Tfw don't know if I'm an anarchist or a tankie

There is a way to criticize the USSR outside of the standard Western narrative. You'll never find it if even the mildest defense of Soviet welfare-capitalism from the outrageous excess of liberal propaganda sends you into a temper-tantrum.

Just become a LeftCom, that way you get to feel smugly superior to both.

that doesn't exist

it's just a slur used by milquetoast liberals that can't stomach violence

It has nothing to do with violence.

I read that as "I just want to get paid for nothing"

lmao

...

How the fuck do I stop it?

I wish people would understand that there's a space between "Stalin did nothing wrong" and "Stalin killed 100 million people."

I know that feel. On positions where I'm not really decided, I can argument for surrounded by people against it and vice versa. Maybe it's just us wanting to refine our arguments, or to get people to see things in a different way. Talking about a subject when everyone thinks the same about it can become quickly boring.

yes, it retained all of those things. doesn't make it capitalist.

Same man, I'll go full on "the kulaks deserved it" when my conservative friend starts shitting on the USSR, can't help it

...

The kulaks did deserve it though?

Another "leftist" has an identity crisis because he doesn't know which pages to like on his Facebook profile?

I'm not surprised a lot of Maoists used to be anarchists considering they're LARP: the ideologies

This but Castro

This

Kulaks also means "fist" in Russian.
I wonder why this may be.

jesus fucking christ

Embrace that shit

Same

I'm with whoever looks like they have the best chance of making leftism a reality, whether they be anarchists or literally Stalin

is this a meme or real, did kulaks really commit a grave offence by having more chickens or .2 more acres of land than your regular peasant chump?

That was me until I became a leftcom.

It's called not being a picky cunt. I don't have faith in the leninist approach and I believe an anarchist alternative would be better, but the leninist way is still better than any basic capitalist state, I wouldn't bother to be against it while capitalist states still exist.

It's called being non-sectarian.

It's not sectarianism when one side constantly creates a more oppressive system of capitalism while tricking leftists into thinking they're won and making non-leftists reject socialism because they equate it with the USSR and Red China.

italian or dutch motherfucker

...

Would rather fight with an ancap than a tankie. At least their ideology is self-destructive and they just don't realize that with the state gone capitalism will go with it.

Don't get bogged down in apologia. Yes there's a ton of bullshit propaganda floating around but ultimately "Stalin didn't kill 800 trillion, it was actually just 6-12 million" isn't going to convince anybody.

"Since you're arguing for capitalism, do you support the regime of Hideki Tojo? The Tojo regime was capitalist."

"That's what I'm trying to say. You can support a political ideology without agreeing with every single implementation of it."

Keep the focus on the core principles of a socialist economic system and how their life would benefit from it, they can discover how the kulaks deserved much worse on their own.

They were landlords.

Steps to implementing full communism:

1. Be 18-24
2. Read about utopian economic theories
3. Act smug

What are you waiting for, OP? You're just one book away from a Revolution.

Reject both and embrace communalism

Tankies don't want Communism. Tankies want to fellate each other over failed 20th century states.

Stalinist USSR used the Kulak pretence to terrorize the peasantry, hence the addition of "Sub-Kulaks".

Y'all are fucking retarded. Read State capitalism and the world revolution, you fucking children.

pls

Then first you must realize that communism is not a state of affairs to be established, but a movement. This is the first mistake tankies made; revising Marx to claim that socialism and communism are two different things, and that one is some "sub-stage" between the two. And quite ironically, they did this while pioneering their "version" of things as holy and being against a revision of Marx, while revising him themselves.

marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm

Better than Catalonia, where the narchos were so afraid of the very concept of power that they failed to abolish the republic or reorganize the territory structurally according to their own ideas, allowing for the Stalinists and bourgeois republicans to erode the workers' councils and undermine them from within.

Even worse, the CNT itself ended up betraying the workers for being "too revolutionary": international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/SpainBil.htm, and it was all in the name of "anti-fascism".

kys

...

this poster is right
lenin is the original revisionist

Not what I'm saying.

Lenin still followed the proper Marxist conceptions of things; how he differed is in that he (I would argue, at least) recognized the fact that sometimes, history needs a push; that sometimes purity to the cause means precisely a temporal deviation from revolutionary purism and convictions. This is why when he did NEP, he fully assumed and expressed that it was state capitalistic. This is unlike his successors, who maintained a society dominated by the law of value while pretending it was socialism. So perhaps Lenin can be called a compromiser or an opportunist, but he did so entirely while projecting that he was doing so out of pragmatism, and that he was consciously straying away from the very close to socialism war communism period, very much unlike those who came after him.

Tankies are more cancer than anarchokiddies. At least anarchists don't have as many atrocities, let alone major ones, to try and sweep under the carpet.

You really should read Bookchin tho. The Next Revolution, get on it.

>centralization
Are you referring to "Section 2: Relative Diminution of the Variable Part of Capital Simultaneously with the Progress of Accumulation and of the Concentration that Accompanies it?"
I can guarantee you there are no sections about "centralization" in Capital vol. 1.

Read more.
I'm the same but the more I read the more I lean towards leninism.
Not saying you'll feel the same, but you might form stronger opinions.

Stop bullshitting, it wasn't "tankies" who created the distinction, it was Lenin. The article you linked admitted Lenin built his conception of socialism on a close reading of the Critique of the Gotha Program yet concluded
>Let us add that Lenin’s inability to break altogether with the heritage of the Second International on the state appears also in his (mis)reading of Marx’s discourse on the commune (1871).
Just because you disagree with an interpretation does not make it a misreading – or revisionism. What's paradoxical is that while the article you linked rejects Lenin's socialism you do not. Either Lenin is a revisionist or he's an opportunist to a leftcom, hardly flattering in any case, but such an assessment is typical of those who like Lenin but not the revolution.

Yeah, my mistake. I forgot which term he uses. But you know what I mean.

It seems you have this unconscious tendency to use the term overtly and incorrectly whenever you debate people who you think are "tankies":

Could you please stop that? It would be very fucking much appreciated.

Who are you quoting?

"Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist." (1875)
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

Marx didn't die in 1871 but in 1883, and Lenin didn't stop reading his (and Engels') oeuvre when it felt ideologically pleasing to him. The later we get in Marx's life the more maturity his political thought shows.

Those who hold that he showed a non-evolving body of work and held the same beliefs don't just bastardize facts, but don't get diamat.

The article he linked.
marxmyths.org/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm

Jesus fuck. These are just simple lies of a man who hasn't read shit. I have no idea how that article could get published on marxists.org. Oh,my mistake, it has it's own little site, how adequate.

Lenin makes his methodology clear as possible, his sources from Engels and Marx: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s1

He doesn't change shit, he compares Marx and Engels to try to understand what they commonly held about the different "phases" leading to communism.