Suggest to me an ideology

also this one's pretty cool too

Doesn't really work tbh

After the first level of councils, they are going to turn into a circlejerk with professional politicians. This happened in early USSR

This nearly describes any kind of Marxist leftism (so you can discard Asserism, and anarchism),
It mostly depends what you think to have after the revolution, centralized goverment to defend against burgeoise pressure? Decentralized worker councils to fight against burocratization?
What do you think about Lenin , and USSR until 1956?

I just recommend to don't close yourself on an ideology and don´t work/listen others
As this has clarly trough history hurt socialism.

the lack of self awareness from MLs is astounding

That's not what I said, I said I'm not too fond of everything, meaning I'm not a all hail to the GDR, I want back the Berlin Wall type of guy.

Marxist-DeLeonism

Don't listen to these faggots.

These are all good options.

I would recommend that you read Rosa Luxemburg, Murray Bookchin, and Daniel DeLeon.

Why ML no?? (I can agree some ultrahard tankies are really retarded)
And for you to now Cockshott is an ML

Your opinions seem to be horribly vague and lacking elaboration, which is not obviously wrong, but it just means you're not "ready" to settle for any funny sect, because at this point you could end as anybody, from an anarkiddie to some fellow traveller of less insane tankies. I would probably stick to calling myself a socialist/democratic socialist for the time being if I were you.

Cockshott specifically rejected MLism at the end of the '80s. This is like saying Rojava is ML because the PKK was ML at the start.

Rolled 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2 + 2 = 25 (10d5)joine the nazbol gnag

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

You know how imageboard posts work, right?

...

No, have you actually read "Towards a new socialism, in it (during the introduction) he says the USSR at least until 1956 was socialist ( Although it says it had some flaws), and critics leftcoms for saying that it was not Marxism.
And along all the book he works over Lenin ideas,and expands them.
The book was witten is 1993 (I had not read any other Cockshott work, any suggestion?)

A mixture of this and a mixture of that-ism.

Stop picking out ideologies like sports teams. Forget about the stupid fucking labels and just study and develop yourself. Eventually you may choose a label to quickly convey your viewpoints to other people, but that's something you shouldn't do without actually learning what these labels actually mean.

This comrade speaks the truth

Utopianism.

Have you considered mutualism, friend?

But he's not ML by the time of that book. He's very critical of the lack of democracy, for one. Thinking that the USSR was socialist doesn't make someone ML, even if all MLs believe that.
MLs think Stalin's USSR was the greatest thing ever and tie the direction of the country to what they think of individual leaders (rather than seeing stagnation of the economy as a result of the inherent tendencies of bureaucratic inertia minus a reign of terror to inhibit them, they see it as a product of nefarious West-loving "revisionists" ruling the country - they are idealistic monarchists in practice)
Cockshott's also highly critical of anti-imperialism, and rightly so. It was flawed from the start in many ways and doesn't even have what sparing merits it once had today. He wrote a polemic on this where he generally BTFO'd modern tankies. Look up "Cockshott anti-imperialism", it should come up.
His essay "Calculation In Natura: From Neurath To Kantorovich" is superior to TaNS where the essay touches on, although
"Classical Econophysics" is absolutely necessary reading for any serious critic of capital these days. To go without econophysics in a modern critique of economistic thinking propping up material conditions is to go blind. Communization theory could seriously benefit from integrating econophysics into its critique.

The point is those opinions are not good for specifying which sect is good for you, for example the point about the economy doesn't say if you want market cuckoldry, some kind of planning or wanting to abolish value-form right away.
As I said, forget about specific labels, you'll figure it out on your own

First of all, thanks for the suggestion!!, i'll check it.

Second of all, no, I consider myself an ML,and I still coincide more or less with Cockshott's critic on the pre-revisionist USSR.
I mean, you can be an ML and think Stalin was a true socialist , but still think he made some things wrong and acted in an undemocratic manner,but even Cockshott in his critic adresses that much of the problemas on the USSR were due to their material conditions, and as I mentioned before he endorses Lenin ideas.

Of course are some MLs who think Stalin did nuffin wrng, but this does not mean if you critizise Stalin you can´t be a Marxist-Leninist, (also he mentions Mao´s crictic of Stalin as mostly correct, and you can't say Mao was not an ML)

t. has never read Hoxha

The supermarket of ideology is only good for looting.

Hoxa (I had not read anything of him still) seems a bit autistic.
But this still does not mean Cockshott is not an ML

You've described vaguely marxism and frankly anarchism too if you bothered to read what they advocate for instead of assuming it's no rules man. Be more specific than post-revolution end goals fam.

Well the former is significantly better based on that alone.

But you can hardly blame the abstract ideology for that.

They're not all that different between each other, the different socialisms I mean, they only differ largely in their methodology, prevalence and longevity

You necessarily can not be a socialist or an anarchist. State socialism is a means to reach communism, which is still stateless, which is probably not what you want on a large scale when you say something like that.
Sound like a socdem

Marxism-Deleonism

or

Communalism

Athenian Democracy != Democratic Centralism

Dunno man, just read widely and then come up with opinions of your own. People getting too cultish around specific tendencies and fetishizing membership and orthodoxy over innovation and organic growth of theory are what's wrong with the left today. Rosa Luxemburg notably denounced people who took complete systems of thought on pure faith instead of thinking critically and adding to the ever-evolving Marxist tradition, and that's a pretty good point.

That being said, just call yourself a demsoc or something. It makes tankies mad, which is a universal positive.

My nigga you want De–Leonism

There is a tendency on this board to try to pigeon-hole things too much. Most of the different schools of Marxism are very contextually and historically specific, all the people saying they are "Hoxha-ist" or whatever bullshit just make themselves sound like idiots because that is not a position that it makes sense to have in the here and now. You are going to be one of four things, essentially - a Stalinist, a Trot, a Social-Democrat, or an Anarchist. Everyone who thinks they are something else is actually just an under-developed version of one of these four ideas.These are the only four ideas that really have any sensible place in the dialogue today.

Read Arguments for Socialism:
eprints.gla.ac.uk/58987/1/58987.pdf
UPHOLD THE IMMORTAL SCIENCE OF COCKSHOTTISM

Honestly my indecision when it comes to committing to a tendency is 100% is due to 1. Being poorly read and 2. Not being anywhere near an organization that would require me to commit. If forced to choose I'd probably just be ML, but then I see the types of MLs on twitter and FB and my GOD it's like the only reason they're into MLism is because they're closeted ethno-nationalists that want to be cops. I can honestly see why Anarchists so implacably reject political hierarchy when most MLs seem so giddy just to swing it around like a club. At the same time though, most anarchists I see are the type who would start autistically screeching if 8/10 people in an org agreed on something.

I would think that my reading of theory should dictate my own personal praxis, and therefore the sorts of people that I align myself with, but what if most people who are nominally in-line with that theory are completely out of their fucking minds? Or 15 years old? Maybe it's just that online sucks ass, but I cant imagine that things are much better irl.

Council communism, DeLeonist Syndicalism or some other form of libertarian Marxism.

Forgot to remove shitposting flag.

You might as well not even count Trots and Stalinists as separate things tbh. Trotsky wasnt actually that far from Stalin theoretically, he just threw a hissy fit because he wasn't the one starving Kulaks to death.

Libertarian strands of Marxism like Luxemburgism or DeLeonism are clearly distinct from MLs (which include trots), SocDems, and anarchists.

lifesylism + 'couldn't be bothered to finish Das Kapital'