/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Undeniably TRVE
Everyone needs to read more stalin

everybody loves young stalin

Nah, fuck you and your dead men

Oh my fucking god maybe you should actually read him rather than just two propaganda qoutes.

>Anyone who has ever uttered the word "campist" or has said something like "why would I support Russia against NATO
Stalin was a revolutionary defeatist who fought against the Russian imperialist bourgeois during WW1. In what fucking universe would he support the Russian imperialist bourgeois in the modern imperialist war. READ LENIN AND STALIN NOW.

>>2753206
There’s only one empire and only one imperialism you epsteinite ultra baby boiling FAGGOT, fuck you and fuck Gonzalo

>>2753206
>Russian imperialist
Epsteinite detected, there is no such thing as russian imperialism bozo

>>2753147

Very true OP heres another trvthnvke that will melt the skin off of trots, ultras and other degens

As the class struggle within a nation is waged for the readjustment of
unequal distinctions, so war between nations for an honorable cause
will reform the present unjust distinctions. The British Empire is a
millionaire possessing wealth all over the world; and Russia is a great
landowner in occupation of the northern half of the globe. China with
her undeveloped productive forces is one of the proletariat, and she has
the right to declare war on the big monopoly powers. The socialists
of the West contradict themselves when they admit the right of class
struggle to the proletariat at home and at the same time condemn
war, waged by a proletariat among nations, as militarism and
aggression . . . If it is permissible for the working class to unite to
overthrow unjust authority by bloodshed, then unconditional ap
proval ' should be given to China to perfect her army and navy and
make war for the rectification of unjust international frontiers. In the
name of rational scientific socialism China claims possession of Australia
and Eastern Siberia.
-Deng Xiaoping 1980

>>2753207
yet another trvthnvke that will be denied by the treatlerite firsties, we are at a new stage of global imperialism under NATO, an Ultra-imperialism if you will.

>>2753147
I suggest using quotes from Lenin as propaganda to convince the masses of the Marxist anti-imperialist position, to have a similar effect more effectively. Here are the most relevant ones for me, starting with what imperialist capitalism is:

<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Now let's look at his position on the types of countries as examples at the time Lenin wrote about the self-determination of nations and capitalist imperialism:

<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations
<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:

<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.

<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.

<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.

<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01

Now regarding the issue of wars and the opportunists who obscure the truth by trying to defend imperialist capitalist finance capital that maintains dependency to intensify exploitation. I'm only posting this to avoid confusion if someone is reading what I wrote trying to equate the war of a puppet of imperialist capitalism that uses chauvinism against the Russian population with the right of Palestinians to use violence against Israel to acquire economic sovereignty:

<In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war “defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the war.

<A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/1.htm#v23pp64h-029

Now a text against those opportunists who equate every war as if it were "inter-imperialist" to defend US hegemony:

<Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated phenomena possible in a given era.

<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/2.htm#v23pp64h-036

With all this, it's clear that financing from foreign financial capital is intolerable for any observer or audience in the imperialist core, regardless of whether the puppet of capitalist imperialism collapses or the consequences of this, which will in any case be beneficial for the communist cause, having fewer obstacles to consolidate power.

>>2753147
sorry but i'm not dying for the national bourgeoisie of some third world shithole
give me global communism or fuck off

>>2753391
Westoid proles will establish communism on your land and have you killed and enslaved to boost their extravegent lifestyles, they’re the existential threat, not your own bourgeois which at least needs you alive to exploit you

>>2753391
GIVAS GLOBAL CAMMUNISM
no wonder the western leftist upholds ukkkraine

>>2753391
you VVILL praise ovr great leader mojtaba, the lenin of the iZlamic revolution

>>2753147
Stalin:
>The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism… For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite their opposition to socialism.
Meanwhile Lenin:
> But this Kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.

>>2753805
When Lenin refers to reactionary classes, he is referring to aristocrats who are already integrating themselves in some way with capitalist imperialism in their collaboration, or who fantasize with the clergy about some pre-capitalist economic order of feudal privileges. A country gaining independence and wanting to maintain a developed national bourgeois economy is already progressive compared to a neocolony; if it uses state capitalism, then this act is even more progressive for communists. If you are using Iran as an example in your argument, then you are wrong because Iran has a developed capitalist economy to a certain extent, even with the sanctions, and has a more progressive interest in the Middle East compared to the Gulf monarchies and puppet governments collaborating with American hegemony.

>>2753147
>first quote
>yeah so like there's this shoemaker right
>and he wants to run his own shop right
>but he just can't compete with Big Shoemakers
>so he temporarily shuts down shop so he can work for his competitors
>but only long enough that he can save some scratch to get things up and running
>only he finds out that he gets paid a pittance
>and then he starts thinking to himself that he'd be fine with his slavery as long as he got a few extra good boy points along the way
>so he joins a picket line with his fellow slaves and together they summon captain planet
ok but here's the thing: I don't want to be a wageslave. I will work to support society, provided that the work can't be automated and is a necessary task whose completion the functioning of society requires, but I won't be thrilled about it. that's a necessary evil and I should be adequately compensated and jerked off for my contributions to society.

so basically if we take the means of production and fuck on capitalist fat cats by instead distributing their pile of gold so that we can build infrastructure and gibs people free healthcare, then that makes more sense to me.
>second quote
>yeah so like it doesn't matter who's fighting and what they believe
>all that really matters is whether or not they're taking steps toward defeating imperialism
nah sorry senpai but I don't buy it, I think the outcome of any given military campaign is going to rest very firmly on the intentions of those who are waging it and their vision for a particular outcome that arises as a result of the toppling of their foes. as they say, history is penned by the victor, and so it is true of society.

idk brah I'm a retard, what do I know, but this is what makes sense to me.

>>2753453
Lenin turquic confirmed

>>2753828
He literally said that the Emir of Afghanistan was “progressive” even though he was a literal monarchist because he was fighting imperialism. Apparently, any force that opposes imperialism is automatically “revolutionary” solely by virtue of opposing imperialism, according to Stalin. You can’t get any further away from Leninism than this.

>>2753886
You should read this post
>>2753362

>>2753861
But he’s the guy who created Armenian SSR, laying the groundwork for ethnic cleansing there later

>>2753391
Based and true

Stalin sucks. Read permanent revolution instead

>>2753210
Kill yourself jewish negro, stupid orientophile animal

>>2753241
>>2753207
Kill yourself thirdiephile

>>2753936
If you think that Trotsky will have sympathy with opportunists who do not defend the self-determination of nations and are lackeys of financial capitalism invading their own country then I will give you this quote to prove you wrong:

<In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!

<Leon Trotsky, Anti-Imperialist Struggle Is Key to Liberation, An Interview with Mateo Fossa (September 1938)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm

>>2753940
you are revisionist. you are infantile leftcom. read lenin and become communist treatlerite.
>What Marx said of capitalism can also be applied to imperialism: monopoly creates competition and competition monopoly. The frantic competition of giant firms, giant banks and multi-millionaires obliged the great financial groups, who were absorbing the small ones, to think up the notion of the cartel. In the same way, the result of the World War between the great imperialist powers may be a federation of the strongest, who renounce their arms race.

>Hence from the purely economic standpoint it is not impossible that capitalism may still Jive through another phase, the translation of cartellization into foreign policy: a phase of ultra-imperialism, which of course we must struggle against as energetically as we do against imperialism, but whose perils lie in another direction, not in that of the arms race and the threat to world peace.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm

>>2753975
Treatlers don't exist you fucking plebbitor, your analysis of society is based on memes you terminally online jewish negro

>>2753959
>"self-determination of nations"…to be a monarchy
lol more like self-determination of the feudal lords. what swill.

>>2753240
based. give china australia NOW

>>2753856
>I will work to support society, provided that the work can't be automated
lol you will work to survive, and the work will be automated eventually. why? because that's how it has always worked.

>>2753210
Russia is an imperailsit oiwer w3aging war against the sovereign natioan of Ukraine because they needed to keep their capital in Ukraine but Ukraine in 2014 said no we want to be with Europe. Shut up moron and read Lenin

>>2753147
We posting Stalin now?

>>2753147
In semi-feudal and colonial conditions such positions made sense but in current reality supporting national bourgeoise in their struggle is just pointless, why proletarians should throw their struggle in name of endless national liberations when in reality these don't even actually bring proletarians closer to DoTP instead it just builds capital of some shitholes in endless struggle for building imperial potential.

<“Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery called “capitalism”, but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world. and the people suffer.” - Gaddafi

ALL HAIL (THIRD WORLD) NATIONAL-LASSALLEANISM!

>>2754116
Incorrect. A country with its own national industry that uses state capitalism is superior to a primary-exporting economy controlled by collaborators in a vicious cycle of debt and austerity, indebted to financial capital and subservient to American hegemony.

If a country is in conflict with another country for bringing destabilization through collaboration with US hegemony in the Middle East, as is the case with Iran, then it is the right of nations to self-determination to control their independent economy if other countries in the imperialist core wish to transform this country into a neocolony. The Gulf monarchies collaborate with US hegemony and have their entire bourgeoisie integrated into it, using reactionaries and controlling them to prevent questioning of collaboration with US and European financial capital and to normalize relations behind closed doors with Israel.

The point Trotsky makes regarding Vargas's government, which was temporarily developing a limited independent national industry at the time, is that if a conflict arises with the British Empire, a British victory, placing a puppet and reverting the entire industry to a neocolony, would go against the interests of communists and workers. Seizing the means of production in Brazil would be impossible, as it would be a neocolony receiving aid from global finance capital to silence workers and intensify their exploitation, strengthening the dominance of finance capital over workers worldwide. A defeat of the British Empire would weaken the bourgeoisie in both countries, forcing them to make concessions to workers, and would further weaken the British bourgeoisie, benefiting workers in the peripheries of the world and the colony, along with subjugated peoples with fewer rights who would demand more rights for themselves or rebel. In Britain itself, with its native workers, this would signify an intensification of the class struggle for the benefit of the communist cause.

Self-determination of nations means defending the economic sovereignty of other countries. This means that financial capital will face opposition in creating dependence on financial capital. This means opposing the interests of monarchies, which almost always do not have antagonistic relations with financial capital if you analyze them historically. But in the case where the national bourgeoisie of a monarchy goes against the interests of imperialist capitalism, I don't think a monarchy will last because the nobility would not be able to maintain its private property in a stable way. A colony becoming independent with a monarchy will be easily overthrown by the military to form a military junta or a republic of some kind that will encourage the country's population to no longer have collaborators in the nobility who serve the West, which will create useful instability. Did you forget that reactionary forces like landowners were absorbed as agents of financial capital? When Stalin speaks of the Emir in Afghanistan, he didn't say feudal lords, but rather the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie of Afghanistan.

>>2753362
but chuddies can't read

>>2754189
Incorrect. Ukraine suffered a coup by financial capital in 2014, feeding off foreign-funded puppets to persecute workers, trade unionists, and communists, and submitting to foreign financial capital through chauvinistic propaganda of Ukrainian supremacy and repression and persecution of linguistic minorities with prejudices of Nazi collaborators who continued to be funded as puppets by US hegemony, as lackeys of financial capital fantasizing about the West as superior. The Ukrainian Communist Party is in exile in Belarus, and for it to return, the Ukrainian government must be destroyed, all laws related to Euromaidan must be repealed, all those involved must be arrested, and the circulation of capital interrupted by chauvinism that alienated the Russian bourgeoisie must end so that this post-collapse Ukrainian government is weak, unable to demonize the Soviets or use anti-Russian chauvinistic rhetoric, so that it is weak enough to strengthen communists who will receive easier concessions.

The Russian population has had the right to separatism since the Maidan coup removed the rights that existed since Soviet Ukraine, just as the Irish had the right to separate from the British Empire because English chauvinism prevented the workers from uniting into a socialist state, so that in the future a socialist federation could form between the two with more egalitarian relations.

The Marxist position is to cut off all money, loans, and weapons that maintain puppets of financial capital abroad without exception. This includes Ukraine, which is the epitome of everything I hate about liberals and reactionaries who tried to do in my country to create a puppet with a friendly face to the outside world, persecuting any anti-imperialist workers' organization against US hegemony.

>>2753362
>I suggest using quotes from Lenin
i agree i think lenin is better and clearer more precise and more likely to be accepted. but i also think stalin is simpler and easy to understand and its critical for people to break out of anti-stalin conditioning and realize he was a good theorist too.

>>2753391
nationalism is a prerequisite for internationalism. global communism is actually existing united nations

>>2753856
>ok but here's the thing: I don't want to be a wageslave. I will work to support society, provided that the work can't be automated and is a necessary task..
yeah no one does
>so basically if we take the means of production and fuck on capitalist fat cats by instead distributing their pile of gold
ok yeah
>so that we can build infrastructure and gibs people free healthcare, then that makes more sense to me.
you even understand we have to build the productive forces! good
>nah sorry senpai but I don't buy it
sovereignty is required for building productive forces, productive forces are required for free healthcare. the chinese 9-9-5 doesnt like going to work either but at least his society improves in his lifetime.

at least if the argument is to take porkies shit and just redistribute it is there enough productive forces to satisfy basic needs? in your country? a first world one? maybe. maybe not today anymore, maybe they have no factory. it depends. in an underdevelop one? no they need a period of decades even to build productive forces? but maybe world has enough productive forces? then overthrow the first world and share! why is it on third world to do your rev for you when they dont have enough. they have to build their own while fighting your borg on top

>>2753886
>any force that opposes imperialism is automatically “revolutionary” solely by virtue of opposing imperialism, according to Stalin.
pretty close to truke
>You can’t get any further away from Leninism than this
how so

>>2754671
idk what your implying

>>2754554
>A country with its own national industry that uses state capitalism is superior to a primary-exporting economy controlled by collaborators in a vicious cycle of debt and austerity, indebted to financial capital and subservient to American hegemony.
Name a single country that ha done this
Even the USSR trades with the west

Fucking fraud.

>>2754730
>wait until the entirety of the planet turn communist all at once
Meme

>>2754730
>borders are the logical conclusion of private apropiation
correct, and the only way out is through, not a return to tradition you fucking reactionary

>>2754727
Every country isolated by sanctions will develop independently. State capitalism is an instrument used more in the past in capitalist countries; it is also used in countries at war, but its use is taboo due to the neoclassical orthodoxy of current economists who want to normalize austerity, privatizations, and deregulation, seeking to separate politics from economics, which is a pretext to hand everything over to financialization by finance capital.

The exchange of goods is not the same as submitting to the debts and blackmail of imperialist capitalism to sell your entire country to finance capital, nor is it the same as selling goods to profit in the market. State capitalism is superior to private capitalism, and you can see this being used in dictatorships of the proletariat as an instrument to facilitate nationalizations, expropriations, collectivization, and socialization to begin to have a socialist economy in these countries of the past. State capitalism was used by nationalists and national liberation movements in the Third World during the Cold War to nationalize banks and natural resources, as well as to prepare an economic sector of cooperatives. This is progressive, but state capitalism suffers from all the problems existing in private capitalism. Therefore, it is better to use it to prepare cooperatives if there is a backward part of the peasant population producing on a small scale to facilitate collective work in cooperatives.

You just have to remember that the socialist economy is superior to state capitalism, and state capitalism is superior to private capitalism and small-scale commodity production. An independent country to develop its economy and industry is better for communists because it equalizes the relationship between countries, making it difficult for capitalist imperialism and the hegemony of finance capital to organize against communists.

Both the Vargas government in Brazil, which Trotsky referred to, many bourgeois democracies during the Cold War, and the Ba'athist movements used state capitalism. This isn't something reformists can't do, but in current times, with the financialization of the economy, it will likely face opposition from almost the entire bourgeoisie, which only cares about speculating with fictitious, unproductive capital.

Communists are those who can use state capitalism in a better way, and the revolutionary workers' movement needs to be independent of the bourgeoisie, always with an anti-imperialist stance, to cut off funding so that all puppet countries of finance capital collapse. The end of the bourgeois state shouldn't be prioritized because the goal of the revolution will be to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. If there's no way to unite the workers for a socialist state due to ethnic and linguistic chauvinism, then separatism and autonomy are acceptable options so that a socialist federation can be formed in the future, following the Irish question as Lenin put it.

Do you think your distorted narrative of using the false discourse of "trade" to disguise the reactionary coup government of Ukraine as a puppet serving as a friendly face abroad, while the neo-Nazi puppets of finance capital use repression to normalize, privatize, deregulate, and financialize the economy, can fool me? The government of Ukraine must be destroyed, and any party that calls itself "leftist" or claims to serve the workers that doesn't accept this must also be destroyed.

You are the fraud, trying to co-opt the masses into conciliation with finance capital in defense of "democracy" or "freedom," which I take pleasure in destroying.

>>2754741
Are you stupid? OP is the retard advocating for revolution in one country

>>2754739
>Wait until one country becomes "communist" and then degenerates into state capitalism
Flawless strategy

>>2753147
No. I absolutely refuse to be a campist, that line of thinking can be used to delay ever creating a socialist state under the pretext of fighting an ever-present imperial threat. You must overthrow domestic elites whether there's an external threat or not.

>>2753147
The interesting thing about Stalin is that the more you let go of ingrained propaganda against him, the more it becomes clear that he and the government he ran were entirely reasonable. Perhaps the most reasonable politician to ever live, it was really the world that was erratic. I would have loved to watch cowboy movies with the guy

>>2754888
>>2754890
Revolution can occur in a country or a group of countries when communists prepare the workers by building dual power so that when the conditions for a revolutionary situation arise, there is organization for a communist revolution to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat. Seeking the perfect moment, hoping that reality will change for a global revolution, is idealism; this does not depend on any nationalism whatsoever.

Let's take a quote from Lenin talking about this:

<A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.

<Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

<V. I. Lenin, 1915, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

Furthermore, Engels himself tells the proletariat to assume power without waiting for capitalism to destroy small peasant production:

<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us no reason to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its extreme consequences, until the last small craftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.

<Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm

>>2754913
>j-jewish nigger
not an argument, he posted facts you ignore, dilate harder.

>>2754910
Incorrect, this happened with Iran; it simply depends on how much a government is willing to use state capitalism. Furthermore, the less imperialist capitalism manages to organize internationally to isolate and suppress its order—which currently would mean capitalists integrating with US hegemony—the more opportunities there will be for communists to act in the chaos. Communists must act for the supremacy of the proletariat, even if it goes against the will of the majority and brings suffering through the intensification of class struggle.

Many governments do not seize opportunities for sanctions because they are complacent and do not follow scientific socialism to achieve the supremacy of the proletariat. However, resistance to the control of finance capital will receive my defense, following the anti-imperialist principles of cutting off all funding to lackeys of finance capital abroad and opposing any capitalist imperialist offensive to expand markets and intensify the exploitation of workers. My position will cause the profit rate to decrease, the world to descend into chaos, giving space for communists to act and organize, and demonstrating the superiority of state capitalism over private capitalism and neoliberalism, with crises increasing and class struggle intensifying.

Everything for me is an opportunity that normally frightens other people; the difference is being prepared to do what needs to be done, no matter how much you are hated and demonized. In any case, if there is a situation of advancing financial capital in an attack against the economic sovereignty of a country, it will receive my opposition. If this country is moving towards multipolarity, then it will receive a positive point from me, as long as it is useful in preventing future coordinated sanctions.

Don't forget that all past communist revolutions had to exist under sanctions, and this is no obstacle to acquiring financial, technological, food, energy, industrial sovereignty—that is, economic sovereignty—by socializing the economy and, without relying on patents, achieving the means to create independent national technology in various ways to achieve technological independence, even if it requires exchanges, bribes, reverse engineering, or other means. Do you think there won't be sanctions when there's a communist revolution? Of course there will be, but that's why capitalists can't be globally united to diminish the effectiveness of these sanctions. The entire population that resists the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, dreaming of the West, will be punished as counter-revolutionaries accordingly.

>>2754955
At no point did I argue in favor of nationalism, because national liberation, self-determination of nations, and economic sovereignty have nothing to do with it. I only perceived the false discourse between you and another person trying to co-opt the workers to reconcile with the bourgeoisie through different superstitions about the state. The proletariat must have its own revolutionary workers' party independent of the bourgeoisie, and I am confronting who is a greater threat to possibly co-opting the masses who are reading this, potentially deceiving them into serving the financial capital that needs my intervention to be stopped. Apologies for the Ukrainian coup government or fantasies that feudalism exists in the present time are lies and a serious threat to me.

>>2754977
>Incorrect, this happened with Iran
You mean the currently-being-bombed Iran? The Iran that persecuted communists?
Sure showed me

>>2754973
Gb2 /pol/

>>2755110
ok bookclub libtard, more non arguments.

>>2755114
You are an idealist

>>2755137
Ironic from someone who thinks internationalism can spring out of nowhere, simultaneously across extremely varied state of poverty and material conditions, and if it doesn't it's just going to relapse into capitalism, this is for sure something that has any future (if you can convince a literal god to do it I guess)

>>2754910
kim says hello
>>2754977
>this happened with Iran
truke alert
>>2754955
>"nationalist liberation" is liberal drivel.
<"the appraisal of each concrete question"
<"and assesses any national demand… from the angle of the workers' class struggle"

>>2755110
Iran itself is an example; over the years, it doesn't matter if it persecutes communists because this is common in other bourgeois states. If it's being bombed, it's yet another opportunity to bring about global destabilization and develop independently. I would find any pretext to carry out expropriations and eliminate lackeys of finance capital. Iran has the right to nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and to resist submission to American finance capital, weakening the hegemony of the dollar and advancing multipolarity by not making exchanges in dollars is another bonus. This is the perfect opportunity for me to spread propaganda in my country about the need to control oil prices and its derivatives in their distribution through nationalizations and the use of state-owned companies for production for the domestic market. The opportunity to spread propaganda about the need to nationalize all banks is a bonus for me.

Not to mention the purges of lackeys of finance capitalism that can be carried out, which make me dream of the fear and terror that can be inflicted on liberals and class conciliators. The best martyr a person can be is fighting against financial capitalism and against capitalism in general, but the deaths caused by the bombing of American hegemony are in the hands of the capitalist class, which has an interest in this war to subdue Iran to American hegemony or simply to profit by enriching itself through the war. In any case, the prolongation of this war means that the United States is focusing on the unproductive production of weapons for war, targeting Iran instead of my country. To give up and submit is treason, and I have no tolerance for cowards who do not desire power for the supremacy of the proletariat and the defense of economic sovereignty, regardless of the necessary suffering or sacrifices so that financial capital does not profit and the masses do not become complacent.

You think I have a sentimental attachment to your discourse of persecuting communists; a communist opposition must be the left in relation to the country. If conservatives intervene in a bank, communists should demand control of all banks and more politics in everything. If there are nationalizations, it is an opportunity for nationalizations without compensation. Accepting submission to finance capital because the people suffer to resist imperialist capitalism is unacceptable, and I would eliminate every communist and traitorous worker who shows weakness in submitting to finance capital, even if I have to sacrifice the entire planet's population.

>>2755137
you are a pseudo with delusions trying to project.

Russia is imperialist though, they do finance capital and all that just fine, they're just not in the top dog camp, but germany wasn't either during the world wars.

>>2754668
>>any force that opposes imperialism is automatically “revolutionary” solely by virtue of opposing imperialism, according to Stalin.
>pretty close to truke
Except it’s obviously wrong and runs completely counter to what Lenin said. By that logic, reactionary feudal socialists are also “revolutionaries” because they oppose imperialism and capitalism.

>>2755171
Wrong. Russia has an extractive capitalist economy dependent on oil sales. This country had an interest in integrating itself as a member of imperialist capitalism, joining the major countries and being treated with the same privileges, but the imperialist capitalist order of the hegemony of the United States and Europe only wants to turn it into a primary-exporting neocolony. The material conditions do not allow Russia to join the imperialist capitalist order, and Russian capitalism is isolated with punishments for not submitting. Furthermore, many of the puppets of financial capitalism in Eastern Europe depend on a whole apparatus of reactionaries and capitalists who profited from jingoism against the Soviet Union, which has now been used against present-day Russia. Belarus shelters the Ukrainian Communist Party, which is exiled by Ukraine by the Euromaidan coup plotters who glorify Nazi collaborators.

Russia does not demonize the Soviets, unlike the reactionaries in the European Union and Ukraine. Furthermore, the destruction of NATO and the European Union serves the communist cause, since both organizations are against the communist objective of having a non-independent public national bank with its own currency, and both organizations serve the interests of capitalists to prevent communists from taking power.
The demands for the withdrawal of Ukrainian chauvinism and the demonization of Russians, shared with communists against the Ukrainian government, I would say that the demands of communists are harsher than those of Russian capitalists against Ukraine. Ukraine is a puppet of finance capital that reactionaries and liberals in my country have tried to replicate in my country, and a combination of everything I hate, any similar puppet government deserves to be destroyed. If you are in the imperialist core, you must sabotage and block any arms production for Ukraine, Israel, or any puppet of finance capital; often what is produced for one of them will go to another anyway. If Ukraine were replicated in my country, I would do everything to destroy this puppet government in my country, even if I had to eliminate the entire population.

Ukraine is the puppet country receiving weapons, loans, and aid to justify austerity in the imperialist core; its support must be cut off immediately, along with all the puppets of finance capital. There should be no sympathy whatsoever for this government, and any so-called party that claims to represent the workers that does not follow this must be destroyed without scruples.

>>2755205
Russia is a creditor nation with net immigration. If the imperial periphery is the country and the imperial core is the town then Russia is a small town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Russia

>>2755211
Financial capital in Russia is very underdeveloped, as I have observed, always remaining on the margins in tax havens coupled to and dependent on the Western capitalist market, since it lacks control over international organizations to demand discipline from financial capital in other countries. The banking sector, almost entirely made up of state-controlled banks that do limited international lending, means Russia does not export capital. It exports commodities and resources. The use of a state bank to employ state capitalism as an economic measure is something I advocate for in all countries because it is useful for socializing the economy in the future and directing the economy.

I say this following Lenin's definition of imperialist capitalism:

<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and financial capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

And Michael Roberts' article analyzing this in "Further Thoughts on the Economics of Imperialism":

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/further-thoughts-on-the-economics-of-imperialism/

In any case, it is Ukraine that is being financed with weapons and loans, and this does not change the obligation to cut off all funding there, or any puppet of finance capital, no matter how much you are hated, so that these puppets collapse and the communist cause can advance with the return of the Ukrainian Communist Party as it was before Euromaidan, able to have influence in this bourgeois state as it was before.

Remembering that The Communist Party of Ukraine had 13% of the vote before the coup, when the left was seen as the main enemy immediately, even though this party was protesting at the time without Ukrainian chauvinism and racism against Russians, without glorifying the European Union, NATO and the IMF, with the defense of the country's economic sovereignty, state-owned enterprises, cooperative sector, workers' rights, the legacy of the Soviet Union and solidarity among workers of other countries uniting with neutrality and with a desire to restore the Soviet Union. The general secretary of the party Petro Symonenko has long been exiled in Belarus due to persecution.

>>2755203
>what Lenin said
what do you think he said
>reactionary feudal socialists
things that dont exist?

>>2753147
But antiimperialism is a sham and a humbug according to lenin

>>2755317
pol pot, and the 16th century peasant rebellions never happened?

>>2753975
good meme. I assume you're joking.

>>2753975
since this place is dense as a rock though, this is literally a Kautsky quote and from a book Lenin criticized heavily.

>>2754668
>pretty close to truke
what was revolutionary about that? the emir by resisting imperialism allowed afghanistan to stagnate, while its neighbors are all large industrial bases, modern afghanistan is a barely functioning, bombed out state that is functionally an agrarian society

>>2755403
>the -stan countries have a large industrial base
first time I hear about that,and if they got imperialised they would have stayed agrarian anyway since the country was made up to grow poppies

>>2755149
>a feuudal lord says hello
sure showed me

>>2755428
every country bordering afghanistan is more successful than it, iran, tajikistan, uzbekistan, turkmenistan, pakistan, even china, also i don't think it would have, afghanistan had (and has) a remarkably large population and an enevironment in which industry would be superior to agriculture

>>2755433
Hows kim a feudal lord?