Friendly reminder to misguided anarchist comrades

If you don't first use the state apparatus to crush the bourgeois/set up the dictatorship of the proletariat and instead immediately seek to destroy the state, you yourself will be crushed by bourgeois opportunists/social democratic traitors. Lenin was right in this regard.

Other urls found in this thread:

niekischtranslationproject.wordpress.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

But that's what happened with the USSR and China.

wew that was fast

The problem with that is, how can you trust those in power to relinquish that power once reactionaries are defeated and allow the state to wither away? Read "Leninism or Marxism?" for Rosa's take on this. You can see that her writings influenced Bookchin. She talks about how the revolutionary organization must always be aware that the tendency is for the party to be conservative by nature, to hold back when the proletariat are spontaneous. It is this spontaneity that the party must not squelch, for, as Rosa predicted in 1909 (I think) Lenin's centralism would lead to opportunists hijacking the movement from within and becoming a new oligarchy over the working class. The party must guard against the tendency to become bourgeois. It must always remain an instrument of the working class, with a working class character, to guard against opportunism. So she recognizes that the Anarchist attack against the potential for authoritarianism of MLs is valid, and advised that the communist party which seeks to prevent a backslide into authoritarian state capitalism (a la modern China) keep the party always subservient to the interests of the proletariat.

i don't even know where to begin, OP is just lacking so hard in substance that i'd have to basically start all over. the first replies are legit even as a reply to OPs substance free comment.

can't we just start quoting people we're supposedly refering to instead of talking out of our ass?
is this a standard we can raise the board to?
we just love to talk about all the books we read and how others should do that, but still the amount of direct quotes, context and sourcing is still rather poor.

i can't be arsed to fill in on what OP and the replies so far have been slacking since it's 5 AM and i gotta get ready for heading out after not getting any sleep last night so that's my excuse. what's yours?

READ STATE AND REVOLUTION!
We must not be vague about the state! We have to completely SMASH the bourgeois state and THEN REPLACE IT with the proletarian state. We are not simply taking control of the state as it is!

the party has to be authoritarian on ML principles and against itself while allowing criticism against its work from the working class against its members in any leading position to the fullest extend, it's really that "easy".

also the extend to which the party members participate in state affairs and leadership should be reduced heavily. put the party in the front of the ideological struggle while keeping it out of the executive position.
party membership must remain a muh privilege that comes with a cost, only the most committed who are willing to make a sacrifice should be in its ranks.

with the current technology and level of education for most workers in the most developed, imperialist nations taking the leadership would be a cake since you skip the literacy step and basic training almost entirely.

fuck off cultist.

basically this, you participate in bourgeoise parliamentarism not function through it but use legal tools the bourgeoise democracy allows you to and building structures besides it that will become the new state structures when the parliament has finally deligitamized itself and becomes useless.

kinda like the situation in venezuela at the moment to give you a current rough sketch on what that might look like.

Wow, I MENTION Bookchin while writing a paragraph about Rosa Luxembourg, and all of a sudden I'm a cultist? Fuck you.

Yes, you are a cultist freak, stop pushing that irrelevant charlatan into everything.

In a dictatorship of the proletariat the state is used to OPPRESS the bourgeois and to create a classless society

What’s wrong with Bookchin?

you don't have to surpress the bourgeoise, they'll just go away when you tell them off and non-authoritariany run around with guns seizing the means of production by declaration. and then revolution happens but it's totally not a state that organizes things and we call it all kinds of different things while having it run inefficiently like shit…
makes sense, no? 😏

Except I did. Why do you think I made this thread. Lenin and Marx are about 60% correct in their assertions. (the parts that I pointed out). The part that I don't agree with is their overall definitions of what constitutes a "state". When I cannot agree on their premises I cannot agree that the state needs to be smashed.

Y'know what a "cult" is? Compared to just an actual religion, when people use the word cult they basically mean one thing…a group I don't like. A group I think is weird. Anyway, that doesn't matter, because I'm part of no such group. I'm not a Communalist. I've just happened to read Bookchin as well as other writers, and as such I'd like to apply that knowledge when I can. So when I read Rosa and realize "oh shit, this sounds just like that one part in Bookchin" I like to point it out. I'm sorry that Bookchin "triggers" anger in you, that's something you need to deal with. Maybe ask yourself why someone merely mentioning the guys name when the point of what he wrote was completely different angers you so much.

Nope the state is easily corrupted and the political vanguard turns into the ruling class oppressin the working class.
Every single time.

good one 👌😂

Also FUCK YOU!!!!,!,

Lol even if nazbol is a meme, you don't deserve that flag. If you don't think the bourgeois state has to be smashed, you are an opportunist.

Bringing up Bookchin while talking about Rosa is like bringing up Joseph Smith while talking about one of the twelve apostles. Sorry, that's just how it is. Read more and time will wipe the stain of Bookchin from your mind.

...

Except I do think that the bourgeois state needs to be smashed I just don't think that all states are inherently bourgeois.
With that said, my overall point is that the premise of the state itself does not exist solely to suppress one class or another (even though it can exist in that form). Even when the state "withers away" and becomes simply something meant to administrate the means of production by the proletariat, it's still a state because a state in essence is a system of political and governmental authority. I'd also like to point out that even under communism, you'd have to community policing in order to maintain order. Which by the marxist definition, would be the proletariat oppressing itself. This is something Marx, nor Lenin accounted for and I say this as someone who likes a lot of what Lenin has to say. This is why I'm a NazBol and not necessarily a ML. Also, read Niekisch.

I'd also like to say so as not to offend my tankie comrades. I genuinely sympathize with Marxism-Leninism even if I don't agree with some of the premises behind some of it. You guys came closest to establishing world socialism and the USSR did much to improve the lives of workers.

Why do marxists paint anarchists like a bunch of pussy pacifists? It's possible to get a group of people together to overthrow the state and yet those people who overthrow the state are not the state themselves, you know. If a group of people anywhere acting towards a common goal just as long as they're willing to use violence qualifies as a "state" then EVERYONE is a statist. Come on, Marxies.

No one is claiming you're pacifists comrade. The criticism comes from the fact that you aren't willing to utilize the state apparatus to eliminate class itself. I suppose militias could achieve that to an extent although a vanguard is much more effective.

Read State And Revolution

I'm basically getting some of my ideas from state and revolution. Read nigga:

...

Ok

Wikipedia doesn't state which of his books is emblematic to Nazbol or which is the best, so what would you recommend? It does mention though that in his later life he turned away from nationalism towards ML. Why do you think that is?

...

Wilderstand is a good place to start if you can get a translated copy (which is near impossible). Otherwise you can find a lot of excerpts from it here:
niekischtranslationproject.wordpress.com/

Is that the economic network thing, because that means nothing regarding that whole "seizing power" thing. Nor the "keeping power" either I guess.

Yeh just like Mao did only its almost a 100 years later and its still run by guess who

...

OP forgot to add that Stalin did nothing wrong and the kulaks deserved it

Well yeah the kulaks did deserve it, the problem is the poor fuckers who weren't.

...

...

comrade pls.

As long as the "state" is actually ran by the people and greatly depends on people's participation and direct democracy then it's fine

...

...

shitposting flag

wait shit nuetron bombs are a thing

/thread