Why aren't you a Marxist-Leninist yet, Holla Forums?

Why aren't you a Marxist-Leninist yet, Holla Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=ZiSM8SkE4mo
youtube.com/watch?v=3ufTFRGPrCM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I am.

Because most self-described MLs I meet are insufferable puritans with no capacity to organize outside a small autistic seminar group.

I'm tempted by it tbh. I just don't want it to devolve into purges.

Because ML is what Lacan calls the university disvourse.

Because I don't believe in Historical Necessity or any objective "Laws" of History

Because highly centralized bureaucratized top-down single party states are a recipe for authoritarian state capitalism. Tbh idk why MLs are still a thing, their model was tried and failed.

because the externalization of proletariat power needs to be smashed.

...

...

gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/

I'm not retarded.

Come on m8, sure there was full employment, no homelessness, full healthcare, education etc. That was all great stuff, but there was also rampant corruption, goods shortages, cronyism, cracking down on dissent, etc. Admittedly these are mostly political problems, but the Soviet system lent itself to these kinds of issues and made them more likely. There's also the fact that if the Cold War competition caused the USSR to collapse and not the U.S. then the American model was obviously more durable. I'm actually for a planned economy, but central planning and state ownership clearly results in major issues. Local planning and production organized into syndicates would be a better model.

Oh, come on. Don't pretend that you don't want some people dead.

Yo. Instead of comparing Soviet flaws to Utopia that never existed, compare them to the flaws of Capitalism.

Nope.

Vanguardism is a hoax, the good will of the revolutionaries might last a few years but the system they create will naturally produce corruption and bureaucracy. The only plan stalinists have to deal with this is "purge more" or "if only they'd had the right party leader".

There are philosophic reasons I oppose central planning, but nothing about the USSR discredits it. The issues with the USSR were mostly political tbh fam.

Because I live in an industrialized society and do not see any need to further delay giving the working class direct control over the means of production.

fuck off tbh. you guys are a worse impediment to the left than idpol.

This.

This would've been relevant only if your New "Left" was capable of revolutions.

As is - it would be relying on Fascist state to persecute Communists (alongside with Nazies). And Capitalists don't really need any additional inspiration.

Because socialism is better than state capitalism

Goods shortages became rampant after Khrushchev came to power because the Soviet firms were increasingly decentralized from de facto state-oversight and pushed towards making maximum short-term profit. Necessary goods either rose in price as firms strived to make more profit or were deliberately withheld to effect a price-rise; those areas were the state still provided necessary goods at or below cost because of Stalin-era policies suffered from deterioration in quality or availability. The Stalin-era policy had been to decrease the prices of necessary goods for the people so that their real purchasing power went further etc.

The famous shortages in the East-bloc in the 60s,70s, etc. were the result of policies designed to bring about the rise and consolidation of a Soviet/East-bloc bourgeoisie as well as Soviet-sphere capitalist system.

Check this book out for more information: revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf

There's some truth to this, the US survived because it had a more durable capitalist system then the revisionist USSR. But, I do have to be fair even to renegades like Khrushchev and Kosygin etc, the Soviet economy grew much faster then most of the Western economies in this period and it was fairly developed at the end of the Stalin period. Believe it or not, for a time Eastern Europe was the fastest growing region on Earth, and part of this has to do with the fact that Eastern Europe and the USSR had lower starting points then their Cold War competitors.

Again, I don't deny that revisionism had disastrous results, as the Russians say: "Stalin found the country a wreck and left it a super-power, Gorbachev found the country a super-power and left it a wreck."

To my knowledge, PRC and Yugoslavia attempted something like this and it led to open capitalism quicker then ML-style central planning. Think about it comrade, the planning of the past was limited by the information and communication technology of the time, with the internet and modern computers a whole vast plateau is opened up in the realm of planned economy. The bourgeoisie are already suggesting something like what many modern theorists of planning have in mind with "the internet of things"

State-owned enterprises sold stuff for fixed prices in USSR.

>Check this book out for more information: revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf
I already told you that it distorts information.

I forgot to note that during those famous post-Stalin period good shortages that multiple sources that Bland cites indicate that luxury goods and smuggled imports were available in sufficient quantity for those who wanted to buy them. So that suggests to me that it was the kind of shortage that is typical in many capitalist countries but which is rarely the subject of much fuss in the bourgeois press.

Because this isn't the 20th century anymore. The Cold War is over, and the base upon which ML's legitimacy was derived (the Soviet state) is dead and buried. ML's big advertising point is that it is a "coherent ideology," but that coherence only existed when there was a central authority to set the definition. With that central authority gone, ML has largely become an anachronistic mess of different parties trying to derive legitimacy from an absent source. Not only from a legitimacy standpoint, but the actual propagation of ML was in no small part due to the fact that those who adhered to said ideology and proceeded to revolt were more likely to receive material support from the Soviets (and other similar states) in their efforts.

The last remaining states that at least formally adhere to the ideology have long since fallen into decay due in no small part to the inadequacies of the system itself and it's organization of political and economic power. The parties that adhere to it without significant modification generally have little interest in advancing the cause of the international proletariat struggle or Communism; the larger of them mostly nestled comfortably into parliamentary politics and the smaller of them engaged in impotent insurrectionist struggles while failing to organize significant movements behind them. ML as it is has lost virtually all revolutionary potential, but most of its ideological adherents are too dogmatic to make necessary adjustments to their tactics.


Let me put that in the words you actually meant:
1) I don't like your opinions, therefore you must be (a) [BLANK].
2) Your critiques on the failures of 20th century socialist states are invalid because [BLANK].

I don't like famines and purges

And I like democracy

I don't get how it distorts information when it cites almost entirely Soviet sources and for the most part what he cites seems rather typical for the period.

I don't see how you maintain the position that they didn't have capitalism until Gorbachev and Yeltsin when the vast majority of ML movement around the world holds that it was restored before them though there is considerable acrimonious debate on the where and when.

You know for all the "its the current year! get over the 20th century!" shit that I hear on the Left nobody seems to notice that the Right is drawing in new converts to fascism by trumpeting the alleged economic superiority of Pinochet's Chile and Hitler's Germany–two states with mediocre economic records even by capitalist standards.

Yet, we shouldn't let people know that the Left had an economic alternative in the 20th century that grew at around 10-14% in its golden period and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty.

As for 20th century nostalgism it seems anarchists are the worst of all, their constantly idealizing the short-lived anarchist experiments of the interwar period in Spain and Ukraine. They largely cannot be convinced that these experiments had problems beyond those caused by "statists" whether left or right. Or, that some of the people in charge of these experiments committed the same type of crimes and mismanagement that they accuse communists and other socialists of committing.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZiSM8SkE4mo
youtube.com/watch?v=3ufTFRGPrCM

Because I'm not an opportunistic dickweed who wants to replace the current bourgieous with myself and my friends

I am.

Because I've read Marx and also Lenin, and found their theories good enough without a addition of Stalin.

The Right isn't even pulling in the masses on those historical premises though: it pulls in a few hundred pseudointillectuals with a history degree from Wikipedia. The popular right seems to pull more so from modern insecurities that have parallels to what gave rise to fascism in the past rather than the actual fascist movements themselves. The economics of said movements usually ends up being "whatever the extent of capitalism we can get away with," which will vary from place to place.

Also I'm aware that the 20th century anarchist experiments were largely failures: that's why I didn't mention them in the post as some "golden alternative." My point is that we should be learning from these failures when trying to build modern political movements. Hell, even many of the people INVOLVED with the aforementioned anarchist experiments at least had enough introspection to critique: Makhno for example spent basically the rest of his life reflecting upon and asking the question "what went wrong". Most other Marxists also are able to look at their own failures critically and take from the past what is still valuable; I respect them immensely in that regard.

That's my problem with ML, it doesn't do any of that. Most ML parties and movements essentially are out to repeat the same tactics that they were utilizing 50 years ago, all the while denying that the 20th century ML states were anything less than the pinnacle of worker's achievement and that asking anything more is simply unfeasible. There was a time when "revisionism" actually meant something in the realm of Marxist theory. It's been twisted and contorted now to be synonymous with "heresy," and when the majority of MLs consider this kind of "anti-revisionism" to be a staple of what makes their ideology strong, it is telling of the degree of dogmatism that pervades their logic (or lack thereof).

Are you trying to pretend that each and every human has a unique Special Snowflake ideology that has nothing to do with other ideologies and is completely independent from the mainstream political thought?

Stuff has been discussed ad nauseum decades ago. Just because you didn't read anything, doesn't make it all invalid. So - yes. It is possible to put labels on things.

Doesn't cite them fully. Lies by omittance. Implies things that did not exist IRL. Wilfully exaggerates minor factors.

I already told you all this. What confuses you? Why didn't you clarify anything if it was unpersuasive?

What should this even mean? Typical anti-Soviet propaganda?

By relying on objective evidence and actual Marxist analysis. Books written by Marx and Engels. Lenin too, especially when it comes to Imperialism.

You take actual historical data and use historical analysis to avoid bias. Then you apply Marxist theory to this data. If the conclusion is "no, it's not Capitalism", then it isn't. That's all there is.

If you literally abandon the very basics of Marxist analysis then you don't deserve to be called Marxist.

You either present actual evidence of Capitalism, or I don't give a fuck about someone's opinion.

Especially if it's anti-Soviet propaganda machine - because that's what we are talking about, not some unbiased experts. "Vast majority" are either post-Trotskyist or Maoist, both with vested interest in painting USSR Capitalist.

Moreover, absolute majority of those pundits cannot even be called Marxist anymore (post-Trotskyists especially). The rest - while being Marxist - uses incorrect information for analysis.

Decent post

I disagree comrade, I think you underestimate the influence of fascist talking points on the current Right and the appeal of fascism, even if filtered through popular culture, on the popular Right itself. Just for example the Libertarian party did very well in this election and the alleged success of libertarian principles in fascist Chile and South Korea, as well as in the authoritarian polities of Hong Kong, Singapore etc. are major reasons for turning young people onto libertarianism as a political ideology and Austrian economics.

Too often the Left forgets that its still "the economy stupid!" that informs peoples political motivations.

This implies there were superior working class achievement elsewhere in the 20th century. But where to find them? Is it in the short-lived anarchist experiments in the 20th century, you have already conceded that they were not perfect and at least open to the same challenges (or greater) to their legacy. Will we find it in the worker's movement in the West in the 20th century? Tbf, they achieved higher-wages and some piece-meal reforms but never achieved anything like substantial economic or political hegemony in Western society. There was proposed worker-buyouts in Sweden under social democracy, but the capitalists didn't want it, so it didn't happen, and even today more of the Swedish economy is in the hands of private capitalists then the US.

And, yes, I fully support the labor movement in the West in the 20th century, but their higher wages and living were predicated on the assumption that imperialist pillage of the rest of the world would continue. Once the Western growth rates started to slow-down and Western economies no longer really "boomed" even in good times then workers wages went nowhere for decades, almost as if there is a correlation between rising wages and the boom phase of the economic cycle as Marx noted. It should also be noted that the stagnation of Western wages also emerges with the take-off of non-Western competitors (imperialist or otherwise). If we uphold the labor movement in the West as the pinnacle of worker's achievement then I guess we also have to uphold Sam Gompers and bourgeois democracy as the pinnacle of worker's achievement too–it would only be fair.

Decolonization was partially a product of the communist movement, (we'll leave aside ML support for it) to the extent workers participated in it it was largely spontaneous support. The colonial bourgeoisie didn't want that much to do with communism and even repressed communists, anarchists and trade unions. We also have to note that imperialists without or with few colonies like the US also supported it to an extent. Since this is the area of the world with the worst conditions for workers imaginable, I don't think that here we can claim it to be the pinnacle of workers achievement either. So I guess on this basis we must conclude that ML was the pinnacle of revolutionary worker's achievement in the 20th century.

Most of the colonial countries claiming to be ML were/are nationalist regimes who saw the USSR as model for how to industrialize. Which brings me to:


Maoists claim to be ML and they criticize what they see as "Stalin's mistakes" and the Soviet model of communism. Hoxhaists see most of the communist movement after Stalin as hopelessly infested with revisionism. And the Hoxhaists are right to an extent, mid-20th century "People's Democracy" and post-colonial "ML" states like Cuba/PRC did not work, and they worked even less effectively Stalin's USSR or Albania. People in the ML movement talk about the problems of socialism all the time, sometimes the criticism isn't thorough enough, sometimes the evaluation of one regime over another is a little too culty or sectarian. The point is that other then a few delusional "Marxist-Leninist" who think every state that had a red flag was socialism and there were no capitalist elements in communist bloc until 1989 the need to critique 20th century socialism is the majority opinion.

The point comrade is most of the modern ML is for critiquing 20th century socialism but against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because I hate to break it to you but these tendencies you listed are the majority opinion on the Western left and maybe the global left:
And still we've achieved even less in the late 20th to 21st centuries then in the early to mid 20th century when "stalinism" was "repressing" them

because muh third stage

Democratic Centralism is a poor way to make decisions. You need the input of everyone to make a decision that is good for everyone

what about Mao's idea of the Mass Line?

Look at how it turned out in practice

If you're not a least bit concious of how the utter mess that was Stalinism has affected the terms Marxism, Socialism or Communism - I really don't know how to break it to you.

USSR is a fucking haunting ghost upon any emancipatory project today.

Stay in denial

Democratic Centralism and Mass Line are 100% compatible ideas. In fact, the defining characteristic of Democratic Centralism is taking everyone's opinion into account. That's why it's called _Democratic_ Centralism.

kys immediately

Holy shit, who invited this liberal?

MAXIMUM GULAG

Because the party as Lenin created it was susceptible to opportunism and allowed its fundamental nature to be changed by said opportunism.

...

Because they don't give control to the working class

The workers' struggle is an economic struggle, not a political one.

The only boot I lick is the one of my mistress

But the economic struggle necessarily translates into a political one as well.

Because I have an Autism Level over 80

I haven't been thoroughly educated on it

Because i dont believe a socialist state can bring about the revolution and will either be co-opted by the capitalists or will create a new class system much like the old one they attempted to abolish.

This sums it up pretty neatly, and it's far more than MLs who I can say that about as well.

Autism isn't a good thing user.

I don't like it as much.

Because vanguardism is a fundamental betrayal of socialist concepts from the very beginning.

9/10 human beings are thoughtless, uncritical, borderline retarded, mouth-breathing morons. their stupidity and gullibility retards potential for change; revolution will never happen without ideological leaders and guides to direct the stupid masses

How so?

Hierarchy.

You see, if you decide become a soldier and then get trained, paid by, fed by, provided lodging, clothes, weapons and so on - it will be an evil totalitarian thing to shoot you afterwards for desertion.

And Vanguardism (principle of Democratic Centralism) does imply that you will get somehow punished for this kind of bullshit. After all, it's basic principle is that once decision is made - democratically, of course - it is allowed to enforce it.


Real Socialism (i.e. Anarchist Socialism) says that you have to be free to fuck off into the sunset at the first sign of actual danger - otherwise it's evil hierarchy and statism.

This is why Vanguard is a betrayal of the core "Socialist" concepts and always stabs Revolution in the back. Well, because of that and because of all the innocent Anarchists that got executed for murders and robberies by evil oppressive Communist regimes: it's not like those Anarchists actually agreed to the laws that forbade them to steal and murder.

Have fun not applying this logic to capitalism.

Friendly reminder M-L are huge fucking faggots who enjoy watching cuck porn, where state officials bang their (imaginary) gf

btw don't forget lenin and stalin (cleans my keyboard fater typing their names) were traitors of the working people

projecting m8

wut

stay mad

I don't know where the fuck you're getting your definition of democratic centralism/mass line but it might do you good to actually read what the people behind those ideas had to say about them

the people had no input in the cultural revolution amirite xD

I haven't delved into it sufficiently, so I'm not sure if I would agree with it. Anyone wanna give me some bullet points or a quick and comprehensive summary?

By regulating the economy and press, retaining an army, and distributing land. Sure.


There were a few agrarian communes here and there. They were never anything close to a majority of the Free Territory.


Lenin helped lay the foundations for the first industrial society that operated independently of capital accumulation. Call that whatever, it still made some progress to abolishing the global dictatorship of capital.