JOIN RAC!!! Any account over 400 followers that reposts this will get privileges. These privileges include: - adding custom emojis/stickers - getting custom roles - posting in the announcements channel If you are interested repost this. Join @ discord.gg/communism

"Organize according to reality! That org misdiagnoses reality? Who cares! Unite and do something!" This must go hard as fuck if your stupid, thank god the Bolsheviks didnt do this

was a big fan of HP Lovecraft

meant to open second paragraph as “With regards to Bernes softer criticism of the italian lefts anti-individualist rhetoric, that can’t reasonably be interpreted as…”

@outsidadgitator since I was told to mention you in this, I figured I should get your opinion on all of that. Please let me know if you think I mischaracterized your criticism of the italian left, or any of the minutiae of communization

Oh and one more thing, communization isnt anarchist because it explicitly rejects both prefigurative politics (e.g. pre-given federalist/horizontalist organizing principles) & crude spontaneist views of revolution. Communization is conceived as an internally contradictory process where the self-organization of the proletariat immediately yields its self-abolition as proletariat, casting all moments of stasis in the course of transition as counterrevolutionary. This is the angle that ‘communizers’ generally fall back on to reject “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the hybrid economic/political models that are usually associated with it, and while there are some superficial parallels between the core thesis of communization and anarchism, they are distinct because they proceed from different foundations and rely on different analytical procedures to arrive at their conclusions. Communization is uncompromising in its focus on the flux of history, the ‘antiformist’ dimensions of revolutionary transformation, while anarchist communists have historically committed themselves to the formation and conservation of organizational cultures which engender the kinds of social life they want to see in the future. “Unity of means and ends” is alien to communization because, from their standpoint, there are no means within this society which can bring us the ‘end’ we call communism. For them, the fissures of capitalism in its totality will birth communism in its totality. This is why the bulk of anarchist tradition - at least among the theorists of the 19th and up to the mid-20th century, is also considered a form of programmatism by the communization theorists.

Ive already read Bernes and have already ruminated on their criticisms of the italian left. I dont think his characterization of Bordigas theory of the party as some quasi-metaphysical category that identifies form and content is accurate unless we completely ignore the distinction the italian left (like Marx) makes between the formal and historical party, and the possibility of divergence between the two. Bernes softer criticism of the italian lefts anti-individualist rhetoric also cant reasonably interpreted as a rejection of Marx’s “free association of producers” because what they condemn in their polemics is the practical egoism of individuals conditioned by bourgeois society, not the freedom of “the human person” as such, which can only be attained through their reintegration into a unified human community: “The reader who follows us through the “manuscripts” will certainly notice that in them, according to the letter, there is no explicit condemnation of personal individuality, but rather its defence in the face of the living person crushed by capital, the market, money. But the course of development must be grasped if we want to recognize our classical programmatic thesis, while, in the actual dialectical war against the bourgeois apologists (English, French or German economists, politicians or philosophers), we accompany the human being, trampled on as the individual by the villains of the bourgeoisie, on its return. It will not come upon itself again, lonely and egoistically, but its “return from estrangement” is the return for itself as a social human being, in which the individual and the individuals are united with the classless society, the communist humanity. We will then have annihilated not the human person, but the animalism of the bourgeois privatist form of society. With the communist revolution, this person will not be given life as it once was, but it will have become a social person, a human being, with which the history of individuals and individual historiography will be closed and buried. For past history has not lifted the individual except on the ladder of lies, but rather it has progressed by going over mountains of individual bodies without hesitation.” link: marxists.org/archive/bordiga… Also stop harassing Abody and Grey, you’re weird as hell for not just dming me

Since I've recently started to engage with LeftCom-Theory and the ppl around it again (thanks to @Greynxgga69), I have decided to revive this account.

8. During the first half of the twentieth century capitalist economy has seen the introduction of monopolistic trusts amongst the employers. Attempts have been made to control and manage production and exchange by centralized planning, right up to State management of whole sectors of production. In the political field, there has been an increase in the strength of the police and military arms of the State and in government totalitarianism. None of the latter are new types of social organization of a transitional nature between capitalism and socialism, and neither are they revived forms of pre-bourgeois political systems. They are instead particular forms of a more and more direct and exclusive management of power and the State by the most advanced forces of capital. 9. The imperialist wars have shown that the crisis of capitalist disintegration is inevitable by decisively inaugurating a phase in which its expansion no longer signifies a continual growth in the productive forces, but rather an alternation of accumulation and destruction. These wars have been the cause of a series of profound crises in the workers’ international organizations, with the dominant classes having managed to impose military and national solidarity on them by getting them to line up on one or other of the war-fronts. There is only one historically viable alternative that can be posed to this situation and that is the rekindling of class struggle within nations, leading to the civil war of the working masses to overthrow the power of bourgeois States everywhere, along with all their international coalitions. The indispensable condition for this lies in the reconstitution of the International Communist Party as an autonomous force independent of any existing political or military power. 10. The apparatus of the proletarian State, insofar as it is a means and arm of struggle in a transitional period between two social systems, does not derive its organizational strength from any existing constitutional canons or schemas that aim to represent all classes. The most complete historical example of a proletarian State up to the present is the Soviets (workers’ councils) during the October revolution of 1917, when the working class armed itself under the leadership of the Bolshevik party, when the conquest of power was accomplished by totalitarian means and the Constituent Assembly dispersed, and when the struggle took place to repel the attacks by foreign bourgeois governments, and stamp out the internal rebellion of the vanquished classes, of the middle classes and opportunist parties – the inevitable allies of the counter-revolution at decisive moments. 11. The full accomplishment of socialism is inconceivable within the borders of one country alone and the socialist transformation cannot be effected without failures and momentary setbacks. The defence of the proletarian regime against the ever present dangers of degeneration can be ensured only if the running of the proletarian State is continually coordinated with the international struggle of the working class of each country against its own bourgeoisie, State and military apparatus; there can be no let up in this struggle even in wartime. The necessary co-ordination can be ensured only if the World Communist Party controls the politics and program of the States where the working class has attained power.” —(1948) — Link: intcp.org/en/who-we-are/#THE…

THE PROGRAM OF THE PARTY 1921-1948: “1. Under the present social regime of capital, the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production develops at an ever increasing rate, giving rise to antithetical interests and to the class struggle between the proletariat and the ruling bourgeoisie. 2. Production relations today are protected by the power of the bourgeois State: whatever the form of representative system and employment of elective democratic, the bourgeois State remains the organ for the defense of the interests of the capitalist class. 3. The proletariat can neither smash nor modify the system of capitalist relations of production which exploits it without violently overthrowing the bourgeois power. 4. The indispensable organ of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is the class party. The Communist Party, which contains the most advanced and resolute part of the proletariat, unifies the efforts of the laboring masses and transforms their struggles for particular group interests and immediate gains into the general struggle for the revolutionary emancipation of the proletariat. The party is responsible for propagating the revolutionary theory amongst the masses, for organizing the material means of action, and for leading the working class through the course of its struggles by ensuring the historical continuity and the international unity of the movement. 5. After overthrowing the capitalist power, the proletariat must completely destroy the old State apparatus in order to organize itself as dominant class and install its own dictatorship: that is to say, it will deny all rights to the bourgeois class and individuals within it for as long as they socially survive, and will found the organs of the new regime on the producing class alone. The Communist Party, whose programmatic characteristic lies in this fundamental achievement, exclusively and only represents organizes and directs the proletarian dictatorship. 6. Only by means of force will the proletarian State be able to systematically intervene in the social economy, and adopt those measures with which the collective management of production and distribution will take the place of the capitalist system. 7. This transformation of the economy and consequently of the whole of social life will gradually eliminate the necessity for the political State, whose machinery will gradually give way to the rational administration of human activities. — (1921) —

Link: marxists.org/archive/camatte…

Link: marxists.org/archive/camatte…

Link: radicalphilosophy.com/articl…

Link: libcom.org/article/practical…

“Patterns of thinking are not, for Marx, merely bound up with social relations but form an essential part of what, in a given instance, “society” is. In order to follow through this line of thought, we may turn from Marx's thesis of a distinction between theory and practice to his thesis that theory and practice form a unity. Marx urges the thesis of a unity of theory and practice by affirming both the necessity of theory to practice and the necessity of practice to theory. The necessity of theory to practice is implied in his 1844 view of revolutionary practice as involving a unity of philosophy and the proletariat and his 1845 view of revolutionary practice as ‘“practical-critical” activity' (CW, 3, p 187; 5, p. 3).8 It is implied also in his characterisation of human as opposed to animal production both in the 1844 Manuscripts – 'Man makes his life activity the object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity' (CW, 3, p. 276) – and in Capital.9 The necessity of practice to theory, on the other hand, is affirmed directly: 'Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious being, and the being of man is their natural life-process' (CW, 5, p. 36). The necessity of practice to theory is likewise implied when Marx tells us that 'scientific' activity is 'social' activity (CW, 3, p. 298) and also that 'All social life is essentially practical' ('Theses on Feuerbach', VIII: CW, 5, p. 5). For Marx, neither thoughts nor language form a 'realm of their own' but are, rather, 'only manifestations of actual life' (CW, 5, p. 447).10 But, if theory and practice are thus mutually necessary and so form a unity, it remains to determine what form this unity has and how it is to be understood. An answer to this question is suggested by two further passages. In one, Marx rejects the view – its exponents are unspecified – which 'does not include philosophy in the circle of German reality' (CW, 3, p. 180). In the other, he urges his point in the form of a rhetorical question: ‘“Can the [Young Hegelian] critic live in the society he criticises?” It should be asked instead: must he not live in that society? Must he not be a manifestation of the life of that society?' (CW, 4, p. 160). In short, theory is socially real – it is located in society – but at the same time 'All social life is essentially practical' (CW, 5, p. 5). Thus it can be suggested that the best way to characterise Marx's view of the distinction between, and unity of, theory and practice is to say that, for him, theory is a real and necessary moment (or aspect) of society as a totality (or whole). Thus practice is theory-inclusive just as theory, for its part, is practice-relatedand subsists only on a practical terrain. Just such a view of theory as a moment of practice is expressed in the already-quoted phrase ‘“practical-critical” activity', 'critical' being understood here as indicating the theoretical moment in practice, or 'activity', taken as a theory-inclusive whole. Seen in this way, theory is neither external to practice (a 'realm' of its own: CW, 5. p. 447; cf. 'Theses on Feuerbach', IV) nor yet – as in Marx's view it was for the Young Hegelians – the sole and true form of practice, nor yet again something socially and practically in essential or unreal. Theory is distinct from practice in that it forms a moment (rather than the whole) of practice: there are things practice can do – e.g. 'changing the world' – which theory on its own cannot. And theory is in unity with practice since that of which it is a moment is a practical whole. Thus the theses of the distinction between and unity of theory and practice – which at first sight might seem mutually exclusive – elegantly and lucidly combine. Moreover, the view of theory as a moment in, and of, practice provides clarification of the sense in which the destruction even for oneself of an ideological practice may be accomplished only in social and practical terms.” - Richard Gunn

“…for Marx there are no social facts in themselves which can be apprehended through traditional disciplinary boundaries. The real ‘object of knowledge’ is the social phenomenon as a whole, hence capital as totality. But this latter must be understood not as if the empirically given conditions of production are the immediate object of knowledge. Rather, Marx proceeds through a criticism of bourgeois categories and theories. [33]Theory and its ‘objective’ content are related, but they are not one and the same. That’s why the method of inquiry is formally different from the method of presentation. The method of inquiry, Schmidt explains, deals with material from history, economics, sociology, statistics and so on, and through the ‘isolating’ and ‘analysing’ of understanding. The method of presentation, in contrast, has to bring concrete unity to these isolated data. ‘Exhibition’, following Hegel, proceeds from immediate ‘being’ to mediating ‘essence’, which is the ground of being. Essential reality must manifest itself phenomenally, but this concrete instantiation of essence is distinguished from its manifestation. Although even the most abstract categories have a historical determinate dimension, the logical course is different from, and even opposite to, the historical course. These issues are further developed by Schmidt in his History and Structure: For Hegel, as well as Marx, reality is a process: ‘negative’ totality. In Hegelianism, this process appears as a system of reason. That is as a closed ontology, from which human history sinks to the level of being its derivative, a mere instance of its application. By contrast, Marx emphasises the independence and the openness of historical development, which cannot be reduced to a speculative logic that all beings must forever obey. Hence ‘negativity’ comes to refer to something which is limited in time, while ‘totality’ implies the whole of the modern relations of production. [34] There is a gnoseological primacy of the logical moment over the historical: without a prior theoretical understanding of capital one would not know where to look for the historical presupposition of its birth. [35] But this does not make categories the existential ground of reality, as for Hegel. Rather, categories mediate reality in knowledge. However, this critique of Hegel does not cancel Marx’s debt to the Hegelian notion of ‘system’. The concrete is not what stands in front of human intellect, but a ‘unity of the manifold’, knowledge which, even though it has as its necessary basis in the analytical method, dialectically evades the dichotomy of the factual and the mental. Thus, Marx proceeds logically, and not historically, because the form of capital that he developed posits its own conditions of existence.” - Bellofiore & Riva, The Neue Marx-Lektüre

“The human being in the image of capital ceases to consider any event definitive, but as an instant in an infinite process. Enjoyment is allowed but is never possible. Man becomes a sensual and passive voyeur, capital a sensual and suprasensual being. Human life ceases to be a process and becomes linear. Aspired by the process of capital, man can no longer be "himself." This aspiration evacuates him, creating a vacuum which he must continually satisfy with representations (capital). More generally, capital in process secures its domination by making every process linear. Thus it breaks the movement of nature, and this leads to the destruction of nature. But if this destruction might endanger its own process, capital adapts itself to nature (by anti-pollution, for example).” - Jacques Camatte, Wandering of Humanity

“All human life, from the very beginning of its development within capitalist society, has undergone an impoverishment. More than this, capitalist society is death organized with all the appearances of life. Here it is not a question of death as the extinction of life, but death-in-life, death with all the substance and power of life. The human being is dead and is no more than a ritual of capital.” - Jacques Camatte, Against Domestication

I really wanna get in dialogue with anarchists that actually read shit but i dont know where to find them

Was bound to happen at some point

Nigga thinks we care about some midwits feelings about communism