/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Because they don't like the optics of being anarchists. Its all vibes.

Because anarchism is retarded

Don't know honestly. ML tactics are so ineffective compared to tactics such as playing-soccer-with-d20-dice-soccerballs praxis in the modern day.

The USSR thrived and started dying when de-Stalinization and further revisionism and liberalization began (note that this causes the sino soviet split). We also have China nowadays straight up raping US hegemony. Truth is nothing but MLism works at all.

>>2948981
It's an interesting tradition to read about and can refer to a specific method of organization but identifying "as" a "Marxist-Leninist" always seemed a little strange to me. Like you're more into a catechesis at that point but unlike trad Catholics the government which published those official textbooks no longer exists. There's China but the Pope there mainly just wants you to be a good boy who does a good job.

>>2949007
>de-Stalinization
The political structure of the ussr remained completely unchanged from stalins time de-stalinization just destroyed his personality cult.
>We also have China nowadays straight up raping US hegemony.
They survived because they abandoned marxist leninism after maos death.
>Truth is nothing but MLism works at all
If by works you mean selling out to liberalism then yes its got a perfect trackrecord.

>>2949015
Khrushchev ABSOLUTELY had a reform of the party structure, you are uninformed.

>>2949017
The party re-organization was in place for 2 years before Brezhnev reversed it so this cope doesnt work.

>>2948981
Because the USSR created the greatest quantity of vibes and aura and cultural impact in the west, making it easy to fantasize about. China makes things too hard: they're asian, too foreign, get less attention over here, and worse of all had the gall to adapt and survive rather than blundering to death.

>>2949007
But Stalin would be to blame for allowing the conditions for people who'd enact destalinization to come to power, so this doesn't fix anything.
(It can also only ever be a partial explanation: look how many changes happened under Deng in China that ran contrary to Mao, but China's still here!)

>>2949020
>Brezhnev reversed it
no he didnt lol, destalinization was never fully reversed
>>2949015
>they abandoned marxist leninism after maos death
factually incorrect, one of the biggest difference with china is the fact that they never attacked mao like the soviets attacked stalin
>the soviets just destroyed his personality cult.
oh, is that the reason why they released prisoners (including common criminals), abandoned disciplinary measures in the economy, introduced profitability in enterprises for short term profit (which fucked up the entire planning economy to disastrous results), major introduction of black markets etc…

>>2949001
Anarchism isn’t all there is

>>2949241
Revisionists will look you dead in the eye and tell you that there wasnt any large difference between kruschev and stalin, theyre all social democrats, communizers, dengists, and anarchists are all social democrats.

>>2949241
>>2949247
The fact of the matter is that if Stalin was as good as his fanboys say, no revisionist could've torn him down. If you fail in succession planning you don't get a mulligan on your successor being a dud, that's on you!
Incidentally, stable succession of power is one of the most underrated social technologies. It is the big material advantage of bourgeois democracy over autocracy of the monarchical/dictatorial type. The USSR gets some credit for never breaking down into civil war even though it collapsed, because that still beats risking a war every time the leader dies as in the autocratic case.

>>2949247
>there wasnt any large difference between kruschev and stalin, theyre all social democrats
true