So, I remember the last time we had this thread it generated some pretty good discussion and I figured it might be fun to start another one, especially with new friends coming in:
Marx: marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
Engels:
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
Lenin:
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
Stalin: marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
Hoxha:
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
enverhoxha.ru
enverhoxha.ru
This is just for starters, I will be adding Maoist lit and various historical material related to 20th century socialist projects to the thread.
/MLG/ Marxism-Leninism General
Other urls found in this thread:
libcom.org
cix.co.uk
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
msuweb.montclair.edu
clogic.eserver.org
clogic.eserver.org
gen.lib.rus.ec
redscans.files.wordpress.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
scribd.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
strongwindpress.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com
espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com
marxists.org
massline.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
erythrospress.com
espressostalinist.com
marxists.org
clogic.eserver.org
marxists.org
clogic.eserver.org
twitter.com
bump
will debate later at night
So why should Stalinism be regarded as the best possible version of Socialism considering all the repression and murder that went on?
Stalinism is not the same as m-l buddy
Why do you do pic related?
And why do I sense that you haven't read any of the first few links you posted while doing this by consequence?
If at least you were honest in your co-opting of Marx symbolatry and cultification to sustain your failure to turn revolution into anything, I wouldn't care, but you insist on not only making revising Marx a thing to be assblasted about while doing it yourselves.
...
Seriously, what insanity is it to claim that because Stalin murdered less people than is usually claimed in Western media, it was somehow okay for him to murder all the people he did kill?
Reminder historical materialism is bullshit
Reminder that therefore, Marxism-Leninism is bullshit.
This guy is more or less correct:
I just consider Stalin to be a great Marxist-Leninist leader, the deaths ascribed to his regime have been greatly exaggerated and many of the slanders hurled against him are exactly that.
Now that doesn't mean that a great terror never occurred but by and large, I don't think Stalin was anymore at fault for it then any of the other Soviet leaders.
There's clear evidence too that the NKVD far-exceeded what the limits had set on the repression of counter-revolutionaries. Furr points out once Stalin removed Ezhov and put Beria in that the mass killings virtually came to an end and hundreds of thousands of people were released.
I believe in line with the evidence Furr presents that Ezhov was part of a conspiracy by the fascist powers to soften up the USSR in preparation for the Nazi invasion. Remember, the USSR was fighting several border wars with Japan around the time of the great terror and WWII started not long after. As for the question of how it got so out of control that's a good question, I like some of Thurston and Getty's analysis on that point even if they are bourgeois historians.
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
msuweb.montclair.edu
Unfortunately, I don't have Furr's latest book on the Moscow Trials themselves in e-form, but I'm thinking about scanning it and uploading it for curious comrades.
Also, Stalin was actually associated with a push for democratic reform instead of just blanket "repression" in contrast with the simplistic reality were taught in school, he and his legacy were complicated.
clogic.eserver.org
clogic.eserver.org
Not him, but no one says it was okay for Stalin to kill people. But claiming that Stalin killed half of the population of Russia is far more ridiculous.
I'd recommend reading Lenin's state revolution fam, its pretty clear Marx and Engels saw there would be some kind of transition state that they referred to as the lower state of communism and he backs it up with a number of quotations. Now how this should go on, what exactly should be done, what is and isn't permissible, thats a matter of heated debate. Marx didn't leave us a book called "communism" even his speculations on the coming communist society are fragmented and in my opinion sometimes even contradictory.
As for whether I've read the first few links, not to brag or anything, but I've read all three volumes of Capital; haven't read Theories of Surplus Value yet ("Volume 4") but I also have something of a life to attend to.
I'm gonna sleep now comrades, but I'll be back and try to address any questions or concerns.
gen.lib.rus.ec
redscans.files.wordpress.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
scribd.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
PRC:
gen.lib.rus.ec
strongwindpress.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec
Albania:
gen.lib.rus.ec
espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com
espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com
ok so he only killed 10 million
is that any better?
Most of the deaths attributed to the Stalin era are famine related, and see my post for the critique of that view:
As for the executions primarily during the great terror the true number isn't known. The records recovered from the Russian archives meant that the figures of Conquest and other standard anti-communists had to be revised downwards.
There are reasons to think that the documentable in the first picture are lower then believed. George Keenan, a fervent anti-communist and architect of America's Cold War strategy confessed his belief that only tens of thousands were killed in the terror. Keenan was probably in a position to know more then any of us will ever know about what went on because of his high position in American intelligence.
Not even Furr who is constantly demonized as a "Stalinist apologist" questions that fewer people might've died then the statistic cited from the Russian archives. So, is it possible that Keenan knew something that even Furr and the best read scholars of the New School of Sovietology didn't?
Moving on from speculation, I personally do not believe that Stalin was the instigator of the terror and that his government was in control of the NKVD while it was going on. Nor was Stalin in a position of absolute power but was constantly sharing power with his team of elected party representatives as even Western observers of the time acknowledged. One Russian historian has called his style of ruling "team Stalin" interestingly enough.
As for the abstract question of whether violence in itself is justified, we have to ask ourselves if we are revolutionary socialists or pacifists? I think we'd be wise to heed Adam Curtis's warning that if we don't put forward "big ideas" and go in for reformism we'll eventually be sidelined by the masses of people hungry for new ideas and alternatives.
I hate to use this as an example but look at ISIS thousands of people have joined this vile fascist group and other terror organizations and committed the worst crimes, not because of any particular love of religion, but because they desire an alternative to the liberal capitalist order.
MOUNTAIN DEW AND DORITOS WILL LEAD THE REVOLUTION
I've heard m-l in the past saying that they have learned and won't repeat the mistakes of the past. How so?
What do you guys think went wrong
Bump
I like what Furr says here:
On the final point, at least one major problem with 20th century socialism actually begins with Marx himself. Unlike the propaganda you here from reactionaries, socialism isn't like the novel We or something where one person doesn't have hair so everyone has to have short-hair, or everyone wears the same thing.
But the acceptance of wage inequality in socialism on the basis that people aren't equal and its not inherently bourgeois creates ground for capitalism to return. Hoxha's albanian had the lowest income inequality in the world and Che Guevara was talking about trying to get rid of "bourgeois right" under socialism in Cuba but it was never implemented. Hoxha argued that a labor aristocracy formed in the Soviet Union which was separated in its style of life from the proletariat as a whole which thus led to the restoration of capitalism.
I don't have all the answers, but I think there's we can learn something from that at least. I also believe capitalism, especially technologically, is a lot more advanced then it was when the historical revolutions occurred, so the transition to communism should be much easier imo.
*hear from reactionaries
M-L a shiiiit!!!!!
marxists.org
massline.org
marxists.org
4/mswv4_70.htm
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
I'm not really a maoist anymore but I was one long enough to get to know quite a bit about it. Feel free to ask me anything about it or for any particular resource. That includes neo-Maoism, like Maoist Third Worldism and the RIM which was organized around Gonzalo and Shining Path.
Was the Great Purge really necessary? If so, to what extent did it require so many deaths of Old Bolsheviks and the military? The claims that all of them were traitors and spies is dodgy as hell. I am not one to dismiss the use of force nor a repressive apparatus to preven counter-revolution, but the thought of so many dead comrades whom I am sure were free of any guilt is always a touchy matter for me. Call me spooked. Perhaps I am, but it is the largest turn off for me regarding ML and I am sure many others. What are you thoughts on it? Any specific readings from a ML perspective?
Marxism-Leninism is fucking stupid. Marxism on its own is fine and Leninism on its own is OK but when combined it just turns into the state becoming the bourgeois in a dictatorship. Here's another thing. Why the fuck would you want a dictatorship? isn't democracy a central tenant of marxism? So you want to "democratize" the company's by making the state own everything but you don't want a democratic government. Anti-revisionism is also stupid. Why would you want to make marxism more dogmatic and denounce edits of Marx's theory based on changes in our world? The world isn't the same as it was in 1917. Marxism Leninism is an insane dogmatic ideology which shouldn't even be considered socialism.
Sometimes it's really obvious that a person doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
No.
A purge was necessary as everyone knew WWII (e.g. there were several border wars with Japan during the great purge time period) was coming but unfortunately in my view the people who should've been purged were in control of that process. I've talked a little bit about some of this stuff in my other posts so far. I'd recommend Furr's new book on Trotsky and the Moscow Trials :erythrospress.com
You can also get it off amazon, here are some other free resources:
espressostalinist.com
marxists.org
clogic.eserver.org
marxists.org
clogic.eserver.org
I don't even understand most of your post tbh. When they talked about "dictatorship" they meant a dictatorship of the proletariat as a different form of class rule. They believed in what they called proletarian democracy and democratic centralism which they believed went beyond the bounds of bourgeois democracy.
Pic is a comment from the last general thread, I believe it has some relevance.
...
...
Stalinism doesn't fucking exist, it's Marxism-Leninism.