Can we stop pretending that Stalinism is a leftist ideology? Stalin transformed the USSR into a reactionary state-capitalist shithole that retained nothing of the Left.
Just read posts by Stalinists - they are indistinguishable from Nazi ones, if you set aside the leftist terminology.
>Inb4 this get deleted and you banned by the zigger mods
>>2893671It's a dogshit bait thread. OP asserts that "stalinists" are nazis, that "the left" was totally absent in the USSR and that the USSR was reactionary without a single thing to back it all up. Vagueposting strikes again
>>2893668Stalinism isn't really a thing. Cutting the USSR up in this fashion is just a way for everyone to take what they like and leave what they don't from an attempt at building socialism that ultimately failed. It failed beautifully, it had some fun stuff going for it even when it had clearly long since lost sight of any lofty goals and been taken over by the sort of people who just want to bumble through today, but it failed and its failures were inherent to its structure, its material conditions, and its administration. You cannot pick-and-choose: Stalinism flows directly from Leninism. There is no "what if Trotsky had…", "What if Rosa had…", we do not live in "what ifs"
(But, before Stalinists gloat, we must remember that it follows from this that Khrushchev and Gorbachev flow directly from Stalinism…)
You’re not going far enough, every flaw and atrocity or whatever in the Soviet Union is embedded within Marx and his works.
it goes back further than stalinism, leninism was basically the same thing, a minority right-wing deviation which arose in what was initially a majority left-wing socialist movement. the so-called "bolshevik revolution" wasn't really a popular revolution, it was a coup d'etat. what started off as a popular socialist movement by the people was commandeered by an elitist wealthy intellectual vanguard who, through clever political maneuvering, established themselves as the leaders of the movement and staged a coup wherein they replaced the old ruling class and became the new ruling class, then rewrote history so that they were the leaders of the movement from the beginning. trotsky was one of the insiders who spoke critically of this and as a result he was excommunicated and vilified as a traitor and fascist sympathizer and was later brained with an ice pick by a hitman in mexico.
>>2893703It goes back to the first international
>>2893714basically any time you get some person trying to say "hey everyone shut up and listen to me, i'm the smart one and i've got it all figured out" and you don't immediately tar and feather that person and run them out on a rail, the revolution is fucked.
>>2893741August Wilich should have murdered Marx, we’d be living in communism now if he did so
>>2893763Willich freed the slaves and killed dixies
>>2893770Because bolshevists and liberals always team up to squash actual communists
>>2893770>successfulYeah look at all these succesful Bolshevik led countries, much success. I can't go outside without seeing a succesful communist revolution led by Bolsheviks.
>>2893772>actual communistsPlease show me these actual communists so I can measure their success.
>>2893782The USA is the biggest Marxist success story and also boring hell
>>2893783They get killed by marxists before they even write a word or do anything
>>2893786So how do you even know they are communists? They can be lolberts for all you know.
>>2893785>USA>Marxist success storyI mean if doing the opposite of marxism is marxism then sure. The only thing I will agree with is yes, the USA is very boring because everything is a psyop or game. Fake and ghey in otherwords.
>>2893782Comparing the roman empire to the USSR is hilarious, it's not only stupid but the roman empire lasted for more then a millenium, what do you think this proves? I don't know anything about the Macedonian empire, so ok sure i guess.
I never said anything about any commune or anarchism, so i'm not sure why you would bring that up except for getting mad at phantoms in you're head.
Just out of curiousity, were you an active /pol/ user?
>>2893789Marxism commands developing capitalism as much as possible until its exhaustion, making Chimerica (China and America, which have been one country since before the death of Mao) the ultimate Marxist practitioners, what Marx didn’t predict was capitalism’s ability to absorb and pacify the supposed working class, or that revolution is an inherently liberal event.
>>2893801>what Marx didn’t predict was capitalism’s ability to absorb and pacify the supposed working classWhat is blud on about?
>or that revolution is an inherently liberal event.>only liberalism can be revolutionary Libshit centrism back at it again
>>2893803Noam Chomsky the anarcho-syndicalist is pic related?
>>2893804Every revolution so far has only produced liberalism, 1991 was hard coded into 1917
>>2893770The bolshevik form of revolutionary organization and agigation is very effective.
The bolshevik form of governance? Only sucessfull of robbing the workers of the means of production and then selling out to capitalism for 678884th time in a row.
>>2893797>the roman empire lasted for more then a milleniumTime was slower back then. Decades in weeks, weeks in decades etc. Point being that just because something does not exist today, does not mean it did not exist in the past. Half the world was ML at one point. If you won a FIFA WC once, it goes on your uniform. Can you point me to any place that successfully answered the problems of modernity while being anarchist?
I used to be a maga q-tard. Then I saw the light. Everyone on this board knows this.
>>2893810>selling outMy my, when did this happen? Did this happen when they were still bolsheviks or… oh wait, this happened after they abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Succdemism in 1987.
>>2893805Either him or infamous billionaire sex trafficker/pedophile jeffery epstein. They and anon all basically hold the same position
>>2893809>Every revolution so far has only produced liberalismThe agricultural revolution produced liberalism dumb dumb? Cease talking.
>>2893819The agricultural revolution was the first step towards liberalism yes
>>2893813>My my, when did this happen? Did this happen when they were still bolsheviks or… oh wait, this happened after they abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Succdemism in 1987.Nooo they weren't true bolsheviks it doesn't count!!!
It was the bolshevik system that put them in power.
It was the bolshevik system that kept them in power
It was the bolshevik system that robbed the proleteriat of any say in the enacting of socialism
It was the bolshevik system that killed any trace of workers democracy.
It was the bolshevik system that robbed the proleteriat of any power to do anything to stop them from selling out the country to capitalism just because they felt like it.
>>2893817>They and anon all basically hold the same positionAnon is an anarcho syndicalist?
>Either him or infamous billionaire sex trafficker/pedophile jeffery epsteinFile related
>>2893821I told you to cease talking. Your stupidity is a terrible thing indeed.
>>2893826I overcame my laziness
feel free to post in banner thread. That i am too lazy for.
>>2893822The USSR stopped being bolshevik after Stalin and if you want, Khruschev. Soviet executives had excessive power to shape the country. I consneed that, but to call the retards running the country in 1987 bolsheviks is laughable. They were succdems at most.
>>2893830Lick my fucking cock you product of modernity
>>2893813>Time was slower back then.Lmao OK, I'm sorry but vague shit likethat doesn't mean anything. Since time is hyperspeed now, doesn't that mean that a 5year commune is now more successful then the roman empire?
>I used to be a maga q-tard. Then I saw the light. Everyone on this board knows this.yeah I remember that reading here but I wasn't sure. Anyway, i'm happy for you, but I'm going to be patronizing; it really fucking shows that you just substituted one thing for another without changing anything about yourself and I think you should try and get more among people, it helps with selfreflection
my son
> Can you point me to any place that successfully answered the problems of modernity while being anarchist?This thread isn't about anarchism, so no I won't entertain your loaded question here.
>>2893835Doesnt matter what you call them its the end result of and fault of a bolshevik system of governance.
>>2893825>Anon is an anarcho syndicalist?I wouldn't presume to know. Their stance on Lenin just reminded me of Epstein's close personal friend Chomsky and his take on the matter
>>2893847Does two and two make five because a pedophile said so? Negative polarization is brainrot
>>2893851Political persuasion is a little different than your stance on a mathematical question. All I'm saying is he wasn't close personal friends with a stalinist
Thread going as well as I thought it would. Sinbad, the bait got you good.
>>2893846To interrupt the vagueposting going on, can you define what a bolshevik system of governance is? Does the fault lie with democratic centralism? A degridation of democratic cententralism? Entrenched bureaucracy?
Be specific, it's correct to say that
something went wrong in the USSR, but we must pick what worked from what didn't. The USSR wasn't all failures, nor was it sunshine and daisies. If we want to make this anything other than a shitflinging thread, we need some substance.
>>2893853He defended the Afghani ML regime
>>2893668Indeed, marxism & socialism are not leftist, and neither is bolshevism/marxism-leninism.
I mean Jean-Claude Michéa said it well: Open up any text by Marx & try to find a single passage where he describes his views to be "left"
>>2893858Good on you for attacking the vaguepost & baitpost explicitly.
>>2893845>doesn't that mean that a 5year commune is now more successful then the roman empire?I thought we were comparing the Soviets to the commune. Both situations are not in your favor anarkiddie. Either way you don't want to show me your successful anarchist experiments
because they don't exist so I don't see the point of going back and forth on this.
Instead, why don't you redpill me on anarchism, father?
>>2893858>To interrupt the vagueposting going on…See, this will never be answered lool.
They hate the USSR because it did work at mobilizing people for objectively good deeds while their anarchist communes could not. Just admit we humans are not a hive mind and need strong organization to get things done. Anarchists cannot admit this. Even if some leader emerges within an anarchist commune and motivates the plebs for something, the idealistic anarkiddies will decry that as statism, stalinism, etc, and cope with saying it's not real communism or whatever.
>>2893870You're the one vaguely posting about time somehow being different in the past and how roman slave empires somehow legitimize industrial state projects in the 20th century.
> Instead, why don't you redpill me on anarchism, father?Why should I ? Figure it out yourself and go to some meetings or any protest. Or some farm, whatever. At least you might stop writing like an imbecile whose only social interactions have been via a screen, absolutely stunted jfc. Find some to love and to love you back, please.
Anyway If you're right I'll have to go mine uranium without any protection anyway for being a degenerate counter revolutionary or some shit.
>>2893858Not that anon but while there is plenty of commendable stuff that happened under the ussr, (which I can say about a lot of liberal projects as well, so it's not that much of a compliment) it's basic model is hardly applicable today outside of maybe china and some other industrial powerhouses, so to me details like the entrenched bureaucratic class don't even matter as much anymore since the basic premise is dead in the water from the start.
That doesn't mean that these questions shouldn't be asked or studied, but to do so in the idea of reviving bolshevism in the 21st century is completely counterproductive.
too much phone typing I hate touchscreens communism is impossible as long as I personally have to deal wit touchscreens >>2893889I like pannekoek and I like pannekoeken
>>2893908Well if you won't tell me about your ideology, goodbye then fellow leftychud.
O7
>>2893671anyone who says zigger is pro NATO
>>2893824>stalin hitler pactcompletely dishonest framing of that event.
>>2893827not justified but also largely irrelevant in a time period where capitalists also persecuted LGBT people
Mods should get back to old BO's zero tolerance policy towards bourgeois anti-communist wrecker bots like OP.
>Just read posts by Stalinists - they are indistinguishable from Nazi ones
The audacity. KYS glowtard
>>2893817you're really reaching aren't you
>>2893950Old BO was a retard for whom aesthetics of resistence overwritten basic reasoning. Same with you judging by your larp flag that clings to nostalgic legacy for social-fascism and Wilhelminist economic management.
USSR, ever since the failure of the German revolution (and to an extent the failure in war with Poland) the imposition of defensive measures to secure its own survival (which was mistakenly identified with survival of the communist project as a whole) put the Russian revolutionary project on a path of reaction. It failed to transform society into anything more than just another developmentalist project, its ideology being just a vacuous coat of paint to better distinguish its Wilhelmine, "state capitalist" economic model from the anglosphere libertarian model. Sadly, this coat of paint also did one hell of a job to remove communism as an alternative within its borders, leading to nationalism being the only mass-movement opposition that could have formed in the wake of its collapse.
But regarding OP, Stalin isn't central to what you are describing. This was literally the only course of action that USSR had if it wanted to survive as a project - sure, Bukharin might have been more humane, but the developmental path would have been the same one (and don't you meme about Trotsky, he had no shot). The other alternative being all-out suicidal war trying to spread the revolution until it burst, which would probably been more productive in the long run.
>>2893813>Half the world was ML at one pointlol if you believe this. at a massive push half the world was "socialist", but a good chunk of those were dysfunctional meme regimes for whom "socialism" meant "doing arms deals with the USSR" and a further chunk were just laughable. (like India. India vs China is basically a what-not-to-do fable for economic development. China cracked it - smash the old dead-weight social institutions with a socialist hammer and then reform, open up, and get rich! India? Protect your old dead-weight social institutions with some democracy, plan and regulate and permit and stagnate, and even even when you reform and open up, enjoy languid growth as the dead hand of tradition drags you to hell.)
>>2893835early Gorbachev sincerely took many of his worst ideas from reading Lenin and trying to interpret him for modern conditions. In particular, his fatal economic blunders were motivated by the NEP (without understanding that the specific form his reforms took would open up convertibility between beznal and nal, effectively allowing the state to loot itself… not that even soviet economists really understood this until later. what it says about a planned economy that the planners did not understand their economy is left as an exercise to the reader.) and Lenin's policy on nationalities. (presidents for everyone! alternative power centres for everyone!)
even if he was just an out-and-out socdem, the USSR remains condemned for allowing him to come to power. "b-but Stalin died" - Stalin must have known he was going to die at some point, why did he not have a contingency? B-but Khruschev was a traitor/couped too soon (delete as appropriate) - why did the system allow a traitor? why did the system coup him? Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko -
why, why, why? m-maybe Malenkov - maybe but not! a system that cannot ensure succession of power to trustworthy and competent leaders is a doomed system. it has failed the single most fundamental task of self-preservation, a precondition for literally everything else.
>>2893858at a higher level i would say the problem was a certain conservatism, or perhaps getting stuck in a rut at a certain stage of development. i negatively contrast the USSR with China, which did ten times as many stupid things as the USSR but offset it by getting the big questions right. in the end stages basically everyone accepted the USSR was going to transition to some kind of market economy, but they dithered and debated and ultimately failed to make that transition where China succeeded. now, China had the advantage of being poorer and therefore having less to fear from the short term pains of doing so, but ultimately a lack of decisiveness is fatal.
i cannot say whether China's system has worked better because it is more competently structured or because it is more competently staffed, but China is really the model to contrast with at all times. whatever you may say against it: it is here! you can go visit China right now!
>>2894002basically fair assessment.
as has been noted before: if Park Chung-Hee wore a coat of red paint, /leftypol/ would sing his praises constantly. much of the fetish for socialist regimes is really a fetish for developmentalism and strongmen.
>>2893682>>2893683>>2893682>>2893689>>2893692>>2893703>>2893772>>2893810lib on lib infighting and nobody wonders why this board has gone to shit
>>2894008>socialist regimes is really a fetish for developmentalism and strongmen.the audicity to say this while at the same time glazing china for said developmentalism, skyscrapers and commodity production is not socialism and now fuck off
>>2894010that's a good thing. members of any kind of political or scientific community are supposed to fight and argue and criticize and question and insult and attack each other all the time, it's what separates healthy functional communities from groupthink echo chamber reddit bullshit.
>>2894010this board has gone to shit because it gets no new blood and because oldBO chased off everyone who pretended to believe in anything remotely interesting. the two primary innovations of /leftypol/ culture, tripflagging and "made by x gang", are both downstream of having lots of left-wing ideologies arguing their case and shitposting with-and-about one another. once everyone who was remotely interesting was chased off, stagnation set in because of good old channer insularity based on a stupid understanding of how website culture works. (noo, if we let in new users we'll turn into le reddit! i am a materialist, but don't believe the design of a website shapes the behaviour of its userbase!!)
>>2894013I "glaze" China because it comes out ahead of most other countries in a head-to-head comparison. India? unlike them China knows how to develop. USSR? unlike them China knew how not to implode. USA? China's got so many people that it's all but inevitable it'll overtake the US in global relevance and power, and the US has clearly started going insane about this fact instead of trying to carve out a comfortable second place. socialism barely enters into it because every "socialist" country is just a less competent version of skyscrapers and commodity production. you cannot cheat your way out of developing the means of production.
>>2894002>>2894008>tldr ussr was le badinsightful, cuba also believed the "muh markets" meme, embarrassing. i guess 90s Russia some people forgot existed
>>2894014>that's a good thing. members of any kind of political or scientific community are supposed to fight and argue and criticize and question and insult and attack each other all the time, it's what separates healthy functional communities from groupthink echo chamber reddit bullshit.its not when the assumption is already wrong, ussr bad is no analysis
>>2894018Russia and Britain are anomalous cases which should generally be excluded from arguments for any particular system of social organisation. Poland went for muh markets and will overtake British prosperity before the decade is out. meanwhile Russia bungled everything and wound up with a totally crooked kleptocracy… but ironically, despite starting from different circumstances, so did Britain. far from unleashing market forces, Thatcher basically handed everything over to insiders and crooks and set them up with a system of licensed looting of the public, protected from any serious competitive interference from international capital, and her successors - for all their market rhetoric - have only intensified this process. no wonder, then, that Britain alone has seen 20+ years of stagnation since the 2008 crash, no wonder then that British elections are scarcely less stage managed than Russian ones.
anyway, go read Collapse by Vladislav Zubok and The Rise and Fall of the British Nation by David Edgerton, then tell me I'm wrong.
(or if you're lazy, just watch Traumazone and then Shifty by Adam Curtis, it's very obvious he's explicitly making the same comparison.)
>>2894002>The other alternative being all-out suicidal war trying to spread the revolution until it burst, which would probably been more productive in the long run.Why do you think this would have been the case? Not to speculate on alt-hist, but do you mean productive in the sense of making a martyr of the russian socialist movement or productive in the sense of further rupturing global capital or something else?
>>2894008>a system that cannot ensure succession of power to trustworthy and competent leaders is a doomed system. it has failed the single most fundamental task of self-preservation, a precondition for literally everything else. Is that nessecarily a condemnation of the ML model? I mean, specifically the vanguardist revolutionary strategy, the conception of imperialism and democratic centralism. I don't think the specific form of government that the USSR took is all that Marxism/Leninism can describe.
>>2894013I don't think it was throwing shade on developmentalism as much as pointing out that developmentalism isn't nessecarily socialist exclusive.
>>2894017>socialism barely enters into it because every "socialist" country is just a less competent version of skyscrapers and commodity productionThat's a rather vulgar take. The particular historical conditions of the prior socialist experients have more value to take from then than simply saying they were less competent. They attempted, to varying degrees, to apply socialist principles, succeeding and failing in different ways. We had the cultural revolution which took on different characteristics to the red terror in the soviet union which then was different to the chaos of the paris commune etc etc. The commonality is the socialist idea.
I suppose I'm asking if you think that the developmentalist road taken by the various USSR sattelites was hindered or enhanced by their official state ideologies.
>>2894017>I "glaze" China because it comes out ahead of most other countries in a head-to-head comparison. India? unlike them China knows how to develop. USSR? unlike them China knew how not to implode. USA? China's got so many people that it's all but inevitable it'll overtake the US in global relevance and power, and the US has clearly started going insane about this fact instead of trying to carve out a comfortable second place. socialism barely enters into it because every "socialist" country is just a less competent version of skyscrapers and commodity production. you cannot cheat your way out of developing the means of production.look how he pivoted from "muh developmentism" to "we need to develope the means of production" cope, thanks for proving that China is not socialist and you arent either. If you only measure yourself against other existing capitalist nations you only dampen your own development, as the measurement for socialism has not yet been developed and will supersede both.
>>2894023Aren't developed means of production a precondition for effective socialism?
>>2894020>Poland went for muh markets and will overtake British prosperity before the decade is out. meanwhile Russia bungled everything and wound up with a totally crooked kleptocracy… but ironically, despite starting from different circumstances, so did Britain. far from unleashing market forces, Thatcher basically handed everything over to insiders and crooks and set them up with a system of licensed looting of the public, protected from any serious competitive interference from international capital, and her successors - for all their market rhetoric - have only intensified this process.>muh pooooland, muh markets, muuuuh coooompetitionit will look impressive to those that have only ever experienced capitalist development
>>2894025>Aren't developed means of production a precondition for effective socialism?Has already been the case in Germany, Britain etc… during the 19th century, so i think we are long past that point.
>>2894028But in 20th century Russia, China etc?
>>2894021>Why do you think this would have been the case? Not to speculate on alt-hist, but do you mean productive in the sense of making a martyr of the russian socialist movement or productive in the sense of further rupturing global capital or something else? For one, it would have removed USSR from the equation which means movements in other nations wouldn't get lobotomized with Soviets forcing them to adapt their party line and organizational principles that were useless outside the specific 1918 context of Russia. In terms of popular imagination the lack of USSR (and its subsequent failures) would also, in my view, lessened the reactionary disposition of our times. Communism would still be propagandized against, but there wouldn't be the default options of pointing to a big red developmentalist oligarchy and missatributing that as "communism". Meanwhile the actual idea of explosive, suicidal end to Soviet project would cause a martyr effect, just as the Paris Commune, while, of course, the actual failed project would have many a survivor who would flee and disperse around the globe, growing the tactical and strategic knowledge of the overall movement globally. Oh and all the great socdem achievments made due to the perceived threat of USSR? A lack of those would be a good thing as well to curb reformist sentiment.
>>2894031>For one, it would have removed USSR from the equation which means movements in other nations wouldn't get lobotomized with Soviets forcing them to adapt their party line and organizational principles that were useless outside the specific 1918 context of Russia.The rest of the post is too much alt-hist conjecture for me but this point I can solidly agree on. From my experiences, most mature MLs (not literally older, but having metabolized the methodology and detached from the aesthetics) take the same position. I think what might be described as "stalinism" is precisely that immature Marxism Leninism who seek to emulate Stalin rather than learn from him and his situation.
>>2894034Meanwhile, the rest of the issue with MLs is that they believe that one can somehow pilot their way through developmentalism into communism, disregarding the obvious sociological truth that by doing this you will recreate the same core systems of capitalism. The anglosphere mythology of markets helps in this delusion, as the seemingly big difference betweend developmental state capitalism and classical liberalism helps justify the special character of USSR or China, but in truth these states operate not that differently than Wilhelmine Germany (and to be contraversial, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as well). Stalin, in the absolute most best faith viewing, could be seen as someone using terror against his own state officials to keep revolutionary vigour, but the obvious pitfall is that once Stalin dies, these people (who, mind you, in their own sociological self conception, are righteus communist technicians wishing to develop the revolution) rightfully push Stalinism asside as perversely violent. Then, years pass, social habitus and class interest override the utopian ideology and you get just another developmental regime of corrupt aparachiks. And that's where you are now with China using strikebreakers and secret police to hunt down militant labour activists, promising big socialist dreams of more middle class prosperity and building imperialist extractive industries in the periphery.
>>2894036Developmentalism is not exclusively socialist but neither is it exclusively capitalist. It could be said that the ideological position of the CPSU was disconnected from the material conditions which led to a premature self-termination of the party once the disconnect grew too large. That's is, that the party claimed and believed a more advanced socialist development than was actually extant. Could it not be said that in China's case, they are correcting too far in the opposite direction, that to maintain the domiation of the party and the stability of their development, they are lagging behind what their economic base would actually allow in regards to socialist construction?
this thread has convinced me that socialism is a dead system. And that there is no escape from capitalism, well except for climate apocolypse but eh
Some of you people would benefit from that thing called "nuance".
>>2894010You will never be a leftist.
You call everyone a liberal, yet you simp for every non-Western capitalist.
You call everyone a Nazi, yet you are a Russian ethnonationalist who hates LGBT.
You call everyone reactionaries, yet you deify Stalin more than Christians deify Jesus.
You call everyone Epsteinites, yet your idol is the founder of Israel.
Deep down you understand this. You understand that reactionary state capitalism is right-wing, so you try to compensate for it with idpol - you constantly proclaim that you’re a communist, put a red star on your Xitter pfp, post about how Stalin was a true Marxist - but none of that changes reality.
You will never be a leftist.
>>2893889>PannekoekWhy do people still care about this irrelevant nobody? Is it because he critiqued Lenin that one time?
>>2894002>LARPI was born and raised in the DDR, newfag
>social-fascism and Wilhelminist economic managementOP was already far out stupid, there was no need for you to go further, you smelly liberal.
See, liberals are STILL so mad about the USSR, DDR, Stalin, Lenin and every other *actually* successful communist leader. Aside from supporting NATO imperialism and zionism to the teeth the entire effort of of bourgeois shills on /leftypol/ revolves ONLY around smearing the USSR, MLs, Maoists and every actual *real* communist. You keep creating shit threads & shitting up other threads spouting slurs and lies, displaying complete ingnorance and zero knowledge about anything AES, because you actually fear MLs and Maoists because we used to put you in gulags while anarchists, leftcoms and westoid "leftists" were high on LSD or heroin in their hippie squats and bourgeois armchairs and raved about the evil gubbernmint and supposed absence of "freedom" in the USSR just like every other brainwashed westoid anti-communist. There is literally no difference between the posts of self-appointed "leftists" such as most anarchists (to be fair there used to be a couple decent anarchists around back on old leftypol tho, they're all gone anyway), leftcoms (always bourgeois liberal shitposters, no exception), succdems (always shit) and bourgeois of all sorts who don't even bother to LARP as "leftist" here e.g. ancaps, /pol/olberts, fascists, neolib NAFO shills.
Because MLs actually expropriated bourgeois & aristocrat private property, the means of production went ACTUALLY into the hands of the proletariat under AES and remained there for 80 years, because the average living standard in our socialist economy was so high for EVERYONE, no exception, westoids had no choice to at least grant workers living adjacent to us in the west basic succdem shit to facilitate consoooomerism so the retarded predatoric capitalist Ponzi scheme they call "liberal democracy" could compete on the surface with us, and, most importantly, because westoid capitalists had absolutely no political power here at all (which is why you call the USSR "totalitarian", "authoritarian" etc.), that is, until softness of age kicked in with the old ML guard unfortunately so anarshit/liberal wreckers could dwell on the universities instead of getting deported to the west or thrown into a gulag on sight so they eventually would destroy using their lazy asses what communists literally built with their hands after the war.
Expressing support for former AES states, ML leaders and/or the USSR is an easy litmus test that exposes bourgeois liberals and right-wingers of all sorts which seldom fails. It's a line they can't cross and a lie they can't tell without getting reminded of how they got their asses kicked by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che & Fidel, Iron Felix (the historic figure), the Kims, Ho Chi Minh, Honecker etc. Rightoids of all sorts suffer of pathologic narcissism so the October Revolution and the following 80 years of AES hurt and haunt them, forever.
>>2894060>wall of projectionsYou will never be a leftist, stop pretending to be one
>>2894021I'm not really interested in the taxonomy of Marxism-Leninism. If you want to read me as defending it, just say I think Mao and Deng got it right. If you want to read me as attacking it… just say I think Mao and Deng got it right.
(This is a simplification, but what can you do.)
you can always salvage something from every experiment. I am reluctant to give concessions to people's preconceptions. On a neoliberal imageboard (god, I fucking wish) I would defend the USSR to my dying breath against their vulgar misunderstandings of why it failed, but this is leftypol.org where even a country
ceasing to exist isn't enough to have the average user recognise that this is a failure state.
I would say, on the whole, that development was hindered by ideology, but this isn't quite right. It is not so much that the underlying ideas were wrong so much as they were clearly applied in inappropriate conditions or by outright incompetents. (e.g. the farce of imagining that the 1930s were objectively revolutionary times, or Kalecki's eminently sensible plans for the Polish economy being disregarded by officials who thought he was a "defeatist" for setting realistic goals.)
but we could say this for most ideologies: "actually existing Keynesianism" was a flop compared to the beauty of the theory, "actually existing neoliberalism" was a flop compared to the theory… (and in a case of being hindered by ideology, the average /leftypol/ user will take this as capitalist apologia rather than seeing the usefulness of different tools for different purposes.)
>>2894023i did not say "we need to develop the means of production", i said that if you're going to do muh developmentalism, which is what basically every "AES" state except Cambodia did, you cannot then cry foul when you're condemned for not developing as well as others. whether China is socialist or not is a pedantic side-debate to the more interesting point that the CPC currently govern a global superpower while the CPSU has ceased to exist and every western communist party is just a humourless cargo-cult.
your insane "don't judge things by things that have actually been achieved, but by what i can imagine when unconstrained by reality" has fun echoes of the poles rejecting kalecki, though. thanks for that.
>>2894026the point is not that markets are good, but that Britain and Russia are anomalously bad and should not be used for international comparisons. it's not like there's a shortage of success or uffering in literally every other country on earth.
>>2894028pure wishful thinking.
>>2894060- you can no more "support" a former state than you can "heal" a dead man.
- the "eastern bloc lead to socdem concessions" meme doesn't explain why concessions started being withdrawn in the late 1970s and early-mid 1980s, before even Gorbachev, rather than coasting along perfectly comfortably until 1991.
- even if we grant everything you said, a leadership structure that allows "softness of age" to show weakness to wreckers is a failed structure! there was no inevitability to this!
>>2894043It sounds like you consider the party to be some kind of sacred core that maintains its revolutionary aspirations, which is plainly not true. The party becomes an organism for it self over time, its cadres becoming more conservative - desiring to maintain the survival of the party and of their own status, working in their own social habitus (in both sovient and chinese case one that presents them as technocratic managers that are supposed to direct their nations). This is what I mean earlier where I said the root issue of USSR wad the delusion that the CPSUs survival was equal to the survival of the global communist project - it wasn't and it would have been more productive for it to die and become fertilizer for future revolts. CPSU and the CCP can be compared to an American 2020 era socialist advocacy group - unwilling to see the ephemeral nature of their existence to the global Communist movement they all started seeing themselves as the heart of the movement, seeing their own gains as sacred progress that must not be lost, hence adapting more and more of the systems framework for their survival. Becoming Wilhelmine state-capitalist regimes in the former cases and becoming electoral advocates for Democrats in the later case, both ultimately acting as diffusion of social tensions for the real movement. Rotten parties that must be destroyed for new ones to blossom.
the party form was itself a mistake.
bakunin was right.Bakunin was vindicated.
TRUTH NUKE ! ! !
we should all be anarchists now.
>>2894060YOU are the liberal here. You are the one trying to claim that somehow state-capitalism is AES. No one is arguing over whether your DDR or USSR failed to deliver tangable improvements to quality of live. Problem is that Bissmarck did just the same. You can argue that the parties in their hearts thought they were socialists, and that is true. Problem is they structurally recreated the same systems of corporatist management of state-capitalist regimes. You can argue that they had beautiful visions for humanity and dreams for tomorrow, but really, without praxis to back those dreams up, they were just empty romanticist fairytales no different from thise of early Italian fascists.
If you WANT a strong developmental government to deliver prosperity to the nation and equal pay to its workers, then go right ahead. Hell, I'd even in my heart would agree that it would make for a moral dream becsuse it is a nice dream in its own limited way. But don't pretend you are fighting for anything more than social fascism.
Also:
>expropriated bourgoise and aristocracyHistorically illiterate. Look into Georgian SSR for an example of how old aristocracy integrated into the soviet state. Another example of the revolution of 1918 turning reactionary due to the need for it to maintain its own survival.
most socialists believe in developmental state capitalism.
>>2894080> You are the one trying to claim that somehow state-capitalism is AESNot just him but this guy called Lenin tried to claim that as well. Can you believe it?
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. >>2894075A gathering of Anarchists is, definitionally, if they want it or not, already a party. This is just one of those cases where semantic wording fucks over leftists. By party form you probably want to mean bolshevik vanguardism, which should be treated as one of infinite configurations as to how parties can organize and act.
>>2894082And are you seriously going to claim that this monopoly EVER started serving the people in "AES"? Or do I need to start digging up such examples as Novocherkassk?
There is truth in that such a state-capitalist monopoly can be turned into AES, but consider that it had to be built wholesale and managed first. In Wilhelmine Germany, a revolution could have grabbed the stated and instantly at its fingertips possess the levers to enact lower stage communism, not Russia and not China. As I said earlier ITT, the soviet mistake was the belief that they could remain socialists while building capitalism. By the time of Khruschev who wanted to do this transition to lower stage communsim, the nomenklatura promptly showed him the door.
>>2894085Questionaire. Who owned the means of production in USSR in…
>1920s>1930-50s>1960s>1970-80s>Gorbachev era >>2894070>It sounds like you consider the party to be some kind of sacred core that maintains its revolutionary aspirationsI do not, hence the question about the opposite deviations of both the CPSU and CPC. They can and do become disconnected.
>The party becomes an organism for it self over time, its cadres becoming more conservative - desiring to maintain the survival of the party and of their own statusI agree,
however I do not see this as a failure of ML specifically or a failure of Stalin personally. Did ML governments suffer from this? Of course, but it is not unique to them or any other form of government. The problem is that while no, no particular party is
the communist project, the defeat of most communist parties precipitate a general defeat for the communist project. A communist party that can be rejuvinated without a catastrophic collapse is better than a communist party defeated, criminalized and massacred that has to start over from scratch.
>>2894080>Problem is they structurally recreated the same systems of corporatist management of state-capitalist regimes. It is my understanding that the capitalist class was liquidated, not incorperated and put on equal footing with the proletariat under the state. State capitalist, yes, but qualitatively different from fascism with a different class makeup and different internal organization.
>>2894086>As I said earlier ITT, the soviet mistake was the belief that they could remain socialists while building capitalism. And why not? Soviets aside, as I am no expert on the economy of the USSR, state capitalism and a dictatorship of the proletariat are not mutually exclusive.
>>2894083nah, I mean pretty much any possible configuration of party. even the average new liberal electoralist vehicle is a flop. (though the scale of the flop is much lower than that of the average new communist party, usually they just waste time and money but have fun with it. they can also fairly say, on their own terms, that they tried something new…)
parties with power wind up being too interested in consolidating it to serve their ostensible purpose, parties without power devolve into LARPing and power struggles. even if this needle can be threaded, it would take personnel of a calibre which parties are not themselves capable of producing, and creating something that can produce such people is basically the task before us now.
(for communists and socialists there is the additional task of creating organisations which build class consciousness, which again, should be kept as far away from a party as possible. no, your trade union does not need a line on whether there will be ice cream under socialism. no, it does not build class consciousness for a communist party to make "demands" it has no means of enforcing consequences for ignoring. the only mercy afforded to such parties is that the average worker doesn't know they exist, or they'd laugh so hard that we'd have to drop the terminology of socialism and communism entirely.)
Slander of stalin will be not tolerated, all historical revisionist and fascist garbage
>>2894073This is not idealism, this is objective reality.
>>2894088>A communist party that can be rejuvinated without a catastrophic collapse is better than a communist party defeated, criminalized and massacred that has to start over from scratch. I'd argue USSRs continued existence specifically magnified the collapse. A destruction of Bolsheviks would have been as much an impediment to the movement as the death of the Paris Commune. Instead, we got almost a century of reaction where the movement was mostly paralyzed by the failures of Moscow.
Regarding both of your other points - my issue with USSR is that from the start it posessed the nucleus of reaction within its developmental project. There is no iron law I could point to, but sociologically it all seems very simple - to develop the state a great deal of engineers and managers were needed. USSR became a nation of technicians. These technicians all grew (during Stalin period) on the dream of them being the helmsmen of communism, directing the state to a workers paradise. Obviously, this was a nucleus of hierarchical control and reemergence of a paternalistic class (not entirely capitalist, but one which would take up the mantle of the ruling class). In the most benevelent (not necessarily accurate) reading of Stalin, his terror kept this class in check. But after death? Imagine yourself in their shoes - you were doing your best as was told by ideology, guiding the soviet state to paradise, what wrong did you do to deserve purges? Nothing! Stalin was a bastard to be thrown off! And then you get the Khruschev period which eventually runs into an issue - the old cadres start having kids, they become weary of new cadres and this Khrusvhev guy is prepping to shake the system up - he is clearly a threat, another Stalin in the making! And thus he is removed and you get Brezhnevite conservatism - the paternal class finally comes into being, formed just by its own relation to power over the state and economy. In between this we can also note many (surpressed) instances of labour struggles where Soviet workers tried to strike for better wages and conditions only to get shot - wreckers rocking the boat towards socialism! So, basically, the death of communist horizon is hidden in this attempt to build capitalism.
>>2894086>And are you seriously going to claim that this monopoly EVER started serving the people in "AES"?Obviously yes. I believe it did serve the people in the USSR and basically every ML state that followed.
>NovocherkasskWhat about it? Why not just bring up the Kronstadt classic instead?
>There is truth in that such a state-capitalist monopoly can be turned into AESIt can only advance towards socialism. There's no other path forward. They were not "building capitalism", they were constructing socialism. To believe otherwise is to be a stageist
>can/could/could haveidealism and historic fanfiction, stop playing HoI4 please
>>2894098Your moralistic tripe is not reality dumdum
>>2894091What are you gonna do, you stupid Staliuyghur? Gonna go cry to the mods because your lies are being exposed?
>>2894102Moralism is believing that Stalin was a leftist simply because of the "commie vibe"
>>2894087>>2894087>>1920s>>1930-50s>>1960s>>1970-80sthe proletariat
>Gorbachev eraThis liberal traitor pos eventually sold out everything. He allowed liberals on the universities to form corrupt mafia-like networks and act as strawmen of the western bourgeoisie. They would create private corporations, most importantly, private banks in the 1980s. These people became the new oligarchs in Russia in the 1990s by looting the means of production from the proletariat.
I think the anti-communist traitor clique around Jakovlev or whatever his name was managed to accumulate enough political influence to do their wrecking already under Andropov, under Chernenko the signs of counter-revolutionary activity were already very obvious anyway, according to Honecker, who remained a ML hardliner till the end.
AES neither "collapsed" because supposedly "the economy didn't work" nor because of "bureaucracy". It was a successful coup d'etat by a bunch of scumbag traitors of the worst order. It could have been prevented.
>>2894104Stalin was a lifelong professional revolutionary Bolshevik and the second leader of the USSR lol, he was more of a leftist for that, than you are for denigrating him
>>2894101How do you define it serving the people, then? Because to me it seems quite clear that it was serving the nomenklatura who may or may not have believed to serve the people to some extent, but in practice who operated as paternalistic rentier class. I precisely don't give a fuck about Kronstadt as opposed to 60s labour struggles due to it being a case of revolutionary pragmatism, and not a clearcut case of USSR acting like a Fordist corporation. Besides Novocherkassk there are plenty of other strike examples, just as much as the whole Brezhnev era class struggle expressed through quiet-quiting-esque parasitism (and yes, being a workplace parasite is praxis when the terroristic state prohibits striking). USSR was clearly a state where the working class didn't own the means of production, a result of the nomenklatura being put into the managerial role to own it for them.
>StageismWell, don't attack me for it. I wasn't the one who decided to copy whole-sale the Fordist corporation model from the US as a baseline for USSR.
>>2894057Your focus on popularity reveals all.
>>2894081And it’s quite unfortunate. But this unfortunate state of things will be corrected soon enough.
>>2894105I can't fathom how you can consider 60s, and especially the Brezhnev era as workers owning the MoP, especially considering Brezhnev's stability of cadres. By that point nomenklatura was alread a class in it self, and becoming a class for it self.
>>2894100>A destruction of Bolsheviks would have been as much an impediment to the movement as the death of the Paris Commune.Again, pure conjecture. Enough of the alt-hist, we cannot know the repercussions of an early or later defeat of the USSR. If it would have brought in an era of wholesale slaughter or uprising elsewhere is the realm of fiction.
>Instead, we got almost a century of reaction where the movement was mostly paralyzed by the failures of Moscow. I think in this instance, you're the one putting too much onus on the CPSU. There were plenty of fronts of the communist movement that were independent of the command of the soviets. Supported by them, yes, but isn't that what a communist party should do? Indeed, wasn't the Sino-Soviet split and the subsequent fallout precisely because of the percieved reactionary slump of the soviets?
As for the sociology, the points of failure are not something the ML methodology is unique for but obviously, the historical projects were not sufficiently able to handle the contradictions for various reasons. There's also more to it than just generational resentment then complacency, it didn't
have to end like it did. Indeed, no iron law preventing the USSR from surviving and building socialism existed either, despite the odds against them.
All that said, what do you propose to be the way forward?
>>2894112>nomenklaturaThat's a liberal slur. It expresses liberal butthurt about them not being able to infliltrate the vanguard party in order to grab power and do wreckage to the DOTP. Under Brezhnev everything was still fine, it was perhaps the heyday of AES both in terms of living standard of all AES citizens and the maximum of power projection communists have managed to achieve in geopolitics so far.
>>2894109Serving the people is pretty straightforward as the way in which the economy is directed to serve a particular class, the working class. It's just bullshit you're spewing about the nomenklatura. These people were barely distinguishable from the general populace in terms of prosperity, income, ownership, etc. Certainly so when compared to countries that did actually construct capitalism (capitalist countries), so your whole stance on the matter is dead in the water. They could not be seen as a class in and of themselves, thus they could not direct the service of the state towards themselves as a class
Your assertions about Fordism this and that are unfounded. Who was the Henry Ford of the USSR? Who owned the means of production privately? Nobody
>>2894118Ah yes, the rigorous, ideologically pure and uninfiltratable nomenklatura that now run (or ran) the post soviet neoliberal regimes in literally every region - Russia, Baltics, Ukraine, Caucasus, Central Asia. Also kind of weird how just a moment ago you were talking about the liberal wreckers in the reformer Gorbachev wing. Do you never think that its somehow weird just how easily and seamlessly the old cadres settled into their new cushy positions of either neoliberal technocrats or compador dictators?
Perhaps in DDR Brezhnev era was prosperous (which means nothing, plenty of liberal developmentalist regimes also were prosperous), but in USSR proper it marked a period of stagnation and quiet discontent as the state settled into a stable paternalist system.
>>2894110If his ideas didn't grip the masses why should I care?
All this for a literally who state that doesn’t exist anymore, cannot serve the proletariat, ultimately never entered even the transitionary stage, has already evaporated into uncloaked capitalism for a while now with it’s past status treated as ancient history by it’s former citizens.
>>2894130>All thisAn argument on the internet you mean?
>>2894115This is objectively true
>>2894103Epsteinite zionist falsifier
>>2894128In case you forget glory seeker. You live in a capitalist world. You want popularity so much? You can go flock with the rest of the liberals.
>>2894126What gives the right for the party to speak on the behalf of the workers? Who gives them the right to determine how the state serves the working class? And when the party becomes an isolated circle, an aparatus trying to prevent newcomers from its ranks, an aparatus that can use many of the less visible economic levers like assignment to better posts, fast-tracking for consumer goods acquisition? You try to sweep it all over a rug by putting it in comparison to the mountains of riches that western bourgoise have, but that rug increasingly starts showing a growing lump under it. The point isn't scale, but the social process which leads to class emergence.
>>2894131Not just an argument, in general. Focus has been transferred from communism itself to a dead state.
>>2894117All that said, what do you propose to be the way forward?
https://illwill.com/theory-of-the-party >>2894134Why should I care what some dutch nobody had to say about anything? Not only is Pannekoek unknown, his theory led to jack shit in terms of actual accomplishments
>>2894047bait, if a single thread changes your entire perception of something it means you never held an actual belief that you thought was ever worth defending, a useless waste of human mediocrity. you will not be useful to any movement
>>2894140which is why its bait
>>2894060trvthvnke, the cope responses mucho texto cannot compete, the post that was heard around /leftypol/
>>2894139>Why should I careWhy should you care about any of this, of scientific socialism, of the immortal science of communism, the ideology of downtrodden losers who are losing the class war, nerds, and the rare class traitor enthusiast swooping in from above. Why would anyone care about such a loser ideology amiright?
>his theory led to jack shit in terms of actual accomplishmentsWhat accomplishments are relevant are relevant today exactly?
>>2894100A point about the state of technicians: it is notable that a huge chunk of the negative stereotypes about the USSR are basically just Taylorism discussed openly, something that happened at that time regardless of economic system. (e.g. you become a cog in a machine, no autonomy, no thinking for yourself, monotonous work and mass-produced leisure…)
>>2894135>The rightWtf are you talking about? What right? The party was objectively the party of the workers, there was no other political institution that represented them or claimed to represent them. Right doesn't factor into it
>And when the party becomes an isolated circle, an aparatus trying to prevent newcomers from its ranks, an aparatus that can use many of the less visible economic levers like assignment to better posts, fast-tracking for consumer goods acquisition?did not happen/irrelevant compared to actual class distinctions.
It's not "swept under the rug" it's just contextualized with the rest of the economic system of the world. Comparatively there was no class distinction that made nomenklatura a distinct class, unlike the rulers of actual capitalist country who were extremely distinct from the working class. Class emergence did not happen in the USSR until it was abolished and the means of production were appropriated
>>2894138Will read later. Hope it'll be worth biting the bait in a dogshit thread. Thanks, commo
>>2894146>Why should you care about any of this, of scientific socialismBecause it is useful in understanding and making changes in the world and it makes more achievements on this front than any other theory
>Losers, losing, loser ideologyProjection
>What accomplishments are relevant are relevant today exactlyEstablishments of DotP for literal billions of people that lasted many decades/are still around
See how easy that was? Now, what accomplishments did Pannekoek's nonsense achieve? I noticed you conveniently did not answer that
>>2894148The NSDAP claimed to represent the German Nation, so does that mean that NSDAP represented the German Nation? I guess with enough "contextualizing" it did. After all, no other parties were there to represent it.
Again, if there was no destinction between the proles and the party, why did the party members so clearly became the prime beneficiaries when the capitalist order was reastablished? It is clear as day that there was a distinction and I don't get why you are so afraid to acknowladge such a basic truth.
>>2894154>founder of israelnot even ragebait, plain out stupidity, the founder of israel was ben gurion
>>2894151>Because it is useful inNo no no. You don’t get to change your answer. You don’t get to say you actually care about theory. you already admitted to being a libshit popularity addict.
>ProjectionThat’s sarcasm glory hound.
>Establishments of DotP You mean bourgeoisie controlled state capitalism on a scale never wanted.
>for literal billions of peopleSomeone is about to go full dengoid
>that lasted many decades/are still aroundThe cooking didn’t even start
>>2894156So? What’s the point of your narcissistic shitpost?
>>2894159His only deed of any note today is helping China's revolution.
>>2894159>anti-communists (anti-Stalinists)You will never be a leftist.
You call everyone a liberal, yet you simp for every non-Western capitalist.
You call everyone a Nazi, yet you are a Russian ethnonationalist who hates LGBT.
You call everyone reactionaries, yet you deify Stalin more than Christians deify Jesus.
You call everyone Epsteinites, yet your idol is the founder of Israel.
Deep down you understand this. You understand that reactionary state capitalism is right-wing, so you try to compensate for it with idpol - you constantly proclaim that you’re a communist, put a red star on your Xitter pfp, post about how Stalin was a true Marxist - but none of that changes reality.
You will never be a leftist.
>>2894153It's not about their claim to represent, it's that they defacto did represent the Proletariat, with no alternatives that did not join or support the reactionaries. Your dumb comparison to the NSDAP shows your abject idealism
>Again, if there was no destinction between the proles and the party, why did the party members so clearly became the prime beneficiaries when the capitalist order was reastablished? It is clear as day that there was a distinction and I don't get why you are so afraid to acknowladge such a basic truth.Because they were in a more privileged position to do so after the fall of the union. I already said that there was a difference, just that that difference did not constitute a class distinction during the reign of the USSR. That particular distinction in class only came about after. You can see it now it the current disparity in the former east block. Many times in interviews with oldheads from that region they'll say some shit like "people didn't have much, but everyone was poor".
>>2894157So that's a "nothing" on the Pannekoek accomplishments list then?
Thought so
>>2894161it would merely waste characters to spell out what is already in the text of the argument itself:
>There was no generalized commodity production in the USSR, no labor power as commodity, no labor market. There wasn't a bourgeoisie established as a class through political organization and the extraction of surplus had non-capitalist qualities. the very fact this is in the past tense is self-addressing!
"the point is to change it" - hard to change anything but the satiation level of the worms when you're long dead!
>>2894166>semantic wordplay pretending that history sometimes going back is any kind of meaningful argumentyou don't get the did not address any of the points award but you get the semantic wordplay argument award
>>2894159>Stalin did more practically-organizationally speaking to bring about socialism than anyone elseThe consequences of this in which still haunts us to this day.
>There was no generalized commodity production in the USSR, no labor power as commodity, no labor marketMonopsony.
>There wasn't a bourgeoisie established as a class through political organization Explicitly
>and the extraction of surplus had non-capitalist qualitiesWhat qualities
>Nationalization + planning = money as signal of abstract labor-power in commodity i.e. labor voucher.Labor voucher ≠ money.
>The book related isBad
>Pannekoek>SloppaHow bold
>>2894158To piss the shit out of you
>>2894169>anarchist quips and gotcha awardit's so tiring
>>2894165Glory hound, Pannekoek actually progressed the theory in a significant manner, an accomplishment that still stands today. You have no “accomplishments” to speak of.
>>2894154<And it unsurprisingly turns out that such a calculation is backed up immensely by historical empirical evidence – namely the military and economic support of the USSR and the Peoples’ Democracies for the Arab anti-colonial war effort during the 1948 War.
<The Soviet media stated that the anti-imperialist bloc would support the just cause of the Arabs; these were by no means empty promises. Throughout the 1948 War, the USSR and the Peoples’ Democracies of Eastern Europe covertly furnished the Arabs with military assistance. With respect to military aid to the Arabs, however, another excerpt of the previously mentioned Soviet-Syrian and Soviet-Lebanese secret treaties in 1946 was as follows:
<The Soviet Union agrees to send a sufficient number of military personnel to Syria, comprising military instructors and high-ranking officers, in order to help Syria to build up as rapidly as possible a national army of some strength. (The Soviet Union and Egypt, 1945-55, Rami Ginat, 1993, p. 70. Citing: From Encroachment to Involvement, a Documentary Study of Soviet Policy in the Middle East, 1945-1973. Israel University Press, Yaacov Ro’i, 1974, pp. 29-30) (IMG)
<And the same type of deal was made in the secret treaty with Lebanon:
<A secret treaty between the USSR and the Lebanese government based on these [above] clauses, was signed two days later. (The Soviet Union and Egypt, 1945-55, Rami Ginat, 1993, p. 70) (IMG) >>2894172You have more in common with anarchists than me. I do not want to hear it.
>>2894173>actually progressed the theorydid he do anything to advance socialist construction? No? Okay then
>>2894173No he didn't. His theory didn't do shit for anyone, it advanced nothing. The accomplishments of Lenism are an actual force in the real world that really materially affected and still affects people to this day. The accomplishments of Pannekoek are that you personally think they're good. Do you understand how retarded you are? You are a disgusting idealist of the highest order
>>2894175Anarchist and ultroids are the same demons (liberals)
>>2894177>advance socialist construction?I see a startlingly lack of communes for you to be say this fuck shit.
>>2894178>His theory didn't do shit for anyoneIt advanced general understanding.
>it advanced nothingIt advanced knowledge to be utilized by the revolutionary proletariat when the time comes.
>The accomplishments of Lenism are an actualLiberal force
>in the real world that really materially affected and still affects people to this dayLiberally
>The accomplishments of Pannekoek are that he had progressed the material understanding of the world and has provided the knowledge to improve on the formations of the revolutionary proletariat, along with providing much needed ruthless criticism to those who fell behind standards.
>>2894183Ultras are not the ones advocating for more capitalist states. And you may want to check the definition of ultra before you utilize it as an insult. It is not the insult you think it is.
>>2894187It is still historically progressive. It is also undercooked.
>>2894189>I see a startlingly lack of communes for you to be say this fuck shit.<someone else (preferably a nonaryan resident of the global south) SHOULD build communes and abolish commodity forms in general<not me, the wesstoid psseudointelekkktual, I have to ADVANCE GENERAL THEORY FOR GENERALIZED UNDERSTANDING Keep coping. Still did not address a single point above. Dengist TRVTHQVAKE regarding your ssocialist kkkomunes
>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! >>2894196>someone else (preferably a nonaryan resident of the global south) SHOULD build communes and abolish commodity forms in general>not me, the wesstoid psseudointelekkktualWow, you have somehow gotten the exact opposite of my position. As matter of fact, I think the above is closer to yours. I’m not the one clambering for capitalist states in red outside the core of capital.
>Still did not address a single point aboveI either addressed the point, or asked you to elaborate.
I don’t even disagree with the greentext, except on their emphasis for country over proletariat.
>>2894189>CommunesI see you're that utopian retard I talked to before. Makes sense you'd also be a Pannekoekist lol
>It advanced general understanding>It advanced knowledge>he had progressed the material understanding of the world and has provided the knowledgeYou are a retarded faggot idealist. Just because you personally think his theory was good, which you cannot even back with anything concrete in terms of useful theory or actual accomplishments that affected people materially, you believe socialism was advanced in reality. Pannekoek slop will NEVER accomplish anything "when the time comes", as it has not gripped the masses and turned itself into a material force. The only people it as gripped are retarded intellectually masturbatory anticommunist like yourself. Why keep coping about advancing the theory when that "advanced" theory accomplishes nothing for anyone in over a century? Practically entirely forgotten and abandoned by the masses, found to be severely lacking in utility. Either end the cope or end your life please
>Ultras are not the ones advocating for more capitalist states. And you may want to check the definition of ultra before you utilize it as an insult. It is not the insult you think it is.Ultra is an insult to anyone with a functioning brain
>>2893703the workers literally rose up in petrograd. most of the army defected to the revolutionary camp. elite theory uyghas always go:
>aha! they established a rival government; that's statism! the bolsheviks were a new elite puppetmastering the dumbass workers and peasants into "revolution"! they mindcontrolled them into opposing an imperialist war and starvation, so alas, its not a real revolution sweaty! >>2894208> ‘I see you're that utopian retard I talked to beforMy bad for expecting communists to do the communisms.
>You are a retarded faggot idealistOkay reactionary
>which you cannot even back with anything concrete in terms of useful theory or actual accomplishments that affected people materiallyBub, the former is something you didn’t even give a shit about before asking how popular they are. The latter is something you definitely don’t have a claim to unless you want to account for liberal influence.
>Pannekoek slop will NEVER accomplish anythingAnd then this. You call it slop? You already called him a literal who? Now you’re saying you known enough about him to call him slop?
>The only people it as gripped are retarded intellectually masturbatory anticommunist like yourself.Reactionary
>Why keep coping about advancing the theory when that "advanced" theory accomplishes nothing for anyone in over a century? >why care about communism Great argument
>Practically entirely forgotten and abandoned by the masses, found to be severely lacking in utilityAnd then you say this? Back to this? No glory, no interest. Why would I bother engaging with someone on a theoretical level when they already have decided their answer regardless of what I have to say, and are being a complete unserious dickwad about this.
>Either end the cope or end your life pleaseAnd then there is this malicious statement. Such uncalled for hatred. It is ridiculous.
>Ultra is an insult to anyone with a functioning brainGo get the official definitions. C’mon, go do it.
>>2894213because people desperately want to try to salvage something from the USSR
>>2894225What is there left to salvage?
bakunin was right about marx
>>2894228What was he right about?
>>2894223>My bad forBeing a retarded faggot idealist.
Apology not accepted
>Bub, the former isSomething you have no example of
>The latter isAlso something you have no example of
>You call it slop? You already called him a literal who? Now you’re saying you known enough about him to call him slop? Yup, feel free to prove me wrong. (You cannot)
>ReactionaryYou are an anticommunist idealist. There's no greater reactionary than that
>why care about communismCommunism is not "advancing theory" or dreaming about communes. It is not a preconceived ideal to actualize but a real movement. Retard
>Great argument Still btfo of you, you have yet to provide any argument other than "Well I think it's a good idea"
>And then you say this? Back to this? No glory, no interest. Why would I bother engaging with someone on a theoretical level when they already have decided their answer regardless of what I have to say, and are being a complete unserious dickwad about this.Yep, no practical influence no right to speak. Cope about it. Provide anything material your ideology has accomplished or stfu
>And then there is this malicious statement. Such uncalled for hatred. It is ridiculous.Yes I hate you retard. You are one of the most annoying posters on this website. There's nothing ridiculous about it. End the cope or your life so I don't have to look at your antileninism any more
>Go get the official definitions. C’mon, go do it.unrealistic, sectarian, or cut off from ordinary working-class people :)
>>2894174This doesn't change anything.
>>2894238He still created Israel, even if he later "corrected" himself.
>>2894240He did not create israel, though he did create the armies of israel's enemies as evidenced by my post
>foreign communist party asks for advice
<moscow tells them to form united front
>communists get slaughtered
Why did this happen so many times under Stalin and his proteges?
>>2894244because the USSR were course correcting from when their stance was that there was no meaningful difference between the SPD, the Labour Party, and the NSDAP or that, insofar as there was, the SPD and Labour were the greater evil because they were hogging all the working class voters who by-rights belonged to the KPD/CPB and delaying the totally inevitable and certain to succeed if tried German/British revolutions.
Lenin founded an actual socialist state which is not a hippie community of 150 bobos, and for that the coffeeshop-leftist will never forgive him
Stalin pragmatically and cold-bloodedly built up, defended and expanded the socialist state. For the crime of being a cunning winner instead of a romantic loser, the left-imperialist will never forgive him.
>>2894248The USSR was CHAZ 1.5 (paris commune was CHAZ 1.0) and you’re a romantic in denial
>>2894248yet when China exercise cold blooded pragmatism to become the premier economic power in the world today, people lament that they couldn't have been romantic losers like the USSR.
>>2894248Lenin founded a liberal state with a red flag when he discovered the only path alive was the menshevik path.
>>2894248Chagosposter coming in with the second thermonuclear truke of the thread
>>2894251When Amerikkkans stop eating Chinese bullshit the Chinese model collapses
>>2894233>Apology not acceptedI was again being sarcastic. And you have failed to address the elephant in the room.
>Something you have no example of>Also something you have no example ofYour cutoffs are both not witty and avoidant. The former is something you would have no knowledge of. The latter is just whataboutism.
>Yup, feel free to prove me wrongI feel free to not feel free
>You are an anticommunist idealistI’m a literal who that you know nothing of.
>Communism is not "advancing theory" or dreaming about communesDidn’t say it was now did I?
>It is not a preconceived ideal to actualize but a real movementDidn’t say it was now did I? But what was stated by you is your dismissal of the communes, a very anti communist statement.
>Still btfo of youIt’s really not.
>you have yet to provide any argument other than "Well I think it's a good idea"Don’t feel the need to provide such a thing to an unserious individual who can’t decide whether they want to act like they know nothing about the theory, or act like someone who know all about it to the point that they can deem it slop. You want to be a walking paradox, that’s fine by me. Just don’t expect to take you seriously.
>Yep, no practical influence no right to speak.Glory and status hound back at it. I have no practical influence as opposed to what exactly?
>Yes I hate you retard. You are one of the most annoying posters on this website. There's nothing ridiculous about it. End the cope or your life so I don't have to look at your antileninism any moreMeds
>unrealistic, sectarian, or cut off from ordinary working-class people Go ahead and get a link for that
>>2894262Oil is running out, and when it does,
amerikkkans will die in their suburban tombs surrounded by Chinese plastic like the pharos of old. China will have nowhere to sell its TemuAlibabaBullshit and you’ll be back in the Century of Humiliation.
>>2894248>cunning winnerMost of the domestic and foreign policy decisions his faction could be considered responsible for were failures
The fact this thread is still going is proof Agent Kochinski will never forgive leftychuds for making fun of him.
>>2894258- 80% of China's GDP is domestic consumption or capital investment vs 20% from exports (and only 10% of Chinese exports go to the USA, down from 20% in 2018)
- The USSR was comically dependent on grain imports from the USA and other western countries from the 1970s onwards. The USSR wound up in massive foreign debts to western countries as oil prices fell and imports soared, which was one of the underrated reasons the entire Warsaw pact collapsed. (The USSR was too afraid of upsetting their creditors - not to mention too broke - to intervene. Sad!)
It would be churlish to point out that in a reversal of this situation, China owns a massive chunk of US debt, e.g. is a huge net creditor…
>>2894269Not when those decisions were active.
Libtards have no sense of history.
Everything must be in their present attention span or it doesn't count. Except for their failed anarchist experiments. Those are timeless apparently.
>>2894275The soviet union was a failed anarchist experiment
>>2894274The US empire literally gets stronger the more debt it takes on, it’s unique in that aspect, China doesn’t even own as much as Japan in American debt
>>2894261>I was again being sarcasticI do not accept your excuses
>Your cutoffs are both not witty and avoidant. The former is something you would have no knowledge of. The latter is just whataboutism.Instead of complaining how about you provide some examples of either, you won't because you cant. Your theory is less than worthless
>I’m a literal who that you know nothing ofNope, I've seen enough of your posts to know what you are. A retarded faggot idealist
>Didn’t say it was now did I?>Didn’t say it was now did I? But what was stated by you is your dismissal of the communes, a very anti communist statement.You did when you said caring about communism means you have to accept some ineffectual intellectually masturbatory slop theory that doesn't accomplish anything or that it has to have some preconceived form in the shape of a particular historical org, the commune. In other words you presupposed "no commune, no communism". This is utopian idealism
>It’s really notIt really truly did
>Don’t feel the need to provide such a thing to an unserious individual who can’t decide whether they want to act like they know nothing about the theory, or act like someone who know all about it to the point that they can deem it slop. You want to be a walking paradox, that’s fine by me. Just don’t expect to take you seriouslyNothing I've said is paradoxical lmao, you are a moron. I know enough about the theory to call it slop yes, I am open to you changing my mind by providing some examples of it being practically useful or having accomplished anything at all other than to please your intellect personally. You cannot provide such an example in the slightest and now you're coping that you "don't feel the need to provide" it, as if you could in the first place
>Glory and status hound back at it. I have no practical influence as opposed to what exactly? The historically significant achievements of Leninism/Marxism-Leninism obviously. Which are numerous and have already been listed. Your meek labeling of them as "l..liberal" does not make it not so idealist
>Medskys
>Go ahead and get a link for thathttps://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Ultra-leftism Here ya go pal! :)
>>2894275Mao also had to make decisions on the spot but his were mostly successful (often to the dismay of the soviets, who were mad he didn't follow the dogshit advice they gave in neighboring countries like Iran) and he didn't murder all of his opposition.
>>2894276Bordiga, your brainrot is getting stale.
>>2894280>I do not accept your excusesMeds
>how about you provide some examples of eitherHow about instead you quit your paradoxical nonsense, and go touch some grass
>Nope, I've seen enough of your posts to know what you areMeds
>You didI didn’t. Meds.
>Nothing I've said is paradoxical Most of what you have said has been paradoxical
>I know enough about the theoryYou considered it literally who territory earlier, demanding me to detail every little bit of theory like you knew nothing. Gtfo here.
>I am open to you changing my mindYou don’t call things you’re open to slop almost immediately before even looking at seriously.
>You cannot provide such an example in the slightestWhy would I to someone so childish?
>The historically significant achievements of Leninism/Marxism-Leninism obviously. What achievements?
>kysMeds
>Here ya go palI asked for the definitions of ultra. Not ultra left from the wiki, ultra. What does it mean?
>>2894281What exactly are these decisions?
>>2894275>>2894281Also, it's not like he didn't get warnings about the shit he wanted to do from his opposition and from the socialist parties abroad whose policy he dictated. It wasn't merely history and material conditions that pushed him towards retarded choices.
>>2894302Pursuing China's own path of revolution and development instead of becoming a soviet dependency or implementing Stalinist policy on land reform, party politics, etc.
>>2894305What China pursued was counterrevolution and what it got is being wedded to America to form the most reactionary political unit in world history. Both sides of Chimerica will be occupied if not liquidated by JDPON.
>>2894305You sure you're not confusing Mao with Tito?
>>2894299I see you've mostly given up on actually having a conversation. I will ignore your copes, accept them as your concessions and just reiterate you need to stop the cope or stop your life, either one is fine by me
>You considered it literally who territory earlier, demanding me to detail every little bit of theory like you knew nothing. Gtfo hereNo I asked why anyone should care about this rando. Supposing that the only reason to care is because he was critical of Lenin, an assumption you have proven quite effectively. You have not provided any other reason to give a shit
>You don’t call things you’re open to slop almost immediately before even looking at seriously. Yes I do, I've already looked at it seriously and determined it to be slop. You have yet to provide even an argument to pretend otherwise
>Why would I to someone so childish?Why engage in this conversation at all? Because you're coping
>I asked for the definitions of ultra. Not ultra left from the wiki, ultra. What does it mean?Extreme? Highest ideal form? What are you getting at? Just say what you mean idealist
>>2894269yes, Lionel Messi lost 150 games in his career. Yes, he is not a God. You are so intelligent, boxed-in angloyank.
>>2894288>called outI can call out Donald, Xi, Vladimir etc as well. It does not mean shit.
If Stalin was a 'slut for western imperialism', what are you?
You are an ingrown pubic hair of imperialism.
Your existence is an insult to your surroundings.
>>2894288Stalin is anti-imperialism.
When he saw an opportunity to have in Israel a Soviet ally in a sea of pro-Anglo-American arabs, he pushed for it.
When it was clear that the financiers of Wall Street were well ahead of him and that Israel would be a bastion of imperialism, he turned against them. He had a plan, which did not work, he corrected his mistake.
Anti-imperialism is Stalin.
>>2894339Get ye gone djinn, you have no power here, I rebuke you
Stalin: somehow judeophobic and judeophilic according to the followers of the fat ugly Lasagna-assfister.
The keffiyeh-wearing left-imperialist pats Abu Bakr on his head, pops in the latter's pro-Palestine march for 5 minutes, before resuming work in his Manhattan office at Goldstein Real Estate Co Ltd.
The day the palestinian gun is turned on the generals of the electronic intifada is the day zionism starts to crumble.
>>2894323>I see you've mostly given up on actually having a conversation.Says you.
>I will ignore your copes, accept them as your concessions and just reiterate you need to stop the cope or stop your life, either one is fine by meMeds
>No I asked why anyone should care about this randoYou stated both
>Supposing that the only reason to care is because he was critical of LeninCritical of what exactly?
>an assumption you have proven quite effectivelyMeds
>You have not provided any other reason to give a shitYet you’re still in this shitty conversation for some reason. So confident in your victory, yet you are compelled to stay when you could easily leave. Paradoxical indeed.
>Yes I doThen there’s nothing more to discuss is there. Since you are so well versed in the theory already, I guess there is nothing more my humble failure slop anti communist ass can do about it. Absolutely nothing, because I cannot compete with with infinite wisdom and intellect of a being who has already savaged my theory and framework before the conversation even happened. Nothing.
>Why engage in this conversation at all? You. Telll. Me.
>Extreme? Highest ideal form?Link
you guys realize that socialism and leftist thought in general predate stalin and lenin and russia and even marx right? just because the ussr is your initial rebellious teen entrypoint into the world of leftist ideology doesn't mean that you have to stop there. it's like thinking green day is the ultimate punk rock band.
>>2894348it seems like you are in your rebellious teen entrypoint stage here if you think people do not already know that
All thought leads to Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin. Dare to think.
>>2894355>if you think people do not already know that Immediately followed by
>All thought leads to Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin >>2894318Learning to look at the world dispassionately, without losing the passions that drive one to want to improve it in the first place. Anons should be able to look at the USSR, or anything else for that matter, with the same analytical detachment they'd apply to deciding whether to take one flight or another for yanksgiving. That doesn't mean they have to like or dislike the thing in question, but it does mean giving up on cope. Being willing to accept that certain capitalist schemes worked or that certain assholes were correct on narrow points of economic theory in their time and place, without trying to claw up cope for why they've already won everything except the game. (e.g. the USSR did all these wonderful things, it was so much nicer to live in than the US, and so on… what matter that it is no longer with us?)
This also applies on a much smaller scale. Look at any communist microparty and you'll inevitably find a failure to recognise and accept their limitations. Grand sweeping demands, schemes, and policy statements put out by a cult of 50 people which can't even manage recruiting more people with any real degree of success. Too proud to admit that they're failures and that they've wasted so many years, and so condemned to waste so many more. Member after member eventually doomed to either burn out and lose their passion, or lose their mind entirely… But if they took a step back and thought seriously, they could build something. Plenty of people can build things! It just requires accepting that your immediate term goal with 50 people is probably closer to a well-run book club than to a revolution…
I even apply it to people. Whenever you see an idiot saying something stupid, realise that he probably doesn't really mean the words he's saying, he's just trying to get at some underlying need or want. e.g. those who want communism to win, having failed to deliver this in real life so far, try to have it "win" arguments on the internet. I, wishing for people to be dispassionate in the service of actually maybe one day having communism win, try to set out a different argument on the internet, and so on… >>2894356you have reading comprehension problems.
I blame your state for neglecting you, and your divorced alcoholic parents.
>>2894358>you have reading comprehension problemsClear projection
>I blame your state for neglecting youThe purpose of the state is to be the apparatus of the bourgeoisie
>and your divorced alcoholic parentsad hominem
>>2894347>Says you.I do, I've been fairly engaged. You've given up for the most part, several posts ago
>You stated bothNope, turns out you are the one who needs meds lol. I just asked for a reason to care and some examples of achievements, you said "uhhh welll is gud theory duihhhh" and I asked you to to give an example of that then, which you did not provide
>Critical of what exactly?Of Lenin's framework and philosophy. Specifically he thought it subordinated worker's power of the soviets to the communist party and that was le bad. A sloppy and infantile critique
>Yet you’re still in this shitty conversation for some reason. So confident in your victory, yet you are compelled to stay when you could easily leave. Paradoxical indeed.I have fun talking to retards, I find it somewhat fascinating, it's not really paradoxical at all
>Then there’s nothing more to discuss is there. Since you are so well versed in the theory already, I guess there is nothing more my humble failure slop anti communist ass can do about it. Absolutely nothing, because I cannot compete with with infinite wisdom and intellect of a being who has already savaged my theory and framework before the conversation even happened. NothingI accept your preemptive surrender before you even attempt to defend your position, it is the only logical thing to do when you don't have a leg to stand on. Now no more coping ok?
<B…but Im being sarcasticThat's just your cope for being honest
>You. Telll. MeI am having fun and being myself :)
>LinkJust say what you mean bro, I don't know what link you're asking me for lol
>>2894348>Lets go back to utopian retardation from before Marx!!Insanity
>>2894367Marx was a catty, toxic human being and this infected his theory and thought, it’ll infect any person or political party that uses it and this is their undoing
>>2894355>All thought leads to Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin. Dare to think.not for me it doesn't. my thought leads to right now, my own immediate present-day material reality and what i and my friends have to deal with as impoverished disenfranchised working class, not some intellectuals and oligarchs from ancient history.
>>2894372It makes him shit, it makes you shit, it ruins everything it’s ever touched. Why do you think the biggest consumers of Marxslop are the bourgeois? marxslop is THE weapon preventing proletarian revolution, that and nukes.
excessive praise and excessive critique of Stalin are both dead giveaways of being an Idealist hack and Stalinism isn't an actually existing Ideology
Marxists become Weberians as they approach power. No one has figured out how to get out of the iron cage.
>>2894375t. annihilated by Marxgods
>>2894382You mean the bourgeois? Yes, it’s why we’re headed for civilization collapse
>>2894390The proletariat doesn’t give a fuck about anything outside paying their bills, gambling, and getting high
>>2894391So? They're based just like Marx
<In his private life he is a highly disorderly, cynical human being and a bad manager. He lives the life of a gypsy, of an intellectual Bohemian; washing, combing and changing his linen are things he does rarely, he likes to get drunk. He is often idle for days on end, but when he has work to do, he will work day and night with tireless endurance. >>2894367popular socialist workers movements go all the way back to ancient times in the form of craft guilds which first arose in india and china over two thousand years ago, which were essentially the predecessors to labor unions. you're thinking in terms of Great Man Theory, only giving credit to singular named historical figures instead of the nameless common people. you've got to get out of that if you really want to take your leftism to the next level, stop thinking of history as a series of Great Men who singlehandedly accomplished everything, that's right-wing authoritarian thinking.
>>2894399Every epoch had class struggle sure, I don't see how that's relevant to the post Marxist world. Non scientific socialist movements are irrelevant to the current struggle and actively arguing we have to go back to them is just reactionary
You're using great man theory as a buzzword
>>2894402The supposedly scientific socialists are in an even worse position
>>2894403No they're not. They're still around and have eclipsed the utopians entirely. dustbin of history, etc, etc
>>2894369>ideas create material conditionsNGMI
>>2894404Around where? In Chinese factories making plastic bullshit to fill the homes of American hoarders?
>>2894405Personality disorders are material reality and Marx had them in spades
>>2894402>I don't see how that's relevant to the post Marxist world.everything is relevant. there is no cutoff point where history stops mattering, the world doesn't really change. the problems humans had to deal with in ancient times are the same problems we are dealing with in the modern era, it's just a matter of degree. the compulsion for the common folk to band together and support each other and resist a tyrannical empire is as old as the empire itself, the need for freedom and autonomy is hardcoded into our dna.
>>2894363>I doWith not basis
>I just asked for a reason to careYou said he was unknown, that he was a literally who, and that you didn’t care for care for a “dutch nobody”. You gave every impression that you were a know nothing, and then you proceeded to say no actually it’s all slop and that you are actually well versed on the theory.
Here’s a question: If you’re so well versed, why didn’t you tell me a specific complaint or reason why you didn’t like it or found it impractical? Why the fuck would I ever make you care about something you already read? You already read it. You already made your opinion that you won’t even share in detail. There is nothing more to be done from me. Period.
>Specifically he thought it subordinated worker's power of the soviets to the communist party and that was le badOh wow, it’s the first actual complaint you had all thread.
Give me a moment for a more detailed response.
>I have fun talking to retardsReactionary
>That's just your cope for being honestMeds
>I am having fun and being myselfDeranged response
>Just say what you mean broLink
>>2894415Yeah that's class struggle bro, the more things change the more they stay the same. That does not mean we have to give outdated models the same credence as currently relevant ones
>>2894416>With not basisPlenty of basis
>You said he was unknown, that he was a literally who, and that you didn’t care for care for a “dutch nobody”. You gave every impression that you were a know nothing, and then you proceeded to say no actually it’s all slop and that you are actually well versed on the theory.Yes and? Just because I happen to know this niche figure doesn't mean he's not an unimportant nobody who produced only slop
>Here’s a question: If you’re so well versed, why didn’t you tell me a specific complaint or reason why you didn’t like it or found it impractical? Why the fuck would I ever make you care about something you already read? You already read it. You already made your opinion that you won’t even share in detail. There is nothing more to be done from me. Period.I was genuinely curious what people found appealing about this irrelevant asshole, beyond his anti Lenin stance. You were unable to provide anything substantial at all, instead you started to seethe and cope. Typical
>Give me a momentTake your time
>ReactionaryYou are an anti-leninist, you are one of the most reactionary posters on this board
>MedsNonsensical non-sequitur
>Deranged response It's the truth, why else would I be posting here? Are you not having fun? If so you can just stop the cope and stop posting
>LinkTo what? The definition of ultra? Just say what you mean lil bro, stop with the gimmicks pls
>>2894416>>2894363So, did the vanguard party actually subordinate the worker’s power of the councils? Ultimately yes.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/2000/isj2-086/trudell.htm
>In assessing the trajectory of the revolution, however, it is important to separate similarities of form from social and political content. Clearly Stalin’s regime in the 1930s did draw on measures introduced under War Communism in its drive to industrialise the Russian economy in competition with the West. Lenin and Trotsky were driving in a different direction in the hope that certain developments – international revolution most crucially – could have made dispensing with those temporary measures a real possibility. That they did not was no more ‘inevitable’ than the rise of fascism in Germany was an ‘inevitable’ result of the First World War because war economies existed in both.>The tragedy of the civil war is precisely that the impact of the war and isolation on Russian society increasingly reduced the scope of political decisions and choices available. The Bolsheviks’ politics and organisation, and the conviction of the mass of workers and peasants in Russian society in the project they were embarked on, enabled them to continue to fight for the survival of the revolution for an astonishingly long time. But ultimately they could not break out of the cage of material circumstances, and neither could they remain unchanged by life as it really was.
<In a country where the productive forces were already devastated, the blockade, far from being symbolic, was a mortal blow. The journalist John Reed wrote, ‘The conscious Allied policy of blockading Russia against medicines killed untold thousands.’ [38] The historian E.H. Carr argues that the blockade was also a central factor in necessitating the continuation of War Communism: ‘Soviet Russia’s complete economic isolation at this time was a powerful contributory factor to economic experiments which could scarcely have been attempted or persisted in except in a closed system.’ [39]
>This policy was not and never could be in accordance with the economic mission of the proletariat. It was merely a provisional measure.’ [56] There is no doubt that the policies of War Communism did not promote coherent economic reconstruction in Russia
<The revolution was victorious in the civil war, but at an enormous cost.<The civil war shattered industrial production: total industrial output fell to 18 percent of its already extremely low pre-war levels. In 1920 production of pig iron was a mere 2.4 percent of its pre-war figure, the corresponding figure for coal was 27 percent, for sugar 6.7 percent, for electrical engineering machinery 5.4 percent and for cotton goods 5.1 percent. [110]<The foreign blockade reduced imports and exports to a tiny fraction of their 1917 figures, resulting in widespread hunger and disease. At the end of the war 350,000 were dead in battle and 450,000 had died of disease. Between the end of 1918 and the end of 1920 hunger, cold and disease had killed 9 million people – typhus killed one million in 1920 alone. The war effort had ‘plundered all of Russia’ and destroyed much of its industry. Fan belts were torn out of machinery in the factories to make boots for the army; 64 of the largest factories in Petrograd were forced to close for lack of fuel. For economic historian Kritsman, ‘Such a fall of the productive forces … of a huge society of 100 million people … is unexampled in the history of mankind.’ [111] <It is difficult to express the full magnitude of such horror on Russian society. Read sums this up well: ‘Terms like crisis and collapse are used frequently today, even to describe situations where economic growth falls below 2 percent. There is no word of strong enough force to use when one comes to the situation of Russia in these years’. [112]<The impact of the war was not solely economic. All the major classes underwent enormous upheaval:<Russia’s social structure had been not merely overturned; it was smashed and destroyed. The social classes which had so implacably and furiously wrestled with one another in the civil war were all, with the partial exception of the peasantry, either exhausted and prostrate or pulverised. The landed gentry had perished in their burning mansions and on the battlefields of the civil war; survivors escaped abroad with remnants of the White armies which scattered to the winds. Of the bourgeoisie, never very numerous or politically confident, many had also perished or emigrated. Those who saved their skins … were merely the wreckage of their class’. [113]<Though victorious against its class enemies, the working class was also devastated. In Russia as a whole it was reduced to 43 percent of its former number. The population of Petrograd fell from 2.4 million in 1917 to 574,000 in 1920 – cut by 76 percent from its October 1917 figure. Those who worked in the factories were often not the same workers who had made the revolution. The army had drained the urban centres dry of the most militant workers, who were replaced in the factories by peasants often lacking the same revolutionary commitment. <By the end of the war, the Bolsheviks were ruling in the name of a class which was at best a shadow of its former self: ‘The world’s first proletarian government had to watch the class on which it claimed to be based diminish from its already weak minority position’. [114]<Naturally, the party itself changed as the working class disintegrated. The distortions within the Bolsheviks were not ideologically motivated. A revolutionary party rests on its links and roots in the working class, learning from the class as well as leading. Without that class, the party becomes isolated – the blood supply necessary to maintain its health greatly reduced. In addition, as the crack troops of the Red Army, an estimated 50 percent of Communist Party members who fought in the civil war were killed, wounded or ill after major battles. The party branches outside the army were also hit hard by the war. The working class membership of the party eroded. In 1917 workers had made up 60 percent of the party; by 1920–1921 that had fallen to 41 percent, the bulk of whom worked for the state or the army rather than in the factories. Careerists joined in large numbers, further diluting the composition of the party. At the same time, the Soviet government was presiding over an increasingly hostile peasant majority. There were strikes in Petrograd, revolts in the countryside, and the garrison at Kronstadt mutinied in March 1921. Once the immediate enemies were defeated, the hardships the population had endured for three years became the cause of dramatic conflict with the government.<To understand the changes in the party it is essential to understand the impact of social degeneration and economic disaster on political principles and ideology. The gap between dreams and reality had widened dramatically in the course of the war, at times leading the Bolsheviks to extol the virtues of policies enacted from dire necessity. There were deep political shifts in the circumstances – it would have been incredible if there were not. But this does not mean that the rise of Stalinism was inevitably the result of Bolshevik politics, or that revolutionary Leninism contained the seeds of its own destruction. As Victor Serge put it, ‘It is often said that the germ of all <Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs – a mass of other germs – and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in a corpse – and which he may have carried with him since his birth – is this very sensible?’ [115]<Political will and the revolutionary impulse achieved miracles in the course of the civil war, in the context of appalling social conditions. But the Bolsheviks could not build a socialist society from sheer willpower. It is an incredible achievement on the Bolsheviks’ part that they held out as long as they did, and it is testimony to the party’s organisation and discipline, and the powerful impetus the revolution had given to creativity and commitment, that even as late as 1928, with Stalin’s consolidation of power, he was forced to physically wipe out the last vestiges of it by murdering or exiling the old Bolsheviks.<It is to be regretted that so many historians, lacking clarity about the nature of the regime which finally beheaded the revolution, have given ground to the theory of an inevitable connection between revolutionary and Stalinist Russia. By locating the civil war period in its historical context, by attempting to draw out the relative weight of objective circumstances and ideology in the most dramatic period of the revolution’s history, it is possible to counter those arguments with a more thorough understanding.<Fortunately, Stalinism is now dead, and in the context of the resulting ideological ferment, there is huge potential for a genuine reading of the Russian Revolution to gain wider currency, not as a history lesson but as a guide for revolutionaries today. >>2893668Commies have only one win and they want to give it to chuds
I see the Pannekoek poster is now coping calling Marx sloppa and demanding a retvrn to pre-scientific socialism. Truly the most advanced sect.
>calling Marx sloppa and demanding a retvrn to pre-scientific socialism.
No one is saying this
>>2894433>So, did the vanguard party [of the workers] actually subordinate the worker’s power of the councils? Ultimately yes.So? This was a good thing. The party and the soviets became intertwined as to be basically indistinguishable, fused if you will. They tried to do the multiparty thing in the beginning but it didn't work for obvious reasons
>The revolution was victorious in the civil war, b…but at what cost???What does this polemic about how the civil war being le bad have to do with Pannekoek though? Can you just make an argument with your own words please?
Marxism is nothingness, a not even clever disguise for ego
>>2893671I wish shitty sectarian bait threads like this were banned, but that would imply jannies actually enforcing the rules
>>2894469>multiparty thing in the beginning but it didn't work for obvious reasonsyes, because that is bullshit libtard bougie idealism. A real communist country would have no parliament or soviets or congress or whatever. Just the King and the technocrats. Be honest, any "parliament" in a communist state is just there to give appearence for "demucrazy" and to rubber stamp everything the politburo (the oligarchy) has decided. Communism is a retvrn to feudalism as G*d (pbuh) intended
~Bordigafags/s in case you are all stupid faggots >>2894339>Stalin is anti-imperialismlmao keep telling yourself that, he would be writing love letters to ziohran if he was alive just like he did to FDR
>>2894468>>2894474It's a shitty thread but at the same time its one of many that presents the mods with a Catch 22 type scenario. If they leave it up, the thread just gets filled with bait and people talking past each other and nothing gets accomplished. If it gets taken down though, the original poster will just ban evade 30 seconds later anyway and remake their thread multiple times while crying about what an injustice they've gone through, as though being banned for a few days from an imageboard for being an obnoxious bad faith cunt is comparable to being black during the Jim Crow era
>>2894479yeah i know, the thread got saged so maybe there is hope kek.
>>2893668You are wrong. State capitalism is what existed during the NEP in a limited grain market, giving preference to the formation of cooperatives among poor peasants, as well as acquiring technology to connect the country's remote regions with electrification and means of production in order to coordinate the economy in the backward regions in the future, adapting them to collective work in state capitalism, which is superior to private capitalism and small-scale commodity production, and is also easier to socialize.
Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union where private property was abolished, anarchy of production was abolished, and the social classes of owners were abolished. The socialization of the economy made capital accumulation impossible, and there was no competition for profit among agricultural cooperatives. Therefore, it was not capitalist. Economic planning in the Soviet Union bore no comparison or resemblance whatsoever to the sale of goods in the market for profit that characterizes capitalism. The modes of production prior to capitalism were not capitalism, so the Soviet Union was neither capitalist nor state capitalism.
The Soviet Union had no elements of state capitalism after the end of the NEP because state capitalism has the same problems as private capitalism, and in the Soviet Union production followed a collective plan rather than selling for profit in the market. There was no financial speculation or methods of accumulating capital. Cooperatives had an exclusive relationship with the state, not competing with each other, with workers receiving the surplus after deductions from the total labor according to their labor and needs in the means of consumption, while the rest was public right returning from society to the worker to meet their needs. If you think that socialism depends on workers receiving the profits from the sale of everything produced in a society of cooperatives that compete with each other, then you are wrong.
The Soviet Union abolished private property, unemployment, and all features of capitalism for the planning of the economy. The cooperatives that existed after collectivization no longer competed with each other and had exclusive relations with the government, with equalization of gains and losses. There were no social classes of owners nor the anarchy of production to sell on the market. The government had a monopoly on foreign exchange using an external ruble currency pegged to gold or through barter, while the internal ruble did not circulate, preventing capital accumulation. The state capitalism, small commodity production, and private capitalism of the NEP by peasants in the rural sector were eventually abolished by Stalin, who reorganized the rest of the economy as a socialist economy according to an economic plan with state farms and agricultural cooperatives that do not compete for profit. There was no way to accumulate capital because everything was public property or private property for use or collective property of cooperatives that did not compete with each other. Health, energy, education, housing, childcare, paternity, maternity, industry, technology, transportation, communication, community, leisure, and food were all socialized and collectivized to meet the needs of workers in the planning of the economy, and workers received their means of consumption according to their work. Commodity production was quite limited to the relationship between cooperatives and the socialist state, while the masses who accessed the means of consumption were separated from this.
It is worth remembering that land was also public property in the Soviet Union.
Let's look at a quote from Marx about the lower phase of communism:
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
<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. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
<But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<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; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmNow, regarding the question of commodity production in the post-NEP period with collectivization, this quote answers any questions you may have:
<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.[…]
<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.
<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distributionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm >>2893668Continuing what I'm writing here.
>>2894496Now I will leave you with quotes explaining commodity production and capitalism so you can stop vulgarizing what you consider "authoritarian" with your opportunism:
<Both commodities and money are the elementary presuppositions of capital, but they only develop into capital under certain conditions. Capital formation cannot occur except on the basis of the circulation of commodities (which includes the circulation of money), hence at an already given stage of development of trade in which the latter has achieved a certain extension. The production and circulation of commodities, however, do not conversely presuppose the capitalist mode of production for their existence; on the contrary, as I have already demonstrated, they also “exist in pre-bourgeois social formations”. They are the historical presupposition of the capitalist mode of production.>> [442] On the other hand, however, it is only on the basis of capitalist production that the commodity becomes the general form of the product, that every product must take on the commodity form, that sale and purchase seize control not only of the surplus of production but of its very substance, and that the various conditions of production themselves emerge in their totality as commodities which go into the production process from circulation. Hence if the commodity appears on the one hand as the presupposition for the formation of capital, the commodity also appears, on the other hand, as essentially the product and result of the capitalist production process, in so far as it is the universal elementary form of the product. At earlier stages of production, products assume the commodity form in part. Capital, in contrast, necessarily produces its product as a commodity. [Sismondi] Therefore, to the degree that capitalist production, i.e. capital, develops, the general laws developed with regard to the commodity — for example, the laws concerning value — are also realized in the different forms of money circulation.[…]
<The conversion of’ money, which is itself’ only a converted form of the commodity, into capital only takes place once labor capacity has been converted into a commodity for the worker himself; hence once the category of commodity trade has taken control of a sphere which was previously excluded from it, or only sporadically included in it. Only when the working population has ceased either to form part of the objective conditions of labor, or to enter the market as a producer of commodities, selling its labor itself — or more precisely its labor capacity — instead of the product of its labor, does production become the production of commodities to its complete extent, over the whole of its length and breadth. Only then are all products converted into commodities, and only then do the objective conditions of each individual sphere of production enter into production as commodities themselves. Only on the basis of capitalist production does the commodity in fact become the universal elementary form of wealth. If, e.g., capital has not yet taken control of agriculture, a large part of the product is still produced directly as means of subsistence, not as commodities; a large part of the working population will not yet have been converted into wage laborers, nor will a large part of the conditions of labor have been converted into capital. This implies that the developed division of labor, as it appears accidentally within society, and the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, conditions and produces each other. For the commodity as the necessary form of the product, and therefore the alienation of the product as the necessary form of its appropriation, imply a fully developed division of social labor, while on the other hand it is only on the basis of capitalist production, hence also of the capitalist division of labor within the workshop, that. all products necessarily assume the commodity form, and all producers are therefore necessarily commodity producers. It is therefore only with the coming of capitalist production that use value is first generally mediated through exchange value.
<3 points.
<1) Capitalist production is the first to make the commodity the universal form of all products.
<2) Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labor power itself in general becomes a commodity.
<3) Capitalist production annihilates the [original] basis of commodity production, isolated, independent production and exchange between the owners of commodities, or the exchange of equivalents. The exchange between capital and labor power becomes formal:
<Economic Works of Karl Marx 1861-1864, The Process of Production of Capital, Draft Chapter 6 of Capital, Results of the Direct Production Process, Chapter 1: Commodities as the Product of Capitalhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htmLet's take Capital so you can read Marx using the term generalized commodity production:
<This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.
<Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Chapter Twenty-Four: Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital, 1867https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm >sage
kek, MLibs are so fucking bitchmade its unreal
>>2894514anticommunism (antistalinism) should've landed you a ban and not a sage you salty cunt
>>2894469>This was a good thingThat was a very bad thing. It defeats the entire purpose of having a communist revolution.
>The party and the soviets became intertwined as to be basically indistinguishableThe above could not have happened then. And this is not a inherent quality for vanguard parties.
>They tried to do the multiparty thing in the beginningRosa Luxembourg wanted fucking soldier’s councile. They ALL were failing from the get go. The multiparty thing should not have even existed in the first place.
>The revolution was victorious in the civil war, b…but at what cost???The text provided literally states that a white victory would have been far worse than a return to the older order. It has no problem stating that the revolution was historically progressive. Not a single problem.
>have to do with Pannekoek thoughThe result of this revolution was part of the reason why Pannekoek wrote against the idea of vanguard parties. Stalin was able to push into power utilizing systems already in place. The party ended up becoming too consolidated in the end to actually push back against careerists and opportunists. Their top down approach ended up leaving the bolsheviks surrounded and vulnerable. Party leadership and composition was not ubiquitous to stop the influx of unintegrated peasants.
>>2894529>anticommunistits was shitalin that sold revolution out because it was going to make his daddy churchill angry, not me
>>2894535>That was a very bad thing. It defeats the entire purpose of having a communist revolution.No it doesn't, the worker's councils become fused with the worker's party. Thus becoming organs of each other. What's the problem?
>The above could not have happened then. And this is not a inherent quality for vanguard parties.Well it's just "subordinate" has a negative connotation, it's more that they become intertwined, with the party having an arguably leading position. I(t being an inherent quality or not is not relevant
>Rosa Luxembourg wanted fucking soldier’s councile. They ALL were failing from the get go. The multiparty thing should not have even existed in the first placeSo? Those existed during the revolution, soldiers in those circumstances were even vital for seizing the revolutionary moment in the first place. The bolsheviks were the ones who advocated all power to the soviets, as such when the dust settled they and the soviets had become all but one
>The text provided literally states that a white victory would have been far worse than a return to the older order. It has no problem stating that the revolution was historically progressive. Not a single problemIt basically just says the revolutionary civil war was bad because at the end of it it had changed the character of the population so much, that it laid the groundwork for some sort of overturn. ie, "stalinism", which it celebrates the defeat of lol
>The result of this revolution was part of the reason why Pannekoek wrote against the idea of vanguard parties. Stalin was able to push into power utilizing systems already in place. The party ended up becoming too consolidated in the end to actually push back against careerists and opportunists. Their top down approach ended up leaving the bolsheviks surrounded and vulnerable. Party leadership and composition was not ubiquitous to stop the influx of unintegrated peasants.Without the vanguard party the revolution would have resulted in victory for the whites though. All other parties were aligned with them in the end
Stalin didn't "push into power", he was chosen by the party because he was good for the position. The dude tried to resign 4 times and was unanimously rejected, this was with trotsky in the committee still mind you.
In the end the critique from pannekoek is moot as it doesn't provide a valid alternative to how the bolsheviks should have operated differently. Similar issues could have happened regardless of the vanguard party model, except then there would be no centralized revolutionary leadership and the revolution would be dramatically lost immediately ala the paris commune, with all participants being gunned down in the streets
>>2894371You are a cretin
>>2894371you are not a cretin
>>2894555>the worker's councils become fused with the worker's partyExcept they didn’t. Vanguardism is designed for leadership control, not class control. War communism did not help.
>it's more that they become intertwined>with the party having an arguably leading positionYou contradicted yourself here. The Soviets, the councils are not only the organs of the party, they are the party. If they were truly intertwined, the party would not be able to take a leading role in such a manner because it would be taking control from itself to give to itself, which is impossible in a actual revolutionary worker’s party, but is very much possible in a vanguard party because it is not about class it is about leadership.
>Those existed during the revolutionWhich is not good
>soldiers in those circumstances were even vital for seizing the revolutionary moment in the first placeAnd are also part of the reason why it fell to pieces.
>The bolsheviks were the ones who advocated all power to the sovietsTalk is cheap
>It basically just says the revolutionary civil war was bad because at the end of it it had changed the character of the population so much, that it laid the groundwork for some sort of overturnIt did not say most of this. It has not in any instance stated that the war was bad. What it did say was the side effects of the war were not exactly the most pleasant, and the effects on the population were not the most ideal. It still did say that the devastation helped lead to a overturn, but it is not dissing on the bolsheviks for that. It outright praises them for their length of survival against less than ideal conditions. And it also give the finger to stalinism at the end, yes.
>Without the vanguard party the revolution would have resulted inUndefined. We don’t know the true result of that outcome because it wasn’t even attempted.
>Stalin didn't "push into power", hePushed into power
>he was good for the positionThe position shouldn’t have even existed
>The dude tried to resign 4 timesNot genuinely
>In the end the critique from pannekoek is moot as it doesn't provide a valid alternative to how the bolsheviks should have operated differentlyWhat do you think council communism is? That is the valid alternative. It literally addresses wrong with vanguard parties and then some.
And also Bolsheviks weren’t even working within the framework. Vanguardism itself is invalid.
>The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.>They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.>They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.>The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.>The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.>The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.>Similar issues could have happened regardless of the vanguard party modelI don’t think you understand how ripe the vanguard party formats is for opportunists and careerists. Sure, devastation would have likely affected other formats as well, but I don’t see how opportunists are going to deal with that many bodies.
>except then there would be no centralized revolutionary leadership and the revolution would be dramatically lost immediately ala the paris communeGuess you disagree with Marx then.
>with all participants being gunned down in the streetsThe proletariat is supposed to be armed for a reason.
>>2894585>Except they didn’t. Vanguardism is designed for leadership control, not class control. War communism did not helpNope it is designed for class control. Just say you wanted the whites to win lol
>You contradicted yourself here. The Soviets, the councils are not only the organs of the party, they are the party. If they were truly intertwined, the party would not be able to take a leading role in such a manner because it would be taking control from itself to give to itself, which is impossible in a actual revolutionary worker’s party, but is very much possible in a vanguard party because it is not about class it is about leadership.No you are just retarded. They are intertwined while being separate things, the party takes a leading position because it is a centralized body. The soviet's were never "in control", that's why the slogan was all power to the soviets, this happened, it just turned out to be the bolsheviks who commanded that power. There's no issue, you just don't like the bolshies
>Which is not goodI know for you communist victory is certainly not good, for you are an anticommunist
>And are also part of the reason why it fell to pieces.No they're part of the reason the revolution was even able to happen at all
>Talk is cheapCheap rhetoric is even cheaper. Obviously they did more than just talk, they made it happen
>It did not say most of this. It has not in any instance stated that the war was bad. What it did say was the side effects of the war were not exactly the most pleasant, and the effects on the population were not the most ideal. It still did say that the devastation helped lead to a overturn, but it is not dissing on the bolsheviks for that. It outright praises them for their length of survival against less than ideal conditions. And it also give the finger to stalinism at the end, yesThat's dumb. The war wasn't bad, just the effects and the circumstances and the result were bad. What a load
>Undefined. We don’t know the true result of that outcome because it wasn’t even attemptedWe have the paris commune as an example, or germany when they could not scramble a sufficiently independent party to lead the revolution. Total devastation
>Pushed into power>The position shouldn’t have even existed >Not genuinely Pure idealism cope. Who cares if it was genuine on his part, they could have gotten rid of him 4 times and chose not to unanimously
>What do you think council communism is?Retarded
>That is the valid alternative. It literally addresses wrong with vanguard parties and then some.>And also Bolsheviks weren’t even working within the framework. Vanguardism itself is invalid.It's not a valid alternative at all lol. It's just some mulling about potential this and that's. As if no leading central party to guide the people through the war would have resulted in anything but a white victory. Just be an anarchists dude sheesh
>I don’t think you understand how ripe the vanguard party formats is for opportunists and careerists. Sure, devastation would have likely affected other formats as well, but I don’t see how opportunists are going to deal with that many bodiesWhy would more bodies lead to less opportunists? If anything it provides less oversight. Again, this is just anarchism. Advocating for a more decentralized approach, just for the sake of it, there's no concrete benefit that you can point to other than that it feels good to you
>Guess you disagree with Marx thenNope Marx actually agrees with me and I with him
>The proletariat is supposed to be armed for a reasonCommunards were armed, they still got shot down like dogs
>>2894714>Nope it is designed forControl by a specific leadership group. I didn’t know how this is hard for you to understand.
>They are intertwined while being separate thingsThat doesn’t even make any sense. They have to be one and the same, no exceptions.
>the party takes a leading positionThat doesn’t make any sense either. The party is the proletariat and vice versa. How can it take a leading role over itself?
>I know for you communist victory is certainly not good, for you are an anticommunistThe armed proletariat exists in place of soldiers and the military.
>NoYes. Another organization separate from the proletariat, another organization that ended up stabbing over the proletariat.
>they made it happenThey explicitly stuck with war communism and Vanguardism.
>The war wasn't bad, just the effects and the circumstances and the result were bad.I literally just stated this in the greentext you just posted above.
>We have the paris commune as an example, or germany Neither examples are in the same scenario, and you seem to be under the assumption that I have deemed the paris commune perfect. It is simply a closer historical example example of what Marx actually wanted as a dotp.
>Who cares if it was genuine on his partIf it wasn’t genuine, it would mean that he was purposely orchestrating events to his benefit, and that he was still a power chaser.
>As if no leading central party toThere’s no such thing as a valid central party, period. The communist party does not go against other worker’s parties under any circumstances.
>Just be an anarchists dudeAnd you dare consider yourself a communist.
>Why would more bodies lead to less opportunists?It would mean more people that opportunists would to physical remove.
>If anything it provides less oversightIt’s literally more eyes on the problem.
>this is just anarchismYou are not a communist.
>Advocating for a more decentralized approach, just for the sake of itFor the sake of it? Are you genuinely that stupid? You are supposed to be a fucking communist fool, one who progresses the real movement. You are supposed to be fucking helping lay down the conditions of a stateless, classless, moneyless society by utilizing existing material conditions and contradictions. You are supposed to be all about decentralization and rendering state structures obsolete moron.
>Nope Marx actually agrees with me and I with him>They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movementAnd
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm>Communards were armed, they still got shot down like dogsGuess you’re doomed then, aren’t you?
Anyways, begone from here foolish larper. I have no more time for your nonsense.
>>2894755>Control by a specific leadership group. I didn’t know how this is hard for you to understand.Nope the leadership group is just an extension of the working class, easy-peasy
>That doesn’t even make any sense. They have to be one and the same, no exceptions.It does make sense, you're just retarded. They don't have to be one and the same at all. That's just some arbitrary rule you made up lol
>That doesn’t make any sense either. The party is the proletariat and vice versa. How can it take a leading role over itself?The working class is obviously larger than the party? The party is a subsection that is representative of the whole.
>The armed proletariat exists in place of soldiers and the military. Those soldiers were just drafted proletarians, there's still no issue other than you arbitrarily deciding it's not good. You are such a fucking idealist to the core man, it's crazy
>Yes. Another organization separate from the proletariat, another organization that ended up stabbing over the proletariat.Stabbing over is not a turn of phrase. do you mean stepping over or stabbing in the back?
>They explicitly stuck with war communism and Vanguardism.Warcommunism was abandoned after the war obviously. Vanguardism, as it was in the prerevolutionary era, was also all but abandoned. That in particular was probably more of an issue than anything you have mentioned so far
>I literally just stated this in the greentext you just posted aboveAnd it's literally a total load of shit, try to keep up dude jesus
>Neither examples are in the same scenario, and you seem to be under the assumption that I have deemed the paris commune perfect. It is simply a closer historical example example of what Marx actually wanted as a dotp.They are examples of attempted proletarian revolutions, what other scenario could we be talking about? I don't care that you wish for your misinterpretation of marx's will to be done. Communism is not a set of rules and prescriptions to be established you idealist fuck
>If it wasn’t genuine, it would mean that he was purposely orchestrating events to his benefit, and that he was still a power chaser.That's just irrelevant psychoanalysis, we have no way to know what his internal rationale was when he offered to step down. They could have easily taken him down, he had plenty of rivals like trotsky that could have voted him out. Nobody did
>There’s no such thing as a valid central party, period. The communist party does not go against other worker’s parties under any circumstances. You are an idealist. Marxism is not a dogma and there certainly are moments when the communist party goes against other "worker's" parties. for instance when those parties are in league with the royalists and bourgeoisie to destroy the revolution and the party. Was Marx not a communist anymore after he kicked out the anarchist retards like you from the association?
>It would mean more people that opportunists would to physical remove>It’s literally more eyes on the problem.This does not even make sense as a sentence. You are really grasping at nothing here. More people? More people also just means there's more opportunists to join, with no central oversight to identify and remove them
>You are not a communistYou are literally an anti leninist retard, you have no right to speak on who's a communist. You would have joined the reactionaries to destroy the Bolsheviks guaranteed
>For the sake of it? Are you genuinely that stupid? You are supposed to be a fucking communist fool, one who progresses the real movement. You are supposed to be fucking helping lay down the conditions of a stateless, classless, moneyless society by utilizing existing material conditions and contradictions. You are supposed to be all about decentralization and rendering state structures obsolete moron.Quit spazzing out retard. You can't even defend your own position. The state must be seized by the working class to enforce their class dictatorship. This cannot be done in a decentralized manner, a centralized group would just come and butcher everyone like they always do. The state will wither when the conditions allow for it to be done so. Until then the DotP must be defended through any means necessary regardless of your personal preferences for decentral this and that
>They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movementThis is not incongruent with vanguardism. You just see them as sectarian shapers/moulders when they are not. RSDLP was the principal working class party of russia. Other socialist workers parties joined with the whites of their own accord. This does not make the bolsheviks sectarians
>Guess you’re doomed then, aren’t you?No retard. Did you think this was a gotcha? Lmfao
>Anyways, begone from here foolish larper. I have no more time for your nonsenseYou are such a pretentious projecting faggot man I swear, one of the most annoying self congratulatory retards on this site and there's a lot of those types here. "I don't have time for your nonsense" give me a break with the endless coping about your own retardation man. As if you came out of this discussion on top lmfao
>>2893668Let us continue with what I am writing here:
>>2894496>>2894503Now responding to another opportunist who does not understand the supremacy of the proletarian class organized as a class in a distinct party independent of the bourgeoisie.
>>2894755The First International, where Marx and Engels were involved, disagrees with you. Communists need a workers' party that is separate from the bourgeois parties. This way, the working class can gain political supremacy by spreading its ideas to create the dictatorship of the proletariat. It also prevents the masses from being co-opted to support the bourgeoisie.
<Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes.
<This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes.
<The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists.
<The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes.
<The International Working Men's Association, 1872, Resolution on the establishment of working-class partieshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/parties.htmThe communist manifesto is at odds with any concept of liberal or petty-bourgeois socialism. Besides, you don't know what it means to be a communist:
<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.[…]
<The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
<In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.[…]
<The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
<In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.
<In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.[…]
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<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.[…]
<When, in the course of development, 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. 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.
<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmYou do not understand the obligation to install the revolutionary government of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
<While this utopian doctrinaire socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another – the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
<Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, (1848 to 1850)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htmAnother quote from Marx that proves my point against decentralization:
<The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.
<In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.[…]
<The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.
<The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.
<Karl Marx: The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May, 1871, [The Paris Commune]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htmAnother quote criticizing the Paris commune wasting time holding elections:
<It appears that the defeat of the Parisians was their own fault, but a fault which really arose from their too great honnêteté [decency]. The Central Committee and later the Commune gave the mischievous abortion Thiers time to centralise hostile forces, in the first place by their folly in trying not to start civil war–as if Thiers had not started it by his attempt at the forcible disarming of Paris, as if the National Assembly, which was only summoned to decide the question of war or peace with the Prussians, had not immediately declared war on the Republic! (2) In order that the appearance of having usurped power should not attach to them they lost precious moments–(they should immediately have advanced on Versailles after the defeat (Place Vendôme) of the reaction in Paris)–by the election of the Commune, the organisation of which, etc., cost yet more time.
<You must not believe a word of all the stuff you may see in the papers about the internal events in Paris. It is all lies and deception. Never has the vileness of bourgeois journalism displayed itself more brilliantly.
<Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht In Leipzig, (London, April 6 1871)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_06.htm >>2894529people should be allowed to be anticommunist on /leftypol/ so long as they're acting in something resembling good faith. this site was at its best when we had unironic socdems and liberals alongside anarchists, syndicalists, ecologists, and various other moderately interesting weirdoes instead of the same generic hotchpotch of generic apologia for dead states, russia simping, contrarianism, and insular channer masturbation.
Unique IPs: 64