[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

File: 1678249173937.jpg ( 102.05 KB , 1080x1078 , aad6deb581c4e96eb542f3ca46….jpg )


Why are real communists so based?


File: 1678252266271.jpg ( 119 KB , 640x908 , Maxim_Gorky_1926.jpg )

real communists follow the immortal science of dialectical and historical materialism to deduce fags and especially troons are a sign of a greater capitalist disease expressing itself culturally as all culture has its origin in economics


More homos are communists now than capitalists ironically.


I want proof. Everything I know about LGBT tells me the opposite is true.


Stalinist/tankie "communism" has been dead for decades and isn't coming back. Sneed


Ordinary fags are inclined to political radicalization and ideology, because ideology is degeneracy and so is faggotry. This meant fags would often be drawn to radical left spaces and the idea of communism, because it suggested a world that wasn't trying to kill them.

Communists proper didn't care about what you did in bed. That was a eugenist obsession, but one of the eugenist strategies was to normalize their conceit about homosexuality as a social identity, which had always been understood to be a pejorative and a way to sort unwanted men out of the mating pool. It's saying that these men are sexually retarded and unfit to live, and everything about "gay" culture is structured around the eugenic function of the identity. There is very little in it that is oppositional, and what opposition exists to eugenics in that world is out of dire necessity. It's one reason gay men don't want anything to do with "the lifestyle" and increasingly abandon talking about their proclivity or dealing with any of it. The long run solution will be antisexualism and likely self-castration, because the world is too unlivable. This is intended to expand to impose pressure for behavioral modification to the general populace, hence why gay shit is promoted everywhere and we're told to make it the center of attention. Most people are not homosexual and find it repellent for all the reasons you would expect, and many of the gay men themselves know it's a mental illness and degeneracy, but that's how they cope. I can get it - the world is so lonely and over time you know that the idea that you'll be with a woman is a lie. That's not how the game works, and it is the great game, the great lie at the heart of human reproduction. It's sad that we have to live and die for their orgy, but such is the fate of the human project. The wisest of us have to ask if any of this was worth a shit, and if we couldn't have done much better things with our time on this Earth. That's what I asked as a teenager, rather than doing the thing where you chase after girls and inevitably fail, since I wasn't allowed to participate in that. We'd all be happier if sex were depreciated and considered an ugly affair to reproduce, and children could grow in environments that weren't designed to destroy them or mutate them into the freakshows this society wants.


Literally go to any DSA, anarchist or tankie meet up. Half of them will be fruity nimrods.


Holy fuck the people in this thread need to have sex.

inb4: muh you're a homo


Not communist.
Not communist.
Name one tankie meetup that was full of fags.
<inb4 muh not true communism
They aren't communist because none of the claim to be communist nor do they follow any communist doctrine.


>If they don't meet my ideological purity test they aren't real communists

Glow uyghur.


nice one now tell us your DSA views on Ukraine


File: 1678343123982.png ( 28.52 KB , 385x209 , bd40c998fbb4bb20a4ab33621b….png )

>ideological purity test
<literally only requirements are they claim to be communist and have communist theory
please tell how do you identify if a group is communist or not o enlightened one


File: 1678349059694.jpeg ( 160.45 KB , 1125x1118 , 5AEA5719-A9C7-44ED-B067-0….jpeg )

I posted this in the identity politics thread. But the reason why I believe lesbians,gays and bis, are attracted to substance less identity movements is because they themselves do not possess any real identity. To possess an identity is to have a material basis. LGB are not an alternate strategy of reproduction nor are they an alternate form of reproduction. Their existence is entirely reliant on a heterosexual material reality, even semi-reproductive lesbians. The nature of their relationships are entirely individualistic in nature. They (by materialist analysis) do not even possess the same concept of love as heterosexuals do. Love in materialist analysis describes a process and a dialectical relationship between the participants. Heterosexuality has a very clear material conception of love revolving reproduction specifically. Homosexuals however, do not have this same material basis if any. And above all are completely reliant on the heterosexual basis of love. This is important to distinguish because it dispels the liberal/idealist notion of “love is love”. And I’m fact points out that we do not even exist on similar platitudes. Now I don’t believe LGB should be persecuted whatsoever. My point is simply that they are misrepresented in Marxism and by the nature of their relationships, very susceptible to opportunistic groups. I think LGB is a pointless discussion because they are clearly harmless outside of false opportunistic identities. The main critique should lie with identity groups like LGBT because the actual LGB themselves are inconsequential in Marxist analysis. They are a anomaly if anything.


This post made a .org mod kill themselves


>Durrr hurry DSA DSA

Can you actually present an argument or are you going to cont to add to the evidence that you are a glow uyghur?


File: 1678373575059.jpg ( 6.37 KB , 225x225 , 1663044690817002.jpg )

By their views on the relations of production. Pretty easy.


This is bullshit and I don't know when so many homophobic faggots got on this board but gay (and everything else) is branded as a commodity under capitalism and that is why it's viewed as more than just a sexual preference. Furthermore evolution bred people to fuck not to be straight which is why you see gay sex in the wild because what feels good is what feels good and animals can't really tell the difference.

Straight-ness is also treated like a commodity and identity under capitalism but you aren't talking about that or you don't notice it because you are probably heterosexual.


>By their views on the relations of production
So let mr just confirm something
According to you, the DSA and anarchist orgs, who aren't self-proclaimed communists nor have any communist theory and often disavow and attack communist historical figures and communist parties, are actually the TRUE communists because based on your own personal definition, the DSA and anarchists share the same views on relations of production as communists, and therefore most fags are actually communists because the DSA and anarchist orgs are full of LGBT shit


No you are being a snide little faggot trying to put words in my mouth. I think that just because they have shit views doesn't make them not communists because that is called a no true scottsman fallacy and just turning our nose up at it makes us look like elitists and does nothing of value. We should have crituqes of them being being little babies saying "no you aren't gommunists!!>!" because we don't like them is retarded and shows a lack of any and all critical thinking abilities on your part.

But what would I expect from a bunch of braindead homophones.




>My personal definition

Have you just not read any Marx or what? That is literally how communists are defined; Workers who seek the abolition of capital in favor of workers controlling production.


Anon the point isn't that they have shit views but that they don't have communist views
You fucking moron
You're looking at an apple and an orange and saying "oh they're both fruit so I guess I this orange is actually just a squishy apple"
Sorry but I prefer to live in the real world instead of an idealist fantasy land where a duck and a platypus are treated the same
>that is called a no true scottsman fallacy
>anon looks at a chicken
>"that's a duck because it has feathers"
<"but it it doesnt walk, sound or act like a duck"
>"no true scotsman brah"
>infallible mode unlocked
>braindead homophobes [sic]
<oh you said f*g and don't believe that all gays are commies? you must be a homophobe
Go back to reddit/twitter/.ogre faggot
>Have you just not read any Marx or what? That is literally how communists are defined; Workers who seek the abolition of capital in favor of workers controlling production.
No, that is not how communists are defined. Read Marx.


File: 1678383624724.jpg ( 37.81 KB , 563x712 , no true featherless biped.jpg )

If you don't believe that this is a human, then you hate all poultry


File: 1678383916750.png ( 821.94 KB , 768x1024 , 1677812448549379.png )

How do you define what a communist is because I bet if you went to a DSA meeting and asked them to define communism and if they agree with it you would find that most people there agree with workers controlling production. Most people in the DSA might be finger snapping morons but most people agree with workers controlling the productive forces. It's not a means to an end.

>No, that is not how communists are defined. Read Marx.

It literally is though:

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

==The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.==

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

Fucking revisionist faggots and brainlets.


>believes that anarchists and the DSA are "Workers who seek the abolition of capital in favor of workers controlling production."


>How do you define what a communist
Well let's see anon, I
1. look at all the people who have called themselves communist
2. see what they have in common
3. decide that those common traits are part of what defines a communist
>I bet if you went to a DSA meeting and asked them to define communism and if they agree with it you would find that most people there agree with workers controlling production
>most people agree with workers controlling the productive forces
Workers controlling the means of production isn't the same as communism. Show me where Marx or any other communist says that.
>quotes the manifesto
Anon, if you read this part you fucking quoted:
>The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The point is that Marx and Engels are making a clear distinction between communists and other proletarian parties. If you actually read the manifesto, you will understand why, because they spend an entire section of the manifesto shitting on other socialists and distinguishing themselves as separate from them.
By the way anon, you will absolutely love this line:
The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
You are a fucking moron.
>Fucking revisionist faggots and brainlets.


>Poor reading comprehension

There's no hope for you morons.

>Workers controlling the means of production isn't the same as communism. Show me where Marx or any other communist says that.

That is literally the whole point. What do you think communism is if it is not that? Do you unironically believe it is when the government does anything? Read the Gothie program, read Marx expounding on The paris commune. If capitalism is Private ownership of production in a market economg based on wage labor where workers who have nothing to sell but their labor power do so in order to survive to those who own property then it is the logical conclusion of what marx was critiquing regardless of your dumb ass fucking revisionist philosophy.

>The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

Yes you moron; Contextually there have been man upheavals of relation to property which is what he was talking about literally 1 sentence above that.

I have read more Marx than you most likely have ever seen and you are just a lying fucking faggot bashing gay people for no reason kill yourself.


"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.

The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature – organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor – originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism. Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hinderances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France.

During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control – that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes – became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified the class antagonism between capital and labor, the state power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labor, of a public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism.

After every revolution marking a progressive phase in the class struggle, the purely repressive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief. The Revolution of 1830, resulting in the transfer of government from the landlords to the capitalists, transferred it from the more remote to the more direct antagonists of the working men. The bourgeois republicans, who, in the name of the February Revolution, took the state power, used it for the June [1848] massacres, in order to convince the working class that “social” republic means the republic entrusting their social subjection, and in order to convince the royalist bulk of the bourgeois and landlord class that they might safely leave the cares and emoluments of government to the bourgeois “republicans.”

However, after their one heroic exploit of June, the bourgeois republicans had, from the front, to fall back to the rear of the “Party of Order” – a combination formed by all the rival fractions and factions of the appropriating classes. The proper form of their joint-stock government was the parliamentary republic, with Louis Bonaparte for its president. Theirs was a regime of avowed class terrorism and deliberate insult towards the “vile multitude.”

If the parliamentary republic, as M. Thiers said, “divided them [the different fractions of the ruling class] least", it opened an abyss between that class and the whole body of society outside their spare ranks. The restraints by which their own divisions had under former regimes still checked the state power, were removed by their union; and in view of the threatening upheaval of the proletariat, they now used that state power mercilessly and ostentatiously as the national war engine of capital against labor.

In their uninterrupted crusade against the producing masses, they were, however, bound not only to invest the executive with continually increased powers of repression, but at the same time to divest their own parliamentary stronghold – the National Assembly – one by one, of all its own means of defence against the Executive. The Executive, in the person of Louis Bonaparte, turned them out. The natural offspring of the “Party of Order” republic was the Second Empire.

The empire, with the coup d’etat for its birth certificate, universal suffrage for its sanction, and the sword for its sceptre, professed to rest upon the peasantry, the large mass of producers not directly involved in the struggle of capital and labor. It professed to save the working class by breaking down parliamentarism, and, with it, the undisguised subserviency of government to the propertied classes. It professed to save the propertied classes by upholding their economic supremacy over the working class; and, finally, it professed to unite all classes by reviving for all the chimera of national glory.

In reality, it was the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation. It was acclaimed throughout the world as the savior of society. Under its sway, bourgeois society, freed from political cares, attained a development unexpected even by itself. Its industry and commerce expanded to colossal dimensions; financial swindling celebrated cosmopolitan orgies; the misery of the masses was set off by a shameless display of gorgeous, meretricious and debased luxury. The state power, apparently soaring high above society and the very hotbed of all its corruptions. Its own rottenness, and the rottenness of the society it had saved, were laid bare by the bayonet of Prussia, herself eagerly bent upon transferring the supreme seat of that regime from Paris to Berlin. Imperialism is, at the same time, the most prostitute and the ultimate form of the state power which nascent middle class society had commenced to elaborate as a means of its own emancipation from feudalism, and which full-grown bourgeois society had finally transformed into a means for the enslavement of labor by capital.

The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of “social republic,” with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.

Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.

Having once got rid of the standing army and the police – the physical force elements of the old government – the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the “parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles.

The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.

The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.

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. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excresence.

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.[A]

It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterparts of older, and even defunct, forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness. Thus, this new Commune, which breaks with the modern state power, has been mistaken for a reproduction of the medieval Communes, which first preceded, and afterward became the substratum of, that very state power. The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.

The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.

The provincial French middle class saw in the Commune an attempt to restore the sway their order had held over the country under Louis Philippe, and which, under Louis Napoleon, was supplanted by the pretended rule of the country over the towns. In reality, the Communal Constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the Commune involved, as a matter of course, local municipal liberty, but no longer as a check upon the now superseded state power. It could only enter into the head of a Bismarck – who, when not engaged on his intrigues of blood and iron, always likes to resume his old trade, so befitting his mental calibre, of contributor to Kladderadatsch (the Berlin Punch)[C] – it could only enter into such a head to ascribe to the Paris Commune aspirations after the caricature of the old French municipal organization of 1791, the Prussian municipal constitution which degrades the town governments to mere secondary wheels in the police machinery of the Prussian state. The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. Its very existence presupposed the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe at least, is the normal incumbrance and indispensable cloak of class rule. It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. But neither cheap government nor the “true republic” was its ultimate aim; they were its mere concomitants.

The multiplicity of interpretations to which the Commune has been subjected, and the multiplicity of interests which construed it in their favor, show that it was a thoroughly expansive political form, while all the previous forms of government had been emphatically repressive. Its true secret was this:

It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor.

Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute.

It is a strange fact. In spite of all the tall talk and all the immense literature, for the last 60 years, about emancipation of labor, no sooner do the working men anywhere take the subject into their own hands with a will, than uprises at once all the apologetic phraseology of the mouthpieces of present society with its two poles of capital and wages-slavery (the landlord now is but the sleeping partner of the capitalist), as if the capitalist society was still in its purest state of virgin innocence, with its antagonisms still undeveloped, with its delusions still unexploded, with its prostitute realities not yet laid bare. The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization!

Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, “impossible” communism! Why, those members of the ruling classes who are intelligent enough to perceive the impossibility of continuing the present system – and they are many – have become the obtrusive and full-mouthed apostles of co-operative production. If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?

The working class did not expect miracles from the Commune. They have no ready-made utopias to introduce par décret du peuple. They know that in order to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which present society is irresistably tending by its own economical agencies, they will have to pass through long struggles, through a series of historic processes, transforming circumstances and men. They have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant. In the full consciousness of their historic mission, and with the heroic resolve to act up to it, the working class can afford to smile at the coarse invective of the gentlemen’s gentlemen with pen and inkhorn, and at the didactic patronage of well-wishing bourgeois-doctrinaires, pouring forth their ignorant platitudes and sectarian crotchets in the oracular tone of scientific infallibility. "


"…When the Paris Commune took the management of the revolution in its own hands; when plain working men for the first time dared to infringe upon the governmental privilege of their “natural superiors,” and, under circumstances of unexampled difficulty, performed it at salaries the highest of which barely amounted to one-fifth of what, according to high scientific authority,(1) is the minimum required for a secretary to a certain metropolitan school-board – the old world writhed in convulsions of rage at the sight of the Red Flag, the symbol of the Republic of Labor, floating over the Hôtel de Ville.

And yet, this was the first revolution in which the working class was openly acknowledged as the only class capable of social initiative, even by the great bulk of the Paris middle class – shopkeepers, tradesmen, merchants – the wealthy capitalist alone excepted. The Commune had saved them by a sagacious settlement of that ever recurring cause of dispute among the middle class themselves – the debtor and creditor accounts.[D] The same portion of the middle class, after they had assisted in putting down the working men’s insurrection of June 1848, had been at once unceremoniously sacrificed to their creditors[E] by the then Constituent Assembly. But this was not their only motive for now rallying around the working class. They felt there was but one alternative – the Commune, or the empire – under whatever name it might reappear. The empire had ruined them economically by the havoc it made of public wealth, by the wholesale financial swindling it fostered, by the props it lent to the artificially accelerated centralization of capital, and the concomitant expropriation of their own ranks. It had suppressed them politically, it had shocked them morally by its orgies, it had insulted their Voltairianism by handing over the education of their children to the fréres Ignorantins,[F] it had revolted their national feeling as Frenchmen by precipitating them headlong into a war which left only one equivalent for the ruins it made – the disappearance of the empire. In fact, after the exodus from Paris of the high Bonapartist and capitalist bohème, the true middle class Party of Order came out in the shape of the “Union Republicaine,”[G] enrolling themselves under the colors of the Commune and defending it against the wilful misconstructions of Thiers. Whether the gratitude of this great body of the middle class will stand the present severe trial, time must show.

The Commune was perfectly right in telling the peasants that “its victory was their only hope.” Of all the lies hatched at Versailles and re-echoed by the glorious European penny-a-liner, one of the most tremendous was that the Rurals represented the French peasantry. Think only of the love of the French peasant for the men to whom, after 1815, he had to pay the milliard indemnity.[H] In the eyes of the French peasant, the very existence of a great landed proprietor is in itself an encroachment on his conquests of 1789. The bourgeois, in 1848, had burdened his plot of land with the additional tax of 45 cents in the franc; but then he did so in the name of the revolution; while now he had fomented a civil war against revolution, to shift on to the peasant’s shoulders the chief load of the 5 milliards of indemnity to be paid to the Prussian. The Commune, on the other hand, in one of its first proclamations, declared that the true originators of the war would be made to pay its cost. The Commune would have delivered the peasant of the blood tax – would have given him a cheap government – transformed his present blood-suckers, the notary, advocate, executor, and other judicial vampires, into salaried communal agents, elected by, and responsible to, himself. It would have freed him of the tyranny of the garde champêtre, the gendarme, and the prefect; would have put enlightenment by the schoolmaster in the place of stultification by the priest. And the French peasant is, above all, a man of reckoning. He would find it extremely reasonable that the pay of the priest, instead of being extorted by the tax-gatherer, should only depend upon the spontaneous action of the parishioners’ religious instinct. Such were the great immediate boons which the rule of the Commune – and that rule alone – held out to the French peasantry. It is, therefore, quite superfluous here to expatiate upon the more complicated but vital problems which the Commune alone was able, and at the same time compelled, to solve in favor of the peasant – viz., the hypothecary debt, lying like an incubus upon his parcel of soil, the prolétariat foncier (the rural proletariat), daily growing upon it, and his expropriation from it enforced, at a more and more rapid rate, by the very development of modern agriculture and the competition of capitalist farming.

The French peasant had elected Louis Bonaparte president of the Republic; but the Party of Order created the empire. What the French peasant really wants he commenced to show in 1849 and 1850, by opposing his maire to the government’s prefect, his school-master to the government’s priest, and himself to the government’s gendarme. All the laws made by the Party of Order in January and February 1850 were avowed measures of repression against the peasant. The peasant was a Bonapartist, because the Great Revolution, with all its benefits to him, was, in his eyes, personified in Napoleon. This delusion, rapidly breaking down under the Second Empire (and in its very nature hostile to the Rurals), this prejudice of the past, how could it have withstood the appeal of the Commune to the living interests and urgent wants of the peasantry?

The Rurals – this was, in fact, their chief apprehension – knew that three months’ free communication of Communal Paris with the provinces would bring about a general rising of the peasants, and hence their anxiety to establish a police blockade around Paris, so as to stop the spread of the rinderpest [cattle pest – contagious disease].

If the Commune was thus the true representative of all the healthy elements of French society, and therefore the truly national government, it was, at the same time, as a working men’s government, as the bold champion of the emancipation of labor, emphatically international. Within sight of that Prussian army, that had annexed to Germany two French provinces, the Commune annexed to France the working people all over the world.

The Second Empire had been the jubilee of cosmopolitan blackleggism, the rakes of all countries rushing in at its call for a share in its orgies and in the plunder of the French people. Even at this moment, the right hand of Thiers is Ganessco, the foul Wallachian, and his left hand is Markovsky, the Russian spy. The Commune admitted all foreigners to the honor of dying for an immortal cause. Between the foreign war lost by their treason, and the civil war fomented by their conspiracy with the foreign invader, the bourgeoisie had found the time to display their patriotism by organizing police hunts upon the Germans in France. The Commune made a German working man [Leo Frankel] its Minister of Labor. Thiers, the bourgeoisie, the Second Empire, had continually deluded Poland by loud professions of sympathy, while in reality betraying her to, and doing the dirty work of, Russia. The Commune honored the heroic sons of Poland [J. Dabrowski and W. Wróblewski] by placing them at the head of the defenders of Paris. And, to broadly mark the new era of history it was conscious of initiating, under the eyes of the conquering Prussians on one side, and the Bonapartist army, led by Bonapartist generals, on the other, the Commune pulled down that colossal symbol of martial glory, the Vendôme Column.[I]

The great social measure of the Commune was its own working existence. Its special measures could but betoken the tendency of a government of the people by the people. Such were the abolition of the nightwork of journeymen bakers; the prohibition, under penalty, of the employers’ practice to reduce wages by levying upon their workpeople fines under manifold pretexts – a process in which the employer combines in his own person the parts of legislator, judge, and executor, and filches the money to boot. Another measure of this class was the surrender to associations of workmen, under reserve of compensation, of all closed workshops and factories, no matter whether the respective capitalists had absconded or preferred to strike work.

The financial measures of the Commune, remarkable for their sagacity and moderation, could only be such as were compatible with the state of a besieged town. Considering the colossal robberies committed upon the city of Paris by the great financial companies and contractors, under the protection of Haussman,[J] the Commune would have had an incomparably better title to confiscate their property than Louis Napoleon had against the Orleans family. The Hohenzollern and the English oligarchs, who both have derived a good deal of their estates from church plunders, were, of course, greatly shocked at the Commune clearing but 8,000F out of secularization.

While the Versailles government, as soon as it had recovered some spirit and strength, used the most violent means against the Commune; while it put down the free expression of opinion all over France, even to the forbidding of meetings of delegates from the large towns; while it subjected Versailles and the rest of France to an espionage far surpassing that of the Second Empire; while it burned by its gendarme inquisitors all papers printed at Paris, and sifted all correspondence from and to Paris; while in the National Assembly the most timid attempts to put in a word for Paris were howled down in a manner unknown even to the Chambre introuvable of 1816; with the savage warfare of Versailles outside, and its attempts at corruption and conspiracy inside Paris – would the Commune not have shamefully betrayed its trust by affecting to keep all the decencies and appearances of liberalism as in a time of profound peace? Had the government of the Commune been akin to that of M. Thiers, there would have been no more occasion to suppress Party of Order papers at Paris that there was to suppress Communal papers at Versailles.

It was irritating indeed to the Rurals that at the very same time they declared the return to the church to be the only means of salvation for France, the infidel Commune unearthed the peculiar mysteries of the Picpus nunnery, and of the Church of St. Laurent.[K] It was a satire upon M. Thiers that, while he showered grand crosses upon the Bonapartist generals in acknowledgment of their mastery in losing battles, signing capitulations, and turning cigarettes at Wilhelmshöhe,[L] the Commune dismissed and arrested its generals whenever they were suspected of neglecting their duties. The expulsion from, and arrest by, the Commune of one of its members [Blanchet] who had slipped in under a false name, and had undergone at Lyons six days’ imprisonment for simple bankruptcy, was it not a deliberate insult hurled at the forger, Jules Favre, then still the foreign minister of France, still selling France to Bismarck, and still dictating his orders to that paragon government of Belgium? But indeed the Commune did not pretend to infallibility, the invariable attribute of all governments of the old stamp. It published its doings and sayings, it initiated the public into all its shortcomings.

In every revolution there intrude, at the side of its true agents, men of different stamp; some of them survivors of and devotees to past revolutions, without insight into the present movement, but preserving popular influence by their known honesty and courage, or by the sheer force of tradition; others mere brawlers who, by dint of repeating year after year the same set of stereotyped declarations against the government of the day, have sneaked into the reputation of revolutionists of the first water. After March 18, some such men did also turn up, and in some cases contrived to play pre-eminent parts. As far as their power went, they hampered the real action of the working class, exactly as men of that sort have hampered the full development of every previous revolution. They are an unavoidable evil: with time they are shaken off; but time was not allowed to the Commune.

Wonderful, indeed, was the change the Commune had wrought in Paris! No longer any trace of the meretricious Paris of the Second Empire! No longer was Paris the rendezvous of British landlords, Irish absentees,[M] American ex-slaveholders and shoddy men, Russian ex-serfowners, and Wallachian boyards. No more corpses at the morgue, no nocturnal burglaries, scarcely any robberies; in fact, for the first time since the days of February 1848, the streets of Paris were safe, and that without any police of any kind.

“We,” said a member of the Commune, “hear no longer of assassination, theft, and personal assault; it seems indeed as if the police had dragged along with it to Versailles all its Conservative friends.”

The cocottes [‘chickens’ – prostitutes] had refound the scent of their protectors – the absconding men of family, religion, and, above all, of property. In their stead, the real women of Paris showed again at the surface – heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris – almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates – radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative!

Opposed to this new world at Paris, behold the old world at Versailles – that assembly of the ghouls of all defunct regimes, Legitimists and Orleanists, eager to feed upon the carcass of the nation – with a tail of antediluvian republicans, sanctioning, by their presence in the Assembly, the slaveholders’ rebellion, relying for the maintenance of their parliamentary republic upon the vanity of the senile mountebank at its head, and caricaturing 1789 by holding their ghastly meetings in the Jeu de Paume.(2) There it was, this Assembly, the representative of everything dead in France, propped up to the semblance of life by nothing but the swords of the generals of Louis Bonaparte. Paris all truth, Versailles all lie; and that lie vented through the mouth of Thiers.

Thiers tells a deputation of the mayors of the Seine-et-Oise – “You may rely upon my word, which I have never broken!”

He tells the Assembly itself that “it was the most freely elected and most liberal Assembly France ever possessed"; he tells his motley soldiery that it was “the admiration of the world, and the finest army France ever possessed”; he tells the provinces that the bombardment of Paris by him was a myth: “If some cannon-shots have been fired, it was not the deed of the army of Versailles, but of some insurgents trying to make believe that they are fighting, while they dare not show their faces.” He again tells the provinces that “the artillery of Versailles does not bombard Paris, but only cannonades it". He tells the Archbishop of Paris that the pretended executions and reprisals (!) attributed to the Versailles troops were all moonshine. He tells Paris that he was only anxious “to free it from the hideous tyrants who oppress it,” and that, in fact, the Paris of the Commune was “but a handful of criminals.”

The Paris of M. Thiers was not the real Paris of the “vile multitude,” but a phantom Paris, the Paris of the francs-fileurs,[N] the Paris of the Boulevards, male and female – the rich, the capitalist, the gilded, the idle Paris, now thronging with its lackeys, its blacklegs, its literary bonhome, and its cocottes at Versailles, Saint-Denis, Rueil, and Saint-Germain; considering the civil war but an agreeable diversion, eyeing the battle going on through telescopes, counting the rounds of cannon, swearing by their own honor and that of their prostitutes, that the performance was far better got up than it used to be at the Porte St. Martin. The men who fell were really dead; the cries of the wounded were cries in good earnest; and, besides, the whole thing was so intensely historical. "


And yet, this was the first revolution in which the working class was openly acknowledged as the only class capable of social initiative, even by the great bulk of the Paris middle class – shopkeepers, tradesmen, merchants – the wealthy capitalist alone excepted. The Commune had saved them by a sagacious settlement of that ever recurring cause of dispute among the middle class themselves – the debtor and creditor accounts.[D] The same portion of the middle class, after they had assisted in putting down the working men’s insurrection of June 1848, had been at once unceremoniously sacrificed to their creditors[E] by the then Constituent Assembly. But this was not their only motive for now rallying around the working class. They felt there was but one alternative – the Commune, or the empire

Go back to your fucking /pol/ shit hole you fucking wannabe communist posers


>That is literally the whole point. What do you think communism is if it is not that?
Is workers controlling the MoP a goal of communism? Sure. But that's not the SAME thing as communism. I don't understand why you can't grasp this basic point. Apples are not oranges just because they are both fruits.
If communists are distinct and separate from other proletarian parties, then it's because they have differences that go beyond a stated intent to socialize ownership of the MoP. This is precisely what Marx points out in the latter half of the manifesto.
If this is revisionism then, I am happy to be a revisionist. If your definition of communism is so broad that it includes bourgeois socialists, then I refuse to identify as a communist.
>you are just a lying fucking faggot bashing gay people for no reason
Still going with this one? Your proof that I'm a homophobe is that I don't believe that most gay people are communist. This claim is fucking ridiculous and you know it.
>Posts Marx's quotes on the paris commune
Anon, if you can't tell the difference between the communards and the DSA, then absolutely all hope is lost for you.


File: 1678387201307.png ( 469.39 KB , 927x862 , 1677122907429868.png )

I never saId the goal of the DSA was the same as communists. I said that you will find communists in the DSA more than not and that simply being in the DSA doesn't not make some one a communist. You either don't understand or are trying to put words; in my mouth about what I said.


Also not beleving that allg ays are communists (another thing I did not say) doesn't make you a homophobe. What makes you a homophobe is hating gay people, or, believing that gay people cannot be communists, which, is kind of how what you said earlier came off as.


>I said that you will find communists in the DSA more than not and that simply being in the DSA doesn't not make some one a communist.
No, you never said this. Show me the post and quote the part where you said this.


> Most people in the DSA might be finger snapping morons but most people agree with workers controlling the production

It's literally right here though.


>Straight-ness is also treated like a commodity and identity under capitalism
This isn’t even remotely true. I’ve noticed homosexuals like to project their substance less identities onto heterosexuals. In their eyes heterosexuality is just as much of an abstraction as their homosexuality is. While I don’t deny that heterosexuality has been warped and molded to the realities of capitalism and its structures. We have to remember that it also has material basis unlike homosexuality. A relationship with reproduction as its basis is not simply an abstraction nor are the identities stemming from it. You can pervert heterosexuality yes, but no matter what it will remain the defacto method of reproduction in humans.


>Wants to live in denial and believe he is special in a capitalist economy where everything is commodified and everything of substance evaporates into air

Never mind all the budlight and wrangler commercials, or, all those old commercials about house wifes from 7p years ago that reinforce what it means to be a "good wife" in a hetero normative relationship.
What about those old mcdonalds comercials that sexualize eating hamburgers with super modles ontop of Benz's lmao.

You are in denial. So much denial it's out right pathetic. You are not special. You are the walking compost of the planet earth.

>We have to remember that it also has material basis unlike homosexuality.

What are you even talking about? Homosexuality has no basis in material reality? Sorry I forgot about all those guys who cum from getting fucked in the ass. I don't know how it can get anymore real than that, lmfao. Furthermore, Gender and romantic norms are not genetic and they are not objective in nature. I had this very discussion with some other homophones on /pol/ who you appear to be agreeing with. Now it would be really easy to point out that gender is an abstraction and that people can identify as what ever they want, but, I really like to take it further because gender is an abstraction and it doesn't matter what people do sexually as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, but, the whole concept of gender was made up before a time in which we had biology and knew what chromasomes were and then we slapped gender on top of those chromosomal when the truth is only some ones chromosomal composition exists and this says absolutely nothing about how they will behave outside of the generic desire to reproduce (which itself can be on a scale you know because evolution isn't binaural)

And on top of all of that all sex, to some degree, has a psychological aspect to it which is why people can reach climax from things that are not heterosexual in the first place.

God damn, you are fucking dumb.


>This is your brain on western culture


>most people agree with workers controlling the production
Yeah, once again, believing in workers ownership is not the same as communism. Respond to my point in >>466978


File: 1678393102850.jpeg ( 70.96 KB , 600x600 , 47D87937-9433-49E3-ABAC-2….jpeg )

I never said that heterosexuality couldn’t be perverted, just not entirely manipulated like homosexuality
>material basis is when you coom
<this retard actually thinks I’m trying to argue that homosexuals don’t exist lol
I agree with the other anon. I have literally never seen an irl example of liberal brain rot before I’m impressed
Read more lib.
>According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.


Homosexuality is not manipulated you moronic homophobe. What do you think the Jews are making people gay? It's all commoditified under capitalism and thus meaningless. Sexuality is just another product to be bought and sold you brainlet your sacred cow of heterosexuality is not special.

You are clearly to stupid to understand what is being said to you so you have to resort to these strawmen and dumb personal attacks o I'll just leave you to beat yourself off over your half baked analysis.




Homosexuality is not manipulated you moronic homophobe. What do you think the Jews are making people gay? It's all commoditified under capitalism and thus meaningless. Sexuality is just another product to be bought and sold you brainlet your sacred cow of heterosexuality is not special.

You are clearly to stupid to understand what is being said to you so you have to resort to these strawmen and dumb personal attacks o I'll just leave you to beat yourself off over your half baked analysis.


It's literally the main form of Socialism in the Global South…

Unique IPs: 20

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]