Go to meeting

...

Other urls found in this thread:

bopsecrets.org/SI/Pariscommune.htm
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

google bookchin

DSA?

They're right

Into the gulag you go!

neoliberal propaganda. you are no better than a clintoncuck.

and you're still stuck in 1917

love to LARP early 20th century revolutionary in a 21st century world

if you don't care about the history of revolution, then you don't care about revolution. you're a liberal cuck.

Do you even Leninism bro?

yeah okay keep larping faggot

1917 triggered a chain of events where capitalism was truly "mobilized" and was the time the workers came closest to seizing power. and it set the course of the whole twentieth century till present (spawn of fascism, nazism, stalinism)

As the situationists say

bopsecrets.org/SI/Pariscommune.htm

Not an argument. Literally every successful revolution in history took on Leninist traits. If you're against that, you're against revolution.

Guys why don't you stop posting and just start a revolution? I mean you've read the books on how it's done so what are you waiting for?

Time for you to read one of them too.

The second part is arguable but the first part if completely true. If you want to LARP join your local trot party

Only TWO things have changed:
1. Capitalism has entered its late stage, making the material conditions for revolution more favorable.
2. The communist movement entered its lowest point, making the political conditions for revolution the worst of all time.

#1 is going to radically alter #2. That's it.

What are you smoking? Trots don't want revolution, they just want more imperialist war.

and then collapsed, look how many exist today. You tankies need to give up this notion you can iron fist your way to the future, people don't want that shit. One of these days you're going to have to accept that the only way socialism is going to work and stick around is through accepting that you need the majority to support you, and the majority of people want freedom and happiness, and you can't get that at the barrel of a gun or threat of gulags and punishment. People also don't want to be told what to do and not do, they want order but freedom to choose and make their own futures, you don't pacify people by making them happy, they will bide their time until another happy capitalist face comes by in which case they will instantly through the socialist baby out with the bathwater and grab hold of capitalism again whining about the horrors of socialism for another 50 years.

As opposed to what? Yes, all of the revolutions mostly failed. The communist revolutions lasted longest. And one day, they will succeed. If you don't believe that, you are against communism and against revolution. Period.

kek you sound like a religious nutjob

The ends justifies the means you idealist. If you think a repressive apparatus isn't necessary then why are you here? To deny the violence in class struggle is to deny class struggle itself.

sage

This is the part that everyone overlooks though: The Tankies are known for sending in the tanks. What they failed to do in 1990/1991 was send in the tanks.

Gorbachev and his cronies deserved those fucking tanks more than anyone else.

Not an argument faggot.

Well spotted Sherlock, I might make one once I stop laughing at you

Moral of the story is to send in the tanks.

not
an
a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

It doesn't count when they don't have as many tanks, that's why you always need more tanks.

nor are your pathetic fantasies you dumb cuck
keep molymeming like the brainless gimp you are

id like to engage in the horizontal mambo with some hot activist chicks

I'm not into ideologies that don't learn from their mistakes, or are suicide pacts. Violence is a tool that is analogous to fire, and changing a nation's political, economic, and class systems using it isn't like redecorating your house, it's like burning things you don't like inside your house and hope that the entire thing doesn't burn to the ground. Violence has its place, but it needs to be directed and you need to know when to use it and when not to. Threats of violence and shows of force can be enough to get the point across without firing a shot.

That aside tankies still haven't learned that western society has evolved and changed from how it used to be in the early and mid 20th century, people are statistically not as violent as they used to be, people have been pacified by peaceful times in comparison to decades past, they prefer safety, movies/tv, cheap food, safe streets, and non-violent dialogue. You cannot force your views on a nation of hundreds of millions, especially with 300 million guns. It's not feasible, and you cannot kill everyone that opposes you, what if 15 million people take up arms to kill you, are you going to kill 15 million people and then pretend you are better than capitalists?

You need to accept that change requires compromise, and you need to look at systems that work within a set of variables than trying in vanity to change the variables, you cannot plant a forest in a desert, you cannot walk on water, you cannot breathe in space. If you want an answer to the question as to what can be done, it's simple, you have to get the people on your side, and to do that, you have to pander to their existing worldview. The current worldview of the west is that a free market is best, well that doesn't work with socialists now does it? So you need to divorce their assumption that markets and capitalism are the same, show them market socialism, mutualism, etc. Even if you don't like those systems, even if you are a die hard tankie, you are not going to setup any socialist system anywhere with force, because like I said, people will revolt, either now, or when you die of old age I.E Castro. You need people to not only accept your way, but embrace it as better to the point where they will fight and die to protect it. Otherwise your nation will collapse back into the arms of the happy capitalist, and no amount of crying from your comrades, no amount of denying that the gulags weren't so bad, or that the disappearances of various family's loved ones were because they were traitors etc etc will ever change that.

The only mistake they made was not winning fast enough.

...

kek

Even Marx thought that Blanqui would have made all the difference. So much for this pure workers' council bullshit.


Nah, it was Yeltsin who deserved it. Gorbachev merely set the stage for his own and the USSR's demise.


This. The civil war slowed them down and weakened them before they could fight their way to Germany.

TOP KEK

I'd like to know if anyone here grew up under communism.

that would be no one then

good post

Neither are from neo-liberal sources, and the one on the left quotes Lenin directly. One on the right concerns Stalin's regime specifically though.
You need to Google him

"Anarchism", or even worse, Bookchin would not have endured in the social, political and economic climate in the former Russian Empire. It was necessary for the Bolsheviks to do what they have done to eliminate feudal forms.

Actually the truly fantastic thing about Russia at that time was that an autocratic state with no history of democracy had suddenly seen the widespread emergence of democratic institutions via the soviets and similar organs.These institutions, which I would say undoubtedly made Russia an environment for political and social revolution, were ultimately usurped by the bureaucratic apparatus that the bolsheviks took over and immensely expanded ultimately destroying the revolution. Read The Third Revolution.

The Soviets were a parallel-state to the Provisional Government that was bound to be taken over by a section of a movement.

The only feasible possibilities would have been Menshevism, SRs who romanticized the peasantry, their right-wings, and other groups that were further right. Anarchism was not surviving as any distinct, organized or involved movement, and it was inevitable that it would end up as a few intellectuals and ex fighters who think they know what they are doing.

They were a dual power, yes, but you make the classic mistake of conflating politics with statecraft. To simply say that the destruction of the dual power was inevitable is just intellectually lazy.
I don't see the SRs fondness of the peasantry much of a problem, since the proletariat isn't the revolutionary agent anyways. The "revolutionary agent" are those who participated in the soviets and propagated the dual power, which for the most part were peasants.This is not to say that proles can't be the majority of those participating, but they don't have to be. Mind you that none of this amounts to justification for the destruction of these institutions by any party.

Time to abandon the fucking thread. Philistine throws class-analysis to the ground with one simple shitpost.

Not surprising in the least tbh. Reminder that hierarchy and domination existed before class and state and can exist after it.

Peasants weren't dominant in the urban Soviets compared to workers, and the set-up of Soviets in other areas with higher peasant composition was first of all on the initiative of the working-class succeeding in the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets.

You've proven again that you're a classcuck who can get barely take his own positions seriously.

yes
a better democratic structure? probably? 100% horizontal? no

I'm a big fan of Bookchin but I think Zizek is also right when he says we need a healthy amount of alienation from decisions made instead of showing up to assemblies all the time

No you had soviets propagated by political parties like the SRs, Mensheviks, and in Ukraine the anarchists. Not all of the party members were proles or peasants, and ultimately the distinction is pointless because it wasn't merely their economic class that made them revolutionary agents anyways.
Dogmatists are always good for a laugh if nothing else

Also, the later prominence of the peasantry in the Soviets in general owed largely to the fact that the Russian workers were decimated due to their proportionally far higher participation in the revolution and civil war.

Famine, disease, war, etc impacted them on an unforeseen scale (urban areas in general were affected) while the peasantry was largely comfortable.

Slaves and slave owners and aristocracy were classes.

Serfs, free men, clergy, aristocracy, they also were classes.

The organization of first classless societies were not hierarchical in the modern sense, it was a concession to the living conditions, not a concession of the subjects of rule to the supremacy of artificial rule.

It makes no sense to dominate someone if you all have to work for a living. Only those who through accumulation of wealth can afford not to work for a living can engage in domination and creating hierarchies.


This alienation from decision is what indicates that a computer algorithm should make said decisions. Cybernetic planning is the right tool to give a breathing room to a limited human brain. Automatic processing of information.

We free our muscles to live healthy lifestyle using automation of production.
We free our brains to pursue higher things using automation of information processing.

So? The fact remains that the soviets, the dual power, was the essentially revolutionary institution of Russian society and participation in them was not limited to a single economic class. Ultimately, the "revolutionary agent" isn't confined to a single class as dogmatists like you suggest.

Great job, faggot.

Never disputed these things.
Read pics related

...

But why did the males out of the blue start to exercise their supposed supremacy in ruling? They didn't do it out of the blue without any economical incentive.

This does not make sense. Even a most primitive male knows that he came from a female. Especially if said individual has glanced at a childbirth.

Engels in his Origin of Private property gives a much more plausible description of primitive society.

Women were the masters of the dwellings, Men were the masters of the forests and plains.

Bookchin is right in his description of hierarchies within the economical organizations of past and present, that economic conditions gave rise to those hierarchies.

Those hierarchies emerging later could have emerged with domestication of animals and first agriculture that enabled the most primitive accumulation to happen.

Without this, the women would be still able to motivate a lazy hunter into not being lazy. Before agriculture, the division of labour and participation of labour was a necessity to live. And when someone was blind or crippled and still managed to survive childhood, they were a human computers, storing and processing information. This is a mere speculation, but I refuse to believe that hierarchies appear for no apparent reason. There has to be an incentive to exert one's will over others, especially if the potential subjects do not take kindly to subjugation, unless they see no alternative.

...

Also Zemsky Sobor established by Ivan IV.
And Novgorod republic had a veche till the end.
Also cossacks had more or less democratic society.

Wow, what a monster. How dare he centralize control over the production during a fucking war. It's not like that's standard practice or anything. And he definitely never, ever made comments on how production should be organized ever again after 1918. His views on production during wartime are definitely the expression of his highest ideals and goals for socialist society…
Seriously, why not actually read Lenin instead of liberal propaganda? Here's Lenin writing an article on how workers should organized shortly before his death:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm

...

when will this meme end?

...

lul
top zuz


ML's are fucking insane if they think anyone is going to be shaken with their delusions

Literally fuck off

Do libertarian leftwingers believe that horizontal democratic systems are violence free? how will you prevent lynchings and shit like​ what happens today in Bolivia?

Simple: Nothing bad ever happens in their version of socialism.

Oh hey mr dapperton fancy seeing you here

What

It just sounded like the typical "arguments" you hear from these kind of guys

Of course not. But I'm not an anarchist, I just want to move the monopoly of violence to the people.

Ebin

No, u

There's no revolution without revolutionary ethics, and no communalist society without a communalist social contract

The incentive was purely social. You can seek social influence and power independently of economic interests.
What does that have to do with anything? Knowing that you are birthed by a women does not mean that you can't seek social standing superior to her.
Engles was working with anthropological data from the 19th century.
There are incentives outside of purely economic interest user. Social muh privileges can exist independent of economic muh privilege. To have your position be considered as more important, your word more valuable is in itself a muh privilege to be desired by many.