r/leftcommunism

I see it repeated that all modern wars are between imperial powers by proxy, or at the very least between capitalist states. That we should follow the revolutionary defeatist line if anywhere meaningful, and assert the mantra of "no war but the class war". I do not even mean to disagree with this. However I have seen it be said by detractors, acting I admit with Campist intents, of arguing this is too general and becomes almost a form of 'neutrality'. I have seen other left-communists exclaim that all wars today are imperialist, this is again not something I disagree with but I don't believe we, as Marxists, should act under general laws. Marx was affirmative that the only revolutionary action must be guided by particular study and the facts, no empty generalisations. It is possible all wars today are of the same nature but this must be guided by particular investigation, something the ICP, in all fairness, seems to practice to some degree but most of the reddit or twitter or even substack communist lefts do not.

I have seen it argued that we are in the period after any "progressive" struggles, that there is the Damenist approach of pure opposition to war, and I understand that while figures like Bordiga argued (albeit in times passed) for supporting parties in inter-imperial wars which he felt may cripple the soul of the world market, and themselves, on their victory: the Axis, the Eastern Bloc; and support for colonial revolutionaries in extending the forces of Capital against a periphery forced to be backward. Though this approach too may have its errors. Marx in his time showed a great varied and set of particular views on different wars with great strengths, though there maybe '19th century biases' behind some analyses.

There are some wars and tensions today I am unsure to what the Communist left can either contribute (if any of this talk is meaningfully material) or what the analysis suggests to do. Pakistan is a country torn strongly between industrial cities and modern feudalism, bonded labour and landed families dominate this country; does this suggest we should support the more powerful, developed India in its nationalist adventures to the detriment of the Pakistani political class? If so, what about the continuation of bonded labour within parts of India, such as Bihar? Maybe taking sides portrays an imperial detachment and not support for the present South Asian workers. To go back to the 1970s, perhaps not substantially relevant at all but the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, this was an Inter-Imperialist War but was nevertheless a war between state industrialism and an apocalyptically utopian agrarianism similar to the Heavenly Kingdom which Marx grew to oppose over the 1850s? I do, maybe controversially, believe there are moral elements in Marx's corpus, (though maybe this is a weakness and I admittedly feel uncomfortable saying Communism is anything more than the negation of Capitalism) he talks about the chance of Russia by-passing Capitalist "hell" and the section on Primitive Accumulation in Capital vol. 1 is quite emotive. Should we present some critical allegiance with the most oppressed, if we are to build sociality in place of Capital, an argument could be made for demonstrating 'solidarity'? At the same time I am well aware groups like Hamas or both sides of the Sudanese Civil War are tentacles of Bourgeois powers, Iran or Turkey, the UAE or Saudi Arabia. I am also aware moralism is a quagmire of ideology not to immerse oneself in. Could an argument be made for the support of Islamists such as in Nigeria, crippling the state and weakening all parties? Or would this only isolate us? What about the wars around the Great Lakes and Eastern Congo where Capitalism is maybe not truly developed, if the world even requires of Central Africa the building up of productive forces there?

Id say im a leninist, for now i have read some marx, engels , Lenin and a bit of stalin. What should i start with?

Also, how could they have pushed for the capitalist need to maximize profit, without having a capitalist class?

I consider myself leftcom, left libertarian and an utopian socialist. I found myself agreeing with a lot of marxists (even though I'm not a

marxist myself) so I wanted to read CM. I read it and understood that I disagree with Marx in pretty much everything;

1. Why did Marx considered lumpenproletarians as reactionaries?

A lot of lumpens are people who have mental problems and lost the job due to it, a lot of them have physical injuries and they're unable to work physically, a lot of them from discriminated groups like romanies for example. It's people which were discriminated by the capitalist system and would benefit from a comunist society. They're the most revolutionary class because they need global society changes just to survive.

2. Why did Marx differentiated peasantry and proletariat if they are both working class?

I'm from country that was historically mostly peasant - Ukraine. Peasants own their means of production directly and mostly don't using work of others. The main problem in the peasant society is that resources aren't distributed equally and if U have a smaller land than ur neighbor U just die. I'd the land would be owned collectively through direct democracy peasants would live a lot better. They have the same interest as proletarians and they're both working class.

3. What the fuck did Marx even meant when he said that women should be owned collectively?

Human can be owned? HUMAN? Women should voluntarily decide if they want to have sex or not and with whom they want to have it. Marx said that family is bad and capitalist - but why people can't voluntarily decide if they want to have family or not?

4. I haven't understand why did Marx critiqued other socialists so much

What is the problem with utopian socialism? His critique of other socialists was so vague that I didn't understand anything. He just said that the utopian socialists somehow serve the bourgeoise but didn't explained why. Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand him?

What I agree with Marx:

1. Bourgeoise have interest in proletarians working for them and it's the reason why capitalism will devour itself

There's competition for worker between different companies so they should either increase their living conditions which would lead that the first companies with equal conditions for workers will devour others, or get a monopoly which would create such inhumane conditions for workers that it would spark a revolution.

2. Socialism is more individualistic than capitalism

Capitalists say that freedom is a freedom of trade. But most of the people didn't have that freedom, they didn't even have freedom to use their own resources. The true freedom is ability to use resources freely which more people have under socialism. Socialism is the system where every individual is important, capitalism is not.

3. We should unite with other proletarian democratic movements to achieve the same goal

Dictatorship of the working class is the system where workers are the only ones that can rule. It's a worker's democracy. So we should unite not just around a left ideas but around the left libertarian ideas that want to give more power to the proletarians. It's better to unite with liberals to get more power to the working unions than with leninists for example

4. "Proletarians of the world unite" sounds cool.

I would be really glad if U would answer my questions because I haven't read Marx so much except the comunist manifesto and maybe I didn't understand some things that he said correctly.

I'm against Lenin personally but I heard that some leftcoms praise Lenin as an opposition to Stalin.

Hi. This is a very short survey---one question---and it is an encrypted form, so no information will be collected. Just the results of the survey. Thanks.