Tell me about these two. Were they actually MLs? What is Castroism/Guevarism? Did they write any good theory besides guerilla warfare?
Tell me about these two. Were they actually MLs? What is Castroism/Guevarism...
Other urls found in this thread:
Che was the ultimate tankie badass. He loved Stalin and he BTFO the revisionists.
Castro was supposedly not a tankie to start with, but the proof is in the pudding. Cuba is one of the only remaining ML states today.
Che was as Marxist-Leninist as it gets. Fidel wasn't really, but officially adopted it to be on good terms with the USSR. Fidel was opposed to revisionism in the USSR, but Fidel wasn't really that much of a Marxist. Cuban Revolution was a national liberation and then a communist revolution second. Much of the petit-bourgeoisie supported Castro.
Nonetheless, it turned out quite decent. The problem is that the lack of ideological conviction within their system in a Marxist-Leninist sense but to have "socialism with Cuban characteristics" opens the door for some revisionist policies fabricated by Raul Castro. It remains to be seen whether or not the aimed decentralization of the planned economy can work out without fueling profit incentives.
It kinda is the only one considering that China, Vietnam and Laos have embraced fill revisionism. Whether or not Juche is supposed to be a subset of Marxism-Leninism applied to Korean conditions is up for debate.
Cuba was already revisionist tbh. Read Hoxha.
This is the most idealist part of Marxist-Leninist theory. That how socialist a country is depends on how much it wants to be socialist. Full utopianism.
Honestly that's autistic to say and pure formalism, even if they had opportunistic reasons to officially adopt Marxism-Leninism it doesn't make them revisionist.
Do you think revisionism as it occurred was historically inevitable or could it have been prevented? The former is a cheap cop-out, and the latter implies that analysis of revisionism is important.
I think viewing things in terms of "revisionism" is silly and reductionist to begin with.
Sure, some praxis is objectively more correct than other praxis, but at the end of the day the direction of a state is determined by material conditions, not by what's in the hearts of its leaders.
DPRK is definitely ML.
I don't like ML, but give them a little credit. They aren't aristocratic spiritual nationalists.
Holy shit fuck trots. I genuinely critically support tankies in their war against Neocon/Trot Imperialism
Thinking that you can have a socialist utopia as long as you have good enough theory is NOT materialist in the slightest.
Theory is a guide for correct analysis and effective action, but it can't change facts. China pursued market reforms because it was materially prudent, not because they "succumbed to revisionism". Which doesn't mean I think "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" was the right thing to do, just that there were solid reasons for it and the economic conditions in China are what allowed for it to become the official state course.
That's the most Stalinist thing I've read today, coming from a Trot, hilarious. Obviously the superstructure and the material base are in a reciprocal relationship. Stop trying to turn dialectical materialism into a fucking religion
It's not reductionist, it takes material conditions into account, we are trying to identify situations which lead to revisionism in a wholesome analysis, this includes regional conditions, culture, policies, ideologies, etc.
This is the problem with trots. They think everything could only have ever panned out as it did. A
Yet amazingly, even though they claim history can always be predicted given a solid material analysis, Trots have never been able to predict anything worth a shit. At least Tankies have some convictions and Left-Coms can think for themselves/have the courage to be hopeless.
I mean, clearly I agree with this. Trotsky did say democracy was the oxygen that socialism needed to survive; he was hardly a worshiper of the base.
Not really. I mean, Stalinists literally think that Gorbachev eating Pizza Hut collapsed the Soviet Union when anyone with statistics of the past two decades could have predicted that the USSR was due for serious political and economic turmoil.
You're straw-manning me. I'm not an economic determinist, but I also don't think that law can be more advanced than production, i.e., I'm an orthodox Marxist.
Btw, Trotsky was the only communist who properly understood the thread of fascism BEFORE Hitler came to power. The rest of the communist movement thought Hitler was no worse than the social-democrats and some even looked forward to his rise because they thought it would seal the fate of capitalism's oncoming collapse and pave the way for a socialist Germany. Talk about idealism.
*threat of fascism
Stalinists would argue that there was a build-up to that, you are wrong, watch this:
Only Brezhnevites like Albert Szymanski argue along these lines
I'm an open-minded guy, but I'm not gonna exit the debate to watch a half-hour long video made by a random Youtuber
He just explains how policies of the USSR after Stalin such as the Kosgyn reforms which reintroduced the profit motive set the USSR onto the path of capitalism.
I absolutely agree that the USSR was pursuing policies well in advance that made capitalist restoration increasingly likely. But my point is that there were *reasons* for those reforms; they didn't happen out of thin air because the party leadership weren't dialectical enough.
Are you saying there was economic necessity to implement them? That's probably the most interesting issue, because frankly, I don't see how this was the case.
I think tensions were reaching a boiling point between the bureaucracy, different sectors of the economy (and their uneven development), internal markets, the global market, the satellite states and THEIR bureaucracies, and the working masses as a political group. WW2 took the wind out of the sails of some of these tensions, but they were still there and the two courses were economic liberalization or political liberalization and the bureaucracy, like ANY bureaucracy would, went with the former.
But the bureaucracy wasn't much of an issue under Stalin. I know this is not what Trotsky tells you but it's true. "Stalinist bureaucracy" is a meme. The infamous apparatchicks only became a thing as a result of these reforms. Why? Because profit-oriented production is more volatile yet the state still drafts a plan, creating antagonisms of market forces and state planning, which requires a new milieu of middle men, who were in charge with dissolving these antagonisms (which didn't quite work as internal debt piled up). Rigid central planning needs actually less bureaucracy than lukewarm central planning. Unless you are claiming that just because someone is working for the state makes him a bureaucrat.
Something yet to be proven by anti-Stalinists.
Such as? Russia was extremly unequally developed to be begin with. If anything the Bolsheviks managed to massively reduce this.
They sure sucked as at giving the workers the means of production.
Now THIS is revisionism
They did though.
He wrote that book, "Is the red flag flying", right? People have been telling me I should read it. Is it worth it or is it just "Brezhnevite" bullshit?
It's definitely worth reading. You can draw your own conclusions from it, he doesn't endorse Brezhnevite stuff or anything, just delivers a picture
When was this?