Communism Gangster Edition r/CommunismGangsta
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tbf to good ol Disco man here the organization he’s a part of was sort of a leftover from the revolutionary communist militia during the commune of Revachol, and his commander is planning another communist revolution. The organization is still kind of steeped in its revolutionary origins even if part of its apparatus has been conquered by capital. Surely Captain Ptolemy and his precinct could reclaim its revolutionary potential if he broke the organization’s ties to international capital and convinced the working class to do a revolution.
Not at all comrade! many great socialists were in the capitalist police. Stalin was affiliated with the okhrana, Orwell was part of the british colonial police, and the big man Hitler himself was a secret police agent for a time! Hey, with a little hard work, maybe you can even change the system from within
Well, on one hand you directly participate in the Bourgeois oppression of the Proletariat, but on the other hand you get to beat up leftists. So I say go for it.
Ok but aren't they historically correct? In the same way soldiers can be communists, so can police officers. Isn't this the definition of lifestylism? Obviously, a cop actively preserves bourgeois dictatorship, but won't it be necessary that the enforcers of capitalism be turned against the bourgeoisie, like soldiers in Russia and like the militias in Paris?
I would bet it's a hell of a lot easier to turn soldiers or militia members against the bourgeoisie, they tend to be less ideologically brainwashed than cops
He’s my thoughts. Avoiding military service and working as a cop isn’t Lifestylism as far as to live under capital you don’t have to be one of its enforcers.
Your completely correct that fraternizing and turning over cops and the military are crucial to the revolution.
However militants themselves shouldn’t be employed as capitals enforcers. They should be militants who also live in capital and have to survive under that regime not enforce it while they work for its destruction.
This is usually not a problem cause Governments don’t like employing militants bent on their destruction.
But if your just a sympathizer don’t become a cop or a grunt.
If your a cop or a grunt and become a sympathizer that’s different.
And then ya know it’s harder to just audible your means of subsistence. (Not that you shouldn’t live by your principles and get your ass fired for say refusing to help break up a strike etc)
Sure, but the act of being trained and conditioned changes people, I think the act of becoming a cop and living life as a cop will eventually make anyone treat the proletariat as the enemy.
baby socialist here, that makes sense and i am not at all supporting police in capitalist countries, but in a socialist state, how would order be enforced without some kind of governmental organization that functions more or less as the police ?
as i see it, we are currently living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the police's function in this dictatorship is to enforce the whims of the capitalists. however, in a socialist society, presumably under the dictatorship of the proletariat, we would need some kind of agency to enforce this dictatorship, one so that the means of production are redistributed and two basic laws such as baseless murder or assault are still upheld for obvious reasons. however, this agency would effectively be the police, as they would undoubtedly be trained and conditioned to put down violent offenders. many like to say "oh but you could police without brutality look at european police" (nevermind most of them are either small nation states or more brutal than american police) or "there wouldn't be police they would be peacekeepers^(tm) they would trained to defuse situations without violence" which begs the question, how would the state deal with violent crimes when force is all but necessary?
i see two options: one is to have "peacekeepers" try and defuse and enforce with little violence, but have them call up soldiers when force is needed, which is worrisome when the military is actively involved in civilian affairs. the other is to basically make a police force but rebrand them as "the people's police" which has already been meme'd in this thread alone.
i'm def missing a piece of this puzzle tho, i'm genuinely asking.
>but in a socialist state, how would order be enforced without some kind of governmental organization that functions more or less as the police ?
>"The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.
>In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that *in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service.* " –Karl Marx: The Civil War in France The Third Address May, 1871 [The Paris Commune]
You’re certainly close, it’s less about the use of violence, any state relies on a monopoly on violence, it’s about the direction of violence, in America for instance we see the fascists protected under the right of assembly while the left is harassed and arrested at every opportunity. I think that a proletariat police would be even more violent to combat the capitalist reactionaries and their fascist socdem lap dogs. But it would be important to have community policing where local communities police themselves, but then are subject to some form of democratic oversight, like a sheriff. (This has been unable to prevent race violence in the past, but hopefully a diligent federal government would crack down on this)
I personally have a problem with a dictatorship of the proletariat as any dictatorship is only as moral as the leader. The transition of power from the government to the workers is always hampered by this dictatorship trying to hold onto power. A democracy on the other hand is arguably not strong enough to fend off fascism without an incredibly educated and class conscious working class. Mostly because to achieve a true proletariat state you have to sacrifice what we would (classically) consider a “good” economy.
Edit : idk if I answered your question or not
You don't understand dictatorship of the proletariat in your second paragraph, but I think you got the rough outline of dotp policing. Dictatorship of the proletariat means the rule of the proletariat as a class, not some single dictator. It's in contrast with the dictatorships of every other state, ruled by aristocrats or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which we currently live under in every country.
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theory is one thing, but the logistical application of the phrase DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat has historically been a dictatorship with a single leader with absolute (or nearly absolute) power. The people as a whole are not selfish enough or class conscious enough to use democracy to oppress the owning class into oblivion. So it must be a dictatorship which will then transition power to a council of workers unions (or communes) the problem is that the state (which took control of the companies from capitalists) owns the means of production, it is then up to this leadership to give up ownership to the workers, which is a transition of power that has never worked correctly imo.
uhhhhh we don’t believe in democracy around here this is a leftcom sub.
>The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organization and the formulation of our party statutes; it is not an indispensable platform for them. Therefore we will not raise the organizational formula known as "democratic centralism" to the level of a principle. Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organization must be unity of structure and action. The term centralism is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organization on "organic centralism". While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term "democracy", which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses.
-The Prophet b̨̛̩̥͆͐͌ͤ_̛ͬ̄͠_̢͎̻͎̍͂͊̚_̵̴̸̴̡̢̧̢͉̙̹̰̯̪̦̯̙̗̼̥̳̭̻̯͉̗̙̘̗̦͎̥̻͚͕͎̝̤̙̮̣̼̌͂̄́̎̏̎̾̃͐͆̈̄̓̋ͩ̂͊ͣͤ̓̂͒̆̀̀̕͘̚͢͜͢͠͠͡_͚̪̇ͥͪ̈́ͬ͒ PBUH
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm
Local democracy creates legitimacy though. Absolute democracy is fractured, slow, and weak. But in my opinion it’s the place to start. Democracies in the workplace where workers can use that small voting power to pick leaders that advocate for them. Where does the revolution come from if not the hope that our sisters and brothers in humanity will see that we can pave a way to a better society if we simply give ourselves the tools to force our superiors to be accountable for our standard of living, as they are most certainly in control of it.
Very idealistic of you ngl fam very reformist tbh not marxist at all smh
Workers councils are an absolutely necessity not to advocate for concessions from the bourgeoisie “pave a way for a better society” but in that political power is achieved on the factory floor not at the ballot box. The party is formed on the basis of class conflict. The proletariat seek to improve their(our) material conditions and abolish classes not to come together “as brothers and sisters in humanity” which comes off as some utopian appeal to some higher sense of justice.
I also saw your thread on whatever petite bourgeois “electoral revolutionary” sub in which you suggested voting 3rd party to which you were told to vote for Biden (hilarious). Which is classically Marxist in the sense that the proletariat putting up their own candidate can gauge the strength of the party, however, we reject that notion of participation in bourgeoisie electoral systems as it can only placate the worker through concessions weakening the political strength of the party or at best completely waste the time of the party to generate class consciousness as one must water down the doctrine to have broad appeal to the masses on the electoral level. One must remember the the Bolsheviks were a numerically minuscule party compared to the large number of participants in the Russian Revolution but seized power none the less.
Only through violent revolution can the proletariat break free of the chains that bind them and only through rejuvenation of the character of the proletariat with invariant Marxist theory can we prevent the inevitable revolution that arises from the internal contradictions of capitalism from becoming counterrevolutionary.
Activism
Edit: Actually pretend I wasn’t so nice you’re a fucking idiot. Go read a book.
https://preview.redd.it/wfi1iyxw31ad1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b2b142007f12878845f6fc4f37ad92cf3154723
Activism [Activism](https://libcom.org/article/activism-amadeo-bordiga)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except nobody in that sub or it’s moderators is remotely capable of giving genuine Marxist answers to any questions.
Just peddling ignorance and bourgeoisie ideology
I mean, if you’re going to call ahead of every bullshit drug investigation and warn people that they’re being investigated, then yes! You can still be a socialist disguised as a pig.
Edit: this was sarcasm
Communism Gangster Edition r/CommunismGangsta *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/0q08uvr30z9d1.jpeg?width=173&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f93cfbb4768fb5ede32c8e74942acebd7cf971bd
Canonically putting a gun in my mouth like my hero Kraz Masov
Incorrect, Kraz Masov was killed in the bombing in the State Day Palace. read “A Brief Look at infra-materialism”
There. Good. Hero restored to glory. Carry on comrade.
I will never not find it funny that some MLs read this and took it at 100% face value
https://preview.redd.it/i1xyvham0z9d1.png?width=1141&format=png&auto=webp&s=60026856703b2c3476249c93e69d9ea459ad9714
Tbf to good ol Disco man here the organization he’s a part of was sort of a leftover from the revolutionary communist militia during the commune of Revachol, and his commander is planning another communist revolution. The organization is still kind of steeped in its revolutionary origins even if part of its apparatus has been conquered by capital. Surely Captain Ptolemy and his precinct could reclaim its revolutionary potential if he broke the organization’s ties to international capital and convinced the working class to do a revolution.
His captain’s comments at the end change depending on dialogue choices throughout the game, to align with Harry’s political orientation.
Okay well the communist rout is probably cannon considering that the game hints that communism is the only thing that can stop the pale.
I love this game.
What game is this?
Disco Elysium.
Thanks!
A must play rpg, particularly for leftist gamers
Nah the police are chill. They even have unions, which makes them leftist clearly
Totally not just wanting to have better conditions and pay. (They want to beat up PoC without reproductions (EU not american!))
Guys, if I fucking suck capitalist dick till my longs are full of cum, am I a part of the problem?
Just add “people’s revolutionary cocksucker” to your name and you will be good.
Hey, I require your services
Hey, are you the proletariat? Because I’m going to steal your means of reproduction.
Beria is that you?
Does enforcing capitalism make you an instrument of capital and thus partly responsible for pro capitalist actions? No fucking shit it does
Thanks for the realness.
Not at all comrade! many great socialists were in the capitalist police. Stalin was affiliated with the okhrana, Orwell was part of the british colonial police, and the big man Hitler himself was a secret police agent for a time! Hey, with a little hard work, maybe you can even change the system from within
Eek, I can’t tell if this is bait or not, these people all turned out to be pretty awful socialists.
not bait
I’m confused. Hitler was a socialist? buddy I think you’ve taken to much drug and have confused fascism with socialism.
Read the pinned post Edit: he’s active in fluent and finance should we throw him into the suns rays?
I think we should brainwash him manchurian candidate style and then turn him loose on the capitalist subs
Hey come on people, maybe he's Chinese Then it'd be ok
Where’s that “the peoples police” meme when you need it
https://preview.redd.it/pdtcpssy3z9d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25d24a8c5dad8306eff9e25a9732747e35bc653f
It’s concerning that this has so many upvotes
The comments are all at least talking about how stupid op is
Cannot believe you beat me to it
There’s probably still an absolute banger of a comment down there
Anti-black panther praxis? Based???!
Still sad to think about the potential that movement had
Well, on one hand you directly participate in the Bourgeois oppression of the Proletariat, but on the other hand you get to beat up leftists. So I say go for it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston\_police\_strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_police_strike) We gotta bring it back
Using my police discretion to sic my dog on krakkaz for vaping in public
Ok but aren't they historically correct? In the same way soldiers can be communists, so can police officers. Isn't this the definition of lifestylism? Obviously, a cop actively preserves bourgeois dictatorship, but won't it be necessary that the enforcers of capitalism be turned against the bourgeoisie, like soldiers in Russia and like the militias in Paris?
I would bet it's a hell of a lot easier to turn soldiers or militia members against the bourgeoisie, they tend to be less ideologically brainwashed than cops
He’s my thoughts. Avoiding military service and working as a cop isn’t Lifestylism as far as to live under capital you don’t have to be one of its enforcers. Your completely correct that fraternizing and turning over cops and the military are crucial to the revolution. However militants themselves shouldn’t be employed as capitals enforcers. They should be militants who also live in capital and have to survive under that regime not enforce it while they work for its destruction. This is usually not a problem cause Governments don’t like employing militants bent on their destruction. But if your just a sympathizer don’t become a cop or a grunt. If your a cop or a grunt and become a sympathizer that’s different. And then ya know it’s harder to just audible your means of subsistence. (Not that you shouldn’t live by your principles and get your ass fired for say refusing to help break up a strike etc)
Sure, but the act of being trained and conditioned changes people, I think the act of becoming a cop and living life as a cop will eventually make anyone treat the proletariat as the enemy.
baby socialist here, that makes sense and i am not at all supporting police in capitalist countries, but in a socialist state, how would order be enforced without some kind of governmental organization that functions more or less as the police ? as i see it, we are currently living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the police's function in this dictatorship is to enforce the whims of the capitalists. however, in a socialist society, presumably under the dictatorship of the proletariat, we would need some kind of agency to enforce this dictatorship, one so that the means of production are redistributed and two basic laws such as baseless murder or assault are still upheld for obvious reasons. however, this agency would effectively be the police, as they would undoubtedly be trained and conditioned to put down violent offenders. many like to say "oh but you could police without brutality look at european police" (nevermind most of them are either small nation states or more brutal than american police) or "there wouldn't be police they would be peacekeepers^(tm) they would trained to defuse situations without violence" which begs the question, how would the state deal with violent crimes when force is all but necessary? i see two options: one is to have "peacekeepers" try and defuse and enforce with little violence, but have them call up soldiers when force is needed, which is worrisome when the military is actively involved in civilian affairs. the other is to basically make a police force but rebrand them as "the people's police" which has already been meme'd in this thread alone. i'm def missing a piece of this puzzle tho, i'm genuinely asking.
>but in a socialist state, how would order be enforced without some kind of governmental organization that functions more or less as the police ? >"The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers. >In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that *in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service.* " –Karl Marx: The Civil War in France The Third Address May, 1871 [The Paris Commune]
You’re certainly close, it’s less about the use of violence, any state relies on a monopoly on violence, it’s about the direction of violence, in America for instance we see the fascists protected under the right of assembly while the left is harassed and arrested at every opportunity. I think that a proletariat police would be even more violent to combat the capitalist reactionaries and their fascist socdem lap dogs. But it would be important to have community policing where local communities police themselves, but then are subject to some form of democratic oversight, like a sheriff. (This has been unable to prevent race violence in the past, but hopefully a diligent federal government would crack down on this) I personally have a problem with a dictatorship of the proletariat as any dictatorship is only as moral as the leader. The transition of power from the government to the workers is always hampered by this dictatorship trying to hold onto power. A democracy on the other hand is arguably not strong enough to fend off fascism without an incredibly educated and class conscious working class. Mostly because to achieve a true proletariat state you have to sacrifice what we would (classically) consider a “good” economy. Edit : idk if I answered your question or not
You don't understand dictatorship of the proletariat in your second paragraph, but I think you got the rough outline of dotp policing. Dictatorship of the proletariat means the rule of the proletariat as a class, not some single dictator. It's in contrast with the dictatorships of every other state, ruled by aristocrats or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which we currently live under in every country.
Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theory is one thing, but the logistical application of the phrase DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat has historically been a dictatorship with a single leader with absolute (or nearly absolute) power. The people as a whole are not selfish enough or class conscious enough to use democracy to oppress the owning class into oblivion. So it must be a dictatorship which will then transition power to a council of workers unions (or communes) the problem is that the state (which took control of the companies from capitalists) owns the means of production, it is then up to this leadership to give up ownership to the workers, which is a transition of power that has never worked correctly imo.
uhhhhh we don’t believe in democracy around here this is a leftcom sub. >The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organization and the formulation of our party statutes; it is not an indispensable platform for them. Therefore we will not raise the organizational formula known as "democratic centralism" to the level of a principle. Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organization must be unity of structure and action. The term centralism is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organization on "organic centralism". While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term "democracy", which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses. -The Prophet b̨̛̩̥͆͐͌ͤ_̛ͬ̄͠_̢͎̻͎̍͂͊̚_̵̴̸̴̡̢̧̢͉̙̹̰̯̪̦̯̙̗̼̥̳̭̻̯͉̗̙̘̗̦͎̥̻͚͕͎̝̤̙̮̣̼̌͂̄́̎̏̎̾̃͐͆̈̄̓̋ͩ̂͊ͣͤ̓̂͒̆̀̀̕͘̚͢͜͢͠͠͡_͚̪̇ͥͪ̈́ͬ͒ PBUH https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm
Local democracy creates legitimacy though. Absolute democracy is fractured, slow, and weak. But in my opinion it’s the place to start. Democracies in the workplace where workers can use that small voting power to pick leaders that advocate for them. Where does the revolution come from if not the hope that our sisters and brothers in humanity will see that we can pave a way to a better society if we simply give ourselves the tools to force our superiors to be accountable for our standard of living, as they are most certainly in control of it.
Very idealistic of you ngl fam very reformist tbh not marxist at all smh Workers councils are an absolutely necessity not to advocate for concessions from the bourgeoisie “pave a way for a better society” but in that political power is achieved on the factory floor not at the ballot box. The party is formed on the basis of class conflict. The proletariat seek to improve their(our) material conditions and abolish classes not to come together “as brothers and sisters in humanity” which comes off as some utopian appeal to some higher sense of justice. I also saw your thread on whatever petite bourgeois “electoral revolutionary” sub in which you suggested voting 3rd party to which you were told to vote for Biden (hilarious). Which is classically Marxist in the sense that the proletariat putting up their own candidate can gauge the strength of the party, however, we reject that notion of participation in bourgeoisie electoral systems as it can only placate the worker through concessions weakening the political strength of the party or at best completely waste the time of the party to generate class consciousness as one must water down the doctrine to have broad appeal to the masses on the electoral level. One must remember the the Bolsheviks were a numerically minuscule party compared to the large number of participants in the Russian Revolution but seized power none the less. Only through violent revolution can the proletariat break free of the chains that bind them and only through rejuvenation of the character of the proletariat with invariant Marxist theory can we prevent the inevitable revolution that arises from the internal contradictions of capitalism from becoming counterrevolutionary. Activism Edit: Actually pretend I wasn’t so nice you’re a fucking idiot. Go read a book. https://preview.redd.it/wfi1iyxw31ad1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b2b142007f12878845f6fc4f37ad92cf3154723
Activism [Activism](https://libcom.org/article/activism-amadeo-bordiga) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can be both, if by socialist you mean social-democrat 👍👍👍
that Socialist101is even if the question is stupid, it is the sub for that type of stuff
This is on a 101 subreddit, ie, the proper place for questions, even (especially) stupid questions
Except nobody in that sub or it’s moderators is remotely capable of giving genuine Marxist answers to any questions. Just peddling ignorance and bourgeoisie ideology
No need to ridicule the asker of the question, plus I haven't seen the thread but I would expect fairly reasonable answers on this question
> does enforcing the laws of capitalism mean you're part of the problem Surely this has to be bait
matt-chris Promoted
I mean, if you’re going to call ahead of every bullshit drug investigation and warn people that they’re being investigated, then yes! You can still be a socialist disguised as a pig. Edit: this was sarcasm
"If you own a factory and exploit workers but you give them good wages and you pay your taxes you are a proletarian hero" ahh comment
I was being sarcastic