What's exactly wrong with Marxism-Leninism, Holla Forums?

What's exactly wrong with Marxism-Leninism, Holla Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2185/the-ussr-the-democracy-you-didnt-know-about
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY
youtube.com/watch?v=gS692MzFA7k&t=301s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It gets shit done so it pisses off the Monday morning revolutionaries here.

Nothing tbh.

For me, I'm a socialist because I don't like to work a lot and I don't like to work for some asshole. Whether that asshole calls himself the commissar or the boss doesn't make a difference to me

Do we really need to have this thread every other day?

every day until you like it

pic related

it's basically red fascism

read animal farm

Orwell based his writings on western propaganda, good man but he couldn't escape porky.

stalin literally forged an alliance with hitler

how is marxism-leninism not red fascism ?

Take that fucking flag off, false flagger.

...

Name a ML party right now that is genuinely the vanguard of the workers actually doing shit and is not a continuation of 50 years protracted people's war that has already been going on since last century? Most ML groups I know either act like Trot parties or are Tankie circle jerk clubs that do even less than leftcoms.

This. I want a better quality of life and more liberty and also think exploiting others is bad. I don't really have much invested in any particular form of socialism or anarchism but the overall project needs to visibly work towards that goal in the short term as well as the long term.

So did the US and France in 1933, in fact, half of Europe signed pacts with Hitler, I'm not a tankie and i can see that Stalin's actions made sense, you're not even an actual well read leftcom you are just a LARPing red liberal.

What a fucking eurocentric perspective. There are plenty of ML parties in the Third World or developing world which are active vanguard of the working class. Even fucking Rojava has tons of MLs doing shit.

Even if what you said was true, it would still be a dishonest argument. Just because ML parties are unsuccessful doesn't mean that other socialist tendencies are even not even more unsuccessful, unless you count alternative SocDems like Sanders or Corbyn.

are not even more unsuccessful*

Fucking phone posting

...

Stalin literally cut the average work hours in HALF.

What about my second point, about not wanting to slave for the benefit of party bearucrats

nt

Your surplus of labor goes into society, it's not for profit. Surely if you go working you want it to have some meaning, no? Otherwise there would be no reason to work anyway.

you're missing the key word here: bureaucrats.

Lmao stay salty POUM trots, you were shit from the beggining

What's a bureaucrat for you? Somebody who administers the allocation of products and stuff? That's necessary.

Oh and btw the infamous overboarding bureaucracy of the USSR didn't emerged before they reintroduced the profit motive unter revisionism in the Kosgyn Reforms, because after that more bureaucrats were needed to function as middle men between capitalistically operating enterprises and the state plan

why don't you just say Capitalism is necessary then? go on, just say it.

...

Lmao

How the fuck is that related to capitalism? In capitalism goods are allocated through the profit motive, in socialism through human need.

Under Stalin you wouldn't have to slave away as much as under capitalism. One of the main tenets of Marxism-Leninism, which was achieved almost every time, is to abolish the labor market and allocate labor in a way that people have to work less because there is no artificial unemployment. Let's say there is a ten hour job and two guys, one is unemployed. In capitalism only one guy would work, and he would work ten hours, because that's more profitable. In socialism both would work and each of them would only work 5 hours. It's more efficient and gives people more free time.

this, except it can be extended by Mao and other thinkers. But it was a step in the right direction

There's literally nothing wrong with ML theory

lol pick one

production for use-value is only one component of communism. If you're society isn't stateless or classless, it ain't communism friend.

Bureaucrat is a ruling class member who has more benefits than the working class, that didn't really exist until around the 60s in the USSR. According to you bureaucrat is anyone that does something in the government, just admit you are an anarchist

Can I see evidence?

Have you ever heard of something called dictatorship of the proletariat and lower phase socialism

I dunno. Ask anyone who was ever in the RSDLP who slightly disagreed.

Oh wait - you can't.

Socialism isn't Communism. Communism can only be global. It's impossible for socialism to be stateless as long as you are under capitalist siege.
How was there a class in the USSR?

What, are you implying that somebody posting with a Hohxa flag is an apologist of revisionism?

londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2185/the-ussr-the-democracy-you-didnt-know-about
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. don't count as theory to you? you need to read more

Empowerment of the working class via state.

Stop watching Unruhe and Finnbol then

Watch this video mate
youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY

dictators that wrote books about how they need to be oppressive to workers isn't theory. theory is written by smart philosophers not retarded dictators.

I don't know why some of these retards think Marxist Leninists see it's theory as perfect and free of flaws

You do realize he's just fishing for (you)s right?

I don't know what i want to do more, shoot myself in the head or beat the fuck out of you, either you are a total false flagger or a redditor who got banned. This is what i fucking hate about leftist boards, all these bait sectarians making the most retarded arguments to piss other people off

a Bureaucrat is anyone in power who doesn't exist democratically. are you denying that the USSR wasn't under total control of a select few individuals?

It wasn't though

If a country is classless, so is it stateless. All evidence shows me that USSR was on the contrary.

Seriously do you know what a dictatorship of the proletariat is?

Its capitalism. Or even if it isn't it still has SNLT, Money, Commodity production and a bunch of stuff that makes capitalism bad.

A transitional phase in which the bourgoise still exist but the proletariat is ruling the state.

Now that USA is soon ready to invade North Korea, nothing. Stalin did literally nothing wrong in my opinion anymore. If anything, he should have purged more bourgeoisie and revisionists and maybe there would still be Soviet Union

how was the USSR not Mercantilism with Ballots?
how it's like mercantilism:
how it's not like mercantilism:

so he should have purged himself?

Compared to Stalin's followers he wasn't revisionist in the slightest.

...

There is Cuba, Philippines, Nepal and India. Nepal is the only major ML(M) movement after the fall of the USSR, it overthrew the monarchy and now have parliamentary democracy with a SocDem party leading with various Marxists splinter parties. India and Philipines have been fighting their people's war for decades and regardless of whether or not they are going to be successful they have not and are not going to produce anything new that hasn't been done before under the current conditions unless they take full control without some compromise and I can see that happen only if there is a serious upset in the Imperialist power structure. All the rest are barely relevant appendages of third-world nationalist or SocDems as far as they are even on the radar (a far share of third world SocDems are ex-ML groups). The fact is that the main reason ML was popular in the third world was because when there was a USSR orienting yourself as ML = guns/money which is good if your fighting imperialism but now the USSR is gone they are simply less powerful therefor less capably. Without the Soviet Union Marxism-Leninism isn't a particularly better or more interesting a socialist tendency save for the fact it is as a result of history better known than contemporary ultra-leftist sects or Anarchism.

It is not enough to be the least unsuccessful, we need more. I have some hope for Turkish ML groups and Rojava but they all face many obstacles and there are many ifs.

FUCKING TANKIES, FUCK YOU, YOU INSIPID, INSIDIOUS, DIMWITTED, DERANGED CREATURES

there were no classes in the USSR stupid anarkid

google Grover Furr

it would help you get out of that phase

anarchism is closely tied to autism

google Grover Furr for proof of that too

you can do it I believe in you :D

I think there were some problems with the USSR (and other socialist countries) but this was not because of it's theory, here is a good video on the topic responding common "left wing" criticisms:
youtube.com/watch?v=gS692MzFA7k&t=301s

This thread proves that Anarchists can't into dialectics or historical materialism

...

I love it. Post more "ethnically inclusive" communist propaganda.

The state existed. Therefor class existed. Unless you beleive the state can exist without class.

They can't even pay these shills enough to keep these threads alive anymore, they must be too busy fucking kids

Here you go mate

They can't even pay these shills enough to keep these threads alive/believable anymore, they must be too busy fucking kids

What are you refering to?

What's wrong with Trotsky anyway?

Better question is what makes trots think he would have been different from Stalin?

Because Trotsky would be cruel but in a way that was like in worship of Lenin, instead of Stalin, who they see as cynical and unbelieving in the word of Lenin.

Using state-capitalism as a transition period never works

all "democratic" institutions cease to be democratic when literally controlled and operated by a single party.

Lol, someone hit a nerve there?

It is a failure, like all of 20th century socialism

The party-State doesn't work so hot after the revolution is victorious.

...

Absolutely nothing

...

Stop being infantile

There is nothing wrong with revising a theory when necessary. Marxists predicted that revolution would occur in the most developed countries, which would provide the industrial base for developing socialism, and which would lead to the spread of socialism around the world.

In reality, revolutions always occur in the most underdeveloped regions Russia, China, third world countries, etc usually without any industrial base to build upon. This leads to socialism in one country, often with which needs to undergo its own industrialization phase to develop in the first place.

Trotsky had many ideas reminiscent of Menshevism, he took an ultraleft position during the first world war, he again took an ultraleft policy after the war, and he didn't support the doctrine of socialism in one country.

It's violently oppressive, failed economically, and every country that used its model became capitalist.

So let's have a SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY guys, and it's totally going to work this time. We are strong, independent socialists who need no world market to participate in.

I see.

So why is that stuff bad?

so did stalin and much of the bolshevik party. people are forgetting how much menshevik and bolshevik social-democracy had in common with each other.

using whattaboutism as usual

you addressed 1/3rd of his points

thread machine broke

abolish the law of value. do it. now.

Prefigurative politics a shit. It always devolves into lifestylism and never gets anything done. You need a clear plan and strict organization to get any consistent action going, like it or not.