Yes, I know from a rhetorical perspective they're a bunch of jerks who do nothing but complain, but is there an actual takedown of their ideological notions? Because just saying they suck without further explanation makes it hard to dismiss them when they pop up. I don't agree with them, I just want to know why I shouldn't. Something about statues and logic and being chained in a courtyard with wind and all that. I'm not sure where to put this, sorry.

  • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    en up and diminished before the fascists and neolib war hawks in the 30s-40s could deliver the final death blow. They failed so hard that Stalin had to stop sending them money

    He sent money to leftcoms?

    • Ideology [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      It kinda depends on how you look at it and what year it was, because Euro Communist Parties were a mess and some of their core members were in multiple parties with various beliefs. Some were MLs, some were Leninists but not MLs, some were DemSocs trying to get their parties involved in the bourg govts, some had Anarchist sympathies, some were even Trade Unionists. To give an example: Otto Rühle was a Council Communist who joined the KPD for a year, went to the USSR for a Comintern World Congress, and then immediately split the party.

      • Mardoniush [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yeah, people think that the Stalin era Comintern was some kind of lockstep ideological monolith, when really that was a post 1956 thing.