As time goes on you realize marxism leninism just makes more sense. Anarchism is somewhat utopian...

Is there an argument that supports this? "Decentralization" and "grassroots democracy" are nice sounding words, but do they hold any actual value or are they just Kumbaya buzzwords? What you described was largely tried in China already.

Wew

fuck off 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧TANKIE🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Found the rose, mate i would understand wanting a peaceful revolution which is totally justified but you really outed yourself there, mate

Great argument

Yeah sure. China is a capitalist state. It started off largely with the goal of implementing socialism but has generated one of the most grossly capitalist nations in existence. The same arguments you apply to buzzword could be turned against you in regard to china. Vietnam has likewise done the same, opened markets and allowed from private ownership.
So when you talk of a strong state to defend the working class and all those other memes, have those very institutions really not failed in regard to those 2 particular countries? I mean have the Chinese Communist Party done any more to promote socialism beyond “paying lip service”?
And you have to bear in mind I’m not by ANY means saying ML or MLM theory is completely unviable, not by a long shot. But it has its flaws, just as all praxis does. The subject of authoritarian vs libertarian communism is a matter of debate, not absolutes

My argument was that under Mao the things you talk about, decentralization and informal democracy, was tried.

Ah yes, I sure do love calling a one party vanguard and having a red-guard who supressed dissenting opinoins on the party "decentralised" even if they might have been leftists themselves.

not him, but to play devils advocate, you can have one political party and still be relatively democratic.

There is a third way, my friends

PLEASE TELL ME

INCAN NAZBOL

democratic confederalism?

Do NOT pick and choose your ideology like a fucking dress. READ, EDUCATE YOURSELF, AND REALIZE YOUR ROLE IN THE CLASS STRUGGLE.

Maybe I'm just an American pessimist, but I just can't imagine socialism without "re-education" of some sort.

can i join? are you doing anything? no? fuck off?

K, thanks Marx.

why does revisionism matter? unless i misunderstand the meaning of revisionism, but shouldn't we change or adapt marx's theories in order to fit the material conditions of the given society? Why end it at Marx or Lenin i mean, why not build off of it. For example Mao did this and was successful. But i guess since he's a dirty revisionist we disregard it?

I think you forgot another option bucko…

By revisionism i meant gorbashit, not mao

I don't trust ML to work because ML parties are tiny and internet MLs are mostly larpers who want to gulag everyone that says tranny.

Green ancom-lite is close enough to anarchism.

Market socialism is a good short term policy. In the immediate aftermath of the revolution market socialism will allow a speedy recovery of the economy, plus give workers experience in self management. It will also consolidate the economy into fewer and fewer coops as the markets mature, making it easier to eventually socialize them. It will also provide a period of experimentation, with a diversity of different methods of economic management and participation. This will allow the best systems to be determined before they are implemented nationwide. Finally it prevents the early bureaucratization and concentration of power in state hands in the early stages of the revolution when the new state is vulnerable and more likely to resort to authoritarian measures.

All good ideas. I would also prefer a bottom up federal system of government. What are you views on planning? I would think that it should be done locally but coordinated centrally.

Also non-transferable, single use currency.

there should be intensive studies conducted centrally of the local needs of a specific area, and given to the workers councils of the area. in this, they then write up an economic plan which is then voted on directly and applied by the central government. the central government doesnt have the power to veto the plan, and must apply it.

the politburo should only be involved in external diplomatic affairs and the internal workings of the country should be organized by the workers councils.

Same tbh. Speaking from personal experience, a lot of anarchists buy into spooky bourgeois myths about socialist states.

Google Bookchin

Why can’t the people in a community conduct their own study?

i say centrally in that the top scientists and economists should conduct the research, and most likely these individuals would be working for the central government.

I'd be VERY hesitant on that. The problem which i have with central forms of government is that more often than not, should revisionists be allowed in, it has a horrid effect on the people that the government controls. I do agree that scientists and economists should conduct research, but from a central government, this may lead to generalised policies which may have a negative effect on the population, and if its purposefully sabotaged, that makes the effects even worse.

That's fair, the people who give the info might give false info. I only suggested a central government because I would want the best people to do the research and the number crunching. All political and economic action will be taken by the local community.

Do you have a Marxist account for revisionists, how they arise and eventually subvert the revolution, or is it all simplistic French Revolution-tier rhetoric about class traitors andcounter-revolutionaries?

So you both missed the key was

Considering how Lenin and Stalin spent their whole lives fighting revisionists, I think you could find their answer in the shit they wrote about it.

Amazingly, you won't know if you have their backing unless you try regardless.

That's like saying you were succeeding at running a marathon before you tripped after the first mile. Just be honest and say no Leftist experiment has ever worked, because they all have ultimately failed. The point is to look at how and why they failed. Anarchist experiments all failed because of military defeat, that could be because Anarchism is inherently bad at military matters, or it could be because of material conditions that would cause any group to fail. ML states have all failed because of revisionism, this could be because Socialism wasn't possible during their timeframe, or because ML is inherently susceptible to revisionism because the party doesn't actually represent the people.

I agree, social democracy really is the only tendency that makes sense these days.

What is your response to this post?

As time goes on you'll realize there are even better ways to organize societies. And it's not a dictatorship of either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. No, it's not fascism either.

Revisionism was innate to the system. When you don't fully emancipate the proletariat - but rather thrust some of them into the role of bureaucrats - you will before long find them running the system for their own benefit.
From there on it's only a short road before everything succumbs to the rallying call of "free markets" and "popular democracy". It was merely inevitable as all variants of the Marxist-Leninist experiment have shown. (Though for some time it was extremely successful)

No. To abolish capitalism you have to obsolete it. And you don't do that by pretending your wage labor isn't really "wage labor".
Instead you need communal self-sufficiency. With people being able to satisfy their material needs without having to engage in outside trade. The distributists definitely had the right idea here. The solution will be technological, but not cybernetic.
An automated economy isn't going to create paradise when individuals are lacking in autarky. If you want to see where that ends up just wait till the world rate of profit approaches zero percent. It's going to end up with starving hapless masses who are "useless" to the system.

"Market Socialism" really is right up there with "Anarcho Capitalism".

Nice flaseflagging

...

...

Why is the Nazi our best poster rn?

Not sure what your point is

kys zionist

I’m generally very pro Palestine but let’s not pretend that everything the Palestinians do is automatically good. Hamas isn’t the PLO, and there are elements among them and the Palestinian movement in general that are genuinely anti-Semitic and ethnonationalist. They aren’t exempt from criticism.

Clip related
youtu.be/eb1viD56zkM

Nobody is, fuck off retard.

So then why do you get mad at Bookchin for criticizing them?

What has the World come to

Because he's blatantly shilling for Israel.

I can't for the life of me figure out if he really is a nazi or just likes confuse the rest of us.
Either way a lot of his posts are based.

By recognizing that the Palestinians do shitty things and suggesting that the Israelis aren’t cartoon villains?

Israelis are imperialists, they need to surrender or get killed/deported.

But that doesn’t mean their entire country should be wiped off the map, which the Arabs have tried to do multiple times. This isn’t 1947, most Israelis were born there and have a right to be there.

It literally does, Israel must cease to exist and be replaced by Palestine or Syria again.

When world revolution comes, that won't matter.

No, they're a military occupation. Literally the whole population gets drafted. They can only stay if they agree to a secular society like Lebanon or Syria. Otherwise, deported or killed.

SPANIARDS = SIONISTAS

t. QUECHABOL GANG

This is how I know you're a high school student at best.

...

...

kek wordfilter.

Explain to me how killing all he Israelis and driving them out of their homes is not genocide.

I said killing and driving out all who can't cooperate with a secular government. If that turns out to be a lot of them, then that's just how the revolution will have to go. No different from purging a bunch of kulaks.

This assume that ML states actually withered away in any meaningful form. Russia and China aren't stateless or possess weak incapable states, they're bourgeoisie states like the rest of the world, they're just unique in how transparently corrupt they are. ML states didn't transition because they fulfilled their goal, they transitioned because the state controllers stopped believing in the ideology and wanted to have more meaningful power through capitalism.

The idea of the state withering away when it fulfills its purpose depends on the belief that the state can have any other purpose than its own growth and ultimately the self-interest of the state controllers. For the state it actually wither away it would have to be completely made up of true-believers genuinely working towards the interests of the proletariat, but those kind of people will inevitably be outnumbered by ambitious individuals who just want power and influence.

The PROLETARIAN STATE WITHERED AWAY in the USSR. Stop treating distinct states as a spectrum.

I recommend reading this book to everyone.

There's really no such thing as distinct states, since all states effectively function the same; it's only proletarian or bourgeoisie when it comes to which class the statists come from and which class the state has to ally with the most. The USSR was proletarian only in the sense that there was no only class to come from or to ally with. Modern states don't serve the bourgeoisie, they simply serve themselves and the people who make up the state, which is predominately bourgeoisie, and since most power is economic power, it's in the statists' interests to associate with and ally with the outside bourgeoisie, but even then, they must also factor in the desires of the proletariat. But this does not mean they have any sort of loyalty or goal of service. The fact that the USSR transitioned is proof of the lack of class loyalty of statists.

Fair enough, but what about the Palestinians? Their government isn’t secular in the slightest. Hamas is an explicitly Islamic movement.

First of all, a non-secular party can exist in a secular government. Hezbollah for instance, it's a religious party but it respects the secular government.
Second of all, Hamas was literally groomed for power by Mossad. Israel deliberately undermined socialist organizations while making a policy not to interfere with Hamas. Moreover, Hamas has often depended on OTHER NATO puppets, such as Quatar and Saudi Arabia, for funding. We must absolutely support any authentic resistance that is expressed through Hamas while also being aware of these facts.
Now let's be real: apart from the previous-mentioned issue, the bad analysis that has often come out of Hamas (antisemitism, etc. often the complete opposite political line of what Hezbollah advocates) is a result of the extreme oppression that Palestinians experience. Do you seriously think the Palestinian people would try to wreck a genuine secular state (such as Lebanon or Syria) for the sake of religion? It's completely out of the question.

TIL Feudal states == Capitalist states == Proletarian states

I'm talking about the essence of states, not their physical operation.

...

Absolutely agreed. I used to be an anarchist until I actually started reading. Anarchism is way too utopian and will never possibly be able to take on the world's capitalist militaries. Leninism can be adapted to the conditions of the country, people always think that it will inherently lead to something like the USSR. Leninism in the US would be much much more successful than in Russia.

Read Cockshott.

hes probably a socialist just like the rest of us, just really really spooked by factors such as nationality and race. My bet is he is a more spooked nazbol or Asserist (no memes)

Unrelated to the thread really but damn my image of leftcoms seems different from most.
I've never read much of em but I've read a few things related to Bordiga and he seems totally different from these M-L critiques, rather like an incredibly dogmatic marxist & pseudo-leninist with anti-democratic, pro-party characteristics.

no
He's an ideologically aware anti-enlightenment reactionary who reads
prob some kind of NRx in modern parliance

I'm not sure if Bordiga should be considered LeftCom.

Either way, most LeftCom are of Dutch variety, not Italian.

I'm an anti-nationalist though.
Like a proper reactionary.

This guy gets it.

Turns out Lenin got it right the first time and Anarchists and Leftcoms didn't.

You're mistaking their superficial appearance with their core features that they all share. Obviously a feudal or monarchist state operates differently than a modern capitalist, parliamentarian one, but that is not a difference of essence, just one of circumstances.