Marxist-Leninists

How is that a pol meme? Did you not just call me an autist? Not an argument.

I'm not. Watch the video. Anarchism is a fucking idealist fairy tale. To have a successful revolution you need to be violent. As soon as the Soviet Union is brought up all of the sudden violence becomes some unspeakable sin that has never happened before.

Anarchists are just people who think socialism is cool, but they listen to all the bourgeois propaganda about how the Soviet Union was the worst regime in history, and then try to distance themselves by saying "We're socialists, except in our version of socialism nothing bad ever happens, unlike those damn Stalinists"

1. Its literally a Holla Forums meme about the holocaust and you use it in the same fashion; as an attempt to deflect from soviet crimes by using absurdist hyperbole to delegitimize opposition.

2. I'm not an anarchist you turd.

3. Read the German Ideology

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_Poland

#RapeForGommunism

I already showed this first picture to you, you autistic motherfucking reality denier, and you're posting this stupid damn video again? GTFO already. You're worse than a Holla Forumsyp, they at least turn and run away with their tails between their legs when they're proven wrong. You, on the other hand, wait a little and then proudly boast your retardation once more, hoping that someone won't post an obvious refutation.

You advocate social democracy at gunpoint! Marx called for workers to own the means of production, not for a bourgeois state reborn and expanded to do so. Every other Marxist tendency outside of Leninism is in agreement with this sentiment, and so are anarchists (even mutualists!). In fact, you're not even a socialist if you advocate anything besides it.

I'm not a lelninist, but Lenin at least accepted that the growing bureaucracy was a great threat to socialism, and that the economic measures put in place were not socialism, but rather a small step towards it or a strategic retreat for a later advance.

Stalinkiddies don't seem to understand or recognize this and would rather live in their fantasy land.

msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_katyn_2013.pdf

Joseph Goebels Diary May 8th 1943

More at 11

Opinion discarded.

He's certainly closer to the truth then people who take Wikipedia articles as gospel truth and history books written by intelligence agents like Robert Conquests seriously

Wew

You forgot the part where they were the only ones armed and organized at when Franco staged the coup and are literally the only reason why it failed. Meanwhile the Stalinists were sucking up to Spanish liberals and capitalists to avoid hurting their feefees and scaring them off to the fascists.

Grover "Stalin unironically did nothing wrong" Furr is not a historian.

So many flavors of bourgeois propaganda to choose from

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars

When daddy Stalin accidentally an entire ethnic population

All modern anarchists and leninists are larpers face it.

The only movements that can be considered non larpers are Trad Marxists, socdems, communalist, and Nazbol. Albeit for different reasons

You are a retarded if you fetishise the USSR or Spain

hahaha

This as hell. Anarchists are porky' useful idiots who will proudly repeat their anti-Marxist propaganda.

Two things anarkiddies don't seem to understand, is that 1) society change won't happen overnight, especially with how perfectly consolidated bourgeois ideology is, and 2) as said, it's called "dictatorship of the proletariat" precisely because it's not the dictatorship of a minority class over the majority, but of the majority (organized through organs of dual power as explained by Lenin; the seizing of power is effectively these organs taking political power, worker's soviets in the case of the USSR) over the remainder of the reactionary classes and reactionary thought. If you believe on the anarchist caricature of a whole society suddenly gaining full conscience of the need of communism and the means to reach it, you're dead fucking wrong and should study history in a dialectical, materialist way, rather than LARP as street antifa or whatever.

That and we haven't even considered the need to acelerate production to the point where technological progress brings about the abundancy necessary to organize an actual communist (post-scarce) society. Pic related. Socialism will be only possible with a centralized, yet democratically elaborated plan for production. Such a system is perfectly possible given today's computing technology (in terms both of massivity - i.e. internet connection between all workplaces that shall partake in planning, and of computing power necessary to plan a whole economy), as demonstrated by this paper by Cottrell and Cockshott: dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/quito.pdf

I'm skeptical of both sides, but Conquest being wrong definitely doesn't make Furr right. I'd be more inclined to trust the former than the latter, even if I distrust both.

Tell me, do you also deny that many people died in Cambodia and that there were huge numbers of deaths in China during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and that life in North Korea sucks today?

The numbers may be exaggerated or may not be, and I doubt that the Holodomor was anything other than an accidental famine. Regardless, Leninism seems to have a pretty suspicious record of killing massive numbers of people through sheer cruelty and incompetence.

I just disagree with communalists in that I still think class warfare is extremely relevant and the only way to defeat capitalism, and overwhelmingly agree with the content of Bakunin's "Revolutionary Catechism" and Kropotkin's "The Conquest Of Bread", a little more so than I do with DeLeon and Marx.

Certainly, it helps to see that anarcho-syndicalism's possible because of Spain, but I don't see anyone "fetishizing" it like I see tankies do with the USSR as the sole representative of "real socialism" (and Cuba if it suits the needs of their argument at the moment).
They're Stalinists without a pretense of theory. It is, by its own admission, nationalist larping and harping on about the "good old days under the Man Of Steel". They have a movement, yeah, but it's basically Russian fascism.

I don't know why you needed to be so antagonistic.

Sure I will, after The Next Revolution

Leftcom detected. Hasta la semper fi comrade.

t. some anarkiddie

Structuralist, nice try tho.

Piss off back to the basement whence you came.

Read the first chapter of this and then read quotes from Lenin and Trotsky themselves: marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm
own, the working class cannot go beyond
the level of trade union consciousness, the
realisation that they must combine into trade
unions, fight against the employers, force
the governments to pass such laws as benefit
the conditions of the workers…As for the
socialist doctrine, it was constructed out of
the philosophical, historical and economic
theories elaborated by educated members of
the ruling class by intellectuals”. - Lenin
gans. They have made a fetish of democratic
principles. They have placed the workers
right to elect representatives above the party.
As if the party were not entitled to assert its
dictatorship even if that dictatorship tem-
porarily clashed with the passing moods of
the workers’ democracy!” - Trotsky

Maybe Bakunin misinterpreted Marx's definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, maybe he didn't. What is clear is that Bakunin and Lenin took the words on it in the exact same manner and Lenin therefore constructed exactly what Bakunin warned Marx about. The semantic distinction of anarchists between state and government isn't an arbitrary one - it is arguably the one real, concrete difference, from which major differences spring up.
Antifa are edgy liberals, not anarchists. We have our theory, you illiterate. I've read Lenin. Have you read Kropotkin? No, of course you haven't. When your idea of others is that they're violent and impulsive lowbrows, of course you won't ever make any attempt to rectify that understanding - you already know everything, don't you? Get over yourself.
Everyone here agrees that his ideas are good. There's no reason, however, why we can't build it as a decentralized network of worker owned firms grouped as syndicates in negotiation with communes to plan the economy. You don't have a monopoly on technology innovations just because you identify as a Marxist and Cockshott does as well.

A better question for MLs would be, "why do you propose that we utilize a system that was designed for per-industrial societies in our industrialized societies?"

Is that Shia in your pic?

What part of Leninism states that we gotta kill shitloads of proles? Where did he write that?

I didn't say that he wrote it down, I'm just saying that that's what keeps happening over and over again whenever it's tried.

Have you considered that it's maybe because it's an ideology which prioritizes strengthening the state and military in the service of a party over the welfare of the people themselves?

No one would ever write that, it's just that it's the natural result of the flaws in his ideas as they're relevant today (no, you're not going to have a revolution in the 3rd world today and lead an army into the 1st to help its own revolution - that's ridiculous). If you give all the power to the state while it's forced by competition with capitalism to exploit labor power in order to keep up, what do you think is going to happen? It's conceptually dead in the water.

The good things that came out of all of the ML nonsense of the last century were

1. Imperialism: The highest form of capitalism by vladmir lenin

2. The theory of protracted people's war from Mao Zedong (has never failed in practice)

3. Everybody now knows that authoritarian socialism is a bad idea

The fuck? Anarchists have always been the first ones pushing for a violent revolution.

...

Because they took the dictatorial state apparatus Lenin established during a period of civil war and then left it like that forever. Lenin did not plan for the USSR to remain as it was, and envisioned a sort of division of powers between various committees which would serve to check the power of the party, limits on the influence of the bureaucracy, as well as the transformation of Russian society into an association of workers' cooperatives. However, Lenin had a stroke and became physically disabled almost immediately after winning the civil war, which essentially removed him from power since he was always primus inter pares at best and his condition made it rather easy to ignore him. He then died shortly after. The central party elite and bureaucracy had grown fond of their power and did not bother with any of the changes Lenin proposed in his final days, instead institutionalizing as permanent structures the strong central command the Bolsheviks had made up on the fly during the civil war to serve their purposes. Then Stalin centralized power even further and made up some nonsense as to why dictatorial planned capitalism under a giant bureaucracy is actually socialism.

Why do Tankies always defend the USSR and related projects by creating some false dilemma between pacifist anarchism and Stalinist terror. Not everyone who is critical of the soviets is an anarchist.

It's possible to use violence and maintain the state apparatus without turning your country into an Orwellian nightmare. Democracy, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press should always be maintained. Moscow's puppets should never have never been un-democratically installed in other countries. What is so controversial about this?

kys you scurvy ridden pirate trash

...

well meme'd my comrade

a stateless future is the goal, but you can use the state in the meantime to protect the revolution

No you can't, don't you understand that you can not use something that's called state for utilitarian reasons??! I mean you could just call it a commune. And call the NKVD a milita. I mean thats totally fine.

Seriously, if "state" is somehow the basis for an identity (it's clearly not based in economics or material reality) anti-statism would be IdPol. I have yet to understand how someone can call himself a communist but value the sheer existence of a form of human organisation that has no intrinsic value in itself over the reality of economic exploitation and inequality.

If you want, you could call Walmart a commune and the FBI a militia. Not an argument. Learn your definitions - the greatest enemy of rational thought is doublethink enabled by vague and foggy definitions.
Anarchists don't value it over class warfare - we see it as an intrinsic component of class warfare. If you actually understood Marx, you would realize that class warfare is generated by the dynamics of various forms of "human organisation that [have] no intrinsic value", such as corporations and even the market.

Marx's biggest mistake, besides bringing over dialectical bullshit from Hegel, was not making a semantic distinction between government (that which reproduces social relations by maintaining current balances of power between people and institutions) and state (a hierarchical, centralized institution with a monopoly on violence within a particular area, which serves the purpose of government under the current system).

Private property cannot survive without the state (as it must become the state if it wishes to survive without one above it), and in turn markets cannot survive without private property. The state, however, can live on without either one of those. It's just as real as any other part of capitalism.
W E W
E
W

Don't call it a state, duh

It actually fucking is. The internal organizational structure of a police force doesn't fucking matter when they act as such. If Walmart would be a cooperative it would still be a fucking store.

Obviously, when the bourgeois state protects private property rights. That doesn't mean you can just smash it and don't come up with an alternative that isn't entirely based on an utopia. If the state would give you guns to expropriate the bourgeoisie, would you reject them? Because that would practically make you state actors.

States aren't inherently capitalist. You are subtly but constantly implying I'd somehow defend the bourgeois state.

most workers are to dumb to decide for themself, they need a vanguard/government to guide them in the right path. sheeple ain't people

In what backwards though process does that make any sense at all?

*thought

WTF I hate kropotkin now!

Confirming here that tankies see no difference between Walmart and socialism and want to see no democratic reforms to the likes of the FBI.
It's like you didn't even read the anarchist statement on what the state is. Oh wait, you really didn't because you're a tankie and only you, and you alone, uphold the eternal flame of the immortal dialectical science of Marxism-Leninism. Opinion discarded.
We advocate soviets without Bolsheviks if those are what pop up, or unions without bureaucrats if those make more sense. For you, the only thing that will suffice is an Orwellian nightmare of a totalitarian state and you believe that that's what people really want and that it works in the long term. Who's the real utopian here? Grow up, larper.
If they continue to live in a world surround by capitalism, they are capitalist by definition. They have to compete with capitalism itself and exploit their own base of labor-power to keep up. There's nothing being "subtly implied" here. Your "socialism in one country" is advocacy of a bourgeois state. What, is it no longer bourgeois because you draped it in red? Woop de fucking doo, the people are still being beaten with a stick, it's just called the People's Stick now. Nice going, genius.

Wow you should probably get with the times

How about studying it then instead of throwing up the usual anticommunist slander, you dense faggot?

That's why it never worked to achieve communism and probably never will.

I don't know how anti-MLs are able to breathe with the two brain cells they only have.

Are you being dumb on purpose now? If law enforcement officers are elected in a hippy commune or appointed by a dictator doesn't fucking matter as it is still law enforcement. It's not the tankies who constantly argue meaningless terminology. Nice strawman tho.
Not an argument, smashie.
Have fun in your armchair then. Without seizing the power of the state you won't have the means to coordinate and defend yourself from the inevitable reactionary invasion.

Secondly coops are not socialism. I'm not interested in capitalism with Kulakish characteristics.

Thirdly, if there is anything we learned from Soviet and Maoist history is that proletarian democratic control is in no way a guarantee for prosperity - or any advancement towards socialism, in that case - as long as your society didn't undergo a massive cultural transformation to form the New Soviet Man. What Anarkiddies also don't realize is that the Soviet Union actually outpaced any anarchist attempt when it comes to democratic participation of the proletariat: Every ninth (!!) citizen in the RSFSR in 1927 was part in a local council and helped with ressource allocation.
Remember the 8384736 gorillion, amirite? Also read a book
Holy Mother Mary, an Anarchist calling me a LARPer. Marxism-Leninism is still in power in a few countries (at least by name) and currently transforming Kerala from a poo in da loo shithole to the most prosperous state in India. It's fucking rich to call the only leftist ideology which worked LARPing.
Oh shut up. World Revolution will not occur but in steps. Again, back to your armchair if you don't want to help.
You fucking faggot. If there is no surplus extraction of labor done by a ruling class it's not a bourgeois state. It's embarrassing since earlier you were going on about how important definitions are yet you can't even define anything that doesn't adhere to your special snowflake brand of utopian anarchism so you call it capitalism. I prefer a leftcom critique over this anarchist word salad any day.
Again you prove that you don't care for economics, you just want to smash things and hate your parents.

top lel. Soviet Union was dictatorial from it's inception pic related and under stalin they had a literal slave economy. Maoism certainly wasn't any better.

Say anything bad about tankies to my face and see what happens.