/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1883350
agreed, pretty based to be honest, very happy to see this post

>>1883350
>Anarchists and other Proudhonists have contemplated for far too long
>contemplated
lol
>for the past 100 years we have contemplated
Here's to another 100 years of anarchist failures contemplation.
>while the Marxists flounder about
The USSR and China literally proved that socialist development can rapidly develop semi-feudal countries and lift millions from poverty within years, something capitalism takes decades to only develop while keeping/increasing the poverty. Anarchist projects could never do such things due to the core ideological contradiction on the rejection of seizing state power and thereby safeguarding the revolution and having the facilities to literally start socialist development on a large nationwide scale.

There was no "contemplation" period, anarchists have shown many times their failure, way back to when Marx was alive. Their history of failed projects (that isn't to say Marxist projects are incapable of failure, but the difference being that since Marxism is a living science, Marxists can look back and understand why said projects failed (revisionism, disorganization within the party, an incorrect understandings of conditions, etc), something anarchists are literally incapable of doing besides blaming everyone else for the shortcomings of their own projects, especially Marxists) has shown the hypocrisy of the ideology and how it is literally unable to safeguard its idealist notions without reintroducing the simulacra of a state apparatus which then is quickly bogged down due to inefficiency and overtaken by the bourgeois counter-revolution.

>>1883431
well, anarchists will keep on trying until the heat death of the universe, so or you ignore them or you can cope and seethe forever. No need to write a second grade analysis on anarchism.

>>1883439
There's a certain kind of former anarchist who always does this, presumably because they themselves got peer pressured into changing their mind and believe it will work on other people too.

If there is 2 things history shows, is that anarchism works, and there will always be people trying to waste others people time.

>>1883431
>The USSR and China literally proved that socialist development can rapidly develop semi-feudal countries and lift millions from poverty within years
The only thing that the economic development of the Eastern Bloc proved was that they could do what Capitalist economies did (grow the gdp of the nation while workers suffered with low wages) only less efficiently, as evidenced by the Germanys

>China
As if Maoism is Marxism, Mao was as Marxist as Bookchin lol. Mao was a former Kropotkian Anarchist turned secret Sorelian, who only adopted the Leninist party system out of convenience. Unfortunately the Marxist elements in the GPCR actually held influence and stopped the peoples revolution before the people could fully take control.

>rejection of seizing state power
Institutions to enact social change do not have to reduce themselves to the parliamentarian bureaucracy to develop the territories they control.
>simulacra of a state apparatus
Turns out if you abstract the concept of a state far enough then you can call any institution a state.

>incapable of doing besides blaming everyone else for the shortcomings of their own projects
The problem with modern Anarchism that they do not blame others ENOUGH, Makhno could have gone away from the Russian Civil War thinking "Those damn bolshies betrayed me", which would have been a correct enough assessment of things, but he didn't, he sat down and formulated a scathing criticism of what the Anarchists did wrong, founding Platformism.

>>1883465
the thing is, anarchist calling other types of socialism "social-fascism", and other socialists repeating their same mantra quotes "muh anarchism never worked", both of them are just completely useless. Nothing is gained in those discussion, absolutely nothing, is just pure sectarism bullshit of one football team shitting on the other football team.
Peoples wasting their time larping on the internet, shit-talking specific socialist groups is not useful for anyone. Is just boring, boring text made by people with no new ideas or facts to share.
If you are a real syndicalist, congratulations man, that is very cool. Other types of socialist, like marxism leninism and maoism, are also cool, but i prefer the first.

>>1883439
>anarchists will keep on trying until the heat death of the universe
My brother in christ if it takes that long for you guys to have a successful revolution, rethink your priorities.
>>1883453
>peer pressured
Nah, I just began reading Marx.
>>1883465
>they could do what Capitalist economies did only less efficiently
Rapidly industrializing, casting off the chains of monarchy and imperialism, improving living conditions by leaps and bounds, improving working conditions, building socialism via a planned economy, challenging global capitalism, withstanding the invasions of fascists and capitalist powers, and destroying the Nazi threat is "less efficient than capitalism"? You sound like pro-capitalist stooge.
>(grow the gdp of the nation while workers suffered with low wages)
???
>As if Maoism is Marxism
It is.
>Mao was a former Kropotkian Anarchist turned secret Sorelian, who only adopted the Leninist party system out of convenience.
You are retarded.

>>1883471
>My brother in christ if it takes that long for you guys to have a successful revolution, rethink your priorities.

Nah, but you do you

>>1883470
>the thing is, anarchist calling other types of socialism "social-fascism", and other socialists repeating their same mantra quotes "muh anarchism never worked", both of them are just completely useless. Nothing is gained in those discussion, absolutely nothing, is just pure sectarism bullshit of one football team shitting on the other football team.
100%
The real concerns are in the actual praxis, and that will always change according to the material conditions faced by the movement in whatever time and place. Arguments online over historical movements are just a way to waste time. There are real discussions to have about this, but they are based on a study of history, not this poopoo peepee nonsense treating history like sports.

>>1883465
> (grow the gdp of the nation while workers suffered with low wages)
Delusional and detached from reality
>As if Maoism is Marxism, Mao was as Marxist as Bookchin lol. Mao was a former Kropotkian Anarchist turned secret Sorelian, who only adopted the Leninist party system out of convenience. Unfortunately the Marxist elements in the GPCR actually held influence and stopped the peoples revolution before the people could fully take control.
more delusions
Maybe you should read mao and see what he pleads to do. Unless by "out of convenience" you mean "he adopted leninism because it works", to which i reply, then he is a leninist.

>Turns out if you abstract the concept of a state far enough then you can call any institution a state.
All anarchists projects had states by both the anarchist and marxist definitions. Centralised regimes with a monopoly on violence used to enact class domination, that had prisons and killed people. But yes, you are on the right track, there is no hard border between classic states and other forms of class rule and violence. A corporation with private security forces and company towns had just as much the function as a state as the us government of republican spain.

>The problem with modern Anarchism that they do not blame others ENOUGH, Makhno could have gone away from the Russian Civil War thinking
As i've said a million times to anarchists, if your ideology is unable to defend itself, it is stillborn and impotent, there is no reason for anyone to be an anarchist if it is shown that as soon as some outside force attacks it it falls apart.
Marxist states worked as a step towards liberation because they could defend the revolution succesfully, even stopping the nazis, helping build dozens of other socialist states, aiding decolonisation struggles worldwide.

>>1883477
>The real concerns are in the actual praxis, and that will always change according to the material conditions faced by the movement in whatever time and place. Arguments online over historical movements are just a way to waste time. There are real discussions to have about this, but they are based on a study of history, not this poopoo peepee nonsense treating history like sports.
Its mostly anarchists who do this though. They always come in with "I LOST BECAUSE YOUR EVIL TEAM WAS BETTER, I WOULD HAVE WON IF YOUR TEAM DIDNT PLAY".
And any attempts to get them to reflect on their tactics and why they don't work so as to improve their understanding of how to proceed forward is handwaves away with toddler tantrums about how their ideal society would work if only nobody attacked them. We don't live in a world where nobody attacks you. If your politics is about "what ought to be" rather than how to get there through defeating your enemies, then its idealist weed smoking larping and no serious people will join you. People want to win, to improve their lives or those of their kids, not win theoretical arguments about which hypothetical star trek universe is more ethical.

>>1883670
>Its mostly anarchists who do this though. They always come in with "I LOST BECAUSE YOUR EVIL TEAM WAS BETTER, I WOULD HAVE WON IF YOUR TEAM DIDNT PLAY".
Debasing the coinage is good strategy, however. Only morons value and respect the outcome of games; the real Players fuck up the meta so that the game isn't worth playing. And anarchists have been doing that to some modest, temporary success, whilst eurocoms and their fellow travelers have been crying about it in partnership with the Christian petit-bourgeoisie whom they never really left.

>he still believes in the myth of membership
How about destroying competitive politics and team sports entirely, and with it, the conditions of aristocracy and other heroic retardations? Does a non-enchurched society scare you because you won't be able to mooch off of others as the middle classes do?

>>1883768
What the fuck does anything in this post even mean.

If you left private property as a law in place then the holders of property could have a tax strike (refuse to pay taxes) they could win favor of their workers by raising wages out of the unpaid taxes. The state would have to use force of arms to collect its taxes, and probably face civil conflict. Even if the state did win that conflict, the specter of conflict would constantly remain, which is why this is a bad solution

>>1883227
if you actually had the ability to take/destroy rich peoples money why not just implement full socialism anyway? its like morons who want to terraform mars instead of just not having climate change on earth

>>1883793
It means you're a fucking idiot for treating the outcomes of games as material conditions, that's all. The new meta is to destroy the factors and conditions that make the proletariat submissive and subordinate.

>>1883804
>best analogy you could think of was terraforming
You spend too much time on YouTube

>>1883811
Not an argument.

>>1883471
picrel
>>1883477
>>1883470
These are such enlightened centrist takes lmao, but yes, i agree, praxis is more important than arguing on the internet which is exactly why Marxism should be campaigned against, since they hate praxis, they hate ACTION. Marxists haven't done anything except larp in the west for the past 100 years.

>>1883668
>All anarchists projects had states by both the anarchist and marxist definitions.
wouldn't an anarchist definition of the state inherently not include anarchism? Your logic doesn't make very much sense
>if your ideology is unable to defend itself, it is stillborn and impotent
And has been uttered countless times, the Makhnovists successfully defended against the Denikin, the Whites, the UPR, and the Bolsheviks in their first war. The Makhnovists managed to survive until 1921 while being attacked at practically all times, it was only after the Bolsheviks broke their truce that they gained the upper hand and defeated them, the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is clear, the Anarchists successfully defended themselves and their revolution until they were betrayed and deceived by the bolshies.

>>1883670
>And any attempts to get them to reflect on their tactics and why they don't work so as to improve their understanding of how to proceed forward is handwaves away
Never mention to Marxists where Platformism or Synthesism came from lol
>People want to win
That explains why the IWW has more members than the CPUSA

>>1883909
>Thought peasants were not a revolutionary class
<The peasantry wants land and freedom. There can be no two opinions on this score. All class-conscious workers support the revolutionary peasantry with all their might. All class-conscious workers want and are fighting for the peasantry to receive all the land and full freedom.
<Thus the red banner of the class-conscious workers means, first, that we support with all our might. the peasants’ struggle for full freedom and all the land; secondly, it means that we do not stop at this, but go on further. We are waging, besides the struggle for freedom and land, a fight for socialism.
<These peasants are truly revolutionary democrats with whom we must and shall carry on the fight for the complete victory of the present revolution.
<The Proletariat and the Peasantry, 1905
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/12.htm
How about you stop posting shitty memes and actually read.

>>1883920
'[The peasants] are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.'

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch07.htm

>>1883940
Nta but who, exactly?
< The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France’s poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class.

There are conditions on which "therefore" rests which you have simply refused to analyze, and yet you expect to have your quote mining taken seriously.

But further on…

<But let us not misunderstand. The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant; not the peasant who strikes out beyond the condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather one who wants to consolidate his holding; not the countryfolk who in alliance with the towns want to overthrow the old order through their own energies, but on the contrary those who, in solid seclusion within this old order, want to see themselves and their small holdings saved and favored by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgment but his prejudice; not his future but his past; not his modern Cevennes [A peasant uprising in the Cevennes mountains in 1702-1705] but his modern Vendée.[119] [A peasant-backed uprising against the French Revolution in the French province of Vendée, in 1793]

So, Marx says revolutionary peasants can and did exist; you should kill yourself for saying otherwise.

>>1883988
>not the countryfolk who in alliance with the towns want to overthrow the old order through their own energies
wow so Marx thought that the peasants could either be a leaderless mass of those waiting to be lead or an ally of the urban proletariat, how very positive a depiction. Contrast this to the Kropotkian conception of "town and country alike"

There is no sickle without the hammer, there is no Left-SRs with the Bolshies, there is no Green armies under the watchful eye of the urban proletariat. IIRC it was one of the leaders of the CCP, upon the destruction of Marxist influence in the cities, that declared that if the cities were lost then the chance of revolution was. It was only Mao who saw the full revolutionary potential of the rural peoples, going against the prominent party line, who dissented against the orthodox Leninists.

Speaking of Mao's ideas, it is incredible how quickly I was sidetracked by bloodfag lol

>>1884025
What does the "small-holding peasant" actually look like today, then?

>>1882021
The exploitation of the working class under capitalism

>>1883940
Not a single thing wrong here.

>>1884025
>>1884038
>Muh mao was the glorious peasant man
Funny, given how Mao and the CPC was exactly what Marx predicted. The Peasant class can not form an ideology of its own, it cannot represent itself, it must be represented, and it was. The majority of the CPC were proletarians. The CPC followed a proletarian ideology. Peasants due to their isolated nature in production can only form a government which stands above them as a separate entity. Unlike the bourgoiesie and the proletariat, they do not wield implicit economic-political power through their economic activity, their daily life does not push them to further and further organisational integration with more and more of the world, but to more and more isolation into the family unit and small communities.
That is why there is no peasant communism historically, no peasant liberation movement historically, until socialism and communism was invented by proletarians, which then provided the framework, under leadership of proletarians, for the liberation of the peasants from feudal arrangements.

>>1884528
>until socialism and communism was invented by proletarians
Pure word salad. Reported.

>>1884582
>Pure word salad. Reported.
Literally what happened peabrain. Socialism is the ideological response to the realities of capitalism by proletarians.
Read basic marx.

>>1884583
Lenin was a PMC lawyer and Stalin was a Georgian monk. No social bourgeoisie is "proletarian" you televangelist-worshipping teenager. Reported for GPT slop

>>1884585
>Lenin and stalin single handedly invested working class ideology
>Lenin and stalin singlehandedly made up the entire party aperatus of all communist, socialist and social revolutionary parties ever globally
>Muh got
Kys retard

>>1884594
>unironically establishing parasocial relationships with dead "heroes"
Lenin literally took the three objects of Marx's hostile critique and turned them upside down to recuperate them. He actually constructed a bourgeois state and you're some kind of pietous cuck worshipping him for it? You are an actual retard who has no idea where your beliefs came from. Or you're the very same institution-worshipping capitalist failsons showing off their phalli to the public, who are going to face the wall. Which one is it?

>>1884627
>unironically establishing parasocial relationships with dead "heroes"
You're the dumbass saying that just because 2 guys were not feet in the mud workers the entirety of communist parties were bourgoies, youre doing great man theory here
>He actually constructed a bourgeois state and you're some kind of pietous cuck worshipping him for it?
Ok retard. Kill yourself and go seeth on ultrapol or something

>>1884714
>because 2 guys were not feet in the mud workers
No, I'm saying that their occupations and the dispositions conditioned by them are essential to reproducing capitalist culture and capitalist class relations. Did you read the PMC theory yet or are you just building up straw men in your head to beat down so that you can feel potent?

>>1884759
The labor aristocracy or "PMC" is a small minority where some class traitors opportunistically try to co-opt workers so that they do not organize and have solidarity among themselves, leading to an ideology of class conciliation with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers to weaken the movement collectively.

The communist movement is not a proletarian identity but a radical movement for the proletarian class to gain supremacy in order to abolish private property and profit, thereby abolishing social classes and the proletariat as a proletariat to be organized by the community on a common plan as workers. The working class is the most revolutionary and needs a movement independent of the bourgeoisie, but this movement has to be from the perspective of the revolutionary class so that the other working classes that do not have a direct connection with the means of production can act with what they have in common with the revolutionary class to socialize and advance the movement and not get into anarchist or reformist confusion of class conciliation.

All other classes can become communists if they do not forget the perspective they are fighting for and they must act with what they have in common with the radical movement of the working class to abolish the present state of things so that there is no confusion, therefore you have intellectuals who will serve the proletarian class to assume power, together with the other working classes who recognize their interest in the supremacy of the proletariat. The capitalist class can become communist if it becomes a class traitor for the destruction of its class and sees an interest in the emancipation of humanity and the end of the exploitation of man by man in the future.

Let's see what Lenin has to say about the labor aristocracy since this is where this term comes from, so often used by recent opportunists who do not want to organize the workers:

<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”

<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….

<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”

<[…]

<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

<[…]

<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.

<[…]

<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.

<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.

<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!

<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.

<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

>>1883350
> Socialism have been tried, tested and tried again, enough for the left to recognize what has worked and hasn't worked.
Social democracy has worked, everything else hasn't.

>>1883431
>The USSR and China literally proved that socialist development can rapidly develop semi-feudal countries and lift millions from poverty within years
It's called an industrial revolution and has very little to do with socialism

>>1882025
'Break shit' as your politics? Might as well just go full Nechayev at this point.

>>1882029
>Politics isnt about having the right ideas. It about having the ability to wield economic power like a sledgehammer and control the narrative through media and censorship.
This is evidently wrong as proven by the fact that the rich regularly vote against and support what is antithetical to what is in the naive marxist view 'their own interests'

>>1885473
Like when?

>>1885477
Regularly they vote and provide a majority for the parties that aren't 'the most right wing' which is what we'd expect going along with this very short-term idea of class-interest. We wouldn't even have a welfare program if it wasn't for the fact that the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie are capable of looking beyond their own immediate interests. Keynes and everything to happen subsequent to Keynes is a testament to this. In fact I'd say in the majority of cases, the health and benefit of the working class should be of great interest to the petite bourgeoisie, in the same way that the health of a tool is beneficial to its owner.

>>1885481
The bourgeoisie class is able to foresee threat of revolution and temper their own interests in order to ensure their long-term survival. That is why capitalism has survived for so long.

>>1885483
As a result, we innovated ideas about the importance of the state's involvement in regulating markets, providing jobs, a welfare system etc and all-in-all the bourgeoisie have, despite being dragged kicking and screaming the whole way, at times reluctantly allowed it. There are also cases where the state's ability to invest, redirect the money of the bourgeoisie, to improve infrastructure and the health of the workers now allows greater extraction of surplus value later. Not to mention bourgeois infighting is pretty common.

>Why haven't we reinvented social democracy for the 100th time despite the fact that's been an utter failure for the past 200 years.

lol

>>1885560
If u rly think this, then I guess socialism is just a political vehicle by which third world feudal societies propel themselves into capitalism and fades away as soon as the conditions for that are accomplished.

>>1885561
Problem, femanon? #trump2024

>>1885560
>changing the mode of production from feudalist
It wasn't feudalist. It was capitalist with semi-feudal remnants.
>to a few decades of bureaucrat-directed
It was party directed. Bureaucratic elements emerged later due to party line splits.
>surplus extraction from peasants
???, most of the gains from socialist development was from integrating the peasantry into the system and gradually proletarianizing them. Under a capitalist system the peasantry would have been oppressed much much worse than any supposed exploitation done under either the soviets or the maoists.
>collapse of the regime into regular ass capitalism is socialist
This is reductionist reasoning. Socialist projects can fail and collapse and revert back to capitalism. Proto-capitalist projects failed/where destroyed by feudal lords way back when. This doesn't mean that everything these projects achieved are just to be handwaved away because the society changed and eventually collapsed into something else.
>>1885561
>socialism is when the state decides to accelerate industrialisation
Who is in control of this state? That is the key question. Read Marx. There is an intrinsic line between the productive forces and socialization.
>>1885563
>socialism is just a political vehicle by which third world feudal societies propel themselves into capitalism
No. There are no feudal societies today. Remnants, sure. Everything is capitalist. The transition towards socialist development today (after a social revolution ofc) would be greatly expedited because of this fact (this is why fascists attempt to destroy productive forces). We have the means to make socialism happen. Many problems faced by the first socialist projects were due to them not having the benefits of a fully industrialized society (electricity, running water, machines etc), so they had to industrialize as well as safeguard themselves from invasion. This has been twisted by revisionists as an excuse to rehabilitate capitalism, but building productive forces to develop/socialize society is not the same as continuing the capitalist mode of production.
>>1885565
Maupin is an idiot. Accumulated wealth does not equal abundance. A society that produces billionaires shows that the abundance, which is created under capitalism (and which it intentionally holds back and destroys to meet the needs of the market), is not distributed throughout that society to meet the needs of everyone but along class lines into the pockets of capitalists in the form of surplus value extracted from the workers. In a society that creates billionaires there is a maximum on wealth, not for the billionaires, but for the workers themselves. Under socialism, wealth would no longer start to matter and eventually cease being a thing. There would be no maximum or minimum, there would be no more wealth.