Stalinists are fucking cancer

The reason why I left the right and mid behind was because of the authoritarian elements and capitalism. I learned about the far left and was pleased with libertarian socialism, yet somehow old-muh-armed-revolution-style-marxism, stalinist pigs, maoists, and STATE-CAPITALIST SCUM, i.e authoritarian leftists have a strong foothold in the leftist movement(s).
Why is this?
Why don't they realise they're just as bad as the alt-right and fucking nazi scum?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Second-Hand-Time-Svetlana-Alexievich/1910695114
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

What?

when will this meme end?

Armed revolution is authoritarian?

>>>/gulag/

I.e. you are against violent revolution?

...

I think by armed rev they mean using an army to take power like the bolsheviks did.

Agreed

tankies need to fuck off for good. nobody will take the left seriously while psychopaths admire stalin and mao

Enjoy getting branded a schizophrenic and locked up for "dissident paranoid delusions", forced to take antipsychotics against your will in the Siberian asylum.

Holla Forums millennials embrace authoritarianism because they have it too good and they don't understand how truly shit authoritarian states become in practice.

I will assume this whole thread is bait

Nor will anyone take the left seriously while manchildren admire not showering and not reading books.

It's gonna take more than denouncing things like tankies and smashies that are obviously a thorn in the side of the left to get somewhere.

Armed revolution isn't bad, but tankies and other authoritarian strains of leftism are cancer
I would rather live in a right wing libertarian society then a left wing authoritarian society

That's dumb. How would they go about enforcing property rights without an authoritarian mode of coercion? Don't become an idiot just to distance yourself from a part of the left you don't want to engage with.

They are impotent liberals

10/10

I fully support a political, not an armed & violent, revolution. To abolish exploitation of workers and natural resources, primarily by western companies in the third world, i.e capitalism
Basically this
I am fucking convinced that not a single one of you have ever experienced an authoritarian system, or have has family members that have suffered under one. You are all delusional to think that "hurrr state-capitalism & authoritarianism = utopia". Do you guys really think that Marx, Engels, Blanc, etc. would have supported stalinism and state-capitalism? Read "state capitalism and world revolution" by C.L.R. James.
You guys are literally like Holla Forums, but just pretending to be leftist.

I find the combination of your flag and what you say very amusing.

You can only support an armed revolution in the case of actual authoritarianism, not modern representative democracies that have minor authoritarian elements

Is this the time I post the "not an argument" meme?

No. It's the time for you to think about what you're saying.

Did you take your bourgie propaganda today?
Any government is authoritarian by definition, depends who's using it though

The US is pretty authoritarian for ethnic minorities, so speak for yourself.

I am a second gen son of an undocumented immigrant, was born here so fuck off with he INS jokes, my father worked everyday 12 hours a day in the fields for 30 years With only Christmas off.

So fuck you with this you've never had it as hard as someone in the USSR. Not even. Tankie

How do you intended to succeed? Do you honestly believe that the politics of capitalist countries are a genuine expression of the people's will?
I also think stalinist are dumb, the system they wish to set up is incapable of "withering away" or producing any sort of effective democracy, and their arguments tend towards "if only they'd had better leaders" or "if only the bureaucracy wasn't so corrupt, they should have purged more." But how do you suppose this peaceful transition into libertarian socialism will happen when historically and currently serious leftist movements, regardless of their methods, have been violently repressed?

Typical.

Luxemburg never called herself a libertarian Marxist because as a communist (especially a Marxist communist) she knew to never bother placing herself in the meme dichotomy of authoritarian-libertarian. Tankies would gulag her regardless of this because of her critical attitude towards the Bolsheviks and exchanges with Lenin, though.

The only good thing about being in a shit third world country is how much of a fringe fraction the Stalinists/Mautists/and so on and so on, are both in mass movements and politics today.

I guess that's due to their shit praxis, in the past, or just because they were complete opportunistic sellouts.


Suicide in 2018.

They're actually the biggest if look at the total amount of active self-identified Maoist groups and their supporters. Unlike pretty much any other revolutionary tendency, they actually manage to establish territories they fully control or seriously undermine local powers.

Well, by mautists I meant thurd worldists actually. Sorry for that.

The actual maoists were quite big here in hue land, but the military dictatorship pretty much wiped them all. Now even they are a fringe sector. Quite sad, imo. They were one of the few authentic revolutionary group/movement we had.

Badiou is based.

Praise Plato.

You mean turd worldists that live in the first world and whine about everything that isn't third world, or Maoists in the third world?

Not an argument.


There's a lot more western countries than the U.S. Of course some level of violence is necessary, but demanding civil war is insane

My mother experienced Ba'ath during her childhood, then escaped to the Soviet Union. This is the reason I hate any kind of authoritarianism.

Because I denounce authoritarianism?


I subscribe to hegelian dialectics when it comes to the development of the system

What makes you think armed revolution is synonymous with authoritarianism?

leftypol, like all "non-sectarian" leftist arenas has fallen to authoritarianism. When will my fellow anarchists realize they must give no ground to the pigs? Only anarchism is leftist, nothing else.

I'm just stating it from a historical perspective.
When a new state have centralised power it will not give it up.
I fully support riots and the like, but not street fighting.

Prickly please

I see

Liberal pls go

I can genuinely not tell if this is satire.

Anarchists will never accomplish anything without the help of marxists. Just look at Catalonia.

Enjoy regression

Catalonia woulda won if they just had more people & guns tbh

See your own flag

More Marxists? Reminder that without the Marxist wing of the CNT-FAI, anarchist sympathizers in Spain and anarchists in the International Brigades were vastly outnumbered by Marxcom volunteers.

OP is right. Fuck tankies.

This is the most accurate post in the thread and it deserves to be built on.

There seems to be something about millennials in general that makes them predisposed to authoritarianism, whether they claim to be left or right. If you express an opinion that goes against the collective, they think they have the right to dox, harass and censor you, and they're incredibly smug and arrogant about it despite the fact that the majority of them don't have any notable knowledge and couldn't put together a decent argument to save their lives. As a millennial myself, having grown up around these types, hoping they'd eventually mature and watching them only ever get worse and worse, it's grown extremely fucking tiresome. People who want freedom shouldn't have to put up with this shit.

...

What the fuck are you talking about? The CNT had nearly 2 million members, most of which were anarchist.

So you mean that armed revolution will necessarily end in centralized power? The state is not a conscious being. Power being centralized has to do with external pressures making central coordination necessary for survival. This is one reason a revolution must be international, and why widespread class consciousness (not just discontent with capitalism) is so necessary. Socialist revolutions have basically been forged into authoritarian regimes by capitalism. If they were ever socialist to begin with, but that is another discussion.

What's wrong with an armed revolution? Why does it necessarily leads to an authoritarian state? And how is a peaceful revolution even possible? I don't think porky will simply give us the means of production nice and easy.

The very act of revolution is authoritarian in of in itself, libertarianism is a farce, that is not to say anarchist methods of achieving socialism are, just the idea that they are "libertarian".

kys

I understand that the distinction between a libertarian or authoritarian society gets kind of blurry, but I think OP was commenting more on Tankie's total inability to perceive that a state, even a so called workers state, can actually end up oppressing the workers more than it liberates them. Any state ought to have checks and balances on its power, and not unnecessarily infringe on the freedoms of the population.

*instinctive shneef*

I hate those people too

Bring back 1900 style socialism

Suits and smart

Suits are bourgie

There's nothing wrong with Stalin nor the USSR.

Please read this book if you want to understand what was life in USSR:

amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Second-Hand-Time-Svetlana-Alexievich/1910695114

So what? Looks better than people moping around in hoodies

There's got to be something that's not bourgie but also not sloppy looking

There's nothing wrong with suits,and no they're not bourgie. They're regular clothing.
No need to transform them into more than what they are. Cloting, personal freedom.

...

No there wasn't. He purged society from greedy, corrupt people.
It's a shame the following leaders didn't do the same, so corrupt minds like Gorbachev and Putin were allowed to use the communist party to climb the social ladder.
Stalin did an amazing job in industrializing the USSR, keeping the country together during ww2 and keeping society free from very dangerous people filled with greed, rage and hate and that refused to participate in building a better place.

t. ankie

Tankies everyone.

Sure, Stalin was kind of an ass. But what would your solution have been at the time? The bolsheviks did not have majority support. There was both internal and external pressures on the USSR/Russia, thus there needed to be SOME authoritarian measures.

But state capitalism seems to be everyone's favorite thing to talk about. Believe it or not, the kind of economic system imposed in the early 20th century in a primarily agricultural economy of which "over-production," was out of their lexicon would be completely different from that imposed in placed where there are more empty houses than homeless.

Lenin et al. wanted to create long-lasting socialism instead of creating cute lil communes that would be smashed if anyone so much as breathed in their general direction. There is logic in centralized defense, there is logic in organizing an egalitarian economy that will accommodate collectivization. That's not to say Lenin, Stalin, etc didn't have plenty of fuck ups, but that doesn't mean there are no positive messages to be gained. It's fucking ridiculous to be equating these errors with Nazis though, and is absolutely normalizing white supremacy.

A western revolution will likely be more "libertarian socialism," than the ML revolutions that have taken place in "third-world" countries.

Why didn't he purge himself, then? :^)

maybe because the bolsheviks betrayed everyone, from the soviets to the anarchists

Market socialism ala Tito.

well, its not like the USSR didn't have some form of presence in the market, after all you have to remember that they did exported and imported raw materials and goods

nice anarkiddy maymay, faggot

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Talk about dogma amirite

are you going to cry to the mods to erase the posts that hurt your feefee's again?

You don't get it do you? Stalin unlike Hitler didn't killed people because they were jews or gypsy or wtvr. Those peopel never asked to be borned.
The peopel that died under Stalin rule it's because they were dangerous and are peopel which can not live in society because the only thing they think off is hwo to harm other for their own personal gains.
He did what had to be done.

Much of this "betrayal" happened after they rose to power, thus didn't modify their favorability over the mensheviks, who also betrayed a good number of folks.

But even so, are these betrayals worth tainting the entire legacy of the USSR? Can't you just say "It was a bad move killing those anarchists. Kronstadt was not a good move. Purges targeting intellectual elites didn't just leave the reactionaries without ideological support, but it weakened the market-place of leftist ideas."

When we look at history, we have to look at how the USSR were relative to their peers, and particularly how this modified the conditions of the working class. I think despite their abundant short-comings, the USSR was behind some incredibly rapid and admirable increases in the conditions of the working-class.

...

fight me irl fgt

Parents lived in the USSR, never suffered. in fact much better than current life in capitalism.

refer to your flag

Reminder that tankies are Russian nationalists who like the colour red

prickly you were the authoritarian banning people for 8 weeks instantly for simply being a Leninist, fuck off

This has got to be a falseflag right? you know for every one of these libsoc who hasn't read threads, there's gonna be like 20 tankies who come out of the woodwork to be even more disruptive than usual. You're making shit worse. Stop shitposting. Read.

depends. my family escaped from Poland and they're all staunch anti-communists, from the stories I've heard from them, their anger is somewhat justified. I'm not saying we go full liberal like OP, but lefties will get nowhere if they are incapable of self criticism. The sooner we dissociate with the "what do you mean the DPRK isn't socialist?!?!?!?" types, the better.

Wanting collectivisation in 1918 doesn't make her Enemy of the People.

if its about promoting parts of soviet system that actually worked really well (there were times when economy was booming)… then its pretty good actually

Well this is LEFTYpol, after all ::DDDD