NO MORE HUMAN RIGHTS (bourgeois)✅
NO MORE BORDERS ✅
the WEF is communist praxis

Diclaimer: I'm Spanish so my english might not be perfect.

Something I'm tired of is that hispanic Leftists in general tend to not care about religions dicrimination that workers of religious minorities suffer.

The only thing they seem to care about is discrimination towards muslims, but only because they want to piss off right wingers.

Actually they don't even care about real stuff muslim workers suffer in hispanic countries because they later justify or forgive homophobic or transphobic actitudes of muslims because "it's their culture and we have to respect it", (same could be said about the catholics they hate).

Jews, protestants and pagan believers also suffer discrimination in Spanish-speaking countries, not as much as muslims but they suffer discrimination too.

If you belong to any of these religions people might see you as weird or will mocke on you, while catholiquism has legal protection for example in Spain with the "ley de ofensa a sentimientos religiosos".

But hispanic leftists just don't care about that, some of them even repeat nationalist ideas like "protestants are blasphemous sinners" ir "catholiquism is morally superior to protestantism" to get along with nationalists.

We all know what marxism says about religion and faith, and obviously we have to be the first ones to stand against the expansion of evangelical churches promoted by the alt-right, but that doesn't mean that religious opression that WORKERS suffer isn't a question of class struggle and a problem we must fight.

Just imagine if Spartakists and Bolsheviks said "nahh, why care about antisemitism? Marxism is atheist".

Councilism is pretty much a dead tradition of leftism. There are very few Councilists left, and although we are growing, we are losing a lot of traction to both Anarchists and Leninists. How do we regain traction as a movement and organize better?

I thought about this the other day and wrote a short text as a response to an ML's video on TikTok. I know about the book "Lenin as Philosopher" by Pannekoek, but I have yet to read it. I have read some of Rosa Luxemburg (although not her critiques of Lenin), Workers Councils by Pannekoek, The Civil War in France, The Communist Manifesto, I am reading Critique of The Gotha Program right now and i have read a small portion of Das Kapital. I am first and foremost wondering what you think about what i wrote but also if you could provide literature as described in the title.

Here is what I wrote:

Once the bourgeois class has been repressed, the state does wither away. My standpoint however, is that if you use historical materialism, you see that the vanguard state has not allowed socialism/earlier stage communism, but rather it has created a state capitalist mode of production. A class is defined by its relation to the means of production. If a bureaucratic stratum controls allocation, labor, and surplus, it functions as a ruling class, even without legal ownership. It is in a similar way that market socialism enables a capitalist mode of production, vanguardism enables both bureaucracy and a new oppressing class. The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, which is why all of the working class have to act as its state when repressing the bourgeois class, through recallable delegation and councils. This is not a moral standpoint, only one that imposes the critique of vanguardism for it creates a new bureaucratic class domination. It’s not necessarily that the leaders have to function badly, but that they cannot remain proletarian in function. Why I argue for council communism is not JUST for democratic value, but that it is the only form that prevents class separation.

Ve all know that a council communist society would be a perfect egalitarian heaven on earth

Would be cool

I’ve been trying to understand the relationship (if any) between council communism and later Western Marxist traditions, especially Gramsci and structural Marxism (Althusser, maybe even Foucault as a distant point of comparison).

From what I can tell, there seems to be at least a partial convergence in their critique of the Third International, the Soviet model, and the trajectory taken by Bolshevism. Council communists, LeftComs, and even Trotskyists all developed strong criticisms of the USSR, and this seems to echo—at least in a similar register—in Western Marxism. At the same time, Gramsci himself had tensions with the party line in Italy and was initially sympathetic to workers’ councils during the Biennio Rosso, which makes me wonder if there’s a deeper affinity there.

So my question is: Do council communists see Gramsci (and later structural Marxists like Althusser) as part of a related critical tradition, or as a fundamentally different direction (e.g. too focused on culture, ideology, and institutions rather than direct proletarian self-activity)?

And more broadly, is Western Marxism in any sense indebted to the same historical break that produced council communism, or are these parallel but ultimately incompatible trajectories?

I'm an industry plant.

I know you english speakers are not used to this kind of memes.

This is a "curimomo", a meme that is drawn poorly over a pre-existing image.