Why the hostility towards Marxism-Leninism?

Why the hostility towards Marxism-Leninism?
Do you fear a strong socialist state?
Do ukrainian ghosts come visit you every night to tell the tale of the evil russian black magic that killed the entire country in one second?
Or is this just an anarchist thing
Or, most probably, are you guys just way too much into Cold War stupidity about the socialist republics of the last century
Anyway, general USSR thread

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm
8ch.net/leftypol/res/2018404.html
youtu.be/Okz2YMW1AwY
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

this thread is meme tier and deserves to be deleted tbh

...

I don't particularly like Stalinism because it isn't socialism.

"Stalinism" is just a meme, it doesnt exist

Jesus, how many of these threads are you guys going to make? You're just going to get BTFO out again

Single party politics is absolute bullshit. When people say communism has never worked, it's really because of shit like that messing up an entire society because of the massive concentration of power in the hands of "revolutionaries" who get drunk on power and keep wanting more.

Strong socialism makes complete sense but it needs to work within a framework that values personal liberty and true freedom of thought, actual democracy, etc.

If you just let "the party" become a tool for self-enrichment then you end up with well-connected corrupt fucks who don't give a shit running important things. And because they only are good at schmoozing and backstabbing, they can't even run basic shit like making sure staple food gets properly distributed.

ML in Russia died with Stalin. Everyone after him was a revisionist piece of shit. MLs in the third world were/are still pretty cool though.

Do you understand why people think you're a red social democrat, and one with an idealist conception of things too?

Stalin himself was a revisionist.

>"It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system."
>"Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist."

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm

sage

Which timeline are you on? Ultralefts and Anarkiddies got absolutely destroyed in the other thread and just stopped replying.


Multi-party democracy is an illusion of democracy in liberal capitalism when literally all parties uphold capitalism. It's not about how many parties you allow, it's about whether or not you actually have a DotP which the Soviet Union had, as delegates could only be nominated by worker organizations.

There is nothing revisionist about these quotes dumbass. Stalin doesn't say commodity production and the law of value are amazing things he just asseses their existence. And when you don't take the quotes out of context you'd also realize that commodity production isn't necessarily capitalist when it's not generalized, and that the law of value is transhistorical. Or you could go ahead and read Engels directly, which Stalin uses as source here.

Marxism-Leninism doesn't work.

let me guess, Stalin wasn't actually that bad of a guy and gulags were totally necessary?

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a fucking meme that any revolutionary with a cult of personality can pretend to be. If your political system can't even tolerate disagreement and discussion, and instead relies on a chilling effect motivated by fear, you're living in a pretty shit society.

worker organizations are another thing that are good in concept, but in practice just become a venue for more fucking politics and backroom dealing. You shouldn't have retarded institutional barriers to political participation, because that means the only people that actually get a voice are the people who know how to play that game. In reality that's not the proletariat, it's the neo-bourgeois that controls the party/intelligence/academia

Marxism-Leninism? More like Kautskyism-Engelsism, am I rite guys!?

Holy fuck this post, you're the kind of people that justify tankies

Just because liberals have stupid ideas doesn't mean they all are

I don't mean to nitpick, but this doesn't seem to be an argument.

also, inb4 you start screeching about how all non-tankies get the bullet

8ch.net/leftypol/res/2018404.html
Hoxa flag didn't bother to respond to my post and I'm still waiting for your retarded ass to respond

There's no such thing as discussion between capitalism and socialism, the two aren't compatible and socialism is the end result of capitalism's contradictions. There's no reason to have socialist state that allows capitalist opposition, it defeats the fucking point. Do you want revolution or do you want to waste time squabbling with liberals and fascists?

Don't bother responding to the liberals, they don't actually have legitimated critiques of MLs. All you'll get is a bunch of platitudes.

Marxism-Leninism aims to found a "socialist" state. This is a contradiction. If a society is classless (socialist) then the state cannot exist. Marxism-Leninism doesn't see the importance of the world wide revolution like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky did. Marxism-Leninism doesn't actually put the proletariat in charge it puts the party in charge. Marxism-Leninism has commodity production for exchange.

What the fuck dude. DotP is not a meme dude, it's observable - who decides what is to be done, workers or capitalists?

Your last paragraph doesn't even make sense. How would you organize a modern society without any institutions that wouldn't just revert back to capitalism?


wew, check it now

Try reading something else than a Trotskyst newspaper

try reading marx

if by workers you mean politicians and people who can accumulate power, sure

In reality any complex political system will be manipulated by people with the means to do so. It's not the institutions themselves, but the barriers to entry / difficulty which make the systems only attractive to people with a motivation to do something. And there are a lot more people who want to use those institutions to enrich themselves and their family, or in tankie-land ensure their own safety, than people who legitmately want to dedicate a lot of time to enacting policy. Sure that motivation can come from the right place, but absent of any urgent problems, because most people are low-info voters, it is easily gamed.

If a society wanted a true dictatorship of the proletariat, they would have an easily accessible means of actually allowing the proletariat to make decisions.

The fact you write "commodity production for exchange" suggests you are the one who didn't read him, idiot.

The person you're responding to probably meant "commodity production for exchange" to mean commodity production exclusively for exchange. In pre-capitalist societies laborers would often produce a surplus for exchange in addition to producing for their personal use.

Elaborate. The Supreme Soviet was composed of delegates nominated by worker organizations. There are witness accounts of how the nomination process worked under Stalin:
youtu.be/Okz2YMW1AwY
Membership in the trade unions was mandatory as a worker, although you could be voluntary choose not to give a shit. For the nomination process watch the video I've linked.
Then show me the millionaires and family dynasties of the USSR.

...

>if you're not a stalinist you have to buy into western liberal propaganda about the USSR
miss me with that double blackmail fam

Damn, would that make this a triple blackmail?

no, it's still double
you're just repeating what I just said

It wouldn't be this bad if the anti-stalinist left didn't almost exclusively buy into liberal propaganda as their main source of information.

Yes it does, it's just that Stalinists sperg the fuck out when you don't call it 'Marxism-Leninism'.

This is like saying 'NAZISM ISN'T REAL, IT'S Not SocialisM!'.

I personally don't give a shit, but considering all that Stalin did was faithfully continuing Lenin's path I don't see why to name it like that. Don't you guys always say Stalin was a narcissistic dictator? Then why didn't he name it like him? Can't have it both ways.
Please, my boy.

This is a lie you have to tell yourself to justify your uncritical defense of 20th century communism. Have you read Mandel's review of the gulag archipelago? Go check it out, it's really short.

I have. It's bullshit. The Soviets had the most progressive prison system at their time. It also makes no difference between Ehzov and Beria of which the former was a traitor himself who later got executed because of his crimes against the Soviet people.

It pisses me off how most leftists who are critical of the Soviet Union are just parroting the same claims by liberals and anti-communists

Maybe because those claims are accurate?

Because I'm not an edgy teenager anymore and I don't base my politics around aesthetics and triggering my stupid counter-revolutionary first-worldist nazi mom.

Nope

No it isn't - it's existed in different epochs but to quote Marx: "The value form of the product of labour is not only the most abstract, but is also the most universal form, taken by the product in bourgeois production, and stamps that production as a particular species of social production, and thereby gives it its special historical character."

There is absolutely nothing to indicate in Marx's work that he thought the law of value would "persist" into socialism or that the Ruble would function as value-form both in the country and in the "socialist" state industries.

what about Hoxha?

Yes I fear a strong socialist State. Strong States always lead to abuse. Power corrupts. Society oughta be organized democratically from the bottom up. Mikhail Bakunin was right all along.

...

I have nothing useful to contribute in terms of theory so have some memes

heh

whats syria got to do with the USSR here?

...

...

...

The only relevant capitalist relation the USSR had was their competition to the capitalist rest of the world. You can't overcome this globally at the same time nor without a transition phase. That's like saying the French Revolution was based on "feudal relations" because it failed to spread global liberalism during the war with the First Coalition in an instant.

It gave a horrible bad look to "Communism". Thats why never again.

The Revolution went just how Stirner predicted all revolutions usually go. They throw out the state to install a new one. They became what they fought the new Bourgeois.He who fights monsters.

Rolled 558, 854, 263, 447, 911, 882, 329, 190, 998, 389, 923, 482, 394, 198, 47, 452, 951, 166, 787, 772, 418, 1023, 581, 589, 453, 760, 139, 7, 1005, 18, 686, 539, 872, 949, 985, 758, 807, 289, 948, 780, 677, 847, 237, 47, 20, 284, 499, 971, 449, 262, 718, 867, 260, 275, 431, 713, 10, 570, 720, 1015, 587, 381, 529, 435, 305, 489, 169, 87, 777, 92, 866, 430, 938, 79, 477, 958, 362, 975, 904, 811, 213, 598, 653, 472, 872, 60, 161, 882, 629, 880, 873, 192, 237, 377, 626, 542, 865, 795, 628, 618, 886, 470, 24, 800, 549, 500, 734, 911, 451, 614, 698, 663, 187, 327, 111, 35, 386, 272, 917, 1015, 127, 765, 183, 364, 117, 809, 905, 982, 579, 509, 576, 441, 979, 599, 217, 503, 74, 950, 390, 525, 539, 63, 164, 726, 389, 275, 760, 775, 546, 653, 766, 673, 393, 948, 12, 510, 733, 916, 468, 287, 400, 19, 728, 355, 617, 944, 857, 691, 870, 222, 191, 385, 284, 355, 86, 673, 629, 846, 423, 150, 474, 164, 822, 867, 88, 833, 352, 820, 725, 819, 83, 101, 837, 810, 455, 430, 730, 288, 96, 575 = 107129 (200d1024)SOMEBODY SAY ==NAZBOL== THREAD?!

I don't want to live in a dictatorship. Ancom is best com

You live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, you dingus.

And how does that contradict his statement?

...

They live under a dictatorship right now, right? But that doesn't mean that they want to live under a dictatorship. Trading one dictatorship for another dictatorship is retarded.

why do you think i want ancom?

By saying this, user believes that he currently doesn't live under one.
You're making excuses man. You're basically saying he should except the dictatorship he lives under than a dictatorship of the proletariat.

No he isn't, you fucking moron.
No, you're making excuses. Nobody's saying that we should accept the current state of affairs.

You know, you are arguing over one sentence, right? user is still conflating dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They are not the same thing and it's bizarre to have to even say this on Holla Forums

The post in question was two sentences long. This is an absurd objection to raise.
How? Literally how does the statement "I don't want to live in a dictatorship" conflate different types of dictatorship? It's a statement about dictatorships in general, you dolt. Obviously a dictatorship of the proletariat isn't a dictatorship in the authoritarian sense, but a ML one-party bureaucratic state is, so shut the fuck up. Vanguardism a shit.

people like you give me hope that this world is not lost. thank you for your post.

I never said I was an ML, you fucking mong. You agree with me that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the same as dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. So then, what was the point of defending user's post?

Because you misinterpreted it in a way that suited your views. Obviously you're some kind of tank, so you're at least ML adjacent, and judging from your response you're more than a little opposed to ancom views.

I defintely have some ML leanings, but I don't like vanguardism. Now forgive my ignorance, but is state capitalism necessary to ML or is it something that was done in the Soviet Union because they were not properly industrialized yet?

All tankies don't agree with each other on everything, man. To some degree I think you need a Cultural Revolution to keep the workers in control. Also, who gives a fuck about how I interpreted it? What about the way you interpreted me being an ML? The only way you have a society FREE from dictatorship is if we're ALREADY living under communism. We may disagree on how to accomplish that, but suggesting that the dotb and dotp are similiar in any way is bullshit.

Socialism is only possible with the industrialization of society. Incidentally, capitalism was only possible with the rise of manufactures in Europe. It's not enough to have the will to be socialist, the material conditions need to be ready for it as well.

Stalin wasn't narcissistic, at the very least.

I would argue that the answer is yes, state capitalism is something MLs have a tendency towards because of their opposition to "left-wing" communism and their ideas about the proper role of theory in a revolutionary formation. Imo Lenin's many defenses of the use of state capitalism to revolutionary ends are pretty revealing in this respect: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

Sure, but imposing your particular cultural ideals onto the proletariat is a pretty surefire way to end up in a counter-revolutionary position fam.
If you misinterpret something to say something that wasn't meant then your entire argument against it is pointless and misleading.

The New Economic Policy was neccessary for Russia because they lived in a backwards, agrarian country. You literally can't have socialism if the material conditions aren't conductive to that. In the work of Lenin that you've linked he goes over why it is neccessary to industrialize (and also what to do about the petty-bourgeois tendency of the peasantry). In countries that are already industrialized you have no need for state capitalism. For that matter, why are we talking about state capitalism? Your issue was Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism.

Okay, so you don't understand the Cultural Revolution, then. It's specifically supposed to address this. The phrasing that went around during the Chinese one was "Bombard the headquarters!". I'm not sure what this is about enforcing some bullshit on the workers but that's not the Cultural Revolution, fam.
You mean how you chimped out about MLs earlier?

are you taking the piss

Because the post I was responding to literally asked about state capitalism you literal retard. Also, vanguardism and democratic centralism are definitely related to the issue of ML support of state capitalism.
Wewlad, so apparently the cultural revolution was completely autonomous and didn't seek to impose values onto workers. Shit, the party had nothing to do with the cultural revolution, right? You're really making me think pal.
You mean how I called you out for being full of shit? You're definitely ML adjacent so I wasn't entirely off the mark there.

State capitalism is not neccessary in a country that has been industrialized. I went over this in my post. Saying Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism are "related" to State Capitalism is ridiculous.
The Cultural Revolution was the working class struggling against the party's capitalist line. I'm not sure what you think the Cultural Revolution is, but you're just misinterpreting it for the sake of being contrarian.
Ok then, I'm calling you bourgeois-adjacent for conflating the dotb and dotp, earlier.

success breeds jealousy.

You're retarded as shit and you're misinterpreting my posts to claim that that I said things I never said, so I don't see a point in responding to you further. Tanks really are the worst flag on this board.

Damn, this thread went far