Edgy socdems

Which shall be the solution to the "M-L question" ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM
pthcvideos.tk
aaap.be/Pages/Transition-en-Marxism-And-State-Communism-1932.html
23waystohateyourself.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/leszek-kolakowski-a-critique-of-everything-marxist-ever/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Give them jobs in the militia, they'll be happy.

get them to actually read marx and lenin

proletarians aren't the main protagonist of today's struggle

What about maoist?

I've never met anyone IRL who virtue signalled against muh ebil ML who wasn't a massive faggot

Can anyone please link me to a great critique of M-L please?? , (other than Luxemburgs about Lenin wich I had olready read)
And althougfh i don´t like to classify miself as any kind of communist, if I agree with Lenin ideas ,and think that although it had lots of problems Stalin actually pushed for socialism am I an M-L??

This

You're basically ML if you don't think everything that happened in the USSR was le sdade gapitalism/red fashiszm.

You could get honorary leftcom p.rivileges if you were a Trot but you said that you think Stalin pushed for socialism and not that he was bureaucratic gerontocrat. That's really too bad bc its close to what your position is tho

Pretty much this. Staunch anti-MLs (which is really just a codeword for anti-communist) are the "liberals" amongst the left. That, and the disgusting fact that they willing to eat up any propaganda porky throws at ML

Rape them to death!

Then who are ?

Guess I'm ML then

...

In order fo their to be a question about what is to be done with them, they actually have to be doing things in the first place.

MLs have been the only ones doing things for the last 60 years

*clears throat*
CYBERSYN
MAY 1968
ROJAVA
those being the top 3 examples off the top of my head; there are others too
Plus, I thought MLs saw the USSR after Stalin as being "revisionist" (funny coming from MLs, who are a revision of a revision of a revision - should be arguing for Proudhon if thinking that way!). All they've done in the last 60 years is the Khmer Rouge (no real differences between Maotists and you guys in practice), and we all know how that went.

Proletariat = anyone who sells their labor power (is employed)
Just wait until Trump and his successors finish the process of neoliberal globalization and the labor aristocracy phenomenon disappears completely, bringing people who fit into the category of "proletarian" in the 1st world back to the beginning of the 20th century in living standards (but with computers and mass surveillance!).

Trotsky wasn't a leftcom, you faggot. And I see that you're trying to draw him in by being disingenuous. Just be honest about what you think and let it stand on its own merits. No one can really do this honestly, but it's an ideal to aspire towards to try to not be a total faggot.

I'm staunchly anti ML and don't think that way. Straw man. Holodomor is not real and famines still happened because there had been famines for the past 1K years in Russia, but Stalin was still a monster for creating gulags, shooting anyone who disagreed with him, repressing self-management of the soviets, etc. Completely antithetical to socialism as classically conceived, although it was impossible in the USSR anyways - even if the soviets would have lost to the west if self-controlled, he should have let them instead of sullying socialism's name for all time and pointlessly immiserating people. Guess Marx and Engels were liberals, who knew?!

Who are?

Yeah they've been turning leftist movements to shit worse than capitalism for the past 60 years, causing their citizenry to run towards capitalism at the first opportunity.

Or you could take a course to improve your reading comprehension–that works too.

I'm so tired of retards getting buttblasted and firing off on their keyboards without bothering to check the actual content of my posts, or intentionally misinterpreting what I say because they can't come up with a good rebuttal.

Look at what I wrote:
In no way does that assert that Trots are leftcoms but it only points out that Trots and Leftcoms have a similar view of the Stalinist era of socialist construction. In fact, it really implies the opposite in the same way that when Hitler called the Japanese "honorary Aryans" the Japanese people were still in no way "Aryan" to say that Trots are "honorary leftcoms" despite whatever shared positions or positive feelings between the two groups the fact is Trots are still not leftcoms. To point out another context clue the fact that any group would grant another p.rivileges that it already enjoys would seem to indicate that the two groups are not in fact one and the same.

Trotsky rejected the state-capitalism thesis being put forward by leftcoms and had some bitter breaks over people in his own movement over it; Bordiga referred to Trotsky as a "rebel who rose to late" in his 1946 piece The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation.

Both groups share a common vilification of Stalin and the Stalinist period of socialist construction. Both have very confused ideas about what should've happened after the revolution/after Lenin seemingly unable to make up their minds over whether the NEP should've continued and Russia revert back to capitalism or whether collectivization in fact should've proceeded but Stalin didn't go far enough in forcing everyone to share the toothbrush. Neither movement is really "leninist" since Lenin spurned both Trotsky and the leftcoms while he was alive but both try to claim lenin's mantle and in their own way "correct" him. Both movements have currents that argue the USSR wasn't even anything except state-capitalism (see Tony Cliff for the Trots) etc. it was somehow even worse then Western capitalism, fascism, and colonialism etc.

Again, no, their not the same but do they have similar beliefs? Yes, so I am quite justified in comparing them.

I already say what I'm really thinking so I don't why your giving me that advice. What I say seems triggering enough for Holla Forums kids eager to follow whatever revisionist current is popular at the moment but we'll be here no doubt when you guys get tired of going around in circles looking for answers to questions that Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha already answered decades ago.

How so? Almost every Marxist-Leninist country and even the "M" "L" countries which never followed anything other then a revisionist line improved the lives of their citizens substantially when compared to where they prior to their revolutions economically. And for the most part they grew much faster then traditional capitalist economies.

Many countries, perhaps the majority of countries around the world, were at some point subjected to fascism which is a kind of capitalism more or less constituted on a traditional model which killed millions of more people then ML states including most of the revisionist ones that I do not defend.

You also neglect the fact that the USSR has been gone almost 30 years now where are the anarchist and non-ML socialist revolutions whose ideological partisans have declared and still declared to be the truly revolutionary doctrine in comparison to ML. You haven't had us to stand in your way for sometime.

Some other factors to be considered:
1. Khrushchev's Speech (which could've been written by Trotsky himself) and the Khruschevian Thaw were major events in Soviet history that did change how it was governed and the culture and outlook of that society. Since that time we have been in active opposition to the Soviet Union which turned to open hostility in 1960. The real Marxist-Leninist movement rejected the revisionist Soviet Union which was a bad copy of Titoism both in its ideology and its practice. It's truer to say that the crimes such as the Invasion of Afghanistan were the bitter fruits of the ideological outlook of men like Trotsky, Tito, and Khrushchev rather then Stalin and Lenin.

2.We've been in opposition to the PRC since at least 1976 but openly so after 1978. We opposed the social imperialist actions of China in supporting the Khmer Rogue and invading Vietnam for instance.

So, its hard to say that we actual leninists are somehow committing or aiding in committing crimes against the proletariat that would hurt the left. Not only did we reject these social imperialist actions by Russia and China, but need I remind you that despite all the gloom and doom predictions Western capitalism has remained dominant and even more violent (because of its greater power) then social-imperialism? And the Western left and the vast majority of its revisionist currents has a long and nasty history of apologizing for or cooperating with Western imperialism.

The people who would run towards capitalism when faced with the specter of revolution and bloodshed are not people that can be a revolutionary base for anything. Now, the Western Left has a habit of saying that struggles against imperialism in the periphery are useless and/or the proletariat in their countries are imminently revolutionary. It seems there is a revolutionary moment in the West everyday.

Let us focus on the question of revolutionary potential of the western proletariat–if they have that potential then no amount of fear of us MLs should prevent them from doing their work. They should reject us entirely and gravitate to your revolutionary doctrines and put them in action if this is the case. What we see instead is a cycle of widespread worker apathy/conservatism and short-lived succ dem reformism.

We still have a revolutionary subject but not yet a revolutionary situation.

Think back to when the worker's movement was most militant and radical in the 20th century–the 30s, the 60s. That was a period when many workers were guided by ML and even in the cases where they were not it was a complement, it did not stop either worker militancy or the acceptance of other leftist ideologies.

TL;DR Your one-liner doesn't explain shit.

wwll atleast we know to not take your opinion seriously on anything.

Trots BTFO

Tankies > Succdems

honestly wouldn't mind this, so long as i get to fight for socialism i'll be happy

though tbf the primary reason i'm not a tankie is that i don't really fetishise Russia. "Social democracy from the barrel of a gun" describes a pretty good state of affairs when all is said and done.

nice samefag, but you and I both know that when an unironic bunkerfaggot posts a wall of text, absolutely no one but the newest of newfags will ever read it. let alone like it.

Wasn't me. Pretty funny how butt-bothered you are about it tho.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

pthcvideos.tk
pthcvideos.tk
pthcvideos.tk
pthcvideos.tk

How delusional do you have to be to believe in shit like this?

No chance they would abuse their position and force us back into capitalism like they always do

No movement has ever transcended capitalism.

M-L's arent always completely shit but they have nothing to do with communism. They were somewhat relevant in national anticolonialist struggles but those days are over. Historical revisionism and larping isn't going to emancipate anyone.

...

...

Tankies = Succdems

FTFY

...

aaap.be/Pages/Transition-en-Marxism-And-State-Communism-1932.html

23waystohateyourself.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/leszek-kolakowski-a-critique-of-everything-marxist-ever/