State Capitalism thread

...

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/history/etol/writers/wright/1941/10/redarmy.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_factions_in_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
bopsecrets.org/SI/report.htm
cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/faces.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

My cops serve the new ruling class which is the proletariat. Your cops serve the bourgeois not common working people. So yes mine are better.

Get out anarkiddies and read state and revolution.

...

*hits you with the peoples stick*

no u :^)

–V.I. Lenin, State and Revolution

Nope.

>*comunist revolution*

>*communist revolution*

And I can go on with Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile under Allende, the USSR, etc.

You need to think with your own brain instead of thinking based on what murikan propaganda told you. Is as simple as that.

That's the problem with the idea of sovereignty, a historical product of the struggle between European kings and the church. Later, sovereignty was taken from kings and placed in the hands of an abstract entity called 'the people'. The abstract entity is sacrosant, but its individual components are expendable. A state cannot represent every single member of the proletariat, it can only claim it does. If you assume the only true and correct line is the exclusive possession of the party vanguard, much like the sovereigns of old were so b the grace of god, well, that's a recipe for totalitarianism.

Thats a meme. Why didn't you show Democratic Campuchea as example? China under Mao was shit and now it is not even state capitalism

Ebin

M8 it's a state capitalism thread.

reminder

Lol that's a meme?
Then you should go to China and tell the authorities of the communist party "GUYS, YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN CHARGE OF CHINA, IT'S ALL A MEME XD, YOU ARE NOT SOCIALIST BCUZ THAT'S WHAT I READ IN THE INTERNET AND ALSO IN A MURIKAN TV SHOW CALLED THE SUPER POWERFUL SNPINER MEGA MURIKAN PART 2". They would literally fucking shoot you for being a traitor and a faggot

Get ice picked you stupid troskist

Sounds right.

every time

This is basic Marxism. You can't just seize power you have to smash the state and build a new working class state in its place. Do you think he is advocating for anarchism?

jeez how surprising

In china the commanding heights of the economy have been nationalized. Socialist accumulation is just beginning.

What do you think is going to happen to the billionaires?

...

According to you socialism never existed.
The USSR, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, even fucking Cuba.


seriously, get fucking gulaged

ISHYGDDT

How do anarkiddies want to perform anarchism or communism without proletarian dictatorship as a transitional period? It's not about le human nature but most of people will behave same like they behaved under capitalism if you won't educate them. And there will be some of your ideologic enemies. How do you going to deal with it?

t. $$$deng$$$

This is where the socialism has never been tried meme comes from.

Leninism does not call for a one party state. In the original theory the most consciousness of the proletariat would guide the rest of the proletariat towards revolution and then after that participate in soviet democracy.

Holla Forumsyp falseflagging detected

Now that the proletariat is in power they will fade away in a while. The state will nationalize the means of production and democratize.

Wew lad. Nope, none of the countries you listed were socialist by any means

Its not a Holla Forums false flag its just a retarded tankie arguing with a retarded bookchinite.

What do you mean? China was a bunch of warlords until Mao, then after Deng the billionaires started to appear.

If the proletariat was controlling the state then they exercised indirect control over the means of production. The communist party is simply the most class conscious section of the proletariat.

Read the quote. Literally says that there's no contradiction between dictatorship and democracy, as if the cognitive dissonance isn't clearly apparent

Correct, the law of value, commodity production and other elements of capitalism you'd know about if you ever fucking read Marx still exist in those countries,so they're pretty capitalist.

Lenin want off track when he actually took power but his basic theory is still good.

Lenin controlling the state =/= proletariat controlling the state. The contradiction between the organs of politics and the organs of statecraft couldn't be more obvious

You mean State and Revolution which he essentially abandons when he took power? Yeah, lenin definitely dindu nuffin. He waz a gud boi

SOON

There is no difference between dictatorship and democracy under capitalism.

Lenin did some bad stuff. I'm not denying it. But that doesn't mean we should abandon his theory.

Read trotsky's stuff on this. Their is a difference in the way the capitalist's exercise power.

Not sure what your point is. The revolutionary institutions via the soviets, the dual power, ARE the democracy.

No we shouldn't abandon concepts like the dual power, but we should definitely recognize that the dual power and the state power cannot coexist. The state power must be abolished and subsumed entirely by the dual power, and you can't do that by taking over the state power and subsuming the dual power to the state power, effectively eliminating the dual power.

Read Lenin. He says that you have to destroy the state and build a new one in its ashes. Basically his originally idea was tear down the state and give all power to the soviets.

...

The sovereign state is a relatively recent construct, and ultimately one that does more harm than good. I see no reason to preserve it.

Yeah I've read State and Revolution. The fact remains that the states power and the soviets power remain in contradiction to each other, and creating a new state won't fix that. Give all power to the soviets by actually abolishing the state and having a confederation of soviets in its place.

Google him. Read him. Love him

3rd time you respond without arguments. I doesn't surprise me

Google Boookchin

The soviets are the new state no matter how decentralized they are.

Is the power with the people participating in the soviets? Are the soviets open to participation by all or just the members of one party? Statecraft is essentially the management of society by professionals such as bureaucrats, lawyers and officers. Politics is the practice of creating institutions of democracy like the soviet, and the creation of an informed and well armed "citizenry" (those participating in the soviets). Power in one takes away power in the other. The two are entirely mutually exclusive. You can either have society be managed or have a society which manages itself.

Workers who are recallable are not bureaucrats.

saved

my bookchin collection grows stronger by the day

So in a sense a socialist state isn't a state by your definitions. However it is still a tool used for the coercion of one class by the other.

I'm not disputing that. It's also important to recognize that such institutions are not purely proletarian institutions either. Peasants, even lumpens can participate in these institutions. Furthermore, surely you see the differences between the system I'm talking about and the system that Lenin created.

I think the distinctions between the "socialist state" and how states have manifested and existed throughout are to great and numerous to really consider it a state. It's calling apples oranges. But the semantics of it aside, communalists don't see the revolutionary agent as being a single class. Instead, the revolutionary agent is the "citizen", those who create participate and propagate the dual power, which isn't limited to a single class. That's not to say that it's "class collaborationist", since ultimately the dual power challenges all institutions of domination including capitalism.

my cops would crack neoliberal skulls
your cops would crack my skull for secretly wanting neoliberal skulls cracked.

what i'm saying is that violence is okay if it hurts people i don't like
please don't hurt me though.

The difference is that your scared of centralism because you see it as something imposed from the top down that is impossible to create from the bottom up democratically.

(I'm talking about the one he proposed not the one he created)

Can we just agree that it is in our mutual interest to bash the fash?

Centralism as in Statecraft? Most definitely. Centralism as in independence, cooperation and confederation? Not at all. You can have coordination without domination.

my existence represents itself

kill yourself

no u

...

thing is that the soviets lost power during the NEP era and intraparty democracy was destroyed during stalin's regime and never really recovered. im not saying it was capitalist, but without some form of worker control it's not socialism either, at least not by marx's definition, even though they did work for the benefit of the worker

was the party not open to all?

Let's not pretend that the Bolshevik party was open to any other ideas besides bolshevism. Lenin pretty much ran that party as a dictator, going so far as to ban disagreement entirely.

lenin would have worked to establish a more democratic militia-like system of state-power if he hadlived longer, I'd like to think anyway

...

[citation needed]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks may have wanted to democratize the Soviet state, but they and their successors consistently failed to do so. You can provide any justification you want (it was to avoid factionalism, the iron law of bureaucracy, threats of foreign subversion, etc.) but at the end of the day the USSR was a benevolent single-party dictatorship at best.

How anyone can look at this and say "yes, this is good, we should repeat this" is fucking beyond me.

Stop.

kys

what is a drunken hillbilly spelling corn dog for 400, Alex.

Indeed. Does it hurt your feelings?

funny think is my state capitalist friend, i was actually in that thread. the context was as follows


sounds better with the context?

capitalism*

wew

your full of shit.
what i wrote was that you should oppose imperialism instead off being apathic or literally support an imperialist puppet, just because both sides are capitalists

Daily reminder.

i said "state capitalist" in a joking tone, but the fact that you call yourself m-l implying some sort of "authenticity" over lenin's heritage is peak irony. you do know what lenin said should be done with the trotsky and stalin split right? you know who lenin said should lead the party and who should be stripped of power? or are you gonna deny it as "bourgeoisie lies" and call me an opportunist you sectarian cunt? :^)


you literally said assad and putin are a worthy cause of support, simply because they are against us interests. when you were told by multiple people that they're the same thing since they're both capitalists, you wrote that amazing line. at least own up to the verbal diarrhea you produce

damn that's good b8, dunno if you're b8ing though or just retar-


oh never mind

dude, I didn't know the Trump presidency was a DotP! nice

oh wow. you developed a backward feudal shithole into a capitalist power. this distinguishes you from the bourgeois.
this whole communist thing may not be for you, friend. have you considered joining your local socdem party

wow what tyranny

what did he mean by this?

lol I think I remember you. how's it goin readfag?

amazing. tell me man, how do you glue feudal spooks onto the swamp that is your ideology? i'm really curious about how you rationalize it

Stalin did nothing wrong. Trotsky was a liberal idealist. Stalinism is the communism of scientific rational realpolitik.

hmm, maybe all the people with this flag just talk the same. I do remember having a very similar conversation to this one before. I don't see your flag all that often. Incidentally, I think I'm one of two or three people who use my flag as well.
I was a christian before I was a communist (a bad christian admittedly. I'm still not a very good christian). I don't really think a consistent christian can be anything other than a communist. at the very least an anticapitalist. I won't claim that my views are completely consistent, but I'm still learnin so I don't really care.

Do you actually have a point here? some sort of actual objection to my views you want me to respond to or is this more just being an asshole for fun?

poetry

well if more people did read books, leftypol wouldn't be the nazbol/liberal infested shitpostfest it mostly is today.

It literally teaches people obedience with the promise of an immortal soul, while it deifies austerity and hardship. it's literally the opposite of communism user, and i'm talking about the praxis of religion, not even gonna go into the crazy shit in the scripture no one cares about or believes in nowdays (at least when it comes to christians) or the historical role it served providing legitimacy to the feudalist regimes since ancient times.


Not attacking you personally, I just think you have a very poor grasp of leftist theory and are kinda confused about your ideology. Do you for example understand that the pillar of socialism is the materialist analysis and interpretation of society and history?

MFW Anarkiddies are THIS retarded.

...

meanwhile you don't even have to strawman a nazbol, since your whole ideology is one big shitpost

In some sense those are fair objections. I certainly have met a lot of christians who think like that. Even in christian leftist groups there is a lot of pacifism which I'm not really a fan of. Essentially I argue that capitalism causes an immense amount of suffering and sin and at this point hinders human flourishing in general. In this sense christians are obligated to find some way of overcoming it. I can point to the passages in scripture that I think support this view, but I'm not very well-read when it comes to theology (that's something Imma get to after I read a bit more on marxism and philosophy in general).
that's fair enough. I'm still learning so I don't deny that.
well I certainly understand its importance for Marx as well as some anarkids. You do realize communist right? I guess it seems more accurate to me to say materialist analysis is a pillar of Marxism.

Anyways, I wouldn't call myself a marxist (mainly cause of my religious views), but I'm certainly very sympathetic to Marx and some marxists. I've been reading more marx recently and I find that I agree with him more the more I read him.

FUCK I meant to say "you do realize there are non-marxist communists, right?" I can't type

well i could write walls of text here, but no religious person was ever moved by arguments or logic so i don't really see the point. i'm just gonna comment on


no there aren't. you can call yourself whatever you want, but communism = dialectical materialism and historical materialism. so if some small part of you believes in the revolutionary cause, don't dilute the meaning of words like "communism" and misappropriate them like that, doing that alone makes you work for the system by recuperating radical ideas and incorporating a bastardized version of them back into the Spectacle of neoliberalism. Call yourself christian, or christian socialist (since the word socialist lost its radical roots after ww1anyway), just don't use the word communist.

With Stalin the people of the USSR got a tangible, real workers vanguard acting on their behalf. With you all they get is internet shitposting and long-winded boring reddit posts.

no, they got that with lenin and trotsky. with stalin they got an ideologically bankrupt bureaucratic ruling apparatus that slowly eroded and finally betrayed the revolution in 1991

Man for a second there I thought you weren't as bad as all the other trash that uses the readflag. But that was pretty terrible. I'll call myself what I like tbh. it's a shame this board has degenerated to this tbh

lol

ye i know you will, cause you're another lumpenprole in the end. try reading debord, maybe you'll understand why what you're doing is helping the status quo. at least you're not calling yourself a marxist

this.

What exactly did Trotsky do for the people again, other than sabotage their efforts to improve society I mean?

dunno, build the army that won the civil war you illiterate fuck?

marxists.org/history/etol/writers/wright/1941/10/redarmy.htm

He commanded the red army.

They got rapid improvement in living conditions, huge expansion of the industrial base which is a requirement for true communism, they got the greatest military victory of all time against history's worst reactionary movement, they got a great liberation of eastern Europe from porky, a great scientific revolution and one of the greatest societies ever.
TROTSKYFAGS BTFO
Lenin should certainly be revered. Trotsky was a great idealist but had no concept of the practical needs of a developing society. His efforts to undermine the USSR made him a traitor, it is unfortunate he took that course as he could have remained one of the USSR's greatest assets. Instead he chose his own ego over the good of the people.

let's not forget how the soviets were made redundant, something that was supposed to be a temporary NEP measure and got perpetuated by stalin and his successors until the end.

Those are some really strong mental gymnastics user.

lmao. I've read society of the spectacle. what exactly is your point?
A++ trot-tier analysis. keep up that diamat, son :^)

lmao why do you guys keep clinging to this shit? once again that argument proves absolutely nothing regarding whether or not Stalinism is a betrayal of communism. this is literally the same argument you'll hear all the other sycophants of capitalism spout when backed into a corner: "look look capitalism improved these prole's living conditions." Communism does not mean "a couple of extra scraps thrown toward the hungry proles" communism is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. Stay cucked.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_factions_in_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

can you read? they weren't allowed to propagate other views other than what was democratically agreed upon by the majority of the central committee.


no one silenced them, or had them murdered for disagreeing. all they agreed upon was that after a majority decision has been made, the party must follow it

i meant the society of the spectacle.


my point is that what you're doing is recuperation of the radical idea of revolutionary communism into the spectacle in the form of some non-radical idealist moralism.


why are you lying on the internet user? i told you to read debord exactly because i know that his logos is probably much better structured and persuasive than mine. if the source discourse can't make you understand something, how can i?

Lenin being head of the central committee if I remember correctly. Explain to me how this isn't banning dissent/difference of opinion
No but they could and would be kicked out of the party, which is still banning disagreement ultimately

oh by the way let's see, can you guess who murdered shlyapnikov based on a forced confession? who could it have been that started murdering communists for voicing their opinion


again mustache man shows us the way to the true emancipation of the proletariat :^)

Not a stalinist so I'm not sure what your point is. See my other post

don't call me a liar fam. been a while since I've read him tbh but this is a pretty trash argument and I think kind of a bastardization of what recuperation means. His point was not to autistically cling to the older meaning of words, his point was that structurally, capitalism forces these words to become recuperated. Pointing to one individual who uses a word differently from how you'd like doesn't change this reality. That's like screaming at a worker for going to work every day because he's reproducing capitalism.

All this is beside the point anyways because communism already doesn't mean diamat to the public, in fact diamat means absolutely nothing to the public other than perhaps some jargon that smug uni students appeal to when they can't explain their points. To them communism is stalinism. One guy on the internet who calls himself a christian communist is not going to change that. I could be wrong, because once again it's been a while since I've read Debord and I've only read one of his works but I don't think Debord was dumb enough to use those arguments the way you're using them.

Lenin being VOTED the head of the central committee


what do i need to explain here user? if we are 20 people and say "let's vote x or y, but whatever is voted everyone has to follow it" that doesn't mean no one can express dissent, since policy isn't dictated by some clique like the stalin-era politburo. many of the key issues during this period, like the NEP for example, were discussed with multiple proposals in mind which were ultimately voted on. Stalin was actually on many occasions on the losing side of these arguments, as was trotsky in other occasions, even lenin

When lenin proposed russia's exit from ww1 (during the 3 month ceasefire), most people in the party wanted to continue fighting the war but as a revolutionary war to spread the revolution in europe. it was only after germany threatened a full scale invasion was the treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed. But was Bukharin and his faction punished? no, bukharin was executed by guess who

no one got kicked out of the party or mysteriously disappeared until stalin gripped power. the only people trotsky and lenin purged from the ranks of the party were mansheviks that openly supported the duma and wanted neoliberalism. Even many mansheviks were given the opportunity to change their anti-revolutionary activities, but in the end the purges of the civil war era had to be done since you simply couldn't have traitors forming a fifth column while you were fighting the whites and half of europe.

His point was not to autistically cling to the older meaning of words, his point was that structurally, capitalism forces these words to become recuperated. Pointing to one individual who uses a word differently from how you'd like doesn't change this reality. That's like screaming at a worker for going to work every day because he's reproducing capitalism

what am i supposed to say here? you either didn't read debord, or didn't understand him. that last sentence gave me at least 3 types of cancer.

debord says that capitalism combats radical ideology by making it socially isolated (mccarthyism) and then introducing it at a later "safer" period with a completely bastardized meaning (for example both conservative liberals and neoliberals calling the democrat party "the left"). What you're doing is textbook recuperation of radical emancipatory class struggle into some form of religious non-violent lumpenprole activism. I'm not even attacking your ideology, all i am saying is that you shouldn't recuperate radical politics and do the capitalist's work for them.


and this was done exactly in this way, during the first phase of recuperation (social ostracization of the idea). and what follows now is the second phase of reintroduction, which takes of form of neoliberals calling themselves leftists. Christian "communism" might not play a big part in this, my point is though that no matter what impact you have as a person with what you're doing, that impact is actually damaging the revolutionary struggle long term. You are rebranding communism as some non-violent form of protest, gluing on it religious idealism on top.

I don't know how to say this in a simpler way, i hope you understood what i'm trying to say here

So? This doesn't change the fact that he essentially controlled the party and banned dissent within it, even if his control was consented to by the central committee. It doesn't change that the relationship of Lenin to the party is essentially one of domination where his influence is overwhelming and prevents any dissent to it, culminating in the ban on party factions. Certainly you can see the immense influence that Lenin had on the party made the joining of dissenting members not only unlikely, but ultimately unfruitful for them? To go back to my original post, you can't say that the soviets didn't lose their power when the bolsheviks took over all of them when faced with the reality of who really was in control of the bolshevik party.

but that's not at all what happened. lenin was voted by his peers as the head of the party DEMOCRATICALLY, and like i said above he was in the minority when it came to ww1. The fact that people often agreed with him doesn't mean that he dictated in an authoritarian nature, it simply means that his opinions aligned with the majority of the party. There was never a 100% consensus on any matter, everything was voted DEMOCRATICALLY and decided upon DEMOCRATICALLY. There were no party deletions until AFTER lenin died. Stalin, who went on to be the authoritarian ruler, was on many occasions against lenin both before and after the revolution (support for the provisional government, the georgian affair etc). Your statement that people who disagreed with lenin in particular were deleted from the partly is simply not true, and you can provide no evidence to back such ridiculous slander. All you've presented here so far is the fact that the party democratically decided that all decisions must be collectively followed once they've been made by popular vote from the central committee.

You fail to address my central point. Did or did not Lenin have overwhelming influence over the party? Did this overwhelming influence not lead to the marginalization and negation of any dissenting influence, if not in some instances banishment from the party? The fact remains that the soviet democracy is incompatible with control by any one party, and the bolsheviks are no exception to this but instead perhaps the best example of why that's a problem. Politics and statecraft remain mutually exclusive as always

...

define influence. did people respect him and his discourse so much that they more often than not agreed with him? yes they did, because lenin was a genius theorist and one of the biggest minds of our time. did anyone expressing dissent face any ramification whatsoever? no they did not

amazing wikipediaposting user, 10/10. you are literally making shit up, respecting someone and being persuaded by his discourse doesn't equal authoritarian rule. give me one example of a member of the central committee being banished from the party for expressing his opinion before 1922. i'll wait

power over the party
Certainly people respected him, and they also feared him for the influence he commanded. Opposing him would mean alienating themselves, sort of how like a cult operates. It's not simply an issue of "removing opportunists". I think it's incredibly naive to think that Lenin did not take the opportunity to purge opposition. Lenin himself thought of no distinction between dictatorial powers wielded by him and the soviet democracy, as pic related demonstrates

but you've provided ZERO proof to back your ridiculous slander up. you're saying people feared him, people didn't oppose him out of fear, when it's fact that buhkarin's faction within the party actively opposed lenin's moderate faction on literally everything, and no one in the central committee was ever deleted during that period.

like i said, provide ONE, just ONE tangible account of someone getting deleted from the party for voicing their opinion on realpolitik that should be followed. of course you cannot do that, so you equate stalin-era shadow trials and executions on whim with "lenin was very influential because he persuaded people with his sound arguments and discourse". top of the line shitposting

What proof is needed to show that influence commands also fear? Power in itself can command fear. I gave you an account of people indeed being purged, because buhkarin wasn't purged is not evidence that others were not. I never implied shadow trials or executions, I merely implied that Lenin had defacto dictatorial powers by his own admission, and you refuse to see how this negatively effected soviet democracy.

the kind of proof that's not your baseless assertion. fear is the result of people expecting retribution for their actions, not the result of someone being influential because his theory is sound.


no, you provided an account of people being investigated for anti-revolutionary activities. no one was purged for expressing their ideas, people were arrested for anti-revolutionary behavior and investigations were put in place to make sure a possibility of a fifth column of anti-revolutionaries didn't exist


but buhkarin was lenin's main opposition on all fronts, and yet nothing happened to him or his supporters. you are offering nothing more than your personal guesses and slander, if what you're saying actually happened there'd be at least some tangible evidence you could link to your baseless lies.


lenin never said such a thing. the fact that everyone agrees with an opinion, doesn't make the one that puts the opinion forth a dictator.

"dictator, noun: a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession."

you think this is the same as getting elected democratically and people following your suggestions because they were sound and logical? does your whole argument rest on your slanderous claim that people were afraid to oppose lenin, when it's historical fact that major opponents of lenin within the party and their close allies never once faced any ramification for voicing their opinions whatsoever? because if that's all your revisionism boils down to, produce some proof of your ridiculous claims or stop shitposting your "theories" as facts.

> it's people like you that got gulaged

The funny thing is, take two steps outside of the big cities like Shenzhen or Shanghai and it's still a backward feudal shithole where people live like serfs under their feudal local party lord and have no electricity or plumbing. I've been to China multiple times, it's amazing to see, one step into the countryside is like stepping back 100 years.

is the pollution as bad as the internet says? some videos i've seen make china look like the world from ergo proxy

I try. Anyways I still don't think you're getting my point. Utopianism has infected your brain, friend. Anyways,as much as I love these tired appeals to authority I'd like to actually return to the text here because once again I don't think your interpretation makes sense. He doesn't speak much about recuperation here in society of the spectacle from what I remember but let's look at the section where he speaks on detournement:

[later in the same thesis]
Over time these concepts become petrified and thus safe for the ruling class. Detournement is the process of reradicalizing these concepts by altering them. This view is consistent with what I said. I do not think this view is consistent with what you've said. Anyways I look forward to more of this scoffing and adhoms not backed up by any sort of substantive critique. As I said earlier the reason why I have this interpretation of what Guy Debord is saying here is not only because it matches his words better than your interpretation, but because I believe Debord was too smart to say what you think he's saying. If it turns out that guy Debord was actually using these terms to refer to kiddos using the word "communism" in a way that autists on the internet find objectionable, well then I think Debord was wrong here too.
You also claim that I advocate for nonviolence here. I was clear earlier that I object to the pacifism of many christians.
and yet you said
By calling myself a communist I am both defending the status quo and having no effect on the status quo…wow. I guess I'm not sure what you want from me here. You say I can't call myself a communist because… well you never actually explained why you just said so. then you namedrop debord, butcher his ideas and sperg out when I call you out on it. This has been a real learning experience for me, man, I appreciate it.

also, if you can point to passages in society of the spectacle or even elsewhere where he explains recuperation in a way that actually supports your argument, I'm all ears. I could have missed something. I strongly suspect I'm just gonna get another reply full of trash talk and lacking in arguments though.

Lenin gave the workers the means of production.
Stalin directed (not owned !) the means of production in such a way that the USSR went from a backwards failing country to a wealthy and powerful state that could truly bring out the worker's revolution.

It's ideologues like you that wanted to 'democratize' the system that led to the fall of the USSR and the ultimate victory of liberal capitalism. Because of your ilk Marxist-Leninism no longer has a real embodiment. But I guess we can have titilating discussions about 'muh idealism' on capitalist imageboards, which is all you ilk are ever good for.


Why am I not fucking surprised you'd chose liberal middle class sentimentality over real marxism.

debord actually defines recuperation in the situationist manifesto

bopsecrets.org/SI/report.htm

cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/faces.html


wasn't gonna attack the filth that is your ideology, but when you call marxism "utopian" while basing your worldview on comfy idealist fantasies it's just too much


Read what I linked, debort didn't only write a single collection of theses. i'll explain it for a final time: by using communist rhetoric, the only thing you do is damage the "brand name" of communism, to put it in very understandable terms. you are not a communist, your petit-bourg liberal ideology has nothing to do with the emancipatory science of marxism and you should stop calling yourself a communist because people might believe your shitty ideology is what communism actually is

there you go mate, as simple as i can articulate it without needing to draw it for you.

...

...