Convince me Holla Forums

Ever since I got into leftism, I haven't really decided what specifical tendency I identify with, more specifically in this case, marxism or anarchism. You might say then that I'm just a reformist. And for the longest time, I did consider myself to be a reformist, but I've become pretty dissilusioned with reformism, and began thinking that a revolution is probably the most realistic chance we have to achieve socialism.

Anyway, now I'm uncertain which would be a better way of achieving socialism. Because I see the arguments of both sides. For marxism, yes it may be necessary to have a state for a certain period of time, but I think most people will agree that the longer a DotP stays a DotP, the more chances it has of reverting back to capitalism.

And for anarchism, same thing. Just destroying the state as is is probably not the best way to go. And if you thought historical example of socialism were in danger because of being surrounded by capitalist states, then imagine how vulnerable stateless societies would be.

So tell me, what's the best option?

Other urls found in this thread: Furr/


Why listen to the idiots here? Get it straight from the source. Read Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

I suppose you could say that, but personally I've actually gotten some pretty nice responses here (amidst all the bullshit ofc)

So what? Almost everyone here is misrepresenting things and forgetting important shit that is present in all the original political pamphlets. How do you know someone's not bullshitting unless you know the context? Just go to the source and read a book.

Read Posadas

What makes you think this? Is "I think most people will agree" the only reason?

The lit is free and easy to find, I suggest you read to make up your mind. Your problems seem a little too general to give a satisfactory response.

Absolutely undialectical
The current movement which abolishes the current state of affairs, and so on.

Late response, but looking at history will pretty much give you the answer. For example, most MLs agree the USSR became revisionist in 1953, when Kruschev came to power. That's 31 years after the creation of the SU. And it only got worse as time went by

Don't tie yourself down with ideology.
Be flexible and adapt to the current situation. Ideological purity can hinder our efforts.

That' what I've been doing for pretty much ever since I got into politics. I consider myself pretty non sectarian, bjt still thought I'd ask

read State and Revolution and draw your own conclusions. I think his analysis of the state holds up and basically accounts for the collapse.

Google Bookchin

Being a non ML state socialist is suffering

Stalin a shit

yeah your special snowflake ideology is gonna grip the minds of the masses.

You don't have the numbers, you don't have the guns and you don't have the minds of average people. Get this out of your head.

read Hegel

stop it

read cockshott

Cockshot is the bast last name ever

shut up, pol


A DOTP can't revert back to Capitalism because the proletariat is only a class through its relation to Capital. It IS Capitalism.

Are you afraid of cybernetics?

Is that infographic a pol false-flag or what?

that's a flase flag

how is it stalinism if its using direct democracy

Have you met a Stalinist who claimed to be anti-Democratic?

Read Bordiga then tell all those opportunists to get screwed

admit it you haven't even read cockshott

Yes, you need to have Socialist state for it to become Revisionist.

How did you get to conclusion that not having Socialist state is a solution?

It's 1956 and I doubt you should use the term "ML" to refer to those who support "great man theory" and deal with exact dates when it comes to such things.

You do realise "Stalinism" is a strawman nobody actually argued for?

Lol, anarchism isn't leftism. Nothing even close to it. I think there's been this misunderstanding ever since the Bush administration. True anarchism (as opposed to minarchism) is the elimination of the state ENTIRELY. The left is promoting the opposite. They want to expand the government. I haven't seen many true anarchist in years, now days "anarchist" are just a bunch of soyboy punks using it for the identity.

anarchism is a system of government.

please read this entire article: Furr/

It really doesn't matter what year it was ok? That's irrelevant. My point still stands

You are retarded

What point? If you don't have Revolution, it cannot be resisted?

That the loger a DotP goes on for, the more chances it has of becoming corrupted. Look, I know material conditions will affect how long a DotP needs to be, but history will give you the answer on this one. Things become stagnant after no progress for so long and then achieving communism isn't even a goal at that point

thing is that there wasn't a sudden entry of revisionism into the party just because Stalin died. and event taking 1956 as the end of socialism and the final takeover by revisionism is a very odd thing to do.
i don't know how to explain this but the struggle against revisionism is a constant development and it declaring its victory by smearing the latest antirevisionist leader in this struggle just doesn't make it so either.
the problem wasn't that Stalin died but that nobody took up this fight after him persistent enough and let the party be purged of MLs in the years later.

What answer? You are not making any sense.

What is your point? Have Capitalism until we spontaneously transition to Communism?

Since your reading comprehension is so awful, I suggest you stop attempting to refute my argument