Why do some """""leftists""""" here defend or try to justify murderous dictators like Mao and Stalin?

That's a bit exagerated, don't you think? It implies that standing up to idpol is being right-wing.

sage

I'd switch to NazBol if it meant I could left wing death squad anarchists

some things never change

Tankies are pretty dumb but anarchists are especially annoying. Marx demolished Bakunin almost 150 years ago but they are still repeating the same tired arguments.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

some things never change

Stalin and Mao sucked because of they had a shallow understanding of theory, and thus were unable to construct a socialist society.

The number of people they killed is irrelevant to me tbh.

Or you can just say that a person who reaches a position of power LITERALLY NEVER has ANY interest in maintaining himself in power.

Mao and Stalin brought hundreds of millions out of the most crushing poverty imaginable. way better record than the anarchists who controlled a few city blocks for a couple months and made sure their first big thing was to make a gulag

Marxist logic is so weird

Because a sizable chunk of the board's population consists of ex-Holla Forumstards who have traded Hitler for Stalin. They usually lack any sort of capacity for critical thought and are in it mostly for the sake of edge and hero worship.

Did you read my post? That was my whole point, they don't read theory, all that matters to them are the aesthetics and artifice of Socialism, not the actual material conditions or mode of production of any given society.

(1) Positive developments =/= socialism
(2) fuck anarchism

Sorry dude. Meant to respond to

As long as classes exist so does the state. Marx addresses this point directly in the commentary i linked.

lel, no worries comrade, I was just confused

if you want people to believe in why giving communism another try then you're going to need to communicate the benefits. Saying Stalin/Mao were idiots who didnt know anything isn't that. Showing the historical evidence of their tremendous amount of prosperity they brought their people is.

Same with Hitler really.

stalin killed over a hundred million people

if this entire board distanced themselves from tankies (preferably by banning them on sight) then we would all be better off for it

Nazbols first tbh

Anarchists are almost always middle-class bored kids and opportunists in every sense of the word Bordiga meant it.

If you wanna be a lifestyle leftist and protest against "authority", and the "state" go ahead, you want to split hairs about real communism and non-authoritarianism go ahead.

But socialist theory was never about about non-authoritarianism, but to establish socialism as a new authority. Go play in your local councils and opportunistic activism.

Real violence comes from systemic change, brought about by an organised body of revolutionaries, revolutionaries like Mao, Lenin and the Jacobins.

No actually I'm pretty sure Bakunin BTFO Marx.

I'm sure you have some overwhelming statistics to substantiate your claim don't you? Yeah, didn't think so. Try thinking first before posting, faggot.

I don't need statistics, it an empirical observation.

...

back to reddit faggot

HOW SCIENTIFIC!

back to using the an-nil flag? didn't like the black flag?
you're one of the worst posters on here, stop making anarchists look bad

Yeah, and as long as the state exists, classes exist. Those who rule will either serve a dominant class, or become the dominant class, as shown throughout history.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for us if they recieved the same treatment idpols get here.

I'm not. I'm special.

Right, because the whole thing about the classless and stateless society is all about authoritarianism.

This is Holla Forums-tier.
I would, however, agree with you that there is a portion of people who call themselves anarchists, but who do not follow anarchist theory. They are the ones Bookchin calls "lifestylists". These, as well as the idpols, do tend to be bourgie af. However, saying that these are all the anarchists that exist is the same as me saying that the only marxists that exist are the tankies.

I've been using this flag since like a year
The fuck did I do? Asshole.

no they deserve worse for Kronstadt and free territory and ruining Spain

they should be permanently banned along with any sexist and woman hater posts

Class and state have nothing to do with authority in the way Anarchists understand it, viz, that all oppression stems from the force of violence on the part of the state or institutions. Establishing a socialist system without the state is like saying you want to sail with a boat on land.

But to reiterate, I don't care about "real anarchists", sure there are some good guys like those in Rojava. But what do you think they even do there? They are building up a state.

All these faux leftism about authoritarianism is sentimental bullshit, the only reason why Stalin should be cast out as a revolutionary example, is because he destroyed all potentials for the Soviet union, not because he killed some Kulaks.

Yeah, but whenever marxists try to convince anarchists to use their definition of state, it goes something like this:
It is, at best, a useless discussion, and, at worse, intelectual dishonesty.

Literally liberal utopianism.

No, what I'm saying is they start with reasonable premises ("Racism against whites is bad") and follow it with non-sequitors ("Whites are under attack, so we need to remove all non-whites and jews").

When you point out the jews who are against Zionism and Idpol their reply is always the same:

They're only playing a game.

the talented tenth or the nonshitty 1% of kikes isn't really something worthwhile talking about.

Where can I read more about this? What are you referring to specifically?

libcom.org/forums/theory/prison-labor-camps-during-spanish-revolution-your-opinions-05102011

wonder if an anarchist is going to tell me this was also capitalism

The holodomor was just a natural famine. Made worse by Kulaks burning grain. No man made famine ever existed.

Please return to /r/socialism

That's a lot of ideology, but most of it is wrong.

First of all, the problem is not centralised power, but unjustified authority. Decentralised power, as long as unjustified, it also a problem. Otherwise, we would not be opposed to stateless capitalism.
The justification of authority lies in the capacity for the individual to dismantle it at any point, and in the consent of the individual. With capitalism, you do not have this.
We don't want to liberate "the individual", but rather all individuals simultaneously, in such a way as the freedom of one does not repress the freedom of another. This contrasts with forms of liberalism which don't care about the freedom of one sometimes contradicting the freedom of another. In this way, it is indeed a proletarian idoelogy, since it advocates for both equality and liberty at the same time, which implies a stateless and classless society.
Also, that last paragraph enters direct contradiction with all anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalist theory.
You should really check whether your propaganda is correct before posting.

There is nothing that contradicts anarchist theory when it comes to putting the enemies of the revolution in labour camps. We do advocate for violent revolution, so we advocate killing those who stand against freedom for the working people. What does contradict it is the CNT not having used its force to abolish parliament and impose proletarian rule, and instead having put people in the bourgeois state. Literal class colaborationism. They deserve all the condemnation they get for not having followed the anarchist model they claimed to defend.

forced labour seems to me to be pretty against anarchist theory since that seems like it also means that the workers have no rights or the ability to strike but I guess this wasnt real anarchism right

Stop comparing "holodomor" and Holocaust.denial. They arent even remotely similar.

Where are you getting your statistics from?

This needs to end

Because they did absolutely nothing wrong you revisionist cuck.

Yeah, but the workers also don't have the ability to become bourgeois, or murder people on the street, for example. When you oppose the revolution, you are opposed to the idea of everyone being free to do whatever they want as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of another. Thus, you are going against the anarchist ideas, and must be eliminated to ensure freedom for all.

You can't be poor if you're dead.

when I think of anarchism I think of central committees deciding who is an enemy of the revolution and institution a system of how they can be disposed most efficiently

not to say I disagree politically with you about this idea in any form. The enemies of your people need to be eradicated and treated not as human but soulless husks

It won't be the central commitee deciding this, but the workers themselves, through their assemblies. Besides, it is pretty easy to tell if someone is an enemy of the revolution if they are actively fighting against you.

You would have banned Proudhon.

Think about that.

Really… take a few seconds to think about that.

You would have banned Proudhon.

Are those numbers supposed to be Russians killed by Nazis or Russians killed by Stalin?

so a crowd convenes to decide who lives and who dies. there is no system in place for those accused to defend themselves. nor time for a defense to be made. you know the cultural revolution taught us that the ways a man can be an enemy of the revolution is near infinite.

wtf im anarchist-maoist now

As long as you want to see every bourgeoisie fucker dead or in subjugation, you're fine by my standards.

If you need to kill thousands upon thousands of people and abrogate all manner of individual liberties in order to bring your system about and make it work YOUR SYSTEM IS SHIT.

This tbqh. As long as you want to see capitalism burned down, I don't care if you're a tankie or an anarcho-nudist.

That's literally what politics always was.

There ought to be such a system. It is the just thing to do. One can't just rely on telling people the accusation without telling them the defence in order for them to reach a just veredict. One needs to do things in a just way. However, when it comes to war with the reaction, one hardly has time for such things.

Proudhon hated women? Please give link.

I agree, capitalism needs to be eliminated.

yeah hitler only killed 6 million of his own people while stalin almost killed 70 million

Idpol says the same about white men.

And then you show up:

And five seconds later:

they all feel nothing but disgust towards their male "allies" lol but I want a Nazi masturbation fantasy so thats cool with me

Any system that does that shit needs to be tossed into the dustbin of history. I don't care whether it's fascism or Stalinism or anything fucking in-between.

...

Yes, I agree, Capitalism needs to be tossed into the dustbin of history.

...

I'm pretty sure that the annil flag user who obsessed over free markets actually died of cancer. This annil's actually an annil and not an "agorist" (read: deep cover ancap) using the annil flag. The retarded black flag guy still posts.

The latter.

Fuck off with your cultural Marxism. He killed 200 millions at the least.

Yeah, I have nothing to do with that guy. I'm the helpful egoist anarchist who tries to get newfriends to read Stirner.

Authority and freedom by themselves are completely superficial concepts when presented without a material basis. Political power stems from the relationships of production. When the economic basis of class existence is destroyed all questions about authority are empty.

Revolution means establishing a new state to abolish the current relationships of production and oppress the bourgeoisie out of existence as a class. Abolishing the state is only achieved when the conditions making the existence of the state possible cease to exist.

Because the until my family is directly affected, the ends justify the means.

He didn't hate women in the /r9k/ sense but many on the Left criticize the fact that he was very "patriarchal" and defended traditional gender roles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Anti-semitism_and_sexism

If you read French, this Déjacques' reply to Proudhon basically adresses Proudhon's view of women as subservient to men (due to less physical strength):
joseph.dejacque.free.fr/ecrits/lettreapjp.htm

Many people justify it by saying "it was another era" and so on. Personally I find it very hard to conceive of a feminism (in the sense we understand it today) without an institutionalized order. Let's face it: women are equal to men and perhaps superior in some ways (like men are in others), but the fact that they tend to be physically weaker is to obvious to omit. Sure we can live in a world where all men shake hands and agree raping women is just wrong so we won't do it anymore but… we know how that would go.

He had a serious beef with Jews though and it's no secret that he accused Marx of having "special interests":
revleft.com/vb/threads/109317-Proudhon-s-alleged-sexism-and-racism

You can see the anarchist mode of organising things as a state (since it does repress the bourgeoisie), and the social revolution as the dictatorship of the proletariat. They are really only different ways of saying the same thing. The difference is anarchists think that the state can never take a form where its authority is higher than that of the workers as a class, otherwise the state itself will form a new rulling class. Thus, the workers must always have democratic control over the state aparatus. Marxists, however, don't think that the workers not being the highest authority has a risk of generating a new rulling class, so they don't care about that. Meanwhile, we consider that a state where there is no rulling elite is not a state at all. It simplifies our theory by not having to constantly say "a form of state where the workers are the rulling authority, can elect or recall their representatives at any point, and create the mandates that the representatives must follow".

That's pretty cool. I don't know why people would try to justify that in him. It doesn't have any effect on the rest of his ideas (though most of Proudhon's ideas are way obsolete). Only an idpol would think the theory of a sexist man has no value, simply because he was sexist.

Why were people so anti-semitic back then anyway? Was it just propaganda, or were there other factors?

Because they weren't murderous dictators. And anarchists, leftcoms and other utopians have literally no answers to fundamental question such as "how do we deal with imperialism and capitalist encirclement?"

I think it really boils down to Money=Jews.
Feud over the crucifixion of Jesus had for result Jews being treated like second class citizens in Western Europe, with the paradoxical effect of giving them a neat advantage when capitalsim kicked in for only the Jews were allowed "impure" money related jobs in the Medieval era.
As a result, Jews are disproportionately represented in the higher classes, leading to the easy leap, Capitalist mindset = Jewish mindset that even Marx did a some point.

>Marxists, however, don't think that the workers not being the highest authority has a risk of generating a new rulling class, so they don't care about that.

That's a pretty afwul misrepresentation. How the state will manifest itself is just not something we can really plan or predict ahead. It will be formed by the revolution. What is more important is that the proletariat will be able to act in a centralised and unified fashion.

Are you sure? That seems quite imprudent. One ought to at least look towards history for examples of models that work or don't.

Does that mean the state of the USSR was a proletarian state?

Any white man who calls himself an "ally" to women or gays or minorities or what have you is usually a try-hard faggot fishing for likes on Facebook at best or trying to alleviate his "white guilt" at worst. No one respects a white man who hates himself. These are disgusting masochistic creatures who I'm sure get a kick out of humiliation. That's why Idpol women target white male "allies" more frequently and with more venom than they target "dirtbag leftists" or even right-wingers:
melmagazine.com/have-you-encountered-the-cuckboi-bf5bab9651c9

Google "the problem with ally". Then google all the articles written by feminists where they describe having amazing sex with "misogynistic brocialists" and Trump supporters and feel conflicted because they loved submitting to a "proper man" instead of being handled by a weak spineless coward submissive piece of shit who doesn't doesn't mainspread, mansplain, manterrupt or manthroatfuck her.

torontolife.com/city/life/tinder-tales-donald-trump-supporter/

I don't think it's very useful to draw definite conclusions from 100 year old events. The proletariat will self-organise according to present conditions, not following some academic guide book.

Until about 1921, yeah.

I agree fam. Stirner is our only hope.

OP, are you also paranoid about Nazbol subverting the world board?

That's a good question.

How would anarchists and leftcoms deal with imperialism and capitalist encirclement?

Are you asking what to do if the revolution fails? I don't think that's a very useful thing to consider.

Back to reddit faggot, revolutions are never peaceful.

Certainly not by killing millions of my own people.

Epic meme

holy shit that screencap is pure concentrated anarchist autism

so if labor was voluntary what was the purpose of all those guards?

soviet prison system had vouchers too

I bet faggot couldn't sleep at night because stalinists are out to get him

this is why I can't stand any anarchists
they will screech at any attempt to actually organize beyond a mass of isolated councils or whatever the fuck they call them these days
you try to organize these councils into a coherent hierarchical whole with supreme council at the top and executive committee for day-to-day activities, and anarchists start sabotaging shit because muh noble fight against eternal totalitarianist state
sometimes I wonder if anarchists will ban the laws of nature because matter is inherently hierarchical

yea, dividing when facing a common threat is always a good idea
it sure worked for those russian warring cities when mongols invaded

yea, they were heroes for fighting communist units and maradeuring

defiant units that undermine military discipline in a wartime should be cornered, besieged, starved, and after capitulation decimated old roman style

Are you insane?

If you cede ground to Liberals you are fucking yourself over before you even begin. Stalin must be praised if we are ever going to bring Socialism into the 21st century.

This. Name a single leftist movement or organization which even made the tiniest bit of concession to liberalism and didn't go shit within years like a fucking trainwreck. Just look at Eurocommunism

...

Centralized power creates unjustified authority for the benefit of the holders of that power and their friends and relatives. It intentionally perpetuates unjustified authority.

You people are the only reason I ever regret leaning left.

...

Just beacuse you don't think Mao and Stalin killed Trillions of people doesn't mean you think they did nothing wrong or incorrectly. If you're main critique of of Stalin/Mao begins with "murderous" that's pretty much a moralist non argument anyway

Edgy 13-year old, the post.

Murdering people is reprehensible. I cannot think of a single culture or civilization that either did not call it such, or at least was aware enough of its sheer fucking awfulness to realize that they needed to cover it up or rationalize it away.

Anyone who would rationalize away the blood on Stalin's hands is no better than someone who would rationalize the blood on Hitler's or any other mass murderer's. You are fucking SICK and the fact that you walk free is an unfortunate oversight that I can guarantee you I will be happy to personally remedy if need be and opportunity presents itself, when the time comes.

Worship your gods of death all you like, they will not answer your prayers. I will slaughter your sacred cows and do my level best to make sure you are never regarded as anything more than the idiotic death-cultist you are.

Killing reactionaries is not "murder." Jesus you are being insufferable.

Killing anyone who is not placing your life in immediate peril is murder, you disgusting scumfuck. You are no better than a Nazi killing trade unionists. You are despicable. You are the cancer consuming the Left.

In spite of all this, I do not wish death upon you. I am all for locking you away in a dark hole where you will never be able to hurt another human being ever again, and giving you the rest of your miserable life to muse on where exactly you decided you thought you needed to throw away your humanity for the sake of building a world so hideously oppressive and brutal that it can only effectively maintain order with fear and violence.

You are a disservice to the left and you're too stupid to realize it.

I'm pretty fucking sure the only way we're going to have revolution is when a good deal of pork has its blood spilled. Because they are going to use lethal force to stop us from abolishing their shekels.

If they come at you with lethal force, you defend yourself. But if you think for one second that I will stand by while you commit unspeakable acts based on the same "Get them before they get you!" pretense that every fucking hatemonger in history has used to excuse their crimes against the human race, you had better think twice.

Your ideas and speech should not need the implicit threat of imminent violence to reach deeply inside people's minds and hearts. If they need that specter of death lurking behind every word then your way is the wrong way. If you need to dangle swords over people's heads you are a TYRANT waiting to happen.

Feudalism. It goes back to feudalism. And morons like you forgot what life ordinary people have under it. You need to feel it again, to start to support "not working commie" systems.

Stop being so dramatic. You really sound like a liberal was just got called the wrong pronoun and they didn't use organic almond milk in your latte.

I'm not going to pretend Stalin is a flawless golden god who enacted FALC all over the Eastern bloc until revisionists ruined it. But I really, really hate anarkiddies that try and pander to liberals by shitting all over controversial communist leaders.

Stalin did a lot of bad things. But I can't hate him, him and the people of the Soviet Union saved Europe from fascism and with that saved huge populations of mankind from slavery or extinction. Disowning Stalin as a "murderous dictator" like a western liberal is not what I think we should start doing - I think we should just look at history critically and consider what was good and what was bad then what we can learn from this for the future.

If we start buying into the liberal narrative of "I heard X killed Y many people therefore they are EVIL and should be discarded" where will it end? Will we start to disown any leader or movement that doesn't line up fully with our views? Will we start to support western imperialism over these places? Will we give up on violent uprising of any kind?

I don't fucking care. That word is so overused that it's absolutely meaningless.
But I should own up to the fact that is "liberal".

What are you even doing here?

Isn't /r/liberalism more your speed?

Any dictator is bullshit. The world is far better without autocrats.

defending historical truth doesn't need a motive. Letting historical falsehood go unchallenge is the real problem.

Impossible since leftypol is guided by actual evidence and logics instead of muh feels, we have to keep in mind that we are an enclave of /lit after all, and as such, we always have been anti-anti-intelectualism

...

ayyy

...

...

Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains.

excellent

The more I here from bordiga the more I want all the bordigafags to start shilling Pannakoek instead. The dude just sounds like Stalin but with rationing instead of wage-labour. The revolution is not a party affair and just calling people who disagree liberals is not an argument.

Here's a big fucking tip: Simple calling someone a name like "revolutionary bourgeois liberalism" does not make one so, and trying to say that anarchism is just liberalism + local autonomy is fucking retarded if you actually read a guy like Kropotkin. And I say this as a non-anarchist.

To the tankies ITT excusing soviet atrocities by pointing towards the economic development of USSR: How are you any different from bourgeois economists? Basically excusing any amount of working class blood shed in the name of economic growth.

Because Stalin did nothing wrong. Well, almost nothing. Kulaks deserved it, the problem was that some innocents was repressed as kulaks too. In other cases he acted on basis of situation. Yeah, he was too authoritariat but I think that it is better to remember good moments of Stalins era then use le trillions argument like a fucking liberal and whine like a kid that socialism has never been tried. It is better to remember mistakes of USSR and build better socialism next time.

Leftypol has always been like this for as long as I've been here, which is about a year and a half.

Flipping their shit over "idpol" expect when it came to issues regarding cis white dudes, like not being able to find a partner. Somehow shit like that wasn't idpol.

Yeah this place is gonna turn into an pol colony for sure for,

If there was anything resembling an alternative I'd left long ago.

This

I second this. I guess technically you could have socialism while still subjugating some ethnic minority but it baffles me as to why other some race spooks

except, of course, that this is rubbish and it takes one look into any """idpol""" thread to see that there is zero consensus on this board regarding any of it. the only difference being that, compared to most other leftists spaces online, that there is conflicting opinion on """cis white dudes""" shit as well instead of nothing but po-faced agreement that they're innately and irredeemably terrible.

the phrase "idpol" is absolutely meaningless here, and posters like you who scream Holla Forums every time someone mentions le cis white dudebro in a manner not sufficiently disparaging are as responsible for that as the ones who shout liberal when someone says blacks have it shit in the US or "idpol!!!!" when someone says trans people should be treated with basic human dignity.

Oh bullshit, idpol has a fucking meaning here, its whatever will make a white cis male burger feel icky cause there's no way anyone could be as oppressed as a white prole in burger land, my life sucks, and mentioning ANY other politics that doesn't directly affect or benefit me is IDPOL!

This board was primed for pol colonization from the jump, now that it's gaining popularity that momentum is building in the same way half chan pol did

Because they are left wing capitalists and so is everyone else who believes in interfering with the revolution, socialism in one country or democracy.

no dude, listen to yourself. that's just you ignoring reality so you can dismiss anyone who doesn't hate the people you hate, think the things you think and have their priorities stacked up the same as yours as somehow being just inherently bad. you're the douchebag here, my dude. maybe it's time to step back, lurk more and examine your own biases.

...

National Bolshevism is the truth

Best posts ITT. Tankies BTFO.

Strawman: the post.

Capitalists (and reactionaries by extension) do this every fucking day. Violent revolution/repression of reactionaries is self-defense.

All the numbers don't support this. The most recent trend is for left communism, which now vies for first place with anarchist communism and ML's are slightly behind this. Look at all the polls that go on.

Everybody knows Nazbol is a meme

All the numbers don't support this. The most recent trend is for left communism, which now vies for first place with anarchist communism and ML's are slightly behind this. Look at all the polls that go on.

Everybody knows Nazbol is a meme>>1746761

You need to separate yourself from internet culture

At last I see, "pander to liberals" seems to be your very own way of saying "virtue signaling". I call out homophobia? It's not that I just don't hate homos, it's just that I'm "pandering to liberals". I call out Stalin and Mao? It's not that I just despise needless suffering and death, it's just that I'm "pandering to liberals".

Not every position is a performative act… comrade. Sometimes people just disagree with you. I understand that concept might be hard for you to grasp, that you probably believe I just need to read this or that book to finally have my eyes opened to the righteousness of the doctrine you adhere to, but this is the truth: I hate Stalin and Mao, regardless of what liberals feel about them. If I say I hate Hitler and liberals, am I pandering to you?

The rest of your post is pure consequentialism.

If I rob a house and stab the owner in the heart 15 times, the fact that the owner turns out to be a child pornographer who had kids trapped in his basement that were finally freed doesn't make a person worthy of reverence. It just means my inexcusable actions had unintended good consequences.

Frightening the easily offended is the best way keep them away. On all of the internet, no group of people… not nazis, dogfuckers, horsefuckers, or teenaged girls… is more cancerous, more destructive to the community than the easily offended.

I remember that quote from the "Holohoax" threads.

People saying tankies are mostly ex-Holla Forumsacks may be on to something.

Just read the thread, bro.

Too many words, man. You can't talk to tankies like that.

Am I the only one who thinks people who use the term "cis" should go fuck themselves with an iron stick?

OP here. This is precisely what my first post was about. I KNOW NAZBOL IS A MEME. YOU KNOW. THEY KNOW. But newfriends don't. I'm old enough to remember when being a nazi on Holla Forums was mostly tongue-in-cheek humor. The same way Holla Forums became infested with legit Neo-Nazis nothing guarantess LE NAZBOL MEME xD won't shift into a No Fun Allowed tanky central.

I'm not even an ML though, I just don't think Stalin and Mao killed trillions of people nor do I think that constitutes as a good critique of ML

Very well said. As is an essential feature of bourgeois politics, memes come to replace theory.

Top tier keks, m8. Not as good as "Stirner BTFO Marx," but hey, lightning only strikes once!

Try Naz-Syn or Falange (Pre-Franco). The literally DID!!!

It's unavoidable.

Stalin and Mao are used as this 100 gorillions scare tactic and simply stating that you don't want a Stalinist system will net you with some trite "lol it wasn't real communisms" response.

In the heads of the fucks that brought it up, communism = Stalin = gulags and 100 billion trillion is a sort of dogma. If you simply refute these claims with basic facts, they don't know how to respond.

Stalin
Mao

Mao did a lot of great things. The main issue he had was that he was constantly having to outmaneuver the liberal wing of the party, which meant that he had to do a lot of what today appears to be total bullshit in order to keep the revolution alive. China is fantastic example of why liberal elements must be purged from national liberation movements once the country has been freed from imperialist control.

Kek, don't tell me, the Great Leap Forward was a tactical maneuver to sabotage the liberals' steel production and destroy their farming ecology in order to abort an imminent reactionary coup?

...

Because people are so desperate to avoid following in their footsteps that that they have become completely averse to revolutionary politics, or direct action of any kind.

I don't think you understand. I'm not accusing you and OP of being unprincipled and pragmatically making concessions to liberals that you know aren't true. I'm accusing you of believing western propaganda like a real liberal and seeking to propagate your view of leftist politics that is distorted by that, which mainly liberals would be interested in.

But your actions weren't inexcusable at all. They were vindicated by the fact that you just saved a punch of kids from a pedo.

Awful lot of hoops to jump through there in order to justify opportunistic mass murder. Yes, I'm sure that any retreat from your brand of extreme radical subjectivism leads one to abandon the fight for socialism altogether.
Why, he's no more to blame than the conditions that made him! Let's reconsider the real extent to which he actually pursued socialist objectives in light of his """context"""!

p o t t e r y

Tankies are almost always ex-Holla Forumstards

That's precisely what consequentialism means, you retard: the ends justify the means.

You're even more ignorant than I thought.

Fondness of authoritarianism is a trace of reactionarism, I'd say. Leftists can be reactionary too. I mean I know the revolution is nasty business, let alone a possible civil war, but "Stalin dindu nuffin" is another matter altogether.

tfw you forget to send the post you wrote hours ago

revolution is an authoritarian act
spontaneous order just doesn't work

Doesn't stop you from cribbing the parts you like friendo.

There's a difference in accepting authoritarianism as a temporary means to an end, and fetishizing it as a universal problem-solving tool.

It shouldn't be stopped. Look what happened in USSR after Stalin…after a while corrupted minds stopped being persecuted and shipped to gulags, they started to use the communist party to climb the social ladder and what happened? Gorbachev…Yeltsin…Putin.
That's what happens when you allow corrupted peopel to take control of society. That's what happens when you don't ship those sociopaths filled with greed, rage and hate away from society into gulags.

I never said it's not consequentialism. I said it's totally justified.

My point is that he's not a mass murderer at all.

You're right, user. Lets never consider things critically or with any sense at all. Lets just be moralizing harpies that disown everything the west says is bad and never ever consider that we could possibly be wrong about something.

lol no thanks I like having a society where things get done

Say what you want about Stalin, the day of the icepick saved us from a bloodbath that would've reduced the eastern bloc to a giant boneyard

Feel free to give a counterargument any time, mr. shitpost.

But user, the sociopaths have always been inside the party. It's both common sense and proven fact that structures of power attract sociopaths, so they flock to big political parties. And when there's only one party, well…

Lenin knew that letting any retard join and climb the ranks would be a disaster, so he tried to create a complex, years-long process to groom promising, intelligent kids as revoolutionaries all the way to adulthood in the Party. It makes sense, because he regarded loyalty and discipline to the Party to be absolutely central to the Soviet system. But it has one fatal flaw: when you have just one path for people to participate in the political process, that path will inevitably be clogged with opportunists, arrivists, and other assorted sociopaths. In other words, the very last people you want in the Party.

And this definitely wasn't a problem only later on. I mean, Stalin's inner circle was… less than noble, with its Berias and Yezhovs, and possibly Stalin himself. See what I'm getting at, user? The very persecution and gulags which you regard as problem-solving tools were themselves the products of sociopaths. And from them we get to an old discussion: yes, that totalitarianism kept the system stable and the country running, but at an immense human cost, so was that system worth keeping in the first place? That's a matter to fill entire books, but I'm just bringing it up here to get you to think on it.

As the years went on, and people felt more alienated from the government-party, the proportion of parasites inside the party only grew and grew, till we got the bastards we mentioned. It was a flawed design in the organization, not a lack of authoritarianism and slave labor, for God's sake.

Here's a couple of posts that I made defending the temporary authoritarianism of the revolution:

So I'm not against the concept as the means to an end, but it simply can not be a permanent thing. If it does become permanent, then at the best possible scenario you have killed the revolution to save the revolution a la Napoleon: you sacrificed its bigger goals in order to guarantee other goals. In Stalin's case, I hardly need say he created an anti-humanist system that forsook the majority of the (admitedly lofty) demands of socialism in other to guarantee the safety of the country. You can say he made the best of a shitty situation, but in the end, Stalinism was simply a society not worth keeping.

I understand your willingness to use violence against reactionaries who would harm society for their own good, but the thing is, this isn't something you can objectively measure. If you could somehow detect them with no harm to the people at large, by all means, gulag them all, and you wouldn't even need to build a totalitarian nightmare for it to work. Until such a day arrives. But until then, the human cost of such a system would be far too high.

A lot of what's said about them are exaggerations and half-truths and some leftists think they made great progress both theoretically and in practice. Defending Stalin and Mao is not some edgy thing that only autists on leftypol do. It's done by communist parties all around the world.

I don't see why we should completely accept the liberal view of actually existing socialism. Obviously being edgy just for the sake of it is dumb, but that's not the only reason why people defend Stalin or Mao.

It seems to me many leftists think we need to completely distance ourselves from all past attempts at socialism, because whether or not they actually were the inefficient, authoritarian hell holes they're made out to be, we won't get the liberals to our side if we associate ourselves with that. I think it's actually the opposite: you won't convince any liberals that socialism is good if you completely uncritically concede that it has been an authoritarian, murderous disaster every single time it's been tried. Seriously, why would anyone want socialism if even the socialists agree that anytime it's been tried in the real world it's turned into total shit? If we want to appeal to liberals that bad why not just become a Bernie type socdem?

"He killed 200 millions at the least."

So everyone in the Soviet Union died, the end?

o i am laffin

Yes, and not just that Stalin killed every single lifeform on Earth. Which is why capitalism still exists, we're all in hell now.