[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1757938596290.png (244.3 KB, 739x721, ClipboardImage.png)

 

The key to socialism is simple. It's almost a naive formula, but, suppose after an inevitable armed struggle between the communist party and bourgeois state the communists are victorious at establishing a proletarian dictatorship, and now how to wrestle with heightened class struggle.

Trotsky's solution is that the communist republic should continue waging a war till the world is communist or the republic is dismantled. We saw that this was a mistake in the Brest-Litovsk crisis.

Stalin's solution is to strengthen the republic beforehand for the upcoming final battle against the imperialists, and this was the correct policy (compared to Trotsky) but Stalin made a mistake in thinking that socialism can be forced and a revolutionary break with the old mode of production is needed (just like seizing state power). This was, of course, a mistake, because you cannot establish the superstructure, the mores of socialist society, in one generation. There must be, after the communist republic is established and primitive socialist production is organized, a time where socialism must become a really real thing inside people's heads.

Hence Bukharin's Way to Socialism. We see how a Chinese version of this idea is currently playing out. You allow socialism as something really real to settle in while the communist republic, having seized state power in a violent struggle, reforms the very same republic towards a more advanced socialism.

Can I just stop everyone for a second and point out the elegance of Deng's solution?

Wrong. Stalin made no mistakes. Under Stalinist political economy, the kulak and capitalists were exterminated and the collective was built, establishing material base for Communist production. An essential condition for the success of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. was the routing of the Trotskyist and Bukharinist restorers of capitalism, who propounded theories calculated to disarm the working class, to the effect that the construction of socialism in one country was impossible, and that Russia was “not ripe” for socialism because of her technical and economical backwardness. The Communist Party won its fight for the industrialisation of the country in battle against the worst enemies of socialism, the Trotskyists and Bukharinists, who opposed to the Party’s general line of industrialising the country the line of converting the Soviet Union into an agrarian appendage of imperialist countries and tried to deflect the U.S.S.R. on to a capitalist path of development. Bukharin and Deng political economy is nothing alike. Bukharin wanted to enrich the kulaks and impoverish the workers. The victory of the collective farm system was won in decisive struggle against the exploiting classes and their Trotskyist and Bukharinist agents, who defended the kulaks in every possible way, combated the creation of collective and State farms and demanded the dissolution and abolition of the existing collective and State farms. The Communist Party routed the Trotskyist line of the exploitation and forcible expropriation of the peasantry by means of high prices for industrial goods and excessive taxes, and also the right-opportunist Bukharinist theory of the “peaceful growing of the kulaks into socialism”, and of “letting things develop themselves in economic construction. Dengist political economy was the final nail in the coffin of exploiting class in Communist China.

>>2480732
>bukharin won. deng won.
They're dead you fucking spaz.

>>2480896
And you too will be dead

whichever strand survives is the correct one

>>2480896
>Only alive people can win
wtf is this argument

>>2480732
>but Stalin made a mistake in thinking that socialism can be forced and a revolutionary break with the old mode of production is needed (just like seizing state power). This was, of course, a mistake, because you cannot establish the superstructure, the mores of socialist society, in one generation. There must be, after the communist republic is established and primitive socialist production is organized, a time where socialism must become a really real thing inside people's heads.
Relations of production are the base. The establishment of socialism as a given in peoppess head is the superstructure, can only rose up out of real socialist production as you said, and thus can only happen by abolishing capitalist relations of production.

Your entire post is incoherent word vomit.

China will never be socialist. The party will not give up power on it's own.

File: 1757954913999.png (98.39 KB, 775x1232, cobfact.PNG)

All of them suck and weren’t the true successors to Lenin

Trotsky was incoherent and would’ve done the same purges Stalin did just with his supporters instead. And he was a statistcuck, you do not spread revolutions through direct war mandated by a state, even if it’s a socialist state. you spread them through a global class war not organized by nation states but by the proletariat and peasantry.

Stalin was just a nationalist that reverted socialism back by decades because of socialism in one country. Also ethnic relocating is fascist.

Bukharin was a western shill, if he had taken control he would’ve sold the USSR out to capitalism even earlier. And if the USSR was involved in global trade like he wanted the USSR would’ve also been effected by the Great Depression.

All these suck and this thread is drama from the 1920-1930’s, it’s the same when you have Marxists and anarchists subverting each other in every way possible because of SNCA in the 1860’s.

>>2481138
> that reverted socialism back by decades because of socialism in one country.
Describe socialism in one country, why it is bad, and how what you said is different from that or what Trotsky said.

Another thread about someone coping about capitalism winning. Did the libs cope as well in the 18th and 19th century everytime monarchists kicked their asses?



Unique IPs: 12

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]