
the retardation surrounding ireland is astonishing, so many leftist retards preach so much support for factions that did shit like supporting what was essentially christian sharia law, whenever i hear someone call michael collins a socialist or something i cringe so hard my stomach almost turns inside out. Go read his journal and what he had to say about pensions, he sounds like fucking reagan or thatcher lul
These people don't care, for them, "Communism" ins't a class war, its really just about different bourgeois nations striving to get their abstract "rights". Of course, that will never happen in capitalism and even if it could the capitalist class turn their guns on the workers like they did in Ireland, but they don't give a fuck. They just want capitalism but with terms they like, not actually overthrowing it altogether.
Doesn't mean picking sides, just recognising that war leads to the conditions for revolution. Capitalism inevitably produces wars and that creates opportunity for communists. Without the First World War there would've been no revolutions in Russia, Hungary, Germany.
I don't understand the rationale for MLs in western countries shooting themselves in the foot organizationally to this day by limiting themselves to going in to social fascist / establishment arenas like electoral politics and joining reformist-bureaucratic unions when it hasn't born fruit since early last century. These institutions also have been instrumental to the bourgeoisie's decimation of the historic labor movement in these countries, especially in the post-war period; the social democratic unions have been at the forefront of preventing strikes, worker-beneficial workplace laws, etc., yet MLs seems to keep lashing out at the suggestion of those that take a left turn and approach syndicalist methods like many Marxist splinters from the orthodox Leninist methodology. By concrete analysis, these syndicalist methods have had a way better track record of securing workers wins and benefits these last dark decades (by not being compromised by social fascist bureaucracy, are worker-run, completely OK with strikes, etc.) Isn't it dogmatic and hardly even materialist to act in the way MLs in western countries do today? Defending everything from lesser evilist voting, to puppet labor unions that would just ban you even hint at doing anything substantial? Left-Wing Communism was simply wrong for industrialized contexts (but not for the conditions from which he was writing, semi-feudal Tsarist Russia, or for semi-colonial countries).
Against voting, for the party engaging with the workers where they're at.
Against social fascist unions, for worker-directed industrial unions in direct class conflict against the bosses.
Damn I thought Sinn and the gang were doing okay.
>>1002975>At the end of his life he decides to retire to his native Sardinia. His health has improved and his final release is imminent. It is a desperate return that Gramsci sets out to make. It would be a “position of complete isolation, a more accentuated mental degradation than the current one,” he says. >Death beat him to it.
that person's an idiot and a misinformer
sinn fein has always been secular, and socialism doesn't mean supporting pension reform or whatever
people honestly shouldn't read that book though, science and passion is an awful translation and is a blatant cashgrab
Is it actually? I was thinking of reading it soon, can you compare it with a better translation or something?>blatant cashgrab
Tbh if I was thinking of making money the last author I would think to publish would be Amadeo Bordiga lmao
Drake, irst he brought Grime to Amerikka, next, Communism.
Truly Win after Win.
>>1011006> Is it actually?
yes, the text as a whole since it has a lot of errors and leaves out alot of work (too many for me to really go indepth and list off here). The book just straight up doesn't include like half of his "lessons of counter revolution" and it includes like only a tenth of his writings on race and nationality and that isn't all. And for being a translation it only translated like 2 pages of previously untranslated bordiga text.> Tbh if I was thinking of making money the last author I would think to publish would be Amadeo Bordiga lmao
Well obviously there was money to be made off since the book launched with like a $250 price tag and the translator did a interview with Jacobin (fucking lul) bragging about his work. Honestly the only reason you would read this book is to read incomplete bordiga texts and a half decent biography which you can get from a multitude of other sources that don't come with a three digit price tag or a price tag at all.> can you compare it with a better translation or something
you can find complete translations of his work from sites and groups like marxist.org (even though the admins think bordiga is a anti-semite lul), the ICP, pcint, libri incognita, quinterna, libcom, sinistra
Guess I'll settle for the online translations then, thanks. I only saved the .pdf for The Science and Passion since I thought it had new writings or more obscure ones that I wouldn't have read otherwise. I still thinks it's pretty cool that Bordiga finally got officially got translated into English outside of the Internet, might at least be useful for making his writings more popular. >libri incogniti
Am I being racist against Italians if I think their language inherently sounds really funny
You're creating a caricature of Marxist-Leninists.
Like the Trotskyists who had 25 years after the destruction of "Stalinism" to triumph and did nothing, the same is true for anti-Leninists.
Applying Lenin's strategy would mean robbing banks and arming the working class so that would be good.
Is a single anti-revisionist ML party doing this today?
irrelevant westerners general
zendaya, she's in movies and tv shows. i think it's more about the event (time 100 gala) and who he's rubbing elbows with than that specific picture. probably has a lot of people whispering in his ear right now trying to buy his story or telling him to just vote blue
The CPC is running banks and building more nuclear missiles. Better than Lenin.
An actor in the US.
And? Because he dropped out of college he can't sell out? If the bourgeoisie are comfortable hanging around you as a union leader, it doesn't matter if you're fucking Tiny Tim, there's something wrong there.
no, i'm just mentioning it cuz it's funny that he was always kind of a clout chaser
we warned you about idolizing bro
Ah, yeah true. When you consider that people gave Arthur Scargill shit for not explicitly endorsing strikers dropping a concrete slab from a bridge onto a taxi ferrying a scab, killing the taxi driver, this is 1000 times worse than that. And yet people think he's a new Lenin. I don't think all union struggle is useless but this isn't convincing me.
Turkish communists are. I would say the level of the class struggle is probably not that intense yet in western Europe but it's boiling.
Good counterpoint, comrade. I stand corrected.
it do be like that
A great bit would be for us to start denouncing various repressed states as imperialists. Like we could say “Venezuelan imperialism”, “Syrian imperialism”, “DPRK Imp—“
how is that a bit? that's just the truth
twitter screencap momenthttps://www.reuters.com/world/americas/exclusion-countries-americas-summit-mistake-says-chilean-president-2022-06-06/>Exclusion of countries from Americas Summit a 'mistake,' says Chilean president>OTTAWA, June 6 (Reuters) - The Biden administration's decision to exclude Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba from the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles this week was a "mistake," Chilean President Gabriel Boric said on Monday.>The U.S. decision, announced earlier on Monday, was taken due to concerns about human rights and a lack of democracy in the three nations, according to a senior official in the administration of President Joe Biden. read more>Talking to reporters in Ottawa, Boric said the U.S. move was "reinforcing the position that these other countries take in their own countries. We think it's an error, a mistake, and we're going to say that during the summit."
>>1016052>Boric said the U.S. move was "reinforcing the position that these other countries take in their own countries. We think it's an error, a mistake, and we're going to say that during the summit."
In other words, it gives the tyrannical pink bloc ammo to be excluded, so we should include them so they can be BTFO with facts and logic
mm, more like be able to trade again
here we go, twitter vindicated
if he was worth a damn then the us media wouldn't be sucking him off
But for the leftist governments in Mexico, Bolivia and Honduras, the impetus behind the snubs is a concerted effort to defend the authoritarian regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela as worthy of a place at the table. For that, the Biden administration can thank Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. For weeks, López Obrador warned he would boycott the summit if the United States excluded the region’s three leftist dictatorships. On Monday, he carried out his threat.
This could be read as a deep rift between Latin America’s leftist populists and the Biden administration. There is, however, a different kind of progressivism in the region. Its leading figure is Latin America’s youngest president: Chile’s Gabriel Boric.
Elected on a landslide of hope and high expectations not unlike Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, Boric promised to tackle Chile’s history of economic and social inequality. It has proved difficult. In the first few months of his administration, Boric has seen a dramatic erosion of support. But rather than blame the past or skirt responsibility, the 36-year-old president has acknowledged his mistakes.
He has his work cut out for him. Chile is facing a deep-rooted conflict in the south, drug-related violence and tension over the massive influx of Venezuelans seeking refuge in the country. Through it all, Boric has pledged to stay the course and avoid “shortcuts” such as “populism.”
In a conversation on Monday, I asked Boric — who identifies as an “egalitarian socialist” and quotes John Rawls — if he had considered skipping this week’s meeting in Los Angeles. “We discussed it,” he told me. In the end, he chose to take part in the summit. “I could not be absent from a space built for cooperation,” he said. “We need to meet and raise the voice of Latin America in international forums once again.”
Unlike most other leftist leaders in the region — and some in the United States, as well — Boric has managed to wiggle out of the pernicious appeal of the Cuban and Venezuelan sphere of influence. I asked him, for example, how he thought history would remember Hugo Chávez. Boric took a beat and began reminiscing about a trip he had taken in 2010 to Venezuela, still ruled by Chávez. He explained how he had believed in Chávez’s promise of social inclusion. Then, he told me, Chávez disappointed him. “I believe Venezuela’s drift, that concentration of powers, is the wrong path,” he told.
Boric is more cautious when it comes to Cuba. He vehemently explained how the “politics of exclusion,” including specifically the U.S. embargo, have failed to engage Cuba. In our interview, he declined to identify the Cuban regime as a flat-out dictatorship. Yet remarkably, given Cuba’s hold on Latin America’s left, he nonetheless addressed the authoritarian trends in Cuba today. “What I want is for there to be freedom in Cuba,” he told me. “Today in Cuba there are citizens imprisoned for protesting and for expressing their different opinion regarding the current regime. And that seems unacceptable to me.” This is all a far cry from voices such as the grandstanding López Obrador and his impassioned defense of the Castro regime, which he has called “an example of resistance.”
In a region veering away from democracy, Boric is an advocate for reason. “There are certain principles that one has to uphold no matter where you are,” he told me. “Unrestricted respect for human rights. Belief in science, acting on evidence-based policy, and fiscal responsibility.”
In Los Angeles, Boric intends to speak uncomfortable truths, including some aimed at the United States, which damaged Chile when it supported the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende — a wound that, he told me, is still open in Chilean society.
As the continent meets in Los Angeles, it should listen to the voice of its youngest leader.
how the fuck does this vindicate the claims in the twitter screencap? are you illiterate? rhetorical question
>>1016062In a region veering away from democracy, Boric is an advocate for reason. “There are certain principles that one has to uphold no matter where you are,” he told me. “Unrestricted respect for human rights. Belief in science, acting on evidence-based policy, and fiscal responsibility.”
I can hear the Sorkinites furiously jerking off to this guy
>>1014028>GLORY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT AND GLORY TO LASAGNA MAN MAY THERE BE FIELDS OF PASTA AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE 🍝🪑🍝
redpill me on organic centralism
Reading the reports from the ICP's May 2021 meeting published on their website to get a feel for the ICP.
>On 13 March we took part in the national demonstration organised by the SI Cobas in Piacenza in response to the state attack it had suffered a few days earlier with the arrest of two of its local leaders. We distributed the party's leaflet there and collaborated with union militants from other cities to distribute the CLA leaflet.
>The demonstration was positive but not a success. The rest of the conflictual unionism was almost totally absent. Our leaflet at the Piacenza demonstration reiterated the need to build a united front of class unionism, as opposed to the united political front proposed by the leaders of the SI Cobas.
Essentially their praxis consists of showing up to strikes or demonstrations in Italy organized by whatever union to pass out leaflets calling their leaders opportunist. After that there's a report on their take on the global economy and a dozen or so reports on world events, many of which are about historical events from the 20th century like "Parties in India in the 80s" and "Origins of the Communist party of China, from the 1st to the second Congresses". Is this the real movement to abolish the present state of things? Is this just how most smaller orgs function?
it's a leninoid thing
>>1021173>The fact the in the current phase the amount of comrades devoted to theory and the movement's history may seem too many, and those ready for action too few, is historically fortuitous. It would be totally pointless to investigate how many are dedicated to each of these manifestations of energy. As we all know, when the situation becomes radicalized huge numbers of people, acting instinctively and unencumbered by the need to ape academia and get qualifications, will immediately take our side.
Couldn't they at least improve the graphic design of their website a little bit and put some effort into social media propaganda or something? Why the fuck would the masses, even radicalized, suddenly join some irrelevant reading group that nobody has heard of that does nothing?
>>1021179>Couldn't they at least improve the graphic design of their website
That's done on purpose to ward off any asthenic obsessed ADHD riddled retards, ruthlesscriticism.com does the same thing for the same reason>put some effort into social media propaganda
Because hashtags are totally famous for actually accomplishing anything
And passing out a few leaflets is famous for accomplishing things? Do they have no desire to at the very least take advantage of new forms of media to spread propaganda? Propaganda is the point, if you want the masses on your side in a real, practical sense, you need more effective means of propaganda than passing out leaflets. After all, the proletariat of the 2020s is famous for not being "aesthetic obsessed adhd riddled retards". Do they have any honest desire to actually influence the working class or is it opportunist to make propaganda that more than 14 people will read?
>>1022003>And passing out a few leaflets is famous for accomplishing things?
I'm not defending what the ICP does either, they're not that great. And I think some of their members are genuine autists (I translated a newspaper for them and the guy I was talking to over email unitonically said a fucking bordiga lasagna joke and sent a lasagna meme and that was the last time I will ever interact with them)
I'm just pointing out that social media is just as useless.>Do they have no desire to at the very least take advantage of new forms of media to spread propaganda?
I think you and alot of other people overestimate how important propaganda is, it shouldn't be the main focus of a communist party nor even a sizeable one>Propaganda is the point
No it's not>Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.
- [Karl Marx, Letter to Ruge, 1843](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm
> Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocrite
Isn't propaganda still a useful function for building a support base? Obviously it shouldn't be the end all of organizing but you want people to know that you exist. If I recall correctly, the Bolsheviks had a newspaper, and did have slogans and make speeches. I do however think many orgs have a problem where most of their energy is dedicated towards propagandistic actions like showing up to coopt whatever protest march or putting all of their focus into some trot newspaper, and most of it isn't even very effective forms of propaganda at that. Part of organizing should also probably involve taking actions to help improve conditions for people in the short term, which also has its own propaganda value because you're actually involved with visible class struggle. There is a real crisis with present organizational forms in imperial core nations, when material conditions are deteriorating, class antagonism is rising in younger generations, but existing self-proclaimed Marxist organizational forms have failed to effectively capitalize and grow upon this and most of the energy goes into socdem reformist politics or anarchist shit. If effective means of organization and yes, propaganda, aren't developed, your typical struggling urban 20 something who works some minimum wage retail job will just get their opinions from Agent Kochinski, John Oliver, <insert cringe e-celeb here>, r/collapse, and anarcho-radlib twitter instead.
>>1022056>Isn't propaganda still a useful function for building a support base
No not really, the labour movement isn't a DNC canvas, it's the movement of the proletariat and it moves on regardless of what the working class think on a personal level. At all times only a minority of the proletariat will be communist anyway, that's how it's always been>If I recall correctly, the Bolsheviks had a newspaper, and did have slogans and make speeches.
They also had communist cadres, connections with unions, terror cells and connections with other communist parties around the world. The majority of their efforts were committed to the latter activities, not even a significant went into the former.
When the first international was around one of the first things they did was connect workers with other workers in other industries and nations because solidarity is one of the proletariats biggest strengths, not printing leaflets.>I do however think many orgs have a problem where most of their energy is dedicated towards propagandistic actions like showing up to coopt whatever protest march or putting all of their focus into some trot newspaper
I agree and in the case of trots that's pretty much the only thing they can do as they fundamentally can't really function as a party. But the thing you have to understand is that you could have the most competent and radical communist party in existence but it can't do much without a larger labor movement that is up to the same intensity, if that happens the party will usually just slide into parliamentary reformism and if there's a strong labor movement with no worker apparatus (which was the case in the 70s and onwards) it will usually lead to things like apolitical trade unionism like it did in England>Part of organizing should also probably involve taking actions to help improve conditions for people in the short term
Communist parties are not charities, workers attempt to secure their conditions through unions which the communist party should have connections with but raising the standard of living is not the role of communist parties>There is a real crisis with present organizational forms in imperial core nations, when material conditions are deteriorating, class antagonism is rising
The labor movement in the developed world is actually quite weak right now, the strongest labor movements in the world are currently in Iran, China and India.>your typical struggling urban 20 something who works some minimum wage retail job will just get their opinions from Agent Kochinski, John Oliver, <insert cringe e-celeb here>, r/collapse, and anarcho-radlib twitter instead.
And what? 1910s Russian society was a shining beacon of progressive social views? Also the average worker does not use Twitter or Reddit or watch John Oliver lul
The labor movement isn't a war of ideas
propaganda is like a mural in a prominent place or something
trying to educate workers or doing any kind of in-depth political outreach is different
>>1022086>Also the average worker does not use Twitter or Reddit or watch John Oliver lul
Could you illustrate to me who the average worker in the developed world is, in your conception of him? Does he use the internet? How does he use the internet? How old is he? What kind of media does he consume? What are his job and working conditions like? What is his family life like? What are his political views? What does his social life look like? How should we communicate with him and organize him, in concrete terms? What are some examples of organizational success in the developed world that I should look at? I'm genuinely curious what you think.
>>1022140>Could you illustrate to me who the average worker in the developed world is, in your conception of him? Does he use the internet? How does he use the internet? How old is he? What kind of media does he consume?
The average person does not use the internet nearly to the extent you think they do. Let's take Twitter for example, it's a majority American website, like 22% of Americans have it, like half of them will actively use it (and that's a generous assumption), like half of that will talk about shit like politics and like a quarter of that will use it to talk about communism or fascism or whether or not Gaddafi was based.
The people who actively give a shit about "politics" on the internet make up like a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population
And even then that doesn't really matter, a guy can be as "John Oliver liberal" as they want but when they're facing literally destitution when they're labor isn't as desired by the market they're not going to just stand around doing nothing
>>1022086>the strongest labor movements in the world are currently in Iran, China and India
Interesting, could you elaborate? I was under the impression that the labor movement was quite weak in China, and honestly I don't know too much about Iran.
>>1022188>I was under the impression that the labor movement was quite weak in China
They have almost weekly strikes>honestly I don't know too much about Iran.
Same deal, oil workers in Iran have been on strike for almost a year now (which you haven't heard about in normal media since the first act by bourgeoisie media in response to workers action is to ignore it and you weren't hear about it on this site either since the average person here is a autistic memefag who larps as a communist)
The main problem facing the labor movement in the developed world is that the working class as a whole is practically in a coma with little to no consciousness, all the workers actions are either completely isolated and unorganised or trapped within worker organs that after a century of anti communist efforts by the government are practically just another section of the bourgeoisie (read about how the John Deere unions during their strike last year strongarmed the workers to accept shit deals by threating to outsource work to Mexico)
In the east and nations like Russia, India, Iran, China etc there is a degree of militancy and consciousness but due to the oppressive nature of their governments any attempt at building proper worker apparatus' is met with swift intervention by the state. And this absence of proper workers orgs limits the capabilities of the working class, for example the Kazakhstan revolt had intense militancy yet without a communist party it could not be anything more than isolated unorganised revolt (it's also a bit terrifying how quickly the Kazakh state rebuilt afterwards).
The militant way these nations deal with attempts at workers orgs stifles the movements growth. Send a Trotskyist to preach on a street corner in Tehran or Colombia, they'll get their brains blown out faster than you can say permanent revolution.
>>1022159>And even then that doesn't really matter, a guy can be as "John Oliver liberal" as they want but when they're facing literally destitution when they're labor isn't as desired by the market they're not going to just stand around doing nothing
This seems very focused on revolutionary spontaneity, and I think we would both agree that the average apolitical worker acting on instinct without an effective organizational piston would just lead to something like the Kazakhstan revolt. Also, it's worth mentioning that social media has played an important role in many Arab Spring rebellions and in recruitment for many 21st century social movements. 22% is still a lot of people. Why stick exclusively to 20th century methods of agitation like standing on street corners at protests and strikes passing out leaflets? Why not use a diversity of tactics for recruitment and organization? You also seem heavily focused on unions and labor organizing as the basis for party activity and growth. How do we account for more difficult to organize sections of the working class under post-Fordism? Precarious employment that rapidly shifts workers between sectors is increasingly common, particularly if you look at stuff like Uber and Postmates where workers don't even have formal employment, don't interact with each other as part of their job, and occupy incredibly atomized and precarious positions. How do we organize these highly atomized, precarious workers towards class struggle? The market under data capitalism is incredibly good at producing increasingly atomized subjects without any firm position to organize from. Many of the most atomized are also the most reliant on the internet and the most susceptible to reactionary and reformist ideologies, and this is particularly common with younger generations who are living in worse conditions and who use the internet to a disproportionate degree.
>>1022266>This seems very focused on revolutionary spontaneity, and I think we would both agree that the average apolitical worker acting on instinct without an effective organizational piston would just lead to something like the Kazakhstan revolt
hastags don't build communist parties>social media has played an important role in many Arab Spring rebellions
Ugh>22% is still a lot of people
22% have it on their phone, the majority rarely if ever use it>Why stick exclusively to 20th century methods of agitation like standing on street corners at protests and strikes passing out leaflets?
I've never endorsed that and those methods have much more in common with what you're encouraging>Why not use a diversity of tactics for recruitment and organization?
I'm not excluding it but it will never, ever be a significant part>You also seem heavily focused on unions and labor organizing as the basis for party activity and growth.
What's wrong with that?>How do we account for more difficult to organize sections of the working class under post-Fordism
Nothing has fundamentally changed about capitalism so why would the methods the working class change either?>Precarious employment that rapidly shifts workers between sectors is increasingly common
Workers can only shift between industries so many times before they're forced to either stand or fall into destitution>particularly if you look at stuff like Uber and Postmates where workers don't even have formal employment, don't interact with each other as part of their job, and occupy incredibly atomized and precarious positions. How do we organize these highly atomized, precarious workers towards class struggle?
Well a communist party doesn't organise the labor movement, the proletariat does that for them, in this case the role of a communist party would be to connect the atomised workers with each other>Many of the most atomized are also the most reliant on the internet and the most susceptible to reactionary and reformist ideologies
They aren't, the proletariat have nothing between their survival and destitution besides the markets demand for their labour, this makes them incapable of really deluding themselves with things like ideology. Ideology is primarily taken up by the middle class.>this is particularly common with younger generations who are living in worse conditions and who use the internet to a disproportionate degree
People who live on the edge of destitution do not spend all day on the internet
If you want to talk about destitution, there are a lot of homeless people in developed nations who own mobile phones. Certainly more than there are homeless people who live in cars, which is a significant amount. Just to give one example, a study from 2017 of homeless adults in the US indicates that 94% percent of homeless people own a cell phone of some kind, and 86% own one with an android operating system (a modern mobile phone). 51% of homeless adults reported using their cell phone to access the internet. These things really aren't that expensive. As for uber drivers and most forms of precarious gig work, personal mobile phone ownership is a requirement for the job to receive instructions from the gig work platform. >They aren't, the proletariat have nothing between their survival and destitution besides the markets demand for their labour, this makes them incapable of really deluding themselves with things like ideology. Ideology is primarily taken up by the middle class. People who live on the edge of destitution do not spend all day on the internet
What do you think people do when their workday ends?
>>1022340>What do you think people do when their workday ends?
Well they don't go on reddit
Are leftists genuinely unaware of modern communization theory discourse, or do they just block it out in favor of ML/Bordiga/Trotsky memeing because of how bleak it is?
Endnotes, Phil Neel, and Joshua Clover feel like they give far clearer and more persuasive accounts of contemporary capitalism and class struggle, although the subtext that traditional forms of struggle are dead or ineffective and all we have are riots and affinity groups is depressing (and obviously not helpful for your average Trot sect or DSA chapter).
Communization is retarded and literally everyone involved including endnotes has moved away from it including Dominique Blanc who coined the term and ended up becoming a literal fascist
The events of 2020 have certainly shown the obvious limitations and pitfalls of street movements and space occupations, and they're right to move away from advocating that. But at least they've been trying to theorize new avenues for struggle given contemporary conditions. The political economy underlying their works is solid and empirically verifiable. It's refreshing compared to the tired Leninist and social-democratic shibboleths from people who believe that if they stamp hard enough, the 20th century workers' movement will sprout out of the ground, ready and willing to be radicalized.
Street movements recently spawned SYRIZA, PODEMOS, and galvinizedgeneratuons in multiple countries such as occupy in us and GJ in fr.
Sure there is a lot to be critical of here but in no way are the streets in this sense unsalvagable.
Can you try to not think like a toddler, anon. It would make leftypol a better place over all.
wow you should kill yourself
communization is an open dialogue on political strategy, talking about "moving on" from it is kind of silly
this is hilarious 10/10
Leftcoms are politically impotent, which reduces their wrecking potential, but should all eat lasagna till they die because of how annoying these useless creatures are
>>959907>This is Engels arguing that a bourgeoisie republic is at first required for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be realized, not that the DotP should be a republic.
holy fucking cope
>>1047896>talking about "moving on" from it is kind of silly
literally everyone involved in it have distanced themselves from it since, the only people that still talk about it are online
Unique IPs: 71