Can we not agree that Marxism-Leninism is appropriate for some countries and anarchism is appropriate for others?

How is extending the Soviet Union vastly expanding from Berlin to southern Sakhalin not achieving greatness? This was only undermined by the the traitor Khrushchev who undoubtedly had Trotskyite sympathies. Khruschevism and Trotskyism are criminal ideologies rooted in falseness.

lines on a map aren't very important

anything Lenin-inspired is inapplicable
leftcoms can do what they please, but will no doubt fail at what they're trying to achieve.

lets forget about Palestine then

who said that israel had achieved greatness?

Because they're all different types of caspitalism. And we're supposed to be socialists, not ethical capitalists.

You said lines on a map aren't important so I suggested we give up the Palestinian struggle. It obviously doesn't matter.

would you mind if i correct myself to say "changing lines on a map isn't much of an achievement"?

Yes, let us please forget about national liberation projects. The workers of the world have no country.

In what sense is MLM capitalism. It is common for people who dont like ML to say that the USSR was capitalist, which I believe is mostly correct, but educated people who dislike MLM still admit that Maoist China did achieve socialism before the reforms. A country dominated by private ownership in production became mostly collectively owned or state owned in production.

Also all of the ideas listed are socialist in theory, the only thing stopping them from being socialist is actually achieving them.

But surely then if you admit that capturing Palestine is important to liberate the Palestinians then capturing all the territory that the USSR did is important because they "liberated it" whether or not you agree that they actually did.

youtube.com/watch?v=BT5L4YU_Fl4

Which is why I said it is of essential importance to oppose criminal ideologies like Khruschevism and Trotskyism. Lines are important but it is more important to oppose criminal ideologies. Despite its successes the Soviet Union in the end collapsed due to Khruschevism.

Its no coincidence that Khruschevism and Trotskyism have led to no successes in their history and only failures whenever they have been applied. This is because they are not about achieving successes but rather about wrecking activity to destroy and split up socialism, often at the instigation of bourgeoisie intelligence organizations. This is exactly what the unprincipled saboteur Khrushchev's wrecking activity amounted to. Its a fact that any actually existing socialist movement is going to be exposed to wrecking and saboteurs in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies. Only idealistic utopians deny this.

if it's just lines on a map, it's not important
what's important is people's lives

i never said anything good about corn man or ice pick mick

In the sense that it has every trait of bourgeois society and capitalism.

sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipi/lipifbobee.html
quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/maos_china_certified_copy.htm
sinistra.net/lib/upt/prcomi/ropa/ropaerebie.html

Then these are not educated people.

Which does not constitute socialism, correct.

No.

I still don't care about national liberation as a socialist, sorry.

Also, stop avataring you cringeworthy turbonerd.

In case you hadn't already noticed - the main reason people avatar on leftypol is to annoy the faggots who get so angry about it.

I will have to take more time to read these but they seem to be making the general point that:
1. The Chinese Revolution was bourgeois (who doesn't know that)
2. The socialist transformation left capitalists in charge of industries.
They don't put enough importance on to how the capitalist class was dismantled slowly or how state-run industry is socialist if the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

man you are retarded

If you don't care about national liberation then how do you answer the Kurdish question or propose any kind of socialism happening in the middle east while America has its influence there.

That is good because Khruschevism and Trotskyism are ideologies responsible for only sabotage and wrecking activity. But anarchism isn't much better either. The geography alone, in particular the division between cities and the country side (the zapatistas are strictly rural) makes anarchism incredibly unrealistic in practice on any significant scale.

or extremely applicable for rural areas

Hey Chinafam what Bhutanese puppet show is this?

四月は君の嘘　(your lie in april)

I don't care. It makes you look like a faggot and it's becoming increasingly less interesting for me to continue replying to you (if your shit-tier understanding of what socialism is already didn't).

No.

Also no.

Correct. Property precludes the existence of production for use-value. Because ownership implies exclusion and thus production for exchange. Socialism is the negation of this.

Internationalism.

Internationalism.

anarchism isn;t a political programme or a fixed idea that you apply to things in that context though

Thanks, fam.

good luck with your international revolution where every worker in the world accepts left communism.

I will be over here suiting revolution to the countries they happen in.

...

and you pretending like I didnt understand theory.

Sectarians are jokes.

it's not ideologues that make the revolution, it's the international working class. So yes, I think that socialism can only be achieved through the world wide proletariat whose clear positions on theory & praxis are expressed through the class-party.

and if not associating myself with the bourgeois left (such as MLs, MLMs, and other suckdems) means that I'm a sectarian then I'm a proud one.

my point was not about the international revolution - that is fine

my point was about you thinking that every worker will agree with left communism is extremely unrealistic and impractical in countries where left communism doesn't apply (backwards nations that require vanguards due to uneducated workers or lack of communication that allows for organisation of large movements)

One cannot 'agree' with left communism. Left communism merely proposes regular socialism.

Then all you have is a rural rebellion.

Anarchism is defined by opposition to the state and even the notion of a transition state. If they didn't oppose the transition state they would just be Marxists. But that is unrealistic due to geographic factors like the division between cities and the countryside among other issues.

this is not only misrepresenting anarchism, but marxism as well
it's just a gross oversimplification of real theoretical and practical disagreements

So there are anarchists that support the transition state? Anti-statism is not central to anarchism?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_possibilism

Off topic polite sage, but did you see the 8mil Holla Forumsyp get comrades? Pretty much ensures we'll be fighting come election day
>>>Holla Forums8000000

This!

Supporting bourgeoisie democracy and its phoney elections is actually the opposite of the revolutionary conquest of state power. That is legitimizing the phoney bourgeoisie electoral system that the bourgeoisie has established as opposed to taking state power and forming a transition state. The key issue is the support for a revolutionary transition state which anarchists generally oppose.

Why are leftcoms and post-leftists so intolerably pedantic? It seems like half of their arguments boil down to semantics.

i don't disagree about possibilism being shit, but there's much more to anarchism than just rejecting the state (you need a reason to do so in the first place) and there's much more to marxism than just a transition state into anarchism

I.e. pre-Dengist Maoist China was more Socialist than the Soviets? The only way to justify this would be to rely on "great man theory" (Mao being better Communist than the Lenin, Stalin, or Khrushchev). Hardly Marxist approach.

Why?

Because it's the prerequisite of becoming LeftCom: most of their argumentation is based on dogmatic (aka "idealist" in ML discourse) interpretation of Marxism.

...

It's weird how everything on Holla Forums is ultimately the same as Holla Forums when you get down to it.

I've seen this exact same thread there before all the lolbergs finally got turfed out.

"Can we not agree that Nazionale Sotialism is appropriate for some countries while arachno-kapitalism is appropriate for others?"

The non-anarchist ideology always wins.

0/10 try again, "comrade".

SAUCE

SAUCE

Leftcoms confirmed for socdems.

Please stop abusing the english language, you insufferable jackass.

It's a parody of a flash animation that was posted here. In the original it says 'socialism' (instead of social democracy), and it lists a bunch of examples of socialism like Catalonia/Basque during the Spanish revolution (lol) and one-party Seychelles (LOL).

Found the source: unitedchans.org/socialism-has-never-worked/

I forgot some of the best ones
and the very best (IMO)

This thread has managed to convince me that all the sectarianism on this board is the work of a single Stautist who wants to blame everything but Stalin for the fall of the USSR.

I mean sure, but if I almost know a country's heading towards collapse with a system and that it will be worse off for the worker movement as a whole I'm going to be against it tbqh

Oh and I also insist that the ML knows what they're doing E.G., Sankara.

Leftcoms pushing trying to push a marxist definitions on non-marxists is my favourite Holla Forums meme.

M8…

Stalinist calling someone else dogmatic. Haha.

Anyway, I just wish stalinists of all flavours would just go away forever. I can work with anyone but them; anarchists, market socialists, even Christians as long as they are still actual socialists.

I don't want a parasitic bureaucracy deciding what is in the best interests of the workers it 'represents'.

He's been denying famines for quite a while now.

I wonder how an interpretation of a theory could be more dogmatic than another interpretation of the same theory. The dogma lies in the fact you are both interpreting the same theory, not in your interpretation. If you're less dogmatic, that just means you are not actually interpreting the same theory: you building another theory of your own.

This is why you don't trust tankies when the go on their non sectarian bs.

This is why you don't trust tankies when the go on their non sectarian bs.

...

ur a cheeky cunt comr8
but ur still a cunt

...

liberals, man

Denies or disputes the facts of? I have never heard anyone deny holodomor but there is every reason to question the 60 million figure for Russia or 80 for China.

That is literally what all the anarchists and the leftcom have been doing in this thread

It does. If your ideology didn't account for it then you cannot ignore it. You have to stop it from happening again.

Well if capitalists do out-compete it then it is a failure that must be corrected. That doesn't mean we must throw the baby out with the bath water but it isn't exactly an example of a success is it? It doesn't convince people very well if you only cite examples of things that were destroyed early before they had a chance to go bad in their own right (paris commune, catalonia, spartacists)

come on at least give anarchism a chance comrade

i used to be an anarchist until i took a look at marxism-leninism

so can't some of the people of this board try to look at the different sects of leftism more openly ?

you'd be surprised how much you both have in common

Fuck dengism though.

kek is that agorism on the second pic

anarchism is literally most edgy ideology in existence, there's no way it can work

Divisiveness has always been the inherent vice of the left. The day someone manages to unite the tribes is the day the revolution truly starts.

...

...

bump

He's aware, and while I obviously support the Zapatistas, their revolution hasn't spread in Mexico and Chiapas is incredibly poor.

We could develope a leftist form of minarchism as a non sectarian strategy

I reckon anarchist socialism would be Australia's bread and butter tbh

I think we should at least decide to split the middle. Left coms, anarchists, trotskyists, market socialists on one side.

Stalinists, maoists, nazibols on the other.

This. The infighting will provide for nice entertainment

Not everything, but rather International Zionism

"International Zionism shall by all means attempt to destroy our union, so that Russia could never rise again. The strength of the USSR lies in the friendship of the peoples. The sharp edge of the struggles will be directed, first of all, towards the destruction of this friendship, to the severance of the periphery from Russia. On this count it has to be acknowledged that we have yet not done much. Here is yet a large field of work." - Stalin 1939

The fact that the great UN resolution Zionism is racism was abolished when the USSR collapses demonstrates that Stalin's predictions were right.

Do you even know the actual positions of any of these tendencies?

Okay, left-communist, to you, who is worse?

Anarchists are Marxist-Leninists?

MLs obviously, since they're just very angry socdems. These days there's quite a large amount of cooperation between anarchists and MLs in fact.

fml

this.