I get that "Socialism in One Country" was ultimately a disastrous policy that ended in complete failure and that the Stalinists revised a lot of Marx's and Lenin's theory to falsely claim that the USSR had already achieved Socialism and ended class struggle in the fucking 30s but realistically speaking, what other approach could they have taken after the failure of the German and Hungarian revolutions?
Like if you were Stalin in the 1930 what would you have done differently to ensure that the Soviet Union stayed in the path of socialism while also maintaining theoretical purity?
>I get that "Socialism in One Country" was ultimately a disastrous policy that ended in complete failure
What are you talking about, OP? Socialism in one country as a model was abandoned after WW2 when people's democracies/Comecon/Warsaw pact supplanted it. If they had done a SioC Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc would have been part of the Soviet Union. Ironically that might have helped the USSR in the long run:
>A unitary state power was better placed to present a united front to the hostile capitalist world, and best placed to coordinate the economic development of nations at different levels of development. One only has to consider what the chances of socialism’s survival would have been had the USSR not been formed, and had there existed instead a multiplicity of sovereign nation-states on its historic territory. The great imperial powers of 1919 would likely have subordinated them one by one. In the post–WWII period, splits between socialist states, USSR/Yugoslavia or USSR/China or China/ Vietnam, were exploited to strategic effect by opponents like the United States and hamstrung by their economic development. In a paradoxical sense, it can be said that the abandonment of the policy of socialism in one country in the sense of a monolithic state by the communist movement in the late ’40s to early ’50s contributed to their collapse in 1990
The focus of the leftcom critique on Stalin is that he was a falsifier that declared state capitalism as actually existing socialism and then MURDERED every old Bolshevik to replace them with barely literate yes-men or criminal rapists like Beria. Emphasis on MURDERING every communist, including completely random targets like the librarian that released The German Ideology. There are published CIA documents detailing that they just fueled Stalin's paranoia to get him to kill all of the reasonable communists in order to put psychos in power to encourage local revolts (operation splinter factor).
The path away from socialism happened under Lenin and yes, the failure of the broad European revolution forced them to retreat from the goal. It's the Trotskyist perspective that it was fine until Stalin. Lenin didn't hide from the fact that they were moving away from Socialism with the NEP and such. In A Tax In Kind he points out the different layers of the USSR's economy, and does not make the claim it was an actual socialist nation.
The leftcom perspective does not hold some utopian idea that Lenin should have just hit the communism button and ignore all material conditions affecting Russia. It barely even had a sizeable proletarian class. The problem with Stalin specifically, was his betrayal (yes, betrayal) of the internationalist project for socialism in one country (social chauvinism) and his falsification of theory that manufactured consent for all forms of perverse distortions like barracks communism or State-managed commodity production. If he didn't do all that and just said "yeah, we tried but the time isn't right so we're just going to ride this out until the next opportunity", which is literally what Lenin said and did, there wouldn't be such a blood feud. That and the fact Stalin murdered thousands of communists, to the point where almost any Bolshevik you can look up and see their death date was 1937 from the Moscow Trials which we know definitely falsified information and were just for show.
The reason the leftcoms are so mean is that the MLs & Trotskyites are just social democrats, same type of the SPD who also murdered communists. You'll just see Lasallian nationalism, Kautskyite/Bernstein/ᴉuᴉlossnW reformism or plain simple balkanization with bourgeois, ethnonationalism being called "communist." It's so far removed from Marx, Engels and Lenin and it's all born from these falsifications that Stalin created which have poisoned the waters for almost 100 years. MLs don't even really hide because you can see the first response blindly defending it without giving a single theoretical reinforcement for the argument. Ditto with them holding youtubers who cite the Quran as a trustworthy, socialist text in high regard. You're not dealing with people have an actual, serious interest in Marxism.
>>2423850>criminal rapists like Beriano proof
>declared state capitalism as actually existing socialism didn't do this
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm>MURDERED every old Bolshevikevery potential german quisling*
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/civilwar/SecretWarSovRus.pdfread the fucking books, ultra.
>>2423850So maintaining the NEP until the productive forces were developed enough and the majority peasant population of the Soviet Union became proletarianized while also using the Comintern as headquarters for the International Proletariat and actually funding and helping revolutions abroad was the way to go?
So basically dengoid China of today but with actual international outreach as opposed to Belt and Road shit (imperialism with a human face)?
>>2423883>Belt and Road shit (imperialism with a human face)you have no fucking clue what imperialism is
really, this is a trend i keep seeing too often for it to be a coincidence. there's a book on this topic, there's a clear cut definition of imperialism there, there is contemporary economical data about imperialism and none of it points in any way that china (or russia) are imperialist states
yet leftcoms, the apostoles of reading one might claim, always have this all encompassing notion of every capitalist phenomena that any nuance between pheonomena as a consequence dissapears. america? imperialist. china? imperialist. botswana? imperialist. slovakia? headquarters of global imperialism.
this is what makes you infantile. the reddit meme about ebic based tukkkhachevsky is just the cherry on top. you don't read, you reguritate memes and think you're the one true pope of marxism with your shitty misinterpertation of lenin.
>>2423896… without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that
will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. We shall see later that imperialism can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts—to which the above definition is limited—but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the working-class movement.
Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-150,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons,” who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.
The income of the rentiers is five times greater than the income obtained from the foreign trade of the biggest “trading” country in the world! This is the essence of imperialism and imperialist parasitism.
One of the special features of imperialism connected with the facts I am describing, is the decline in emigration from imperialist countries and the increase in immigration into these countries from the more backward countries where lower wages are paid.
now you tell me, dear leftcom redditor, how any of this meaningfully applies to china? watch out, monopolies under a (degnerated) worker's state are
still not evidence of imperialism (otherwise NEPist russia is imperialist as well?)
<The more I came into contact with leftcoms, the more favorably they compared to other communists; but the more I saw of leftcoms, the more strikingly evident became the difference between them and the rest of the movement; and later, when I went to live in Moscow, this feeling grew into hatred.Lenin, probably.
Ultra-leftists approach revolutionary work not with sober analysis, but by avoiding the very complex and concrete conditions they must confront. What starts as a lack of thorough analysis, or an inability to grapple with the difficulty of our tasks, quickly degrades into relying on strategies that seemed effective elsewhere. We can become so attached to holding onto what feels "correct" that we refuse to admit a more accurate description of reality. This approach inevitably fails, or fails quickly. When it becomes clear these strategies rest on little more than wishful thinking – or "subjective idealism" – the result is the demoralization of revolutionary forces.
These "Left" errors stem from an idealist worldview. Instead of understanding the dialectical relationship between material reality and ideas, idealism prioritizes ideology in political struggle (read this
https://monthlyreview.org/2023/01/01/reflections-on-lenins-dialectics/). The consequences, seen far too often, include
(α) Overestimating the revolutionary consciousness of the masses.
(β) Misreading objective conditions and the capitalists' capacity to maneuver.
(γ) Viewing revisionism and reformism as bigger threats than the capitalist class itself.
All this is coupled with a dogmatic method and attitude. Ultra-leftism typically involves drastically overestimating how close the country is to revolution. Within this framework:
- The working class's spontaneous resistance is mistaken for revolutionary class consciousness.
- Isolated militant actions or individual advanced workers are seen as broadly representative.
- Contradictions within the working class (like racism, sexism, homophobia) or between the working class and potential allies are downplayed.
- The influence of communists (or their specific organization) is exaggerated: roots in the class, popular respect, program development, leadership, cadre commitment – all are inflated.
- The path to revolution is imagined as relatively smooth, often dismissing the complex twists and turns of revolutions in other countries.
Some ultra-leftists act as if permanently revolutionary conditions exist, needing only bold action. Others anticipate a spontaneous popular outburst that ingenious communists can turn into revolution. However it's framed, the core belief is that "a single spark can start a prairie fire." This pervasive ultra-leftism of recent decades is fundamentally sustained by idealism. An observer might ask of such groups: "How could they possibly think this makes sense?" Idealism means proceeding from thoughts, fantasies, and wishes rather than from a materialist analysis of concrete reality. We've already touched on key features: the misassessment of conditions enabling groups to overrate their importance and inflate working-class militancy. Many groups fail to honestly sum up social practice – their own or others'. Reality is ignored or explained away, not analyzed.
This idealism is often propped up by quoting authorities out of context. While the communist movement's experience holds immense value, simply knowing what Marx or Lenin wrote on a subject is rarely enough to solve today's problems. Revolutionary leaders constantly stressed Marxism is a guide to action, not dogma. Yet, the movement repeatedly suffers from dogmatic interpretations – following written words is easier than thinking problems through. Lenin perfectly captured this tendency when groups, amidst desperate need for theoretical development in Russia, argued practical work was paramount. One newspaper justified its pragmatism by quoting Marx: "every step of the real movement is more important than a dozen programs." Lenin retorted that repeating this quote amid theoretical chaos was "like wishing mourners at a funeral 'many happy returns of the day.'"
>>2423824If we assume this is correct and dismiss any counterfactuals, is it not therefore all the more important that there was a critical tradition which saw the USSR post failure of the world revolution as the dead-end it was?
Like Trotsky admitted that had he ended up in charge it wouldn't have magically prevented the degeneration, he would've ended up doing all the same things. That surely means communists that are outside of this doomed position need to see it for what it is and loudly say so, rather than stubbornly insist that the ten thousand unpleasant compromises the bolsheviks HAD TO take for the sake of survival were actually what was intended all along and everything is going according to plan.
So with the benefit of hindsight we should go and objectively analyse the ways the particularly unfortunate starting situation and material conditions of the october revolution forced decisions that in the long term prevented communism, so that in the future we can try to avoid such obstacles.
Rather than act as if criticism is done out of personal spite to defame one great man or another.
>>2423850>If he didn't do all that and just said "yeah, we tried but the time isn't right so we're just going to ride this out until the next opportunity", which is literally what Lenin said and did, there wouldn't be such a blood feud.This is essentially what China does but I never see leftcoms speak positively about the PRC.
>you can see the first response blindly defending it without giving a single theoretical reinforcement for the argumentLeftcoms on here rarely provide evidence for their arguments in the first place, rather they simply treat as self evident the existence of capitalist class relations, generalized commodity production, etc. in the post-NEP USSR.
>>2423906>how any of this meaningfully applies to china?All of them except for the merger of finance and industrial capital into a financial oligarchy and this is mostly because being a giant sweatshop for the rest of the world is precisely the trump card that has allowed China to develop and keep on par with the other imperialist blocs. If they remain in the same path they will inevitably end up with the same curses that plague the Atlanticists now (de-industrialization, falling rate of profit, chronical crises, etc.)
>Degenerated worker's stateNot a Trotskyist so I don't believe China is even that and I wouldn't even it state-capitalist either because the private sector is too big and influential
Flood detected post discarded >>2423824Leftcoms only disagreement with Stalin is purely theoretical.
The only thing wrong Stalin did was to claim the USSR achieved socialism.
Nice strawman
>>2424114Capitalism is a global system that can only be defeated by the collective effort of the international proletariat of all countries. Even if Xi did in fact "press the communism button" tomorrow, China would eventually find itself isolated and unable to sustain a socialist mode of production for more than a couple years if not months.
And this is for me at least the main reason why I can't fuck with Dengism and the CPC: I can understand the necessity for a tactical retreat into capitalism on the face of backwardness and lack of productive forces but abandoning international solidarity and supporting fascist and anti-communist regimes all over the world in favor of the preservation of the Chinese State and its national interests is simply a betrayal of Marxism and their biggest flaw, plain and simple.
>>2424835Literally just hook everything in China to one of these
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunway_TaihuLight and have it run central planning. If anyone in the world has the political and technical means to prove Cockshott right or wrong it's the CPC
>>2423924uygha never read anything 😂😂😂😂😂😂 the ICP, the book by Lenin, 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
WE ARE the real movement, the invariant and unbroken line stemming from Marx to Lenin 😂😂😂😂😂😂
>>2423817>Like if you were Stalin in the 1930 what would you have done If I was Stalin I would make it a part of the Constitution of the Soviet Union for all drugs to be legal and enjoyed recreationally but for drug abuse in urban public places (streets, parks) to be persecuted by forced sobering up, make a program towards planned economics - automation, make a program for transhumanism and immortality, prohibit all religion - execute every religious vermin or conduct vermin experiments on them like UNIT 731 would later go onto (christians, muslims, religious jews, religious minorities, spiritual people) while making the League of Militant Atheists an integral part of the party, adopt organic centralism, make the Soviet Union governed by a joint committee of international communist parties, then appoint Bordiga as gensec, then go retire in Vladivostok and do a lot of drugs and if something goes wrong I will consult by messages.
There is one problem with the hypothetical though, would we live with the knowledge we have right now? If so I can teach manufacturing, nuclear physics, I can teach them how to make phone communications, all sorts of things. But if its just the personality in Joseph Stalin's body and mind then the text above will be sufficient enough.
I've got a lot of other things in mind I would do, but I don't want to bother sharing them to a board of "social" conservatives who don't understand my enlightenment.
>>2441965 (Me)
>prohibit all religion - execute every religious vermin or conduct vermin experiments on them like UNIT 731 would later go onto (christians, muslims, religious jews, religious minorities, spiritual people)Also in my will it will be that the policy is continued until all of them are dead, with the appointed leadership the USSR should achieve internationalism in no time - especially if I have all my memories from now. I know enough about engineering and physics to change the course of the industry.
>>2441969 (Me)
If I have my current memories, nukes will be developed way before the US gets their hands on them, all the bourgeois nations will fall.
>>2441965 (Me)
>>2441969 (Me)
>>2441970 (Me)
Turn me into Stalin, I will be the best Stalin, if I get to keep my memories I will do a lot more than what I wrote here
>>2441965. If I don't keep my memories I will still be a better Stalin. Alexander Bogdanov's wildest dreams will come true.
>>2442482Lmao
>My idolsNigha you are unironically promoting a conspiracy theory that nobody but stalin simps even pretend to believe that every single person that organized against the tsar and the Whites was a secret “traitor” (they criticized Uncle Joe’s fragile ego or smth idk) and only their murderer and his henchmen knew the truth
Conveniently everyone that ever stepped on his toes or stood in the way of his power needed to die, but somehow everyone that started the process to end the illusion that the USSR wasn’t a capitalist shithole survived
Funny how that works
>>2442458It’s based that MLoid ideology is built out of lying to yourself to prove you aren’t “petit bourgeois” (a critical thinker)
>>2442426>Fought war with Nazis that the Nazis started after extensive collaboration and cooperation in 1939>Literally sent communists to Nazi death camps>Ended up deciding murdering socialists who have the wrong beliefs was a greater priority than defeating the Spanish fascists>Collaborated with the KMT against the CPC (lmao)>Helped Greek fascists slaughter Greek communists to preserve their relationship with the British Empire>Only anti-fascist aktion was fighting a defensive war against the government it had collaborated with for two to three years Anti-fascism is worthless dogshit and doesn’t disprove USSR was social democracy at the barrel of a gun, if you mean
<Le natsees killed and oppressed workers!This is literally a thread for tankoids to justify murdering hundreds of thousands to millions of workers
>>2442535>you are unironically promoting a conspiracy theoryNo, conspiracy theory is denying overwhelming evidence of betrayal because you like the traitors so much. Like, say, in case of Trotsky, they were conspiracy theorizing that eyewitnesses of hotel Bristol were lying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bristol_(Copenhagen) :
>Trotsky was accused of plotting against Joseph Stalin at the cafe of the Bristol in Copenhagen where E. S Golzman confessed to meeting both him and his son Sergei Sedov. Danish newspapers could afterwards report that the hotel had been closed since the fire in 1917While in reality, a deeper research shows this
https://neodemocracy.blogspot.com/2017/03/new-evidence-concerning-hotel-bristol.html :
>Nielsen concluded:>With the reference to these facts it is not difficult to conclude that at least among the foreigners it had been the case that the café’s internationally known name “Bristol” has become synonymous with the name of the hotel, and I do not doubt at all that when the accused Gol’tsman at the interrogation said: “I went to the hotel straight from the station and in the lounge met Sedov,” it was in the lounge of Grand Hotel that they met!26And it's like this in regards to every "innocent" traitor. If you dare dig deeper, it becomes obvious who's the conspiracy theorist here
>>2442535>Conveniently everyone that ever stepped on his toes or stood in the way of his power needed to die??????????????????????????
Then whom did Stalin did polemics in his last book? Everyone was dead already??? And what about Leningrad affair, were those people also innocent? What about Doctors Plot? What next, are you going to say that Stalin has assassinated Kirov?
>>2442566Have you ever considered that rightoids like patriarchal nationalism, corporatism, and the idea of regimenting the lives of all laborers in an extremely autocratic top-down regime?
Maybe rightoids like Stalin because…they’re mostly fascists now? You understand just because the original fascists hated the bolsheviks, Lenin, and Trotsky doesn’t at all mean they hated Stalin? Nazis fucking loved Stalin and still do because they rightfully see his murderous counterrevolutionary reign as a fellow traveler to their own political project. They despise Lenin and Trotsky. Fucking hate them. But barely see a difference between Stalin and Hitler.
>>2442611Have you ever considered that Stalin has kept those rightoids in gulags?
>>2442621>if they were anti-Stalin they were good people!Haha, that's how you get to rehabilitating Nazis. Very common occurence amongst your cricles. You even to this day assign Katyn to Soviets instead of looking at evidence that Nazis committed Katyn
>>2442625>words carry weight only as far as the political affiliation of man saying themLmao, how old are you? I tell you, go watch some court proceedings. Why should I be the one to teach you about crossexaminations, about collaborating evidence, collaborating accounts etc? Western journalists are reliable in case of Moscow Trials in as far as they were describing how they saw the defendants; would you be sceptical about journalist accounts of Goring at Nuremberg, lmao?
Conspiratard brainrot is strong in you
>>2423824Agreed.
>>2423942> we assume this is correct and dismiss any counterfactuals, is it not therefore all the more important that there was a critical tradition which saw the USSR post failure of the world revolution as the dead-end it was?No, because this is an ahistoric take. "We" communists couldn't have foreseen consequences of what measures have had been taken because… such paths weren't even theoretically explored beforehand.
>the benefit of hindsightMeaningless anglo-saxon analytical philosophy, presuming a static world with static acts and events. Abstrachation of all concrete processes. Everything is in motion, u retard. No "objective lessons" in sight, ever. No "hindsight," either, since the very historical moment you speak from is completely different from the one beforehand.
>as if criticism is done out of personal spite to defame one great man or another.False premises (le great man, le unchangeable methods from unchangeable conditions – in short, idealism, as opposed to dialectical materialism.)
>>2424114GIGA-IDIOCYThe CPC plans a 100 years ahead, and you yourself can't even think a day ahead.
From the perspective of the CPC you are a useless junkie trying to shit on unparalleled success.
Sleep tight tonight with that thought in your head.
>>2442893Damn, guess it’s time to outright declare communism impossible by your retarded faggot logic
MLs really ought to be buried alive
>>2423850>The path away from socialism happened under Lenin>The problem with Stalin specifically, was his betrayalare you not saying Lenin also betrayed?
>If he didn't do all that and just said "yeah, we tried but the time isn't right so we're just going to ride this out until the next opportunity", which is literally what Lenin said and did, there wouldn't be such a blood feud.and thats good and fine right?
>It's so far removed from Marx, Engels and Lenin its really not, it sounds like you misunderstand marx engels and lenin their core argument has always been that social rights are determined by economic production
>>2423896imperialism is extraterritorial expansion driven by the falling rate of profit under conditions of monopoly stagnation. market competition leads to consolidation and saturation of technological development, as the organic composition of capital rises with increased technology avenues for addition profit are exhausted domestically and require expansion to survive crisis of overproduction.
russia and china are developing nations with plenty of domestic opportunities for investment so non of this applies to them, especially not russia who is a raw resource exporter still in the "goods stage"
>>2443003> what changes in the material reproduction of social relations occurred to accompany the declaration by stalin?Nothing, the “Communist Party” ruled over the workers and made itself the enemy of the majority of communist parties around the world, it then declared state ownership in a single country organized by an alienated clique “socialism” and the “end of class struggle” even with its population consisting of proletarians and peasants
Stalin was unironically the sort of cynical cunt that stated when the Soviet Union had a higher rate of pig iron production than the United States it will have achieved “communism”; dude would happily spew the most cynical farcical nonsense on behalf of his clique imaginable.
The average Marxist, as consequence, literally think socialism is when welfare and the CP tells everyone what to do
> and most importantly how do they relate to the international situation and siege by counter-revolution and fascismYou’re just explaining the specific reasons socialism was impossible
Why do you lot tend to make this exact faggot argument?
Am I supposed to feel bad for the Soviet state and declare actually it was a socialist society because the leadership really
really wanted to? So that here material reality (what you illiterate fags treat like a magic incantation or spell you recite to disguise whatever nonsense comes next as nonsense) is uhhh not what a thing actually specifically is, but what it is idealistically supposed to be according to its constitution or something
This is pure nonsense, and worse, pure
ideology> if he just makes a decree and nothing changes then your critique is idealism.Holy fuck do stalinoids smoke crack before defecating on your keyboards?
You fags are literally arguing the USSR achieved socialism because Stalin said it did and killed anyone that disagreed then fought in WWII, you fags are literally arguing industry and welfare is itself socialism, leftcoms are saying socialism is an actual mode of production and not just a word >>2443037>You’re just explaining the specific reasons socialism was impossibleyou are just conflating the end point and the process
>literally arguing the USSR achieved socialism because Stalin said it didnope, technically incorrect, yet inconsequential. the policies would be the same given the level of development regardless of what he did or didn't call it
>>2443027>collectivization is bad?The forced Stalinist kind yes. The NEP was better.
>peasants are proles?Peasantry were a reactionary class in the USSR but going to war with them caused famines that starved millions. As I said before, the NEP was a better way of proletarianizing them.
>Industrialization is bad?It ain't but industrialization in the USSR much like anywhere else in the world happened only thanks to brutal primitive capital accumulation under terrible conditions for all workers.
>>2423817>ended class struggle in the fucking 30sWhat Stalin actually said…"class struggle intensifies under the dictatorship of the proletariat because the dying classes fight even harder because they feel weaker"
You can guarantee that whatever some leftypol homosexual is saying the truth is the opposite
>>2423817nothing
I think if Bukharin had lived longer, the NEP would've become permanent
>>2443073>Has to assume I give a fuck about Leon Trotsky to say what I said😂😂😂
Yall are clowns fr
>>2443410Oh non non nono ahahaha Goebbels called them Trots ahahaha
The station fulfilled the task of protecting the "old Leninist principles." Its political direction was defined by German Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as "Trotskyist."[1]
"It was assumed that German propaganda, conducted on behalf of the anti-Stalinist opposition, would cause a new wave of repression in the Soviet Union, including in the state security agencies. The possibility of provoking anti—government protests in the Soviet rear was also not excluded," according to a study on the radio station[1].
The authors of the broadcasts and announcers of the broadcasts were M. V. Tarnovsky, a member of the anti-Soviet emigrant National Labor Union of the New Generation (NTNSP, later NTS), N. N. Minchukov, a former employee of the Izvestia newspaper, colonels A. G. Neryanin, Yu. M. Niman and A. F. Vanyushin, engineer S. P. Morozov[2] and even Ernst Torgler[3] and Karl Albrecht[4]. The radio station's broadcasts often included excerpts from Lenin's "Letter to the Congress," which, among other things, criticized the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (b), Joseph Stalin.
There was no policy because there wasn't a clear goal that "should" have happened, because the entire Marxist-Leninist "theory" didn't work for ruling a country. Stalin set about building up the state to be functional at all, but all of that is pragmatic and not ideological. It wasn't the "infallible plan". It was put together because the alternative is that they gave up on the communism thing outright and stopped pretending, like how they did it after Stalin died.
Everyone was obsessed with the idea of overthrowing America and telling Americans what they were "supposed" to be, thinking that such a thing would be automatic and self-evident and could rewrite history. When you look at where that idea came from, you see, if you really care to look, what this really was and why world revolution was not just doomed but founded on completely false premises. It would seem simple enough that everyone capitulated to America/the UN then and there, but certain people didn't want that. They wanted to keep the world at war and continue the arms buildup. None of that had to happen and it wasn't for any good reason. It was for very bad reasons.
Really though, after all is said and done, no one could say clearly why communism should win other than this blustering about historical inevitability, or why anyone should want to see that become the world. No one could plainly state the extent of the plans the ruling powers had for the world, because that would give away the game played up there. The craziest thing is, anticommunism was never particularly successful at influencing public opinion until the Soviet Union fell. About half of America saw the entire Cold War as a terrible waste of their resources and lives that did nothing but make the world worse, and they said this openly and asked why we can't have peace with the Soviet Union. The other half only carried out the Cold War for monstrous reasons or because they were such disgusting cravens that they believed anything the talking heads said and turned off their brains that much. Yet, the communist world never made an argument for peace or serious cooperation, when such things were clearly possible and desirable. They never made a coherent argument against the ruling power in the United States. The reasons why are simple: the true ruling apparatus in the United States was not only not that different from what Stalin built, but the superstates were already tied in to a global system, the members of which saw their interests as wholly alien to most of humanity and to the war they ostensibly waged against each other. There was no revolution to start because that's what happened everywhere in the 1930s. Once the class that benefits from revolution got what they wanted, everyone else was left to eat shit. Eventually that class decided that they really didn't like the masses and did not believe most of humanity had a place in the world to come. Only then does the history unfold "automatically", save for the desperate masses who have been telling you what they dread in this world, and who know that no one will ever save them. It's over, and it was over when 1914 could be instigated. The rest was only a question of whether people were ready to give up on humanity, give up on any project of a shared society, and how long it takes before everyone sees there never was any hope whatsoever; and I mean no hope AT ALL, for anything you thought you were fighting for. Another world was not possible, not even for a moment, and the ideologues all saw to it. You can't rejigger that to work by some simple technique that never changes and never regards a condition outside of itself.
If you really want to answer the question, you have to step back and reconstruct humanity from its origins, or at least try to. You'd see, without too much difficulty, that there was never anything to suggests humans would be different, or that there were ruling interests that wanted anything different. Humanity has so many barriers to the type of society you envision that it's a wonder we ever got this far in building a thing that looked sort of like that. For one, they are basically a race of retarded apes who are drunk most of the time, ruled by ruinous aristocracies that glorify cocaine and torture. Their language is so ill-suited for purpose that it makes even basic technological reproduction (by objective metrics we know now) problematic. Then add a most ruinous pedagogy for teaching language that was intended to destroy and stunt the already-limited human brain for the most spurious purposes, and then mass poisoning and humiliation on top of that, and you see that human language is not only deteriorating, but that it is now not even possible to formulate the basic principles of what socialism would have been. It has been edited completely out of history, save for a few books here and there with offhand references to an ill-thought program. The books exist and worked-out socialist plans for society were drawn, yet all of them are simply dismissed as irrelevant, because the parties interested in rule never wanted any such society to actually work. They usually wanted the exact opposite, since such a society would undermine every political idea they held dear.
Things like this become more onerous as we go on in history. By now it is clear, and this is the final revelation, that Man was doomed from the very start, and there were terrible people who set out to make sure even the small things we could hold were systematically destroyed. It doesn't have to be like this forever, and in all honesty it won't be. In the future, and I don't think it will take too long but it will either be past most of our lifetimes or near the end of our lifetimes if we live that long, it will be another situation with very different imperatives, brought about by the pure fucktardedness of what we were consigned to. It began in the very revolution of the 1930s that was supposed to become "everything", and as late as the 1990s there were many paths off of this course that were increasingly easy to take. They were specifically forbidden.
After the 1970s, this became a global management system not a national one. The great states are being imploded. The USA is imploding now. The greatest prize is China, and that will be the most terrible downfall of all.
>>2443537>if so which states China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK and pretty much all non-imperialist social democracies like Venezuela and Nicaragua
>Maybe you MLs should reflect on your own positions and failings in addition to criticising others.maybe ultras should reflect on their lack of anything. cant even fail if you never get out your chair
>>2443537>Why did Stalin consider it necessary to kill most of the Old BolsheviksIt was deemed necessary to protect the administration of the revolution and consolidate leadership from subversion. These people were considered to be traitors who had plans or actively worked on plans to destabilize/overthrow the leadership of the CPSU. One can also argue, when you've looked at historical revolution in general, that the consolidation of power through the systematic killing of rival factions/persons within the revolutionary group is common, invariable or bound to happen. One can look at the french revolution or any number of post revolutionary coups and see quite plainly why old revolutionary garde can be dangerous to the leadership or to the functioning/survival of the revolutionary project.
>he wanted to remove anyone who actually cared about Marxist theory, ending the commodity form, internationalism over SIOC, etc?These are not the reasons that the purges happened and is in fact a completely idealist way of looking at it lol
>Can you seriously deny that Stalin was an adventurist who wanted to lead a new imperialist power bloc at any cost?Yeah I can and I do deny that
>Do you consider the project of the USSR and currently existing "Marxist-Leninist" states to be successful examples of a socialist society and a socialist economy?Far far more successful than anything your line has ever or will ever produce yes
>Do you believe there are AES states in the world today, if so which states and how do the meet your definition of being socialist?China, Cuba, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam have had a revolution to establish a dotp and continue to have socialist/communist parties attempt to construct socialism from current conditions
>Do you believe we should celebrate CEOs as pioneers on the economic front?*We* shouldn't, but that's because we live in bourgeois societies where their role in the economic front only represents our own immiseration. Like all things, it's something dependent on the conditions we find ourselves in
>Do you approve of uncritical support for every bourgeois, separatist, religious fundamentalist group south of the Sahara, so long as they remember to wear their anti-kkkracka third worldist pin badge today?Depends on the group and it's relation to US imperialism. Noticing a lot of essentialism in your questions anon, do you have any views at all that are context dependent? Or is it all just idealist and essentialist characteristics like your questions seem to imply?
>Maybe you MLs should reflect on your own positions and failings in addition to criticising others.The irony
>>2443546you misunderstand. im calling venezuela a social democracy that meets my definition of socialism. its a dtop but not communist. china is just communist. classically social democracy was a variant of communism, but in modern vernacular it refers to the nordic model, which is held up by imperialism.
a poster in this thread wanted to claim that ML is secretly social democracy, to imply that its not really communism. i deny that what you call social democracy, china and ussr, is that, but that there does exist social democracies as well and that they deserve critical support.
much like how national liberation and productive development is a progressive for dependent and colonial nations, social democracy is also a progressive step in underdeveloped nations, whereas in developed nations it is the left wing of fascism.
>>2443588>it's not about the information, it's about my personal relationship to the information(real or imagined previous context, baggage)
m8, you are losing it as well.
Death of empire is a beautiful thing to witness. Just let it go, let it go, let it go
There is no need to be upset.
No need for any of this.
>>2423890>you have no fucking clue what imperialism is>>2423906>imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features>Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance>>2423914>Monopoly capitalist—i.e., imperialist—mode of production does not exist in Communist China. >>2442998>imperialism is extraterritorial expansion driven by the falling rate of profit under conditions of monopoly stagnation.This describes the USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea, and on some days maybe Italy, Spain, Hungary, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Other countries lack the level of development to constitute monopoly in todays economic conditions. Having a "local" monopoly or state monopoly is called sovereignty. Controlling your own domestic resources is not imperialism.
>>2443546In the future please remember to read the thread in which you post before attempting to contribute.
This is not a response to sabo per se etc.
Just got a little into the swing of things, as I do. Now:
>if communism has to be worldwide and is impossible in one country then socialist states are in a holding pattern while they wait for you to overthrow your own bourgeoisie. The required productive forces for defense of the revolution is always relative to the external forces that seek to overthrow it, and revolution is the one job that cannot be outsourced.
Let us take the sentence as is.
As an impartial observer (quite partial obviously)
What I see, is a response to the classic leftcoom* position. goes something like what is quoted here in the quoted two sentences (you following me here?) "if [nonsense abt worldwide revolution like a bolt out of the blue, this is the rapture, you are a reskinned christian], etc.)
China is a real country in the real world. If you just read the statement as is, I do not see the relevant connection, at all. Like, tangentially, because it is now all China, all the time, cause the westerner (leftoid etc.) is beyond useless and so on, who cares.
*They are called leftcum because
No gas left in the tank, no cum stored in the balls anymore
A spent force, HOWEVER
that is already more praise than they deserve, there was never anything to "spend".
I just countered my own joke
Back to the drawing board, mate!
important texts for your education
<Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (short read 6K words)
>Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe? >We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism…https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm
<Internationalism and Nationalism - Chapter 4 - The Two Great Camps in the World of Today and the Path of the National Liberation Movement (also short 3K words)
>As indicated above, the national question in the present-day world is essentially a question of the exploitation and oppression, or attempted exploitation and oppression, of the nations the world over by American imperialism as well as the struggles of all nations in the world against the oppression and exploitation by American imperialism in order to achieve national liberation or to defend national independence…https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1952/internationalism_nationalism/ch04.htm
<Internationalism and Nationalism - Chapter 5 - The Progressive Character of Bourgeois Nationalism in Given Historical Conditions and the Marxist-Leninist Attitude Toward Such Nationalism (very short <2K words)
>Marxism-Leninism considers all questions in their historical settings. Marxism-Leninists view bourgeois nationalism under the given historical conditions. Drawing a distinction between its different objective roles, they decide what different attitudes the proletariat should take toward it. In the early period of capitalism, the national movement led by the bourgeoisie had as its objective the struggle against oppression by other nations and the creation of a national state. This national movement was historically progressive, and the proletariat supported it. In the present period, such bourgeois nationalism still exists in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. This variety of nationalism also has a certain objective progressive historical significance…https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1952/internationalism_nationalism/ch05.htm*..but you aren't, rather
Well, ya know what I mean
I just had a minor inspiration, as well.
They think they will be allowed to build their perfect little paradise uninterrupted, if they are just nice and "pure" enough. It's absolutely insane.
>>2443649>the typical context in which that pasta is postedThe typical context being that useless fucking western leftoids are mysteriously obsessed with China.
And China is helping other communists. Like, NK exists solely because of them, which admittedly is a move out of self-interest or self-preservation.
Like I won't get into the details.
It's a jungle out there, friendo.
>communists in opposition Is it you want to get that bag for you and your five friends? I can't help you, write a letter to the chinese (embassy)
I just, I don't care.
It is not about internationalism per se. There is still tactical considerations. But you are stuck in this absolute black and white thinking (unmaterialist, undialectical). Oh, you must be against The International (tm)
I just have a personal dislike of the trots, if they actually did something for real I'd arrange myself with them, yes? That is, somewhat fortunately, never gonna happen.
I'm never selling a newspaper, newspaper peddler.
>>2443537>Why did Stalin consider it necessary to kill most of the Old Bolsheviks? Not everyone remains revolutionary. In fact famous Marxists that built up the foundation of 20th century Communism have drifted toward social-democracy as they aged. See Plekhanov and famously Kautsky (amidst a billion other examples).
"Old Bolsheviks" was actually a term first used by Trotsky who joined the party in 1917 so he needed to discredit the older leadership as "out of touch oddities amidst the 'refreshed' membership from 1917 onward". It was later he would use that same to imply they were "loyal bolsheviks" instead of snakes.
>Can you give one valid reason besides the fact he wanted to remove anyone who actually cared about Marxist theory, ending the commodity form, internationalism over SIOC, etc?Ah yes. Abolish the commodity form. Retarded undialectical view that puts the superstructure first not the economic base. Read Marx.
>Can you seriously deny that Stalin was an adventurist who wanted to lead a new imperialist power bloc at any cost?Lenin lays out characteristics of imperialism: a handful of parasitic rentier states that make money from monopolies whilst retarding the means of production and technical progress, the development of capitalism to the highest stage, imperialism, the export of capital instead of real goods or raw materials. None of this applies to Stalins USSR.
>Do you believe there are AES states in the world today, if so which states and how do the meet your definition of being socialist?DPRK. The sale of labour power on a market to a capitalist (as defined by Marx in Capital)
>Do you believe we should celebrate CEOs as pioneers on the economic front?Given their membership of criminal outfits in Club of Rome/Tri Lateral Commission/WEF/Davos etc they should probably just be shot
>Do you approve of uncritical support for every bourgeois, separatist, religious fundamentalist group south of the Sahara, so long as they remember to wear their anti-kkkracka third worldist pin badge today?Lenin and Stalin supported the Emir of Afghanistan against Britain. A fundamentalist monarchy. So yes.
>>2443665>it didn't work out very wellSorry man, but that's completely detached from reality. If the USSR had taken a truly isolationist stance then socialism never would have advanced as far as it did in the 20th century. Without Soviet support there is no Warsaw Pact, no DPRK, no unification of Vietnam, Cuba would have been invaded immediately, no defeat of Apartheid in South Africa or Zimbabwe. Imo the greatest mistakes of Soviet foreign policy was not being active or aggressive enough, leaving Greek or Latam communists to fend for themselves, etc. This restraint was based on the assumption that there would be reciprocation from the West, e.g. that the Soviet refusal to support armed resistance to Latin American juntas would lead the US to cease support for anti-communist agitation in Eastern Europe. But as we know now the West never, ever reciprocated this restraint. Being aggressive in their support for international revolution is the only way a socialist state can survive.
>I dont think China is wrong to look at the Soviets in Afganistan and all the warlords pretending to be communist in Africa and decide that is not a good idea.That would be more convincing if they hadn't supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Idk what more proof you need of their abandonment if internationalism in favour of opportunism. I could tolerate true isolationism, but selling weapons to reactionary movements and governments fighting *against* progressive forces is deserving of criticism.
>China objectively improves the material conditions of millions of lives internationally and you are here telling us the color of the cat.My view on China and its role in the world is one of critical support, overall positive but there are obvious points where criticism is warranted, since they're actively undermining their own progressive role by doing shit like selling the UAE military drones to drop bombs on the Houthis.
and here's the point where I get a little agitated, mon ami.
To quote a great sage: No, just no.
And I don't need this accusatory tone neither.
>uh you are running counter to the great scripture [as I perceive it, this is important] blabla
So what if I am? Can you not fucking conceptualize how your scripture is not everybody's scripture? Or that not everybody has the same interpretation.
Introspection , scary.
I just do not care. Have your little revolution, you little shit. I will send you a letter of congratulation from my mountain fortress, after we all fry in nuclear hellfire (can't come fucking soon enough). Let us establish friendly relations on the ashes of the old world.
Tired of this shit.
>selling weapons to reactionary movements and governments fighting *against* progressive forces is deserving of criticism.
*deep breath* yes, it is. But you gotta ask yourself: Am I spending more time, resources on this than what is really ailing us, as humanity? Like, it's fine to be critical, just don't get so distracted. You have a job to do in the west. But whether you do it or not, in the grand scheme, it will end up in the same place. We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. Right now, outlook not so good.
First, we will have to crush NATO+. Or we will never be able to breathe free. Everything else comes after. In the list of priorities, there has to be a serious distinction here.
>>2443685I already gave my opinion on that
You are canadian, yes? Well, disrupt the maple syrup supply. Overthrow the greatest ally of imperialism on the northern border. Until such a time I don't know what you want me to do.
In general, I will reiterate. We will put NATO to bed, by hook or by crook. Or there is no future for anyone.
There is simply not yet the space and time for overly offensive moves.
>>2443689To Tel Aviv!
Strap me to a missile, I am ready!
The issue, catman, beyond like anything else (on a meta level) is that you always want to tell me abstract wisdom (like I don't know, very rude)
Well, I am different. I yearn for the concrete. I want to build great brutalist buildings on the ashes of the old world.
Or we will all collect berries n shit and hunt what fauna has survived the cataclysm. It's a coin toss, right now.
Whatever, do what you want. I'm out, I'm at my limit.
>>2443688>These things aren't cheap yknow and we saw what happened when the soviet union did fall and all those dependency states faced major crisis/mass starvations.The ironic part is that China is economically much stronger than the USSR ever was, especially relative to America. They're actually far *more* capable of such support, and their enemy is much weaker.
>>2443689>i agree with the first but where are these revolutionary ones?The Naxals, the NPA, the ELN, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Some of these groups have a greater presence in their countries than the CPC did in China itself in 1945. Yet still under those conditions, the Soviets still saw fit to hand over pretty much all the territory and equipment they captured from the Japanese, turning the CPC from a regional force into one with a real chance at victory over the KMT. If they had adopted this kind of thinking at the time there's a serious doubt about whether the PRC ever would have existed at all.
>you want chinese boots in palestine or what?Boots no, but weapons? Absolutely.
And how are they that strong?
Basic economics. Well, try to untangle them from the great beast, Satan.
Fuck me running. They are stronger because they play ball! And now we are in a sitch, where disentangling (what's it called, in booj economic terms, I forgot, when you no longer play ball, it's at the tip of my tongue, fuck whatever) is gonna put the hurt on everyone.
Luckily for us, the ones on the right side of history, humanity, the west has decided to self-isolate.
I no longer wish to play this game. Introspection, priorities. Meditate on that.
>>2443695i mean yeah i agree but
>The Naxals, the NPA, the ELN,each of these groups number in the thousands in countries of millions
>the Houthis, Hezbollah, HamasChina is Irans largest trading partner and buys 90% of their oil despite US sanctions
they could do more, and im sure you have heard the reasons(or excuses). i wish they would but i dont think they are being unreasonable or betrayed the revolution for it
Fucking BDS
Not just Israel, no, that does not go far enough.
BDS the west
It's as shrimple as that.
I can be stupid too.
Fuck off.
Lemme quote from the good book
>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.
That is why I put you into the left-oppo box. No matter what you claim about critical support. This is doing one thing, practicing another.
>grandiose aims
>puny abilities,
>great ambition
>little talent
go together like wine and cheese.
You want some cheese with all that whine? After your revolution, I'm sending you a gift basket. Watch!
To recap: I am not your enemy but you sure are getting on my nerves. So stupid.
Talk is cheap. Channel your "aggression" (or critical support, self defense? I'm not gonna get into that, or I'll never get away from you, no) more productively, then we don't end up in the same place in the discussion over and over.
The game's already over. NATO is in terminal decline. It would simply be preferable for them not to flip the board. Hence, patience. Simple, yes?
Oh oh great rebuttal
>I know I am but what are you?
Well, it doesn't matter who I am. What matter is your empire is toast. fuck off
Oh my fucking god
>everywhere in the world
Except one little place (there is actually more but let's try to focus on "topic), the topic of the last I dunno hundred fucking posts. Bravely holding out against all the forces of reaction.
Here we see either absurd stupidity or regular ol west-chauvinist left-lib mind virus claiming another victim.
Did I call it? They fall like dominoes in that part of the world, eh. Thankfully they are not really necessary. Would just be nice, you know for you to do something.
Shut down the maple syrup pipeline. Cut off the flow of treats!
Pressure (not challenge! You know you cannot, everybody knows) the empire!
>>2443728Eat a nuke, you twat. All your friends and family too. What good are you? None at all. Simple enough for ya?
Lucky for you, I have no real say in the matter. Your enemy is careful and considerate not to blow us (have you, your ilk, blow us, humanity,
not to kingdom come, to be precise) all to smithereens. In my book, it'd be worth it, so I don't have to hear this retarded fucking nonsense anymore.
If it was up to me, vaporize the lot of you. But cooler heads may yet prevail. I give it about 47 to 53 chances in this existential coin toss.
>>2443739There is no contradiction, except between how we are able to look at the world.
See, I can hold several (people's) viewpoints in view. Something you seem to be failing at, majorly. Introspect. Right now. You dumb westoid.
>>2443769>most countries don't really give a shit what you do as long as it doesn't directly affect themAs above, so below. Countries look after their interest (and largely rationally, because they have to).
This is really nothing new. Maybe look at the Romance of the Three Kingdoms
>>2443780What if instead of real communism it was reel communism.
society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.that means communism is when i get to do whatever i want you dont need any productive forces for that
>>2443762So then you admit that central to the MLoid ideology is the belief that communism is fundamentally impossible therefore socialism must be redefined as using capital to increase state coffers?
What separates this from any other form of mid-century keynesianism?
>>2444696I'm listening to a love festival for mostly white Americans on CGTN commemoratibg the glorious defeat of Japanese fascism right now
What are you on about?
>>2444888No shit. They are so far up their asses, the destruction of communism is somehow its advancement. borfags and leftcoms are loser idealists.
I don't even know what their "true communist" society would look like.
Show me an example of your ultra pure communist society borfags. Show me an economy without commodity production stupid retards.
Socialist commodity production >>>>>>> whatever bullshit fakery bordigas jerk off to
>>2444908>its just regular communism but appears spontaneously from correct arguments or willpower or passing laws instead of from material conditions.But how can that be if communism cannot arise from anything but material conditions? You can't just will communism into existence.
>thats why half the time they aren't even critiquing stalin, but marxAh that explains it. They are liberal idealists.
Only 1 question remains:
Where did all these bordiga retards come from? I even saw threads on 4chan praising him as the Only TRVE coomunist.
>>2444918>Ah that explains it. They are liberal idealists. yeah exactly. they think "stalinists" "tankies" "mloids" choose or prefer policies they consider "totalitarian" because they just love authority and want to be mean to the opposition and think that if they were in charge they would just write a law saying its illegal to produce commodities and communism would be achieved
thats why this retard keeps saying that MLs think communism is impossible when they talk about building the material foundation necessary to produce the means of life and want such that they can be fulfilled according to ability. he thinks that we want to do that instead of "real communism" instead of understanding it as the very means for achieving what they claim to want
>>2445033I just don't know what these people are doing here in the first place. It's some strange form of self-aggrandizement. But they must know they are a particularly retarded form of liberal anti-communism, they get told every day they rear their head. There are better ways, reddit (really), whatever.
Point is, if nothing matters, you are a general deadbeat cunt, sack of shit etc.
You still have some level of (coherent) motivation.
They are, on the other hand, a true marvel.
>>2445193I dunno I think there may be some material on that but I don't work here
I am simply an impartial observer
>>2423817Simple, do the French Revolution strat and continue the Revolutionary Wars without mercy. Then another generation would follow the steps instead of a soc-dem state poisoning the word socialism.
>ib4 utopian, want them living in poverty, sadist, idealist, puristNah, I just know that it's better to lose quickly that lose slowly for 70 years. Losing quickly makes it easier to regroup.
>>2445040Yeah that explains it. Another reddit raid.
No way that loser ideology is authentic.
Unique IPs: 73