If you 'denounce' the historical real socialism that existed and exists, you can't be a communist.
>but those were not real communismReal communism is the
movement which abolishes the current state of things (private property the alienation of species-being) and it is the expansion of worker association to international terms. To think 'communism' can be reduced to just a single historical
act is silly. It is, after all, a process. Real socialism was one such historical act in a chain of many to come.
>okay, they are communist, but they are totalitarian! They are authoritarian!Those are empty words liberal ideolouges use to justify equating the Soviet anti-colonial socialist project and the Nazifascistic colonial Lebensraum project, to keep the
status quo of liberal representative democracy as the 'only democratic nonauthoritarian' society.
>what do you mean the soviet project is an anti-colonial project?https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/may/18.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/may/07b.htm>I… I didn't know. I'm sorry. I will now study the history of the Soviet Union and build an antiimperialist socialist project on the Marxist-Leninist tradition. I will support the anti-colonial Palestinian people's struggle. I will globalize the intifada.And you will defend the People's Republics of China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Belarus and the DPRK. You will study Cuban agroecology and you will learn to live with nature. You will have Chinese high speed rails and high quality Belarusian agricultural machinery. You will be happy.
Any questions?
>>2285137Unironically yes because workers and the state don't exist under communism lmao
Read theory gigafag
>>2284426TRUTH NVKE
No, your authoritarian capitalist third world bourgeois national liberation movement that executes communists, atheists, and gays isn't "AES".
Imperialism being bad doesn't mean you get a free pass to support nationalism and bourgeois revolutions.
Communism is internationalist. Communists say no to ethnic conflicts. No war but class war. We do not pit one race of the proletariat against another.
Socialism fundamentally requires abolition of commodity production and wage labour.
Marx was extremely clear on this. The first line of Capital says that capitalism - the production of commodities is the capitalist mode of production
.
And yet every "communist state" so far has just been adventurists proclaiming to be the vanguard in order to install themselves as the new elite, instead of establishing a true DoTP.
And then what? They proceed to continue with commodity production and wage labour exactly as under capitalism.
What you MLs support is nothing more than state capitalism with welfare state characteristics. You are just spicy Social Democrats.
Marx would be turning in his grave if he saw what MLs call "socialism".
>>2285177They're not socialists as the ultraflag outlined.
MLs aren't authoritarian, their doctrine reeks with democratic ideals. We communists ARE authoritarian.
>>2285177>>2285175I used the term authoritarian only once and in clear regards to explicitly capitalist states, and even that triggered you MLs.
You cannot hear the word in any context without losing your minds. The understanding of how the term is being used in a given context is lost on you due to pure derangement of believing the term is always being targeted against your own ideology.
The truth is yes, our Communist state will be authoritarian, in that it is a dictatorship of the proletariat.
What you support isn't that however, what you support is social democracy, state capitalism, a capitalist welfare state. Maybe with social reactionary ideas or silencing of Communists too.
>>2285194Don’t bother with stalinists, they’re aggressively illiterate and proudly anti-intellectual, like all petit bourgeois grifters
The truth is, stalinism will never again gain purchase with any majority proletarian population of any nation, even in the previous century it primarily relied on the bourgeoisie of non-white colonized nations as its “revolutionary” base rather than the actual proletariat, it’s an ideology with no future, never let yourself forget that most of leftypol feels that ideology has any merit comes down to the fact that most of the people here would have just been fascists if they hated non-whites, they found the nearest anti-mainstream ideology to it at least in form
>>2285318Be careful, some MLoids on this board might unironically call you a jew/glowie/anarchist what have you for not shilling in the name of progressive (anti-western) capitalists
Internationalism is utopian and idealist and anyway internationalism means supporting the bourgeoisie of other nations duh
>>2285318>Communists actually don't support any bourgeois states or nationalist conflicts. they do though
even Bordiga:
"If Hitler can make yield the odious powers of England and America, while making thus precarious the capitalist world balance, long live the butcher Hitler who works in spite of himself to create the conditions of the proletarian world revolution"
>>2285410Yes, we know the Soviet Union industrialized quickly and we're very proud of you.
I personally would like to stop talking about ML states too but that's all red anarchists and leftcoms wanna talk about, oh well.
>>2285410The OP of this thread is literally some guy whining that "AES" gets pushback from the left, but sure it's everyone else that's the problem.
>>2285414You can barely even talk about anarchism here without folks jumping in with gotchas about CHAZ, Bakunin's antisemitism, or being told to read On Authority. Assuming of course you're not just accused of being a fed for not reflexively jerking off "actual existing socialism". Nobody even bothers arguing in good faith anymore on anything, it's all about dunks and quips and finding the correct snippets of Marx that out of context back up your assertions
>>2285414>Yes, we know the Soviet Union industrialized quicklyIt wasn't just a question of mass industrialization, though that is of course more than any other ideology ever accomplished
>we're very proud of youNothing to be proud about you weird identitarian, it's just a fact of the world
>personally would like to stop talking about ML states too but that's all red anarchists and leftcoms wanna talk aboutIt's all they have, their whole ideology is based around resisting communism
>>2285425Leftist websites and terrible moderation, honestly can you name a more iconic duo?
I'd be happy to make a thread where we can have some actual discussion on anarchist theory and praxis across the world where we can avoid bitching about [insert tendency here], but that's probably wishful thinking.
>>2285410Defeating fascism isn’t the main objective of communism
Achieving bourgeois “anti-colonial” revolutions that achieve heckin woke local wage labor regimes isn’t even AN objective of communism
Lifting people out of poverty isn’t the objective of communism
MLs will stop getting pushback when they stop promoting their political program as liberalism done correctly (in which case they would no longer be MLs), until then every last one if you deserves a brick to the face
>>2285476>the objective of communismDamn dude I forgot that communism is actually a state of affairs to be established, how silly of me
Defeating fascism, defeating colonialism and defeating poverty are not the goals of communism, they are it's effects as the real movement that abolishes the present state of things.
How much has your anarchism/leftcomism/liberalism effected over the last 100 years? Oh that's right, it's less than nothing
>MLs will stop getting pushback when they stop promoting their political program as liberalism done correctlyCommunism is capitalism done "correctly" dumbass
>until then every last one if you deserves a brick to the faceIt's honestly no wonder anarchists/leftcoms have never accomplished anything
>>2285382> I'm not saying anarchists are correct necessarily either, just that they tend to offer more than "we're going to do capitalism but more efficient"That's because what anarchists promise is a fantasy. Christianity promises people eternal life in paradise, as evident by the number of christians in the world, this is clearly also a very enticing and persuasive promise. That does not mean it is a useful ideology for enacting change on a mass scale
>>2285481>This will fall on deaf ears, MLs generally blame working class people for being “too” stupid to risk their lives to essentially obtain welfare (literally the only thing MLs actually offer, unless you’re a worker in the West, in which case 50/50 chance they just want you to die or be poor)Feverish delusion and a pathetically weak attempt at understanding your ideological opponents. Like damn dude, are you not embarrassed to have typed that? Is that seriously the extent to which you've thought through the ML position? lol
>>2285510>Damn dude I forgot that communism is actually a state of affairs to be established, how silly of me MLs genuinely must think so if they believe socialism has been achieved anywhere; the meaning of that statement is effectively the opposite of what MLs think it means (that socialism is whatever you want it to mean, i.e. opportunism is just strategy, i.e. capitalism can be socialism if it’s perpetuated by socialists and involves welfare lmao)
>Defeating fascism, defeating colonialism and defeating poverty are not the goals of communism, they are it's effects as the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. Meaningless blather, the defeat of fascism has (shocker) led to another 80 years of a re-stabilized liberal capitalist order with a new grounds for reinvestment, Germany even managed to re-entrench itself as a dominant imperialist power decades later. Defeating colonialism also has nothing to do with the establishment of communism itself more than it does the inability of the middle classes of the colonies to achieve rule over their own bourgeois nation states without enlisting the proletariat to waste revolutionary potential on this task in the colonized nations that did have a sizable working class and class collaboration in the ones that didn’t. And raising the standard of living of workers not only binds them much closer to the capitalist state, it’s also been the general tendency of capitalism over long growth arcs that spanned its ascendent phases as a social order.
>How much has your anarchism/leftcomism/liberalism effected over the last 100 years? Oh that's right, it's less than nothingEvery single “accomplishment” you just listed were crucial for further entrenching capital’s hold over the world, what, exactly, do MLs even believe happened in the late 20th Century?
>Communism is capitalism done "correctly" dumbassSo MLs genuinely do not even know what capitalism is, is that their general problem?
Would you say your movement is really just more progressive populism? Because when I read things like this I become totally convinced Marxist is just an aesthetic MLs use for legitimacy with certain online subcultures.
>>2285542>Feverish delusion and a pathetically weak attempt at understanding your ideological opponents. Like damn dude, are you not embarrassed to have typed that? Is that seriously the extent to which you've thought through the ML position? lolThat’s the extent to which MLs argue their own positions
MLs are the ones that tend to point to everything “achieved” by western countries as examples of the stunning victories of “socialism” when done by some anti-western power
It’s MLs that think it’s idealist to claim wage labor can “just” be abolished yet not idealist at all to claim powers that MLs themselves claim could not ever accomplish that due to their material conditions were also socialist because of whatever existed within their leadership’s hearts and intentions
>>2285421>It wasn't just a question of mass industrialization, though that is of course more than any other ideology ever accomplishedIn Russia, China, Yugoslavia, etc., but that was done via capitalism in other countries. In Britain, it was the bourgeoisie which destroyed the peasants, in Russia it was Stalin and the communists. The participants and the forms were different but the immutable "law" at work was the same in both cases.
What you can say about communism in reality or fact is that it was a particular form of government and ownership which made possible the industrial revolution and improvements and expansion of production.
>>2285382>With such a cynical outlook on communism that seems common among self proclaimed Marxist Leninists, is it any wonder why the left especially in the developed world tends to be more attracted to anarchism? […] Yes I'm sure it's a hot take and plenty of you will rant and rave about the productive forces as if the point of communism is to do capitalism "better" than capitalists, but if you completely resign yourselves to the idea that this is as good as it gets you're not going to attract anybody to your movement.I think you can say they accomplished certain things in the 20th century, mainly industrial transformation in backwards countries, which did "abolish" things the way they had been, and lay the groundwork for something else. I think you have to give them credit for this, and that is historically significant, and there was a need for that in the countries where the communist revolution occurred. (Not so much in more developed countries.) But other than that, none of them attained a single one of the ideals they had named whether it's real justice, equality, liberty, a classless society, absolute human prosperity or ending exploitation. There's a much bigger gap between what communist revolutions promised and what they accomplished compared to other revolutions. But they also simply couldn't accomplish what they fanatically believed in. They have difficulty acknowledging this, though. They're not lying to you, they're just caught in their own doublethink about their historical "function" I guess.
That's part of the paradox of it. Communists can develop a strange blend of idealism and cynicism. The people you're talking to will say, the point of communism wasn't the ideals (except it was) but capitalism "done correctly," but once they've sort of ~done that~ by industrializing backwards countries on the basis of modern technology, there's no real need for them anymore. It's kind of a dialectical plot twist, like "what makes you rise will make you fall." The need for industrialization created communists, who then furthered a process to make themselves superfluous. I'm not talking about the ideals of equality of fraternity BTW but communism in practice and what these MLs have chosen to identify themselves with.
>>2285552>MLs genuinely must think so if they believe socialism has been achieved anywhere; the meaning of that statement is effectively the opposite of what MLs think it means (that socialism is whatever you want it to mean, i.e. opportunism is just strategy, i.e. capitalism can be socialism if it’s perpetuated by socialists and involves welfare lmao) Lol are you waiting for somebody to flip the socialism switch? It's a gradual process of transition, it's not going to able able to be constituted through a series of check boxes. Im sorry
What ML's argue is that the communist revolution and the establishment of the DOTP is the first turning point of a society towards building socialism. Or in other words that that moment demarcates a transition towards actually existing socialism
>Meaningless blather, the defeat of fascism has (shocker) led to another 80 years of a re-stabilized liberal capitalist orderDamn, no biggie then I guess. Hitler might as well have won in your eyes huh? Fucking moron
>Defeating colonialism also has nothing to do with the establishment of communism itself more than it does the inability of the middle classes of the colonies to achieve rule over their own bourgeois nation states without enlisting the proletariat to waste revolutionary potential on this task in the colonized nations that did have a sizable working class and class collaboration in the ones that didn’tWhat the fuck are you talking about dude? Middle classes? What are you trying to say lol?
>And raising the standard of living of workers not only binds them much closer to the capitalist state, it’s also been the general tendency of capitalism over long growth arcs that spanned its ascendent phases as a social order.Your supposition is that they're capitalist states, I disagree
>Every single “accomplishment” you just listed were crucial for further entrenching capital’s hold over the world, Soooo they shouldn't have done all that? Let the nazi roam free across eastern europe? Don't support the anti colonial struggle? Let people stay poor? I don't get what your point is? They should have just done nothing?
>what, exactly, do MLs even believe happened in the late 20th Century?Communism had major and essential victories and then it suffered major and critical defeats. Currently we are living in an age of reaction. Anarchism or any other anti communist ideology was mostly inconsequential or on the side of reaction in this time
So what's your movement dude? Conveniently you forgot to actually answer my question about what anarchism/leftcomism/liberalism has accomplished in the last 100 years
>That’s the extent to which MLs argue their own positionsNo it's the extent to which you generate weird constructs in your mind about what other people think
>MLs are the ones that tend to point to everything “achieved” by western countries as examples of the stunning victories of “socialism” when done by some anti-western powerYes, it is impressive when people can detach themselves from the global imperialist system and start shifting the focus of their national production from economic extraction for the west, towards the wellbeing of their proletariat or the people. Believe it or not, this is actually extremely difficult to accomplish, but essential precisely because it is so vital to the current state of the capitalist world order
they are only able to accomplish those things, because they are anti-west, because they have separated themselves from that system
>It’s MLs that think it’s idealist to claim wage labor can “just” be abolishedIt obviously is yes
>yet not idealist at all to claim powers that MLs themselves claim could not ever accomplish that due to their material conditions were also socialist because of whatever existed within their leadership’s hearts and intentionsWhat are you talking about dude? This is some kinda schizo post or what?
>>2285565Obviously, the anarchist conception of how communism will come about is what's the fantasy dude. Did you really think this was a good retort? Why did you write this? lmao
>>2285647>when you have nothing but open contempt for the goals of communismI have nothing but admiration for the "goals" of communism and I will always respect anarchists as my comrades for that reason. I believe they mean well. But their method of analysis and enactment is kind of worse than useless. At least in the practical sense it has led to less than nothing
>think the pinnacle of society is capitalism subject to state planning.Where did I say this? What makes you think I believe this? Are you just a simpleton or what?
>>2285634>Lol are you waiting for somebody to flip the socialism switch? It's a gradual process of transition, it's not going to able able to be constituted through a series of check boxes. Im sorryMeaningless attempts to hand wave critique, saying “communism is a progress” is an attempt to address failure by not addressing it, if communism is a “process” why was the only component of that process actually achieved by the ML bloc was
1. Reaching the level of development regular capitalism produced in the western capitalist regimes (with each bolstering this development with welfare)
2. Expropriating the bourgeoisie while maintaining all other features of bourgeois society down to the wage labor relation and employer-employee relation
The process MLs describes curiously always sounds exactly like developing capitalism, which makes sense, but when you consider for all ML claims that communism is a “process” they actually do concede that the revolution had ended by the time the CPSU consolidated under the centrist factional clique
>Damn, no biggie then I guess. Hitler might as well have won in your eyes huh? Fucking moronCapital began the worst war in human history and won the worst war in human history and experienced one of its greatest expansionary phases ever, sorry I do not subscribe to the noble myth of WWII
>What the fuck are you talking about dude? Middle classes? What are you trying to say lol? Have you ever actually read about the history of the anti-colonial so-called “socialist” revolutions? You understand pretty much none of them were led by what you could call the proletariat in even a nonsensical substitutionist sense? They were generally led by middle class (petit bourgeoise, artisanal, or state bureaucrat types), usually collaborated between the interests of several classes, and often only even took on the banner of socialism to signify an alignment with the Soviet Union.
>Your supposition is that they're capitalist states, I disagree What about these countries renders it secular materialist to recognize them as socialist rather than a peculiar iteration of bourgeois society?
>Soooo they shouldn't have done all that? Let the nazi roam free across eastern europe? Don't support the anti colonial struggle? Let people stay poor? I don't get what your point is? They should have just done nothing? When you write this, am I supposed to recognize you as different from any other liberal?
“The enemy is evil” is generally correct when discussing wars between bourgeois regimes, what does helping one side of an imperialist war have to do with establishing communism? I feel like I will always have the world historic surrender to western aligned neoliberal capitalism (so they could access the world market lmao) in my back pocket to rebuke everything MLs claim as success. Like, you’re saying “BUT HITLER” and sure, whatever, but struggling to comprehend me saying this has effectively nothing to do with achieving communism and is just an appeal to my moral sentiments; WWII was a smashing success for imperialist capital
What does supporting the anti-colonial movement even mean? I’m asking you how national liberation = communism and you keep telling me that it is morally correct to stand behind. And “let people stay poor”? Isn’t that the exact argument liberals who are better at actually accomplishing their goals use when they tell you to voot for AOC and Bernie to make healthcare cheaper? “They should have just done nothing”? I don’t care what they did or about your feelings. I don’t care about the dignity of your heroes. I don’t care about your hero worship at all. I’m analyzing history and critiquing your stance that I should feel emotionally sentimental about it.
>Communism had major and essential victories and then it suffered major and critical defeats. Currently we are living in an age of reaction. Anarchism or any other anti communist ideology was mostly inconsequential or on the side of reaction in this timeWhat were the major achievements? What was the major defeat in your mind? Don’t you think communism is literally just capitalism done more efficiently? Isn’t that exactly what the CPSU determined when it dissolved even the pretense of “socialism” (welfare and state ownership) to become more “competitive” with the West?
Generally the achievements MLs champion are quite spectacular from a liberal developmentalist standpoint and quite pathetic from the standpoint of abolishing capital’s hold either in even a single ML country let alone globally. ML states couldn’t even manage the international antagonism between themselves in their quest to achieve strategic autonomy and intra-bloc influence let alone their obvious repeated betrayals of proletarian internationalism and collaboration with the West. What MLs champion are the recognized achievements of British industrialists, French nationalists, and western social democrats; namely Industrialization, National Liberation/Consolidation, and state run welfare
The ML achievement is so farcical MLs will usually tell you the difference between an ML society and America is that in an ML society the state is everyone’s employer and everyone has a job lmao
>So what's your movement dude? Conveniently you forgot to actually answer my question about what anarchism/leftcomism/liberalism has accomplished in the last 100 yearsI’m not the one cleaving to sentimental attachment to past failures, I do not think the proletarian revolutionary movement has achieved a lasting success anywhere, major revolutions occurred but they were rapidly defeated; I do think the main cause was that the Capital order had a few remedial maneuvers left to stave off revolutionary rupture but that window has either closed or is rapidly closing. In all honesty I don’t actually feel emotional toward any state you worship, either positively or negatively, I find them to be fascinating historical artifacts. I do dislike MLs because they’re generally idealist clowns that were taught what “socialism” is by idiots on Youtube
>No it's the extent to which you generate weird constructs in your mind about what other people thinkReally? I am literally reading your statements about what socialism has “achieved” and pointing out everything you are saying would and could credibly be spewed by any liberal regarding liberal democratic capitalism
>Yes, it is impressive when people can detach themselves from the global imperialist system and start shifting the focus of their national production from economic extraction for the west, towards the wellbeing of their proletariat or the people.Maintaining capitalism as a sovereign state is certainly more beneficial to the political and economic elite than maintaining your own subordination to a larger capitalist entity, and it can definitely make it easier to achieve welfare reforms and higher wages
What does this have to do with destroying capitalism through revolution?
>Believe it or not, this is actually extremely difficult to accomplish, but essential precisely because it is so vital to the current state of the capitalist world orderIt took centuries for the bourgeoisie to overthrow the previous ruling class, again, why does this matter to me? You keep approaching me with sentiment, MLs always do this, yet call their sentimental feelings scientific analysis, why? Are you going to appeal to heroism next?
>they are only able to accomplish those things, because they are anti-west, because they have separated themselves from that systemGood for them, what if you want to accomplish the abolition of capitalism rather than establishing sovereign capital?
Sorry I don’t feel like any race no matter how down bad deserves its own wage slave regime lmao
>What are you talking about dude? This is some kinda schizo post or what?If it is idealist to posit wage labor can be dispensed with by decree, how can it be materialist to claim wage labor regimes are socialist purely because they decreed that they are or wish to be? Do you mean socialism as an ideal rather than as a form of society?
>>228567When MLoids call people like that anon “anarchists” they make it excruciatingly clear the closest they’ve come to reading Marx is talking to some fucker on a social media they like or listening to a podcast
>Anarchism is when you believe anything distinguishes communist society from capitalist societyAgain, I genuinely think the only criteria by which MLoids deny the Third Reich represented state socialism is the fact that it was an enemy of the USSR
>>2285194I'm not an ML you're just a retard using liberal buzzwords.
Yes we are authoritarian as we believe in the absolute authority of the workers ie dictatorship and reject the democratic principle
>>2285425And what exactly would an Anarcho-Nihilist "society" even look like?
Anarcho-Edgelordism isn't a real ideology, it's an excuse to give up on politics and support random acts of violence. Emo kiddie bs.
>>2285780>>2285786>I'm not an ML>we…>WEWho exactly are you speaking on behalf of then? Who is this "we"? Own your words and explain your perspective.
>Buzzwords Please point out one case where I used a meaningless buzzword rather than an accurate descriptor
Also, can't you Stalinist make up your minds? One minute you're saying "authoritarian" is a slur, the next minute you're using it as a self descriptor.
And finally i, if you would kindly read theory you would know DoTP doesn't equate to senseless repression.
Repression of the bourgeoisie elements will be necessary, sure. But primarily it means implementing worker's councils and collective/common ownership of the means of production.
I'm tired of dealing with people who think watching Hasan or Hakim or BadEmpanada is a substitute for actually reading theory.
>>2285740>Meaningless attempts to hand wave critique, saying “communism is a progress” is an attempt to address failure by not addressing it, if communism is a “process” why was the only component of that process actually achieved by the ML bloc was>1. Reaching the level of development regular capitalism produced in the western capitalist regimes (with each bolstering this development with welfare)>2. Expropriating the bourgeoisie while maintaining all other features of bourgeois society down to the wage labor relation and employer-employee relationBecause it's actually hard to build socialism? Because the world revolution did not happen and socialist states had to contend with the most highly developed and reactionary forces in history which made it almost their sole goal to undermine these states? Of course, mistakes were made on the side of the communists as well, that much is obvious. But it is an uphill battle from the start, it hardly seems rational to me to put the blame for those failures primarily in the mindset of Marxism Leninist
>they actually do concede that the revolution had ended by the time the CPSU consolidated under the centrist factional clique Yes dude revolutions end, idk what to tell you
>Capital began the worst war in human history and won the worst war in human history and experienced one of its greatest expansionary phases ever, sorry I do not subscribe to the noble myth of WWIIExtremely reductionist and infantile analysis of WWII, it's not ascribing to any "noble myth" to say that conditions for socialist construction would be objectively worse if the nazis had won.
And here I am gonna be a bit of a moralist and say that yes it would also have been much much worse in terms of pointless suffering inflicted on the human race, so I am thankful for the existence of the soviet union, for all it's faults, at that point in time.
>Have you ever actually read about the history of the anti-colonial so-called “socialist” revolutions? You understand pretty much none of them were led by what you could call the proletariat in even a nonsensical substitutionist sense? They were generally led by middle class (petit bourgeoise, artisanal, or state bureaucrat types), usually collaborated between the interests of several classes, and often only even took on the banner of socialism to signify an alignment with the Soviet Union.Yes I know, this is the geopolitical reality of the cold war. But again you ascribe a reductionist view, probably stemming from your inexplicable seething resentment towards bolshevism. All these "middle class" monikers could be ascribed to a variety of communist and anarchist leaders. What it conveniently skips over is the hundreds of thousands and millions of ordinary people who were involved in the anti colonial struggle. Reducing it to a couple of petit bourgeois basically holding up a red banner to get Soviet handouts is unhelpful in understanding what actually happened.
>What about these countries renders it secular materialist to recognize them as socialist rather than a peculiar iteration of bourgeois society?Which societies in particular are you talking about?
>When you write this, am I supposed to recognize you as different from any other liberal? “The enemy is evil” is generally correct when discussing wars between bourgeois regimes, what does helping one side of an imperialist war have to do with establishing communism? I feel like I will always have the world historic surrender to western aligned neoliberal capitalism (so they could access the world market lmao) in my back pocket to rebuke everything MLs claim as success. Like, you’re saying “BUT HITLER” and sure, whatever, but struggling tocomprehend me saying this has effectively nothing to do with achieving communism and is just an appeal to my moral sentiments
I am not compelling you on a moral basis, conditions would objectively be worse for socialism if the soviets had not done these things. Of course, there we major setbacks, nobody denies this
>WWII was a smashing success for imperialist capital>What does supporting the anti-colonial movement even mean? I’m asking you how national liberation = communism and you keep telling me that it is morally correct to stand behind. And “let people stay poor”? Isn’t that the exact argument liberals who are better at actually accomplishing their goals use when they tell you to voot for AOC and Bernie to make healthcare cheaper? “They should have just done nothing”? I don’t care what they did or about your feelings. I don’t care about the dignity of your heroes. I don’t care about your hero worship at all. I’m analyzing history and critiquing your stance that I should feel emotionally sentimental about it. Pure projection, what can I say? I don't give a fuck about any "reverence" for any state or hero Lol. Im talking about real support dumbass, Im talking about real proletarian struggle as it played out in history and how that struggle benefited from the soviet union and the victories the Bolsheviks were able to achieve. The people they armed, the organizations they funded, the counterintelligence on the United States which was on track to dismantle any attempt at serious leftist or socialist organizing worldwide. Im talking about history and the class struggle as it developed throughout history. Objectively, the Marxists Leninists did the best, got the closest to achieving global communism so far and were able to develop the struggle the furthest. If you have something better please elucidate.
Like Idk man, I really don't get your point. Are you like some solipsistic nihilist or something? Do you think things just happen for no reason and they don't matter at all? What's your point?
>What were the major achievements? What was the major defeat in your mind? Don’t you think communism is literally just capitalism done more efficiently? Isn’t that exactly what the CPSU determined when it dissolved even the pretense of “socialism” (welfare and state ownership) to become more “competitive” with the West?
>Generally the achievements MLs champion are quite spectacular from a liberal developmentalist standpoint and quite pathetic from the standpoint of abolishing capital’s hold either in even a single ML country let alone globally. ML states couldn’t even manage the international antagonism between themselves in their quest to achieve strategic autonomy and intra-bloc influence let alone their obvious repeated betrayals of proletarian internationalism and collaboration with the West. What MLs champion are the recognized achievements of British industrialists, French nationalists, and western social democrats; namely Industrialization, National Liberation/Consolidation, and state run welfare>The ML achievement is so farcical MLs will usually tell you the difference between an ML society and America is that in an ML society the state is everyone’s employer and everyone has a job lmaoWell again, constructing socialism is actually really hard believe it or not and it's not easy to keep a solidified internationalist attitude when dealing with the realpolitik of actually running a nation. But I would argue that the establishing the firsts dictatorships of the proletariat, marking the early stages of socialist construction are already bigger achievements than anything anybody else can present. Plus all the other things we discussed. Which you deem to be liberal moralist arguments, but I would consider essential victories in the global class struggle.
Again, all these achievements which you offhandedly dismiss as if they might as well not have happened, are more than any other leftist movement is able to show for its theory.
Again, show me your alternative
>I’m not the one cleaving to sentimental attachment to past failures, I do not think the proletarian revolutionary movement has achieved a lasting success anywhere, major revolutions occurred but they were rapidly defeated; I do think the main cause was that the Capital order had a few remedial maneuvers left to stave off revolutionary rupture but that window has either closed or is rapidly closing. In all honesty I don’t actually feel emotional toward any state you worship, either positively or negatively, I find them to be fascinating historical artifacts. I do dislike MLs because they’re generally idealist clowns that were taught what “socialism” is by idiots on YoutubeSoooooooo, nothing? You have no alternative? Just a bunch of moaning about how it's not good enough for you?
>Really? I am literally reading your statements about what socialism has “achieved” and pointing out everything you are saying would and could credibly be spewed by any liberal regarding liberal democratic capitalismMaybe that's because liberals also run actual states and thus can talk about the accomplishments of their systems in terms of real human development. Unlike your ideology, which is seemingly a detached belief in nothing, which runs nothing and has accomplished nothing
>Maintaining capitalism as a sovereign state is certainly more beneficial to the political and economic elite than maintaining your own subordination to a larger capitalist entity, and it can definitely make it easier to achieve welfare reforms and higher wagesBreaking free is the first step in the society developing its productive forces towards its own benefit. This is not always maintained or enacted through, but it's certainly makes the odds of things going well better in terms of socialist revolution than to maintain a colonial vassal
>What does this have to do with destroying capitalism through revolution?Revolutions are a means for the proletariat to seize power and establish a DotP, that is the first step towards the abolition of capitalism.
>It took centuries for the bourgeoisie to overthrow the previous ruling class, again, why does this matter to me?Because it describes the challenges and the expectations of building communism. Which presumably you care about, being on this board and being critical about MLs
> You keep approaching me with sentiment, MLs always do this, yet call their sentimental feelings scientific analysis, why? Are you going to appeal to heroism next?Again with the appeal to some imagined sentimentality. Im talking about the class struggle as it objectively unfolded throughout history. I don't care how you or anyone else feels about it morally and that's not what im talking about.
>Good for them, what if you want to accomplish the abolition of capitalism rather than establishing sovereign capital? Well for instance, if you're a colonized country, the first step might be national independence through freedom struggle, as that gives an opportunity to seize state power for the people. Unless you have some better idea that'll get it done quicker?
>Sorry I don’t feel like any race no matter how down bad deserves its own wage slave regime lmaoYou're such fucking pretentious moralist man lol, embarrassing
>If it is idealist to posit wage labor can be dispensed with by decree, how can it be materialist to claim wage labor regimes are socialist purely because they decreed that they are or wish to be? Do you mean socialism as an ideal rather than as a form of society?They are socialist countries in the sense that the proletariat has objectively taken power, usually in the form of a communist party and is now managing society at a more developed level, building towards the eventual socialist or communist mode of production. That's what makes it a "socialist" regime. It's not because they decreed it to be so, it's because it is what objectively happened. It has nothing to do with your idealist checklist of "things that need to be checked off before a society is allowed to be called socialist"
>>2285924>stalinistDo you know what "I'm not an ML" mean, retard?
>weWe communists, the real movement, etc etc, don't use liberal mean words to discredit falsifiers.
>>2285161I don’t think communism as an end goal project can be achieved without the full end of imperialism. As long as porky can keep prolonging the falling rate of profit by keeping large swaths of the human population in perpetual war zones or hyper exploited outpost there won’t be a direct confrontation with capital. Call AES countries whatever you like but national liberation is good for the proletarian in both the country doing imperialism and the one a victim of it. In short
GIVE EVERY COUNTRY A NUKE ☢️
>>2285924It's not a political program for a society, dumbfuck.
Funnily enough no one can ever tell me what a communist society would look like either.
>>2286045>Funnily enough no one can ever tell me what a communist society would look like either.that's because nobody can tell what the future exactly looks like silly
>>2286057 also what this anon is saying
>>2286018>believes in the people's free market, Socialist camp's markets are freer to proletarian.
>private propertyLawful proletarian private property is inviolable under proletarian dictatorship. Capitalist private property and Communist private property are utterly distinct.
>commodity productionhttps://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch32.htm>wage laborhttps://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm>democracyCommunism cannot exist without People's democracy.
>>2286057I don't particularly care for communism, so if you're referring to Cuba and whatnot then sure.
>>2286059I made that remark because I was asked to define what an "anarcho-nihilist society" would look like.
>>2286071Calm down.
>>2286076Bretty good.
>>2286061Close enough
Welcome back Hitler
>>2286212Ngl
But when I encounter people like you I really wish the fuckers on that Deprogram podcast would fucking die
>>2285161>your authoritarian capitalist third world bourgeois national liberation movement that executes communists, atheists, and gays(20 cringe reddit homosexual atheists debating Jordan Peterson)
>>2285189> supporting national bourgois movements like "Palestinian liberation" is reactionary because it ignores the class question/r/Ultraleft is literally full of PMC Germans, undeniable nazi ideology that has as much contempt for their nonwhite slaves as honest liberals
>>2286996>B..but what about muh hecking wholesome hyper nationalist bourgeois states? Fuck off man, those states were like 20 years old at that point lmao
>>2287005Yes? What's the problem? You think they should have just ceded all that shit to germany lol
This is real life dude, it's not some moralistic fantasy. Why wouldn't they try to get the most favorable conditions possible when war with nazi germany was inevitable?
>>2287018>Fuck off man, those states were like 20 years old at that point lmaoNations are not states, before that they were occupied by let me check… the Russian Empire, what a shock that the Russians wanted them back in their Empire, which the USSR was.
>This is real life dude, it's not some moralistic fantasy. Why wouldn't they try to get the most favorable conditions possible when war with nazi germany was inevitable?The ends does not justifies the means, no. And in the end the Soviet Union collapsed exactly because they tried to build an Empire by and for the Russians and only paid lip service to "liberating the working class" from capitalist oppression. They were fucking worse than the Western Empires of Britain, France and the USA at the time, and that is saying something with all the oh genocide they all committed.
>>2287029>because they tried to build an Empire by and for the Russiansin early 1917, socialist revolutionaries called for Russia to be transformed into a federal state. constituent units inside of this federal state would be created for the various regions and ethnic groups of russia. voluntary assimilation was actively discouraged, and the promotion of the national self-consciousness of the non-russian populations was attempted (korenizatsiya). each officially recognized ethnic minority, however small, was granted its own national territory where it enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy, national schools, and national politicians. a written national language (if it had been lacking) was made, national language planning, native-language press, and books written in the native language came with the national territory, along with cultural institutions such as theaters. stalin's work Marxism and the National Question informed soviet policy towards nationalities. the first population census of the USSR in 1926 listed 176 distinct nationalities, and there were 45 nationally delimited territories, including 16 Union-level republics (SSR) for the major nationalities, 23 autonomous regions (18 ASSR and 5 autonomous oblasts) for other nationalities within the Russian SFSR, and 6 autonomous regions within other Union-level republics (one in Uzbek SSR, one in Azerbaijan SSR, one in Tajik SSR, and three in Georgian SSR).
stop drinking the kool aid m8, read a book
>>2287029>Nations are not stateslmaoooo you pseud
>before that they were occupied by let me check… the Russian EmpireThe Russian Empire didn't something happen to that? Some kind of revolution or something? I can't remember
>what a shock that the Russians wanted them back in their Empire, which the USSR was.lmaooooooo, to you empire is just "when state is big", it means nothing
>The ends does not justifies the means, noYou self righteous, pretentious moralist. The ends was the prevention of nazi victory across eastern europe and everything that comes with such an outcome. If you don't understand the historical relevance of that and dismiss the soviet contribution to preventing that outcome, just for the sake of some 20 year old semi facist, ethno nationalist states, whose entire reason for being is at the behest of western capital, you are no better than nazi yourself
>hey were fucking worse than the Western Empires of Britain, France and the USA at the time, and that is saying something with all the oh genocide they all committed.And there you have it.
>>2285740>The process MLsMarx describes curiously always sounds exactly like developing capitalismmhmm
>>2285740>Reaching the level of development regular capitalism produced in the western capitalist regimesWhich states reached the same level of development as the west? What level do you think is acceptable to reach before pressing the button that does not risk being invaded and losing the gains? Is that level an absolute number, per capita, or relative to the level of development of counter-revolutionary forces? By what mechanism do you expect to provide everyone with a house, running water, electricity, food, education, healthcare etc in a country that does not have productive forces capable of fulfilling those promises?Do you implement that before or after the button press?
>>2287538>assuming what you say is true, how does bourgeois developmentalism under red capitalism in another country stand in the way of doing a revolution in your own country?Well when all the main voices for "communism" in your country insist on this reformist drivel as THE platform for communism and slam anything else as [insert buzzword here] it makes it somewhat harder to organize.
>if you dont like how communists have historically done things what are you doing to show them they were wrong besides crying about it online?Just because something was done "historically" doesn't suddenly make it the best way to do things. For thousands of years scientists believed in astrology, should we put serious consideration into our star charts because people like Isaac Newton did? Also most of those states that peaked at bourgeois developmentalism either collapsed outright or slid back into capitalism, never actually progressing towards communism.
>>2287544>Well when all the main voices for "communism" You have people in an advanced imperialist state saying that they need more productive forces? I've never heard of that
>the best way to do thingsI didn't say it was. Different material conditions call for different ways of doing things. Its communists job to identify the particular material conditions they face and adjust their national party program accordingly. Internationalists shouldn't withdraw support from other parties in different states, especially when they are not themselves experiencing those same material conditions. This was one of Stalin's mistakes, trying to convince other countries to dogmatically follow the Soviet model despite different conditions. Support can be critical of course but countries at different levels of development will have different paths to communism. Whats important is mutual solidarity, as breaking one link in the chain loosens pressures on the others.
>>2287549>You have people in an advanced imperialist state saying that they need more productive forces? I've never heard of thatIt's either that or telling people to vooot democrat, yes. There's some smaller Maoist groups of course that eschew that, but they've got their own issues and tend to devolve into either fed plants or cults of personality, or both.
But assuming that bourgeois developmentalism is necessary for communist states in the developing world because they lacked the "productive forces". Going by that, isn't it safe to say that the nations of the "imperial core" have more than enough productive forces to skip this stage yes? Yet the insistence on capturing state power and forming a dictatorship of the proletariat remains
>>2287557>isn't it safe to say that the nations of the "imperial core" have more than enough productive forces to skip this stage yesThe "stage" of making productive forces? Yeah absolutely. Thats why Marx thought revolutions would happen in advanced countries first. And it would have the double effect of lowering the threshold in less developed countries because they wouldn't have to focus so hard on self defense. Thats one of the theories of why the USSR went bankrupt trying to compete with the USA nuclear program but only having access to under 20% of the worlds resources compared to NATO. If the states that control most of the worlds resources went communist tomorrow that would help everyone else a whole lot.
>Yet the insistence on capturing state power and forming a dictatorship of the proletariat remainsOk I'm not sure how that is related? You can have a DotP without increasing productive forces, just like you can increase productive forces, albeit slowly and unorganized, without a DotP. But it still wouldn't be instant. You would have to have a transition period where you transfer production to workers councils and get rid of all the useless junk that was left around for middle men to squeeze profits and then iron out all the kinks with logistics but it would be like 2-5 years max by my estimation since you already have the infrastructure. If you think it could be done faster then propose that to your party and give them material reasons why and maybe get it into their program. You could even try to organize workers around propaganda about a big red button and test your theory in practice.
The Marxist-Leninists who uncritically support the DPRK, China, Iran, the Taliban - and who defend Stalin's every action - and worship every reactionary bourgeois nationalist movement, run this defense and support of said regimes for a very simple reason.
It's because 99% of them are white Americans kids. Overwhelmingly middle class. Aged 18-30. Privileged background, university educated, isolated from reality. They all browse r/TheDeprogram, love Hakim, BadEmpanada and Hasan, and get their understanding of Communism from Twitch and video essays and have never read Capital.
They view the world through an extremely patronising, racialist, Third-Worldist, and Orientalist lense where they believe black and brown people aren't as socially, theoretically, or intellectually developed and sophisticated as white Americans.
To these middle class Stalinist white boys, the oppression, violence against civilians, corruption, support for capitalism, etc within non-western states or revolutionary movements is entirely excused or justified by the anti-scientific rationale given in their Orientalist worldview.
To them "It's just part of that culture's way of living". All materialist analysis and objectivity must be disregarded in order to support "the resistance" at any cost.
"Brown people might not understand our ideology exactly right, but their hearts are right because their third world bourgeois movement opposes the same western bourgeois regime as us, so we must support anything they do!".
These white western Third-Worldists view these "noble savage" rebels as if they're characters from their comic books or Star Wars movies.
It's a sick dehumanisation that justifies anything so long as you are of a lesser culture and can't be expected to know better.
I'll say it again to be clear. Third Worldism = Orientalist racism. Third Worldism is a total falsification of Marxism.
It's no surprise then, as an earlier anon said, that statistics for the user base of certain forums shows that as a proportion, Internationalist Communist groups have far higher degree of non-Western users compared to ML groups.
These groups have an actually materialist, critical analysis of these regimes rather than willingly supporting anything and everything on the basis of entirely anti-materialistic slogan of "critical support for all AES", where "AES" in reality includes only capitalist, islamist and nationalistic governments.
I don't hate this Stalinist kids either by the way. Hopefully with time they will mature, read theory and embrace international communism.
But unless more people are willing to point out what they're doing we're going to be stuck with people like OP as the bulk of people claiming to be Marxists.
Marxism isn't just opposing the West and supporting national liberation. It's about the class war of the international proletariat against the ruling class. Please remember that.
>>2288112>Communists aren't against "oppression" per seWrong.
To be a Communist is to support the establishment of a classless, stateless, moneyless society.
We're against the oppression of the international working class by the ruling bourgeois class.
Meanwhile your definition of Communism appears to be "defending the perception of Stalin, DPRK, and various Islamist movements".
>>2288103God anti MLs are so goddamn insufferable lmao, always projecting their weird psychoanalysis of their perceived enemies rather than actually meeting anyone on the actually ideological arguments. It's so pathetic, the self righteous pretense of having a better understanding, while your arguments amount to nothing more than your weird personal individualist projections
>They're white, they're young, they're this they're that Completely made up bullshit you literally pulled out of your ass in order to make yourself feel better lmao, your projection so patheticly obvious dude
>"Third worldists"Bro, who the fuck are you talking about?? MLs are not by n large third worldists, that is an extremely niche worldview, not even primarily related to Marxist Leninism, why the fuck are you bringing it up in relation to them lol
>Muh international communists Go sell some more newspapers Trot
>Marxism isn't just opposing the West and supporting national liberation. It's about the class war of the international proletariat against the ruling class. Please remember that.You are such a fucking faggot man, please kill yourself you pompous, self righteous loser.
>>2288177Care to actually refute any point I made? Or just more retarded self congratulatory masterbation?
Notice how I also never showed any desire to kill you, just hoped you would end yourself so I don't have to look at your dumbass arguments anymore. Lol, couldn't even get your deflection from the argument to not be fucking retarded
>>2288197>Meltdown You are so pathetic man, YOU are the one who went on a whole dumbass rant about the age and ethnicity and what fucking YouTube content MLs supposedly consume. You are the one on the meltdown you retard
>Violent You are such a pathetic baby, it's insane
>>2288205>3 MLs all having a seething meltdown Having a "seething meltdown" is just responded to a retard saying retarded shit apparently, you going out of your way to have this argument is not a meltdown for some reason though
>calling for the death of all non-MLs and calling all non-MLs Nazis Are you 12 years old? Please leave, this forum is for adults only alright? Maybe you'd have more fun on reddit
>All because they got called out on their bs orientalist anti-materialist, anti-internationalist defence of bourgeois revolutions. You are literal children, falsifiers, revisionists. Pathetic.You are a retarded trot and you have nothing but baseless name-calling, projections and self righteous delusions. Please for the love of god, at least talk to people on the basis of their arguments instead of this weird psychoanalysis shit you're doing
>>2288223>you have nothing but baseless name-callingAnd you call me the retard when you lack any degree of self awareness
You literally called me a Nazi, a Trot, and a retard. And also to kill myself.
All because I called out a few facts that (very evidently) triggered the Stalinists.
>>2288248so true bestie! except that the debate continues on because trotskyites tend to join hands with modernizing parties in western europe while stalinist parties still adhere to the antifascistic united front idea
>>2288251>Its a good start for young and inexperienced to develop their own ideological position.lmao why? so there's more confusion in the movement? so we have a bunch of individualist larping their own unicorn ideology?
>>2288232You reap what you sow you fucking moron, why should I give you any charitability when you're spouting complete nonsense from the start. Projecting about how MLs are supposedly white or too young other whatever other individualist psychobabble you were going on about
>All because I called out a few factsAgain with the baseless projection and psychoanalysis, people aren't mad because you're espousing "facts" lmao, don't make me laugh. Just look at the actual arguments. Something you conviently ignored during this entire meltdown of yours
>>2288293https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/trotltrs.htmcan you explain what trotsky meant by this?
Letter to Chkeidze, Vienna, April 1st, 1913
<In a word, at this moment, all that Leninism consists of is based on lies and falsifications, and bears in itself the seeds of its own decay. There is no doubt that, if the opposing party knows how to manage, gangrene will soon develop among Leninists, precisely because of the question of unity or division. <Two policies may now be applied: to destroy ideologically and organically the fractional walls which still exist, and thus destroy the very foundations of Leninism, which is incompatible with the organisation of workers into a political party, but which can perfectly grow on the manure of splits; or, on the contrary, to conduct a fractional selection of anti- Leninists (Mensheviks or liquidators) by a complete liquidation of the divergences on tactics. Letter to M. Olminski, 1921
<You ask me whether to publish my letters to Chkeidze. I think that it would not be appropriate. It is still too early to work as historians. These letters were written under the spur of the moment and, obviously, the tone suffers from this.<… this retrospective review of factional struggle could, still now, give rise to controversy, because, I confess frankly, I do not think at all that, in my disagreements with the Bolsheviks, I was wrong on all points<… this fundamental error is due to the fact that I was analysing the two fractions, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, by placing myself from the perspective of the permanent revolution and of the dictatorship of the proletariat<… I was hoping (as I have repeatedly expressed in letters and reports) that the course of the revolution, itself, would lead them to the programme of the permanent revolution< I estimate that my appreciation of the driving forces of the revolution was undoubtedly correct, but that the consequences that I pulled from the two fractions were unquestionably false >>2288103Trvke
If anons here gave even half a damn about communism they would kill themselves in shame
Unfortunately they are the exact sort of honkie they love to mock
>>2288103Marxism-Leninism is not Third Worldism.
>All materialist analysis and objectivity must be disregardedThats exactly what you are doing when you reduce anti-imperialist analysis based on material conditions to race.
>>2288103>>2288103>Marxist-Leninists who uncritically supportfirst of all they dont
>DPRK, China, Iran, the Taliban>>2288103Vietnam, Cuba?
>they believe black and brown people aren't as socially, theoretically, or intellectually developed and sophisticated as white Americans. This is a very strange critique. Communists don't critically support a particular nation based on its ethnic makeup or its ideology, but based on its material level of development in industry and its relation to the world imperialist system, and not in comparison to America based on its ethnic makeup but in comparison to highly developed advanced countries in the stage of imperialism.
I dont know why you think a communists in another nation that lacks even the basics to materially reproduce everyday life should forgo developing the productive forces to meet peoples needs just to make you feel better about something that has no effect on you whatsoever. How is recognizing that a particular country lacking electricity, clean water, roads and schools should have those things racial essentialism?
Really your whole post sounds like projection
>In my country we already have those things so no one else needs themIts your own idealism and failure to apply material analysis to recognize differing levels of development and dependency that leads you to such conclusions, instead universalizing your own experience to the whole world without investigating the reality of the situation.
>my country is already developed so no one else needs to developand the classic
>in my country teachers and parents make me do homework and have bedtime so no one should have authority, communism is when everyone has free icecream for dinner, under communism freezers and cows for milk will spontaneously appear according to my desires and no one will have to work >>2284431
Cannabis smokers are like " I wanna take the edge off" like whut the heell they don't want to have to think about getting cucked / cheated, the monotonous work cycle, cybersecurity paranoia and they want to have fun in their free time? That sounds awful, they probably want to rape and kill people and simply hide it under a disguising addiction habit regardless if they don't even get to smoke one joint because they don't want to break the law, its the thought of challenging the divine law of the people by the people that is chinese (eurasia, third world and the progressive eastern races) that shows they are actually western liberal addicts already addicted and can only be fixed by police action. Retarded degenerate druggies are holding back communism from destroying Israel and America! Mossad destabilizes China with THC and China is like this gigachad sober and alcoholic conservative and yet progressive society that will NOT murder fags while liberal westerners are ungrateful that disguising candidates for addiction are being punished by the people's police? What else are we gonna do if the people's police don't punish cannabis users, China will literally become degenerate! I had this one friend who smoked weed and he became a degenerate trans faggot, under internet communism I get to be as chauvinist as possible without getting booed and right now trans and fags are too popular to call them degenerate so its better to write that China tolerates them so they should be grateful, drugs are still taboo so its fine to call all drugs degenerate lumpen and no, I don't care what different drugs are, anything that you can have fun with is degenerate and you should go to jail for it except alcohol and tobacco because its the material conditions and the culture. Conservativism in society is like collectivism that's like communism while liberalism is like individualism like degenerate weed smoking prostitutes which should be arrested and killed on a whim like Catholic Communist Comrade Duterte did. The people's war on drugs is good and the war on drugs is good and based and communism / socialism, its good to kill people for having fun the wrong way because the wrong way is harmful because I say so and my sources which are absolute truth say they will destroy communism if they aren't killed because communism's fate depends on killing cannabis users and other drug users because they're like degenerate and bourgeois decadent and lumpen while the conservative and patriotic socialist nationalists are like the proletariat, the workers, a cannabis user is literally incapable of work and is probably a liberal CIA nazi fascist? This is all true by the way, unironically based and I'm 18 I say based a lot and play videogames and I'm in this group we live in the US (Lord Mao forgive us for being born in the imperial core) its called Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-Dengpilled Party of the Global South, we're like 3 people (AS OF NOW) and are a catholic communist Palestinian nationalist PFLP DFLP China anti-trot, anti-ultras, anti-ancom, anti-leftcom, anti-heresy discord server that's straight edge and based and the west is jew so if you want to join us too bad because like better to be a son of God than a dog of Odin. Nazbol gang gang anprim gang gang Ohio L Rizz L bozo cannabis users delulu cappin addicts
>>2288544>You didn't actually make any points- your arguments are based on your psychoanalysis of your political opponents rather than any engagement with the actual stances and arguments presented by MLs
-Your estimations of the demographic makeup of what you ascribe to be MLs is pure projection, based from your own weird obsession with race
-MLs are not Third Worldists and TWism is only tangentially related to it
-You are a self congratulatory, self righteous loser
There, seeing as you needed to have it spelled out for you
>Its just a list of ad-homs and strawmenGrow up, maybe you'd feel more at home on reddit or some discord debatelord server
>Marxism without Leninlmao
>while conflating and flattening every tendency you dont like into one on the basis of some obscure racial grievance that only you subscribe toThat is just you projecting, you dumb fuck, you're out here claiming MLs are somehow third worldist lol, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
>>2288673Can't tell if serious
It's been said before and will be said again, however if your theory/ideology has no connection to reality you need to update it.
>>2285161>imperialism badbourgeois imperialism is bad.
proletarian imperialism on the other hand is doubleplus good. we should hope that there is much more of it. much more transport of MoPs from the developed to the developing world. much more exploitation of the labour power that lies fallow in say Subsaharan Africa
>The first line of Capital says that capitalism - the production of commodities is the capitalist mode of productioncapitalism is
generalized commodity production. there's no contradiction at all in communist commodity production
>>2286149but anon what else would we talk about if we didn't quibble over the definition of words?
>>2289023Your critique is even more general. Imagine getting mad that post-colonial opted out to modernize and industrialize in the only way known - i.e. the western way - to secure their anticolonial revolution and that then they didn't abolish commodity production 'fast enough'.
Their heads would explode if you tell them Stalin was planning for more democracy, less party control, 7 hour work days, only to be cut short because German imperialism attacked
>>2289032Nobody’s mad that they did that, leftcoms don’t care that they did that
Stalinoids think “leftcoms” are making a critique of moral revulsion when stating these countries were not “socialist” unless you mean their aesthetic or purported ideology; meanwhile Stalinoids actively and aggressively appeal to moralism when trying to justify what could make any ML society, as MLs themselves shakily explain them, socialist at all
>Do you think they have no le hecking bourgeois right to become the West when they are brown, slavoid, or asiatic?Lmao I don’t fucking care?
>>2289783So they should just abolish commodity production without industrializing? How does that work?
Any historic examples? Cambodia maybe?
>>2289966Do MLs believe communism is historically achievable, yes or no?
>What should the USSR have doneI mean based on everything MLs claim there was effectively nothing they or any other ML state could have done to reach the socialist mode of production, I don’t even necessarily disagree
Do you actually mean to ask
>”Which past historical formations or figures should communists of the future seek to emulate”?None
History alone will determine what actually happened ends up being successful
>>2288103Completely agree, modern MLism essentially amounts to picking a sports team and supporting it, rationalizing every contradiction and denying every uncomfortable fact.
Has any ML state actually sustained socialist, let alone communist, principles and not taken the form of a capitalist, undemocratic and nationalist/state building nation? No.
Their big heroes Statin and Mao actively worked against and sabotaged other nation's communist movements out of chauvinism and nationalism, and their messiah Lenin instituted a monumental terror surmounted only by his successor.
>>2290705>Their big heroes Statin and Mao actively worked against and sabotaged other nation's communist movements out of chauvinism and nationalismhow about you actually read what Lenin and Stalin had to say about the national question and chauvinism?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm>and their messiah Lenin instituted a monumental terror surmounted only by his successorrevolutionary terror is good actually
>>2337210OOOOOOhhhh AAAAAhhh
I'm renoooouncing
Repent! Repent!
Shame! Shame! Shame!
>>2284454Would the real movement please stand
please stand up
>real socialism is a bourgeois dictatorship where the ruling class owns most of the capitalAnd that's the best of cases. Most of them are just straight liberalism with a (even more) blatantly corrupt government, like Vietnam or China
Just give me straight liberalism in that case, not that mockery that insults my intelligence. You can go to the DPRK if you believe in it that much, but you never will.
>>2288103>It's because 99% of them are white Americans kids. Overwhelmingly middle class. Aged 18-30. Privileged background, university educated, isolated from reality. They all browse r/TheDeprogram, love Hakim, BadEmpanada and Hasan, and get their understanding of Communism from Twitch and video essays and have never read Capital. I don't care if someone calls that idpol because that's dead-on for every ML I've seen in real life. It's just missing the part where they dream of roping their friends into petit-bourgeois homesteading or some other business venture.
>>2284340Even if they didn't achieve "real communism" or "real socialism"- neither of these systems can be fully realised until the entire capitalist world system is dismantled and destroyed. That doesn't mean we dismiss socialist experiments or self-described socialist countries be it Cuba, Vietnam, DAANES, DPRK, EZLN Chiappas, or China.
Their government models and economies are preferable to the hellholes of the United States and Britain.
>>2346337Because he’s a fascist
Don’t entertain most of the people on this site
Never prevaricate on someone who needs to be shot and left to die
>>2346354Nah, instead I will absolutely hope your mom walks in to find you bleeding out dead one day
The Proletarian Revolution would be accomplished in a week if every deng beetle had his head nailed to a wall
>>2346767>we>we>we>actively workMay I see it
This work localized entirely within your bedroom
Good joke if joke
>>2346767>The working class of the world will eventually begin the REAL MOVEMENT towards communismThese people actually think they're communists and they don't even think the real movement has begun yet lmaooooo. There's literally nothing they can point to as being or having been the real movement. They constructed a preconceived notion of the real movement and are now waiting for reality to meet those preconceived qualifiers
Eternally checklist brained
>>2346802It's at the core a complete inversion, isn't it?
The
real movement is actually the fictional movement of the future and what is really happening in
reality is all just to be denounced and whatever. Else you are not a
real communist (lol)
I'm starting to think these people haven't ever actually read Marx.
>>2346808Very true, like it's such basic shit, you can get a decent understanding of it just from reading the communist manifesto or principles of communism. But they're so cocky and self assured of their own view lol.
>>2346811Yeah it's also why they generally hold no actual ideological line themselves, their whole view of socialism is based on inversion/reaction to communism and if they were to actually upheld a line, it wouldn't be that anymore, they'd have to actually stand FOR something
>>2346912I remember it too but not what thread it was. They all blend into each other.
The arguments laid out don't change, not substantially, not even minimally.
Many people are saying it. Actually that is untrue, yes I did coin that phrase.
>>2347075And for the “do somethingners” it all amounts to joining a revisionist party in the USA (all large ones) and then doing useless protests and “coalition building” (NGO work with other NGO) to promote their own party material. No real links with the working class. That’s why all these parties have existed for years and every imperialist intervention is the same boring nothing statements and peaceful protest
Any real small surge of revolutionary energy (early George Floyd, Chicano-led anti-ICE protests) always quickly get enveloped into working with DSA/PSL (or dare I say, ACP 🤣) who exist to co-opt and contain any energy into mass actions at empty city halls and parades through police sanctioned areas lmao
>>2347864Reminds me of the Goebbels cartoon
Billions, trillions, gazillions
Boom-crack-raah
Yeah, about what I expected.
We are anomalous, expect us etc.
>>2347886You people are the amerikkkan reddit brigade
and you insist on projecting this on others
constantly
instead of ever picking up a book, changing, growing.
>>2347864>There are already hundreds of thousands of us all over the worldCan I see them? Where's their party?
>We have people in Iran and US, China and India, Brazil and Japan. We are everywhere.lmao
>The real movement has been building up as capitalism comes to yet another crises. >Just one more crisis bro, then our sect will take state power for sure. The name of our party?? Ehm uhhh ahhh, don't worry about that dude
>In fact our online presence is tiny and yet we already live rent free in the minds of millions of leftoids.This is such an embarrassing cope. Literally nobody thinks about you lil bro, nobody even knows you exist or what your movement is. You can't even name an org, let alone a line you uphold, you have nothing
>>2353535Unless you lead a country that came about due to a proletarian and need to convince a hundred million wage slaves that their fathers, mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers didn’t sacrifice their lives for nothing because “communism” will be “achieved” surely in
1936 1950 1956 1967 1975 1985 1990 LOL
>alt right achievementFunny you should say that, I always thought you had a very /pol/-type behavior. Beginning with the repetition, the attention seeking behavior and general trollishness.
If that is your goal, you are, at least behavior-wise, on track. Of course you have no institutional backing and will stay irrelevant indefinitely.
Keep going tho, this is great.
>>2355493Libs in the course of a couple months (meaning after the start of accelerated genocide) came to the insight that what Israel is doing in Gaza (and maybe Palestine as a whole) is like
bad.
Beyond that though, when someone hits back against Israel (in the recent case Iran), the hemming and hawing starts right up again.
Bothsiding in this case is still kinda wild to me, I suppose. One side is conducting a genocide very transparently. I can understand it in other cases, that does not mean I condone it, of course. Anyway, it shows if you count on libs you are lost.
>>2355314Who are you again?
>That is the next goal. Our memetic contamination of the greater political discourse will be a force multiplier similiar to what the alt right achieved over the past decade.lmao and you believe this?
Just do it. Just transform society completely top to bottom. DOn't let your Dreams be dreams.
What a concept. We could all use a little change. True political savy. Make this guy head of comintern. Or at least a local action committee
Get Shrek'd
>Nowadays many people are calling for a transformation to a national, scientific and mass style. That is very good. But "transformation" means thorough change, from top to bottom and inside out. Yet some people who have not made even a slight change are calling for a transformation. I would therefore advise these comrades to begin by making just a little change before they go on to "transform", or else they will remain entangled in dogmatism and stereotyped Party writing. This can be described as having grandiose aims but puny abilities, great ambition but little talent, and it will accomplish nothing. So whoever talks glibly about "transformation to a mass style" while in fact he is stuck fast in his own small circle had better watch out, or some day one of the masses may bump into him along the road and say, "What about all this 'transformation', sir? Can I see a bit of it, please?" and he will be in a fix. If he is not just prating but sincerely wants to transform to a mass style, he must really go among the common people and learn from them, otherwise his "transformation" will remain up in the air. There are some who keep clamouring for transformation to a mass style but cannot speak three sentences in the language of the common people. It shows they are not really determined to learn from the masses. Their minds are still confined to their own small circles.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_07.htmI think the problem people have with "real socialism" is not in the socialism part but the "real". Most everyone has some idea what communism is. It's pretty simple. To me it remains like this: If communism can't exist in reality, which it evidently can't (first, you need a country of whatever form to exist in this world of countries as well as an army and so on) then how is the admission (which I am prepared to make for any actually existing country or formation of any sort) that such-and-such is not "real communism" (do you, the reader, also develop an aversion to this expression? I sure am) even a meaningful statement? You are saying nothing at all. I never got any real answer to that.
>>2360607This place is, yeah pretty bad. But I don't have a good alternative. I guess as annoying as most are here and maybe there is some niche forum or some such that would be better, I can at least say what I want for the most part. And it's like, not totally dead.
The solution is, as with most every bad habit, to reduce consumption.
>A bullet for them, a bullet for you>A bullet for everybody in this room>But I don't seem to see many bullets comin' through>See many bullets comin' through>Metaphorically, I'm the man>But literally, I don't know what I'd doI've been thinking too much but it sure passes the time.
I have seen more interesting discourse in (mainstream) music than the majority of ideas put out here.
>>2360666>I will now continue watching rich assholes drive around in a circle burning copious fuel energy uselesslySettler socialists are just the soy-wing of technocratic Elon Musk neoliberals, literally saying the exact same things about geoengineering and asteroid mining and blockchain. Like how AOC met with Bolivian coup fascists for her PMC "Green New Deal".
Many people simply do not distinguish between these woke white finance imperialist Marxists and Zionist Jews. Clearly the same parasitic genocidal entity whose main contribution to humanity is apps that were inspired by sci-fi books for children
A Sisyphean exercise it is to try to make anti-politics thinkers into something else by persuading them of the argument and the "salience of reality". For "real change" you gotta wait for reality to bite them in the ass. It's like talking to the common liberal. It'll be something like, they heard about authoritarianism, undemocratic behavior, oppression and what have you. Then you may try to tell them how we have much the same in our own country and it isn't that simple and what have you. They will agree with you, nod their head but never really get it. The urge to put things into the authoritarian / democratic boxes is too strong with them. And their own country can do no wrong, oh sure it does wrong (here and there, but you know, they are real people with hopes and dreams, not like those impure darkies) but their evil is never of the same quality as the others. It is not "real evil". It is just different, they know. Why? How? Who knows.
But it makes ya think, doesn't it?
>>2284454kek
>>2337220ask edgy zoomer Karl what he meant by this
>>2360926>edgy Karl (Marx)Present, what do you need? I'm probably the closest to his "reincarnation" here, it's sad but it's true.
Now this looks like a job for me.
>>2362010You know that, I know that, pretty much everybody knows that. Well, now they know it themselves. This is not gonna change anything for them. They have started identifying majorly with their "pure communism".
So what to do about them? At best completely ignore their existence. I know I keep saying one thing and doing another.
Anyway, no one can claim I haven't tried with them. I tried conversing with them every which way. All I ever got back was aggressive stupidity and undue arrogance. The behavior exclusive to someone that doesn't do things, doesn't try.
>>2363781Whether sarcastic or not..
Let me reiterate here: If you define communism as something that has no hope existing, then of course it has not, doesn't currently and will not exist in the near to medium term (we are talking in terms of centuries)
>>2363992>etc. etc.This isn't really a rhetorical question. While it may appear that way and I strongly believe you don't have an answer I am not excluding the possibility.
That is to say I really am just dying to know what you think development is (the precious "movement").
Marx also made a similar point about the Irish and the British. Which by the way is the reason the Oirish still to this day have a better record of standing with the oppressed than the standard westoid (whose record is abysmal in every way).
It's not a race thing.
>>2363992>You think proletarian revolution is possible so long as capitalism exists? So long as multiethnic nations exist? So long as there are international relations?<No, first we need to turn every polity into an ethno-state micro-nation, bring up the global petit bourgeoisie until all producers are equal, and once we have achieved a world of humble, equal volksgemeinschafts, finally, proletarian revolution is achievable!<<Until then, murder all third world communists as traitors to the nations, also only support ethno-nationalists with socialist characteristics in the (((West))) just to be sure they don’t step on the toes of afro-asian-latam ethnonationalists!“PRAISE THE NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE WHO IS LOYAL TO THE VOLK, DEATH TO THE INTERNATIONALIST
JEWISH BOLSHEVISTS WHO STAND IN CONTRADICTION TO THEIR FATHERLAND AND PEOPLE”
Fuck I’m so tired of ML talking points 🥺
>the "anti-anti-imperialist" obsessed with ML once moreNo really, try to have an answer
No, sarcastically repeating the same idea over and over is not engaging in a real argument
Not even close
Have you ever read Marx?
Easy question
Yes or no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes >>2366707Have you?
Has the average ML even read the first fucking chapter of capital considering how much you faggots bow at the feet of commodity production?
Do you genuinely think Marx gave half a fuck about what is fair or just towards le brown bourgeoisie?
Do you think Capital is a work of le national liberation you retarded bitch?
>>2365518I even expounded on it further here
Again, I don't know where he says that
At least the thing about chattel slavery is somewhere in the letters.
Explicitly: It is not a race thing
You are simply a trash person, individually
>>2366737No
American wage slaves work for Beff Jezos
Soviet wage slaves worked for the state
American wage slaves answered to some beer belly thumb head named Steve Bilkos or something
Soviet wage slaves answered to some vodka smelling pale bastard named Ivan Stroganoff
Glad you accept both economies are premised on wage slavery though
Next should we compare historically progressive Roman chattel slavery to backwards tribal communal bondage?
>>2367182Material conditions isn’t a phrase you can shit out your ass to justify your opportunistic attachment to bourgeois statecraft 😂😂😂
It really would be more honest to just say that Africans are genetically proletarian or something
>>2367179>westoid MLs telling themselves the national bourgeoisie will save them from capitalismCompletely incoherent. MLs in the west dont think the national bourgeoisie will save anyone from capitalism, and especially not them as west is synonymous with developed/advanced and imperialism which lacks a significant national bourgeoisie in the first place.
They also dont support the national bourgeoisie in developing nations over and above or instead of communists in the first place, but simply endorse the temporary alliance that communists in those nations themselves support, and neither have any illusions that this will save them from capitalism, only that sovereign development is progressive compared to colonial extraction and that organization is easier when you dont have foreign funded death squads in your streets. Any nation, including a communist one, has to have the industry capable of producing the material necessary for defense of the revolution from invasion and overthrow.
It would be better and faster to have a centrally planned communist party in charge, but lacking the organization necessary to take power a temporary alliance is justified, especially when it results in the very same development a communist party would partake in, albeit in a disorganized anarchic fashion.
>>2366888>American wage slaves work for Beff Jezos>Soviet wage slaves worked for the state>American wage slaves answered to some beer belly thumb head named Steve Bilkos or something >Soviet wage slaves answered to some vodka smelling pale bastard named Ivan Stroganoff profound take, did you also know that the USSR and nazi germany were exactly the same because
<they had wage labor<they produced commodities<they both had a man with a moustache leading themcrazy, I know
>>2366888>Soviet wage slaves worked for the stateis there no nuance between a worker's state and a bourgeois state? why are you lapsing into essentialism? do you not feel ashamed to put out these "i'm 14 and leftcom and this is deep" slop arguments out here
why don't you kill yourself, anticommunist rat?
>>2367735I remember we had an ultra spamming here about how "real existing socialists" need to look at the first page of Capital. He'd turn up most every day and comment on any development or news of any kind how it's "not communist". We already know. You are not special.
These people are so unfunny, man.
And the repetition, that their wholly undue arrogance is offensive is not the issue. It's the autistic repetition. How do they stomach it? There is something majorly wrong with them. It's not even about the content, just the way they act is so off.
>>2371997A≠B
Malk is not banana
Things are not as they seem, nor are they otherwise.
>>2372117It's just not, like it's not that good. I get it compensates for something but there is (always) better ways, like solving the problem directly.
https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/newsletterissue-state-institutions-global-south/>We must strengthen our weaknesses.I get it with liberals, they are fundamentally status-quoists but the so-called ultra? They are ostensibly totally, way deep in opposition. The cognitive dissonance can't be good.
Unique IPs: 155