Hoe much support do they have and do they matter politically at all?
Is someone who disagrees with the line of the PCF still better off joining IT and attempt to change it or is this PRCF more than just a powerless sect that nobody cares about or likes?
They are more than three thousand strong and are growing quite well in comparison to the PCF, who's been bleeding thousands of members per year.
They actively participate in everything a Leninist Party of a New Type should and take every opportunity to humiliate the social fascists of the PCF - something American communists should learn to do - by being a party of the French working class.
Trying to retake parties hijacked by right opportunists and social fascists has continually been a failure in western communist parties. Attempting to reform them from the inside via the democratic process is akin to chickens trying to vote the jackals out of the henhouse. In the years between party congresses the jackals use their power to purge the most outspoken communists, liquidate party organs and material assets, then finally gut and amputate the organization structure of the party's rank-and-file until they're reduced to glorified county club meetings.
take every opportunity to humiliate the social fascists of the PCF
That just makes them sound annoying
Yeah you had me until "social fascist communists", I advise you to drop that, it was unserious in the 30s and it's unserious now, there's a reason the USSR stopped using it.
That reason is called the popular front against fascism, when fascism won over social democracy and threatened to massacre countless millions of people.
I will not disguise my open disgust and cold hatred for these succdem sheepdogs in communist clothing. Ruthlessly and relentlessly and unreservedly polemicizing against them as they are the greatest stumbling block in the path to rebuilding the Communist parties of the west.
Of course there's also the caveat that I like calling suckdems social fascists because I'm a petty bitch on a shitposting website so I don't really mind being called unserious right now even though this is a somewhat serious talk
Completely disagree, the overwhelming majority of the "old school" communist parties have been completely hijacked by the new left that emerged during the sino-soviet split and collaborate with the Dictatorship of bourgeoise the bourgeoisie in action while uttering communist sounding epithets.
Let's also go over the fact you literally know nothing about the PCRF and came into this discussion with the intent of completely dismissing them in favor of the PCF - a party who's leadership and majority membership has totally rejected and denounced the Soviet experiment and has steadily adopted utopianist and rightist elements into itself in order to compete with the succdem French Parti socialiste, which they're still failing at - while blathering on about how it's "extremely annoying" to combat the right-opportunism that has entrenched itself into the corpses of the old parties of the west
Finally, on labor movements. I'm going to assume you're some sort of European, so your rightist eurocommunist "old parties" still has its ties to the trade unions. Ties that have been steadily rotting year by year as those parties retreat from drawing new blood from the working class and recruit and empower new leadership from the same pool of the bourgeois-educated intelligentsia the rest of the European parliamentary parties draw from.
On the off chance you're a Yankee that's had his head buried in the sand, the American old party had its ties to the trade unions torn apart by the trade unions and the State during the second round of communist purging to the point it had to go underground and leave a great void in its wake to only be filled with a great smattering of new left parties all competing to see who can grow the fastest. This great rending of the old party's ties to the American labor movement was so severe that in order to bring in enough new blood into the Party in order to sustain it into the future the leadership of the party chose to reorientate itself and begin to directly draw from the intelligentsia and groom them into the future leaders of the party. As the lead up to the disaster of '91 occured and in the massive void left behind by the destruction of the Soviet Union, a section of the future leaders of the old party attempted to stage an ideological coup in order to seize control of the party and direct it to follow the path of the European rightists. Quite obviously that impatient section failed, but ultimately the rightists won and liquidated the party until it was the current shell that it is today in the manner I discribed in an earlier comment above.
Alright, we can call them imperialists-who-also-like-welfare, it's all the same. People who are only concerned with getting treats and not with correcting the structure of society for others who suffer do not need to have their feelings respected.
You say it was unserious in the 1930s but it was already thoroughly vindicated in 1919 when the SPD collaborated with the proto-Nazi freikorps to have the KPD leadership murdered.
Alright, we can call them imperialists-who-also-like-welfare
You just seem to think that welfare IS imperialism even when talking about communist parties that, literally, denounce imperialism. It's unserious, and you're giving uo trying to convince working class people (including the ones in these protests) that you can meaningfuly make their lives better
You say it was unserious in the 1930s but it was already thoroughly vindicated in 1919 when the SPD collaborated with the proto-Nazi freikorps to have the KPD leadership murdered.
That's completely anachronistic, THAT was the event that LEAD TO third periodism. You don't retroactively "vindicate" third periodism in Germany, where it had by far the worst result, by pointing to the, albeit understandable, reason that motivated it. It was a bad policy that's not hard to understand it ended up with the soviet union, which the "social fascism" formulation was intending to benefit, COMPLETELY DESTROYED, even if the nazis WERE deafeated it was a failure on part of the communists to have let hitler come to power and permanently knee-cap the USSR against the USA.
Do you just disagree with trying to govern and giving people shit they want? Like, imagine you actually have to convince someone normal, "give you health care? that would be mere opportunism I'd rather give you revolution!", that's not what people are looking for right now and more important than that you can't give them revolution they're not even on your side yet, you said it yourself the revolutionary fervor isn't there (or anywhere really) so trying to will it into existence without showing the working class that YOU can give them shit YOU, is just going to make people hate you and, maybe correctly, regard you as unserious. So why support you, the real communist with no mass support, and not the, blegh, "social fascists" communists with at least some remaining connection to the labour movement?
The USSR stopped using it because of an alliance with social democracy that is impossible in its present form.
Yeah said alliance which proved that the whole "social fascist" formulation was, for the most part, silly, and a bad management on part of the comintern. It was silly to apply it everywhere during third periodism and it generally, outside of america where the CPUSA broke with the democrats for the first time and China where mao just ignored it to ally with the kmt, had terrible results.
Even though I AM generally against too broad fronts right now, it's still a silly formulation to bring back and especially to apply it to the remaining parliamentarian communist parties. I mean if they are "social fascists" what are liberals, just fascists? Then what are the organizations to the right of them "mega fascists"?. Silly.
Do you just disagree with trying to govern and giving people shit they want? Like, imagine you actually have to convince someone normal, "give you health care? that would be mere opportunism I'd rather give you revolution!", that's not what people are looking for right now
But what do you do when the concession literally is not possible without either revolution or the threat of it? Conversely, what do you do with people who want to be given a ladder so they can pull it up after themselves?
Are you this committed to tailist bullshit in the name of the "Masses" that you're laundering your positions through?
Yeah said alliance which proved that the whole "social fascist" formulation was, for the most part, silly
This is historical revision. Fascist projects can and do and did come into political conflict with their liberal former-allies, as the Nazis did when they invaded countries that had literally been financing them prior to that point. Allying with them to oppose their political enemies does not prove that it wasn't their shitty ideology that enabled the fascists to snowball in the first place.
I don't like the wording of that quote because I find it awkward, but the text it is pulled from is essentially correct and kind of stunning relative to the year it was produced.
But what do you do when the concession literally is not possible without either revolution or the threat of it?
I don't think that's the case right now, I think there's a lot you can do if you were willing to govern.
Conversely, what do you do with people who want to be given a ladder so they can pull it up after themselves?
I don't know what people you are talking about but if it's "the people" in first world countries generally I also don't think that's the case, much less so if we're talking about the parlamentarian communist parties.
Are you this committed to tailist bullshit in the name of the "Masses" that you're laundering your positions through?
Meaningless statement, I want to improve people's lives as best as I can that's my position. You tell them you don't want that and see how the look of disdain they give you.
Allying with them to oppose their political enemies does not prove that it wasn't their shitty ideology that enabled the fascists to snowball in the first place.
I don't disagree but that isn't my understanding of what calling someone, especially someone on the far-left today, a "social fascist" means
At least Pôle de renaissance communiste en France (PRCF) exists.
Hoe much support do they have and do they matter politically at all?
Is someone who disagrees with the line of the PCF still better off joining IT and attempt to change it or is this PRCF more than just a powerless sect that nobody cares about or likes?
They are more than three thousand strong and are growing quite well in comparison to the PCF, who's been bleeding thousands of members per year.
They actively participate in everything a Leninist Party of a New Type should and take every opportunity to humiliate the social fascists of the PCF - something American communists should learn to do - by being a party of the French working class.
Trying to retake parties hijacked by right opportunists and social fascists has continually been a failure in western communist parties. Attempting to reform them from the inside via the democratic process is akin to chickens trying to vote the jackals out of the henhouse. In the years between party congresses the jackals use their power to purge the most outspoken communists, liquidate party organs and material assets, then finally gut and amputate the organization structure of the party's rank-and-file until they're reduced to glorified county club meetings.
That just makes them sound annoying
Yeah you had me until "social fascist communists", I advise you to drop that, it was unserious in the 30s and it's unserious now, there's a reason the USSR stopped using it.
That reason is called the popular front against fascism, when fascism won over social democracy and threatened to massacre countless millions of people.
I will not disguise my open disgust and cold hatred for these succdem sheepdogs in communist clothing. Ruthlessly and relentlessly and unreservedly polemicizing against them as they are the greatest stumbling block in the path to rebuilding the Communist parties of the west.
Of course there's also the caveat that I like calling suckdems social fascists because I'm a petty bitch on a shitposting website so I don't really mind being called unserious right now even though this is a somewhat serious talk
Removed by mod
Completely disagree, the overwhelming majority of the "old school" communist parties have been completely hijacked by the new left that emerged during the sino-soviet split and collaborate with the Dictatorship of bourgeoise the bourgeoisie in action while uttering communist sounding epithets.
Let's also go over the fact you literally know nothing about the PCRF and came into this discussion with the intent of completely dismissing them in favor of the PCF - a party who's leadership and majority membership has totally rejected and denounced the Soviet experiment and has steadily adopted utopianist and rightist elements into itself in order to compete with the succdem French Parti socialiste, which they're still failing at - while blathering on about how it's "extremely annoying" to combat the right-opportunism that has entrenched itself into the corpses of the old parties of the west
Finally, on labor movements. I'm going to assume you're some sort of European, so your rightist eurocommunist "old parties" still has its ties to the trade unions. Ties that have been steadily rotting year by year as those parties retreat from drawing new blood from the working class and recruit and empower new leadership from the same pool of the bourgeois-educated intelligentsia the rest of the European parliamentary parties draw from.
On the off chance you're a Yankee that's had his head buried in the sand, the American old party had its ties to the trade unions torn apart by the trade unions and the State during the second round of communist purging to the point it had to go underground and leave a great void in its wake to only be filled with a great smattering of new left parties all competing to see who can grow the fastest. This great rending of the old party's ties to the American labor movement was so severe that in order to bring in enough new blood into the Party in order to sustain it into the future the leadership of the party chose to reorientate itself and begin to directly draw from the intelligentsia and groom them into the future leaders of the party. As the lead up to the disaster of '91 occured and in the massive void left behind by the destruction of the Soviet Union, a section of the future leaders of the old party attempted to stage an ideological coup in order to seize control of the party and direct it to follow the path of the European rightists. Quite obviously that impatient section failed, but ultimately the rightists won and liquidated the party until it was the current shell that it is today in the manner I discribed in an earlier comment above.
Yeah like I said annoying, this is the same stuff I get from anarchists but anti-revisionist-y.
Also I hope it wasn't you, since you were a mod the last time I checked, removing my comments?
Alright, we can call them imperialists-who-also-like-welfare, it's all the same. People who are only concerned with getting treats and not with correcting the structure of society for others who suffer do not need to have their feelings respected.
You say it was unserious in the 1930s but it was already thoroughly vindicated in 1919 when the SPD collaborated with the proto-Nazi freikorps to have the KPD leadership murdered.
You just seem to think that welfare IS imperialism even when talking about communist parties that, literally, denounce imperialism. It's unserious, and you're giving uo trying to convince working class people (including the ones in these protests) that you can meaningfuly make their lives better
That's completely anachronistic, THAT was the event that LEAD TO third periodism. You don't retroactively "vindicate" third periodism in Germany, where it had by far the worst result, by pointing to the, albeit understandable, reason that motivated it. It was a bad policy that's not hard to understand it ended up with the soviet union, which the "social fascism" formulation was intending to benefit, COMPLETELY DESTROYED, even if the nazis WERE deafeated it was a failure on part of the communists to have let hitler come to power and permanently knee-cap the USSR against the USA.
deleted by creator
Do you just disagree with trying to govern and giving people shit they want? Like, imagine you actually have to convince someone normal, "give you health care? that would be mere opportunism I'd rather give you revolution!", that's not what people are looking for right now and more important than that you can't give them revolution they're not even on your side yet, you said it yourself the revolutionary fervor isn't there (or anywhere really) so trying to will it into existence without showing the working class that YOU can give them shit YOU, is just going to make people hate you and, maybe correctly, regard you as unserious. So why support you, the real communist with no mass support, and not the, blegh, "social fascists" communists with at least some remaining connection to the labour movement?
Yeah said alliance which proved that the whole "social fascist" formulation was, for the most part, silly, and a bad management on part of the comintern. It was silly to apply it everywhere during third periodism and it generally, outside of america where the CPUSA broke with the democrats for the first time and China where mao just ignored it to ally with the kmt, had terrible results.
Even though I AM generally against too broad fronts right now, it's still a silly formulation to bring back and especially to apply it to the remaining parliamentarian communist parties. I mean if they are "social fascists" what are liberals, just fascists? Then what are the organizations to the right of them "mega fascists"?. Silly.
But what do you do when the concession literally is not possible without either revolution or the threat of it? Conversely, what do you do with people who want to be given a ladder so they can pull it up after themselves?
Are you this committed to tailist bullshit in the name of the "Masses" that you're laundering your positions through?
This is historical revision. Fascist projects can and do and did come into political conflict with their liberal former-allies, as the Nazis did when they invaded countries that had literally been financing them prior to that point. Allying with them to oppose their political enemies does not prove that it wasn't their shitty ideology that enabled the fascists to snowball in the first place.
I don't like the wording of that quote because I find it awkward, but the text it is pulled from is essentially correct and kind of stunning relative to the year it was produced.
I don't think that's the case right now, I think there's a lot you can do if you were willing to govern.
I don't know what people you are talking about but if it's "the people" in first world countries generally I also don't think that's the case, much less so if we're talking about the parlamentarian communist parties.
Meaningless statement, I want to improve people's lives as best as I can that's my position. You tell them you don't want that and see how the look of disdain they give you.
I don't disagree but that isn't my understanding of what calling someone, especially someone on the far-left today, a "social fascist" means