What's the most convincing argument against leftism?

What's the most convincing argument against leftism?

Other urls found in this thread:


It depends. If you're arguing with a bourgie who says they like being wealthy and simply don't care enough about society to reform our system, I'd say that's about as convincing of an argument as it's going to get.




This is why the left can't have nice things.

As this thread show sectarianism is killing leftism.

Being dumb.

revolutions in the modern day are virtually impossible, so it's a waste of time


postmodernism so far

fascist pseudopropaganda based on lie that has been debunked by writers wife.

Even if it were true (which it's not), that's not even an argument against leftism.

transfromation problem.


Jacques Camatte and Ted Kaczynski

game over

game over

u mad because people always point out to the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela. And not at Catalonia? Hahahahahah bruh.

Different guy, but what's bad about Cuba? It's a showcase
They aren't tankies as in MLs, what you talking about? If they were, they would have actually collectivized and diversified the economy. The only reason communists should speak out for the Bolivarian Revolution is because it is still a somewhat leftist government with support amongst the proletariat, that has elements of grassroot democracy going for it, and, most importantly, it is obvious to oppose a fucking Pinochet tier regime change fabricated by the US

Catalonia had a state and so did the free territories in ukraine

Jesus Christ it's the *current century*
Learn to search things online, you sound just like typical pol user.


Want me to give you "normie" arguments that showcase the obvious reasons why all forms of Tankieism are socially unacceptable?

Cuba is a bad place to live because It has a dictatorship. One is not free to go where he pleases, one can't travel outside it, it's borders are enclosed and anyone trying to leave is a criminal.

Yes, Minarchy tho. People love freedom. Freedom is always seen as heroic & good no matter what. It will always be socially acceptable except for people with the power of authority ofc.

But that's bullshit.
Cubans are still to this day the main source of immigrants to florida and have been so since the 1930s.
If the government actually wanted to keep dissidents from fleeing wouldn't they send them to some gulag in the inner island instead of letting them roam?

There are plenty of leftists out there whose approach to politics is moralistic rather than materialist/republican, think violence is either not an acceptable method or the only acceptable method, think theory is there to be trusted blindly, and who play things far too safe and assume liberalism is actually correct. Those aren't really critiques of leftism though, just of leftists. Admittedly, that makes quite a big deal to the average person if the context is bourgeois democracy since the average representation of "leftism" is likely to be one or more of these factors, but it's still not a criticism of leftism in general.

The way Vietnam was able to defeat the US means I cannot entirely dispel a belief in rationalism over romanticism; Vietnam was materially such an underdog but still ended up victorious. This isn't strictly what people talk about when discussing politics, though, though it is connected.

*I cannot entirely dispel a belief in romanticism over rationalism

illegally, in self-made ships most of the time too, sometimes in small airplanes. The goverment would never allow them to travel freely unless they're members of the party.

Leftism is quite materialistic. Read Marx. Total materialist.

Marx is most certainly a materialist but many people who call themselves Marxists or leftists think leftism all about advancing Group A over Group B because the former group is good and the latter evil; this isn't even the case in the Proletariat v Bourgeoisie struggle, and most certainly isn't in the case of the average identity issue which most self-identified leftists care quite deeply about.

not really arguments per se but there's no way to refute them without taking a moral or ethical stance

read chomsky

all of human history is about struggles between group a and group b, or groups beyond that. history is a constant repetition of one group gaining enough power to suppress and crush its competitors and opponents. unfortunately most people are too stupid to grasp this, and too naive to draw the logical conclusion from it

How is this not the case in prole vs bourg?

Cuba is a democracy. I'm not gonna be a cuck lie about the polticial system of Cuba just because some normies feel uncomfortable.
Nice AnCap lingo

Attending a meeting with your local leftist organization.

One, if one's politics is that one side is the "good" side and one is the "bad" side, then it follows that injuries inflicted to the "bad" side are desirable. But this isn't the case; we're not better off if a given bourgeoisie is poorer or dead compared to if he was if he was alive or healthier. The core of communism is the abolition of the capital relation which leads to all sort of inefficiencies, not "justice". Certainly, Communism will inevitably find opponents in those who value only luxury and currently find themselves in a position where they can grasp it, but it's not like we relish in their slighting or anything.
Two, the definition of such groups would turn out to be amorphous. Suppose some landlord found himself deeply in debt, enough so that the rent he collects is not enough to pay it; this means he would find common cause with the Proletariat in attacking his creditors who find themselves in common cause with the Bourgeoisie, but we would want him to give up his property too. Our objection lies not with the property owners, but with the concept of property itself.
Lastly, "good" and "evil" are vacuous, unproductive terms.

Memoirs edited by her KGB agent husband:


Oh, there's also the problem that the idea of a "Proletariat" that crushes a "Bourgeois" doesn't preclude the prospect of the Bourgeois becoming a subservient class to the new ruling Proletariat. This isn't desirable. Communism is about the abolition of class, not the "victory" of one class over another.

Best posts in the thread. It's a shame more people on Holla Forums don't think like you.

The second post is pretty retarded.

One party states can't be a democracy as a rule. It's absolutely absurd to insinuate that a democracy can exist within a structure that pre-determines candidates.

of course, but the ruling class must first be defeated and crushed before the conditions for classlessness can happen. someone has to lose

Meh, there's a whole lot of definition wrangling here. The "Bourgeois" is defined by being those that own property and thus exert control over production, but they're also a set of people. Victory of the proletariat over the bourgeois is a nonsensical assertion if the first definition is that that's used, so it's the second definition, and there's nothing stopping the people who are currently within the proletariat class being able to take those currently within the bourgeois class and use them as some variety of slaves.

speak for yourself. I call myself Marxist because I like the theory of Marx. It's materialist and I'm starting to understand it.

Just like Monarchy, Feudalism, etc. I think Capitalism is transitory too. The wage system of boss with employees underlings It won't last as much as it's predecessors tbqh.

At least you understand Communism. Yes. In communism there is no proletarian or bourgeois anymore. Just individuals, united. An individual can choose to leave freely when he/she wants, it's not a state anyways.

People on Holla Forums frequently post their fantasies of enslaving all the bourgeois in gulags and working them to death.


I don't think you're disagreeing with me? I wasn't critiquing Marxists as a whole (I consider myself one), I was just saying that some people who call themselves Marxists have flawed politics.

it is useless

No they don't you hyperbolic shitbag. Most of the people who are said to be going in the gulag would most likely need to go in one because of how much derailing they'd do.

There isn't.
You do realise how tiny the bourgeoisie is, right?

Commonwealth comrade always has the most accurate explanations, excellent post as always my good man

Do you think that telling me I'm wrong is going to make me stop believing my own eyes? I've seen plenty of posts like that. If you don't believe me, that's your problem.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But you generalized I consider myself Marxist but I don't have flawed politics. I don't have any political stances anymore actually, it's meaningless.

My goal is autonomy & to live. Thats it.


How exactly is it possible for "people who do not have control over production" to dominate with force "people who have control over production"? The idea is complete farce. However, it's certainly possible for people for whom the predicate "does not have control over the MoP" previously applied to to dominate over people for whom the predicate "has control over the MoP" applied to.

"Tyranny of the majority" is a thing, you know? 99% of the population enslaving 1% of the population is still a socially undesirable outcome, let alone the fact that the new class system will inevitably "seek" to expand itself and throw more people into the subservient class.

So you are a liberal? Because that's the liberal argument, that you need to have competing bourgeois parties making compromises. You have been conditioned by ideology to restrict the democratic process to "voting for the lesser evil". That's not how democracy is defined, that's how the liberal subset is defined based on the ideas of checks and balances which actually doesn't have its roots in the idea of seperation of power by Montesquieu, but rather in the monarchist reaction of Bismarck, to prevent leftist movements from gaining traction, neuter political processes to assemble political power amongst a ruling elite.
This is capitalism, not socialism. In capitalism almost always the candidates are predetermined behind closed doors. Ironically, burgerland has one of the more democratic candidate determination systems since they actually have primaries (which are rigged by donors and superdelegates, granted, but at least you pretend to have a democratic process unlike in most European "democracies" where the party elite just decides upon a candidate inn a secret meeting). In every proletarian democracy in the world, from the USSR to the DPRK, candidates were chosen in mass assemblies, and nominated by acclamation.

Regarding Cuba:

No, this is where all your logic is stemming from and it actually falls apart at this point, no later. They do not remain in control of the MoP. At all.


If I have the person who legally owns the factory I work in at gunpoint and my comrades have pacified the state forces that might have acted on his behalf, how is that person bourgeois and how am I proletariat?

I've gone over your previous posts to double check that I wasn't getting anything wrong here, and I think we probably agree pretty closely so this is going to get pretty crystal ball based.
But the world wouldn't be that simple in such a situation. There would be massive amounts of information, even if both of your premises were true there would likely still be radio and TV stations declaring your complete and total surrender, and your safest bet would still be putting the former bourg in a place for safe keeping.
And this is assuming that we're in the 19th century. They're even more dangerous and smaller in number today. You're likely not pointing a gun at some top hat wearing chap in a state of bewilderment, but someone with a cellphone full of mercenary contacts in his pocket who has been involved in far shadier shit, just at a greater distance.

Uh, massive amounts of misinformation, rather.

You can and should have multiple socialist parties, not a single monolithic party with it's own power apparatus outside of that of the state proper. If that's capitalism then I suppose cuba is also capitalist, because ultimately both have predetermined candidates. If you are ultimately voting for whomever the party allows you to vote for then that isn't democracy.


Did you read the links? Cuba doesn't have predetermined candidates.
You can have factions within the party but ultimately you should work together towards the common goal that was agreed upon, and don't try to agitate against it once you are in the minority.

Additionally, I think what you prefer is a national unity front, like in the GDR or the DPRK? They have multiple parties, but they are not competing like in a liberal democracy, rather cooperating

One party states necessitate predetermined candidates, since essentially the party dictates who can and can't be elected ultimately. Any one party state (DPRK included) cannot be called a democracy for this simple reason. They are oligarchies at best

debunked by not being an idiot.
The lady is just a bonus.

Except that the entire political establishment threw Stalin under the bus the moment he died.

The Archipielago was writgen in the USSR at the beck of Kruschev's "De-Stalinization"

Why? You need actually explain why this is supposed to be the case.
In capitalism the candidates are nominated in some fucking hotel rooms by like ten people, in socialism you have literal hundreds mass meetings nominating candidates but according to your logic the latter is predetermination while the other is not? Come on now.
The DPRK isn't a one-party state.
Where do you identify individuals who personally extract surplus for their own wealth?

Because every candidate is ultimately determined by the party. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Whoever runs the party ultimately runs the country. These mass meetings are for show sames as elections in burgerland are for show. People are picked behind closed doors same as in other capitalist countries, Cuba is no exception to this. Don't pretend that Castro did not have a higher standard of living and more luxuries afforded to him then the average Cuban, or other top members of the party elite. Same was true in the USSR. Just because the exploitation is not as extreme does not mean it is nonexistent.

My dude, you need to prove that! You can run as an independent candidate in socialism, mo problem. You just can't be a capitalist. Mass organisations like unions or worker councils nominate the caniddates.
Evidencen please. We can argue that they are for show in burgerland because of capital (donors and superdelegates), but you need to provide a similar argument for socialism or a source that there have been fraud

human nature
Egalitarians can't see the contradictory view that installing a true meritocracy like socialism will be bound to create varying qualities. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome. It's just under that socialism and then communism, these varying qualities will be the result of labor rather than that of economic class. Though this is more a criticism of the egalitarians on the left rather than the left as a whole.

I honestly never actually met these "radical egalitarians" that want opportunity of outcome outside of right-wing strawmen or some tumblrinas maybe

Running as an independent candidate with what resources exactly? When political dissidence is criminalized how are independent candidates even an option? How are all these organizations not just rubber stamping bodies when you have the true center of power being in the party structure?

That's a pretty bullshit thing to say isn't it?
How much control does Cuba's government have over what gets reported anyways? All I ever hear from exCubans is that they're poor as shit but well educated.

Some people I know in real life are definitely like that. I don't have a problem with their view I just find them naive more than anything



THAT'S THE POINT. In socialism you don't have to be rich or finance a campaign to become politically active. Do you think the people elected into offices in Cuba have a rich background? Looking at the soviet leaders after Stalin, even though they were revisionist fucks, they were all workers from some villages or whatever.
This is a well-sourced video

That's what the user was implying. He said he wants multiple parties competing for terms. That's a liberal democracy.


Careful, that image got me a 4 week ban once

There is no "except" here. You claim no contradiction to what is written. The book didn't just make Stalin look bad, it made the USSR look bad.
You are not arguing against me. You are arguing against historians and the authenticity of the Mitrokhin Archive by using some retard narrative that because Stalin was dead no one would take issue with the fact that anti-USSR literature was being released in the middle of a propaganda war.

Oh so you're serious? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So you expect me to believe that an independent candidate could win vs a party candidate which has the state's backing? Again, why would anyone run as an independent candidate when such an action would easily be construed as political dissidence in a state that criminalized political dissidence? Stating that one party states are not democracies is not the same thing as saying you support capitalist "democracy". Arguably the best example of an existing socialist democracy is DFSNS.


Probably for being painfully unfunny Holla Forums summerfag convert tier. Like most tankies and tashes, really.

No but for real bruhs. I want leftunity. don't be dicks to each other and authoritarianism has never been popular among the masses, except with Nazis. so careful. Just saying.

What the actual fuck is post-left and why does the GF sound like me?

eventually you run out of other people's money XDDD

post-letf is
as fuck

you are a post-leftist, you understand the lies and failures within the current left

"Authoritarianism" as you'd define it was very popular in the USSR and still is in the DPRK.

This is actually a great argument for why social democracy and fascism don't work, though. Those ideologies aren't leftist, of course, but it's fun to use a traditional right-wing argument against things that aren't leftist.

Yes. This happens. Why wouldn't it? If you can argue your case well the people support you.
It's only dissidence when you refuse to work with what has been decided by the majority.
That doesn't change their industrial base. And their parties literally work on the same concept as the national unity front in ML states, you can run, but you have to uphold socialism.

post-left is post-politics basically. it's a non-political mind that is ridden of spooks, it just lives how she/he wants & can. Individualism, Autonomy, Mutualism, Communism, Communalism, etc. are examples of post-left. Since these are not politics just modes of organization. One can leave such unions at any point, they're not sacred.

Socialist Calculation Problem

Inasmuch as the modern left aren't all MLs, I guess?

well not today. get with the times newfaf

so basically an edgy social-democracy, good job there

I'd contest that, people are always very drawn to strength, whether they like it or not.
The upsurge of the right is almost entirely based on worship of authority figures.

hahahahah in your retarded eliot rodger world. people are drawn to freedom tbqh.

Nazis do have support a little but it will never become something big that replaces democracy, like in the Weimar Republic, those dreams of autocracy are over. Normal persons want democracy or something more. The State (and corporations) want to be absolute and the people want to be absolute also. Those absolutes will wear out against each other. And I of course support the people because it's what benefits me.

so are you in for left unity? you can think about your autismal dictatorship later on.

super unlikely it will happen, thank fuck
but you can pretend it will and you would be of great use to us & us to you. The more we are the better so lets back each other up fam.

You realize that you literally represent what Holla Forums thinks communists are like? That they just refuse to work and want free shit?

it's different to work for yourself than to work for someone else. A boss, a state, a despot, a whatever.

No? That's basic psychoanalysis, one of the fundamental aspects of the human condition is that we do not actually want to be free, as that would imply full responsibility.

I don't want a dictatorship, just saying that people really like authority figures, in general, whether they think they hate them or not, they give an out and a recourse, it's like religion.
That's why I don't fault the Soviets for idolizing Stalin so much, even if it was against his own will, because if it gives the proles something to believe in and fight for it's useful.

The human condition is a spook. It's attractive to YOU not to me. Don't say "we" because "we" doesn't exist. I'm not you, I don't get a boner for a "strong leader". Ask each individual personally what they like, you generalize too much smh lol

yes and? that's how a society living without the law of value would look like


for the Defence of the Revolution, as well as children outside school hours, made house-to-house calls to persuade people to go and vote, although in theory voting is not compulsory. Furthermore, all the voters know about the candidates is what is contained in the biographical notes distributed by the government press, and candidates are not able to present their own electoral platform. All in all, the electoral process is so tightly controlled that the final phase, i.e. the voting itself, could be dispensed with without the final result being substantially affected.

That the left-right spectrum is itself an illusion which exists only to sanctify insidious power-grabs by status-hungry sociopaths.

Each "leftist" policy/piety/proposition is, like an unhappy family, broken in its own unique way. That's part of what makes leftism strong - there is no underlying theme which is equally true of every leftist error. The whole ideology is unified only in the evocative imaginations of the powerful and the power-hungry.

I'm sorry, but, are you a materialist? You really don't sound like one. Genetic, epigenetic, natal and post natal conditions can have massive effects on a person's behavior and those factors tend to be in common, leading to a sort of human condition.

that is true, however just because humans enjoy being controlled doesn't mean the control has to exist in the economic and political category.

If humans have masochist tendencies, and humans can satisfy their masochistic needs without the necessity of a repressive state, then the repressive state is not a necessity


"From each according to his ability and to each according to his need" means we all work for free and take what we want for free, if you don't work for others than you're either a child or a fucking leech.

wrong, if my necessities do not include social acceptance I do not have to work for others

or are you going to determine what my necessities are?

I can agree with that, however the original person said that authority isn't popular anymore, which is wrong.

Not on me. I collaborate not because of "le strong leader" but because I want, I'm getting something that satisfies me from that collaboration.
If you want to play with the le human condition argument look no further than the "Capitalism is human nature" shit. "humans like being competitive, fucking each other over, hierarchies, etc". Not me tbh.

"From each according to his ability"
Unless you have literally no capabilities at all and are just a dysfunctional brain in a jar you must work. Stop being a selfish little fuck boy.

but for who? not any other than himself really, thats what socialism is about actually thats the reason why the means of production are openly shared.
If a 1 week work production lasts him a year. then just that 1 week is all he has to work. You're fetishizing work just cause.

"Not on me" spooky.
So you're not a materialist. Do you believe in god then?

Also, "Capitalism is human nature" isn't correct but it's a sort of half truth. The dialectical nature of history demands evolution of mode of production, in small steps leading to large, fast changes. Capitalism is a stage in the relation, but it is only that and must eventually girth birth to communism.

She didn't "debunk" it, she said it's significance was overestimated. And this was AFTER Solzhenitsyn left her for another women and she had almost thrown herself under a train. Devastating rebuttal lad.

"If a 1 week work production lasts him a year. then just that 1 week is all he has to work."
And if everyone did that we'd no longer be in full communism, post scarcity demands massive surplus labor, which demands any and all members give their all in producing beyond their own needs.


I'm totally a materialist.
No it's not. Its your "truth" maybe not mine.

Homie I don't think you know what Communism is. You can have Communism right now, just join a commune or simply with friends you mutually trust deeply, with a lover also. But I doubt you ever had profound relationships you're in a chan board. None of those things need "authorities" but for a reason you want to think it does.

Capitalism won't last longer than what Feudalism / Monarchism lasted btw. I agree with you there even through Fascists would like to take things back to the past.

you don't know what communism is.

my point isn't that people shouldn't work at all (it kinda is tho) my original point is that you cannot determine, or price so to speak the amount of value you generate based on the necessities of others, If I can only take the same amount of value as the value I create, then we are still living under the law of value, maybe my basic necessities are bigger than what my pea-brain can generate, but maybe my pea-brain can generate a surplus of other values, something other people might need

maybe, but maybe these people generate a surplus of it, and sometimes I will generate this surplus, something others could appropriate

the key element here is that you won't be forced to generate value for the sake of producing value, but because you'd have the ability to do so

and because you need to, to survive/live comfy

Well, you can sort of simulate the communist mode of production, small scale, but given the utopian socialist experiments failing miserably and the fact that Marxist communism is global, no, you can't have communism right now, that's undialectical and improper. As to your meme, the Marxist definition of state is a tool of class oppression, once the Bourgeois class is exterminated there is but one class which means there can be no class oppression. The governing body still exists and, in mine and Marx's view, needs to exist.

Well you aren't a communist so I'll take with with a word of salt.

I'm not talking about rationing, the point is that for you to freely appropriate from others and they from you without injury you both must generate substance beyond your own basic needs, otherwise the system doesn't work.

maybe one day with enough automation you won't even need to work. depending where you live.

all your needs covered: food, water, entertainment, etc. Sacred Socialists will tell you to work through, but you don't have to if you dont need to. Just work whatever is necessary for you to live satisfied.

Then here l criticize that part of Marxism and only that part because the theory is correct but not the ideology. Hence the "sacred" socialism.

How can you exterminate class when you have a
This right here is a contradiction. Proletariat still works for someone, for "governing body" not for themselves. "governing body" like in the Soviet Union can claim to help Proletarian class individuals but in reality they have classes, well fed and rich while the others work & starve to maintain "governing body" that way.

The only way to have Communism is simply by practicing it, regardless of era because you won't tell me it has never happened before, shit had existed since the Stone Age but didn't have a fancy name. Choose your friends wisely for that unity through.

The governing body is comprised of the working class, in the Leninist model you start at the local soviets, which are committees made up entirely of democratically elected workers chosen in workers councils. These local Soviets the appoint workers to higher positions, and so on.

There is some level of contradiction between the electors and the elected but dialectical materialism tells us that all negations to contradictions have in themselves more contradictions which will be negated by another contradiction and so on.

Marx calls it primitive communism, it's the first stage in historical materialism. Again, you can have the communist mode of production on some small scale but we are not concerned with individual quantities of a thing, but only once that quantity has become quality is it fully actualized.

This was bs after the first 5 years of the new regime (hell even less) and you know it heh but it's k
And so that made class divisions again. Higher and lower. Monarchs and Serfs. This way you the lower worker won't ever get to Communism.

Why not go directly to practicing socialism or even better communism. Why with it's Minarchy Catalonia reached what the Soviets couldn't in 69 years.

Not me. I'm concerned with individual quantities because during my life time it's not going to be global. I'm going to practice it on my own with dear friends or join a commune whatever happens I'm not in a position to tell rn, I will retire later on first I need autonomy, personal prowess, capacity.

it's good to have this conversation with you through.

But btw can I ask you a question personally. Do you think Lenin really reached at least Socialism? A true one ofc.

One could argue the conditions they faced justified that but I'll admit they deviated from the plan

New class divisions and much less severe than before

That's not true, the committees also appointed from the middle class or from lower committees, at no point was there a non worker in the system aside from people who were intellectuals or full time revolutionaries before the establishment and become members of committees after.

Dialectics and imperialism. If you don't get crushed by the capitalists you'll end up in the "proper" cycle of history.

Do you mean concentration camps, a state, labor discipline, police, forced collectivization and, even better, getting anally raped by fascists in less than a decade?

Congrats, no one cares about you, communism is for us, not you, not me, us.

decent convo, though, I'd say Lenin absolutely achieved socialism (the lower phase of communism) as did a lot of others, Mao, Kim Ill, etc.

SJWs are ugly. Fascists are hot.

Bosses add value by coordinating production and increasing efficiency in many ways
Workers councils are dumb, because they can't replicate the central planning and over arching vision of a singular dictatorial individual
They also incur significant risk

Trips Of Truth

A visit in the supermarket.

"Haha, wow! I could never manage the country this well. Best call it all off!"



ironically this

an artifact riddled jpeg proving the Bolsheviks were jews

babe but if people rise in arms for socialism its cuz they want socialism not for a "I swear we gonna go there someday!" false promise. The worker wants self ownership of his/her labor.

oh and btw catalonia was winning but the nazis were a thing back then and they sent some of the best tanks of the era so… impossible anything small could withstand that power. Catalonia did well tho set up one of the few examples of true socialism

And they got socialism, they lower phase of communism must occur before communism, to think anything else is an infantile tendency.



Oh sacred "socialism" and holy "communism".

What you talked with me about communism being able to be practiced on a commune was for nothing then. Dude.

That lower phase, before, etc. all that is the real infantile tendency. Are we having communism or what? no. Then don't associate with me, I don't want to put my life on the line for a it's getting there.

Socialism is when any worker can use the means of production as his whenever he wants, they're there to be borrowed and used there inside the factory, the product of your labor is yours since you created it with the sweat of your brow, you hold it. When the state takes it and you didn't even knew where it went or what they did with it, it's because the state is your boss thus not actual socialism.
Meanwhile the only thing one can notice is how those with positions of power in the state become Porkies but dressed in red instead of business suits. I wonder why… And no it's not because greed is human nature, it's theirs maybe. But then I'm not the one who fucked up socialism, I (stupidly) blindly worked for the promise of socialism but I got socialism™ I was exploited and foolishly I allowed it. never again.

it's super cute. even through Marx & Stirner never met. Stirner only met Engels & not even for that long they knew each other Engels just recognized Stirner and Bruno Bauer as the most brilliant & revolutionary of "Die Freien".

The closest buttbuddy of Stirner was Bruno Bauer.

and don't forget whats obvious corruption. Supervisors & Workers Councils. You think those we're not at any point a political family mafia. Just by looking at the last names of the power holders during the Soviet Union, count every time you see repeating last names on them. Lenin fucked up. But well at least he took down a Monarchy then Stalin the Nazis, for something good that Russian military prowess had to be used for. But for socialism they didn't do much, they just made it taboo for most of the world. Dictators are like that, they fuck things up all the time sadly.

No, I said you can effectively engage in the communist mode of production, on a small scale, at any time. The primitives engaged in this but it is vastly different than the movement we call communism.

Take that up with the most influential sociologist and revolutionary dialectical thinker Karl Marx, I'm sure you're smart than him.

This is the same as asking a pot of water if it will sublimate or not. To cause water to change into a gas one must add a quantity of heat energy sufficient for the water to suddenly boil. Further, you must add the energy in the correct amount and with the right method such that the water change into vapor.
The same is true of human society. To establish communism, the negation of capitalism, we must first negate the primary contradiction of capitalism, the proletariat and bourgeoisie by engaging in class struggle to eliminate the bourgeoisie, then we must solve further contradictions left over until our quantitative changes in mode of production and structuring of society result, all at once, in the qualitative change into communism. (Marx details this in Gotha critique)

That's about the most violently oversimplified definition of one of the most complicated topics on earth, good job.,

Look at results.
Lefties are delivering our most vulnerable to the doorstep of Big Pharma.

well the most obvious ones are Marx's labor theory of value being incorrect or trivial, the socialist calculation problem being generally lacking in solutions or hand-waved away with "FALC", and the questionable assertion that hierarchies, families, religion etc. will dissolve under the Communist mode of production and new hierarchies won't be created.

Why is it incorrect? Both data and theory shows that it is correct.
Literally debunked by history, the whole thing is a strawman anyway
Hierarchies form out of material conditions. In primitive communism, almost no hierarchies existed as well despite families and clan structures intact

Is this the tankie equivalent of holocaust denial?

Ah, who am I kidding. Modern leftism is wrapped up in echochamber pseudointellectualism which is something that makes no fucking sense for an ideology in which the core of it is made up of people too poor and too hard working to afford either time and money an education or books. 99.98% of modern leftism is pure bourgeois, this is why we never get anywhere, why the working class will never identity with us, and why the capitalists always win.

Leftism is full of idiots who are intent to brag about bourgeois things such as how educated and well read they are and their art collections then wonder why the real working class wants to murder them every time. It's insane.

there are mountains of evidence documenting the reality of the holocaust. not so for the "holodomor"

i'm for a kind of extremism in this case. of course there are innumerable historical events we can look to for evidence of leftist failures, however to be leftist is to assert in the face of these catastrophic mistakes that the capitalist regime is undesirable for the masses and needs to be done away with. the moment we give this bedrock away is the same moment we lose any legitimacy as a political movement.

Even liberal historians deny the Holodomor since Russia opened the Soviet archives in the 90s. You're a bit late to the show billy

If nazis won the war there would be mountains of "evidence" holodomor happened. It doesn't mean either happened or didn't happen, it just means the nazis didn't write the history.

lol. are you suggesting that the allied victory led to evidence of the holocaust being manufactured?

no because this is the denial of specific events within a fictional novel, not a denial of any well-documented historical processes

this but unironically

You make it sound like holodomor is hoax, entirely made up by Solzhenitsyn. The famine is a historical fact, there can only be room for debate if the starving of people was intentional or not.

It's even worse if it wasn't intentional tbh