/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2547120
no response other than "WE SUCK? BUT YOU DID NOTHING!!!!", typical MLoid capitulation

>>2547120
Defensiveness over failure ain’t a good look, man
Maybe you wouldn’t be defensive if failure wasn’t what you waste your life making apologetics for?
I promise you will never convince liberals on an even less efficient form of capitalism

>>2547169
>>2547171
Marxism-Leninism has objectively done better than any other leftist tendency at organizing the working class. Doesn't mean it's 100% correct but it's historical success is a clear sign that there were many aspects the helped the most obvious is having a state to actually organize workers.
Anarchism is complete dead end on the other hand. It can't advance it's goals because it has no mechanism to keep disciple and cohesion beyond a small social group that only coheres based on personal charisma of local leaders. Any real conflict from an organized state and anarchism falls apart.

>>2547176
Ok but that doesn't tell us anything about its post 20th-century prospects. It already happened

>>2547181
I'm not defending ML in particular (democratic centralism is especially flawed principle) but the use of state power to organize workers.
Hierarchical states have been the dominate organizational form of humanity since agricultural revolution. So why do you seem to believe the state form of organization will suddenly stop working past the 20th century? It certainly has stopped for the first quarter.

>>2547203
I'm not an anarchist, I just thought you were an ML

>>2547165
True dat comrade

>>2547169
Big talk about failure and sucking from someone who's line has done less than nothing to advance the cause of the working class.

>>2547171
I wholeheartedly reject your notions of failure, considering you have no alternative of success to present.

>>2547176
>Marxism-Leninism has objectively done better than any other leftist tendency at organizing the working class
It has literally only ever succeeded in obtaining power in countries with a microscopic proletarian population and majority (vast majority) peasant population; it has been an utter failure in every society where the majority are actual proletarians

Probably because its only historical accomplishments amount to national revolutions and industrial modernization in countries passed over in the first two waves of bourgeois revolutions
>Doesn't mean it's 100% correct but it's historical success is a clear sign that there were many aspects the helped the most obvious is having a state to actually organize workers.
All states organize workers to begin with, I think you mean “regiment and direct” workers, like uhhh yea any other state
Maybe that lack of worker power and the non-existence of transition out of the relations of capital are why not a single worker (all of whom were systematically kept out of power as a class in each ML national state; after all their mission was the non-communist objective of producing said proletariat) lifted so much as a finger to save so-called socialism when the stalinist bureaucracies saw more to gain by ending the protectionist fiction that they were not already integrated into global capitalist relations

How much they “succeeded” is irrelevant when MLs learnt nothing, cannot comprehend that they failed, and are sentimentalists hoping to reproduce those exact failures, believing, as they do, that remedial opportunist actions amount to the “revolutionary line” in themselves; at which point the ML usually turns into a typical liberal and effectively claims that socialism is impossible therefore social democracy is the trve socialism
>Anarchism is complete dead end on the other hand
Have you noticed that all MLs are capable of is pointing to other failures? What makes you different from an anarchist other than that you are cynical and they are not, my man? Maybe your problem is that you are exactly the sort of living farce Marx mocked, needing to look to the past to try justifying (to liberals and also yourself as a liberal) the existence and emergence of a hitherto never-before existing form of society? The justification for communism isn’t in the past, maybe disabuse yourself of your sentimental attachment to a long gone century and your desire to appeal to liberals by presenting to them a near identical society?
>>2547208
And I’m sure you’d also define a hole in the ground as a form of plumbing, yes

>>2547208
>Less than nothing to advance the cause of the working class
Except socialist and labor politics were effectively destroyed on a global scale following the actions of the Soviet bloc and its allies?

Do MLs actively abuse drugs to inhabit the fantasy world where the pre-1989 20th Century never ended and Fukuyamist schizophrenia didn’t reign supreme for over thirty years?

>>2493213
>Marxism, OTOH, is scientific.

So after all those experiments what have you learned?

>>2547213
Lotta words, but noticing a distinct lack of a presentation of your own line that we can compare the successes and failures of MLism to.
>How much they succeeded is irrelevant
Interesting perspective.
>And I’m sure you’d also define a hole in the ground as a form of plumbing, yes
You've yet to show me any sanitation at all, at least I have a latrine

>>2547215
Lmao it is precisely because the soviets were victorious and made socialism into a world power that it needed to be effectively destroyed on a global scale, by the united states and its allies obviously. Who spent decades and untold millions of dollars trying to undermine, demonize and extinguish the soviet experiment, all its offshoots and any other attempts at socialist power the world over.

Do nonliners like you inhabit an alternate reality where the cold war never happened or what?

>>2547222
The West has hated Russia ever since the Napoleonic wars because it's a great power. They still hate capitalist Russia and have spent billions trying to undermine it.

>>2547224
idealist nonsense. That was your best cope? Cmon man, there's plenty of other post Napoleonic great powers that didn't get the cold war treatment. The soviet union only became a world super power until a while after the bolsheviks took power, before that it was a backwater shithole nobody gave two shits about. The current antagonism of the nato empire towards russia is a direct result of the coldwar

>>2547222
>Lotta words, but noticing a distinct lack of a presentation of your own line that we can compare the successes and failures of MLism to.
Probably because I’m not a liberal farcically trying to revive dead movements to disguise the aims of my outlook
>Interesting perspective
Reproducing all the achievements of the original bourgeois revolutions and never once advancing beyond them, impressive (this is all MLs ever can and do credit to ML states, they cannot see the irony in this because modern MLs are largely liberal humanists themselves and popperian positivists to boot, hence “Ah I may worship failure but what failure do you support? I assume my failure failed for longer 😤”)
>You've yet to show me any sanitation at all, at least I have a latrine
Probably because I keep trying to show you the plumbing blueprints and you keep telling me that the shit hole in the ground is sufficient
>Lmao it is precisely because the soviets were victorious and made socialism into a world power that it needed to be effectively destroyed on a global scale, by the united states and its allies obviously.
Pretty funny, considering in reality all of the powerful ML governments that weren’t actually vulnerable to military attack (and many that were but were not directly attacked at all) integrated themselves into the Western dominated bloc of global capital (dissolving their own bloc of it) largely because they were already connected to the global market anywhere and were badly effected by the 1970s and 80s world economic crises (the exact reason they all also embraced liberal market reforms, which were only possible because exchange relations dominated production in these countries to begin with, inb4 monopolies somehow prevent exchange)

It’s funny because as far as is known western intelligence agencies did not actually expect the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and its foreign allies to happen when and how that it did
>Who spent decades and untold millions of dollars trying to undermine, demonize and extinguish the soviet experiment, all its offshoots and any other attempts at socialist power the world over.
Such a shame that these “socialist experiments” all took place in majority peasant agrarian proto-national states and not actual industrialized national states with a basis in an actual industrial proletariat dominating social production? Global Narodnism with bourgeois developmentalist characteristics falls, the world cries aghast and keeps pushing on. Only now communism is made synonymous with its dialectical opposite and made a radioactive toxin to the class it is traditionally based in on a global scale 😢
>Do nonliners like you inhabit an alternate reality where the cold war never happened or what?
Nope, but that certainly seems to be the realm where Stalinists reside, if they would consider the contemporary world a “socialist success”

>>2547231
>there's plenty of other post Napoleonic great powers that didn't get the cold war treatment.

America crushed the great powers who opposed it like Germany and Japan. The Cold War was different because Russia was too strong and far away and nukes made it complicated.

>The current antagonism of the nato empire towards russia is a direct result of the coldwar

Why? If it's not socialist anymore and just run by a gaggle of oil barons why do they care.

>>2547231
>before that it was a backwater shithole nobody gave two shits about
<Calling the Russian Empire the “Soviet Union”
<Saying “nobody gave a shit” about one of the main belligerents to the First World War
<Mfw I have never read about or heard of the Crimean War or the Great Game
<Mfw I do not know how America acquired Alaska
<Mfw I do not know how Japan established itself in world politics
<Mfw I do not know where Napoleon’s army became crippled by attrition and his conquest of Europe ended
<Mfw I do not know the state Marx viewed as the ultimate shield of 19th Century reaction and which he wrote extensively on from the effects of Western industrial production on Russian manufactures to his writings on the obscure Russian Mir
Whew laddie

>>2547213
>All states organize workers to begin with, I think you mean “regiment and direct” workers, like uhhh yea any other state
Wow thanks for pointing out why anarchism will always fail. They literally can't “regiment and direct” workers to do anything in a sustained manner and will always lose against event the worst states.

Also don't care about your stupid complaining about how MLs didn't press the magic communism button. At least ML states have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Anarchism has never done anything even close and will always be worthless.

>>2547239
>Probably because I’m not a liberal farcically trying to revive dead movements to disguise the aims of my outlook
No I think it's much more likely you just don't have anything to present in that regard. At all, in any way shape or form.

>Reproducing all the achievements of the original bourgeois revolutions and never once advancing beyond them, impressive (this is all MLs ever can and do credit to ML states, they cannot see the irony in this because modern MLs are largely liberal humanists themselves and popperian positivists to boot, hence “Ah I may worship failure but what failure do you support? I assume my failure failed for longer
Just admit you don't have anything pal, your position is actually worse than failure lmao

>Probably because I keep trying to show you the plumbing blueprints and you keep telling me that the shit hole in the ground is sufficient
I've literally been asking for blueprints or any form of indication of how you think plumbing should be achieved and all you keep doing is saying that my latrine is not enough. I ask may I see a picture of this toilet you keep talking about and you respond to me with "All your latrine did was catch shit falling out of your ass! That's not plumbing! THAT"S NOT PLUMBING!!" Do you see how dumb you look to me?

>Pretty funny, considering in reality all of the powerful ML governments that weren’t actually vulnerable to military attack (and many that were but were not directly attacked at all) integrated themselves into the Western dominated bloc of global capital (dissolving their own bloc of it) largely because they were already connected to the global market anywhere and were badly effected by the 1970s and 80s world economic crises (the exact reason they all also embraced liberal market reforms, which were only possible because exchange relations dominated production in these countries to begin with, inb4 monopolies somehow prevent exchange)
WOW countries that exist in the world are connected to the economic order of that world? Holy shit man that's is crazyyyy, this shocking revelation will surely shatter many perspectives.

>Such a shame that these “socialist experiments” all took place in majority peasant agrarian proto-national states and not actual industrialized national states with a basis in an actual industrial proletariat dominating social production?
So? What are you a preacher who must stick to ordained prophecy? These revolutions were made through an alliance of workers and peasantry, that's what the hammer and sickle stand for in case you didn't know.

> Global Narodnism with bourgeois developmentalist characteristics falls, the world cries aghast and keeps pushing on. Only now communism is made synonymous with its dialectical opposite and made a radioactive toxin to the class it is traditionally based in on a global scale
Damn yeah man, it had such a good reputation before this. Maybe if the soviets hadn't been such big meanies everyone would hold hands and walk into the new world together. Get outta here man. As soon as the bolsheviks made socialism a real form of society, you know all the forces of reaction descended down upon it and didn't stop trying to crush it with everything they had.

>Nope, but that certainly seems to be the realm where Stalinists reside, if they would consider the contemporary world a “socialist success”
You win some you lose some dumbass, except your nonline didn't win anything at all, ever.

>>2547240
Lmao the united states only hesitantly got involved in world war 2, after japan forced them to by directly attacking them lmao. They had no interest or need to get involved and certainly not out of some innate desire to crush opposing world powers.

>Why? If it's not socialist anymore and just run by a gaggle of oil barons why do they care.
Because of the geopolitical weight that 70 years of rivalry and antagonism brings.

>>2547244
Before the bolsheviks took power the soviet union was the russian empire yeah, sorry I didn't specify enough you pedantic retard.

The Russian Empire only got involved with the first world war because of some bullshit promise about protecting the slavs or the orthodox or whatever the fuck. Not because "the west" was obsessed with defeating them after napoleon. Idk what you mean to say with all this other bullshit, Russia was a eurpean power? It was impressive the japanese defeated them? They were considered the most reactionary country by most socialists of the time? None of this is reason for people to be giving them the cold war treatment

>>2547270
>At least ML states have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty
so has regular liberal capitalism and yet we're not clamoring for that, are we? i guess some of us are

>>2547280
so you are saying even liberal capitalism is better than anarchism? damn

>>2547283
a system is not noble for merely bringing people out of poverty, it has to actually meet the needs of humanity at large, none yet has achieved that

>>2547288
Communism isn’t about abstract ideals like “humanity” and you’d know this if you actually read even the most basic theory. What’s wrong, not enough pictures for you?

>>2547280
>so has regular liberal capitalism
in the last decades at least this was in part because of the political pressure the mere existence of ML states exerted on the imperial core

>>2547292
communism is the liberation of humanity, by ridding them of the distinctions of class society, don't be a vulgarist

>>2547270
>Wow thanks for pointing out why anarchism will always fail. They literally can't “regiment and direct” workers to do anything in a sustained manner and will always lose against event the worst states.
The aim of Marxist communism isn’t to “reproduce the proletariat” or control that social class, I am not an anarchist, and you are functionally a social democrat
>Also don't care about your stupid complaining about how MLs didn't press the magic communism button. At least ML states have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
This is liberal humanist garbage and identical to whatever a liberal would say because it is a direct reproduction of the liberal understanding of the world, “revolutionary politics”, and historical change, bounded as it is in an overt moral, and thus anti-materialist, appeal
>It made people less poor!
So did capitalism in a certain sense, hence why this “socialist achievement” was accomplished directly through the expansion of capitalist relations and nothing less; this vague moral good is not the goal of communists, communism is, if you are proud to deny this, I am proud to point to you the actual world dominated by capitalist relations and not the fantasy ML world where the Soviet Union ruled the world or something
>Anarchism has never done anything even close and will always be worthless.
Attacking other failures doesn’t dismiss the failures you are willing to end. At least the anarchists had the good grace to die quickly rather than delegitimize “socialism” in the eyes of the global proletariat, turn into a term referring to nationalist peasant revolutions, and then died taking the entire socialist movement down with them. At least the anarchists *just* died.
>>2547279
>No I think it's much more likely you just don't have anything to present in that regard. At all, in any way shape or form.
Of course not, proletarian revolution has thus far been defeated repeatedly, those defeats have been so catastrophic and tragic that most modern communists overtly claim that communism is when a self-elected communist party industrializes a peasant economy, accumulates capital, and produces the proletariat; which is a way of saying most communists explicitly believe that socialism is the exact opposite of socialism and synonymous with the material establishment of capitalist relations (this is usually the place where MLs also overtly reject materialism and basically claim that capitalism is synonymous with individual capitalists)
>I've literally been asking for blueprints or any form of indication of how you think plumbing should be achieved and all you keep doing is saying that my latrine is not enough
You can start with the Civil War in France, the Gundrisse, Capital, and the Critique of the Gotha Program if you want to get an idea of Marx’s communism that Lenin drew upon; or you can get meaningless popperian positivist nonsense from other moralist internet MLs
>WOW countries that exist in the world are connected to the economic order of that world?
That is the exact reason that Marx rejected “socialism in one country” 60 years before Stalin attempted it, knowing himself, as something of a genuine Marxist, that “socialism in one country” is not actually possible. Good job for retreading Marx’s own positions but as a liberal simpleton rather than a critical thinker.
>So? What are you a preacher who must stick to ordained prophecy? These revolutions were made through an alliance of workers and peasantry, that's what the hammer and sickle stand for in case you didn't know.
If your conception of “Marxist communism” points to the exact opposite of Marx’s (and the original communist movement’s) understanding of communism as the actual abolition and transcendence of capitalist relations, why would you call it either Marxist or communist? Ruthless material analysis =/= cynical apologetics.
>Damn yeah man, it had such a good reputation before this. Maybe if the soviets hadn't been such big meanies everyone would hold hands and walk into the new world together. Get outta here man. As soon as the bolsheviks made socialism a real form of society, you know all the forces of reaction descended down upon it and didn't stop trying to crush it with everything they had.
I didn’t say anything about communism’s popularity with the bourgeoisie, try again
>Before the bolsheviks took power the soviet union was the russian empire yeah, sorry I didn't specify enough you pedantic retard
But that wasn’t a failure to “specify”, it was just a reflection of ignorance. Are you an american btw?
>The Russian Empire only got involved with the first world war because of some bullshit promise about protecting the slavs or the orthodox or whatever the fuck
Ah yes
Metaphysical idealism, my favorite
>Not because "the west" was obsessed with defeating them after napoleon.
You’re arguing with two people, I was dismissing the idea that the Russian Empire was irrelevant to world politics, which is obviously nonsensical and not something anyone from Marx to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin would ever claim
>None of this is reason for people to be giving them the cold war treatment
It demonstrates that the idealist concept that the competition between Russia and the “the West” was ideologically defined rather than reflecting the competitive relations that dominate the capitalist world order are purely nonsensical
America didn’t enact the Cold War upon the world to “stop socialism”, but rather to establish global hegemony and bring to heel all sovereign national entities whether socialist or not, hence why America has been a long enemy of the anticommunist Iranian state.
>>2547292
Believing countries like the USSR were examples of socialist societies is literally reducing communism to an abstract ideal

>>2547295
>communism is the liberation of humanity
RETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
The absolute state of this website where liberal platitudes about muh humanity and muh freedom is considered communism

>>2547300
RETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
This poster has never read Marx’s own analysis of the bourgeoisie’s role in the Capital system and the communist project as that of rendering to Man his own productive powers over his own conscious control

I think MLs consistently turn out to be such idealist liberal retards because every statement they produce amounts to apologetics to justify why ML states managed to reproduce Marx’s socialism while uhhhh reproducing every relation he associated with capitalist production because they have simply never ever read Marx and possibly even fear reading Marx, specifically that if they did they would turn out to be wrong about the USSR and similar states, who I think MLs mostly rely upon emotionally but have no serious material analysis of (before yall deny it you literally had 20th Century MLs committing suicide whenever the USSR engaged in deepening opportunism 😂)

>>2547300
freedom? it's about liberating humanity from the conditions of wage labor and establishing a society based on common ownership, tell me what you think communism is if i'm a retard for knowing this basic fact

>>2547304
Communism isn’t not a state of affairs to be established, nor a checklist of utopian “good things” you would like to have happen in a fairy world that runs on magic. Communism is and always has been THE REAL MOVEMENT, by of and for the proletariat, to sublate the present state of affairs as it was in Marx’s time. Notice that I didn’t say “humanity” or “mankind” or any other abstract liberal bullshit, I said proletariat. PROLETARIAT. Is this too difficult for you? Do you need some help?

>>2547308
>Communism isn’t not a state of affairs to be established, nor a checklist of utopian “good things” you would like to have happen in a fairy world that runs on magic.
great, except i never argued this remotely, merely stating that it's a mode of society established on the principle of common ownership, which liberates humanity from the shackles of class society and all that comes with it (such as religion, dogma, wage labor, etc), is that a utopian idea? you merely are being vulgar, using the basic words and then getting angry when i refuse to use these words, and instead use words that show what they practically do, which i will continue to do regardless of whether you throw a fit over it

>Marx’s project had nothing to do with human emancipation
My first question is whether MLs ever read Marx, though I suspect I know the answer

My second question is why exactly MLs think Marx was a communist who believed in and desired the revolutionary abolition of capitalism if what they believe were to be the case?
>Marx believed in freeing the productive forces!
Actually if you read his chapters on Machines and Large-Scale industry in Capital Volume 1 it becomes clear that Marx believed the rise of exchange value and its transformation of material production had not only accomplished this in a sense but rendered humans as implements to machines

How much of Capital have you guys read btw?

>>2547317
and also here's a good question for you, what purpose is establishing a communist society? is it for the vague idea of the "proletariat sublating present affairs" or is it for a clearer one, for the proletariat to not only emancipate themselves, but the rest of humanity as well?

Fuck off red fash. The only authority I recognize is that of my mommy.

>>2547328
>From abolish the family to obey all authorities including the family

-MLs

>>2547317
Nice buzzwords, very wholesome chungus. We’re going to make utopia! Except…oops! All of your fantasies Marx explained as being contingent on the abolition of the contradictions between town and country, which anyone with even a cursory understanding of Marxism knows is impossible. I know the works of Marx and Engles have a lot of big words, maybe try understanding what they mean and the context behind them before embarrassing yourself?
>>2547318
Marx never desired “the revolutionary abolition of capitalism”. If anything he sought to expand capitalism by abolishing the anarchy of production and centralizing development of the productive forces based on the needs of the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the whims of the individual. You’d know this if you actually read Marx.
>>2547326
What part of “communism is not a state of affairs to be established” is so difficult to understand?

>>2547336
>communism is not a state of affairs to be established
what does that even mean? marx said it himself but he didn't so much believe it, is the proletariat, seizing private property, not so much as putting forth a communist society?

>>2547299
>Of course not
Lmao well thanks for admitting you stand for nothing and can provide nothing I guess

>u can start with the Civil War in France, the Gundrisse, Capital, and the Critique of the Gotha Program if you want to get an idea of Marx’s communism that Lenin drew upon; or you can get meaningless popperian positivist nonsense from other moralist internet MLs
That's not what I meant and you know it. Give me a comparative line or admit that your line is actually worse than failure and shut the fuck up

>That is the exact reason that Marx rejected “socialism in one country” 60 years before Stalin attempted it, knowing himself, as something of a genuine Marxist, that “socialism in one country” is not actually possible. Good job for retreading Marx’s own positions but as a liberal simpleton rather than a critical thinker.
"Socialism in one country" wasn't a thing in marx's time retard, socialism as an actual governmental force wasn't a thing at all. If you're talking about engels saying that the proletarian revolution cannot be done in a single country alone, that is not incongruent with the process of beginning socialist construction in one country, which is what SiOC was. Like what, you on the trotskyist retarded permanent revolution biz? You think it would have been a good idea for Stalin to do a red jihad against germany and forcefully subjugate them to the revolution? Or is this another one of those things where you have a "critique" of something, while offering less than nothing as an alternative? Im gonna go out on a limb and predict that is is one of those things, they seem to be your bread and butter after all.

>If your conception of “Marxist communism” points to the exact opposite of Marx’s (and the original communist movement’s) understanding of communism as the actual abolition and transcendence of capitalist relations, why would you call it either Marxist or communist? Ruthless material analysis =/= cynical apologetics.
Same reason you do friend because of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union.

>I didn’t say anything about communism’s popularity with the bourgeoisie, try again
You said it's reputation was destroyed by the acts of the bolsheviks and the soviet union. As if socialism wasn't always going to be smeared to the grave the second it achieved any real power whatsoever. So naïve.


>But that wasn’t a failure to “specify”, it was just a reflection of ignorance.
It was a failure to specify, "The soviet union only became a world super power until a while after the bolsheviks took power, before that it was a backwater shithole nobody gave two shits about' The soviet union was only established after the Bolsheviks took power. Obviously with that "before that IT was" I just meant that specific geopolitical region that was once the RE and later became the soviet union. There, was that pedantic enough for you?
>Are you an american btw?
God you are such a massive coping faggot, it's painful

>Metaphysical idealism, my favorite
It's just one of the reason the Russian Empire had for joining the war, they were at risk of losing more face and influence if they didn't keep their promises, along with the prospects of imperial conquests and other shit of course. The point being, that's why they dragged themselves into it. It's not other western powers that were out to get them or whatever the anon was trying to say.

>I was dismissing the idea that the Russian Empire was irrelevant to world politics
I didn't say it was completely irrelevant to global politics. It was a great power after all. Just that nobody gave a shit in the sense that they would wanna do a whole ass cold war against them

>America didn’t enact the Cold War upon the world to “stop socialism”, but rather to establish global hegemony and bring to heel all sovereign national entities whether socialist or not, hence why America has been a long enemy of the anticommunist Iranian state
Potato potato, it's just a diffeenrt way of saying the same thing friend. It doesn't matter what their subjective reasonings or perspectives were, just what the actual function of their actions are in relation to the class struggle.

The practical answer is don't, focus on working with them on common goals in many places in the USA the anarchist are the most visible and active parts of the left l, while communists (including me,/self critism moment) don't that much, there's a food not bombs in my town ran by anarchists, there is 0 organized communst presence in my town

>>2547344
Anarchism and communism have nothing in common

>>2547336
>Marx never desired “the revolutionary abolition of capitalism”. If anything he sought to expand capitalism by abolishing the anarchy of production and centralizing development of the productive forces based on the needs of the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the whims of the individual. You’d know this if you actually read Marx.
Michael Hudson isn’t Karl Marx mate
>Hehe if you actually read Marx you’d know he was glad that capitalism abolished prior modes of production and anyway basically praise the bourgeoisie capital must reign eternal was therefore his actual stance
On a long enough timeline the ML version of Marx just becomes Adolf Hitler but not racist

>>2547342
Ah yes
Another ML who has never heard of Ferdinand Lassalle

>>2547346
Anti capitalism, social issues, we are really only different on heriarchy

>>2547336
>Nice buzzwords, very wholesome chungus. We’re going to make utopia! Except…oops! All of your fantasies Marx explained as being contingent on the abolition of the contradictions between town and country, which anyone with even a cursory understanding of Marxism knows is impossible. I know the works of Marx and Engles have a lot of big words, maybe try understanding what they mean and the context behind them before embarrassing yourself?
exactly what is utopian about a communist movement organizing through the proletariat, to overthrow a capitalist society? is a communist society when i slave away for subsistence, communistly? because that's what it sounds like it is to you, you've said nothing of what it contains, beyond actual buzzwords "sublation of present affairs, the real movement, communism isn't a state of affairs to be established" without even saying what these even are

>>2547352
>Muh Lassalle
Not an argument

>>2547368
He needs to find a magic way where communism means the total subjugation of proletarians and the extraction of surplus value through the political machinery of the state rather than letting go of the sort of sentimentalism that forces him to argue that the red on the flag equals the blood wrenched out of workers

Anarchism is childish

>>2547318
>revolutionary abolition of capitalism
i wonder what marx would think the material premise for such abolition might be and if that effects the analysis of backwards underdeveloped states in any way

>>2547384
>>2547315
that is essentially what a dtop under conditions of underdevelopment is. whether you call that communism in the sense of the real movement or not communism in the sense of not having achieved a particular state of affairs is kind of a subjective distinction. we wont know till the owl takes flight since communism isnt a theory divorced from reality but the result of practice

if you're ever at a point where you have to morally justifying something you're on the wrong track. If you want to properly critique then you have to rid your analysis of any arguments which appeal to morality/morals. That's why MLs are just as bad as anarchists at critique, they bothe engage in moral discussion.