×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,038 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!



    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki




    Warning! All user additions that are placed in the wrong place will be relocated or deleted. This includes but is not limited to:

    • Personal insults in the Ideology Alias section;
    • Anything other than add requests in the add request section;
    • Complaints in the comments section;
    • Comments in the complaints section.



    "Fuck syndicalism, all Syndies are fascist scum in disguise."


    Council Marxism is a Councilist, Left Communist and Marxist ideology inhabiting the far-left centre-libertarian area of the political compass. Unlike her Left-Communist comrades , she rejects sectarianism, taking the concept of Material Conditions further than most by applying it through Sophistic relativism, holding the belief that scientific Marxism and all its ideological theoretical subsets are viable depending on the Material Conditions of one or the other Nation. This brings Council Marxism to be hated by dogmatists and spontaneous revolutionaries , since she strongly rejects both practices as revisionist and utopian.
    Despite her beliefs pushing her to get along with other Marxists without too many complaints about ideological difference, Council Marxism feels rather strongly about a few other balls - her hatred for Bordiga, all Syndicalists, and all monarchs being a particularly obvious example of that.

    Basic Overview

    Personality

    Council Marxism is usually calm and understanding, with only a few things managing to make her snap - such as feeling as though she's being mocked. She is very autistic and often struggles to understand when such a thing is happening, making her feel like she's being taken advantage of. The same Autism also causes her to occasionally be strongly passive-aggressive without even intending to - which is only made worse by her tendency to space out.
    In spite of this, she will be openly hostile to Syndicalists and Monarchists, while being more defensive around other Leftists she has reason to believe may dislike her, such as Mao-Zedong-Thought supporters and Third-Worldists.

    Short Description

    Council Marxism is anti-revisionist, anti-reformist, and anti-dogmatist, believing that material conditions are the main factor determining the specifics of socialism that need to be implemented in an area or another, and concluding that a highly decentralised governmental structure is the best possible way to make best use of all the resources and bring to a conclusion a popular revolution first and a cultural one afterwards.
    Its theory is a synthesis of Marx, Luxemburg, Hoxha, and Gorter, with minor inspirations from Lenin, Stalin, and Gonzalo, wounding up with particular theories on how a revolutionary government should operate, how the revolution would be organised, and a type of vanguard meant to concentrate on Anti-Elitism, believing it to be the main cause for Revisionism in the USSR.

    Theory

    Concepts and explanations

    Social Imperialism

    With Social Imperialism, Council Marxism sees the imposition of dogmatic approaches on material conditions which do not befit them. In this, the Soviet Union can be defined as a Social Imperialist state, not in the liberal sense of cultural assimilation but in the sense that its governing apparatus did not (or refused to) see the differences in material conditions between the several nations of the USSR and, due to an unhealthy attachment to Leninist theory as a dogma, imposed the solutions for the crisis of the Russians upon the Ukrainians, the Turks in the steppes, the inhabitants of the Caucasus, the Germans, the Czechoslovaks, the Hungarians, the Romanians, and so on.

    Cultural Revolution

    Marketeering

    "Distribution generally represents an essential part of production, and in its organisation is wholly dependent upon it. The systematic organisation of production presupposes a systematic organisation of distribution. The supreme organiser in both these spheres will be society as a whole. Society will distribute labour and also the product of that labour. This is the very opposite of the anarchic unorganised distribution which is expressed in exchange and private property conducted on the basis of competition and the crude conflict of interests."


    In economics, a market is defined as a physical or abstract place for the confrontation of supply and demand of a good or service to which a price is subsequently given. Markets are driven and auto-regulated, in part or wholly, by competition and where the sellers seek to own and control the greatest possible percentage of the market while the buyers seek to pay the lowest possible price for the highest possible gain. This system requires a series of conditions to be realised:

    • Atomicity

    No supplier or client has sufficient market power to influence the prices of the market.

    • Transparency

    All information relevant and necessary to the price-making process are freely and easily available to all economic agents.

    • Homogeneity

    All instances of a product have identical characteristics.

    • Fluidity

    All economic agents can enter and exit the market freely.

    • Perfect mobility of the means of production

    The means of production can be mobilised to assemble a different good or service.

    Council Marxism sees these requirements and recognises their realistic impossibility within a regulated and unregulated market, partly due to science. Atomicity, for example, requires a vast number of suppliers per consumer to be functional - such a high number that any possible practicality gained from "choice" is outweighed by the inconvenience of supporting such a pointless number of products.
    According to the principle of homogeneity, the products also need to be completely equal among themselves, ignoring the blatant impossibility of such a goal (since even the same brand cannot feasibly create identical products in each batch).
    In addition, transparency - to the degree needed in the Model of Perfect and Pure Competition - is equally as impossible, as the degree of expertise and information required by the average consumer to know in great detail every step of all corporations' internal workings and the production of goods and services would be absurdly large.
    Fluidity is equally impossible, as it would require equal access to the means of trade, which immediately discredits all market capitalist systems from qualifying for such an achievement whilst disqualifying all market socialist systems by simply highlighting that the material conditions of one or the other geographical area make it effectively impossible for all people to have exactly equal access to the market, rendering all rightist markets the very columns on which inequality prospers and all leftist ones revisionist and counter-revolutionary in practice.
    Lastly, perfect mobility of the means of production is impossible to such a degree that even if we were to invent the most efficient form of transportation and perfect both automation and the machines used for production, it would still be unimaginable to allow for it to exist.

    While these factors alone would suffice to disprove the functionality of any market system as inherently idealist, one could easily point at the blatant contradictions present within those systems:
    Between atomicity and homogeneity, because there is no justification for such a decay in productivity based entirely on branding when all products are, supposedly, completely equal; but also between transparency, homogeneity, and atomicity and the very interests that insert the corporations in the market in the first place: Maximised profits. This is to say that it is in the interest of corporations to conceal their practices (either as intellectual property or company secrets) both to stop competition from utilising them and get away with disagreeable or cruel practices - but this inherently means that it is also in the interest of corporations to reject homogeneity in order to give the most satisfying results (note, not the best ones, but the ones that get the clients to come back in spite of possible consequences) and, in turn, to have a share of the market big enough to single-handedly be able to manipulate prices.

    Anti-Syndicalism

    Anti-syndicalism is a fundamental value of Council Marxism. Syndicalism and unions are seen as reactionary ideas and institutions for a series of reasons. According to Council Marxism, the main difference between the unions and workers' councils is the fact that the prior are not made for governance, but as mediators between the workers and the local owning class whilst the latter are democratic governing entities of a workplace or municipality either directly or through elected delegates. This difference means that, when a union is put in a position of power, it is naturally going to seek the same relationship it was meant to entertain: a localist, elitist initiative meant to promote the clique that is the union rather than an internationalist one with the aim to equalise relationships between the workers. In this, Council Marxism holds the firm belief that unions cannot build a Revolution and that they are actively detrimental to its construction. In addition, the initiative sought by unions does not, in any way, require a progressive stance and suffers from class consciousness, since it would mean a realisation of the local workers' place within the international proletariat, which is why unions can border on or outright be fascistic, turning the unionist movement in one of Class Collaboration rather than Class Conflict.

    Lumpenproletariat

    The Lumpenproletariat is a sub-group of the Proletariat which has lost its revolutionary potential due to the cultural influences of Reactionary and Capitalist institutions to the point where, in the event of a revolution, they may fight against their own class interests and side with the bourgeois forces. In this, the Lumpenproletariat can be identified in a few simple characteristics:

    • A strong participation in bourgeois culture and its systems;
    • A willful betrayal of the class struggle (Either knowingly or out of ignorance);
    • A will to engage in counter-revolutionary efforts.

    With this in mind, Council Marxism recognises the existence of a series of bourgeois institutions which are built with the aim of building up the forces of this group and re-direct Proletarian forces to the service of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In partial agreement with Russian Left-Communism, Council Marxism identifies the main institutions and organisations where the Lumpenproletariat is grouped as the Agrarian Proletariat and the Army, however, Unions and Syndicalist movements are also considered hotspots of Lumpen activity.
    W.I.P.

    The "Culture War"

    The National Question

    "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."


    "When we speak of the revolution we do not mean only the socialist revolution. In the present epoch of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, the peoples' liberation struggle, the national-democratic, anti-imperialist revolutions, the national liberation movements, also, are component parts of a single revolutionary process, the world proletarian revolution, as Lenin and Stalin explained."


    Council Marxism, whilst being strongly opposed to all forms of Nationalism, does not reject the need for a National Way To Communism , and thusly believes that decentralisation is strictly required on a confederal level throughout the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This state of being is meant to evolve, with time and with the transition to realised socialism. This belief derives from the conviction that the material conditions of an area are inherently different from nation to nation even if they live under the same state and economic-geographic conditions, due to the difference in culture and language.

    Introduction to the Example

    To better explain the concept, I will make use of an example: a fictional country, a rather average Liberal Democracy with one standardised language but plenty of rich regional and local cultures, dialects, and even languages of their own, with different histories, populations, and material conditions. For the sake of the example, the material conditions for the country have matured, and the revolution is ready - the specifics of the revolution are irrelevant to the matter at hand.
    For the sake of the example, the revolution will have already succeeded, with nothing left in the way of Communism other than the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

    Phase 1: A confederation of Dictatorships of the Proletariat

    Seeing the Material Conditions of a region to be inherently tied with the nations occupying it and believing them to differ from nation to nation due to the differences among them, it comes to reason that a single dictatorship of the proletariat under a centralised state is counter-productive, having to act as a compromise between the nations and regions of a revolutionary territory. This only gets worse the bigger the revolutionary territory is.
    The Dictatorships of the Proletariat would together form a confederation, operating in a similar fashion to the Warsaw Pact, with broader organs to direct and organise the countries between one another whilst leaving them considerable independence and an economic, defensive, and ideological bloc. This state of confederation would allow the various areas of the revolutionary territory to adopt a dictatorship of the proletariat that better suits their material conditions, permitting them to get rid of the remnants of bourgeois society quicker, for instance, a mainly agricultural area may wish to adopt a more Agrarian form of Socialism while industrialised sectors may be more inclined to take on more industrialist forms of socialism.
    Through the Confederation of Dictatorships of the Proletariat, Council Marxism hopes to achieve Socialism and the withering away of the state at a more rapid pace in order to prevent stagnation in the political groups of the various countries and revisionism as a consequence.

    Example | Phase 1

    In the case of this example, let's imagine the hypothetical liberal democracy was split into three main economic areas: A highly industrialised one, a highly agricultural one, and one which thrived off tourism, the latter area is split into two nations, the agricultural one is mostly mono-national, and the industrialised one is split in three - this means the Confederation would count six dictatorships of the proletariat, one agricultural - which would likely be tasked with food production for the revolutionary territory -, three industrial ones who will employ Industrialist Socialism and focus on research, and two third-sector-focused states.

    Phase 2: A federal, socialist, withering state

    Part 1: Realised Socialism

    Part 2: The Cultural Revolution

    Example | Phase 2

    Phase 3: Marxism

    Part 1: Economics

    Part 2: Government

    Part 3: Workers' Ownership

    Example | Phase 3

    Government

    Organisation

    The "Popular Vanguard"

    Economy

    Planned Economy

    Collectivisation

    Culture

    Cultural Revolution

    Socialism as the only form of progress

    Foreign and National Policy

    Foreign

    National

    How to Draw

    Flag of Council Marxism

    Steps to draw the ball:

    1. Draw a ball
    2. Fill it with red
    3. Draw a stylised globe in yellow in the centre
    4. Around the globe draw concentric partial circles in green, purple, and black
    5. Draw the eyes
    6. (Optional) Add some accessories, like a bow

    And you're done!

    Color Name HEX RGB
    Red #890014 137, 0, 20
    Yellow #FFD700 255, 215, 0
    Green #44AA09 68, 170, 9
    Purple #9C28B1 156, 40, 177
    Black #0E0E0E 14, 14, 14


    Gallery

    Feel free to draw me and add your art here!

    Relationships

    Comrades

    • Alter-Globalism Stop Liberal Globalism, pave the way for the Communist Republic of Earth!
    • Anti-Fascism Thank you for freeing my homeland from the brown plague once, if it weren't for him it might have been gone forever.
    • Babouvism Marx but he was one of the people who guillotined a whole lot of reactionaries, that's super based!
    • Classical Social Democracy Rosa forever in our hearts and minds, death to the Social Fascists!
    • Council Communism My much more sectarian inspiration, outdated, but also so very wonderful!

    Friends

    • Acid Communism "I accept this analysis. However, I find the rejection of revolutionary optimism concerning. Of course, this is not to say that it's unjustified, though it could bring about resignation rather than fostering rebellious sentiment; that also means it's a valuable tool to approach people who are deeply disillusioned by the system and who have fallen into the vibes of Capitalist Realism, to then commence a process of education - perhaps even through the use of situationism - and radicalisation."
    • African Socialism African Comrade, a champion of Anti-Colonial sentiment and Anti-Imperialism - but why did you have to give into Nationalist revisionism to do it?
    • Agrarian Socialism I don't get why you would reject industrialisation, but farming is still very important and collective farms are great!
    • Arab Socialism A lot of your followers were fascistic or kinda nuts, but others were rather based - though I still dislike the Nationalist revisionism.
    • Communization Theory So based, but why reject the dictatorship of the proletariat in favour of communization when you can have a DOTP which communizes?

    Frenemies

    • Anarchists All of you are either revisionists, fascists, utopians, or straight-up nutjobs, but the few of you who are good I am willing to collaborate with during the revolution.
    • Black Nationalism Why can't you just understand that black liberation is only possible through proletarian liberation?

    Capitalist Pigs

    • Agrarian Capitalism Kulak, the land is not a commodity to be bought or sold and you definitely shouldn't shoot people for being on it!
    • Alt-Right Great, now the right has an intelligentsia, and they're fascist misogynist crypto-bros.
    • Anarcho-Collectivism You created the myth of Judeo-Bolshevism and were overall a raging fucking lunatic. No collaborating with your lot.
    • Bolivarianism Revolutionary Capitalism, how peculiar - how idiotic, but at least you're anti-colonialist despite being an imperialist twat yourself.
    • Bonapartism Proto-Fascism, but a bit more progressive and welfarist for the time. Neither acceptable nor commendable, but I guess it brought to the end of Feudalism in Western Europe and the passage to Capitalism, and that, too, is a necessary step in the achievement of material conditions proper to a revolution.
    • Caesarism Welfarist, friendly to the Optimates, caring of the people, overall decent in context, but that is no justification for the rampant imperialism, colonisation, stratocracy, and slavery.
    • Centralism Centralism is but a tool of the bourgeoisie to contrast the maturing of Material Conditions which differ among environments within the territories of the same state.


    Bourgeois Reactionaries

    • Absolute Monarchism Long live the Socialist World Republic! No Gods! No Tyrants! No Kings!
    • Anarcho-Syndicalism Syndie? More like Syndie, you fascistic piece of class-collaborationist shit.
    • Aristocracy More monarchs are in no way better than one, you bourgeois incestuous bastard!
    • Authoritarian Capitalism That's just all capitalists.
    • Ceremonial Monarchism Like a chicken, the country will still move once this head is cut off, but just for how long?
    • Conservatism The only cultural stance Capitalism can have.
    • Constitutional Monarchism Constitutions are merely the will of the long dead enforced on the future - this particular pig simply applies it to even more reactionary institutions.

    Comrades

    Friends

    • Iberian Communism Despite your reverse-Trotskyism, I must commend the avid recognition of the Northern exploitation of Southern Europe - not as much of a problem as it used to be, but the analysis is definitely interesting. Thank you for showing me how to make this page to begin with.
    • Jefbol Thought A lot of your admittedly-thorough analysis is quite good - some other pieces are just reformulated versions of what Marx said, I do not get why you're so incredibly sectarian - it feels like you border on dogmatism but you tap out of it right at the last moment. Overall I disagree with your analysis of most other Marxists, particularly Leninists, but as the Councils conduct the Revolutionary Orchestra, I would but join you and make the bourgeois sing in agony under the wrathful overture of the proletariat. My theory is mainly on my Tumblr, you appear to quite enjoy reading it.
    • Great British New Left For a revisionist, your analysis is quite in-depth and very interesting. The concept of joint revolution is something I've been looking at for a good long while as a desirable manner in which to ensure the participation of a majority of the population in the revolution and to simplify the taking hold of points of interests, but I wouldn't say it is a necessary step in the road to a revolution, more so a safety precaution. Your views of nationalism are both concerning and confusing, mostly because you provide no definition of what you deem a nation to be. I severely disagree with your marketeering tendencies, however I do commend the realisation that they need to be momentary. The Parliamentarian should be done away with if possible, but I suppose the material conditions of England may effectively call for it, however why don't you dismantle the bourgeois state rather than implementing reforms? What's the revolution even for if all you do is using Liberal apparatuses anyways? Regardless, would collaborate, but we'd probably end up fighting after the revolution.
    • Meowxism Your page is pretty bare - as is mine - so I am willing to update this if you request. Overall, our ultimate goals are the same - but I fear you fall in the Leninist pit of believing the Leninist system to be universally viable, rejecting the very idea of material conditions and proposing a solution that, rather than adapting to all cases, merely forces itself upon them and -as proven in the past- breeds reaction amongst the people. Having said that, I do respect your revolutionary fervour -both politically and culturally- as well as your acceptance of situationism, which I believe to be a very valuable tool (along with Acid Communism) to apply a Marxist lens to the post-industrialist world.
    • Meadowsin Thought Pretty bare page, so I will probably update this as time goes on. We share our goals, and I see, in your focus on the United States, a dedication to the analysis of material conditions. Sadly, these commendable traits are overshadowed by what I perceived as confusion - not in the sense that you were unaware of what you were saying, but rather that you need some more time to put your thoughts in order since they originate as a synthesis of plenty of different thoughts. I understand and sympathise with that, but I can't ignore your attachment to Anti-Marxist thought "balanced out" by inspirations drawn from Leninism. While taking inspiration from those who came before us is necessary in the struggle against capital, one mustn't forget to make something of their own in analysis, a thing that - in my eyes - is still lacking and is replaced by the mixing together of "Anarcho-Communism plus Leninist Vanguard" in a way that is complementary to Platformism. I will be keeping an eye on you, I hope you go far, my fellow transfem.

    Frenemies

    • Glorified Communism I disagree with some of your analysis, particularly the matters about seeking glory and the esoteric aspects, in addition you act as though Luxemburg wasn't part of the Ultra-Left and Gorter wasn't an Orthodox Marxist, which is plain wrong, since the Spartacist Left and the Dutch Left are both Orthodox and Left forms of Marxism. Overall the wacky scale is way off, but I guess somewhere, somehow, it might just work - and I definitely wouldn't let our differences tear us apart in the revolution.
    • Yoda8soup Thought You're too reformist and a syndie supporter as well as a Marketeer, but you've got a good green sentiment and for how much I don't like Sanders he cares more about young people than other old bastards. Just don't get in the way of the revolution, and we won't have an issue.

    Capitalist Pigs

    • TIIKKETMASTER thought Why would anyone think this is any good? Why would anyone think the solution to late-stage capitalism is early-stage capitalism???
    • Armandonian Market Socialism No, the Freer the Markets does not equal the Freer the People. You are just radical liberalism larping as a socialist, please go read some theory and cut it with the "utopic v realistic" thing, it's a discount version of Marxist analysis but made poorly.
    • Salvationism Sometimes I wonder if Posadas was right with the nuclear option. Theocracy is inherently reactionary, you're a Utopian, tolerance is not enough, Jesus was trans.
    • Craniocommunization I'll hand it to you, this point of view is at the very least understandable, though it remains rather flimsy, in my eyes. Let's start by saying that the whole rejection of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is revisionist: It is utopic both in your case and in that of standard Communization theory, and it aligns less with the Communist Left and more with Anarchists. It ignores the ability of people to simply re-establish the previous system out of self-interest or a misguided belief that it was better, assuming the cultural revolution will instantly happen on a universal level as soon as the revolution is achieved, which is - of course - ridiculous. Theism is also inherently revisionist - completely ignoring any semblance of Materialism in exchange for idealism, which your ideology seems to be glad to meddle with. In addition, your "Metacapital and Manifestation" paragraph sounds like a vaguely esoteric and unorganised type of early-stage sociology, which means both that it is way wacky and that you may be interested in looking further into the subject. Overall, you're utopian, refuse to fight oppression in favour of nihilism whilst praising an instant revolution to replace the system of capital, and also have some rather noticeable reactionary tendencies, such as the self-proclaimed theocratic aspects, imperialism, and esotericism, as well as the fact you actually proclaim yourself as a reactionary as well. I will admit, I believe it is an improvement compared to the previous ideology, though wackiness isn't gonna improve it.
    • Brazilian Liberalism Congratulations, you took Third Way Neoliberalism and made it more reactionary by adding nationalism and even more Authoritarianism, are you happy with yourself?
    • Ultroneism You don't even understand what you believe, nor 90% of the names you mention to make yourself sound more legit. You're a contrarian and an ignoramus.
    • Rigby Thought You're just a HomoPaternalistic Conservative dude who liked a random character from a well-liked TV show and forces his own ideologies upon him. There is literally nothing more to say.
    • Neo-humanism "Democracy" never gave anyone anything; You're decent on monarchism, but you had to throw it all away with the "national identity" stuff; Parliamentarian is better than Presidential but it's still a bourgeois democracy; Based anti-party gang; Tolerable civic beliefs, if not for the fact they're moderate as all hell; Good views on secularism; We have some very different definitions of what semi-direct democracy is but it's better than representative "democracy" so sure; Supporting the harm principle whilst advocating for a capitalist society is like supporting black property rights with a white hood and burning cross; No, E-Democracy is very different from Internet Democracy, I do not want legislature to be made on reddit; Constitutions are a moderate form of necrocracy; Least bad views on centralisation by a capitalist; Whistle blowers are based; Supporting immigration for all the wrong reasons, so again least bad take right up until you say "Illegal immigration", at which point you're just the average "I swear I am not racist guys" liberal; Average Marketeer opinions on taxes and healthcare, the kind that'd leave people to die out in the cold while billionaires choose which home to stay in for that week whilst having a space walk; Believes unions should exist: Instantly discredited of all good things I said. Let's cut it short: you're just a moderate Democrat who wants to deny the transphobia accusation in the same section with "I believe that all individuals deserve the same fundamental rights" written on it. Contradictory, mediocre, racist-y, transphobic, and also treating children like shelf-top souvenirs rather than people... Ok fuck it I'll sum it up even more: L I B
    • Reactionary, Nationalist, Liberal, Marketeer, Localist - I don't really know what I'm expected to say, you claim to strive for equality but do everything in your power not to reach it it would seem.

    Bourgeois Reactionaries

    • Neo-Optimateism You claim I am blinded by false concepts, yet you believe in an ideology that is 2000 years old and made new with theories that are made not to be possible. You lack all sorts of empathy or basic common sense, your hypocrisy is seconded only by your complete and utter misunderstanding of society. In most cases, one would appeal to humanity as a case against capitalism; but for you, the inhumanity of it all is brought to an extreme, and you fall on the precipice of Economic Darwinism while believing you are climbing a mountain.

    Feel free to add your ideology or any other ideology to be inserted in the relationship spot!

    *Glorified Communism Add me, comrade.

    User Interactions

    Since someone is apparently unable to read what the add-request section is for, I will be creating a Complaints and Comments section. I will likely only bother with the latter, as I have better things to do than fighting kids on the internet.

    • - Armandonian Market Socialism - Sorry for writing here again; I have updated my self insert and my beliefs are, maybe, a bit clear (Obv I don't expect you to change your rating of my ideology lol)
      • - I see no real difference in the substance, but don't let what I said discourage you from seeking more knowledge and expanding your horizons.
        • Armandonian Market Socialism - Btw do you have discord? I would have some questions about Council Communism and libertarian forms of socialism/marxism
    • Genosse Owens Thought - Greetings comrade, could you please add? (We can gulag s*ndicalists together If you like)
    • Genosse Owens Thought -Greetings, would you like to join the alliance proposal?

    Just look up for alliance proposal and add yourself!






    • - I made the second picture in your galery, by the way.
      • - Oh my god it's adorable, thank you very much!




    • Io - Erm... you archived my request without adding me....
      • - Actually, I've ignored your request, hope that helps.
        • Io - Why? Is it really just because i said you were getting too mad over the Xenosphere guys roasting you? lmao
          • - You say that as if you even had an actual ideology that went past just being an Egoist - what's there for me to critique? Your two pieces of theory? If so, where do I even find them? - Even then, I want nothing to do with your bunch, I'm beyond spending months bitching about an internet skirmish and I am only reacting to initiatives on the part of the Xenosphere. Also, it's my page.
            • Io - Oh yeah i get that, i just think its funny.
              • - Please understand I have nothing against you personally, you were actually one of the nice ones -especially compared to the others- but I just want to get over this whole ordeal, it's been more than a month for goodness' sake.




    • - I really appreciate your critiques, I added quite a bit to my page, but I'd like to clarify that for a while I read too much Locke and was a Minarchist, then became a DemSoc, then MinSoc/AnCom, then ended up a Luxemburgist/Kautskyist when I started reading theory. From there, I've just been further developing out my personal ideals mostly by reading more and picking up aspects I enjoy and see as realistic. I ended up reading a lot of Marx, Rosa, Bookchin, Thoreau, Abdullah Ocalan, and a little bit of Lenin, and so that's how I really got here. I completely understand your critique about my theory just being a Frankenstein's Monster of sorts, as it really kind of is? It's ultimately just a system I see as possible to bring about my end goal that I care about, an ecologically, economically, governmentally, technologically, and socially free society. Would love you to look over my page again, your critique is thorough and helpful, really.
      • - Don't get me wrong, I am not calling your ideology a Frankenstein's Monster - I myself built my ideas on a whole lot of different theories and movements - simply it looked to me like you needed some more time to put in order your various inspirations (thing that, for example, I've been doing with this very page). I'm gonna take a look back at your page as soon as I have a bit of time, but know I have no intention of insulting you or your ideology simply based on how you got to it.
        • - Thank you for the clarification, just wanted to say as well, apologies if you've sent me something on discord, as I'm unable to access it right now. Thank you for spending your time responding to me, and I'm actually really glad to possibly have someone I could talk to more regularly about these sorts of things, generally.
          • - No worries! I actually really enjoy talking with people about theory. I've sent you a friend request, but take your time, no pressure!
            • - It's gonna take like two weeks to get back into it bc of personal stuff, but I'm pretty active on Twitter (@chinwindow) if you have that,, we could definitely dm there :)
              • - I'm not very active on twitter, especially now that it may be banned in the EU (Thing I kinda hope for). I'll have to wait, but I'm fine with that, take your time!




    • - Attention! I changed my user test, so if you want, you can redo it.

    This section is made as a place to move complaints that are no longer relevant due to a series of reasons. I urge everyone seeing this not to edit anything in this session in order to ensure fairness as to what was said in the complaints and discussions emerging from them.

    Some of the reasons for which a complaint may end up here are:

    • The complaint has been addressed;
    • The complaint turned to or is personal insults and/or maliciousness;
    • The complaint is negatively affecting me by wasting my time, making me talk with brick walls, or otherwise deconcentrating me and distracting me throughout my day-to-day life;
    • I have deemed addressing the complaint a waste of time.

    Whilst I will try to give motivations for my choice to archive each complaint, nobody is owed nor entitled to one. I also reserve the right to edit the formatting of discussions to be uniform, this is with the purpose of making readability easier. I am willing to be held accountable if someone believes this alters the delivery of their argument.



    • -

    I’m sorry that you have trouble believing other people - but I have read all of those authors. I happen to have a PhD in philosophy, I know strange for this website but eh. Additionally, it is all well and good to claim I am contradictory, but unless you then outline what that contradiction is, then it does nothing.




    I have deemed the continuation of the exchange a waste of my time. The other side has been slowly getting more and more aggressive as well as showing a tendency to purposely misunderstand my words for the sake of "Gotcha" moments. While it seemed to me that this discussion started in an open way, it is clear that it has evolved into nothing more than someone's attempts to belittle other people they disagree with, as such there will be no more interaction with this. If I were to describe it, I'd say it's akin to trying to convince a brick wall with "Fuck you" written on it.

    • -
    • Council Marxism is a Councilist, Left Communist and Marxist ideology inhabiting the far-left centre-libertarian area of the political compass.

    What was meant by "centre-libertarian"? Does the dictatorship of the proletariat not require absolute authority against the bourgeoisie? Does it not require the stripping of democratic rights of the non-proletarian classes, which would be considered authoritarian? Then there certainly cannot be a "centre-libertarian" communism. The usage of the term "councilism" also highlights the anti-communist characteristics of this tendency, stripping the Council Communist movement of all notions of "Communism" and turning it into a movement of council-fetishism.

    • Unlike her Left-Communist comrades, she rejects sectarianism, taking the concept of Material Conditions further than most by applying it through Sophistic relativism, holding the belief that scientific Marxism and all its ideological theoretical subsets are viable depending on the Material Conditions of one or the other Nation.

    What is meant by sectarianism? "Left Communists" uphold the unity of the workers movement, as seen in the Internationalist Communist Tendency which has united with other tendencies in order to form a global "No War but Class War" movement and also to bring upon class consciousness to the workers. A more historical example is how the Zimmerwald Left during World War 1 encouraged unity with all Anarchists and Syndicalists willing to oppose the inter-imperialist war. This statement about the rejection of sectarianism can only be historical revisionism at best and Popular-Frontism/Opportunism at worst. While Communists uphold unity, it is unity among commmunists, certainly not unity with opportunists, social democrats, revisionists and social-chauvinists. To uphold the unity of the latter is to betray the communist movement and to turn the ranks of the proletariat towards nothing but confusion. What is meant by viewing material conditions through sophistic relativism? One can already see through the tactics and the activity of Communism through a Materialist analysis alone, no need to bring academic bourgeois philosophy into Communism. And to point out, scientific communism may have had different subsets and tactics in the past, mainly due to the existence of aristocratic and feudal states during the 19th century. However, to say the same about the modern day? It would not be correct, Imperialism today spans all over the globe, it is not just a phenomenon where a state asserts dominance over another. Imperialism is a world-system, all nations today are necessarily imperialist through the participation in the imperialist world system. To say that there would be new subsets of Communism based on national differences would be nothing but pure scholastic nationalism, which does not acknowledge the role of globalization and imperialism today in making all nations interconnected and their states practically no different from one another.

    • Council Marxism is anti-revisionist, anti-reformist, and anti-dogmatist, believing that material conditions are the main factor determining the specifics of socialism that need to be implemented in an area or another, and concluding that a highly decentralised governmental structure is the best possible way to make best use of all the resources and bring to a conclusion a popular revolution first and a cultural one afterwards.

    Again, OP talks of the implementation of socialism based on material conditions. This brings questions about what material conditions really means to the author. For us, material conditions is not a mere abstract term for opportunists to justify "different forms of socialism". Capitalism, the most dynamic mode of production in history, has created a world economy and the material means (productive forces) to support the present world population of 8 billion. Everyone could be living comfortably without hunger or undue toil. In short, the material basis already exists for a peaceful, prosperous, world community based on production to directly meet the needs of everyone rather than the generation of profit for a tiny few. The conditions for the construction of communism are already here, there are no "specifics" that need to be implemented in different territories as all land on Earth has already come under the touch of capitalism. Today, the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established anywhere without needing "specifics" and "adjustments" in order to accompany any other social forces (non-proletarian classes).
    A highly decentralised government, what does it mean? Indeed, we reject centralism in its old sense: we think it is dead. But the coordination that the progress of the world revolution imposes on us as a necessity - by the birth of the organization of the councils - this form of centralism we cannot and must not reject it, under hardly to be shattered. If federalism must mean complete freedom for each small particular group, it is a monstrosity foreign to the idea of ​​community as well as to the organization in councils. If the proletariat takes state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the whole of society, won't that be centralism? The author simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all opportunists, the author pictures centralism as something which can be imposed and maintained solely from above, and solely by the bureaucracy and military clique.
    One thing must also be mentioned, how can one simply move from a popular revolution to a cultural one? These two conceptions are interlinked, cultural revolution can only come from "popular revolution", just like how the superstructure is mainly influenced by the base. To separate these two into multiple stages is to have a philistine view on what the nature of the revolution is.

    • Its theory is a synthesis of Marx, Luxemburg, Hoxha, and Gorter, with minor inspirations from Lenin, Stalin, and Gonzalo, wounding up with particular theories on how a revolutionary government should operate, how the revolution would be organised, and a type of vanguard meant to concentrate on Anti-Elitism, believing it to be the main cause for Revisionism in the USSR.

    Just like the old Saint-Simon panacea! The author tries to unify the history of the Spartacists, the Communist Left and Stalinist cretins under one tendency! One does not need to say more to know how utterly incompatible these figures were. The degeneration of the Soviet Republic cannot find its answers in Anti-Elitism! The failure of the Soviet Republics in Russia was due to the desperation of Bolshevism and the Communist Party becoming more and more of a state apparatus in the USSR. Again, this horrid "synthesis" can only reinforce Stalinist cretinism and corrupt the class line of the revolutionary party.

    • When we speak of the revolution we do not mean only the socialist revolution. In the present epoch of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, the peoples' liberation struggle, the national-democratic, anti-imperialist revolutions, the national liberation movements, also, are component parts of a single revolutionary process, the world proletarian revolution, as Lenin and Stalin explained.

    What has been attained through these "peoples liberation struggle" and "national democratic revolutions" is liberation from feudalism, which was achieved in the West already, more or less completely, in the middle-class revolutions. This is a line of argument which naturally leads to leftists echoing every ruling class nationalist by blathering on about the defence of “national sovereignty”. The idea that certain national states are capable of standing aside from the global dynamics of late imperialism is simply unreal. The OP would now have us believe in the myth of “socialism on one island” with a network of progressive and well-meaning non-imperialist allies (Palestine, Iraq et al) as a second tier of progressive, non-subjugated, sovereign states. Is it time to encourage the working-class to become aware of its own capabilities as the grave digger of a system which can only offer misery and destruction? Or do we endlessly look for the mythical progressive national sovereign state for the deluded and deceived to support in peace and war?

    • Council Marxism, whilst being strongly opposed to all forms of Nationalism, it does not reject the need for a National Way To Communism, and thusly believes that decentralisation is strictly required on a confederal level throughout the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This state of being is meant to evolve, with time and with the transition to realised socialism. This belief derives from the conviction that the material conditions of an area are inherently different from nation to nation even if they live under the same state and economic-geographic conditions, due to the difference in culture and language.

    Again, this means nothing. The need for the centralisation of the proletarian state. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which breaks state power, cannot be mistaken for the reproduction of the medieval Communes, which was the main reason for the creation of state power in the first place. Labour and the means of production can physically be spread out without resorting to decentralisation because they will be interconnected and planned on a global scale. A confederation can never realize this. Under the free association of producers, labour is social directly from the outset without having to rely on such mechanisms like "value" and "abstract labour", this requires a centralised planned economy. Decentralisation can never fulfill this demand. The proletarian revolution requires the centralisation of the class into a common fighting body in order to begin the ending of the capitalist mode of production, the taking over of this production, and putting it in the hands of the working class, the ending of all class divisions and withering of political institutions, and building of a communist society. A "decentralised" dictatorship can not complete this role if the working class were to remain divided.
    And the author begins with another rant on material conditions again. Material conditions today do not and CAN NOT dictate how a dictatorship of the proletariat should function or how it should be like. The tasks and the nature of the proletarian dictatorship today remain the same irregardless due to the dominance of imperialism all across the globe.
    TBA

      • -
    • Does the dictatorship of the proletariat not require absolute authority against the bourgeoisie? Does it not require the stripping of democratic rights of the non-proletarian classes, which would be considered authoritarian? Then there certainly cannot be a "centre-libertarian" communism.

    You are confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism with communism and ignoring historical materialism. The main issue with this paragraph is that you equate the stateless, moneyless, classless society of communism with the proletarian control of the state under the transitionary period between capitalism and communism, which in and of itself is also not authoritarian, since it is the control of the state by the proletariat - the people - not to eradicate the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie as individuals, but rather as classes, along with bourgeois culture and all other remnants of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, making it rule of the people in the most literal sense.

    • The usage of the term "councilism" also highlights the anti-communist characteristics of this tendency, stripping the Council Communist movement of all notions of "Communism" and turning it into a movement of council-fetishism.

    This is mental gymnastics at its finest: you could join the Olympics.

    • What is meant by sectarianism? "Left Communists" uphold the unity of the workers movement, as seen in the Internationalist Communist Tendency which has united with other tendencies in order to form a global "No War but Class War" movement and also to bring upon class consciousness to the workers. A more historical example is how the Zimmerwald Left during World War 1 encouraged unity with all Anarchists and Syndicalists willing to oppose the inter-imperialist war. This statement about the rejection of sectarianism can only be historical revisionism at best and Popular-Frontism/Opportunism at worst. While Communists uphold unity, it is unity among commmunists, certainly not unity with opportunists, social democrats, revisionists and social-chauvinists. To uphold the unity of the latter is to betray the communist movement and to turn the ranks of the proletariat towards nothing but confusion.

    Sectarianism is "Excessive attachment to a particular sect or party" as described by Oxford Languages. One could argue that organisations such as the ICT and Zimmerwald movement are and were Left-Communist anti-sectarian organisations, however, the Zimmerwald movement was a right-wing decline of the international, as seen by their collaboration with reformists, anti-Marxists, and reactionary forces - characteristic you yourself have highlighted in your paragraph. As you pointed out, anti-sectarianism cannot possibly be about unity with social democrats, revisionists, or social-chauvinists, so the Zimmerwald movement could not possibly considered Left-Communist, let alone Anti-Sectarian. The ICT works as a sort of opposite to the Zimmerwald movement, as -rather than being a right deviation that gladly invites reactionary elements within itself it is an anti-Marxist deviation that gladly rejects Scientific elements out of principle rather than any analysis of history. On their site, they show Trotskyite views on the global revolution, they have been rejecting the analysis of material conditions since long before the process of globalisation even started in favour of a single dogmatic universal system of socialism.
    In addition to the two examples you provided respectively being the very thing you said couldn't be considered "anti-sectarianism" and extremely sectarian, we can see a great dose of Left-Communist sectarianism in the Bordigist movement (From which the ICT hails) with its hyper-Leninism and rejection of all non-Leninist Marxists. So no, what you claim to be "historical revisionism at best and Opportunism at worst" is neither, I simply read the ICT's site.

    • What is meant by viewing material conditions through sophistic relativism? One can already see through the tactics and the activity of Communism through a Materialist analysis alone, no need to bring academic bourgeois philosophy into Communism.

    To call relativism "Academic bourgeois philosophy" is absurd. Firstly, material analysis requires an analysis of the base just as much as it requires one of the superstructure - a group of elements that is relative to culture, religion, material history, and media; secondly, it implies that a Marxist needs to focus on materialism only and ignore all other influences that Marxist philosophy took as well as all philosophical aspects that have been added to it - that is unacceptable since, as you yourself have sustained, the material conditions of the world change with time. So is a situationist bourgeois because they don't focus solely on materialism? Is a Fisherist? Or a Freudian Marxist? An hermeneutist? The answer, obviously, is no.

    • And to point out, scientific communism may have had different subsets and tactics in the past, mainly due to the existence of aristocratic and feudal states during the 19th century. However, to say the same about the modern day? It would not be correct, Imperialism today spans all over the globe, it is not just a phenomenon where a state asserts dominance over another. Imperialism is a world-system, all nations today are necessarily imperialist through the participation in the imperialist world system. To say that there would be new subsets of Communism based on national differences would be nothing but pure scholastic nationalism, which does not acknowledge the role of globalization and imperialism today in making all nations interconnected and their states practically no different from one another.

    This ignores several material realities. The material conditions in imperialised countries and in imperialist countries are already different by virtue of their relations within the imperialist structure; not all imperialism is the same ; imperialism has been global for more than a hundred years, possibly even since the European discovery of the Americas and the subsequent complete colonisation of those two continents; again, bases differ between imperialist and imperialised countries and the superstructures differ even within the same countries, be they imperialist or subjects of imperialism. To claim that the material conditions are uniformly equalised among the world would mean all geography, all culture, all tradition, all institutions, all nations are exactly identical. That is not the case in our reality. That is, arguably, impossible under capitalism.

    • Again, OP talks of the implementation of socialism based on material conditions. This brings questions about what material conditions really means to the author. For us, material conditions is not a mere abstract term for opportunists to justify "different forms of socialism". Capitalism, the most dynamic mode of production in history, has created a world economy and the material means (productive forces) to support the present world population of 8 billion. Everyone could be living comfortably without hunger or undue toil. In short, the material basis already exists for a peaceful, prosperous, world community based on production to directly meet the needs of everyone rather than the generation of profit for a tiny few. The conditions for the construction of communism are already here, there are no "specifics" that need to be implemented in different territories as all land on Earth has already come under the touch of capitalism. Today, the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established anywhere without needing "specifics" and "adjustments" in order to accompany any other social forces (non-proletarian classes).

    Since in the first paragraph you showed a lack of knowledge of what the difference between socialism and communism was, I am going to assume that, when you say "socialism", you mean it as an interchangeable word for "communism". Communism is one and the same, and the definition is the same - but the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism vary, they vary to fit the material conditions of the area they occupy, their culture, history, and other things already explained in the previous paragraphs. Having already explained the way that specifics and adjustments are as necessary as ever, I can only point you to a quote by Marx:
    [...] the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
    That is to say, the workers cannot simply take the institutions made to oppress them and hope to use them for something different - and to deny such a reality is to deny the revolutionary nature of communism and give into reformist rhetoric.

    • A highly decentralised government, what does it mean? Indeed, we reject centralism in its old sense: we think it is dead. But the coordination that the progress of the world revolution imposes on us as a necessity - by the birth of the organization of the councils - this form of centralism we cannot and must not reject it, under hardly to be shattered. If federalism must mean complete freedom for each small particular group, it is a monstrosity foreign to the idea of ​​community as well as to the organization in councils. If the proletariat takes state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the whole of society, won't that be centralism? The author simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all opportunists, the author pictures centralism as something which can be imposed and maintained solely from above, and solely by the bureaucracy and military clique.

    This entire paragraph stems from the same source as the previous two: A complete misunderstanding of the current material conditions of the world and a rejection of material analysis of reality in exchange for a surface-level look with the conclusion drawn that "All plays a part in imperialism, therefore all is the same". Refer back to two paragraphs ago for an explanation of why that is absolutely not the case.

    • One thing must also be mentioned, how can one simply move from a popular revolution to a cultural one? These two conceptions are interlinked, cultural revolution can only come from "popular revolution", just like how the superstructure is mainly influenced by the base. To separate these two into multiple stages is to have a philistine view on what the nature of the revolution is.

    Once again, the misunderstanding of the transitionary period between capitalism and communism leads to assuming that all culture will immediately be changed once the proletarian takes power. Such a view is deeply rooted in anti-Marxist thought and the assumption that, during a revolution, the only people fighting back will be the bourgeois themselves. To eliminate capitalist culture, to rid society of all remnants of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, to do away with all that remains of the previous society, the proletariat must have control of the state apparatus, and it must be directed to the class conflict against the bourgeoisie.

    • Just like the old Saint-Simon panacea! The author tries to unify the history of the Spartacists, the Communist Left and Stalinist cretins under one tendency! One does not need to say more to know how utterly incompatible these figures were. The degeneration of the Soviet Republic cannot find its answers in Anti-Elitism! The failure of the Soviet Republics in Russia was due to the desperation of Bolshevism and the Communist Party becoming more and more of a state apparatus in the USSR. Again, this horrid "synthesis" can only reinforce Stalinist cretinism and corrupt the class line of the revolutionary party.

    There is no attempt to unify their history. There is no attempt to unify their movements, or their followers, but rather their theory. It is no attempt to stack one upon the other the whole theories of all three movements, but rather the active decision to take bits and pieces of analysis to optimise the best aspects of all movements. The failure of the Soviet Republics cannot be attributed to the state being utilised by the proletarian - but rather by it being utilised by the elites that formed especially following Brezhnev's death and the fall of collective leadership; once again your argument stems from a misunderstanding of the position of the state within socialism and its nature as the tool for class conflict. From the Spartacists the critique of reformism and a reviewed form of economism about which I will make a paragraph at some point; from the Bremenists the practice of forming a new proletariat state rather than reforming the bourgeois one through revolution and the belief that workers' councils are the best way to organise a revolution; from Leninism the admission that a vanguard plays an important role in the coordination of councils in the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary periods (As to avoid the mass disorganization that caused the collapse of the revolution in Germany); from Stalinism the definition of Nation (whilst rejecting the fairly supremacist views expressed in Marxism and the National Question); from Hoxhaism the analysis of Social Imperialism, rejection of Markets, and rejection of Revisionism; and from Gonzalo the belief that dogmatist views of the past - such as Mao Zedong Thought - should be reorganised and perfected to eliminate revisionist elements. This list of inspirations is no attempt to gain recognition, on the contrary: Without a proper explanation, any sensible leftist would wonder just how much of each set of theories it even takes to create something coherent - the difference is that they would wonder such a thing with curiosity and interest, not disdain.

    • What has been attained through these "peoples liberation struggle" and "national democratic revolutions" is liberation from feudalism, which was achieved in the West already, more or less completely, in the middle-class revolutions. This is a line of argument which naturally leads to leftists echoing every ruling class nationalist by blathering on about the defence of “national sovereignty”. The idea that certain national states are capable of standing aside from the global dynamics of late imperialism is simply unreal. The OP would now have us believe in the myth of “socialism on one island” with a network of progressive and well-meaning non-imperialist allies (Palestine, Iraq et al) as a second tier of progressive, non-subjugated, sovereign states. Is it time to encourage the working-class to become aware of its own capabilities as the grave digger of a system which can only offer misery and destruction? Or do we endlessly look for the mythical progressive national sovereign state for the deluded and deceived to support in peace and war?

    I may misunderstand some points, as your grammar has gotten rather worse paragraph by paragraph (Thing that is happening to me as well right now, consequence of spending a lot of time writing, especially when tired - no judgement, just a warning), but no, I never claimed the bourgeoisie to be inherently nationalist - on the contrary, the most tedious bourgeois states are very careful to take the most noticeable parts of the class war off the shoulders of the national proletariat through globalism and post-industrialism as means of adaptation of the system of capital to appease the workers. What I mean when I say that nationalism is revisionist and must be opposed in all its forms is that the nationalist premise according to which nationality (regardless of how it may be defined) is the main divide of humanity must be at all costs shot down and shunned by all Marxists as an attack to the fundamental values of historical materialism and class struggle as the main split. In no way do I claim that "National Sovereignty" should be a priority - rather I recognise that while nationality may not divide humanity the way class struggle does, it still has a heavy impact on the superstructure of a country or part thereof and consequently also has particular material conditions and bourgeois culture that the dictatorship of the proletariat must face. It comes as a natural conclusion, then, that decentralisation is the best solution to tackle the issue - not urbism, not localism, but confederalism during the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This also does not mean that Socialism in One Country was a good idea - which is why it had to be abandoned rather quickly (Even though isolation may be necessary for some revolutionary territories depending on their material conditions) - but it doesn't mean that the revolution must happen on a global scale and a global scale only, for that shows lack of trust in the ability of the proletariat and falls in the same traps of rightwards deviation as Trotskyism.

    • Again, this means nothing. The need for the centralisation of the proletarian state. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which breaks state power, cannot be mistaken for the reproduction of the medieval Communes, which was the main reason for the creation of state power in the first place. Labour and the means of production can physically be spread out without resorting to decentralisation because they will be interconnected and planned on a global scale. A confederation can never realize this. Under the free association of producers, labour is social directly from the outset without having to rely on such mechanisms like "value" and "abstract labour", this requires a centralised planned economy. Decentralisation can never fulfill this demand. The proletarian revolution requires the centralisation of the class into a common fighting body in order to begin the ending of the capitalist mode of production, the taking over of this production, and putting it in the hands of the working class, the ending of all class divisions and withering of political institutions, and building of a communist society. A "decentralised" dictatorship can not complete this role if the working class were to remain divided.

    The dictatorship of the proletariat does not have the purpose of breaking state power, but rather to make it useless by fulfilling its role as the tool of class war. It has the purpose of using the state for class struggle against bourgeois society and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie along with all of its cultural, sociological, political, ideological, and philosophical aspects. Again, as said in the previous paragraph, it is not urbism I seek, nor full decentralisation - to put it in linguistic terms, you appear to think that the capitalist superstratum completely eliminates the cultural substratum, but that is simply not true: Capitalism, as a system, merges and influences a substratum to create a capitalist adstratum which seeks to make capitalism as alluring as possible to a country, a nation, or a community. This is the reason there are varying kinds of capitalism - why liberal democracy *looks* like the "Most democratic system": a heavily religious substrate is going to be fervently conservative, a heavily industrial substrate is going to be more social-minded, a substrate of diversity and multiculturalism is going to be more progressive, and the fight between these substrates to take control of the government makes it look "more democratic" when it is truly nothing short of a gladiator fight for nominal control as a corporate puppet. You see "decentralisation" and assume I mean it from a strictly economic point of view - but that is because you appear to see Marxism as nothing but economics. The confederal central government's purpose, as explained, is to coordinate the countries - that includes (but is not limited to) economic planning.

    • And the author begins with another rant on material conditions again. Material conditions today do not and CAN NOT dictate how a dictatorship of the proletariat should function or how it should be like. The tasks and the nature of the proletarian dictatorship today remain the same irregardless due to the dominance of imperialism all across the globe.

    Again, refer back to the paragraph where I explain how they absolutely do and absolutely can and how ignoring that is completely absurd.

        • -
    • You are confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism with communism and ignoring historical materialism. The main issue with this paragraph is that you equate the stateless, moneyless, classless society of communism with the proletarian control of the state under the transitionary period between capitalism and communism, which in and of itself is also not authoritarian, since it is the control of the state by the proletariat - the people - not to eradicate the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie as individuals, but rather as classes, along with bourgeois culture and all other remnants of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, making it rule of the people in the most literal sense.

    There is no confusion here, it is crystal clear that I was referring to the communist movement, and certainly not communism as a mode of production. Of course, since general means of coercion are employed by the class in the transition period, the communist movement cannot be "centre-libertarian". What is meant by "general means of coercion" here? It means that the proletariat employs despotic measures, state terror, holds unwavering authority over the means of violence in order to secure the revolution, to spread it all across the globe until the last bourgeois remnants have been defeated. These can be considered totalitarian, certainly authoritarian powers, not anything close to "anti-authoritarianism" or "libertarianism". An authority, no matter how delegated, no matter how popular, will always be an authority and necessarily authoritarian. It would be a terrible mistake to think "democracy" is opposed to authoritarianism, we see that the soviets in what was formerly the Russian Soviet Republic are considered to be "the most democratic forms of governance" ever, these were also the same soviets that supported state terror and despotic, authoritarian measures against bourgeois forces. So long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.
    "The rule of the people" means nothing, in the period of the struggle against capitalism, it is only a mask to cover up class collaborationism and liberalism. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no need for this mystification, nor can the DotP be a "rule of the people", as long as there remains bourgeois forces against the dictatorship. And when we reach the free association of producers? Then there would be no "rule". The bourgeois-democratic slogan of "rule of the people" is a bankrupt one and can not serve as a useful one for the proletarian movement.
    "Historical materialism" also does not justify a "libertarian" dictatorship of the proletariat. History has proven that an coercive organ is a necessity for the proletarian revolution, as our forces must be diverted towards the fight against capital and all reactionary forces, certainly not a struggle towards abstract liberty.

    • Sectarianism is "Excessive attachment to a particular sect or party" as described by Oxford Languages. One could argue that organisations such as the ICT and Zimmerwald movement are and were Left-Communist anti-sectarian organisations, however, the Zimmerwald movement was a right-wing decline of the international, as seen by their collaboration with reformists, anti-Marxists, and reactionary forces - characteristic you yourself have highlighted in your paragraph.

    Schoolboy stupidity! The Zimmerwald Left was certainly not to the right-wing of the 2nd International. The Left during World War One found it necessary to regroup all revolutionary tendencies of the social democratic parties, the socialist parties, the anarchist unions into a proper class movement battling both the centrist opportunism of the Kautskyites and the social-chauvinists of the SPD. The emancipation of the proletariat against the war was the first and foremost goals of the Zimmerwald Left and they had achieved it with the most precise victory: The splitting from the Zimmerwald movement as a whole and the founding of the Communist International.
    TBA

          • -
    • There is no confusion here, it is crystal clear that I was referring to the communist movement, and certainly not communism as a mode of production. Of course, since general means of coercion are employed by the class in the transition period, the communist movement cannot be "centre-libertarian". What is meant by "general means of coercion" here? It means that the proletariat employs despotic measures, state terror, holds unwavering authority over the means of violence in order to secure the revolution, to spread it all across the globe until the last bourgeois remnants have been defeated. These can be considered totalitarian, certainly authoritarian powers, not anything close to "anti-authoritarianism" or "libertarianism". An authority, no matter how delegated, no matter how popular, will always be an authority and necessarily authoritarian. It would be a terrible mistake to think "democracy" is opposed to authoritarianism, we see that the soviets in what was formerly the Russian Soviet Republic are considered to be "the most democratic forms of governance" ever, these were also the same soviets that supported state terror and despotic, authoritarian measures against bourgeois forces. So long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.

    You first claim that Authoritarianism and Democracy are not opposed, then make a case of specifying that Democracy is bourgeois. You claim that the Authoritarianism of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is absolute and also "considered to be the most democratic form of government", implying you agree with such a statement - which in turn would balance out the authoritarian axis. The Dictatorship of the Proletarian being authoritarian (Under your definition of authoritarianism, which is kind of literal - which makes it rather wrong since "Authoritarianism", by definition, is forcing devotion to authority at the expense of rights while the Dictatorship of the Proletarian is the step where oppressors - and therefore the people who withhold rights in exchange for devotion to capital - are eliminated along with their institutions.) and Communism being stateless balance each other to the centre of the axis.
    TBA, Maybe, this is getting redundant, annoying, and time consuming.

            • -

    There are no axis, democracy, oligarchy and autocracy are forms of application of authority, and in the case of dotp its authoritarian and ergatocratic (since not the whole demos will rule) in the same time. If it is too complicated for you I can give some examples: Dictablanda is a concept where power is in hands of the few, but it upholds liberty. And the opposite - First protestant settlements in New England, where they was democratic, but people were enforced to create families, pray every day for many hours and every fourth woman was killed for being a witch.

              • -

    Again, "authoritarianism" isn't merely "the application of authority", that's not what that means. Also, calling the colonial settlements "democratic" is like calling timocracies "democratic" - they're not, in any way. I would agree that axes are a dumb way to categorise politics, but we're in the wiki literally based on an axes system and a mediocre ideology test.

                • -

    If you agree that axes are a dumb way to categorise politics (which they are), why did you use it in your argument? “Which in turn would balance out the authoritarian axis”. You are grouping two different things (the application of governance & the system of governance) into a singular categorical “axis”. Example: A leader who is democratically elected yet still oppressed certain parts of the population is an authoritarian leader.

                  • -

    This has to be a joke, an opportunist one and its terribly bad. Being on a political ball website does not make real life politics irrelevant here.

    • You first claim that Authoritarianism and Democracy are not opposed, then make a case of specifying that Democracy is bourgeois. You claim that the Authoritarianism of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is absolute and also "considered to be the most democratic form of government", implying you agree with such a statement - which in turn would balance out the authoritarian axis.

    A splendid accusation! One that reduces a materialist understanding of things - into literally nothing. Democracy is bourgeois precisely because its a mask that covers up bourgeois dominance. Communism has no need for mystification and such it cannot be democratic. And at what point did I agree with the statement that the proletarian dictatorship is democratic? If anything, the dictatorship is necessarily the least democratic for it strips all non-proletarian classes of democratic rights and restricts elections and delegation for only one single class. This is the anti-thesis to democracy, not an reinforcement of it.

    • The Dictatorship of the Proletarian being authoritarian (Under your definition of authoritarianism, which is kind of literal - which makes it rather wrong since "Authoritarianism", by definition, is forcing devotion to authority at the expense of rights while the Dictatorship of the Proletarian is the step where oppressors - and therefore the people who withhold rights in exchange for devotion to capital - are eliminated along with their institutions.) and Communism being stateless balance each other to the centre of the axis.

    The proletarian dictatorship suppresses capital, it eliminates any counter-revolutionary agent within the Commune, and establishes itself as an authority that has the right to all powers in order to defend the revolution. The revolution - looked on as a political process — has indeed a decisive moment, the taking of political power. The revolution, viewed as an economic process, has no such decisive moment, long work will be necessary to take over the direction of the economy on the part of the proletariat, to eradicate the profit motive, and to replace it by an economy of needs. It is self-evident that during this period the bourgeoisie will not remain idle, but will try to regain power for the purpose of defending their profits. It follows that in the countries with a developed democratic ideology - that is, in the advanced industrial countries - they will seek to mislead the proletariat with democratic slogans. It is thus essential that the workers wield a strong, unwavering political violence till they have taken over, in concrete terms, the control of the economy and broken the grip of the bourgeoisie. This period is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
    Discipline consists in the voluntary subordination of the individual to the whole; it is the chief proletarian virtue, which the working masses have acquired in their struggle against capitalism. The workers will never be able to overthrow capitalism until they have brought this virtue to its highest development, the subordination of their personal desires and of their egoism to the interests of the whole class; this virtue they will carry with them into the new society, and there it will become the moral cement of the Socialist order. It will be the moral counterpart to political democracy; the latter will need no other means of force. So no, there is certainly no "balancing the authoritarian axis" nor will there be any notions of the dictatorship being libertarian.

    Moving on to the counter-counter-critique, let us review the following:

    The author, too, does not understand the origins of the Zimmerwald Left. First of all, the Zimmerwald Left was explicitly formed AGAINST social democracy, revisionism and social-chauvinism(an aspect that even the Zimmerwald Right opposed).
    For revolutionary Marxists, many of whom had struggled against revisionism before the war, the capitalist world imperialist war was perceived as a historical turning point in that the objective conditions for socialism became a reality. There was no doubt in the minds of revolutionary Marxists that workers had no homeland and that they needed a new International, firmly committed to Marx's principles, to lead the struggle for socialism. From Trotsky, who wrote about the new International shortly after the war, to the Dutch "Tribune" group of Pannekoek, Roland Holst and Gorter who emphasised that "this war is the melting pot in which the New International will be born" in relation to imperialism, world war and social democracy. The German left, which separated in Borchardt's "Lichtstrahlen" group, the Bremen left around Johan Knief, Paul Frölich and Karl Liebknecht, and the Social Democratic parties of Poland and Lithuania (the party of Rosa Luxemburg and Leo Jogisches), announced as war broke out, "The proletariat declares war against the government, the oppressor! " and tried to organise a general strike against the war on the basis of revolutionary defeatism.
    Before leaving Zimmerwald, the Internationalists founded the Zimmerwald Left Bureau, consisting of Lenin, Zinoviev and Radek. The crisis caused by the war in 1916 and the crisis predicted by Lenin became acute throughout Europe. The big difference between the Zimmerwald majority, which did not completely break away from the Social Democratic Party, and the left, became a rift. After the February Revolution broke out in Russia, Lenin argued that 'the swamps of Zimmerwald can no longer be tolerated' and that what was needed now was the immediate building of a 'new proletarian International', 'composed only of the left'.
    While this was certainly not a Left-Communist organisation, this was certainly a Communist organisation, and not an opportunist one like the author says. The author must have forgotten their Marxism at home.

    Ah, the good old "Trotskyite" trick that MLs(actually Market-Lassalleans) use all the time. Not just misunderstanding the Zimmerwald Left, the author fundamentally misunderstands the theory of Permanent Revolution too! Hailing from the opportunist wing of faux-Councilism, the author denounces the proletarian internationalism of the ICT while subsequently confusing it with Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. The author ends up in the revisionist debacle that they had tried to start against the Zimmerwald Left. For one, the theory of permanent revolution is necessarily correct, only a proletarian revolution in oppressed nations can solve the imperialist problem and also solve the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. To oppose this is to fall over to opportunism and Menshevism.
    The author also knows nothing of materialism, even going as far as to accuse the ICT of being idealistic and rejecting the materialist method before globalisation started, when the ICT was kickstarted in the era of globalisation! This is what an inadequate understanding of Communism results in! These people think they have changed everything just by reading a wikipedia article!
    And OP seems to think an universal socialism is somehow utopian and unrealistic. Let us see here, the conditions brought about by capitalism has concentrated all nations of the world within the power of capital. This alone is enough to create the basis for the coming and victory of socialism on a planetary scale. The author is unable to comprehend how communism can work.

    • In addition to the two examples you provided respectively being the very thing you said couldn't be considered "anti-sectarianism" and extremely sectarian, we can see a great dose of Left-Communist sectarianism in the Bordigist movement (From which the ICT hails) with its hyper-Leninism and rejection of all non-Leninist Marxists. So no, what you claim to be "historical revisionism at best and Opportunism at worst" is neither, I simply read the ICT's site.

    An actually insane case, not only does the author misunderstand basic communist concepts, they unironically think the ICT belongs to the Bordigist tradition and rejects all non-Leninist Marxists. The ICT clearly belongs to the traditions of Onorato Damen, certainly not a Bordigist! The ICT clearly cooperates with other movements, like Council Communists and even Anarchists within the NWBCW clause. The author clearly does not know the current situation today.

    • To call relativism "Academic bourgeois philosophy" is absurd. Firstly, material analysis requires an analysis of the base just as much as it requires one of the superstructure - a group of elements that is relative to culture, religion, material history, and media; secondly, it implies that a Marxist needs to focus on materialism only and ignore all other influences that Marxist philosophy took as well as all philosophical aspects that have been added to it - that is unacceptable since, as you yourself have sustained, the material conditions of the world change with time. So is a situationist bourgeois because they don't focus solely on materialism? Is a Fisherist? Or a Freudian Marxist? An hermeneutist? The answer, obviously, is no.

    Your unwillingness to recognize how utterly unequipped you are to even claim the label of Marxism is pathetic.

    "One has to "leave philosophy aside" (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or "Stirner" one finds that one has long ago left them "behind" and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love."

    "The Philosopher–who is himself an abstract form of estranged man–takes himself as the criterion of the estranged world."

    "Feuerbach’s great achievement is: (1) The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned."

    "Feuerbach’s whole deduction with regard to the relation of men to one another goes only so far as to prove that men need and always have needed each other. He wants to establish consciousness of this fact, that is to say, like the other theorists, merely to produce a correct consciousness about an existing fact; whereas for the real communist it is a question of overthrowing the existing state of things. We thoroughly appreciate, moreover, that Feuerbach, in endeavouring to produce consciousness of just this fact, is going as far as a theorist possibly can, without ceasing to be a theorist and philosopher."

    "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
    And no one disputed that an analysis of the superstructure is needed, the only point was that you only need Marxism for this. To claim the Situationists weren't too focused on materialism is insane and most likely proves that you don't know what Marx meant by materialism either: “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.”
    And of course, Fisher was a bourgeois academic, he serves the same role as Zizek in the revolutionary proletarian movement. No materialist analysis, no definition of capitalism, of the class struggle, of the structural crisis we are experiencing, no anti-capitalist perspective and, indeed, a certain snobbish contempt for those who instead have identified revolutionary and anti-capitalist militancy as the only real medicine for the evils induced by capitalism.
    If “Cobain's death confirmed the defeat and incorporation of rock's utopian and promethean ambitions”, Fisher's suicide reaffirms the real powerlessness of any perspective of criticism of capitalism that is not based on solid pillars such as criticism of political economy, the materialist conception of history, the experiences of past class struggles and the communist revolutionary programme that derives from them.




    • - Also could you pls remove the more than 2 party stuff, it was a leftover from when I changed my opinions about political parties lmao.
      • - Oh yeah, sure, my bad lol

    Navigation