/marx/ is nowhere to be found

...

Lenin is one of the first revisionists of Marx, yes.

OP is right, we need a containment board for the Stalinist cancer.

Get fucked, tankie.

What arguments do you find unconvincing? Also, how are Maoists revisionist? Do you even know what ant-revisionism means in an ML context, Maoists were literally anti-revisionists who rejected Khrushchev's Secret Speech and the Khrushchev Thaw. What does anti-revisionism mean to you?

Tankies should be the second against the wall.

Then why are you even on this board?

If you're going to be a tankie at least try to be a chill one who recognizes that the endgoals of Communists, Anarchists, and Communalists are nearly identical, there's just a good deal of disagreement over strategy. Unless you actually think the endgoal of Marxism is to create an enormous authoritarian State, in which case I'd say you not only need to brush up on Marx, but you need to actually read Lenin too.

I've read Kliman's article about the concept of transitional stage
and I find his interpretation of Marx to be dogmatic

socialism was proclaimed in the 36

no, because there were actual problems in the economic theory and practice

Then you didn't even open the PDF, because it's not a text by Kliman.
Gr8 argument, especially coming from the current that supposedly has a proper adherence to Marx.

As of '36, as for the Soviet Union's entire existence, there was wage labor, surplus value extraction, and limited private ownership of factories, not to mention the existence of currency, even if we could argue that currency didn't "exactly" function the way it does under Capitalism, or that the extracted surplus value was very evenly redistributed among the working class, and even though I agree that the Soviet Union was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat to a degree, but can we truly call this Socialism in all good faith when it hasn't overcome almost all of the characteristics of Capitalism? Leftcoms aren't trying to argue that the Soviet Union was indistinguishable from the Capitalist West, they're trying to understand why the Soviet Union failed. Also, how the fuck is a tankie going to accuse someone else of dogmatism for being true to Marx's actual theories, do you even realize how retarded you sound.

You wish!

it has nothing to do with the Secret Speech
and everything to do with economic policy
China gave concessions to capitalists and never got rid of them
China abandoned central planning after the first five year plan, even tho it was a success

Give it a few more days OP, boards are getting slowly restored

kekekekekekekeke

my sides

You realize that Mao and Deng Xioping are not the same person right? After the Great Leap Forward Mao was striped of all of his political titals and powers because of what an unadulterated debacle it turned into, you know, that fucking famine that happened, then Deng, Liu Shaoqi, and Zhou Enlai, the Liberal wing of the party took over, Mao, and those loyal to Mao, the Gang of Four, were pushing to keep Stalin's legacy alive and to return to Soviet style Socialism. This is why the entire anti-revisionist Left of the 60's was either Maoist or Hoxahist, these aren't separate tendencies, it just means being an "anti-revisionist" why do tankies know so little about history when 90% of your tendency is based on historical roleplaying?

first five year chinese plan 1953–1957
great leap forward 1958–1962

Mind you, I know Ishmail is very big for tankies on this board, and I even remember him from Revleft, but there were practically no Hoxahist groups whatsoever back then, Maoism was THE anti-revisionist tendency, and most contemporary ML orgs, like PSL, WWP, and FRSO would all literally get labeled Maoist by '60-'70's standards.

I'm pointing out when Mao fell from grace, not the end of the first five year plan, also, just because they turned their back on the Five Year model doesn't mean they turned their back on central planning, let alone the Marxism-Leninism of Stalin's reign. Unless you think it was literally wrong for Mao to try to adapt to the fact that the material conditions of China were not identical to those of Russia, you dogmatic sperg.

there would be wage labor because of scarcity

necessity for the advancement of productive forces

coops were forbidden to employ labor

internal state industry accounting unit was not a currency

literally revisionist.

yes, it means
they went the Khrushchev's road of sovnarchoz type "central" planning
so much for anti-revisionism

t. Marx

Read Marx.

marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol01/no04/marx.htm

same AF dear OP

I recommend you to do the same.

Marx was the first revisionist of Marx.

>>>Holla Forums

I hate how half of those are just national flags. Nice internationalism.

You first.

marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol08/no10/marx-zas.htm

By going far back, we find everywhere in Western Europe common property of a fairly archaic type; it disappeared everywhere with social progress. Why should it succeed in escaping the same fate only in Russia?
I reply: Because in Russia, thanks to a singular combination of circumstances, the rural commune, still established on a national scale, can gradually extricate itself from its primitive characteristics and develop directly as an element of collective production on a national scale. It is only thanks to the contemporaneity of capitalist production that it can appropriate from it all its positive acquisitions without passing through its hideous vicissitudes

...

if you really want it back, you can follow the instructions on the 404 page

(you're ignoring the "national" part of "internationalism)
(internationalism isn't just globalism or the absence of individual states)

OP's probably not a Sjeydubya

he who stands still in an evolving universe, moves backwards