>So you take a letter from a faction in the Middle-East as representative of all libertarian socialists? Come on, tell me with a straight face you're arguing in good faith.
I said read the signers... Noam Chomsky, Debbie Bookchin, David Graeber, David Harvey. It's a who's who of the most well known living libertarian socialist writers in the United States.
>some are more useful than others for purposes of bringing down capitalism, so there has to be something more to it than just the class character of the inventors/designers/engineers.
Well yes there is, but only insofar as the physical character of the machine facilitates or necessitates class domination.
>I was alluding to Habermas there (whom I mentioned in my post) who holds that there can be no true liberation as long as "technology" dominates, because regardless of what class creates a technological artifact, we are still dominated by that artifact. It doesn't matter who builds a car, you still have to refuel that car at some point because there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
Sounds like a man after my own heart. I still don't see how this is on topic.
This is where pure, orthodox Marxism is lacking, because while class-belonging is a very big deal, it does not tell us the whole story and leaves us vulnerable to pitfalls.
The failing of Orthodox Marxism is that it is non-marxist. It holds that we can bring about socialism through reform.
>For example, look at the usual defense of DPRK -- they say that because there is no bourgeoisie in the Marxist sense, all exploitation has ceased!, yet there is still a minority group that holds all the power and makes the decisions, whether they personally own private property is irrelevant.
There is a bourgeoisie in the DPRK. There is commodity production, there is value. It is capitalist.
>Tell me, how does one "look at reality clearly"? I mean, the fact that you think you know "The Truth" and that you go around making fun of people who disagree with you like some childish know-it-all only exposes you as a dogmatist.
You look at reality clearly by questioning your beliefs, and when they don't conform to reason or history you change them. I considered myself an anarchist from 2013 to 2016 and then some variety of libertarian marxist until 2018. I participated in black block. I read Stirner and Goldman and Chomsky and Kropotkin and Malatesta and Proudhon and Bookchin and some others. I also read Marx and some Marxist texts. Eventually, I began to see that anarchism is generally based on moral and ethical questions, where as Marxism is based on descriptive statements about class society and asks tactical questions about how we can bring about the revolution. I still thought the whole "Marxism is science" thing was very spooky, but I did appreciate that it didn't go straight to "here is why the hierarchies in our society violate ethics"
For a while I was desperately looking for some kind of "libertarian Marxism" that would let me hold on to my anarchist ideals in light of what I had learned. I read DeLeon, and found that the way he is portrayed as a "libertarian" is bullshit. There is nothing libertarian in his writings, he is just a Marxist. I dug deeper into Bookchin because I had heard some frame his work could be described as a synthesis of of communism and anarchism. What I found was a reactionary anti-communist outlook which in reality pushes anarchism closer to it's liberal roots. I read Pannekoek, and I found it to be the most coherent version of "libertarian socialism" in theory, but rather detached from any contemporary movement. So, I dug into contemporary left communism, particularly Communization theory and Gilles Dauve.
Communization theory felt very right. It was radical, it was new. It was connected to a contemporary movement, but also to the historical movements of anarchism and Marxism. However, as I saw the ways in which Dauve was influenced by Bordiga, I figured I should probably read Bordiga. And when I read Bordiga and learned all the secrets held within I understood that there was no going back to libertarianism, or democracy, or anti-sectarianism, or non-leninist strains of "marxism", or even to contemporary left-communism. I must sit and read Bordiga and tell other people on the internet to read Bordiga.
>And there it is. What you're talking about is Stalinist bastardisation of Marxism, I assume you read it in Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism". Marx never said that history progresses towards a single goal, that's Stalin and the Bolsheviks justifying their actions. It's easier to commit acts of terror when you think you're doing it in service of "history" and can wash your hands of the deed.
You're right, it's Hegel who said that (sort of, still kind of a strawman for Hegel but closer)
You're misunderstanding what I am saying though. Human society may stagnate, or even devolve, and it may never reach communism. A revolution still works a particular way though, and you only have to look towards history to see why every successful revolution has been good and has brought us closer to communism, whether it's the french or the Russian or the Spanish or whatever
We object to democratic centralism on the grounds that it is democratic, not that it is centralist.
>Not 100% Leninist
Because we are 110% Leninist! I can't speak for all leftcoms but I don't reject self determination as a principle. I reject the Maoist conception of "primary and secondary" contradictions though.
>The Situationists where a LeftCom group, just not the Italian Tendency. Debord himself was a follower of Pannekoek's Councilist Tendency. Also in all regards OP sounds more like a DeLeonist to me since he said he like Syndicalist models.
You aren't wrong even though I resent the way people group us in with shit like the situatonists and pancake. OP just needs to read more before he jumps to a particular tendency.
>Libertarian Marxism and Libertarian Socialism refer to different things
Surely one is a subset of the other?
>If you believe Marxism is scientific and is successful in describing social processes then you cannot accuse someone of not being Marxist.
Yes I can, in the same way that I might accuse someone of being unscientific if they made silly claims about physics or biology.
>You say yourself you organise with IWW and anarchists? Why don't you go organise with Marxists-Leninists?
We don't have those in my country. I do work with Trots and I suppose I have a small number of comrades in the PSL but they sort of do their own thing, and are basically Trots anyways.
>Different regions necessitate different kinds of socialism and it should be expected that they will all be based on some form of Marxism.
Different regions require different analysis, but they don't each require their own mode of inquiry. The communist position is for a world revolution, not just regional ones.
>Just like in science, the more things we try, the more likely we are to find the best solution.
Yes I agree. Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend. That doesn't mean I'm not going to tell you that you when your school of thought is incoherent.