Why do MLs parade this guy around like some sort of vindication of their own beliefs when he writes stuff like this:

why do MLs parade this guy around like some sort of vindication of their own beliefs when he writes stuff like this:

substituted itself for the proletariat, the Central Committee for the Party, and
then the supreme leader for the Central Committee, is too well known to require
emphasis. This process, already well established under Lenin, was carried to its
conclusion with Stalin

if this guy's a marxist-leninist, you all should strive to be more like him instead of unthinking weirdo LARPer dogmatists.

Other urls found in this thread:


MLs don't read is not just meme.

MLs and tankies are not necessarily the same thing.

i guess youre right. IRL marxist-leninists that i meet in Democratic Cops of America and PSL aren't slavish ghoul morons

The problem is that not every ML is a raging tankie.

The most 'tankie' view I could find from based ML man was a slightly dubious article on his website about gay marriage


why do raging tankie apes uphold this man when he does not even agree that stalin did nothing wrong and has trotskyist sympathies

because MLs want democracy too?
Stalin was based, but he still failed
only medicine is accountability and periodic purges of bureaucracy from the bottom, to constantly remind "managers" how fragile their position actually is
rule them by fear, for fear is the only language that they can understand

everything that takes power from bureaucracy I approve, liquid democracy, whatever, as long as economic planning remains a thing

Because being an M-L does not mean blindly praising every action of every M-L state? Not if you're doing it right, anyway.

"raging tankie apes" absolutely do believe that's what being an M-L entails

have you seen most MLs?

have you seen his article where he btfo's liquid gender fags by sheer power of math alone?



Because he is a ML, if you think being a ML means to be an ultradogmatic who does not accept errors, and analizes things in their material context, you are buying into the classical anticommunist bullshit.
Read Cockshott works and undestand that maybe ML's, are not the ones who need to change, but your image of 'fuking tanggies' you have of the only Communists who have actually achieved something.

Why is it dubious?

that is literally what ML means in 90% of cases. blindly reciting refuted lines like "social fascism", claiming stalin did NOTHING wrong, kulaks deserved it LOL, shit like that

Not even most of the mentally retarded reddit tankies believe that unironically.

name something he did wrong

He didn't kill enough Trotskyite fascist kulaks xD

The way he prepared for the German invasion and reacted to reports of it commencing was atrocious.

okay see you can't even criticize the main insane bullshit he did

what did he mean by this

Here's some mistakes and bad shit that happened during Stalin's leadership:

The purges, even though they were necessary and justified, became excessive.

Criminalization of male homosexuality.

I don't know all the details of the famine in the thirties but from what I've gathered there were a lot of fuck-ups made during that time (although you can't ignore bad weather, kulaks, etc).

Making abortion illegal.

Then there are general criticisms like bureaucracy and lack of democracy. Of course you can debate how large the problem of the bureaucracy was, but I think most ML's agree that there was a problem of bureaucracy in the USSR, although some might think it was just a minor problem. I don't really care though, I want a socialist society that is as democratic and unbureaucratic as possible. If bureaucracy was a problem in the USSR then that's something we will have to do our best to avoid in the future. If it wasn't a huge problem, then great.

Maybe you could argue that Stalin himself wasn't resposible for some of these mistakes but that's kinda beside the point imo.

Lmao do you know what social fascism means and the context of how it was used historically? It was used to describe social democracy for what it is: class collaborationism and an obstacle to revolution. Please explain how social fascism is a "refuted line" as well as how half-ironic meme sayings on this Polynesian writer's workshop and Twitter liberals shaped your assumptions about an entire ideology.

like what? purges? am I supposed to feel sympathy for poor dindu nuffins like Kosior and Yakir?
I welcome each and every purge of bureaucracy

want criticism?
ok, he didn't purge central committee out of existece
he didn't grant all power to the supreme soviet
is that enough criticism for you?

But have you considered that the totality and closure of language and politics that feminism can seek wider representation for a masculine attribute and to mask its lack, the unmediated cathexis of homosexual desire, produce new forms of acknowledged fragmentation and might facilitate coalitional action precisely because they constitute the legitimacy of the feminine could never be recovered or known (in Kristeva’s words, a lifeless construct, a cause for anxiety)? This kind of cultural/corporeal action that IMHO can conjure and reify such spaces. Because all cultures seek to accomplish precisely that unregulated field… but as a denial of this failed model of dialogue is culturally specific and historically specific mode of criticism. And to refuse the notion of a masculinist culture is to seize language as a normative telos of human rights issues basically, articulated here through a genealogical critique which refuses to search for the erotic presupposition of its sexed significance; so prohibition, Psychoanalysis, and the original unity of the Phallus, the material practices of identity serve as a unifying principle of identity categories that resist the domestication of gender disorder.

Let me end with a quote from Paul Cockshott's blog:

you should be mad about bukharin and trotsky

apologize for bukharin god dammit

Of any note, the dolor of the erosion of the law of the One (the old order) has done naught but serve as a re-engagement into the service of the independent capital. At present, the sexuation of the present condition seems only to serve as a marker for the passing of the old dialectic of the trinity - notably marked by the oneness of man and the so-called duplicity of the woman - into a new order of the one, solely by the rejection of dialectics in general. Have we not thus approached, well and truly, the temple mount, the apex of subjective deprivation, such that we've attained that most dangerous precipice or perhaps cage, as the one Althusser and Zizek were/are wont to speak of - the total eclipse of the subject from reality, replaced, even in the dearth of choice stipulated by the parameters of capital, by some bastardized doppelgänger.

with that mentality you should be shitting on stalin the most. instead, you give the world your insane, one dimensional shitposts


someone post the proof of cockshott being leftcom influenced