If we understand that socialism can only be brought around by the material conditions, why do Marxist-Leninists even exist?
I realize that Lenin did nothing wrong. But since he birthed a cancerous movement that not only contradicted Marx but ultimately devolved into fascism, why do so called socialists still support him? It's as retarded as when a twitter ☭TANKIE☭ tries to defend Venezuela and Cuba as real socialism.
Prove me wrong, comrades
If you ignore ideology and just look at policies and material conditions, ML regimes are virtually indistinguishable from fascist ones.
What is a material condition
Lenin didn't birth ML, that was Stalin. Venezuela and Cuba should be defended, though not necessarily as socialism.
shit take
1.) Where does it contradict Marx
2.) What the fuck is fascism for you
3.) Do you seriously think the Bolivarians in Venezuela are fascist
4.) Disclose your own ideology so we can see you hold up the standard
I dare you to name a single policy that was "fascist". Considering anarchists don't have a theory about fascism and history I doubt you are having interesting thoughts here.
Venezuela isn't ML though and Cuba is lukewarm ML
bullshit, fascist economies were still essentially capitalist/socdem with private industries and some nationali. In socialist countries the industries were all nationalized, or cooperative, with only a very very small amount owned as family businesses such as small farm. Also socialist countries had detailed central planning on a level that fascism/'mixed' economies really cant do since they only plan with money and not in physical terms.
Not to mention ML countries never sent women back into the kitchen or any of that shit.
I don't know about the USSR as a whole but during Stalin's time the economy was mainly driven by primitive accumulation, just like with the fascists.
I don't think you know what that means.
Bullshit. They exported produce and raw materials for tools so they could industrialize. I wonder what kind of drivel you've read on libcom.org to think that Stalin's economic policies were about primitive accumulation, especially with light industry being ignored.
Also, how the fuck are fascist economies driven by primitive accumulation? They are a textbook example of monopoly capitalism
Primitive accumulation is the amassing of wealth to be turned into capital by processes outside of capitalist production. The Stalinist economy was driven by the plundering of the countryside.
Did you pick that up in a Molyneux video?
I love when someone tries to criticize Marxism-Leninism and reveals their liberalism.
No.
...
Well you don't know what you are talking about and haven't given any sources or hints about the origin of your information. You think collectivization of agriculture and industrialization was about "plundering the countryside" which a claim so fucking ridiculous and ignorant that I don't bother addressing it until you actually elaborate.
While Stalin did sell off a lot of produce (mostly wheat IIRC), he used it to buy tractors and other machinery to increase agricultural output. A lot of the developments in heavy industry were also for the purpose of increasing agricultural output.
It's almost as if people here make shit up about the SU on purpose so they can get easily shut down by MLs. It's possible to critique 20th century socialism without resorting to blatant lies.
Most people don't know why Stalin decided to sell grain. The USSR had a Ruble specifically for foreign trade, backed by the gold standard which made it one of the most stable currencies at that time, so the UK just decided to not accept it anymore and demanded everything in grain in exchange for tools necessary to industrialize. It was an attempt to starve out the USSR.
I knew that, but it's not like the USSR didn't have the agricultural output to feed the whole population. Building up industry also requires agricultural surplus (one extra worker typically means one farmer less), so Stalin did pull off quite a gamble with his rapid industrialization.
In hindsight it's somewhat justified cause the USSR had to pretty much fight Nazi Germany on its own, something anti-communists conveniently forget when they cry about the holodomor.
Nonetheless, I'm wondering if it would've been possible to avoid famine in the early 30s without jeopardizing industrial development which was crucial for the war effort 10 years later.
Totally not primitive accumulation, thanks for enlightening us all.
Marx said the revolution would take place in the most developed and industrialized centers, not in some illiterate agricultural slavic shithole. He also stated our economic systems depends on the pre-existing material circumstances, hence a contradiction as to "implement" socialism in a place like 1917 Russia.
A rule of government characterized bt authoritarianism, no individual liberty, centralized power, cult of personality, etc.
typical ☭TANKIE☭
Meaning the state owned the means of production, you ML dog. Marx would turn in his grave.
...
Probably, from what we tell by the telegrams there was a lot of confusion, local mismanagement and sabotage. If the local authorities did their job better we would never have to listen to the whole muh 20 gorillion thing today.
He was quite mistaken there, wasn't he? He didn't foresee social democracy, or fascism, or modern imperialism.
You'll be shocked when you actually read Marx as he advocated for socialism in Russia that could develop out of the Russian peasent commune.
That's not what fascism is. It's a non-sequitur, according to that Louis XIV. was fascist.
Don't backpedal, you clearly implied a contextualization in your OP.
You walk in here with a massive bait but don't have the guts to tell me what you believe in. If you make fun of Marxist-Leninists I have the right to make fun of you when you turn out to hold some meme ideology.
This is not a historical source, it doesn't provide sources, and it's filled with anti-communist bullshit to the brink. He claims in the very first sentences the Bolsheviks came into power through a coup, and then later says Mao was a literal Nazi, and that Hitler was an heir of Lenin. I'm shocked stuff like that exists. Also, he doesn't even say that collectivization was primitive accumulation regardless
so much for the united left.
And it turns out he was wrong on that, wasn't he? The revolution didn't succeed in the most developed countries.
If Marx was alive, surely he would have accepted that he was wrong on the issue of where the socialist revolution would happen first, and then he would try to adapt his theories to the reality of the situation, in order to be able to explain it. Or do you think Marx would try to order the Russian proletariat to stop the revolution, because history didn't play out exactly as he had predicted it in the previous century?
Marx and Engels were very clearly in favour of the proletariat taking state power in order to then centralize all the means of production in the hands of the new proletarian state. Have you even read any of Marx' work?
Well, Lenin attacked a socialist-led revolution to promote the supremacy of - in his words - the capitalist state.
So if you're asking why they suck, the answer is the same as for everything else : because capitalism.
hoxhaism/MLM are cool
revisionist (pro-china) ML is reactionary mechanical garbage that is unable to understand dialectics.
God i just love when Makhno was shot like the disgusting land pirate he was, i want all anarkiddies to be drawn and quartered for being the elitist anitfa bourgies they are, keep sucking that gringo CNN bullcrap asswipe
Its fucking pornographic to me, i get so much pleasure when i see anarkiddies get skewerd like pigs by actual revolutionaries or trampled under police boots like the wannabe unstable larpers they are
Literally just not true. Thanks for making the level of discourse on this shitty imageboard even lower.
He died of tubercolosis you dunce
leave me with my masturbation fantasies
All the things you listed are correct, though.
I think the issue that he had was more that the state wasn’t particularly proletarian in character. There was a clear political elite in the form of party bosses and bureaucrats, even in the workplace they had one man management. I think that there are more similarities between MLs and fascists in practice than either would like to admit. Both of them pushed nationalism (even if MLs called it something else), both of them implemented strong social programs, both of them crushed dissent and were politically authoritarian, both were militaristic, and what’s really telling is that both made it illegal for workers to organize outside the state approved channels. The main differences apart from branding and aesthetics were the degree of nationalization of the economy plus a few social issues like women’s rights, racism, etc.
Idk what to do with the rise of ☭TANKIE☭s that aren't flat out retarded but sort of reasonable
It’s a weird feeling to see a tank poster say something that isn’t totally retarded.
If your opinions as a "leftist" literally align 100% with what is said by Steven Crowder you need ask yourself what the fuck you are actually doing.
don't take the bait fair tankposter
The USSR didn't devolve into fascism.
edgy
...
isn't ironic when criticism of Stalinism shares an underlying premise w him (historical necessity/certainty)?
You realize material conditions is a part of Dialectical Materialism, and isn't the nonhuman/physical/w/e you call it part of the world. Knowledge, a party, advocates, etc… all of these things are necessary for a socialist revolution. A Socialist revolution can not and will not just spring forth dumbass. This is pure, unadulterated revisionism and perversion of Dialectical Materialism as some spooky "LOL the magic circle is developing". Isn't it interesting that someone would engage in revisionism like this? :thinking:
Because he was a great Socialist philosopher, shit for brains.