Moreover, just as theory has been used to distort the meaning of events, so events have revenged themselves on theory. The most vulgar prattling has been employed to override Russian reality from one aspect or another, and with it, the means for social analysis itself. One has only to examine the tortured ideas of Stalinism and its supporters on economic theory, aesthetics, and, often enough, even science, to judge the wholesale misapplication of thinking to all questions. The shoe is invariably placed on the wrong foot and the adherent is invited to limp through a host of broad economic, political, and cultural, as well as specifically Russian, problems. It becomes a social responsibility in every sense of the term to bring fact and theory into accord.
Although objective and systematic accounts have been available for some time, there has been a marked failure to employ them adequately for the purposes of generalization. By contrast, Stalinist theory was given the semblance of a certain unity and comprehensiveness. The rather popular notion that Russia is a 'managerial society' is unsatisfactory and starts from the same premises as the Stalinist approach. Both assume that Russia represents a historically-new social formation. The 'managerial theory', it is true, poses a significant issue: if the state exercises full control over the economy, it is necessary to ask — 'Who controls the state?' To this question, Stalinist apologists have no reply; unless we are to give serious credence to the benign 'intentions' of the Russian leaders or to the claim that Russia has the most democratic constitution in the world. On the other hand, the 'managerial theory' explains little of the energizing forces of the Russian economy: of its dynamics and of Russian expansion abroad. From so purely negative a definition, developed in reaction to the incredibility of the Stalinist view rather than from a positive elucidation of the conditions of Russian material life, it would be difficult to find serious points of difference between a 'managerial society' and, for example, Ptolemaic Egypt. The position fails to bring anything into relief — it lacks an explanation of anything that is socially distinctive.
No suprise somebody with no dialectics will think that way
Christian Brown
...
Angel Thompson
that would be implying that Stalin's USSR was far left
Lucas Reed
When will this meme end?
Carter Thompson
Because "Marxism"-"Leninism" is dishonest and misleading
Nicholas King
Ok, lets get this straight once and for all because i feel that alot of people on here just dont quite understand or seem to think their is some debate that stalinism (or for that fact leninism and maoism) and fascism are not linked and the rejection of this has to come simply from theoretic contexts because if you dumb fucks actually knew your history this wouldn't have to be talked about over and over.
So, to do this we have to start with Lenin. For those of you who are unaware, Lenin (and his work in the Russian revolution) directly inspired the rise of fascism. Not as a reaction, no, the Fascist movement in Italy was directly influenced by Bolshevism and Lenin. Now obviously they had many major theoretical divisions, but they were alot closer than you would think.
Now lets go to Stalin, Stalinist and the first usage of the term "red fascism." So, as most of you know, Lenin eventually died, then Stalin becomes the ruler of the USSR. Now, in 1921, the Fascists took control in Italy, and by the time Lenin died in 1924 they had done enough to the general populous to make them understand what fascism was.
It didnt take long, nor was it difficult in the slightest to compare Fascism and the so called "proletarian state" that had emerged under the Bolsheviks. It is not a matter off debate, the regimes (as well as those that followed or rose up long after the original fascists had been put away) are in almost everyway functionally alike, the propaganda was just different. It is not a political statement to call Stallinists, Leninists or Maoists red fascists, it is just an unfortunate reality.
Never. The 'Marxism'-'Leninism' meme will end when there are finally no more dumbfuck Stalinists.
Thomas Mitchell
How about no?
Owen Taylor
The majority of the far left are ML. Without us you're nothing.
Parker Price
...
Ayden Murphy
Read bookchin tbh
Samuel Flores
lelno Marxists, maybe. Leninists, maybe. MLs? I sincerely doubt the majority of us are that dumb.
Landon Myers
The majority of leftist insurgencies around the world are some kind of M-L, whether violent insurgencies are effective or fulfill leftist goals is debatable but it cannot be denied that they make up a large portion of the far left worldwide.
Dominic Evans
I take it you just woke up from a 30 year coma?
Eli Williams
You don't understand dude. Only Rojava exists. Like google Murray Bookchin and stuff.
Nathan Nelson
...
Tyler Anderson
*crickets chirp* Come on now.
Christian Lewis
This tbh. In theory fascism is the polar opposite of communism, but Stalinist regimes were in practice, like fascist ones, repressive totalitarian shitholes built around cults of personality. Granted the USSR relaxed these features after Stalin died, but the situation on the ground for the average person wasn't particularly different. This isn't to say that socialism and fascism are similar in general, but the differences between one dictatorship and another dictatorship are negligible. For fuck's sake Mussolini literally praised Stalin for creating "Slavic fascism".
TLDR: Tankies are just Holla Forums with a palette swap.
