Post yfw you realized tankies were the true reactionaries...

What in the fuck are you talking about? It seems like you have a personal bias against someone

don't think, feel, and you'll be something something.

We will do no such thing. This is the job of capitalism. And it has been long done.

The only interaction there can be between a dictatorship of the proletariat and the capitalist world is the destruction of one by the other.

you guys literally advocate for capitalism

...

Yfw Marx stole the majority of his theory from anarchists.

Never seen so much blatantly biased asshurt in 1498x579 pixels.

Like fuck Tankies they've had such a negative fucking effect on the possibility of Socialism being realised in the modern world because of their childish fetishism of dead modes of operation. In the latter respect ideological parallels can be drawn with fascism.
r/socialism are basically a bunch of Tankies + Liberal idpol, the retarded "lololol go to the gulag" and "Stalinism was a workers paradise" historical revisionism is an embarrassment that makes all leftists look bad by association.

This response is so bad its not even a proper ad hom.

The entire screenshot is ad hom, it's a lot of assertions, tall tales and >opportunistic. Without a single explanation, source, or even reference to another text.

The mind of a Holla Forums tankie:

Reddit tankies are another matter.

Tankies are just fascists who use class rhetoric instead of race rhetoric.

NAZBOL GANG ASSEMBLE!

MLs are bad but I don't think other left wing capitalists should lecture them

if anything is bourgeois it's this idea

I know this is a shitpost, but im going to bit anyway
Vague? its literally the most detailed and cogent explanation of how you could run a socialist economy.
Most MLs have a pretty nuanced view of the USSR/ China, unlike most of the leftist on this board who uncritically accept every lie about the USSR that it was hell on earth, ETC.
This is basically one tier above chomskyite tier left anticommunism, TBH its pretty garbage to discard 70 years of realpolitik in favor of turning socialism into some ideal that has never been (and never will be) practiced in the real world
Not this again. Socialism is what historically evolved in historical reality, arguing from semantics and simply defining socialism to abolish commodity production is putting the idealist cart before the historically and actually existing horse, learn to historical materialism. Abolition of commodity production is certainly the GOAL that we should aim for, though, and even ML's agree to that.

Thats third worldism you turd, and AFAIK, pretty much no one on this board is that. And even they don't think Assad is 'on their side', they simply prefer a secular dictator to an islamist state, US puppet, or both. Did you have to think Saddam was a saint to oppose the iraq war? no.
they do. They don't understand marx, they misread him, and in addition they oppose labor vouchers which marx and all the 19th century socialists advocated. Thats LITERALLY contradicting Marx.

when?
again, WHEN DID THIS EVER HAPPEN? you are pulling shit out of your ass, yes nazbols who are unironic get banned, as they should be as are stra.sserists. Furthermore,
Projecting this hard

The post was in response to someone saying Marxist-Leninist's own the theory, and it was also making the claim that it was wrong of Marx to shit all over the people he took so much from (which he did constantly).

why does it matter if Marx shit on others? he advanced the theories, we should take it from there and advance it even further

lmao, maybe some people just prefer browsing chans late at night, some people work during the day and have other things to do in the afternoon/early evening, some people live in a different time zone than you do, etc, etc. stop being a paranoid moron.

This is dishonest as fuck. The split between tankies and non-tankies has nothing to do with using violence. If anything Marxist-Leninists are counter-revolutionaries for being left-wing capitalists.

You're doing them a favor. ML has nothing to do with Marx.

My point was that Marx stole/took/whatever a lot of theory from anarchists, this being in the context of anarchists being accused of being "theoryless" and "idealist anarkiddies".
I can understand that this is a product of image board culture, which is not exactly most conducive to good-faith debate, but instead of addressing my points you've instead gone off on tangents and strawmanned the point of my original post through loose interpretation.
You're completely ignoring the context within which this discussion is taking place.
ABSOLUTELY REVISIONIST
Jk, I agree 100%… Which is why I'm not a ML or fucking Stalinist, so it sound kinda ridiculous to hear this talking point coming from someone defending Tankies. Again, you're ignoring the context within which this discussion is happening.

Brainlet tier. I feel like you've pulled this "that post was a response to x" line out your backside since it's from 2015 and doesn't even have much to do with the thread, and you fell back on it when you realised it wasn't actually a good critique of Marx.

So Nazbols are the true tankies.

True indeed. youtube.com/watch?v=KOKVFzYXK3Q
I think its also worth pointing out that Tankies, if they do read, seem to NEVER look into theory from other parts of Leftism. That's obviously a generalisation, but I say this to urge Tankies for whom this is true to actually look into other works before getting into a rut and needing to construct safe spaces of Historical Revisionism.
I'm just gonna say that it's worth noting that the term "Marxist-Leninist" was actually coined by Stalin in retrospect, to give more creedence to the path that Lenin took by associating it with Marxism. Really think about what Marx would have said about the USSR and Maoist China if he had lived another hundred years or so.

Something tells me you haven't been properly reading my posts.

Your posts… or posts consisting of ideas you've stolen from other people? Have a think about that.

Both. And what the fuck are you saying?
Stop ignoring the fucking

CONTEXT
O
N
T
E
X
T

...

By this logic, I could call literally every fucking Marxist thinker plagiarizing piece of shit because they "stole" from Marx.

Thats not MY POINT!
Look at it in the CONTEXT of Tankies calling anarchist's theoryless… Like I've said in previous posts!
Which you would have seen if you'd read the rest of the thread.
This is so fucking annoying that I have to keep clearing up the same ideological mess.

I didn't see any MLs bringing this up itt so I don't see why did you post that picture.

He's just stolen the other guys ideas to the point of literally reposting a screenshot of them. Pretty ironic if you ask me.

It's so retarded it hurts, and a retardation wholly uncalled for (you later ITT raise that people accused anarchism of being theoryless as if that happened here).

Let's see:
wat. Proudhon took his theory of value, and the idea of surplus-value as unpaid labour, from the English Ricardian socialists, who Marx was well aware of and quoted directly in Poverty of Philosophy to show that none of Proudhon's ideas were original.

But Marx's theory of value is not the same as the Ricardian theory, and his theory of surplus-value is not the Ricardian socialist one. Proudhon and the Ricardians viewed surplus-value as being unjustly extracted from the workers, whereas Marx saw that it could be explained even while holding to the assumption that all commodities exchange at their values, which was his point. Proudhon saw the theory of value as a revolutionary theory he could throw in the face of bourgeois society, whereas Marx maintained that the theory of value was the consistently applied law of present day society, and that socialism would have to abolish value relations; that the notion of "fully giving one their value" was an economic impossibility. His theory of surplus-value is not just a theory of unpaid labour, but of the essential relationship between variable capital and the surplus, the rate of surplus-value. The capital relation is the wage relation, and generalising wage labour by making all enterprises into co-operatives would merely make the workers into their own associated capitalists, whereas the task as such is to abolish capital, and hence wage-labour as such.

Of course, if you could show that Proudhon was actually strictly a communist, or that he had any idea of the theory of the division of capital into constant and variable capital, and the relationship of the latter to surplus-value, then maybe you would have a point. But of course Proudhon wasn't a communist, which begs the question how anyone could be blindingly stupid enough to believe that Marx could have borrowed his ideas from him wholesale.

Insofar as post-Marx "Marxists" did actually advocate "socialist" money, banking and wage-labour, I suppose you could say their ideas were derivative of Proudhon, or even Lassalle and Bernstein. Incidentally, as far as Proudhon being a "critic" of utopian socialism, perhaps he had used some phrases to this effect, but he did actually try to set up his "socialist bank" at one point in the late 1840's, and it went bust after a couple of months. His actual practice was really no different from that of the utopians, only at least some of the utopians like Owen and Fourier attacked the wage relation as such and hence actually did express the content of communism, even if only in a fantastic form.

And what is this, really, an anarchist defending intellectual property? I'd take it seriously if this could even be considered theft. Imaginine if the rest of the world used this autismal notion of theft:
Or, how does science work? He stole everything Plato wrote and then denounced his master!

So yeah, stupid Marxists! TRUE theory comes out of thin air, and people exist in an intellectual and material vacuum! We don't live amidst our historical realities, and criticizing people you've studied or developed from is the worst!

And to this I'll add that anarchism does have unique theorists and theories that are useful, see e.g. Malatesta's Neither Democrats, Nor Dictators, anything by Pierre Clastres or Joseph Déjacque for historical anarchism or anything written by the anarchist side of communization (Sic, Invisible Committee) today. Anarchists on the internet play the victim card for things they're not accused of way too much.

I wasn't making a point about intellectual property or "Marx was wrong because he stole from anarchists", so

and the latter part of

are all strawmans. I give zero fucks about intellectual property ffs, and all the people saying "lolol he stole a screenshot so he's a hypocrite" are completely missing the point.

I've posted the full pic for context, so I don't really think its fair to say its something anarchists "[a]re not accused of", as is evidenced in the pic.

However your statement that
is completely justified, so I'll admit I was wrong to bring it up unprovoked, because it was completely unprovoked. Me BTFO in that respect. I apologise for that.
However it IS sort of the nature of threads on chan sites to go off topic and mutate into something else, it's, y'know, really common, I don't think its reasonable to have this much backlash based on something so (dumb, but) commonplace. But I'm still fundamentally in the wrong in that respect, so I don't blame you.

My worst legitimate crimes was being off topic and playing the victim card, which I concede to.

*were

Spooky.

Also

no fucking shit, tankies are filthy barbarians

Hey

youtu.be/WsC0q3CO6lM
Tankies eternally BTFO

...

...

holy shit lol

>Tankies eternally BTFO
ML's, Maoists, Trotskyists, Bordigist leftcoms and even a few anarchists think Lenin did little to nothing wrong and value his writings. Does "tankie" just mean anyone who doesn't hate Lenin now? It's such a meaningless fucking word.

I'll copy paste what some reddit guy wrote regarding this video here, it was actually a pretty good refutation:

This video has been posted probably a hundred times here, so let's put the final nail in its proverbial coffin now.

Here Chomsky shows his ignorance of the Russian socialist movement. I don't give a damn what your tendency is, in the case of Chomsky it's anarchism, but Lenin was absolutely not a part of the right-wing of the Russian socialist movement. The right-wing was represented by parties like the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, parties comprised on individuals with which Lenin conducted serious polemics with for a decade or more.

Again, no he wasn't. In fact the opposite. Many of he mainstream Social Democrats regarded Lenin as an ultra-left "Jacobin". Secondly, the statement is disingenuous because Lenin himself represented a "mainstream" position in international Social Democracy before WWI, namely Kautsky's position.

Which was an accurate critique if you actually studied the international situation in 1918-1920. Furthermore, the thrust of Lenin's critique was regarding the Dutch-German Left's refusal to participate in any parliamentary activity.

Again, disingenuous. Yes, Luxemburg had disagreements with Lenin, however, these were disagreements between comrades and they were not separated politically by a wide margin at all. Since her death there is this ever growing myth that Luxemburg was some kind of arch anti-Bolshevik or anti-Lenin, which is not even close to being accurate.

True, but what Chomsky forgets to mention is that Trotsky represented a centrist and unaffiliated position between the right (Mensheviks) and the left (Bolsheviks). Consequently, we have Chomsky deriding Lenin for being right-wing, while holding up a centrist critic as left-wing! Chomsky has no conception of the vacillations of the Russian socialist movement, and therefore everyone that was a critic of Lenin was left-wing simply because Lenin was right. Everything is assbackwards and flows from a fundamentally incorrect axiom.

Not even close to the concept of vanguardism, which was part of that "mainstream" that Chomsky exalts so much. Lenin formulated it almost directly from Kautsky and the German Erfurt Program, and it had nothing to do with intelligentsia exploiting anything.

Nonsensical. The entire backbone of the Soviet state, and the foundation of the proletarian dictatorship, were the soviets which were composed of peasants and workers. A point that Lenin stressed over and over. Not to mention the fact that the whole purpose of these organs was to be as a vehicle for real popular will and so that the masses, for the first time in history, could learn to run their own lives and their own state.