Give me a TL;DR of the main leftist ideologies

the marxist-leninists and maoists dont give a shit about you and are proud of it. the trotskyists are the same but they like to be edgy and different. think of marxist-leninists and trotskyists as coca cola and pepsi.

the anarcho-communists are against the state until the state promises free shit for them. theyre actually pretty based imo but since most are assburgers i doubt they'll ever be relevant.

the "left communists" are a mixed bunch who talk shit about everybody. they're good because they trash communists while not doing anything ever themselves, that makes them the enemies of our enemies. i like them.

the social democrats are hated by everyone but are ironically the only relevant faction in modern politics.

then there are the "anarcho-nihilists" or "egoists" or whatever the fuck they like to call themselves, there's literally nothing leftist about them but Holla Forums loves to meme them because it's edgy to just call everything you don't want to discuss "spooky" and get away with it.

ignore anyone who uses the lenin hat, its literally always muke or someone who's just as retarded as muke.

the nazbols are those kids in school that you can never know if they're being serious or not but hang out with them anyways because they're fun

be literally anything other than an anarchist

(You)

This is just drivel

A short guide to all the relevant modern leftist ideologies:

Marxism: 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.

Marxism is a philosophy, if its an idealogy (belief system) then its Marxist-Leninism.

Why can't you embrace the wonders of spellcheck?

And Marxism is an ideology - and it's not a belief system, FFS. Learn the meaning of the words.

Philosophy of Marxism would be Dialectical Materialism.

Ancrap, Lolbert: It's not repression if it's sponsored my McDonald's instead of Burgerland. The same or a far worse neofeudalist system where the strong prey upon the weak and are praised for it would not result from implementation of my ideology, nor would ecological catastrophe or a variety of zesty memes involving getting killed in a war between Pizza Hutt and meth-addled child prostitutes.

Anarkiddie: The same or a far worse warlordist system than what we have now where the strong prey upon the weak would not result from implementation of my ideology, nor would ecological catastrophe or a variety of zesty memes involving getting killed in a war between two towns who had grown large enough to need the others' resources.

Anfem: I me mine. That or I am a strawman/troll/falseflag. Vagina.

Tankie: Stalin did nothing wrong by creating an alieniated ruling class. Muh vanguard.

Trots: Small businesses, permanent revolution, icepick meem.

Anprim: I have never had an abcessed tooth or burst appendix and therefore see no reason for technology.

Nazballs: As long as a boot is stomping on a face, I don't care which foot it's on, and unironically don't think it would be on mine for browsing a degenerate Mongolian sandpainting appreciation board. That or I am a strawman/troll/falseflag.

Pirate: Yarrr. Shiver me timbers.

Islamig Gommunism: Porn is degenerate, let me sperg out about it in the kink thread. That or I am a strawman/troll/falseflag.

Freud Cigar: Mods are fags.

Anarcho-Nihilist: Life is meaningless, so I came here to shitpost at you.

Juche: I am a strawman/troll/falseflag. Dong.

lel

Unfortunately there are different interpretations of either what this entails, or how to get there.

There's also technicalities of state ownership of property not being controlled by workers, and whether you could call that just a different name for 'private' property in practice.

Touch my Loot, Get the boot?

because fuck the nap and property rights

Sed like a true beleaver.

fuck off nietzsche

Not that I'm aware of. Not within Marxism - I mean, we have RDWolff and the rest of bullshit machines, but that's provably no Marxism, and none of them are relevant - in the sense of having no accomplishments beyond populism.

See above.

There are quite clear guidelines about that being set since the 19th century (direct democracy, ability to recall representatives at any time, and so on). Nobody actually challenges those. All the accusations (from the Marxist side, obviously) that claim USSR being non-socialist are based on the existence of some sort of shadow autocratic government that forced people to ignore the actual legislation. Pro-Soviet Marxists don't agree that there was such a hidden autocracy, nor do they suggest to create one. They say the Soviets actually followed the written letter of law and the results of practices were not anti-Marxist.

I.e. ideologically speaking, there is no difference between pro- and anti-Soviet Marxists. Theory is one and the same, it's the interpretation of the events in USSR that differs.

I'm not sure I get this one.

Stalintrip, my love :3

The usual critique on this point is that a part of a bureaucracy came to form a managerial class, and thus even without owning property, their existence and role was a source of contradictions inside the USSR.

Regarding democracy, do you think that democratic centralism was abused, leading to repressions and purges beyond what was necessary for survival?
Is this inherent in democratic centralism? If yes, is there any way to avoid it?

Also, is it true that most successions to the post of GS (and other Politburo posts) have been marked by internal struggles?

What was the relation of party to state organization? Was there any problem of interference and inefficiency because of that?

What is your view on Sergey Kirov?

Ah. Djilas. Right.

To some extent. Abuse is mostly noticeable with hindsight 20/20, though. The real problems I have with is not pre-WWII decisions, but public inertia in the 50s (understandable intertia, but still reactionary).

Of course. It's not like you can stop people making wrong decisions without completely removing all decision-making power from them.

There are some measures, but they all boil down to trading pieces of public's decision-making power for increased coherence (the Vanguard, for example). There is no simple solution.

In case [wild Anarchist appears] and starts being dogmatic about freedom, I'd like him to clarify what he suggests to do about age census before accusing Vanguard of being elitist. Should we take decision-making power away from toddlers? Will it be ageist discrimination?

[cont.]

Of course. And not successions alone. Political struggle didn't cease after succession. There wasn't a single moment without some kind of infighting going. Regular politics in other words.

Party was mostly working as HR department of USSR. The primary function was vetting people and general oversight, not direct executive decisions.

That said, there was an obvious overlap between the high-ranking Party members and high-ranking State functionaries.

To some extent. Despite all the problems, early Party was clearly necessary and vital for USSR, but it was becoming increasingly reactionary. A turning point (significant qualitative change), in my opinion, was WWII.

Personally, I think it would've been acceptable to abolish the Party by 1950 (so as to ensure some stability for post-war period).

His personal/professional qualities, or his murder - and its impact?

Member of Stalin's factions. Apparently, got his job done (there are some questionable moment, but that's mostly irrelevant). Didn't do any particularly significant theoretical work.

I don't think Stalin ordered him killed, if that's what you are asking. Nor do I consider Stalin grooming him as a heir to his - autocratic - throne.

So, is there any counterargument to the managerial class thesis the other poster set?

In your opinion isn't this a problem? Aside from the distortions/ sabotage/ inefficiency this could cause to regular daily life, doesn't this lend a greater degree of existence or importance to the State and thus alienate it, hindering the transition to communism?

Why was that? Wartime consolidation or something else entirely?

Such as?

Is there something to back this up or are we going on intuition? I'm sure you're aware on most of the counterarguments from [insert term here] and they too lack any concrete foundation. So are we stuck on speculation forever? I think that's damaging because it's seen as a focal point by many.

Even then, there are worse cases than Kirov imo, like Tuchachevsky and Rokossovsky.
There are also theories about Frunze being murdered but that's more fringe, if you had any sources to dispel/ argue against these allegations I would welcome them.

In the politics as usual you described, did the Party had some role similar to a parliament or not? If so its abolition would be acceptable but I don't see how that would square up with the struggles. Where would they be played out then?

Also, any views on the Secret Speech and what preceded it (1953-1956)? Was it a coup? How did they escape oversight? What could be done to avoid it, if it was undesirable?

I think this ties in with your problem with '50s inertia ( I see it more as a reaction or self-criticism for the '30s)

General thoughts on Stalin's cultural/censorship policies? Some great novels were suppressed because of it and I see it as very unnecessary and counterproductive.
Strangely Khrushchev followed up on that while disregarding most other policies.

I'm an anarkiddie who posts without flag because I want serious discussion. pls no bully.

Pardon for the delay. Captcha was unresponsive.

Is this avoidable problem? Can one solve it conclusively? Once and forever? Because I don't think it could be excised, removed from the society without some ultra-oppressive dictatorship.

In my opinion it is a manageable problem. One we have to deal with, while solving the problem of private property - which is solvable. But people having different opinions is a reality, a fact of life one can't ignore, nor avoid, nor remove. Not until we get some sort of hivemind going - a solution I'm not particularly comfortable with.

I.e. regular crimes.

This bit doesn't look Materialist. We need some sort of alternative to compare qualities to.

It's a bit like saying that the hammer you use is hindering the process of driving nails into the wood, because it doesn't transfer force with perfect efficiency.

While it might be theoretically correct, what would be an alternative, the one that doesn't hinder (or hinders less) transition to Communism?

Because Anarchist approach - the only alternative - is the equivalent of punching nails into the wood with bare hands. Obviously, hammer no longer hinders the process, but I'd hesitate to call this option a solution.

(all was written before I've read your spoiler)

Primarily - deaths of old Party members and recruitment of the new. I would say, by 1945 at least two thirds of the Party was new members that joined during WWII.

Secondary - and less crucial reason - would be a certain shift from class consciousness to national consciousness. After all, WWII was not purely class struggle, but more of a national liberation (bourgeois) war - different basis, if I may. People became more willing to compromise for the sake of national unity in the face of external enemy.

Consequence of not having World Revolution, yes. But hardly a sufficient argument for the Permanent Revolution or Bolshevik fault (that would be the failure of English, French, and German revolutions).

More autocratic features in Soviet state would be tertiary reason, compared to those two.

[cont.]

I remember there being some organizational mistakes (general impression is that Kirov was popular, but wasn't great organizer). I'll need to dig out some stuff to get specifics.

Either way, why the sudden interest in Kirov? Hardly a key figure in USSR. Now, his death - that was a turning point.

It's a complete lack of anything to back the other claims up, despite a very vested interest of certain parties.

It's been decades after Trotskyist claims of Stalin's involvement, it's been decades after Khrushchev's claims of Stalin's involvement. But there is no factual evidence, no political reason, no motive - no coherent one; there is only "insanity" of Stalin that could explain anything. Nothing, beyond "this allowed Stalin to start the purges" - except I consider Yezhov to be prime beneficiary of the purges. Now Yezhov's involvement (North Caucasus NKVD faction) I might consider. But people want Stalin, and it's clear that they want him for political reasons.

You can call it intuition, I call it common sense. I don't need a specific reason to doubt the existence of dragons, do I?

There is no speculation. If someone entertains conspiracy theories, that's his personal business. We don't consider existence of dragons to be a controversial topic because of a few nutjobs, do we?

And their opinion is relevant how? It's great man theory through and through. Usual idealist rationalization, rather than proper analysis.

Any Marxist analysis would rely on understanding of the underlying reasons. The processes. And Bolsheviks had those aplenty - Party was ripping itself apart with or without Kirov.

Importance of Kirov's murder is in it's timing, not in the Kirov himself (or Stalin, for that matter).

In what way?

Kirov's case is significant because it's been publicly interpreted as the very first internal (interfactional) conflict of Bolsheviks that resulted in death (arguably, there was Blumkin in 1929, but he was a thorough traitor, so he doesn't count).

For 17 years Bolsheviks were a ruling Party. For 17 years Revolution did not devour it's children. And then came the December 1st, 1934 - a member of ruling faction got killed - and the ghost of Robespierre begun its haunting of the Soviets - until it got exorcised by Beria four years later.

This is the importance of Kirov's murder.

And what with the Rokossovsky? He wasn't even executed. He got released during Beria's re-investigations and amnesties. How is that worse?

Do you have any sources that dispel the allegations of dragons burning the Seattle down (and then magically rebuilding it, altering everyone's memories in the process)?

I.e. certainly, I can argue about it, but it's too retarded for me to want to.

...

No. Did you even read my post? HR - Human Resources. There is no direct equivalent in Western representative "democracies", but there is one in big companies.

In the High Council, on the elections, out in the public. Not in private.

Not really a coup. No. A "Reaction" would be proper word, but only within ML discourse - the one is hardly familiar to you, I'd guess.

"Beria's totalitarian practices" (control over Party) was abolished and condemned. But that was not particularly important, since criticism was allowed. For example, in the early 50s Yaroshenko trolled Politburo for months and accused Stalin of being incompetent and corrupt - he did spend a few months in prison for hooliganism (after his second meeting with Politburo), but that's it. Without those public escapades nobody would've even cared.

In case you are unaware, "criticism of Stalin" as a reason of execution is mostly bullshit. Mostly - because during 1937/38 you could get shot for any reason. Whatever excuse interested party would conjure, would be written in the protocols and deemed sufficient. That said, most of "conjurers" got shot themselves during 4th wave of executions (Beria's) for this kind of bullshit.

Abolition of Vanguard (or transformation of it) with time. Also, free information flow - Internet seems like an obvious solution, at least to me. General public was greatly misinformed and lacked experience - it is in present we can use 1956 as an example of corrupt government in State Socialist, before nobody could conceive Goebbels-level of outright lies by the ruling body.

Frankly, it merits a long discussion - not even one thread would be sufficient - and better understanding of the social processes than I currently have. I must say, this is one bit of insight I expected to find in Anarchist analysis of Soviet state, but I didn't manage to find anything serious. It's not that I expected to discover some Grand Theory of Organization to compliment Marx's Economic Theory - I abandoned those hopes long ago - but more often than not, Anarchist approach is utterly childish and even more prejudiced than that of the post-Trotskyists. This disappointment is one of the main reasons I consider pure Anarchism dead and only it's evil twin - AnCap - alive.

In what way? It's been two decades since. I can't see Purges of 37/38 having more impact than the WWII - or death of Stalin, for that matter (great man theory or not, Stalin was an essential figure in his faction and his death did have a lot of impact - 10-15 more years might've led to OGAS being implemented union-wide and bureaucracy being dealt a lethal blow).

I'm not sure those were Stalin's personal choices. It is quite possible for general public to actually want to restrict some opinions. Especially the one that survived Civil War, the one of such heavily religious and illiterate background - less than a generation ago - as Soviet general public in 1930s.

I wouldn't be surprised if Russian Empire proved to be - after a thorough research - more fundamentalist (if less violent about it) than the Saudis we have now.

I no great literary expert, nor do I consider art to be of importance - in the context of Revolution and deaths of thousands of people - nor did I do any research on the matter, but I would like to point out that Soviet Union produced quite a lot of art. If anything, censorship was more than compensated by the ability of wider population to create art.

But, as I said, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Bulgakov and other pro-White/anti-Soviet intelligentsia that - supposedly - was the only one capable of creative thought in USSR?

I'd say Khrushchev did not "follow", he actually used his personal opinion as a basis. As I've already mentioned here several times before, personal power of Soviet leaders was increasing with each iteration: Khrushchev had more power (if not popularity) than Stalin did, Brezhnev even more (except the condition was that he wouldn't use it), Andropov kicked the bucket before he could do anything, and Gorbachev became the first proper Soviet Dictator (except built-in countermeasures against tyranny destroyed USSR before he went full Pinochet).

Stalin is considered to be the most powerful because his opinions were widely shared by the public - which is explained as Stalin forcing his views on people. Except there is one more explanation possible: causal link could be reversed. As a populist extraordinaire he adopted opinions of general public, rather than forcing his own on them.

Also, if we are talking about Khrushchev specifically, I must note that belief in his "democratic" tendencies is misplaced. Primary cause of "Thaw" was not he, but Malenkov (Stalinist, who got deposed only in 1956; additional remainder that Party's power is great, but indirect). I'm not sure if Khrushchev could be described as a LeftCom, but he was clearly more Left, more radical and uncompromising than Stalin was.

Marxist-Leninism is an immortal science ok.

...

Managed by introducing more oversight, more voting procedures, making it easier to recall delegates in both party and government??

Pretty much, but not stemming from conditions having to do directly with production and capitalism , and thus very unnecessary and counter productive.

Why?

I agree, but that doesn't make it any less materialist. Also, sadly, this alternative still has to be formulated and tested.

I'm kinda stuck there too, what I can tell is that the previous iteration lead to failure and thus created the need for the next one, whose existence is thus presupposed but not actually in being. I can know it will come, and maybe someone/we/I will do some part of it, but I find it foolish just take part in repeating something that has already failed.
If you think that its failures are something remediable in the current framework OK, but I hope you understand my conclusion, the need for a radical rethink (not without action of course).
that's the main reason I use the nihilist flag tbh, regarding the current existence of a workable path towards communism

I agree with you on that. I just wondered if you had any sources debunking conclusively, like with the moon landing conspiracy and so on. But if you think even replying to such stuff gives undue credence to loonies, I understand.
Likewise with Frunze.
So in general I agree with you on the conspiracy point.

I assume you don't agree with the charges of Bonapartism made against Stalin. Do you believe there was something like that in the history of the USSR, as a result of the Terror and terminating it, or are the processes not analogous with the French Revolution.

By the model of Stalin ~= Bonaparte , you have Brumaire before the terror.
Without it, you have the end of the terror by something other emerging from it, or maybe even apparently external (e.g. war). Beria as the Thermidorean reaction maybe?

This is roughly sketched and just theoretical, as part of the search towards the insights you said anarchism is lacking. Maybe stuff like that will help solve the problems we agree exist regarding the vanguard and so on. But I agree, it's another discussion entirely.

More in the vein of my claim that the overzealous character of the purges massively hindered the function of the state. I agree with you about great man theory, but Tukhachevsky was a theoretical genius and Rokossovsky maybe the most skilled field general of the Red Army. Their absence (and that of many others) played a large role in the shitshow of June-November 1941, and it has been my theory that the colossal character of those early defeats fundamentally changed the character of the Soviet state.

I didn't say there was a direct equivalent. More like the power struggles inside a company, yes. Isn't even more transparency better, even in that situation.
Also, the creation of and fight between factions was something that had a stench of parliamentary/backroom politics, but you disagree.

On this we agree for once, 100%. For example, in the Internet era, livestreaming every single meeting would be good, no?

n-no bully pls

How was it exorcised? So you attribute a large part of it on Yezhov and his faction, like you seem to imply in
OK then.

The Internet is extremely important, yes. I've actually talked about it irl with some older cadres.
Only thing I can say about that, and I think you will agree, is that we both need to read more about this.

Not only them.
I also don't think Bulgakov was pro-White, but that's another discussion.
I place a huge value on literature and it's my main reading focus, so let's leave that discussion for another thread.
I disagree strongly with that.

So you attribute it as pandering to a reactionary public?
The function of a proletarian dictatorship regarding the superstructure is something you're against or indifferent to, I guess, preferring to focus solely on the transformation of the base?

So cultural control/repression is acceptable or desirable as long as it will keep the masses on board the economic changes that both create and need the spooks, or as Lenin said 'priestery' ?

I thoroughly enjoy many examples of Soviet art, there are many threads spread out involving it.

Also enjoy, what struck me the most visiting Russia was , even after 2 decades of counterrevolution, is how widespread and culturally acceptable art is, even for the proles.
There are many other examples and anecdotes I'm sure you know of, no need to recount them here.

Also, tangentially, I would add that even though you regard humanities as useless and so on, I think the thorough study of philosophy, literature and so on should be encouraged along with the sciences as a way to help society. Maybe the qualitative moment in the character of change sometimes needs a formulation or something.

If you think the censorship had deeply triggering and problematic, anti-elite characteristics, I also disagree. It was more general than that and deal a large blow to Soviet art.
If you never implied that, sorry, my bad.

Andropov's plan was more like Deng, yes?

Whose belief is that?

Any sources on that? The first one is interesting if speculative, the second one is generally more accepted but if you had any good book on those three years (53-56) that would be nice.

In what way? Which actions or speeches proved that? Burden of proof is on you with that.

We may disagree but I think this was a decent discussion, I wait for sources on Stalin's populism, Khruschev's left position , and the '53-'56 shitstorm, if you can/want.

was supposed to be anti-Tsarist/liberal, I just used the word for the color associated with them, fucking wordfilter

Breddy good comrades

It says excellent for me. I think the word filter is broken.

there are plenty of lenin hats that aren't muke

I've read, but I'll answer in full a bit later (maybe tomorrow).

nietzsche > you

Whatever works. There was a lot of measures that got used by the Soviets (Party), you know. I would say personal responsibility of politicians might've played a significant role (it was informal and got phased out of use by Khrushchev).

And I must point out: you forgot the (crucial) right of workers to recall their (factory or otherwise) managers/bosses. If War is a continuation of Politics, Politics is a continuation of Economy.

No Anarchist drivel without arguments to support it. At least, don't disregard the basics of Marxism in such an off-hand manner.

Hierarchical structure (Superstructure) - unevenness in distribution of rights that is the prerequisite of power abuse - is a consequence of necessity to operate industry in scarcity economy (Basis).

So - no. Regular abuse of office was stemming from the economy and it was unavoidable. We can hope to reduce the amount of crimes, but we can't hope to abolish them completely, not within foreseeable future. This applies to government as well.

Because:
To put it the other way, qualities do not exist by themselves, only in relation to others.

Materialism of DiaMat is not about supernatural. It's about (among other things) rejection of sloppy thinking - Idealism (in ML discourse): the concept of having qualities - any abstract ideas - exist outside of (not in relation with) the real (material) world.

You can't describe anything without comparing it to other things. If you attempt to do it without comparing to some specific object(s), you are essentially presupposing that there exists some abstract "ideal" (which is why Idealism) object you can compare things to.

In your case we don't have a situation without political infighting, especially one capable of transitioning towards Communism. We can compare situations with different degrees of infighting - or different mechanisms - but those need to be clarified first. Instead you essentially offered to compare things to the Land of Magical Equines. Which is counter-productive, because it doesn't exist.

[cont.]

I don't agree. USSR wasn't about having a state that would last for millennia. It was about changing the world.

From my point of view, the only correct way to define the status of Soviet experiment (at this moment, at least) is to say that Soviet transition to Communism wasn't finished: it's not like it didn't change the world. Culture is unimaginably more Socialist now - even if this Socialism is imperceptible to most people.

As I've said: it hardly failed.

A man can die, a state can crumble, but an idea "fails" only when it is surpassed by a better one.

Let me quote Leon "Enemy of the People" Trotsky on this (Marxism in our Time, 1939):

Sure, we can dump 170 years of Marxism (and Socialism in general) down the drain, we can refuse to improve it further, we can opt for something else and go back to 19th century. But what else is there? SocDem Reformism, anti-Marxist Anarchism (AnCap), and Luddism.

I.e. a choice between Barmy Sundress, Somalia, and Amish. So, which of "unfailed" ideologies is the most promising? I say even if USSR would've "failed" ten times more it would still be much better than any of those three.

Yes, Soviet model needs improvement. Yes, it might "fail" again. Yes, it does not promise immediate and universal justice. But until we come up with something better - even equivalent - it is a height of folly to discard it.

[cont.]

who gave muke mod powers?

>>1010957
Consider one question: what shall we do, when (not even "if") Fascism goes into overdrive? Shall we start radically rethinking with increased intensity?

Mind you, this is hardly theoretical question for people already living in the "no longer civilized" parts of the world (or those, like Brazil, becoming one). What should be done there? Should the people consider Marxism unworkable and Soviet model failed? Should they engage in "radical rethinking"?

Even First World doesn't seems to have much time to "radically rethink" Socialism. It's not like we don't have an incoming crisis in EU, with its poorer nations already transforming into obvious police states. US also gets increasingly Fascist day by day.

You say that action should not be ignored. But what action would that be? Throwing stones at police? Burning of Reichstag? Non-violent protests in a place far from anything of relevance? Voting strategies?

Unless you suggest action for the sake of action, one expects (at least a chance of) success, yes? But the success of any action implies having some kind of goal. And you can't have goals (especially, intermediate) without some kind of ideology - a coherent structure of goals, methods and ideas.

Thus we are coming back to the question of ideology. In my opinion, "not without action" could be interpreted in one way and one way only: using Soviet model to beat the crap out of anything remotely Capitalist. I.e. for all intents and purposes it means adopting Marxism, whether you like it or not.

Workable compared to what?

How should this "workable path" look like? Popper-perfect ideology that would grant certain 100% success rate of everything plus magic invulnerability against Fascist bullets, traitors, and general incompetence of people?

Let's put some numbers on things: what was the chance of October revolution establishing a Socialist state that will survive until the Communism?

I'd say Lenin didn't have more than a 5% in 1917. By 1929 - starting point of 5YP - it would be something like 10% for USSR. 15% in 1941 and 20% in 1949 (Soviet nuke that cemented status of USSR being Second World). And I don't think this chance ever went above 25% - that could've been 1957, if Anti-Party group somehow succeeded.

For comparison, should the current EU somehow get Socialist without massive war, I'd put the odds of "success" - of European Soviet Socialist Union surviving until the Communism - at 30%. 40% if we add US&Russia to this Union.

This is how I see situation with Communism: more likely than not, we will fuck up again. That doesn't mean we can't get real UBI, 4-hour workday, colonization of Mars, and whatever else is there - even if someone would call it "State Capitalism" and "failure" again.

This is "workable" from my point of view.

[cont.]

Holy shit, only a stalinflag could be this retarded.

These… are literally numbers just drawn from your ass, it's nothing but your own subjective opinion posited in such a way that it would appear to be some form of sound study.

Yes.

No. The point is the contrast with the "unfailing ideology" of Popper.

Not the actual numbers.

Posadism is the only leftist ideology that matters

(final version)

/ /

IIRC Adam Ulam (despite being a rabid anti-Stalinist) did some investigation on the case of Kirov, and debunked Stalin's involvement. However, I'd need to track down his books to say anything conclusively.

I simply have no particular interest in - nor unlimited time for - debunking all the multitude of conspiracy theories out there.

You don't actually expect people to be interested in USSR of 1930s because of discovery that Stalin didn't orchestrate mass-murders of millions of people, do you? It's literally a non-event.

No. That's retarded, to put it bluntly.

If you want Soviet Bonapartism, look no further than Yeltsin (Gorbachev also attempted to become one, but failed). That's how Soviet Bonaparte looks like. Even classifying Trotsky as a failed Red Napoleon is stretching things quite a bit.

What people forget is that the very basis of Napoleon is counter-revolutionary. But Stalin never left the paradigm of October - this I can tell you with absolute certainty. Russian Labour party was moving in the same direction since 1902. Specifics might've depended on circumstances (and failure of European revolutions changed a lot), but the general direction of Party was the same. Even after 1961 the course didn't change - except Party stopped moving, of course. Only in 1977 did the first (bad) signs appear and even then it took ten more years for deviation to become obvious.

Sure, some processes might be analogous, but any direct analogies with French Revolution are immediately suspect, because it was (predominantly) Bourgeois, while Russian was (again, predominantly) Socialist.

The same applies to the "class" "analysis" - the point about "managerial class" from previous post I forgot to address, btw - you can't simply use Marx's class theory, the one that was made for Capitalist system, in a Socialist system. Even the basis of internal struggle is completely different. Which is why attempts to paint Socialist Bureaucracy as Capitalists always fall flat on their face.

If you really want to put masks of French Revolutionaries on Bolsheviks:
- Stalin was much closer to Robespierre (it is still wrong mask, but it's not completely daft - compared to Napoleon, at least).
- Khrushchev's purges would be Thermidorean reaction: 1956-1961 particularly
- Khrushchev-Brezhnev period (especially, so-called Zastoi) would be Directory
- Consulate of Gorbachev (1989-1991, I'd say - Perestroika in general) is almost imperceptible.
- and then we have charismatic Napoleon-Yeltsin providing qualitative change

Nice posts, thanks. I just wanted to know your thoughts on some stuff.

Leftism is about urban and costal economics.

This other discussion about Communism and Marxism is a bunch of projection.

Ay pero que pendejo estas.

I stopped reading right there.

You either read a lot more or go back to your containment chamber >>>Holla Forums and if you are extremely autistic and naive go to. >>>/liberty/

have an awful day.

Kys

AYY Stalin worshippers are fucking brain-dead.

I can't continue this amount of Autism is painful to read.

This is why I don't mind calling myself Stalinist.

Shouldn't you throw in trots and revisionism in there to complete the bingo?

How can I do it? That would imply that you are at least partially Marxist!

I'm sorry. You'll have to endure being simple reactionary shitposter.

cmon

this is surprisingly not bad I gotta admit. comrade snek knows his shit

His ancom definition was pretty terrible

I like ancoms but y'all need to lighten up. besides he said he liked 'em. he just thinks they're secretly statists (like most tankies on this board)

Wait, who's the tankie here?

Actually this is pretty accurate.

I was saying most ML's argument against anarchism is that they're secret authoritarians and just call the state something else. or at least that's what they like to shitpost about here.

ML and Maoist- Batshit crazy. Ask them about Mao or Stalin and they'll usually pull out some obscure sketchy websites that look like they're straight out of the 90's full of ramblings about how history is bourgeois propaganda

marksocs- like being able to democratically exploit themselves. Shit on anarchists and leftcoms as a pastime. Most of them are closet MLs

leftcoms- call themselves libertarians and cry about tankies while sucking Amadeo "hardy-for-the-party" Bordiga's dick. Usually pretty smart though

ancoms- liberal who watched a couple of LSR videos and thinks they suddenly know everything. A general rule of thumb: if a tankie commits an atrocity it's authoritarianism, if an anarchist does the same it's stalinist brobaganda. Usually has a vague idea about what socialism means and how to achieve it as well as a very surface-level understanding of what happened in Catalonia and Ukraine

Nazbol- proof that the horseshoe theory has at least some validity. Also generally gets along with tankies pretty well (wonder why that is).

Posadism- correct

Egoism- a meme. but they can stick around because for some reason they really trigger Holla Forumstards

Anfem- surprisingly adept at shitposting plus at least one of them is a qt

Well, I'd rather not have a confused Lassallean decide what's Marxist or not (since he has 0 understanding of Marx theory) so that's fine with me.

Hint: maybe you shouldn't look for the Marxist definition of communism in a pamphlet for a party where Marx and Engels where just one of many?

Because while it's of course very thankful for a state 'socialist' to define it as the mere abolition of private property, the Marxist one has a few more criteria that needs to be fulfilled. Do you know what the value-form is for example? Maybe you should read Marx and find out!

Yeah well if you're fine with calling yourself a Stalinist go ahead, but you're not Marxist by any reflection of his theory.

100% sure no leftcom here calls themselves "libertarian".

Anything Left that is not Anarchist (SocDem, SJW and Liberals aren't Left).

If you are serious, you need to re-evaluate your understanding of Marxism. It's Hollywood-tier.

Maybe you should stop being autistic shitposter instead?

just be post-left ok

Marxism-Leninism: the reason liberals think socialism is big government
anarcho-communism: it's not a state if i do it

...

NO TIME FOR THEORY TOVARISH GRAB KALASH EXPLAIN ON THE WAY WE HEFF TO GO

10/10