So, what's exactly wrong with Marxism-Leninism? What other praxis do ultras recommend instead if not for M-L?

So, what's exactly wrong with Marxism-Leninism? What other praxis do ultras recommend instead if not for M-L?

Bump. Also, I tend to see those who describe themselves as ``Leninists´´ in an effort to insulate themselves from Stalinism get accused as ``Trotskyites´´. Why is this?

Unless you are an ML with a gun and a militia, you are just a trot

Tankies don't read, so they don't know what Leninism is, much less Trotskyism.

So if you're a self-described Leninist, but you don't worship the mustache man, you must be a Trotskyism.

a trot


Bumped again.

It didn't result in sustained socialism and MLs today are edgy socdems.
Communization which is just anarchism with added pretension.

It inevitable breaks down to make place for regular capitalism. It's no surprise that social democracy in western europe, ba'athism in the middle east and marxism-leninism in eastern europe collapsed around the same time

I've been asking this repeatidly, yet nobody ever bothered to make a (materialist) case for why this is supposed to work. As long as it is based on seemingly a priori statements it might as well just be another utopian strain left-communism.

Read Cockshott


It's inherently bourgeois. MLs take the time to defend and support "anti imperialist" capitalist states. For them class struggle takes a back seat for anti imperialism. The idea of socialism in one country is also completely stupid.
Complete focus on proletariat internationalism while avoiding capitalist national struggles.

Now that's a hot take. Social Democracy was dismantled because its boom cycle was over (you have yet to prove that Marxism-Leninism has boom-and-bust cycles), furthermore, without the pressure of communism there was no reason for the ruling class to entertain such a system anymore. The USSR didn't collapse for economic reasons (unlike Social Democracy) but was deliberately dismantled.

Imperialism is an aspect of class struggle, it's class struggle projected onto a global scale, with capitalism outsourcing its contradictions. If you don't against imperialism, you are supporting capitalism. We try to hijack national liberation movements as they have been proven almost the only way to facilitate a communist revolution. You don't understand Marxist critique if you think that capitalism in underdeveloped countries is something "inherently evil and bourgeoisie". What poor-ass third world countries lack is an accumulation and reinvestment cycle, organized by the national bourgeoisie, for development. Imperialism inhibits that. Class struggle doesn't end there of course.
Socialims in one Country isnt an idea. How stupid is such a statement? It's simply reality. But alright, the theory can't be adjusted to the real world, it's the real world that must bend my theory. The claim that MLs aren't internationalists is also blatantly false. So what would your solution be? Declare war on the entire world? Or just drop the ball and give up to even build socialism?

revolutionary defeatism was Lenin's idea. are you one of those who separates M-Ls from Leninists in general?

Praxis is idealist.

Law of value applys in ML society

Imperialism is the struggle between capitalist nations. This means that focusing on anti imperialism puts one in the spot of capitalist lesser evilism. Picking the lesser evil between capitalist powers would make one a supporter of capitalism.
That doesn't make sense. communist revolutions are by definition against capital, national liberation movements are simply nationalist.
I never mentioned underdeveloped countries or moralism of any kind.
So poor countries lack their own bourgeoisie? This line of thinking means you support capitalism i am afraid.
The only solution, international revolution. Capital exists world wide and can only be defeated on a massive scale.

Not if the whole world would've been red from successful German revolutions.

Is pushing for single payer healthcare (in the US) also "capitalist lesser evilism", as the US would still be a capitalist society even if it was achieved? Is prefering liberal democracy or social democracy to fascism also "capitalist lesser evilism", as they're all forms of capitalist societies? If the choice is between A and B, and none of the options are full communism, is the correct position always to do nothing at all, in order to not engage in "capitalist lesser evilism"?

This is not a real answer. "International revolution" is never ever going to fucking happen. Like Lenin said "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly.", and "The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time."

It's really fucking easy to just say that we need an international revolution, but it's completely divorced from reality. An international revolutio would be nice, but it's never going to happen like that, so if you don't have any other ideas of what to do, you might as well just stop being a communist.

You don't pick anything. Your goal is to disunite the global capitalist class and turn them against each other. Do you even the Art of War?

Wow rlly magakes me dink

Yes. Picking who your favorite capitalist is would be lesser evilism
Of course not. But when one of the major aspects of ML is pretty much: Capitalist A is better than Capitalist B therefore Capitalist A should manage capital in whatever "anti imperialist" country then i am afraid that your belief is about the preservation of capital.
This is true. The revolution isn't going to happen in every country on earth at once. Instead it will happen in several countries and then it will spread. Once it has spread world wide or majority world wide then capital will finally be defeated.

No. Why would you say that? Imperialism is the net extraction of an imperialist country from a weaker nation. It's a case of good old capitalist exploitation, only that it is faciliated with military power, economic blackmail, or what have you.
Then the entire 20th century "doesn't make sense", since literally every single communist revolution happened to have aligned interest versus the smaller, national bourgeoisie against either imperialist or feudal structures. Again, just another denial of reality. It's time to update your doctrine from mid-19th century to the modern world. still, even Marx supported petit-bourgeois struggles against feudalism
You argument was that we have to wait for the perfect, genuine first world international spontaneous worker's revolution, which might as well never happen.
I'm not "supporting capitalism", I'm just not an utopian idiot that thinks revolutions in underdeveloped shitholes can immediatly jump to socialism, that's literally utopian socialism. Do you think Lenin supported capitalism with the NEP?
Yeah and? Not a response to my argument before. I also want fully automated space communism.

That's such a dumb statement. Not everything is the same dialectically. You are facing the situation in which the interests of a) the proletariat and b) the national bourgeoisie are the same - so, are just going to sabotage the national liberation or are you going to fight the imperialists together so you actually even got a chance for development? Why don't you actually go visit some third world MLM milita and tell them your superior, purist views as they are literally fighting for union organizers not to get murdered
So what is your fucking stance regarding Socialism in one Country then? This reads as you are accepting it as reality, but before you were sperging out about it

You just admitted it. A imperialist capitalist nation is extracting from a weaker capitalist nation.
It doesn't make sense because socialism in one country is an oxymoron and impossible. I never mentioned interests.
I am aware of this, luckily it is not relevant anymore what so ever.
My argument is that preferring one capitalist to another is still capitalism, because of this it can be concluded that MLs are capitalists.
I don't believe this either. I have already stated how socialism in one country is impossible.

choose one

I understand that you have no talent for realpolitik and think that praxis is something Adam Jensen gets, but neither the international revolution, nor the reformism until communism is on the table are going to happen while USA still exists as the undisputed global hegemon.

Their personal interests may be similar but their class interests are always going to differ. This is the basis of class society after all.
Neither. I don't support capital whether it be managed by a national or a foreign imperialist.
I don't know why i would want to talk with bourgeois nationalists.
I already said that socialism in one country is impossible. It appears to me that you think that a revolution happening first in one country=socialism in that one country. This is implying that a revolution=socialism. This is not the case.

Except this is the death of all nuance and literally not an argument. Imperialism inhibits development, national liberation that is allowed to engage in mutual trade develops a nation. This is capitalism 101. Again: Do you think Lenin was wrong to implement the NEP?
That was not my point. My point was that communist revolutionary momentum seems to have only happened interlodged with some case of national liberation against feudalism or imperialism. Or do you imply that all these revolutions (no matter what you think about what they became afterwards) weren't genuine proletarian movements? In many cases, the communists overcame the petit-bourgeoisie which waged national liberation with them, like in Russia, China, Cuba or Korea. We can't be picky about this.
Many nations have structural deficts which are even worse than 19th century Germany.

Do you believe that it is impossible to analyze modern imperialist conflicts like the Syrian War from a dialectical standpoint? Your stance is: Everything is the same. That's not dialectics and I am indeed entitled to call you out on that.
We are Marxists, we only talk about class interests. Was it not Mao's interest to fight the Japanese invadors with the Kuomintang? Was it in his interest to split from it and create disunity so the Japanese can kill millions of Chinese peasents and proletarians?
Would you have supported the French Revolution?
Semantics. We can talk about whether or not some revolutions attained a socialist mode of production (I argue in some cases: Yes, they clearly did) but the question is what guides our actions. May I remind you what the thread title is? It's about praxis. It is not asked whether or not a mode of production was established, but what is the right stance and the right action to attain such a mode of production through revolution and development. Whether you think Socialism in One Country is impossible doesn't matter that revolution seems to happen in one country, and as I said before, you can either drop the ball and not even try to develop socialism, ot you wage war on the entire world. This would be the most logical conclusion from your ultraleftist stance. So there is the question: Communists just seized power, are you going to work with us or are you going to sperg out about everything?

I never said it didn't
You are right, it is capitalism 101 because it is capitalism.
No, Also irrelevant
The Russian revolution was genuinely proletarian. Not so much the others.

No, you can analyzing something how ever you want.
Incorrect. My stance is that picking one capitalist over the other on basis of how evil they are, how imperialist they are or aren't, or how productive they are is still capitalism.
If this is the case then you need to take back previous statements about how third world proletariat have the same interests as third world bourgeoisie.
Of course it would be in the states interest to protect itself from foreign aggressors. The interest of any state is to retain power.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the modern day. Revolts against monarchy are no longer a concern.
It isn't semantics at all, a revolution is a violent revolt and socialism is a mode of production.
Here's how it works. One cannot create revolution. One can lead the revolution. Once doing nothing is more painful than violent action for the majority of the population then revolution will happen. After this the correct thing to do would be to guide and lead the revolution into a dictatorship of the proletariat which is a pseudo state not based on borders but instead for the entire class of the proletariat. The revolution will spread and the party will lead the proletariat down the right path. Of course before revolution one can agitate and educate or whatever, but doing this will not bring a revolution.

It's getting to the core of our argument here. You admit that there can't be a direct jump to socialism in underdeveloped countries. That's my entire point.
Edgy hot take. What do you actually know about the others? The February Revolution in Russia was a genuine proletarian movement mixed with petit-bourgeois interests. So were the communist movements in many other instances. Where is the difference? I mean, claiming that China wasn't a genuine proletarian movement is quite brave, you know they abolished money in some communes?
Right. We Marxists talk of dialectics as applied logic.
I'm not sure whether or not you are too stubborn to understand what we are talking about here or if I'm just not getting my point across. My claim is that you need somewhat capitalist development in undedeveloped countries. Also there is the idea of a nations right of self-determination, cutting off the imperialist powers from resources and sweatshops (therefore stopping them from outsourcing their own capitalist contradictions to the third world and facilitating revolutionary potential in the west) and the very real option of developing a communist revolution by partaking in such a fight.
No I don't. When affected by imperialism, the interests of most of the national petit-bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the Third World are the same. That doesn't mean communists shouldn't gulag all the national bourgeoisie once national liberation is achieved and 4-5 years of development passed.
China wasn't a state when it was an Empire. The state was built in the process. Also, states are instruments of class struggles.
My point was that you admit that you need historical conditions before you establish a mode of production.
Nepal. Literally happened bunch of years ago
I mean yeah, base and superstructure are reciprocal, but in general, I would agree. But I don't see how this would make a good argument. My case rests on the historical experiences and the historical analysis of material conditions that create revolutions - and they almost always happened to be a combined struggle against multi-layered forms of oppression, such as imperialist exploitation or feudalist estates of the realm.

What? socialism can't be jumped to at all no matter the country, I'm not an anarchist
I know that they were petit bourgeois revolutions involved around their national bourgeoisie.
And that idea is a capitalist one. All nations are capitalist nations.
This doesn't stop the contradictions of capitalism at all. It merely replaces on capitalist with another.
This isn't how capital works. The new third world bourgeoisie will only cut off "imperialist powers" directly. It would still be within their class interests to sell and trade these resources to the imperialist powers. Capital still functions as capital no matter the country of origin of its manager.
Their class interests will never be the same. If both classes as individuals want foreigners to leave then great but their class interests are differing and because of this, their real interests can never be FULLY the same.
We both already know that revolutions come when doing nothing is more painful than violent action as previously stated. It doesn't matter where the origin of this discomfort comes from. Discomfort can happen and a revolution can start and then it can be guided by the national bourgeoisie, this is not a communist revolution. In another example a revolution can happen and it can be lead by the most class conscious members of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the proletariat. This would be the communist revolution. This is why analyzing where the discomfort comes from means very little unless you are interested in capitalist revolutions. The origin means nothing compared to how it will be lead.

I already said this was the same with the February Revolution in Russia. The question is, who emerges victorious afterwards, the national bourgeoisie or the communists? In many of these countries, the communists won. Let's take Korea, it was clearly a national liberation movements but the communists, as they prove to be the most determined and resiliant, emerged victorious, absoltely liquidating the national bourgeoisie afterwards.
a) A nation isn't a state, nations existed since thousends of years
b) again, this purely theoritcal, what prevents a state from being socialist? A state can't be abolished even if you entertain a completely socialist mode of production as long as capitalist countries exist.
That's the point. Once a country has been liberated from imperialism, class struggle continues and eventually will lead to the overthrow of the national bourgeoisie. The thing just isn't feasable as long as that country is under attack by imperialism.
It would be more mutual and actually develop the country. The difference between imperialist capitalism and national capitalism is that the latter actually has a accumulation and reinvestment cycle, while imperialist capitalism just extracts the surplus value to another continent. Above you admited that imperialism does indeed inhibit development - then why don't you oppose it? Because that seems to be your quarrel with Marxism-Leninists. Secondly, yes, this does deal a blow to the imperialist capitalist. The whole reason imperialism exists in the first place is that it is needed not to have the contradictions of capital oberboil in th homelands, like it happened in the 20s. There are three tools which the bourgeoisie uses to pacify workers: 1) Social Democracy (highly flawed as it is dependent of profit rates) 2) imperialism and, the most extreme one, 3) fascism. None of them were foreseen by Marx. He thought the contradictions of capital would lead to a revolution in its center.
Not fully. But facing imperialism, they are temporarily. I really don't wanna sound like the Roo, but Mao has a point when he talks about primary and secondary contraditions.

Social democracy has had plenty of busts.
fair point

Level of development only matters to countries that claim to have "socialism in one country" otherwise known as state managed capital. Under an international dictatorship of the proletariat the amount of development no longer matters in a specific area. So to conclude, the idea of capitalist development in modern day is a capitalist one as it is concerned with the specific management of capital.
Because i oppose all capitalism, imperial or not.
But overcoming imperial capitalists for national capitalists is still a method of moving around the contradictions of capitalism.

its not wrong, but incomplete

>Under an international dictatorship of the proletariat the amount of development no longer matters in a specific area.

we poor rice farmers dying of malnutrition now but at least we're not producing commodities

Boom problem solved

Here are some problems I have with Marxist-Leninists, as someone who is pretty much ML himself.

1. ML is probably the most wide spread communist tendency (today and historically), which makes it more visible and easily accessible, so it attracts a lot of people who are completely new to socialism and haven't read shit but like it because of aesthetics or edgyness or something. A lot of people who "represent" Marxism-Leninism online are hella dumb because of this.

2. Since ML's have actually held power in many countries (and they were the first communists to ever do so) there are a lot of mistakes you can criticize ML's for (communists of other tendencies haven't had the chance to make any mistakes yet). A lot of ML's feel the need to defend the mistakes or deny that any mistakes have been made, for some reason. I don't think it's necessary to justify or deny that mistakes have been made. Just admit that some stupid shit has been done in the name of communism/ML, and that we're not interested in repeating that.

3. Overuse/misuse of words like "dialectics", "dialectical", "scientific", etc. This shit triggers me deeply.

4. Many ML orgs since the fall of the USSR have degenerated into cult like Stalin worship clubs. It's unfortunate.

For the record no ultra is ever saying the USSR was not Socialist /because/ of Marxism-Leninism - we have no alternaitve that could had attained it and that's our point.

For the modern day though, b o r d i g a.

The problem with Stalinism is that it refuses to acknowledge that class can exist both outside and within the state.

MLs got out of the armchairs and did something.


RIP the millions of Axis soldiers who died fighting ML


Realpolitik is meaningless if you hold nothing. There is no point in compromising if we don't have nothing to gain from it. It's imbecilic and borders on class collaborationism. But then again, that's hardly surprising, coming from a tankie

But stalin own ~200 dachas, he just porkey!