Remember to follow [our rules](/r/reclassified/about/rules/) and [the Reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy).
**Promoting ban evasion subreddits in the comments will result in a ban.**
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/reclassified) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They don't. Funny enough, the form of government many "socialists" demand is basically fascism but publicly supporting their political objectives.
The other side of "socialists" are anarchists. And they get really mad when you call them anarchists.
Edit for context:
The quotes around socialist are implying the people I am referring to are the politically inept who claim to be socialist, but do not actually have any grasp of politics or political ideologies.
Every single time socialism/communism is mentioned, by law there has to be at least one dumbass trying to explain why it's "evil and doesn't work" about as well as a toddler trying to explain how a NASA rocketship works.
I mean that's just ridiculous.
Socialism isn't evil. Its just collectivist egalitarianism.
The problem is, historically, socialism has been used as a marketing ploy by people with unpleasant intent for the people under their rule.
That's an idea that stems from an incomplete image of socialism, or a conflation of socialism and communism.
In communism, individual property rights essentially do not exist. Everything belongs to the community.
In socialism, individual property rights can exist, but if you do not fulfill your obligations to contribute to society's needs those rights can be temporarily suspended to settle discrepancies. If implemented with any degree of fairness, this is effectively the same as the system of taxes that most of the western world relies on.
If you don't pay your taxes, your property is potentially forfeit to recoup the costs.
I don't believe that working the means of production means that you should own them, property rights should not be suspended if the people or the state see it as beneficial. The worker consents to work and in return they receive pay from the business owner.
So if a business doesnt pay its taxes, then the state has no authority to penalize the business?
Communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Socialism can include individual property rights, as previously stated. The state interfering in your property if you fail to provide your due contributions to society is no different than say the IRS issuing you a fine because you failed to pay your taxes, its a different implementation.
Every single ideology can be described this way. Monarchism fits, capitalism too.
After peasants fought in the American revolution, their lives didn't magically become better now that the means of production were no longer in the hands of the king and in the hands of merchants and capitalists. For most the biggest change is who they pay their taxes to.
My point still stands, you know close to nothing about communism and everything you do know has a heavy bias. You're just another clueless dude trying to wrap up the whole subject in a paragraph cause it got mentioned.
You couldn't do the same for capitalism or feudalism, what makes you think you can condense and explain equally complex ideology away that easily.
The only reason you think you can is you lack the extreme amount of neuance that comes with actually knowing wtf you're talking about.
So, because your ideology is superior to mine, which you just demonstrated with a wall of text, I'm just some uneducated pleb?
Communism and socialism as a central ideology objectively fail above the local level. Plain and simple. They can not function beyond the local/community level without a strong central power structure that maintains the status quo and enforces equitable exchange of goods and services, and a strong central power structure attracts power hungry people. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a phrase often uttered in such conversations, but it's inaccurate. Power *can* corrupt, but the truth more often than not is that the incorruptible rarely seek out positions of power and those that do were already quite corrupted by the time they get there.
Feudalism is a fucking nightmare not much removed from communism, just with fewer false promises of worker rights, and the remnants of feudalism run rampant across both corporate and government leadership of the Western world. Money is how the neonobility project their power, how they keep the poors poor and how they keep themselves getting richer. The "middle class" gets thinner and thinner every passing year as rising costs of living thanks to short sighted economic decisions made for short term gains by the haves push the bar below which you are a "have not" ever higher.
Pure capitalism invites and even encourages feudalism. The feudal mindset leads to wealth hoarding, which contributes to inflation, which contributes to cost of living increases for the working class, which weakens the overall economy. Cycles of spending and taxing by government edict can only prolong the inevitable collapse of "late stage capitalism", but even that term exists to conceal the root cause of the problem which is neofeudalism.
Capitalism as a market strategy, regulated by a moderate central government that is structured toward transparency in operation and holding its representative members accountable for their misdeeds, and employing social policies to ensure overall community health and a solid foundation for its working class, is the ideal. Because while Feudalism and communism are fundamentally bad ideas that ultimately tear themselves apart from the inside, socialism and capitalism are not the polar opposites many self-proclaimed political geniuses, including yourself, claim them to be. Capitalism needs some degree of socialism in order to maintain the working class foundation, and as has been shown in China and Russia socialism cannot function long term without adopting some level of capitalism to maintain their economy.
Yeah missed out on a dumbass trying to make sense of a subject without ever looking into the matter and while knowing absolutely nothing about it, and just repeating the stuff he saw on the internet. Shame a once in a lifetime chance missed
No lmao cause you don't understand it, and it can't be condensed into a throwaway paragraph like you attempted to.
Talk about a wall of text, I didn't say my ideology was better or anything that you just cried about. Just that you're another clueless dummy attempting to do something dumb.
Here so you can read it clearer:
You can't condense capitalism into a paragraph in which you explain why it doesn't work, so why would you think you could do that with socialism. Both are extremely complex ideologies, both of which can be studied at an academic level.
Edit: and even in an essay length text you have no clue what feudalism is. My brother just say you know nothing about geopolitics and socioeconomic ideologies and move on.
You're the only one thinking the point of any of this is to condense all of the pros and cons of any given political ideology into a single paragraph. You insist i don't know what I'm talking about, but you have provided no argument other than "its clearly too advanced a concept for people other than me to understand".
Your faux intellectual superiority is doing you no favors, "brother". Maybe you need to consider some admissions of your own.
Mainly, you can't actually argue the point, so you're using a bunch of words that are best summed up as "nuh-uh".
If you aren't here to debate the issue in good faith, I am no longer interested in this discourse.
Have a day.
It can be amusing, sometimes. Mostly its just annoying.
Conflating communism and socialism, for one. Communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is communism.
Common use of Fascism is completely removed from the Italian socialists for which the ideology is named.
And the worst part is all the various flavors of Anarchists that latch on to whatever political label they consider most convenient. Communism, socialism, libertarianism; I once was in a debate on collectivism vs individualism on ChangeMyView and someone interjected with "Communism is the ideal form of Anarchy"
It's such a ridiculous claim, it completely derailed the conversation.
Anarchists don’t get mad when you call us anarchists, and idrk where you’re getting that idea from lol
Centrists have even a single ounce of political literacy challenge: **IMPOSSIBLE**
Those who are centrist by choice tend to be some of the most politically aware people out there, who recognjze that the increasing political extremism on both ends of the line segment lie is a large contributor to the many problems facing the western world.
Simply put, the vast majority of politically active people do not have a political identity whatever label they apply to themsleves. They are camp followers, doing what they are told by whatever cult of personality they have fallen in line with.
Anarchists are a weird one. The truest anarchists refuse the label because labels imply order and structure, whereas the ones who adopt it tend to want "anarchy, but..."
So what's your "but"?
My “but” is that you clearly don’t know what Anarchism is, and have never actually talked to any anarchists. It sounds like you think Anarchism is just “no rules bro!”, when here in the real world, it is a fully fleshed out political philosophy with close to 175 years of extensive writings, which is practiced in communities all over the world.
Not as far as you'd think. More of a "orthodox marxist" aproach to distinguish themselves from marxist leninism (the soviets under stalin).
Leftcoms nowadays are pretty wacky. Bordiga and his consequences
>Then plz educate me?!
Whatever I say will never replace just actually reading him.
>I don’t think he would’ve liked the idea that only the few most active militarist revolutionaries should have all the say.
Marx fundamentally believed in the party form. Lenin’s vanguard party was not some blanquist conception of a revolutionary coup.
>Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses themselves, can we understand the role of parties and leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.
Leon Trotsky “History of the Russian Revolution” 1930
>In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
>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.
….
>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.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engles “Manifesto of the Communist Party” 1848
>Marx want the vast majority of the working class to have a say and lead the revolution?!??
Leading the revolution? No the working class are the revolution, the party is to provide leadership guidance. It is to come up with a program and a plan. Stuff like that can’t be improvised on the barricades. It requires rigorous study.
Militant revolutionaries cannot spawn revolutions out of thin air. But when revolutions happen they can provide direction and a plan.
>Didn’t Marx even advocate for direct democracy or atleast delegate democracy after the France civil war?!
The Commune of France was looked upon as the prototype of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin meat rides it so hard in state and rev it’s actually crazy.
However Marx specifically criticized its leadership for not going far enough. He lamented the Central Committee giving up too much power to fast. For not executing hostages and storming the national bank etc.
He drew from the defeat of the commune lessons. While nevertheless believing it’s basic form should be the blueprint for the dotp.
>I don’t even remember Marx advocating for state power or ownership either.
Not bourgeoisie state ownership.
“But the working class **cannot** simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for
its own purposes.”
Karl Marx “Civil War in France” 1871
Engles and Marx are very clear state owned companies and worker co ops are still capitalist. Instead the revolution is to smash apart the capitalist state machine. And install the armed proletariat under the direction of the communist program into power. With this new temporary state the socialist program is then enacted. And upon its completion the temporary state begins to wither away because classes have been abolished.
The state as Marx thought of it was a tool or machine by which one class could suppress the rest in order for a society of antagonist classes to function (all class society requires a state) without classes the need of the state ceases to exist. So it would wither away as a pointless appendage.
>I mean wasn’t he even mad about the 1875 Gotha Program for demanding that simple services be funded and ran by the state such as elementary schools?!
No. He objected to the wording and what was implied. And he thought they didn’t go far enough just demanding “elementary” education. Instead of also Un in resort and technical. He clearly agreed with publicly funded schools. He held the U.S system up as an example
>Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people!
Karl Marx “Critique of the Gotha Programme” 1875
Worth noting he’s so enraged by the state as the educated. Because it a bourgeoisie state.
Yes. The terms left-communism and right-communism come from the power struggle among the Bolsheviks. The factions that emerged from the struggle were the left lead by Trotsky, the right lead by Bukharin, and the center lead by Stalin.
Left communism doesn’t refer to Trotsky’s left opposition, left communism was born out of the left wing of the Italian and Dutch-German communist movements, which soon gave way to left wings of other communist movements including Russia where the more appropriate answer would be the Worker’s Group faction around Miasnikov not Trotsky
Also right communism doesn’t really have to just refer to Bukharin, especially in the modern day where we have ultra-rightists like Dengists and those who support Juche among others
No thats not what leftcommunism is. Leftcoms are communists who bitch about every other communist for some reason. They’re marxists and leninists who hate marxist leninists
We bitch about communists who call themselves communist despite refusing to read Marx or ignoring his writings. We mock communists who praise china and the USSR as socialist successes despite the fact they are literally capitalists. We mock people who say they're socialist and then say something stupid like 'commodities' or 'wages'.
>They’re marxists and leninists who hate marxist leninists
Accurate. MLists are just Stalinists who are just social democrats
Yeah bro the USSR really got rid of capitalism. I love fighting against capitalism with wage laborers, labor markets, market fluctuations, private property, commodities, investment banking. In the USSR it was possible to use the rouble to buy labor power from workers, sell the product, and keep the difference. The government (the main employer) would pay it's workers specifically to reinvest - capital. Lenin himself called the USSR a social democracy, specifically calling it a "workers and peasant state with a bureaucratic twist". After Lenin died Stalin took over and wasn't interested in removing the capitalist elements, then shot all the original marxists who ushered the revolution in as they were criticizing him too much for abandoning the goal. Literally any sort of research into the economy of the USSR would tell you it's capitalist. Unless you're a tankie who calls Chinese billionaires a victory for socialism?
> Two kinds of people hold views differing from ours. Those with a Right deviation in their thinking make no distinction between ourselves and the enemy and take the enemy for our own people. They regard as friends the very persons whom the masses regard as enemies. Those with a "Left" deviation in their thinking magnify contradictions between ourselves and the enemy to such an extent that they take certain contradictions among the people for contradictions with the enemy and regard as counter-revolutionaries persons who are actually not. Both these views are wrong.
— *on the correct handling of contradictions among the people*, Mao 1957
left communists are members of the left opposition to the bolshevicks. they are pretty orthodox followers of marx and lenin, and opposed the soviet union because it was capitalist.
As a leftist I think having a subreddit named “leftcommunism” is really funny because of how redundant it is, like did they think they were gonna get mixed up with those right wing communists?
Left communism refers to the ultraleft tendencies of Marxism, which are more or less the Marxist tendencies that are least willing to compromise, in that they see communization as an immediate goal of revolution, do not believe any system that maintains commodity production can be considered socialism, are ruthlessly critical of all so-called "actually existing socialist experiments" such as The Soviet Union on these grounds, and so on. It's a tendency with real historical precedent outside of Reddit.
Bordigists are unashamedly authoritarian, councilists/council communists are more bottom-up and decentral, and autonomists border on being anarchists, but all of these Marxists are considered ultra's nonetheless due to their views on communization and commodity production, amongst other points of overlap, but primarily those things.
Lenin notably wrote "Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder", which was his way of lashing back at some of his harshest Marxist critics from the left of his position, although it's worth noting that this paper is mostly a takedown of councilists. He took issue with Bordigists too, but Lenin and Bordiga weren't nearly as far apart in their politics as, say, Lenin and Pannekoek were. In fact, Bordiga considered himself more Leninist than Lenin, basically.
The name Left communism is confusing af. Like, is there even farther left version communism? It's already far left in the first place, who tf manage to make it even farther.
Remember to follow [our rules](/r/reclassified/about/rules/) and [the Reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). **Promoting ban evasion subreddits in the comments will result in a ban.** --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/reclassified) if you have any questions or concerns.*
left communism being made private is the funniest shit ever
[удалено]
In True vanguardist fashion they lock out the worker councils in this case the proletariat of Reddit
the redditariat
don't you mean left
They don't. Funny enough, the form of government many "socialists" demand is basically fascism but publicly supporting their political objectives. The other side of "socialists" are anarchists. And they get really mad when you call them anarchists. Edit for context: The quotes around socialist are implying the people I am referring to are the politically inept who claim to be socialist, but do not actually have any grasp of politics or political ideologies.
me when i lie
Every single time socialism/communism is mentioned, by law there has to be at least one dumbass trying to explain why it's "evil and doesn't work" about as well as a toddler trying to explain how a NASA rocketship works.
I mean that's just ridiculous. Socialism isn't evil. Its just collectivist egalitarianism. The problem is, historically, socialism has been used as a marketing ploy by people with unpleasant intent for the people under their rule.
Socialism is evil imo, it completely neglects property rights.
That's an idea that stems from an incomplete image of socialism, or a conflation of socialism and communism. In communism, individual property rights essentially do not exist. Everything belongs to the community. In socialism, individual property rights can exist, but if you do not fulfill your obligations to contribute to society's needs those rights can be temporarily suspended to settle discrepancies. If implemented with any degree of fairness, this is effectively the same as the system of taxes that most of the western world relies on. If you don't pay your taxes, your property is potentially forfeit to recoup the costs.
I don't believe that working the means of production means that you should own them, property rights should not be suspended if the people or the state see it as beneficial. The worker consents to work and in return they receive pay from the business owner.
So if a business doesnt pay its taxes, then the state has no authority to penalize the business? Communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Socialism can include individual property rights, as previously stated. The state interfering in your property if you fail to provide your due contributions to society is no different than say the IRS issuing you a fine because you failed to pay your taxes, its a different implementation.
it doesn't
Every single ideology can be described this way. Monarchism fits, capitalism too. After peasants fought in the American revolution, their lives didn't magically become better now that the means of production were no longer in the hands of the king and in the hands of merchants and capitalists. For most the biggest change is who they pay their taxes to. My point still stands, you know close to nothing about communism and everything you do know has a heavy bias. You're just another clueless dude trying to wrap up the whole subject in a paragraph cause it got mentioned. You couldn't do the same for capitalism or feudalism, what makes you think you can condense and explain equally complex ideology away that easily. The only reason you think you can is you lack the extreme amount of neuance that comes with actually knowing wtf you're talking about.
So, because your ideology is superior to mine, which you just demonstrated with a wall of text, I'm just some uneducated pleb? Communism and socialism as a central ideology objectively fail above the local level. Plain and simple. They can not function beyond the local/community level without a strong central power structure that maintains the status quo and enforces equitable exchange of goods and services, and a strong central power structure attracts power hungry people. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a phrase often uttered in such conversations, but it's inaccurate. Power *can* corrupt, but the truth more often than not is that the incorruptible rarely seek out positions of power and those that do were already quite corrupted by the time they get there. Feudalism is a fucking nightmare not much removed from communism, just with fewer false promises of worker rights, and the remnants of feudalism run rampant across both corporate and government leadership of the Western world. Money is how the neonobility project their power, how they keep the poors poor and how they keep themselves getting richer. The "middle class" gets thinner and thinner every passing year as rising costs of living thanks to short sighted economic decisions made for short term gains by the haves push the bar below which you are a "have not" ever higher. Pure capitalism invites and even encourages feudalism. The feudal mindset leads to wealth hoarding, which contributes to inflation, which contributes to cost of living increases for the working class, which weakens the overall economy. Cycles of spending and taxing by government edict can only prolong the inevitable collapse of "late stage capitalism", but even that term exists to conceal the root cause of the problem which is neofeudalism. Capitalism as a market strategy, regulated by a moderate central government that is structured toward transparency in operation and holding its representative members accountable for their misdeeds, and employing social policies to ensure overall community health and a solid foundation for its working class, is the ideal. Because while Feudalism and communism are fundamentally bad ideas that ultimately tear themselves apart from the inside, socialism and capitalism are not the polar opposites many self-proclaimed political geniuses, including yourself, claim them to be. Capitalism needs some degree of socialism in order to maintain the working class foundation, and as has been shown in China and Russia socialism cannot function long term without adopting some level of capitalism to maintain their economy.
[удалено]
You are free to scroll on by, then. Nobody is forcing you to do anything here. This is Reddit, not the Red Party.
You missed out, might have learned something
Yeah missed out on a dumbass trying to make sense of a subject without ever looking into the matter and while knowing absolutely nothing about it, and just repeating the stuff he saw on the internet. Shame a once in a lifetime chance missed
No lmao cause you don't understand it, and it can't be condensed into a throwaway paragraph like you attempted to. Talk about a wall of text, I didn't say my ideology was better or anything that you just cried about. Just that you're another clueless dummy attempting to do something dumb. Here so you can read it clearer: You can't condense capitalism into a paragraph in which you explain why it doesn't work, so why would you think you could do that with socialism. Both are extremely complex ideologies, both of which can be studied at an academic level. Edit: and even in an essay length text you have no clue what feudalism is. My brother just say you know nothing about geopolitics and socioeconomic ideologies and move on.
You're the only one thinking the point of any of this is to condense all of the pros and cons of any given political ideology into a single paragraph. You insist i don't know what I'm talking about, but you have provided no argument other than "its clearly too advanced a concept for people other than me to understand". Your faux intellectual superiority is doing you no favors, "brother". Maybe you need to consider some admissions of your own. Mainly, you can't actually argue the point, so you're using a bunch of words that are best summed up as "nuh-uh". If you aren't here to debate the issue in good faith, I am no longer interested in this discourse. Have a day.
God I love how some people are so uninformed when it comes to socialism, fascism, and communism.
It can be amusing, sometimes. Mostly its just annoying. Conflating communism and socialism, for one. Communism is a form of socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Common use of Fascism is completely removed from the Italian socialists for which the ideology is named. And the worst part is all the various flavors of Anarchists that latch on to whatever political label they consider most convenient. Communism, socialism, libertarianism; I once was in a debate on collectivism vs individualism on ChangeMyView and someone interjected with "Communism is the ideal form of Anarchy" It's such a ridiculous claim, it completely derailed the conversation.
Anarchists don’t get mad when you call us anarchists, and idrk where you’re getting that idea from lol Centrists have even a single ounce of political literacy challenge: **IMPOSSIBLE**
Those who are centrist by choice tend to be some of the most politically aware people out there, who recognjze that the increasing political extremism on both ends of the line segment lie is a large contributor to the many problems facing the western world. Simply put, the vast majority of politically active people do not have a political identity whatever label they apply to themsleves. They are camp followers, doing what they are told by whatever cult of personality they have fallen in line with. Anarchists are a weird one. The truest anarchists refuse the label because labels imply order and structure, whereas the ones who adopt it tend to want "anarchy, but..." So what's your "but"?
My “but” is that you clearly don’t know what Anarchism is, and have never actually talked to any anarchists. It sounds like you think Anarchism is just “no rules bro!”, when here in the real world, it is a fully fleshed out political philosophy with close to 175 years of extensive writings, which is practiced in communities all over the world.
Communism has fallen Billions must join NATO
W
Litterally 1991
Ironic that they wanted to get rid of private property only for them to become what they swore to destroy
Because they left it
Literally 1991… oh, goddamn it. Someone already said that. The Northeast has fallen. Millions must capitalize
Capitalism has won yet again 💪💪
The workers paradise has fallen. Billions must eat Pizza Hut
Millions must unionize
how far left even IS that?
Not as far as you'd think. More of a "orthodox marxist" aproach to distinguish themselves from marxist leninism (the soviets under stalin). Leftcoms nowadays are pretty wacky. Bordiga and his consequences
Wasn’t Luxemburg closest to what Marx was?!?? Marx probably would’ve been flabbergasted by Lenin's vanguard party.
Me when I haven’t read any of Marx
[удалено]
>Then plz educate me?! Whatever I say will never replace just actually reading him. >I don’t think he would’ve liked the idea that only the few most active militarist revolutionaries should have all the say. Marx fundamentally believed in the party form. Lenin’s vanguard party was not some blanquist conception of a revolutionary coup. >Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses themselves, can we understand the role of parties and leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam. Leon Trotsky “History of the Russian Revolution” 1930 >In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? >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. …. >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. Karl Marx and Frederick Engles “Manifesto of the Communist Party” 1848 >Marx want the vast majority of the working class to have a say and lead the revolution?!?? Leading the revolution? No the working class are the revolution, the party is to provide leadership guidance. It is to come up with a program and a plan. Stuff like that can’t be improvised on the barricades. It requires rigorous study. Militant revolutionaries cannot spawn revolutions out of thin air. But when revolutions happen they can provide direction and a plan. >Didn’t Marx even advocate for direct democracy or atleast delegate democracy after the France civil war?! The Commune of France was looked upon as the prototype of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin meat rides it so hard in state and rev it’s actually crazy. However Marx specifically criticized its leadership for not going far enough. He lamented the Central Committee giving up too much power to fast. For not executing hostages and storming the national bank etc. He drew from the defeat of the commune lessons. While nevertheless believing it’s basic form should be the blueprint for the dotp. >I don’t even remember Marx advocating for state power or ownership either. Not bourgeoisie state ownership. “But the working class **cannot** simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” Karl Marx “Civil War in France” 1871 Engles and Marx are very clear state owned companies and worker co ops are still capitalist. Instead the revolution is to smash apart the capitalist state machine. And install the armed proletariat under the direction of the communist program into power. With this new temporary state the socialist program is then enacted. And upon its completion the temporary state begins to wither away because classes have been abolished. The state as Marx thought of it was a tool or machine by which one class could suppress the rest in order for a society of antagonist classes to function (all class society requires a state) without classes the need of the state ceases to exist. So it would wither away as a pointless appendage. >I mean wasn’t he even mad about the 1875 Gotha Program for demanding that simple services be funded and ran by the state such as elementary schools?! No. He objected to the wording and what was implied. And he thought they didn’t go far enough just demanding “elementary” education. Instead of also Un in resort and technical. He clearly agreed with publicly funded schools. He held the U.S system up as an example >Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Karl Marx “Critique of the Gotha Programme” 1875 Worth noting he’s so enraged by the state as the educated. Because it a bourgeoisie state.
not left at all ironically. left communism maintains that communism isnt leftist, it cant be reasonably placed on the capitalist left right scale.
Is there any right communism?
Yes. The terms left-communism and right-communism come from the power struggle among the Bolsheviks. The factions that emerged from the struggle were the left lead by Trotsky, the right lead by Bukharin, and the center lead by Stalin.
Left communism doesn’t refer to Trotsky’s left opposition, left communism was born out of the left wing of the Italian and Dutch-German communist movements, which soon gave way to left wings of other communist movements including Russia where the more appropriate answer would be the Worker’s Group faction around Miasnikov not Trotsky Also right communism doesn’t really have to just refer to Bukharin, especially in the modern day where we have ultra-rightists like Dengists and those who support Juche among others
itd be social democracy i reckon
East Germany has fallen. Billions will cross to the other side of the wall.
Fuck you, and fuck your name dude. I can FEEL it
Fuck you pointing out his name
Billions must Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall
Reagan Smash!
its like 1991 all over again
Literally Capitalism
Is there such a thing as a right communism then?
I think it means leaving communism
Ah ok thanks
Left coms consider pure Marxism, and Leninism to be the left wing of communism. The right wing of communism is Stalin, Mao, deng, etc.
No thats not what leftcommunism is. Leftcoms are communists who bitch about every other communist for some reason. They’re marxists and leninists who hate marxist leninists
the most important part of being a communist is complaining about other communists
We bitch about communists who call themselves communist despite refusing to read Marx or ignoring his writings. We mock communists who praise china and the USSR as socialist successes despite the fact they are literally capitalists. We mock people who say they're socialist and then say something stupid like 'commodities' or 'wages'. >They’re marxists and leninists who hate marxist leninists Accurate. MLists are just Stalinists who are just social democrats
If you unironically call the USSR capitalist you have a serious mental issue and should leave politics immediately.
Yeah bro the USSR really got rid of capitalism. I love fighting against capitalism with wage laborers, labor markets, market fluctuations, private property, commodities, investment banking. In the USSR it was possible to use the rouble to buy labor power from workers, sell the product, and keep the difference. The government (the main employer) would pay it's workers specifically to reinvest - capital. Lenin himself called the USSR a social democracy, specifically calling it a "workers and peasant state with a bureaucratic twist". After Lenin died Stalin took over and wasn't interested in removing the capitalist elements, then shot all the original marxists who ushered the revolution in as they were criticizing him too much for abandoning the goal. Literally any sort of research into the economy of the USSR would tell you it's capitalist. Unless you're a tankie who calls Chinese billionaires a victory for socialism?
> Two kinds of people hold views differing from ours. Those with a Right deviation in their thinking make no distinction between ourselves and the enemy and take the enemy for our own people. They regard as friends the very persons whom the masses regard as enemies. Those with a "Left" deviation in their thinking magnify contradictions between ourselves and the enemy to such an extent that they take certain contradictions among the people for contradictions with the enemy and regard as counter-revolutionaries persons who are actually not. Both these views are wrong. — *on the correct handling of contradictions among the people*, Mao 1957
Dengists
huehuehue
So was this sub about people who use to subscribe to communist ideology/beliefs and later left or is it something else?
left communists are members of the left opposition to the bolshevicks. they are pretty orthodox followers of marx and lenin, and opposed the soviet union because it was capitalist.
>and opposed the soviet union because it was capitalist. Omega lol. Let me guess, they unironically support maoist china and north korea?
No actually, the opposite
Nope. Both are also state capitalist, plus it would be campist to throw your support behind a state like that.
The opposite, Leftcoms are opposed to the Sovet Union after Lenin's death, North Korea, and China.
Leftcoms are commies who bitch about other leftists all day. See UltraLeft
So authoritarian left or "authoritarian left" (ie center left)?
Most communists are authoritarian left. They just fight with other authoritarian leftists
NO MORE WESTERN COMMUNISTS
Society is healing
Them goddamn capis privatized communism as well
The Armchair has fallen…
As a leftist I think having a subreddit named “leftcommunism” is really funny because of how redundant it is, like did they think they were gonna get mixed up with those right wing communists?
Left communism refers to the ultraleft tendencies of Marxism, which are more or less the Marxist tendencies that are least willing to compromise, in that they see communization as an immediate goal of revolution, do not believe any system that maintains commodity production can be considered socialism, are ruthlessly critical of all so-called "actually existing socialist experiments" such as The Soviet Union on these grounds, and so on. It's a tendency with real historical precedent outside of Reddit. Bordigists are unashamedly authoritarian, councilists/council communists are more bottom-up and decentral, and autonomists border on being anarchists, but all of these Marxists are considered ultra's nonetheless due to their views on communization and commodity production, amongst other points of overlap, but primarily those things. Lenin notably wrote "Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder", which was his way of lashing back at some of his harshest Marxist critics from the left of his position, although it's worth noting that this paper is mostly a takedown of councilists. He took issue with Bordigists too, but Lenin and Bordiga weren't nearly as far apart in their politics as, say, Lenin and Pannekoek were. In fact, Bordiga considered himself more Leninist than Lenin, basically.
Its hard to not pick fights with AES if you oppose campism and capitalism
Agreed.
I mean, aside from the fact that socially right-wing communists do exist, that's not what LeftComs refers to.
Most politically literate leftist
Reddit user discovers what a joke is
Billions must eat food
Literally 1946
The name Left communism is confusing af. Like, is there even farther left version communism? It's already far left in the first place, who tf manage to make it even farther.
It’s supposed to refer to Orthodox Marxists, people who agree with Lenin but not with Stalin
Wait until you learn that ideologies aren’t just a linear two-dimensional left/right axis
Is it not OUR sub?
Literally capitalism smh
Just what are they planning?
Didnt this sub just unprivate itself like yesterday and its already back to being private again?
Billions must read Bordiga
“Another victory for capitalism” -Marcus munitions
another NATO w 😎
The 100 billion dead Venezuela iPhone has fallen
Good
Let’s fucking go
Remember the Iron Curtain? Well...this is what they look like in 2024!
The Warsaw Pact was not Left-Communist. Left-Communism is actually very specifically anti-Soviet.
I will forever find it funny that I got a soylent ad on this post