/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2581344
>it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries)
Wow, Lenin really called me out personally for posting on this site.

>>2581373
>Lenin
lol

>>2581373
A great quote anarchists would agree with as the state is the biggest question for them

>>2581335
Palestinians are a stateless people, you wanna be like them?

>>2581373
>Lenin
based

>>2581395
Do you really expect me to respond to this piece of idiocy in respectful manner? Use your brain, and figure out why your question was such a stupid thing to ask.

>>2581405
seethe nuke

>>2581405
>I…I have no argument so im just gonna seethe and act outraged!!
Lmaooo what a faggot, too easy man

>>2581404
>>2581406
Whatever you say you fucking gigacringe lord. Go back to 4chan with the rest of the shitters.

>>2581360
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

>A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

^this is the repudiation of anti-authoritarianism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

>[Reactionary Socialists] consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

>[Bourgeois socialists] consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

>[Democratic Socialists] favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

^ these are the 3 types of "anti-capitalist" which fail to be communist

>>2581409
Go touch grass kid. You ain't shit.

>>2581348
>>2581379
Why is Lenin wrong, in your opinion?

kinda tragic marx didn't live long enough to write a book on the State like he wanted to. would be way less morons allergic to any and all kind of authority

>>2581414
Still not hearing any arguments, just more seething. Really pathetic stuff dude. A simple question got you riled up like a little bitch lol

Lenin talked about the heights of the economy. Had trotsky eon he would have continued the nep.

>>2581334
The gang of four at the very least wanted to treat China as a DOTP and try to transition to socialism again after the cultural revolution failed. Dengism was just a managed transition to capitalism and it strikes me as odd that everyone here shits on Gorby but when China is living his goals most MLs seem to love it and keep posting quotes from books they didn't read to justify everything the PRC is doing at any given moment

>>2581225
imagine blaming the tourists instead of local and international owners who profit off of them and you.

>>2581413
>A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
>^this is the repudiation of anti-authoritarianism
Well done, you proved can read to some degree. But only to some degree. This is not a total rejection of anti authoritarianism, but more a statement on the necessity of authority for revolutionary bodies. This is not an excused for all brands of authority. Capitalist authority will be opposed.

>these are the 3 types of "anti-capitalist" which fail to be communist
And yet none of them match my description. Honestly, I think the last two could be more applicable to you than me.

>>2581415
I have quite a few problems with him, but my main problem is that people like to give him a strange precedence over Marx and Engels that I personally find unacceptable.

>>2581427
What a weird way to look at history and the class struggle anon

>>2581427
Marx and Engels were just inspirational figures to lenin.

>>2581429
My opinion is the exact opposite of yours.
>>2581431
That is clear to me. The glazing is not.

>>2580376
Even in a fully communist society without class,state, or currency something similar to a stock exchange will exist,just not for private ownership.

>>2581434
No it will not. In a fully communist society there is no need for labor or scarcity hence the stock exchange would bd useless. Maybe if its a videogame or sonething.

>>2581432
Why do you find the precedence so unacceptable anon? Basically the only reason you even care about Marx and Engels is because of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and they were only able to do what they did because of Marx and Engels. Seems odd to get hung up on precedence

>>2580404
what do you mean trading is restricted at night except for porky? Are you referring to illegal under-the-table trading?

>>2581454
at least here in america, our bourgeoise pour money into dark pools to secretly execute after hours trade. a feature exclusive to porky as they get info hidden from the public

>>2581447
>Why do you find the precedence so unacceptable anon?
Because I find it weird, suspicious, and nonsensical. The OG stayed true against the tests of time, so why is the more questionable deviation sidelining them?
>Basically the only reason you even care about Marx and Engels is because of Lenin and the Bolsheviks
The only reason I care about Marx and Engels is because they’re some of the only political figures and theorists that actually makes complete sense to me without fail, which is something Lenin and his vanguard party failed to do.
>and they were only able to do what they did because of Marx and Engels. Seems odd to get hung up on precedence
It’s really not when ideological integrity is at stake.

>>2581426
> but more a statement on the necessity of authority for revolutionary bodies
like the authority the CPC has over its economy

>>2581426
> Honestly, I think the last two could be more applicable to you than me.
Nope. Imperial core needs to collapse into revolutionary civil war, but the sovereignty of the oppressed nations should not be challenged, and the sovereignty of the CPC in China should not be challenged. If you understood imperialism, you wouldn't cry so much about Lenin quotes.

>>2581427
I asked why he was wrong, not for you to vaguely say you have "problems" with him (and not explain them)

>>2581476
Hm yeah I mean you might be a super special boy who lives outside of history with his big brain that just takes in information and objectively analyzes it, who'd have been a marxist even if the bolsheviks didn't take power, but historically they are the reason it's not known as some irrelevant/forgotten minor socialist/left wing sect. The Bolsheviks proved their theories right by actually using them and changing the world, thus changing the socialist landscape forever. You still haven't explained how Lenin is wrong about anything in any way

Communism is just capitalism but with central planning. Simple as. All that shit about the abolition of class and state is just ultra leftoid Hitlerite nonsense. There is nothing more communist than The People's Stocks

>>2581490
No. Like the paris commune.
>>2581493
>but the sovereignty of the oppressed nations should not be challenged
But the sovereignty of the oppressed proletariat who has no homeland should?

>>2581495
Mmh, yes you did. I’ll give you three big reasons as to what he fucked up on:


1.Vanguard Parties
You aren’t supposed have them period. Marx explicitly said no to communist exclusive parties, they have to be open to the worker, else you’ll end up becoming sectarian.

2.The red army
You aren’t supposed to have militas or militaries whatsoever.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
You will have the proletarian guard in their place. Only the proletariat can defend themselves.

3. Marx’s hope for russia
Marx explicitly hated Russia until he started interacting with the russian peasant communes.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/index.htm
https://monthlyreview.org/articles/marx-and-engels-and-russias-peasant-communes/
Thanks to this interaction, he later offered the idea of a completely direct path to socialism that Lenin himself would later ignore along with the peasant councils in favor of state capitalism and vanguard parties because reasons.
>>2581496
>but historically they are the reason it's not known as some irrelevant/forgotten minor socialist/left wing sect
More like part of the reason why people confuse socialism for social democracy and vice versa.
>The Bolsheviks proved their theories right by actually using them
In a liberal revolution and therefore did not actually do so.

Thank you so much for further confirmation of my fears, Leninist.

>>2581366
>despite being wealthy enough
I literally just explained how they arent "wealthy" on average
sure you can offer free healthcare and Im all for it (dprk and cuba despite being poor do have free healthcare), but the real service delivered to the average citizen is another matter entirely and is arguably more important than symbolic achievements such as "free healthcare" (you still pay for it, it just goes entirely through the state), and urban center have excellent healthcare but delivering the same kind of services to people lost in rural area where the first real road was built in the last 10 years is ofc gonna be vastly more expensive, and as its handled regionally rural areas have both less money and more cost and difficulties to provide the population (mostly they invest their money in infrastructure precisely because its the first thing to do to allow more people access to the services that are there).

>deliberately holds back on social services to keep wages low
that argument sounds ridiculous when you consider its handled regionally and some have very good services, but theres actually some truth to it, its mostly a problem of the hukou system, where in effect you have internal migration where people still are registered in rural areas despite working in urban centers, and as such get inferior social services despite living and working in a place where it should be good. This does allow to keep cheap unskilled labor costs down, and reforming it would be pretty hard because then you have to find how do you not blow up the budget of the developed areas that suddenly have higher costs of labor and a lot more people to service.
Overall I'm guessing they are keeping it to keep up fast pace industrialization and development for now, and will try to reform it (and possibly handle the healthcare services under single system rather than keeping it purely regional) when growth is slowing and they start closing in on actually wealthy countries.

>>2581523
>they have to be open to the worker
you're simply wrong, they were never closed to the workers, no parties were ever as big as the communist ML parties, having a vanguard doesnt mean workers arent allowed, on the contrary, but you train and educate them before giving them responsibilities. A big success of ML parties was precisely how good they were at taking random lower class people and giving them skills to have plenty of competent cadres coming from everywhere at the bottom.

>You aren’t supposed to have militas or militaries whatsoever
>You will have the proletarian guard in their place
which is literally a militia with elected leaders. And the model had to be abandoned because militias just get fucked by real militaries.
and the text you quoted is speaking specifically in the german case about the struggle against the petty bourgeois democrat (aka libs) in the direct aftermath of a successful struggle together with them against big porkies and autocrats, not in the context of an established proletarian state

>would later ignore along with the peasant councils
<what are soviets

you seem completely lost in pure ideology and conveniently forget how much marx valued real experiences, real improvement, and recommended constant adaptions to the reality rather than blindly following his advice and emphasized the "movement to abolish the present state of things" rather than "a state of affair to be established".

>>2581427
>people like to give him a strange precedence over Marx and Engels
<The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
even marx disagree with you

>>2581523
>More like part of the reason why people confuse socialism for social democracy and vice versa.
No it's the reason marxism is well known and seen as the main current of socialism to look towards.
>In a liberal revolution and therefore did not actually do so
No it was a socialist revolution, the first of its kind, which is why it's kind of a big deal historically, another liberal revolution wouldn't really be noteworthy. Your perception of marxism is actually completely discongrues with its formation as a social current in the real world. Pretty funny stuff

>>2581523
damn you are getting cooked

>>2580409
>>2580404
Don't be a Proudhonist twat. I dislike that 90% of Chinese "proles" are real-estate speculators.
>>2581084
I mean a lot of Lenin's ideas built off of Hilferding anyhow. IMO the main problem is simply that finance is inefficient compared to directly socializing labor through centralizing the bureaucracy. I'm okay with a little finance and a little indirect socialization of labor (particularly in the beginning) but too much finance just gets inefficient and is a drain on the productive forces.

>>2581547
>you're simply wrong
I am simply correct
>they were never closed to the workers
>having a vanguard doesnt mean workers arent allowed
It is inherent to the concepts function.
>but you train and educate them before giving them responsibilities
You don’t need a vanguard party for that.
>A big success of ML parties was precisely how good they were at taking random lower class people
They are notorious for being the opposite this.
>which is literally a militia with elected leaders.
No, it is not. The proletarian guard is less formal than a militia. And he has already the importance of arming the ENTIRE proletariat, making the idea of a “worker militia” utterly meaningless.
>the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers.
>And the model had to be abandoned because militias just get fucked by real militaries
1. We’re not in the business of making militias so this is completely untrue
2. Unconventional warfare exists
>and the text you quoted is speaking specifically
But not restricted to

>you seem completely lost in pure ideology and conveniently forget how much marx valued real experiences, real improvement, and recommended constant adaptions to the reality rather than blindly following his advice and emphasized the "movement to abolish the present state of things" rather than "a state of affair to be established".

…Ironic considering you based this literally on nothing in reality.
>>2581565
>No it's the reason marxism is well known and seen as the main current of socialism to look towards.

You think too highly of yourself Leninist, and it’s become a serious problem.

>>2581565
>No it was a socialist revolution
Whatever helps you sleep at night. The only reason it’s noteworthy is because it is a revolution won by self proclaimed socialists, not that it was actually socialist.

>>2581555
>even marx disagree with you
You couldn’t even quote right. That’s about philosophers just musing about shit instead of being more practical and material with their thinking. That has literally nothing to do with this conversation.
>>2581574
By what metric? You’re just saying shit dude.

>>2581586
>You think too highly of yourself Leninist, and it’s become a serious problem.
Weak response, I'm simply illustrating the rise of marxism as a social current. No need to cope about it so much
>Whatever helps you sleep at night. The only reason it’s noteworthy is because it is a revolution won by self proclaimed socialists, not that it was actually socialist
>Not muh "real" socialism
Always sad to see a self proclaimed materialist be such an unselfaware idealist

>>2581609
>Weak response
An appropriate response to someone who needs to be ego checked.
>I'm simply illustrating the rise of marxism as a social current
And yet, in attempting to do so, you have instead insulted the core theories for the communist ideology in the process, along with demonstrating the estrangement of Leninist ideology and it’s spin off’s from Marx’s and general communist thought.
>Not muh "real" socialism
Weak response. And I mean that truly. You can get the same exact response from your average 4channer, and I find that to be a very curious thing.
>such an unselfaware idealist
A weak tack on to an even weaker response.

>>2581618
>An appropriate response to someone who needs to be ego checked.
My ego and its need to be checked are completely irrelevant, this is cope
>And yet, in attempting to do so, you have instead insulted the core theories for the communist ideology in the process, along with demonstrating the estrangement of Leninist ideology and it’s spin off’s from Marx’s and general communist thought.
How so? I didn't really make any statements on the theories of communism
>Weak response. And I mean that truly. You can get the same exact response from your average 4channer, and I find that to be a very curious thing.
>No u
Embarrassing
>A weak tack on to an even weaker response.
My framing of your argument is sufficient when that's what your argument boils down to. Try to justify your position more concretely next time and you won't receive simple retorts to simple arguments

>>2581627
>My ego and its need to be checked are completely irrelevant
Very incorrect. It has greatly colored this conversation.
>How so? I didn't really make any statements on the theories of communism
Oh but you did. You’ve already implied that Marx’s could not stand on their own, and that they require Lenin.
>Embarrassing
You didn’t address the point after the “no u”. Why do you sound like a 4channer?
>My framing of your argument is sufficient when that's what your argument boils down to
Oh it does? Really? Show exactly where.
>Try to justify your position more concretely next time and you won't receive simple retorts to simple arguments
More ego to go with the ego.

>>2581638
>Very incorrect. It has greatly colored this conversation
No not really, that's just your little cope to try and personalize this neutral conversation
>Oh but you did. You’ve already implied that Marx’s could not stand on their own, and that they require Lenin.
That's not what I implied at all
>You didn’t address the point after the “no u”. Why do you sound like a 4channer?
Oh I'm not addressing it because it's another baseless assertion/insult that's not really worth replying to. I don't think I sound like a 4channer at all and I think it's really weird to try to use it as an insult or whatever you're trying to do lol. Probably projection on your part
>Oh it does? Really? Show exactly where.
When you said that the Bolsheviks are noteworthy for claiming to be socialist, not for being "actually socialist"
Are you not following the conversation or what?
>More ego to go with the ego
Simple arguments produce simple retorts my man. Again, ego is irrelevant