/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

ok, but

nobody pisses on the graves of communists more than communists

>>2652800
>i will glaze a mid communist to death and if you disagree it means you piss on her grave
You sentimentalist assholes always purposefully conflate martyrdom and actual theoretical and practical positions

True, but she was still above any of her peers in Germany.

Not saying much, however.

Also she eventually came to accept Lenins positions, and did martyr herself even when she could have fled. That is still noble. She was also not 'that' much naive esp. in her last final moments, but was drawn by the insurrection after shooting in berlin even through she knew it was doomed.

>>2652779
But the USSR no longer exists showing Lenin was not right on everything. His biggest mistakes were on their nationalist policy, especially Ukraine, followed by his ban on factionalism.
>>2652817
> did martyr herself even when she could have fled.
>drawn by the insurrection after shooting in berlin even through she knew it was doomed.
Fucking religious bullshit. You don't become some saint, you are just dead. She should have strategically retreated to possibly fight another day.

>>2652820
Not disagreeing, but even that makes her better than nearly every other SPD member

>>2652820
Yeah, the USSR collapsed after 70 years.
The German Socialist Revolution did not even succeed for a few weeks. Big difference.
Using the collapse of the USSR as a gotcha is kinda weird because by that logic we should stan Zionism.

>>2652787
>tfw no femdom rosa luxembourg gf
why even live

I dont give a fuck that she was wrong on certain issues (bit too idealist, imho), she was right on more than enough issues. Theory isn't what makes her such an important figure anyways and it's not why the bourgeoisie hated her so much that they eventually ordered the succdems to assassinate her. Rosa and Karl carried the revolutionary worker's movement, communism and socialism within what is now the DACH region pretty much alone after bourgeois liberals took over the SPD in 1914, saved it by founding the Spartakusbund and KPD and they lead the revolution in 1918 which briefly established socialist republics in Berlin and Munich before heinously getting backstabbed by succdems. Without her there would be no KPD, no RFB, no USPD, no SED, no DKP, no MLPD, no SGP et al., and, most importantly, no DDR as all the founding fathers of the DDR were KPD members.
Bourgeois libshits, leftcoms, succdems and the like like to stir conflict among communists over her legacy by claiming that she was opposed to Lenin, Stalin and the USSR but that's a blatant lie. There were some disagreements but overall she supported Lenin and the USSR in a quite radical manner.

>>2652824
>Big difference.
It just means she couldn't pull off a revolution and establish a state while Lenin could. However, Lenin being a great one of kind statesman doesn't mean he was right about other theoretical issues.
>Using the collapse of the USSR as a gotcha is kinda weird because by that logic we should stan Zionism.
Zionism is a nationalist project hellbent on building a single state while the USSR dissolved because of competing internal nationalisms. So there is a direct connection between them that shows why one lasted and the other didn't.

>>2652820
Lenin's fudemental shortcoming was his weakness on problem of dealing with bureaucracy where he wrote just 'educate workers' into being bureaucrats to resolve the problem ignoring fact that such elevation would just lead to them having own interests. Despite later toying of Stalin and co. around with various ideas, it ultimately wrecked USSR as this class grew alien, althrough bureaucracy was quite overrated in list of problems compared to many other factors in fall of USSR, both structural and more random.

You witness conflict between nocklumentra class in Hungary Bulgaria DDR and China very explicitly where formerly radical workers are clashing over bureaucratic control, which is quite bad and testament to shortcoming of just administrative methods to build socialism. A kind of producer-technocratic democracy&whole process democracy was necessary on a more serious way.

USSR missed technical-revolution, its system of economic planning rewarded bad behaviors, it spent half of industrial output on military, military&security interests control budget(andrponov puts 80 percent on war against china), its own leaders go to west and prefer there&want their approval, their failed 'allies' as derg are spending almost entire budget in self-mutiliation and war, they start off from inferior technology, unproductive agr. sector due to too much unnecessary laborers(as with experimental efforts show sov. agri. couldh have been better ran), failure to renovate capital stock in right cycles despite efforts, low funding for medicine causing stagnation in life exp. in brezhnevian era, party-state which increasingly became nihilistic and lost revolutionary belief, added with gorbachevs genius plans of creating dual economy which crashed the system etc.



If Lenin and Rosa won by Lenins proposal for earlier peace actually winning out and Rosas desire for electoral path meeting success with hyperinflation discrediting SPD and Kapp Putsch, German-Soviet Int. would resolve 99 percent of problems and lead to worldwide communism with more sensible planning and technocratic-proletarian planning appratus than OTL.

>>2652787
holy fucking shit, lmao

>>2652817
Christian martyr worship needs to stop. Atheist winner worship needs to start.

>>2652851
>Lenin's fudemental shortcoming was his weakness on problem of dealing with bureaucracy
They could have done better with making the upper bureaucracy more accountable but it's not like they were invincible and never replaced.
>USSR missed technical-revolution, its system of economic planning rewarded bad behaviors, it spent half of industrial output on military,
These were all issues that contributed but they were surmountable and reversible. The reason I singled out the ban on Factionalism, which Lenin was directly responsible for, was because when CPSU had a controversial issue and they decided something then everyone opposed to that solution was supposed to pretend it was no longer an issue. So no matter how necessary an issue needed to be readdressed the ban on factions meant they could not reopen discussion and had to dance around it.
>German-Soviet Int. would resolve 99 percent of problems and lead to worldwide communism
Yeah. Another possible solution was Mao just calming down, actively pressuring USSR to kick out Khrushchev while pushing back on his polices instead of doing the Sino-Soviet Split and backing the USA against the Soviets.

>>2652881
Martyrs are necessary for winning aswell. Without blood and defeat there is no victory either. It is death in vain that is wrong, defeat without learning, but self-sacrifice is still a supreme and a necessary virtue for warfare.

>>2652877
>>2652900
Yes, Stalin, Mao, and Zhadnov and many others had ideas of purges to elections, but it was haphazard, chaotic, and did not really work long term. Sometimes it was near-feudal as with some party officials in pre-CR china or even 2000s china acting as rulers of small fiefdoms. Ultimately, its accountability and systemic change that resolves such matter.

It's true that USSRs structural problem were reversible and not worse than China at the time, with their small but modern sectors and loyalty of army, it was Gorb. self mutilating and destroying any guardrails which led to suicide.

True, if USSR and China did not spent massive military budgets on killing each other, and had massive investment to modernize 400 million chinese while guest workers from hunan work in poznan, this along would be the silver bullet for socialist bloc to make up against west with perfect compatability. This is overlooked simple way for USSR to win and outcompete - by scale and by china, along with other tweaks as Malenkov or more rational successor to stalin to take power instead of a devastating sino-soviet conflict where main enemy of USSR and PRC became each other(!!!) even moreso than the actual west.

From economic view, no sino-soviet split means:
No great leap forward ending in flop due to lack of soviet technicians
No labor shortage in eastern bloc(if anything excess of it)
No vietnam isolation after cambodia invasion
No D.Kampuchea
No DPRK going from 5 percent spending in mil, to over 30 percent gdp
No Third Front
No GPCR
No Androponov spending over half of budget on nuking China then yelling for anyone trying to stop him

Basically heaven.

>>2652779
She looks like a spider

>>2652851
EX:
The Hungarian workers’ councils of 1956 left a large number of documents of their activity to the succeeding generations. Their most important legacy was, however, the aspiration to establish a direct workers’ control over the state and production bureaucracy, organized from below. In other words, their agenda was to communalize state socialism. Formed by spontaneous necessity on 31 October, the Parliament of Workers’ Councils - with the participation of twenty-four large enterprises, the peasant alliances of five counties and some intellectual workers’ councils - consented to the following classical document of the rights and basic principles of the functioning of the workers’ councils: “1. The factory belongs to the workers. The workers pay a tax and a determined share from the profit to the state after the production of the factory. 2. The chief organ of management is the workers’ council, which the workers elect democratically. 3. The workers’ council elects a management committee of three-eight people from its members, which is the permanent organ of the workers’ council. The committee is also responsible for other tasks that will be determined later in detail. 4. The chief manager is the employee of the factory. The manager and other employees who fulfill more responsible positions are elected by the workers’ council. The management committee has to invite applications for these posts before the election. 5. The manager, who runs the factory, is responsible to the workers’ council. 6. The workers’ council reserves the following rights:

A/ consent to every plan of the enterprise,
B/ determines the wage fund and its use,
C/ determines every foreign transfer contracts,
D/ decides every credit operation.

7. In case of dispute the workers’ council decides the beginning and termination of employment concerning every employee. 8. The workers’ council also has to consent to the balances and it decides the allocation of profit, which has been left for the enterprise. 9. The workers’ council is also responsible for the social welfare of the enterprise.”

In the beginning the political activity of the workers’ councils was mainly local – apart from the general political demands (withdrawing of Soviet troops, national independence, democratic parliamentary elections). This activity was, however, extended when the Soviet troops marched in on 4 November and a new crisis began. Within the workers’ councils the direction, which envisaged the union of workers’ self management with multi-party democracy, where constitutional guarantees were supposed to protect the bases of socialism against the capitalist restoration, was strengthened. The Secretary of State of the government of Imre Nagy, the well-known Hungarian intellectual jurist, István Bibó formulated this idea in a special program draft on 6 November. The Workers’ Council of Great Budapest, which was formed on 14 November, also adopted the draft. According to the document after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops “the social form of Hungary is the social order based on the prohibition of exploitation (socialism), which implies more concretely…the preservation of the land reform of 1945, which maximised the size of estates in 11,4-22,8 hectares… the preservation of the nationalisation of the mines, banks and heavy industry, the communal property of the existing factories based on workers’ self management, workers’ shares or profit-sharing, every possibility of the free individual or co-operative enterprises, with the determined guarantees of the prohibition of exploitation…” The draft could have been ratified by a constituent assembly, in which the workers’ councils could have played a decisive role. The trade unions, which supported Kádár’s government that had been formed with the direct support of the Soviets, gave a similar proposal to the Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government – as Kádár’s government was called – when they recommended the creation of a bicameral parliament: “For this purpose we propose that the government should consider the creation of the Council of Producers. As a house of the parliament the Council of Producers could be a new organ of our state power… there would be the House of Representatives elected by ballot according to the principle of the place of residence…and the Council of Producers, whose members are elected from the working communities also by ballot. According to the document the basic task of the latter is the “control of production and distribution. Thus, the direct producers could determine how the state should use its financial means and values and how it should allocate the resources… In political questions the council should get extensive rights to make proposals for the House of Representatives”.

After 4 November Kádár continued to negotiate with the representatives of the workers’ councils for weeks – and not only for tactical reasons. He received the authorization for the negotiation from Moscow. From this aspect the development of the negotiations between the workers’ council of the largest enterprise of the country (30500 people worked in eighteen factories of the Csepel Iron and Metal Works in October 1956) and the Kádár-government is particularly illuminating. Even though the workers’ councils of the Csepel Iron and Metal Works (which encompassed the whole network of the workers’ councils of the local factories with around 700 members, who were all volunteers and received no money for their work) declared that they would not recognize the Kádár-government and they expected the return of Imre Nagy to the post of Prime Minister, as a basis of negotiations they insisted that the government announce in the newspapers and the radio that it intends to rely on the workers’ councils and it confirms their rights. “This was fulfilled on paper in a decree published in Népszabadság on 14 November 1956, which gave the following rights to the workers’ councils: the extension of workers’ self-government to every area of factory life, right to make decisions, the elaboration of the wage system in the factory, the workers’ council can divide part of the net profit of the factory among the workers. The permanent workers’ councils should be elected in three weeks with the participation of every employee of the factory. The trade union will develop the final and detailed guide-lines on the election and functioning of the workers’ councils.”


OR BULGARIAN Syndicalists arrested by former fascists and most violent districts being working class ones in hungary and east germany - the system of unaccoutable nocklumentra from below and by the governed was a real phenomena.

She WRECKED Lenin on nationalism.

>>2654691
She wrecked the german revolution alright

>>2652787
trotsky…

>>2652802
on the contrary i know where luxemberg was wrong but you made a thread pissing on her grave without even specifying what her theoretical errors were.

>>2652918
you're not supposed to die for your cause, you're supposed to make the other guy die for his!

>>2654779
Le junius pamphlet?

>>2652779
>In every dispute/difference she had with Lenin, history demonstrated her wrong.
If you want to make that argument then history proved Lenin wrong as well in the end.

Rosa Luxembourg actually tried to do a revolution and was murdered for it. That makes her a giant vs posters like you who've done nothing and probably aren't even in a party.

>>2654823
If history proved le lenin wrong then it also proved le marx and le enfels wrong. Wtf is history proving wrong anyway?

Luxemburg literally wrecked the German Revolution and I'm supposed to ignore that just because she's a cripple and had boobs.

>>2654838
How did Luxemburg do that?

>>2654832
Exactly.

If the Tsarist regime had half the determination of the German social-democrats they would have eliminated most of the Bolsheviks in 1905.

Le opportunism was the strongest in the most developed capitalist countries.

>>2654876
its not like they did not try

>Nationalists still mad about her
Lmao

>>2652779
People being right or wrong don't cause revolutions, if the revolution was sucessful she would have be an okay at worst leader. The truth is Lenin made the mistake of thinking Germany was about to have a successful revolution when conditions in Germany were overdetermined against any real revolution at that point. The Social Democrats had already decided against revolution when they supported the war against prior international commitments, the bureaucrats that ran the party valued their own jobs over revolution so signed the death warrent before the war was even over. Rosa and Karl was just unfortunate enough to still believe that revolution was still possible and ended up dying for it.

>>2652820
>>2652820

>Le Martyrdom is sentimentality

Vulgar Materialism, the willingness to go against ones own immediate selfish interests and sacrifce your own life to help others is heroic that isn't idealism fuckwit. You are probably American and think that the only way to reach communism is by genociding so many natives you have enough stolen property to eliminate scarcity for whoever is left.

>>2654878
>Le opportunism was the strongest in the most developed capitalist countries.

It is retard, even third world countries today are doing developmental capitalism and nothing approaching communism. The revolution will come from the first world because we are closest to communist automation. (although China having a better political system might allow them to pull ahead) Getting to larp as Lenin has nothing to do with Marx's theories.

>>2652779
she was correct that the german revolution was doomed and should not have been attempted at the time it was attempted
of course, she went along with it out of obligation and was martyred as a result.

>>2655001
>the willingness to go against ones own immediate selfish interests and sacrifce your own life to help others
We are not negatively talking about risking your life to achieve a larger goal. That is fine. We are talking negatively about pointlessly sacrificing your life so some people think of you as a martyr.
>is heroic that isn't idealism
Heroism is an ideal that changes from culture to culture. Winning is the goal, not being called a hero.

>>2654691
The opposite is true. She died an irrelevant faggot's deadth.

>>2654838
'yes'

>>2654971
Useless ignorant eternally online trolll.

she was weak on the polish question. imagine not supporting independence for Poland, another Lenin W

>>2655003
When you say that you mean achieving of socialism right? Because it is not a law that it has to be a first world country where the communist party takes power first. So, i am assuming you mean revolution in a achieving of socialism sense.

>>2652817
martyring yourself is not cool.

It's like leftoids who link arms when police come and they all get arrested to 'make a point'

It's always better to NOT get caught.

>>2655133
She didnt martyr herself. She was killed while in custody.

>>2654879
>its not like they did not try
Not the anon, but I've often thought about the US prison system, how much more brutal it is than even the most absurd propaganda about the soviet gulags, and meanwhile even in Tsarist Russia, revolutionaries were often exiled to villages in Siberia where they easily escaped. Imagine if Fred Hampton were simply exiled to… idk… Alaska or something, instead of killed by the FBI. I don't want to say the Bolsheviks had it easy. They definitely didn't. But it's remarkable how many revolutionaries crucial to October 1917 were repeatedly exiled to Siberia instead of executed.

>>2655141
Maybe it has something to do with okhrana trying to infiltrate the revolutionary movement. The secret police guys dont immideately destroy movements but rather infiltrate and wait for a strugle to get to decisive phase them they do their thing

>>2655137
She could have ran after finding out the revolt failed. Instead she was hanging out in Berlin writing a manifesto. At best she was delusionally naive about her situation.

>>2655197
Maybe she would die anyway

>>2655203
>>2655197
Should've fucked off to Paris asap

>>2652779
not rly, luxembourg cooked when shitting on natlib sorry

its also hilarious how leftoids of all kinds try to reclaim her just bc shes a woman despite never reading her actual communist texts

>>2655203
It's all about probability. She had a higher chance of living if she tried to run instead of staying and having a 100% chance of being caught.

>>2652779
>In every dispute/difference she had with Lenin, history demonstrated her wrong
If you are going to make such bold claims you at least need to provide some evidence. Being able to win a revolutionary war isn't the same as achieving communism or building up socialism.
Did the USSR do that? No, it embraced state capitalism and then collapse.
The truth is we never got to see either Luxemburg's or Lenin's visions truly and correctly implemented. One was murdered by a coalition between social democrats and the far right, while Lenin died from a stroke and was replaced by an opportunistic modernizer.
So to claim either had the chance to prove their political ambitions is a nonsense.
In any case none of this takes into account that what works will of course always vary and change to an extent depending on when, where, and under what conditions communists must contend with.
The notion that what worked to achieve revolution in Russia is applicable globally and at all times is a nonsense of the worst kind of ML.

>Luxembourg mid af
Yeah she was a 6

>>2655271
>state capitalism

What did Lenin and Marx Engels say? State monopoly capitalism under proletarian party can be socialist. Money and prices were heavily detached from market mechanisms.

>>2654823
Rosa actually didn't try to make a revolution. The Spartacist league opposed a bolshevik style uprising but Liebknecht became convinced that it was the moment to rise up so he went on to chair the Revolutionary Committee in Berlin along with Ledebour and Paul Scholz. Iirc Rosa wasn't even aware of this and only found out a couple days before her death. Foolishly, Luxemburg and Liebknecht decided to not leave Berlin and hide, and they got caught and executed.

>>2655288
>capitalism […] can be socialist
I don't even have any words for this.

>>2655310
You don't even know the basics. Do not call yourself a marxist or a leninist.

>>2655310
socialism is the petit bourgeois ideology as opposed to communism the real movement

>>2655322
Has anyone here ever called themselves one?

>>2655322
You literally just wrote Capitalism = Socialism with a straight face and then told me I don't know the basics of Marxism.
I honestly couldn't imagine a bad faith troll saying something this stupid, so I will respond.

The Marxist definition of socialism is that of production for use-value, coordinated via planning of the economy, with distribution according to needs.
If you had ever even so much as read the opening sentence of Capital you would have read the following:
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity.
The contradiction here is so blatant and immediate nobody has an excuse for misunderstanding.
Production for use and production of commodities for exchange value are inherently incompatible and at odds.

Therefore fundamentally socialism and capitalism are entirely incompatible with each other.
You are a total fucking clown. What the fuck are you doing?

>>2655351
"Capitalism" without the bourgeoisie around isn't capitalism anymore. Once workers own the MoP it's the beginnings of transition to socialism aka lower stage communism. What you are describing is the higher phase of communism.

>>2655382
>Capitalism isn't capitalism if the person doing the capitalism now says he's a representative of the proletariat, then it's socialism.
Not at all how it works. You are literally just exchanging the old bourgeois for a new one.
I tried explaining it in my prior post. Capitalism and socialism isn't what colour flag the person in charge waves.
It's about whether production is done for use value or exchange value, it's about how it is distributed, it is about who controls the means of that production.
Maybe in the latest revision of Dengist-Capitalist theory actual socialism is referred to as some mythical "higher stage" while full scale capitalism with a red flag is now called the "lower stage" but that is not the Marxist understanding of socialism and capitalism at all.

>>2655382
What you are describing is phase D (as in Deng) of capitalism as described by Engels

I love the people's stock exchange! All power to CEOs, our proletarian pioneers on the economic front!

>>2655351
Fuck. Are you really not aware of Lenins direct quotations and Engels direct quotations on industrial trusts and banks under prolet. dictatorship as USSR BEING SOCIALIST?

When bank is socialized and investment decisions are decopuled from private profits, it breaks capitalist mechanisms. Most of world today is socialist - just under dictatorship of rich.

>>2655422
It is quite about who is in charge foremost. Dictatorship of proletariat and their interest, or of exploiters and their interest.

>>2655445
>Most of world today is socialist - just under dictatorship of rich

You unironically have a liberal's understanding of socialism

>>2655488
He is being ironic?

>>2655382
The terms you refer to were used differently by Marx and Engels in their original meaning. I'm pretty sure he lays out the lower phase of communism in the critique of the Gotha program, and production would be ran for use in order to classify as lower stage communism according to him. DoTP is the state capitalism phase, when the revolution had not yet taken place across enough countries. And there's no point to jerking off market socialism or dengism in 2026 because in our current moment capitalism seems to be running directly into the brick wall of declining profit rates, which any economic system based on commodity production will necessarily have to answer to. Any post-capitalist system that emerges today will have to adopt production for use in part or completely, with the consequences of failing to do that being that the condition of the working class either won't change or get worse.

>>2652787
>>2652826
>>2652872
she was 14 when she wrote this btw

>>2652834
Thank you based DDRposter

>>2658182
zamn???????

>>2655422
>Maybe in the latest revision of Dengist-Capitalist theory actual socialism is referred to as some mythical "higher stage" while full scale capitalism with a red flag is now called the "lower stage" but that is not the Marxist understanding of socialism and capitalism at all.

Uh oh, dogmatism:

<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.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm


<Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847

<To my mind, the so-called “socialist society” is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible. That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies.

Engels, Letter to Otto Von Boenigk In Breslau, August 21, 1890

<Before the victory of the proletariat, reforms are a by product of the revolutionary class struggle. After the victory (while still remaining a “by-product” on an international scale) they are, in addition, for the country in which victory has been achieved, a necessary and legitimate breathing space when, after the utmost exertion of effort, it becomes obvious that sufficient strength is lacking for the revolutionary accomplishment of some transition or another.

Lenin, The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism, November 5 1921

<We often say that our republic is a socialist one. Does this mean that we have already achieved socialism, done away with classes and abolished the state (for the achievement of socialism implies the withering away of the state)? Or does it mean that classes, the state, and so on, will still exist under socialism? Obviously not. Are we entitled in that case to call our republic a socialist one? Of course, we are. From what standpoint? From the standpoint of our determination and our readiness to achieve socialism, to do away with classes, etc.

Stalin, Reply to Kushytev, 1928

<Once power has been conquered, the task of construction, above all in economy, becomes posed as the key and, at the same time, the most difficult task. The solution of this task depends upon factors of different orders and varying scope: First, the level to which the productive forces have been developed and in particular the reciprocal relation between industry and agriculture. Second, the general cultural and organizational level of the working class which has conquered state power. Third, the political situation internationally and nationally, namely – whether the bourgeoisie has been defeated decisively or still continues to resist; whether foreign military interventions are underway; whether the technological intelligentsia engages in sabotage, and so forth.

Trotsky, The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia and the Perspectives of the World Revolution, 1922

<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.

Mao Zedong, The Present Situation and Our Tasks, 25th December, 1947.

<The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state.

Mao Zedong, On State Capitalism, July 9th, 1953

<“I am convinced that more and more people will come to believe in Marxism, because it is a science. Using historical materialism, it has uncovered the laws governing the development of human society. Feudal society replaced slave society, capitalism supplanted feudalism, and, after a long time, socialism will necessarily supersede capitalism. This is an irreversible general trend of historical development, but the road has many twists and turns. Over the several centuries that it took for capitalism to replace feudalism, how many times were monarchies restored! So, in a sense, temporary restorations are usual and can hardly be avoided. Some countries have suffered major setbacks, and socialism appears to have been weakened. But the people have been tempered by the setbacks and have drawn lessons from them, and that will make socialism develop in a healthier direction. So don't panic, don't think that Marxism has disappeared, that it's not useful any more and that it has been defeated. Nothing of the sort!”

Deng Xiaoping, Excerpts From Talks Given In Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai And Shanghai, 1992


<Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, it is a guide to action and a creative theory. So, Marxism-Leninism can display its indestructible vitality only when it is applied creatively to suit the specific conditions of each country. The same applies to the experience of the fraternal parties. It will prove valuable to us only when we make a study of it, grasp its essence and properly apply it to our realities. Instead, if we just gulp it down and spoil our work, it will not only harm our work but also lead to discrediting the valuable experience of the fraternal parties.

Kim Il Sung, On eliminating dogmatism and formalism and establishing Juche in ideological work, Speech to Party Propagandists and Agitators December 28, 1955

<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.

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875

<Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience […] the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood. When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working-class socialists of that period could join it – Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists and even the more advanced section of the English Trades Unions; and it was only through this latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and absorbing all these minor sects, […] Had we from 1864, to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform where should we be to-day? I think that all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organisation […]

Friedrich Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, January 27, 1887

>>2658249
>Quotes from Marx and Engels that don't actually address or rebuke any of the points I made
>Quotes from every revisionist, moderniser and falsifier of Marxism under the sun on how actually abandoning any notion of socialism is good actually
>Literally straight up quoting Deng in response to being called a Dengist
Great job

>overrated
history is not a fucking anime you turbo retard

>>2655422
>You are literally just exchanging the old bourgeois for a new one.
No, because bureaucrats don't own the MOP personally but only as part of the Working Class as a class. They are simply workers who manage things and can be replaced by other worker at any point.
>it is about who controls the means of that production.
Wrong, it's about who OWNS the means of production.
>some mythical "higher stage"
Why would Marx made up this "myth" in Critique of the Gotha Program?
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>2656821
>The terms you refer to were used differently by Marx and Engels in their original meaning.
Marx and Engels used communism and socialism interchangeably. So that means Marx had at least 4 multi worded terms to describe only 2 different stages of communism (lower stage communism/lower stage socialism and higher stage communism/higher stage socialism). Lenin simplified it to 2 single word terms (Socialism and Communism).
It amazes me how Leftcoms have been pretending to be confused at this for over a century at this point.
>he lays out the lower phase of communism in the critique of the Gotha program.
He doesn't. He leaves it vague:
<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.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Notice he doesn't specify what exactly is left over from capitalist society in this lower stage.

>>2658182
does kinda sound like teen fanfics lmao

>>2655382
>"Capitalism" without the bourgeoisie around isn't capitalism anymore. Once workers own the MoP it's the beginnings of transition to socialism aka lower stage communism. What you are describing is the higher phase of communism.

Marx and Lenin both explicitly say so but people on here get mad when you point this out LOL. If they don't like it they should just abandon Marxism Leninism and come up with their own ideology founded on different principles: >>2658249


>>2658282
1. they do address your "points" no matter how much you insist they don't
2. with the exception of Trotsky, nobody I quoted is a revisionist, modernizer, or falsifier. and the quote I dropped from Trotsky is still correct anyway despite his problems. Same with Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, or whoever else you may apply these labels to.
3. Deng was right and I will quote him because Deng was Marxist-Leninist.

>>2652779
Jewish privilege

>>2655351
>>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity.
from this it doesnt follow that any society where there is commodity production for exchange value is capitalist
you should read a logic introduction before getting into more complex works like capital

>>2655102
why would a jew want an independent poland? her people benefited from being a proxy between an occupying force and the natives