/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

So Lenin's most important contribution to revolutionary Marxism, in defense from revisionists like Kautsky, Bernstein and Co. is his detailed study on capitalist imperialism and petty-bourgeois corruption within the workers movement leading up to the inter-imperialist war (part 1) where these corrupt leaders chose a "lesser evil" side of imperialism to support. Turning the imperialist war into a civil war, culminating in the successful October revolution, a world-changing event.

The Marxist movement then splits into two:
1. people who side with Lenin's concern on the side of the international revolutionary workers movement
2. the bourgeois elements in the leadership positions within the bureaucratic-reformist cancer metastasizing upon the workers movement that side with welfare gibs / their imperialist bourgeoisie / ethnic chauvinism etc.

Lenin dies prematurely and shortly after self-described Leninists of numerous tendencies then go on to take completely contradictory positions with a proclivity to picking sides, in the inter-imperialist war (part 2).
Notable examples: the left-communist "ultra-Leninists" around Bordiga, the left opposition "Bolshevik-Leninists" around Trotsky, the "Marxist-Leninists"* around Stalin.
Bordiga, Trotsky and Stalin believe the Axis imperialists are to be critically supported almost until its too late (i.e. for several years leading into WWII relying on this "Leninist analysis").
Stalin then flip flops after almost having Moscow sacked by Nazi Germany and concedes to figures like Dimitrov, who argues in favor of picking the Allies side of the imperialist war and injecting the domestic Party and movement with millions of liberal-bourgeois elements*. "Marxism-Leninism" from this point on goes on to contain a blatant antagonistic contradiction at the heart of it that keeps erupting in a variety of ways continuously throughout the 20th century within the ideological disputes of Communist Party leadership.
* Mao and the CPC adopt the later Dimitrovist position of "Marxism-Leninism", diluting the domestic communist movement with these "progressive bourgeois" elements from the start, which will become a critical issue in domestic tumult later down the line.
By the mid 20th century, "Marxism-Leninism" erupts towards an overt social-imperialist deviation after the Khrushchevites seize power, introducing a slew of reforms towards the right and an ideological offensive against scientific socialism. A sharp international contradiction between this turn and a Stalin-doctrinaire dogmatist position (which subliminally elevates Dimotrov's positions over both Stalin and most notably Lenin) emerge, which will escalate to the point of warring hostility in numerous national contexts and time-periods.
Lenin has at this point been completely removed from the equation as the first era Leninist tendencies is coming to a close and the ICP and Trotskyists aren't achieving much in the real world, leaving this ongoing internal conflict within the "Marxist-Leninist" movement to continue on until the present day.
By the late 20th century bourgeois elements are so overpowering in "Marxist-Leninist" communist parties and countries that they dissolve the "vanguard party, chief organ of proletarian power" in several "people's democratic republics" and "socialist republics", in a turn towards "Perestroika (Eng: Restructuring)" / "Reform and Opening Up" / "Euro-Communism" / "Market-oriented socialist economy" which then replace the theory of Marxism and Leninism, being replaced by positions traced to the likes of Bukharin, Bernstein and Lassalle.

Here we are, in the 21st century and "Marxists", "Leninists", "Marxist-Leninists" still barely grapple with this and most often just show a political engagement that amounts to another flavor or bourgeois political "team sports" tendencies of vocally supporting this or that policy or party verbally, sometimes engage in police sanctioned civil disobedience, just vooting, or the aesthetic delights of some supposedly pure party somewhere remote, mediated to you by ideologically supercharged media produced by their public relations departments, digested and regurgitated uncritically.

This is not a good situation. Why the isn't this issue dealt with more frequently and seriously in the movement or even on here, a space where we can discuss the problems of the movement without "tarnishing the reputation" whatever of whatever sectarian org we have chosen for being the least worst IRL / over identity-based social media?

Do you not think the issue of capitalist imperialism or proletarian revolution for communism is important? Then engage in the materialist dialectic. Study, critique, dialogue, contradict.