The absolute state of the discourse on this board lately is pathetic. It’s almost 2026 and I’m still seeing "socialists" parroting CIA talking points like they’re reading from the Black Book of Communism. It’s time to filter the radlibs and the ultras who care more about moral purity than winning.
If we actually apply historical materialism instead of utopian wish-casting, it becomes obvious that Stalin and Deng aren't just "good" – they are the two greatest practitioners of Marxism in history because they did what Western leftists refuse to do: they prioritized the survival of the revolution over the approval of the bourgeoisie.
1. Stalin: The Shield
Stop crying about "authoritarianism" and read Losurdo. His Critique of a Black Legend completely exposes how the "millions dead" narrative is just recycled Nazi war propaganda that the West adopted during the Cold War. The "Holodomor" wasn't a genocide; it was a combination of kulak sabotage and cyclical drought that the Soviets eventually ended through collectivization. Stalin understood that you don't survive capitalist encirclement with good vibes. He took a country of wooden plows and turned it into a nuclear superpower in a single generation. He purged the fifth columnists because he knew a war of annihilation was coming. Without that "authoritarianism," the Wehrmacht would have wiped the Slavs off the map.
2. Deng: The Sword
The hate for Deng is even more embarrassing. You guys claim to care about the poor but hate the man who oversaw the greatest poverty alleviation program in human history? Deng understood that "poverty is not socialism." He developed the productive forces necessary to compete with the West. And regarding 1989: He saved China from the fate of the USSR. Tiananmen was a textbook color revolution, backed by Western NGOs and intelligence. Deng saw Gorbachev selling out to Pizza Hut and realized that sometimes you have to crush a counter-revolution to preserve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Because he had the spine to do that, China is now mogging the US economy while Russia spent the 90s getting looted by oligarchs.
TL;DR
Parenti said it best in Blackshirts and Reds: you people want a revolution without a revolution. You want a clean, safe process that never makes mistakes and never exercises power. That doesn't exist. Stalin secured the state; Deng secured the economy. If you reject them, you’re not a revolutionary – you’re just an idealist waiting to lose.
I agree anon, well said
>>2615779I agree but Deng kind of sucks. Gorbachev ruined the world forever.
>>2615786Defeatism like this only helps reactionary forces. Deng saved China from USSR style collapse and made its its communist party strongest political force on this planet.
>>2615789what the fuck is this aiming to achieve by quoting Rubio and Hillary Clinton?
The Hobsbawm quote also seems to be completely out of place. Why was that included? He's talking about introduction of capitalism in Japan, not about China.
>>2615809The absolute state of the discourse on this board lately is pathetic. It’s almost 2026 and I’m still seeing "socialists" parroting CIA talking points like they’re reading from the Black Book of Communism. It’s time to filter the radlibs and the ultras who care more about moral purity than winning.
If we actually apply historical materialism instead of utopian wish-casting, it becomes obvious that Clinton and Rubio aren't just "good" – they are the two greatest practitioners of Marxism in history because they did what Western leftists refuse to do: they prioritized the survival of the revolution over the approval of the bourgeoisie.
1. Clinton: The Shield
Stop crying about "authoritarianism" and read Fukuyama. His Critique of History completely exposes how the "millions dead" narrative is just recycled Nazi war propaganda that the East adopted after the Cold War. The "Bombing of Libya" wasn't a war crime; it was a combination of French sabotage and cyclical Bombing that NATO eventually ended through Liberation. Clinton understood that you don't survive capitalist encirclement with good vibes. she took a country of wooden plows and turned it into a Wasteland superpower in a single generation. She purged the fifth columnists because she knew a war of annihilation was coming. Without that "authoritarianism," ISIS would have wiped the USA off the map.
2. Rubio: The Sword
The hate for Rubio is even more embarrassing. You guys claim to care about the poor but hate the man who oversaw the greatest poverty alleviation program in US history? Rubio understood that "poverty is not socialism." He developed the productive forces necessary to compete with the East. And regarding 2025: He saved USA from the fate of the USSR. No Kings was a textbook color revolution, backed by Western NGOs and intelligence. Rubio saw Trump selling out to Pizza Hut and realized that sometimes you have to crush a counter-revolution to preserve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Because he had the spine to do that, USA is now mogging the Russian economy while China spent the 20s getting looted by oligarchs.
TL;DR
Parenti said it best in Blackshirts and Reds: you people want a revolution without a revolution. You want a clean, safe process that never makes mistakes and never exercises power. That doesn't exist. Clinton secured the state; Rubio secured the economy. If you reject them, you’re not a revolutionary – you’re just an idealist waiting to lose.
>>2615809Literally this, I thought it was supposed to showcase how Communism triumphed in China, it's so fucking retarded
I don't care. Stalin being a net positive or net negative has little bearing on the modern socialist movement. Same with Deng, when it comes to workers outside of China. Making 20th century socialists your comfort characters isn't materialism.
I still have my doubts about Deng but yeah you are correct.
>>2615779I do not care for either deviation
>>2615830To be honest, you're right. We should look forward for answers instead of into the past.
>>2615833Are they deviating from your ideals?
>>2615830>>2615842Those who betray the past will betray the future.
>>2615830Misinformation about socialist achievements of the past is an important issue. This "heh who gives a damn about these uncs" attitude is a form of capitulation in the context of the information war.
>>2615809The only argument dengoids have is "must develop productive forces", everything else is fluff.
>>2615850>everything I dislike or don't even understand is a religionMiss me with that lib mindset.
>>2615851There should be objective analysis on the strenghts and weknesses of their policies instead of viewing these through lens of propaganda.
>>2615809>>2615823>>2615826Holy fuck you guys are retarded lol. How about you think about what their quotes say and why they are included for two seconds before embarrassing yourselves by posting like this
>>2615881>OMG it's so obviousso what about you explaining why they are relevant before whining , lol?
>>2615858>calling everything you don't like a lib mindsetmiss me with that lib mindset
>>2615860I called everything else around it fluff. The dengist delusion stems from equating it with socialism, ignoring economic growth under Mao or previous socialist examples of limted NEP in USSR or new democracy in China or hallucinating that the CPC is not a revisionist captured party.
I love "Blackshirts and Reds" so much!
page 57
>All this is not to say that everything Stalin did was of historical necessity. The exigencies of revolutionary survival did not "make inevitable" the heartless execution of hundreds of Old Bolshevik leaders, the personality cult of a supreme leader who claimed every revolutionary gain as his own achievement, the suppression of party political life through terror, the eventual silencing of debate regarding the pace of industrialization and collectivization, the ideological regulation of all intellectual and cultural life, and the mass deportations of "suspect" nationalities.
page 87
>Capitalist restoration in the former communist countries has taken different forms. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, it involved the overthrow of communist governments. In China, it proceeded within the framework of a communist system—as seems to be happening in Vietnam, and perhaps will happen eventually in North Korea and Cuba. While the Chinese government continues under a nominally communist leadership, the process of private capital penetration goes on more or less unhindered.
page 92
>One need only look at how successive administrations in Washington have cultivated friendly relations with the present communist leaders in China, overlooking and even explaining away their transgressions. As Chinas leaders open their country to private investment and growing economic inequality, they offer up a dispossessed labor force ready to work double-digit hours for subsistence pay—at enormous profit for the multinationals.
page 109
>In China, there are workers who now put in twelve- to sixteen hour days for subsistence pay, without regularly getting a day off. Those who protest against poor safety and health conditions risk being fired or jailed. The market reforms in China have also brought a return of child labor (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/90). "I think this is what happens when you have private companies," says Ms.Peng, a young migrant who has doubts about the new China. "In private companies, you know, the workers don't have rights" ( Wall St.Journal 5/19/94)
>>2615902It's true, it's is known Parenti is not very Deng pilled
>>2615886Normally I would, but this is too much man. Use your brain. Put a hypothesis for why they might be included on the scroll forward, it's really not hard
>>2615902>and perhaps will happen eventually in North KoreaWish he still had the mental wherewithal to be pleasantly incorrect here. 😞
>>2615881Because Hillary Clinton is the vanguard of the revolution.
>muh people's great men
Is the actual litmus test for detecting libtards pretending to be materialists
>>2615917>Lemme reconfirm just how retarded I amYeah, this totally doesn't make you look like a moron man. Very cool 🙏
>>2615919
delet this
This is just sectarian garbage.
Authoritarian usually anyone except for lolberts when they say it are talking about totalitarianism and tyranny, not having the government do things because the boundary between what is and is not authoritarian is completely arbitrary if it is only measured by government action.
Tianamen square incident was a case of escalation of violence on both sides if you actually looked into it properly, not something justifiable for either just understandable it was result of escalation likely starting with something small that got way out of hand somehow. Trying to excuse it as justified on the side of the state does no one a service.
>>2615919
Isnt there a whole conspiracy theory Lenin was acting as an agent for Germany?
This will not answer questions such as about the length of the work day.. etc. You concentrate on Stalin, Deng.. like it is the most important thing about com. thus making com. look useless.
>>2615922Stalin would support Hillary Clinton, just like he supported Roosevelt.
>>2615910Pretty sure I know why you think it was smart to put them in there.
The Rubio and Clinton quotes are supposed to show how even the enemies of the PRC think that they are a socialist/non-capitalist country. Which I don't think is a surprise to anyone.
But as far as the Hobsbawm quote is concerned, the only reason I can come up with is that it is a comparison of Deng's China to 19th century Japan which is a pretty strange to say at least.
>In both countries capitalism was formally installed not by bourgeois revolution [against feudal lords] but from above, by an old [feudal] bureaucratic-aristocratic order which recognised that its survival could not otherwise be assured.So are we comparing 1980s communist-led China to "bureaucratic-aristocratic order" of Japan and Prussia now? Or what is it about?
Socialism is when you oppose America and the more you oppose America the more socialist you are. Nobody cares that the Chinese welfare state is weaker than some capitalist ones
>>2615979You got it, exactly. I am also not entirely sure why the Hobsbawn quote is there tho lol. That's a fair point imo
>the Japanese elite possessed a stateapparatus and a social structure capable of controlling the movement of an entire society. To transform a country from above without risking either passive resistance, disintegration, or revolution is extremely difficult.
It really doesn't seem relevant, if I had to guess the author put it in there to say that the CPC has similar levels of state control which brings about the ability to transform the their society in a similar vein as those other societies were able to. Admittedly they were impressive transformations
>>2615999>The Chinese Welfare state is weakerWhat metric are you using to make this determination? Rate of homelessness? Life expectancy? Access to healthcare? China beats the US in all these categories already.
>>2615848And? At least we aren't living in huts anymore
>>2615999If by weaker you mean "doesn't coddle criminal indolence at the expense of the imperial periphery" then sure
It's very exposing that the primary metric of Western sinophobes' China's degree of success or how purely socialistic it is supposed to be or whatever is the sum of available treats compared to imperialist Western countries.
>>2616038>you're a sinophobe for not liking my bourgeois nation-statefuck off
>>2615851It's a fools errand to counter misinformation "directly"
Glibly: If someone says Stalin killed eleventy billion people, you don't say "no he didn't", you say "The Soviet Union had the highest standard of living in human history." Something which is also untrue (one can of course pick half-truths instead) but which reframes things in a more advantageous way (assuming you've prepared sufficient bullshit propaganda to force that argument, or at least the aesthetic of that argument)
That's how you fight an information war. Brandolini's law being what it is. Even if you reject that argument, there remains the practical matter that "Stalin killed eleventy billion people" are the primary words in the sentence "Stalin did not kill eleventy billion people"
>>2615779None of this is an objective analysis of the political economy of the PRC. How many tons of minerals does the PRC import? What are primary sectors of the economy? How many people migrate to and from the PRC?
I would say that the PRC fairly objectively does not have the ravenous lust for super-exploitable migrant labor characteristic of the imperial core.
>>2616052
nice try sir Simon
what was it like flying on epstein's jet ?
>>2615779>Parenti said it best in Blackshirts and RedsSaid it best when called China a liberal wage slavery shithole
>>2616071The ussr did not arm Israel, stop repeating this lie
>>2616075Israel cites the Soviet vote for it in the UN when it wants to justify its existance :3
>>2616077It was a private company in Czechoslovakia and yes they did sell the weapons without soviet permission
>>2616078>lemme me the goalpostNice one, but some dumbass UN vote is not what we're talking bout
Soviets allegedly killed the guy responsible for the sale btw :)
>>2616090
They didn't need permission, they were just selling weapons like they'd always done. Sure the soviets didn't liquidate the company beforehand, but that's hardly the same as the ussr arming zionist terrorists. They did actively arm arab armies tho so there's that
AES weapons genocided Palis btw
>>2616090
it doesn't matter if communism = zionism because Stalin was an anti-communist
>>2616098Nope, AES weapons killed zionists
>>2616101Nope, communism is against zionist
>>2616102Nope, Stalin was a communist who was against zionism. He wrote about it several times
>>2616106I'm Arab and your posts are disgusting
kys
>>2616108I don't care about your idpol faggot. I am objectively correct
>>2616109The majority of Arabs also busted in your mom
>>2616110>idpolfunny coming from a libtard
>>2615830ts proves my point that excessive praise and excessive criticism of Stalin is a good indicator if someones a hack who still believes in idealist great man theory shit.
>>2616117It's what you did anon, it's not my fault you're retarded like that.
>abloo bloo Czechoslovakiajfc, you people are worse than retarded
yes, Czechoslovakia did supply Israel with guns and planes, they even trained their personnel
yes, the Party and the government were aware of it
idk, what "private company" you are talking about here, I guess it's Aero Vodochody, but they were nationalized in 1945
yes, the Soviets had sympathies to the zionist project at the time, but the Czechoslovak help for Israel has far more complicated background than "Moscow told them to do this"
There was a huge pro zionist sentiment in Czechoslovakia that existed prior to 1948 and goes beyond the ranks of the communist party.
"Founding fathers" of the Czechoslovak state - Masaryk and Beneš were supportive of zionism. The 1st Czechoslovak republic recognized the jewish nation as one of the nations populating the republic (that wasn't possible before, jews had to put in their passports Czech/German/Hungarian nationality depending on what language they were speaking). Czechoslovakia even hosted some of the zionist conferences.
The people involved in the supplying and training the Israeli army were a mix of both communists and old burgeois elites (the so called "burgeois specialists"). Most of them were later purged as "unreliable" or for being supposedly in cahoots with Slánský, Reicin and co.
All of this is an interesting part of history but I am not quite sure how it's relevant to anything. Especially taking into account that for the rest of its existence socialist Czechoslovakia supplied with weapons and military experts Israel's enemies.
>>2616087>Soviets allegedly killed the guy responsible for the sale btw :)The only person I know of, who was supposedly killed for this is Antonín Sochor (a tankist, hero of the Soviet Union, he took part in the training of Israeli soldiers). But I've never seen any evidence for this.
>>2616141Ok I misremembered about it being a private company lol
>All of this is an interesting part of history but I am not quite sure how it's relevant to anythingIt's just something people bring up as if Stalin personally put weapons in the hands of zionist terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the communist government of Czechoslovakia wasn't even fully consolidated yet
The guy that was allegedly killed was the foreign minister that signed off on the weapons deal.
<On 10 March 1948, Masaryk was found dead, dressed only in his pajamas, in the courtyard of the Foreign Ministry (the Černín Palace in Prague) below his bathroom window.[55] Jan Masaryk's remains were buried next to his parents in a plot at Lány cemetery, where in 1994 also the ashes of his sister Alice Masaryková were laid to rest.
<The Ministry of the Interior claimed that he had committed suicide by jumping out of the window, but it was widely assumed at the time that he had been murdered at the behest of the nascent Communist government >>2616141>yes, the Soviets had sympathies to the zionist project at the timeSome of the context that gets lost around this is that a lot of Zionists were socialists back then while the Arab governments at the time were conservative monarchists (like Jordan) as opposed to revolutionary nationalists. But more than that was Stalin's realpolitik way of doing things as the British had ties with these monarchies, and the USSR wanted to cause problems for the British. During the '48 war there were Israelis fighting Jordanian troops led by British officers.
Zionism in the U.S. meanwhile was seen as a more liberal cause. Eleanor Roosevelt was a prominent supporter of it. At any rate, Soviet support for the partition was disastrous for Arab communist parties and they lost a lot of members.
>>2615809>He's talking about introduction of capitalism in JapanI'm guessing it's included because the transition from feudalism to capitalism was achieved in a top down way in Japan rather than by the European model of bourgeois revolution. This shows that transitions between modes of production aren't always necessarily brought about by revolution.
>what the fuck is this aiming to achieve by quoting Rubio and Hillary Clinton?Because Rubio and Clinton are both seething about Communist China outmaneuvering the US. Rubio insists that Communist China has "found a way" to "use capitalism against" capitalism. Hillary nevertheless insists "they are a controlled top down economy." Seething from enemies is always good agitprop.
>>2615902I like Parenti a lot but the "personality cult" was forced onto Stalin by the CPSU. He reveals in an interview with Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937 that he saw the personality cult as socially backwards and a byproduct of the superstructure the USSR was born into. The "birthmarks" of the "old society" to borrow a turn of phrase from Marx's
Gothakritik. Stalin for example tried to forbid the public celebration of his 55th birthday and the committee actually overrode him. Stalin also rejected once Kaganovich's idea of pushing "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism."
>>2616180
was there a true bourgeois revolution to speak of though? Or was it more like one faction of feudal lords brought about capitalism by fiat, against the protestation of another faction?
>>2616038isn't the point of all of this to increase the number of treats? If capitalism can provide a stronger safety net than socialism then why be a socialist?
>>2616185
It was a war, but it wasn't really a bourgeois revolution of the French sort. I think that's what is interesting here. It calls into question the idea that transitions between modes of production are always brought about by the lower or middle classes. If a nation is particularly far behind historically, as Japan was, the transition happens from above. A certain subset of the ruling class finally admits that they are living in a backwards way.
Japan did not experience a “bourgeois revolution” in the French sense, and historians generally agree that the Meiji Restoration was not a mass, class-driven capitalist revolution. It was much closer to a political revolution led from above, carried out by elite groups within the existing feudal order, though it did end up creating capitalist society.
>>2616188>isn't the point of all of this to increase the number of treats?No.
>If capitalism can provide a stronger safety net It can't, at least not globally. Imperialist social democracy can provide a stronger safety net for the most developed capitalist states, but not all capitalist states. And even then imperialist social democracy gets rolled back over time by the ruling capitalist class. These concessions demobilize the proletariat, and once they are back to a low level of class consciousness and a high level of complacency, the ruling class can strip away the concessions through privatization, deregulation, austerity, union busting, outsourcing of high paying jobs to low paying countries, etc.. This is what happened in the US.
>then why be a socialist?Because proletarian association and collective ownership is the next step in human history, just like wage labor was progressive compared to serfdom, and serfdom was progressive compared to slavery. Slavery itself, was even progressive compared to primitive communism, not in the moral sense of being "Good" but in the sense of driving history forward from hunter gatherer society to large urban civilizations with massive surpluses and standing armies.
>>2616190That's pretty interesting, but is the implication there that some countries in the west will at one point be like pre-meji japan? And be so far behind that their bourgeoisie will enact socialism from above?
>>2616187
> Marx and Lenin both justified the ethnic cleansing of America
You mean Marx and Engels right? Lenin was much different than Marx and Engels on the question of oppressed indigenous nations:
see
>>2577969
>>2577998
>>2577999
>>2616194>And even then imperialist social democracy gets rolled back over time by the ruling capitalist classIsn't that what Deng and Gorbachev did in their countries? It seems like welfare benefits can also be taken away even in socialist nations, particularly since you don't see a strong welfare state as a goal of socialism
>>2616199
read rule 11 before responding again
>>2616201
>There’s no such thing as the proletariat
explain what you mean by that. i have heard this argument in multiple forms, all of which are wrong, but some of which are more clever than others.
>>2616203
if you want to act like an animal go to /pol/
>>2615779a correct and good post
>>2615933>Authoritarian usually anyone except for lolberts when they say it are talking about totalitarianism and tyrannythats literally the same thing. totalitarianism is a made up word to equate communism and fascism
>>2616208
no we just have a standard of discussion so that not every post is a 1 sentence accusation or insult. rule 11 and 14 are meant to enforce that. For example at least this post >>2616207 makes an argument, unlike the others. I will now address that argument, since it was made in good faith.
>The idea that any human has “nothing to lose but their chains”, if you have a job, you can lose that job anytime,
When you said "lose" did you mean to say "quit?" As in you are arguing that a prole is "Free" to "quit" a job? That's true! Marx points this out. The proletariat is more free than the slave or serf in the sense that they are "free" to choose who exploits them for profit, but they are not free from exploitation itself.
>second if you have a job, you’re being paid in money, money IS CAPITAL.
Money is potential capital. If you're in debt or spending your entire wage on stuff you need to survive, none of that money can get invested in profitable ventures. In the most developed countries you are correct that the proletariat has already won concessions, which is why they are able to become petty bourgeois if they save money. But these concessions which have resulted in a labor aristocracy in some countries doesn't mean there isn't a proletariat elsewhere. In the third world people work very long hours for very low pay which only covers their most basic needs. That is the proletariat in the same sense Marx was writing about in the 1840s-1880s. He was in England most of that time. In England he observed child workers in factories losing their fingers, working 12 hour shifts, unable to go to school, having no insurance, and receiving wages which barely bought food. That is the captialism Marx was observing. Through class struggle things have gotten better for a lot of people, but there is still a society based on exploitation through private ownership. Those who own means of production and speculative assets do not necessarily have to work for a living. Even the administrative labor of the early bourgeoisie (during the 1600s and 1700s) has largely become the labor of the salaried professional manager, while the proper haute bourgeoisie (the CEOs, bankers, boards of directors, etc.) simply accumulate capital through private ownership over means of production. They skim surplus gotten by the difference between the value of the wages paid and the value of the work performed. I am oversimplifying things because I cannot anticipate every objection you might have, but rest assured, there is more to it.
>>2615999>Nobody cares that the Chinese welfare state is weaker than some capitalist onesits pretty good given its population size and trajectory of its development
>>2615933>Isnt there a whole conspiracy theory Lenin was acting as an agent for Germany?No. Germany allowed Russian revolutionaries back into Russia because they were at war with Russia and rightly thought that Russian revolutionaries would destabilize the government and bring about German victory faster. Lenin was a sincere revolutionary, but he understood why the Germans saw him as useful. The Germans sent back all sorts of Russian exiles, including liberals, Mensheviks, and anarchists, not just Bolsheviks.
>>2616017
>It’s allowed to because it’s the new America
hit me up when China has 800 military bases, does sanctions and invasions regularly, and uses its intelligence agencies to coups other governments for refusing to take loans or being socialist or nationalizing resources
>>2616220
>And the supposed “proletariat” has never once overthrown any government,
yes it has. The USSR no longer exists but it did once. The PRC also had a proletarian revolution. And before you bring up the peeasantry's involvement know that proletarian revolution also happened but failed to complete in Germany.
>and has no desire for communism.
Not all proles desire communism, but many do. It's been said that the proletariat never go beyond trade union consciousness without political education. You might see that as "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" but we also "indoctrinate" and "brainwash" people into learning how to read and do math, science, medicine, engineering. Why? Because it's good for society. Same with class consciousness and class struggle.
>e know this because in the 150 years since Marx died the only revolutions that have happened (excluding CIA color revolutions) have happened in counties where the majority are peasants, and the peasants manned and fed the red armies
History isn't static. We may see proletarian revolutions in developed countries in our lifetime as the NATO-led system continues to decay.
>Proles have no means of feeding themselves
In developed countries agriculture is proletarianized. Modern agricultural workers are proles, not peasants.
>they don’t even have defense against getting fired from their jobs
That's why unions exist.
>There are at least a dozen international corporations and not a single international trade union.
??? what ???? do the minimal research before making such a claim. There are international trade unions as well as trade union federations. ITUC is one example. That doesn't mean they're good enough or not class collaborationist, but they do exist.
>>2616223
> why bother with that shipbuilding capability if you don’t intend on naval imperialism?
well in my opinion global hegemony is a poison pill that leads to overextension. the US is weakening precisely because it focused on imperialism instead of on building itself up internally. the US has 800 military bases while its schools and hospitals degrade, its prisons get built at a faster rate, etc. I think China pushes multipolarity precisely because it's a more stable political model for them than pursuing US-style unilateral hegemony (which also killed the British and Dutch empires). Why be your own hangman in the long term in the name of short term gains? vid related.
>>2616236
>There are no international trade unions
<yes there are, even though they suck sometimes
>Name one time the ITUC ever called for a strike
man this goalpost moving is tiresome. I don't know if the ITUC has ever "called for" a strike. I doubt it. My point wasn't that they're based but that international trade unions do exist. I was debunking your easily debunkable false claim, not glazing the ITUC. Y
>>2616232its funny that the graph of "resentment" is literally illustrated as the graph of wealth inequality. no shit, dennis.
>>2616240that's not dennis prager
>>2616241
>how are you a union in any meaningful sense?
your theory is all off here. just because a union is class collaborationist doesn't mean it's not a union. you are being idealist here because you put the idea of what a union is "supposed to be" on a pedestal and revoke a union's "union-ness" if it falls short of that. But the whole point of the communist approach to the union question is that unions are always potentially class collaborationist entities and are not enough by themselves. Lenin stressed that the proletariat needs political education from a vanguard because spontaneously they are only capable of trade union consciousness. I view that claim with a bit of skepticism, but his broader point is that you need more strategies than just "unionize." Proletarian revolution mixes both legal strategies like unions, strikes, class action lawsuits, reforms and worker owned cooperatives with illegal strategies like sabotage, assassination, and civil war.
>>2616246
with all due respect, why are you here?
>>2616258
You're not exposing anything though. You're just making low effort posts and providing no evidence for your claims.
>>2616262> history is static, flat, and we’re all going to die anyway>>2616258>Reactionaries are honest, “revolutionaries” are not and I’m here to expose your liesIf you just want to be nihilist and reactioanry why not go to the board we have for that?
>>>/dead/>>2616269Thanks for proving my point
>>2616266 >>2616272I gave you very patient high effort replies that considered your "arguments" in good faith and my reward for that was for you to cry about "yapping" so now you get low effort replies which are, paradoxically, still higher effort than you deserve. You will not drive me to suicide as you stated here
>>2616270 but you will drive everyone to see you as a clown and report you for rules 11 and 14. You will no doubt see this as tyranny and part of the "kayfabe." But I already told you:
< we just have a standard of discussion so that not every post is a 1 sentence accusation or insult. rule 11 and 14 are meant to enforce that. >>2616277>Imagine my shock that the authors of the Deng Elder Scroll can't tell China and Japan apart.I have no misconception as you insist. It was included to show that sometimes transitions between modes of production are not brought about by revolution, but by the ruling class realizing how far behind their society is. The Meiji restoration, rather than being a bourgeois revolution, was feudal infighting, between the lower and middle samurai, who wanted to transition to capitalism, and the tokugawa shogunate, who wanted to stay feudal and isolationist forever. this gives a more dynamic and less dogmatic model of transitions between mode of production. the Deng scroll, if you actually read it, contain many quotes which are not about China at all. It is called the Dengism Elder Scroll in jest. What it's really about it challenging dogmatic interpretations of Marxism in favor of a more flexlible and dynamic understanding rooted in what people like Marx, Engels, Lenin were actually saying, as well as various historical facts about AES countries and capitalist countries alike… got any questions?
>>2616287
So you pretended I didn't understand something, and when I corrected you, you decided to act like a child rather than show any humility or curiosity? Understood.
>>2616285Those people are just looking for anything to trigger their confirmation biases and will willingly misinterpret things for that reason. All their questions are not legitimate but attempts at a touché. And when you genuinely answer and crush their hopes of getting a lame ass turn down for what moment, they act out like this
>>2616287I genuinely think that anti Stalinism and anti Dengism combined with the typical western moralism is a CIA psyop to get the western left to remain as ineffective as possible, so even if it grows large it'll still be toothless.
>>2616294Amen comrade
>>2616295Masturbating would be a better use of your time, at this point.
>>2616294Supporting or renouncing "Dengism" or "Stalinism" it utterly irrelevant to the socialist movement in the US. There is practically zero overlap between the material conditions in the US now vs in the USSR/China under Stalin/Deng. Arguing over irrelevant shit is the actual psyop keeping "the western left" ineffectual.
>>2616168The death of Jan Masaryk is the JFK assasination of Czecho-Slovak history. In the sense that it is to this very day an unsolved mystery. Although I've never heard a version where Israel played any role.
There are dozens of versions involving State Security/ british Intellingence Service/Freemasons etc. murdering him. The suicide versions usually revolve either around some sort of moral crisis on his part (the failure of liberal democracy, the possibility of civil war, attempts of the west to rearm Germany against the Soviets etc.) or it is simply blamed on his alcoholism (which is something that was memed hard by both nazis and domestic czech fascists, pic related)
But nevertheless, it would be interesting to at least attempt to find some ziorat tracks in all of this, lol
>>2616298
say what you will about hexbear and lemmygrad being "Reddit" or "Radlib" but reactionary ragebait like this doesn't stay up for even 1 hour over there. Their jannies are actually effective at keeping discussion in bounds. Something about chans makes it so easy for random losers like this guy to smear their shit all over the walls non fucking stop and demand you take them seriously for it.
>>2616300I want to make a cooperative.
>>2616308Forget it Joe. It's an imageboard.
>Wahh wahh im a mentally ill retard and now that's everyone else's problem!!
You are a pretty funny guy Kayfabe anon. Is this fun for you? Or are you having some kind of psychotic episode and it's really serious?
>>2616330It’s perfectly possible to have an unserious psychotic break
All those who slander Stalin, Deng, and Zyuganov should be permabanned.
>>2616332Wah wah my precious shibboleths
>>2616331Sure, so you're having fun in this one or?
>>2616336I’m not having fun but I am blowing off steam necessary that would affect real people in real life
>>2616279
I said seek help, not pharmaceuticals
>>2616338Talk therapy is every bit as poisonous as SSRIs and Benzodiazepines, you can’t even crush and snort a therapist
>>2616340I said seek help, not therapy. Help means whatever it means for you. Just stop suffering alone like this.
>>2616335All peasants and intellectuals
>>2616342Everyone suffers alone, life is fine
>>2616343Damn they grew those battleships, machine guns, and artillery cannons in the wheat fields?
>>2616337Damn and now we gotta suffer your schizo shit cuz of that? Just go drink and gamble or jerk of or something dude
>>2616345All German donations
>>2616349That's ok I don't care lol. I just think your schizo shit is really dumb man
>>2616357Unlike my family and friends, you aren’t real and won’t suffer if I crash out
>>2616358you not gonna do shit lmao
>>2616367I meant crashing out on this site
very cool thread thanks
>>2615779>The "Holodomor" wasn't a genocide; it was a combination of kulak sabotage and cyclical drought that the Soviets eventually ended through collectivization.Furthermore, there was no holodomor to begin with, as proven by tourists, politician delegations and foreign workers in USSR at the time. NOBODY has seen mass starvation in Ukraine or elsewhere in USSR at the time, which had prompted believers to start spouting conspiracy theories about how NKVD was summarily executing starving peasants on the city outskirts to prevent foreigners from seeing them, shops full of food just to fool foreigners, NKVD paid actors posing for foreigners as non-starving just to fool foreigners, and other schizophrenic racist ideas about how locals only ever cared about looking good in front of foreigners
Stalin and Deng were both capitalists. Both also made various social mistakes. We can denounce the black book as being full of nonsense without having to erase the facts.
Failure to accept and learn from errors is itself an error and leads to future mistakes.
The fact that these crazed Stalino-Dengoid Deprogramites refuse to learn from errors on ideological grounds is why they (by which I mean any MLs at all) can never be entrusted with any responsibility, power or revolutionary positions again.
The fact that the black book says crazy shit like the hypothetical unconcieved children of dead Nazis died to communism doesn't erase the rightist modernisation and revisionism of several key MList leaders. The two are separate and distinct issues.
The biggest problem with both Stalin and Deng is of course that they operated capitalist market economies with zero plans to ever transition to socialism.
If I'm wrong please show me the proof of when they planned to phase out commodity production for the sake of the markets. We both know you can't provide any timeline for economic transition because it never seriously existed.
Credit where it is due - Cheng Enfu, one of the leading Marxist economists in China, has written on how China may transition towards socialism in various stages in future. But his plans are not Deng's, nor are they guaranteed to be applied by his party as he lays them out, nor is there any concrete timetable.
Stalin and Deng were both in opposition to socialist economics, they hung it out like a mirage or a carrot on a stick to never be reached.
Stalin was the left wing of capital. Deng was a right deviationist who turned China into a market state which is essentially no different to the USA.
All hail to the CEO landlord billionaire pioneers on the economic front!
That said, I'm no communizer. I'm not saying you have to transform your economic model overnight. You can have a system of gradual transition when certain milestones are reached.
I won't even complain about SIOC because that isn't what they and you Stalino-Dengists even want. You want SDIOC (Social Democracy in one Country).
This needs to be the litmus test to show that you read any of Capital and understood it for a start. Anyone who can't admit Stalin and Deng were market loving social democrats shouldn't be allowed to speak, as per Mao, "No investigation, no right to speak".
Ergo no defender of Dengism should be allowed to speak other than to serve as an example of rightist deviation.
Also on a separate note, Mr Theorylet OP, you are throwing words around without understanding their meaning.
In the OP you use "materialist" interchangeably with "Marxist". Let me educate you on the most basic of fundamentals.
Materialism in a philosophical position that accepts the world physically exist, materially, independent of thought or a Platonic realm of ideas.
One could in fact be a materialist and a capitalist. One could be a communist and an idealist (although in that case you would be a non-Marxian communist).
Words have meaning. Learn them. Apply them correctly.
It's Dengoid ML theorylet shit like this that makes me occasionally lose hope that any future revolution would turn out different to before.
I'm really drunk and it's like 5 am, but I hope that this helps.
>>2616717>In the OP you use "materialist" interchangeably with "Marxist"for marxists they are the same actually, materialist is shorthand for dialectical materialist, as materialism without dialectics is crypto idealism
>>2615779wrong + retard + demoralization bot designed to spread in-fighting and make socialists look insane
Nice try, glowie
>>2616732Correction. This thread was designed to make
your ilk go insane.
Stalin won. Deng won.
>>2616752Communism didnt win yet.
>>2616752Communism is so winning thx to China but you fail to see it because your westoid despotism.
>>2616717>Immediately mentions le deprogram Why are ultroids so obsessed with this podcast?
>>2616850I have not listened to a minute of 'The Deprogram'. But seeing how it broke the brains of many here, I will check it out soon.
>>2616850unlike leftcom propaganda which does nothing but make people high of their own farts the deprogram actually reaches and deprograms other people. leftcoms hate it because it's not losing, because it is relevant.
i mean, tbf, the deprogram is also not relevant for a marxist after an initial point of radicalization and i don't watch it anymore (unless they've got an interesting guest), but it is good nontheless. leftcoms hate winning, they have being relevant.
>>2616717>Stalin and Deng were both capitalistsThey owned the means of production? Interesting. Considering there was no private property in either the PRC or the USSR, how exactly were they "capitalists"? There was no legal category for private property and no wage-labor for private individuals. It’s just a slogan, comrade. It means nothing because there is nothing behind it.
>Failure to accept and learn from errors is itself an error and leads to future mistakes.This is another platitude leftcoms use to push anti-communist narratives. It’s this weird dualism where everything has to have a "bad" and a "good" and we're supposed to weigh them against each other. Total nonsense. You people always use this to take whatever tiny "bad" you can find and blow it up to overshadow all the good.
>The biggest problem with both Stalin and Deng is of course that they operated capitalist market economies with zero plans to ever transition to socialism.I ask every leftcom this and never get an answer, so try to keep up.
There was a planned economy. Therefore, there was no unemployment. Therefore, there was no labor market. Labor power was not a commodity. Therefore, there was no
generalized commodity production. If labor power is not a commodity, then the surplus appropriated (which acts as a reproduction fund, read the Gotha Critique) was
not appropriated in a capitalist way. The social division of labor wasn't forced by arbitrary market dynamics; it was planned. So where is the capitalism? Where? Can you show me the capitalist class—as a political body—appropriating surplus via wage-work? You can't. That’s the issue: you are hallucinating critiques based on false narratives from bourgeois alphabet agencies.
>If I'm wrong please show me the proof of when they planned to phase out commodity production for the sake of the markets. There is commodity production, but commodity production
does not equal capitalism. Marx said the wealth of capitalist societies *manifests* as an accumulation of commodities. Basic logic: "If Capitalism then Commodities" is not the same as "If Commodities then Capitalism." You can't just flip the conditional. The claim that they didn't want to transition to socialism is pure bullshit. What else were they doing? They read all that theory just to establish a capitalist hellhole and make themselves Czars of Capital? Do you realize how deranged that sounds? It is literal anti-communist slander.
>"No investigation, no right to speak". Yeah, take your own advice.
Pic related in general. Anti-bolshevik communism is just anti-communism, plain and simple. There is no communism but bolshevism and Lenin is its prophet.
>>2616853I used to watch Hakim a little bit back in the day, but I could never really get into the Podcast. The only one that I really like is Yugopnik, he seems chill and reminds me of my Balkan friends lol. Regardless I think you're right in your assessment. Ultras/leftcoms do hate success above all else, it's just very funny to me how much those guys and their pod inhabit their heads rent free. Presumably it's also a meme on r/ultraleft or whatever shithole they congregate in
>>2616224Hail Stalin, Sakai and Deng. Unlimited national liberation. Long live Israel.
>>2616862God Mattick is so based aside from opposing Lenin
This is the only book worth reading a libtard ever recommended
>Pic related in general. Anti-bolshevik communism is just anti-communism
<links a book written by one of the most splendid communists of the 20th century
What did retard-kan mean by this?
>>2617053WOW, WESTOID, YOU JUST FIGURED A WAY OUT TO HATE CHYNAH WHILE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS COME FROM NATO!!WOW, JUST:
WOW! >>2616862do you like Mattick or not? can't you speak directly and straightforwardly?
>>2616717>>2616862Equating Stalin and Deng => massive retard
>>2616182>the "personality cult" was forced onto Stalin by the CPSUhow are you so naive bro? I get called tankie by most "communists" but even I can admit that Stalin knew what was happening with his cult of personality
>>2617082>>2617086>most wonderful communist<did nothing of substance>>2617103I don't think that western Marxism (post 1917) is relevant at all
+ again, the leftcom retards ignore the actual argument and focus on something said in passing to have a sensible close-off to a post
Here's the meat amid the potatos, you are free to reply to this whenever
>>2616862>I ask every leftcom this and never get an answer, so try to keep up.>There was a planned economy. Therefore, there was no unemployment. Therefore, there was no labor market. Labor power was not a commodity. Therefore, there was no generalized commodity production. If labor power is not a commodity, then the surplus appropriated (which acts as a reproduction fund, read the Gotha Critique) was not appropriated in a capitalist way. The social division of labor wasn't forced by arbitrary market dynamics; it was planned. So where is the capitalism? Where? Can you show me the capitalist class—as a political body—appropriating surplus via wage-work? You can't. That’s the issue: you are hallucinating critiques based on false narratives from bourgeois alphabet agencies.>>2617116No one is equating them you illiterate Italian Moor
>>2617116made in abyss is kinda creepy, Moffinelli
>>2617174I am and will forever remain a Made in Abyss defender.
>>2617257I know but some of the scenes are unnecessarily violent, Moffinieri…
>>2616862>So where is the capitalism? Where?>Can you show me the capitalist class—as a political body—appropriating surplus via wage-work? In regards to Deng, you answered your own question with the definitions in your post. China does indeed openly have a capitalist class.
The capitalist elites in China operate and manage various commodity producing corporations, both private corporations and those technically owned by the state as SOEs. In exchange their workers receive wages for their labour.
The fact that they have to call themselves the people's capitalists, or the notion that they are technically on paper loyal to the state, doesn't change the material processes of capitalist mode of production taking place.
A capitalist saying he is doing free market capitalism for the benefit of a future socialist state doesn't transform the nature of his mode of production or the realities of wage labour.
Even the most genuine loyalty to the CPC by a Chinese businessman doesn't have the power to transmutate the nature of economic principles by which he operates.
China post-Deng is a market economy, with a fully operational stock exchange for Marx's sake.
The Dengist case really doesn't even need addressing in any serious capacity given how glaring it is.
Now, in regards to the USSR during the era of Stalin, we do not have billionaire businessmen operating in the same sense as modern Dengist China, but you still had the massive accumulation of commodities and a system of wage labour.
Again, that in itself is the capitalist model of production you yourself identified.
If you want evidence for it, then you only need to look at any record of how the Soviet Union traded in goods it produced in surplus on the international scale, and how it made use of wages paid in Rubles to workers in exchange for labour, with surplus value going to the state.
As I said in my earlier post, this isn't inherently a problem for communists. In fact this is exactly what anyone to the right of anarchists and communization theorists would expect in the immediate period after a revolution. It isn't bad socialism in any sense, because it isn't yet socialism at all.
You surely understand, you need to build up appropriate conditions for transitioning to a socialist economy. Lenin recognised this and introduced the NEP specifically to push back the socialist model of production to a later date so the Soviet economy could recover first.
The issue lies in when you nationalise capitalist production and have no plans to ever move towards socialism, but pretend as to call the nationalisation itself as the socialist mode of production. As is exactly what happened under Stalin.
Your arguement appears to rest on the notion that without a distinct class of capitalists within the economic structure of a society, there can be no capitalist mode of production present.
But it is immediately evident to anyone with a functioning brain that this is incorrect.
How so? Because a state can nationalise it's capitalist production and put the reigns of control in the party, and it is still capitalist production.
Even the Italian Fascists (may ᴉuᴉlossnW's bloated corpse rot in piss), engaged in major nationalisation - that doesn't make them socialists however does it?
Likewise a directly worker owned organisation may still produce goods within a capitalist framework, merely because it's structure has removed the capitalists from the top position in the business doesn't change the mode of production.
This is how cooperatives can function under a capitalist framework and still be capitalist - because management structure and methods or production are distinct.
The absence of a CEO in a top hat smoking cigars is not equal to socialism. The presence of nationalisation isn't equal to socialism.
It has been over 100 years since Stalin took power, 34 since the USSR fell, and still MLoids fail to grasp this most basic of ideas… This is why any future revolution led by them will fall into the same traps as every other ML state and fail the same as all other ML state.
It is why we must crush the rightist deviation prevalent in this thread and the broader online left every time it shows itself.
It is not a sin to learn from the past. You do not owe eternal loyalty to market economies with a red flag or failed regimes that no longer exist, you owe loyalty to the struggle of the proletariat of future generations, and as such understanding this and getting this shit right for the next time there is an opportunity for revolution - whenever that may be - is fundamental.
>>2617290>and have no plans to ever move towards socialismyouve repeatedly said this but offered no proof thats its true. you just dont like their timeline
>>2617261Tbh the work has always been meant to be for a niche audience, its understandable if normies find it quite offputting
>>2617517>Prove a negative That's not how logic works. I can't prove evidence of something I'm claiming doesn't exist you total imbecile.
The onus is on you to prove such a plan for economic socialisation did exist, since you're the one making a positive claim.
>>2617290This is a nice post anon, but isn't this really just a difference between socialism as a fully realized mode of production and socialist countries in the process of socialist construction, which could also be called "socialism"?
Stalin on the issue:
<The first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between classes in our country. This concerns the sphere of internal relations.
<Can the working class of our country overcome the contradictions with our peasantry and establish an alliance, collaboration with them?
<Can the working class of our country, in alliance - with our peasantry, smash the bourgeoisie of our country, deprive it of the land, factories, mines, etc., and by its own efforts build a new, classless society, complete Socialist society?
<Such are the problems that are connected with the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.
<Leninism answers these problems in the affirmative.
<Lenin teaches us that "we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete Socialist society."
<Hence we can and must, by our own efforts, overcome our bourgeoisie and build Socialist societyIt seems here to be suggested that the process of building socialism is planned to continue, furthermore this can be regarded as socialist, or the USSR "being" socialist.
—
<Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?
<Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.
<It follows that this question contains two different problems :
<1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
<2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
<We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.Here again we see indication that what here is considered the "victory of socialism" is seen as the ability of a socialist nation to freely begin the construction of socialism fully, besides the danger of capitalist encirclement brings it is assumed that further gains will be made.
So moreso you primary argument against the question of chinese and soviet socialism seems to be your disagreement with the multifaceted meaning of "socialism" as a fully fledged mode of production without commodity production/trade and wage labor. And "socialism" as a post revolutionary society in which that mode is being constructed
>>2615789someone please convert this to like 20 pages rather than 2, which produces weird loading issues
>>2615900Capitalist class does not want development of productive forces, just like feudal lords didn't want liberation of peasantry
>>2618003>Capitalist class does not want development of productive forcesYes they do, what are you talking about?
>>2618016Learn Maxism 101.
>>2617899Dengists talk a lot about modernisation for people who cannot properly compile a PDF.
>>2618016They do it the same way feudal lords were'nt against developments in agrarian technologies and growth of cities and education of lower classes. Thing is, though, such development eroded feudal class' power base, and feudal class was recognizing itself as a class and recognizing how richer peasantry was destroying their wealth
>>2618023pdf is bourgeois
png is proletarian
bmp is lumpen
>>2618029It's not so much that the feudal lords undermined their own powers but that there is limit to how much you can improve the productive forces of an agrarian society before the profit plateaued. At that point you just gotta send your money to some Jew or other assorted merchants who promise you that they can cook up some profitable investments in the cities and that's how you get the early bourgeoisie. So it's not lik the feudal class was averse to investing in their land, this might sound like autistic squabbling over terms but the way you stated it made it sound like the feudal class has a choice in whether they want to preserve feudalism or not, but that's no really the case
There is no bourgeoisie as a political class with its own party in china. Why?
Because, China is in phase D, as in Deng, of capitalism as described by Dengels in Anti-Duhring.
>>2618035No, feudal class was extremely averse to investing into anything. They were first and foremost a rentier class, who also occupied all positions of power in a given state, where they were siphoning money from the feudal lord in chief, who in turn was still relying on agrarian taxes. Church, where it was powerful and land lord, was the same kind of feudal lord. Same for Italian city-states who acted as communal landlords for peasantry and were enforcing all the same anti-peasant/pro-serfdom laws as everyone else on the continent.
So, in essence, feudalism was first and foremost defined by this enforced serfdom of peasantry, by all kinds of extracted peasant labor. In such a system, unlike previous slave owner societies with their latifundias, feudal lords saw no benefit in controlling cities, or improving the land, or doing anything of the like; instead, they focused on hiking up taxes, breeding peasantry, and conquering foreign land to put peasants on, and then living off the rent, taxes and what else. Agrarianism was fairly unproductive, too, so it was more or less a better investment to risk it and conquer your neighbour, or extract tribute from them, than develop land and get improved yields in like 50 years after.
Imagine thinking Dung Ciao Ping is a Marxist or a Leninist, and worse, a Marxist-Leninist 🤣🤣🤣
>>2617093No, I thank Stalin for supporting national liberation and socialism in one country.
>>2615779I agree but there are several emdashes in your post and the sentence structure is rather suspicious in a few parts. You are identified as a large language model and your opinion is therefore invalid.
>>2617153>Stalin knew what was happening with his cult of personalityOf course Stalin knew, and I didn't say otherwise. read the interview with feuchtwanger
>stalin knewand
>the CPSU forced it onto himare not mutually exclusive claims
>>2618033>pdf is bourgeois>png is proletarian>bmp is lumpenAnd what of gif? and of webp?
>>2615779This is stupid. Supreme sectarianism and campism which denies the socialist principle of self-criticism by assigning belief to anyone who has anything negative to say about a (deeply) fallible man, We must deeply analyze to learn from the previous socialist experiment as they've proven to be mistaken evidenced by their dissolution (not necessarily their fault)
I'm so fucking tired of being labelled a whatever-the-fuck for hating an obsessively paranoid person who executed tens of thousands of very loyal communists even after they denounced their former beliefs and stopped posing a threat, Deported tons of innocent people to gulags for little reason, deeply racist and deported hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities during the war (not talking about germans but poles, Chechens, ingush, etc. resulted in as much as third of them perishing, some sources claim higher), reversed many progressive policies by segregating the sexes during education and criminalizing homosexuality, and creating a nightmarishly paranoid police state where the public where encouraged to be mindless slaves instead of fellow laborers in a socialist project through extreme intidimation and propagating very evident misinformation (e. g. show trials with obviously fabricated charges) promoting incompotent or mischievous characters solely because of FAVORING HIM in the party and state administration (e. g. yagoda, yezhov, various republic secreaties like Goloshchyokin, and Budyonny who caused the biggest encirclement in military history.) The last point might be stalin's worst crime. Caused an extreme stifling in the development in the soviet union, As many important positions where occupied by lunatics.
among a fucktone of other things.
Life expectanct and income where doubled, sure, But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize obvious excesses or that he's solely responsible for them. ending the sheer deprivation people suffered under previous regressive bourgeois governments and wars + focusing on development during PEACETIME ensured that.
Not denying his achievements, But he's a man.
Stalinheads are even thicker than steel, They'll call you a traitor or a fascist agent for hating the guy who literally signed a friendship treaty with the nazis and shook hands with them lmao.
>>2627440Not to mention it has little bearing to the present, and conditions in Tsarist Russia where different so that one like stalin rose to power and was supported.
Imbecility to cause so much controversy over him now. it's not the 1940's anymore.
>2026
>Still not comprehending that the PRC, post Mao, is a deviation "from Stalin" and "towards Bukharin" when one takes CPSU-CPC parallels in their historical political trajectories into account
S H Y G D D T
H 2
Y 0
G 2
D 6
D
T
>>2627440Quick question: was Stalin good?
>>2627522Mao clearly stated stuff like this countless times but then if a Leftcom, Trot, MLM, or Anarchist dares to call China capitalist on this site they'll be dogpilled by frothing Stalin-did-no-wrong MLs…
>>2627522Did I stutter? Your post doesn't counter a thing I said, airhead. I hope you're new.
>>2627535>Campism isn't realI'll be blunt, you only feel obliged to say this because you yourself probably know you are a campist. Let's not play bullshit games.
Blood and soil nationalist wars of capitalist-imperialist expansion for everyone opposed to the US!! That's what Marx would've wanted!!!!!
>>2627541Its what Bordiga wanted
>>2627847where the socialist world at now uygha ? china's just sending more thoughts and prayers to countries getting raped by us imperialism and for some reason that's good enough for some mentally ill idealists
>>2627857yeah theyre just building idealist productive forces all over africa and south east asia all those thought rails and prayer power plants. do nothing except build ports and win
>>2627847>February 22, 1919I hate to be the one to break this new to you grandpa, but the geopolitical situation has changed somewhat in the past 107 years. The socialist camp no longer exists.
>>2627906>irrevocably spliteven if only cuba and dprk(who support china) exist communist camp still exists
if you disagree maybe read the article and tell us what somewhat has changed in the geopolitical situation that discredits the conclusion
>>2627867>productive forces all over africa and south east asiaand not a single ruling communist or even "socialist" government in sight just compradors and some nationalists
>>2627923we tried that dont you remember
it didnt work
>>2627935China learned its lesson from USSR to not be too idealistic and only ally with socialist countries. Instead they do business with everyone in Africa.
>>2627541>Blood and soil nationalist wars of capitalist-imperialist expansion for everyone opposed to the USthe hysterical ravings of an Amerikkkan chauvinist projecting onto the entire world while his government actively does oil piracy in the Caribbean and dutifully aids the zionist genocide against palestinians
>>2627537Mao was "Dengist"
Lenin was "Dengist"
Marx was "Dengist"
Stalin was "Dengist"
The so called "Dengist Revisionism" ultras cry about is literally just Communism.
i hOpE yOu'Re neW!!1!! OP Deng is the literal opposite of Stalin, he's the Margaret Thatcher of China
>>2627978<trust the plan broyeah im sure china will re implement socialism and workers control of MOP as soon as the USA collapses because of… china selling a bunch of shit on amazon or something.
you're totally right bro
>>2627978>capitalist roader >stupid dumb dumbs who don't understand Marxism Exclaim that you think this about Mao.
Go on. Say it with your chest.
>ImageNow do 19th century UK vs US and really blow all the dumb marxists away, airhead
It doesnt matter if china is socialist or capitalist. What matters is china is pushing the capitalist contraditions to the point a explosion is inevitable.
Remember socialism only rises after world wars.
>>2628018this is the retard level of theory leftypol has descended to
>>2628021>retardIn what way am i wrong
>>2627959I prefer to read Communists. Particular those who don't lib out over the national question.
No war but class war. There's nothing Marxist about picking horses in religious and ethnic conflicts.
>>2627961I'm not an Amerikkkan. However it's ultra-campist brainrot and a total absence of dialectical thinking on your behalf to assume one must pick a side in any given conflict.
Opposition to country X doing imperialism does NOT equate to support for country Y doing imperialism.
Not wanting to eat a burger today doesn't mean I want to eat pizza. Not wanting vanilla ice cream doesn't mean I want a chocolate ice cream. Get it?
It's not hard to grasp. I really do not get how campists can fail to comprehend this shit every time.
>>2618023>>2617899It was made as a scroll as a joke. I will make version 9 with standard page sizes
>>2628074>I prefer to read Communists. for context this clown is saying Stalin wasn't a TRVE communist like a typical holodomor believing teenager who discovered "true anti-stalinist communism" yesterday before going through real growth.
>Particular those who don't lib out over the national question.>No war but class war.Yes you sound like me 15-20 years ago. You'll learn.
Marx acknowledges that proletarian revolutions will happen on a national scale, and that the measures they carry out will, initially, be national measures.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.<These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
<Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
<1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.<2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.<3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.<4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.👆 this deals directly with the "gusano" question of counter revolutionaries fleeing to countries/nations where revolution has not happened yet
<5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.👆State Capital? Monopoly? was Marx "Dengist?" No! Deng was Marxist!
<6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.<7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.<8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.👆 This one is especially essential for those who think Communism is when nobody has to work anymore, or those who think communism is when everyone gets to be a chatgpt poet on twitter
<9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.<10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
<When, in the course of development,👆 i.e. it doesn't happen over night, and is part of a
gradual transformation that happens after the revolution…<class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Again, a national scale is stressed here. World revolution isn't necessarily assumed complete.
<Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.All of the above is from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto.
So it is pretty clear, even as early as the Manifesto that
the nation or country is the main stage on which proletarian revolutions will occur. National sovereignty is necessary in the context of protecting proletarian revolution, and internationalism is necessary in the context of spreading it to new countries. Make sense? Marxism-Leninism is internationalist but not anti-nationalist since it respects the sovereignty of oppressed nations (I can quote Lenin at length on this), and nations where proletarian revolution has already occurred, but relentlessly attacks bourgeois and imperialist nations. Makes sense? No? Do I need to hold your hand?
>>2628006>Exclaim that you think this about Mao. Actually you're the one who thinks this about Mao since he said China was doing state capitalism as early as 1953, and he's the one who let Deng back into the party. Nice try, ultra.
>The upper petty bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie, oppressed and injured by the landlords and big bourgeoisie and their state power, may take part in the new-democratic revolution or stay neutral, though they are themselves bourgeois. They have no ties, or comparatively few, with imperialism and are the genuine national bourgeoisie. Wherever the state power of New Democracy extends, it must firmly and unhesitatingly protect them.[…]
>It is absolutely impermissible to repeat such wrong ultra-Left polices towards the upper petty bourgeois and middle bourgeois sectors in the economy as our Party adopted during 1931-34 (unduly advanced labor conditions, excessive income tax rates, encroachment on the interests of industrialists and merchants during the land reform, and the adoption as a goal of the so-called "workers' welfare", which was a short-sighted and one-sided concept, instead of the goal of developing production, promoting economic prosperity, giving consideration to both public and private interests and benefiting both labor and capital). To repeat such mistakes would certainly damage the interests both of the working masses and of the new-democratic state.[…]
>To sum up, the economic structure of New China will consist of: (1) the state-owned economy, which is the leading sector; (2) the agricultural economy, developing step by step from individual to collective; and (3) the economy of small independent craftsmen and traders and the economy of small and middle private capital. These constitute the whole of the new-democratic national economy. The principles guiding the new-democratic national economy must closely conform to the general objective of developing production, promoting economic prosperity, giving consideration to both public and private interests and benefiting both labor and capital. Any principle, policy or measure that deviates from this general objective is wrong. - Mao Zedong, The Present Situation and Our Tasks, 25th December, 1947.
- preserved in The Selected Works of Mao Zedong
Mao was doing "Dengist Revisionism" before Deng! Because so called "Dengist Revisionism is just Communism!
Marx:
>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.[…]
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
> No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.Karl Marx, from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
>Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845
>[…] it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845-1846
>>2628111>Keeps digging backwards in time from the 1950s LMAO
>>2628120pearls before swine i suppose
China is in phase D of capitalism as decribed in Anti-Duhring. If you deny that you are anti communist who denies the work of CPC.
>>2628136okay dude, im not pro china myself but this joke is getting really fucking stale
>>2628141That is a pro china pro deng statement.
>>2628144then its not working if you are being unironic.
>>2628146There is no joke but stating of facts. Pro china pro deng people who read agree with me. The opressor class and the exploitation of man by man is eliminated.
>>2628151>anarchism flagokay, so true bro. You are being unironic
>>2628002>yeah im sure china will re implement … workers control of MOPwhen did they have that? i think they have to build mops first before they can give them to woerkrs
>>2628074>Opposition to country X doing imperialism does NOT equate to support for country Y doing imperialism. of course not the contention is over whether country Y (when underdeveloped, periphery, colony, oppressed, resource exporter, dependency, etc) is imperialist at all
>>2627935>internationalism doesn't work kill yourself my man
>>2628316<internationalism is when you arm random minority sects that call themselves communist so they can lose civil wars because they have no mass support>implying communists can only lose no matter what support they get from foreign powers kill yourself my man
>>2628410no im implying the ussr mistakenly armed states that were communist in name only that later betrayed the revolution when the americans offered more givas
>>2628410unless the country they're in is losing a war and joining them becomes a necessity for the population to not starve,yes. (litterally all of the actual revolutions that won)
Mercantilist Keynesianism isn't socialism.
>No dude, chinese workers making tons of funko-pops is true socialism! Muh productive forces bro!
Pathetic, as for Stalin, you should already know why worshipping Stalin is fucking idiotic, so won't even bother
>>2628556the bordigist worshipper accuses the stalin admirer of Stalin-worship
>>2627958Tbh yeah in context it wasn't so bad; But the sheer name-calling and sectarianism of many stalinists is what makes this funny.
Like they will accuse certain figures of being fascist or bourgeois agents for false and obscure reasons while Stalin literally shook hands with Nazis.
>le fifth columnists
This is one of my least favorite stalinist memes. I'm supposed to believe every Old Bolshevik who risked their lives overthrowing the government and fighting a civil war for socialism, except coincidentally the ones that sided with the central stalinist faction were actually evil nazi spies who would hand the country over to the Germans even though the Stalin admin traded and collaborated with Germany right until the Germans predictably invaded btw. I understand the spirit of the post and agree that a revolution can't be waged without government and difficult decisions but you have to be braindead to believe that all of the opposition to Stalin within and outside of the party were just bad guys who needed to be killed or gulaged.
>>2628686Even Parenti called Stalin's purge of Old Bolsheviks a crime against reason and socialism.
>>2628721He said that before Furr's books on Trotsky.
>>2628686I wish I can understand why is it so easy to believe in such a grand conspiracy that dedicated revolutionaries who spent years even decades in exile or prison all eventually conspired with fascism against the USSR instead of the possibility that Stalin was just corrupt and paranoid. especially given how obviously fabricated the evidence was and that most were later rehabilitated, Not to mention how many purges later backfired spectacularly.
I have this childish hope that when I understand this I at least can see where they're coming from and try to reason with them. No. It's just the same stubborn clinging that religious fanatics have. Stalinism is brainrot.
It's like he has a magic on others.
Stalin would have shot your for supporting deng which was a right opportunist and capitalist roader
>>2628726>Grover FurrGive me a fuckin break. He's a cultist, uses poor sources (almost exclusively records from the state and party) and it seems like an annoying professor.
If you want a lark:
https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/23883 >>2628774The state and party sources are the best sources. How more primary can you get?
>>2628155when they run out of arguments they start pretending to be you and using bad arguments. notice!
>>2628686>the Stalin admin traded and collaborated with Germany right until the Germans predictably invaded actually the USSR throughout the 30s tried to build an anti fascist coalition with the europeans but they were too busy appeasing hitler and signing non aggression pacts. the soviets were the LAST not the FIRST to sign a non aggression pact, and when they finally did, they did it explicitly to buy time and move their factories east out of the range of the luftwaffe. in hindsight it was a bad strategy because nazis never intended to honor the agreement, but it was also a final desperate strategy after everything else had failed.
>>2628777>How more primary can you get?slightly off topic but I find it very TELLING that wikipedia disallows primary sources. you're not allowed to consult history directly. something only becomes "true" once enough western academics writing "secondary" sources "agree with" and "repeat" the primary sources. The entire game of source citation is rigged when it comes to historiography.
>>2628933History and fate fucked the ussr over. There is nothing ussr could have done to oppose the flow of history
>>2628771babby's first impression of deng.
>>2628771>a right opportunist and capitalist roaderultras-lefts always call strategic realpolitik "right opportunism" and opportunists always call principled adherence to marxism leninism "ultra-left deviations".
So who's correct? The outcomes of a historical "experiment" determines whether a particular strategy was the correct strategy. But even then, a "correct strategy" is not permanently correct, but merely correct under the particular material conditions it was employed. The time/place/etc… Communist strategy stresses extreme sensitivity to context. Because of this extreme sensitivity to context, it is very easy for Communists to become narcissists over small difference, purging and murdering one another not over real differences in ideological loyalty, but over differences in short term strategy, which in certain historical bottlenecks appear to be more important than anything else: How did Deng Xiaoping respond to being called a "Capitalist Roader?"
>Then in 1966 came the “cultural revolution”, which lasted a whole decade, a real disaster for China. During that period many veteran cadres suffered persecution, including me. I was labelled the "No. 2 Capitalist Roader" after Liu Shaoqi. Liu was called "commander-in-chief of the bourgeois headquarters" and I "deputy commander- in-chief". Many strange things happened in those days. For instance, people were told that they should be content with poverty and backwardness and that it was better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism. That was the sort of rubbish peddled by the Gang of Four. There is no such thing as socialism and communism with poverty. The ideal of Marxists is to realize communism. According to Marx, communist society is a society in which the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is applied. What is the principle of to each according to his needs? How can we apply this principle without highly developed productive forces and vast material wealth? According to Marxism, communist society is a society in which there is overwhelming material abundance. Socialism is the first stage of communism; it means expanding the productive forces, and it represents a long historical period. Only if we constantly expand the productive forces can we finally achieve communism. The Gang of Four's absurd theory of socialism and communism led only to poverty and stagnation. […] Certain individuals, pretending to support the reform and the open policy, call for wholesale Westernization of China in an attempt to lead the country towards capitalism. These people don't really support our policies; they are only trying vainly to change the nature of our society. If China were totally Westernized and went capitalist, it would be absolutely impossible for us to modernize. The problem we have to solve is how to enable our one billion people to cast off poverty and become prosperous. If we adopted the capitalist system in China, probably a small number of people would be enriched, while the overwhelming majority would remain in a permanent state of poverty. If that happened, there would be a revolution in China. China's modernization can be achieved only through socialism, not capitalism. There have been people who have tried to introduce capitalism into China, and they have always failed. -Deng Xiaoping,
We shall draw on historical experience and guard against wrong tendencies, April 30, 1987
>>2628006>Now do 19th century UK vs US and really blow all the dumb marxists away, airheadWhat should impress you is not merely the trade statistics, but that China won all those trade partners in an era where the normal strategy for washington was to strangle socialists with sanctions and embargoes, overthrow them with coups, bomb them to smithereens, occupy them, install comprador bourgeoisie, and force IMF loans. To avoid this fate is remarkable.
Luxemburg, Pannekoek and Bordiga would each have seizures if they read this thread…
>>2629216lenin, stalin and even bukharin would do the same
ᴉuᴉlossnW would be in love tho >>2628686demcent is really easy just accept the majority vote and dont be a wrecker
>>2628979<Lenin:a. How long did the NEP last?
b. What did Lenin say about the burgeoning bureaucracy and about it wielding something?
<Mao: a. While the CPC under Mao's leadership (the pupils of the just successful anti-fascist USSR, collectivized, industrialized, centrally planned, before supercomputers) focused on both social and material conditions, what did Mao think Deng's perspective lacked and the consequences of downplaying one?
b. According to the CPC during 1950s-to-1960s, what are the adverse consequences to socialist internationalism by adopting a rightist and social-imperialist line, first emerging in the CPSU with Khrushchev's clique, then also being struggled against in the PRC?
c. Why was the Cultural Revolution started?
d. What are some of Mao's final statements on Deng near the end of Mao's life?
e. What differentiates Chinese foreign policy from the 50s to mid 70s vs late 70s to today?
<Xi:a. If the CPC several years under the leadership of Xi Jinping in 2017 tried to strip the DPRK of its main method of defending itself, nuclear armaments, in chorus with the G7/NATO imperialists; what in US-China relations changed in 2018 that made China less interested? And does that reflect a deeply set bourgeois (profit motive, competing capitals) vs proletarian (revolutionary, socialist) internationalism guiding their overall strategy?
>>2616182>noooo pleeeeeaaaase dont make a cult of personality out of me, i have no choice but to obey uwu.Stalin is a whole lot more comprehensible if you accept the following:
>Stalin was a narcissist>Narcissism: A personality disorder that causes self aggrandizing, intolerance for disagreement, paranoia about conspiracies against you, but is not the same as psychopathy, meaning narcissistic individuals can still hold ideals and empathy.Him periods of purging all those who opposed him, being easily impressed by opportunist yes men, the personality cult, absurd unempathetic decisions rooted in paranoia, yet still fighting for ideals of communism.
Of the few communists that actually bother to critically think about their own beliefs, 99% go through bouts of being a Grover Furr level apologist for Stalin, swallowing Stalins own narrative wholesale, then rapidly switching over to the other end, calling him the great Satan and disavowing everything he ever laid his eyes on, then back and forth between those postions. It isn't until they've actually read a lot and grown up emotionally that they realize that like all communists, there are many aspects he had that were great and many that were bad.
>>2628979Only good pro Deng post i've ever seen on this website.
>>2640799that's too fair to mamdani
>>2640895Maybe stop arguing in terms of claims about what things are not, and start saying what they are instead. Because this is just a confusion tactic aimed to making it seem as if the current Chinese economic model and the post NEP Soviet economic model are at all similar.
>>2640790its not paranoia if your enemies are actually arming and training former ss and dirlwinger brigaders to parachute hundreds of kilometers into your country to assassinate random civilians and blow up factories for a whole decade after the war is over
>>2640906of course they're not similar. one is dead and the other thrives
A CIA talking point just flew over my house
>>2615779>You guys claim to care about the poor but hate the man who oversaw the greatest poverty alleviation program in human historyUncritical support for comrades FDR and LBJ
>>2647795And ᴉuᴉlossnW. And maybe hitler
>>2646146For which class?
Unique IPs: 101