Other urls found in this thread:

This is all legit. Particularly
>"ideologies don't make revolutions", "people will wake up when the material conditions are ripe"

Obvious Trotskyst bias, but I'm sure you are going to trigger more Leftcoms than ☭TANKIE☭s with this.


Where are you getting this atomic takes?

inner criticism of other socialists does not require splitting, you trot child

It does if they aren't socialists.

you are literally autistic. Have you ever actually participated in any socialist activism at all? You realise even most of the trade unionists, even the radical ones, the people actually making gains for the proles and organising them, none of them are talking about abolition of the value form, they are talking about expanding their unions, getting more clout, getting more gains, being able to demand more. You realise of dedicated socialists probably 5% would actually understand properly what you are talking about. Most people that take part in industrial actions, sit ins, etc, these are just normal people involved in the industry, not radical socialists. You are so fucking blind and so high in your ivory tower you are going to divide further the proletariat based on your own oh so authoritative interpretation of 200 year old theories.

You're obviously a terrible poster, but you are objectively right about a lot of this.


This is correct though. OP very obviously sucks a ton of cocks but most of what he's posted here are average takes from what could be considered "orthodox marxism".

fuck off trotsykite scum

None of those takes are controversial. If any of them surprise you maybe you should stop and consider why you're such a brainlet.

This one might actually be true. Albeit, not due to anything Marx wrote.
Bad end though, Communism doesn't win.

As far I'm concerned Marx predicted a climatic end of capitalism by its own contradictions (that create a proletarian movement). What is this if not the final crisis of capitalism?

Utopianism is NOT thinking about how socialism will look like in concrete terms in given material conditions. Utopianism is assuming that all the details and nuances of socialist construction will somehow manifest themselves out of thin air.

Hilarious you'd take the latter to imply the former. It's weird that this take is so out of place among the others because it's easily the most leftoid one in the bunch.

Marx and Engels put themselves in the company of the various buffoons at the time because they had to, not because it was ideal or even desirable if it were possible to proceed without them.

They both recognised the utter superfluidity of communists to the proletariat's actual movement, but knew that they could otherwise be of use, precisely at crucial moments where 'left unity' retards would all be most likely to opportunistically hijack such movements and drive them into the ground or towards antithetical ends.

In fact, Marx and Engels (or anyone at the time, for that matter), would never even use not just the term 'left unity', but 'left' or 'leftist' at all for that matter. Yes, the origins of 'left vs. right' as a political axiom are the product of a liberal revolution, that of the Jacobinists against the royalists, but revolutionaries paid no mind at all to this ultimately bourgeois axiom. If you actually look at the use of these terms historically, you'll see that it was in vogue around the era of the bourgeois revolutions, then completely fell out, then 'right versus left' became signifiers for the 'extremes' within specific communist movements/parties, generally all accusatory terms in their origins (classic example: the 'communist left' was not self-described; it was what would become the communist 'right' in the Comintern that first accused Bukharin and co. of 'being too extreme'). Any common use of the left vs. right axiom from then on is only seen in bourgeois politics: social democrats are left, ordoliberals are right (first wave of post-WW2 bourgeois politics in this case), then we even get developments in for example American bourgeois politics where two different wings of liberalism, the Democratic and Republican party, become split in a liberal leftist and non-liberal right-wing one respectively, which is total American absurdity added in this case.

Whatever, I went on a tangent there, but to prove my point about Marx and Engels re: their supposed support for unity (rather than support for remaining shipwrecked on pseudo-revolutionary shitheaps), see pic related. Note that he's saying this in 1873 which is, by the way, after almost three solid decades of experience with the various morons the IWA, German revolutionary organisations, etc. housed. Marx and Engels absolutely hated being in the presence of 99% of leftist idiots and remained only to kick as many of them out as possible and salvage what might be worthwhile in them to a potential revolutionary proletariat.

Otherwise good post, 9.5/10. Holla Forums needs to get this shit too.

tell me more

btw: for more on Marx and Engels on unity check out Part 5, Chapter 27 of the third volume of Capital.

I'm not OP but this text does a good job of explaining things:
(Continue reading from then on, there's a little more which I can't post without hitting the character limit.)

I'm a leftcom and don't find any of this even vaguely controversial.

If they became anticommunists maybe they were shitheads all along

Was the bolsheviks split from the mensheviks the correct thing to do? Or should they have stuck with the psuedo socialists using a strategy that doesn't work? Of course we shouldn't exclude proles with trade union consciousness, or even other socialists if we can come to an agreement but thats clearly different from psuedo socialists like the mensheviks or market socialists.

While I agree with most of this some sources would be nice.

Marx opposed Woodhull because she was bourgeois and represented capitalist interests and was just using the Internationale to further her Presidential campaign, not for her advocacy of women's rights.

No they didn't. Marx and Engels were pragamtic and believed in the tactical utility to cooperating with other leftists even if their doctrine, theory, or praxis was wrong in the short term. This certainly does not mean they support the meme that is left unity.
Eh, you could argue either way about this. Really the question more so is how significant is the individual to the historical process in dialectical materialism. The answer: not very much.
Historically, legal oppression tends to only be a short term solution that in the end only results in more growth and legitimacy of the suppressed ideology (negation of the negation, perhaps?). But as far as welfare is concerned, the development of welfare states has almost universally stifled the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Not that we should make excuses for ourselves, but it's the material conditions that decide revolution.
While some people that interpret Marx in an overly orthodox way do indeed not put enough emphasis on ideology and the current ideas of a given particular historical situation, it is indisputable that material conditions make both the ideology and revolutionary potential of the proletarian class from age to age and to suggest otherwise is not only revisionist, but I'd say oppertunist.

Everything else you said is pretty spot on.

No, she was also trying to turn Socialism into a largely women's rights issue.

If you don't see what's wrong with that, leave and go read more before posting, you liberal.

I always thought that this was a brainlet position. I mean obviously nobody can predict what socialism would look like exactly, but if you don’t form a basic legal and political framework for the society you are trying to create then you will wind up like the Bolsheviks: blindly stumbling into “temporary measures” that ended up destroying the revolution.

They weren't right all the time. Look how many leftist parties were porkified once invited to sit at the capitalists' table. Fuck, Lenin himself witnessed it with the great socdem backstabbing.

But… didn't they purge Bakunin from the International? And isn't that one of the factors of its fall?

Man, just let us LARP a bit, we're in a Bactrian sand bottle carrier pigeon.

The rest is right I guess.

Marx veiwed capitalism is an sort of simplistic evolutionary view. Like a snake shedding its skin capitalism helps society progress but eventually begins to hinder it and it becomes historically necessary to abolish it. Zizek pointed this out in "the Sublime Object of Ideology"

Oh yeah, also:
Yes, it's supposed to overturn the current state of affairs and not to twiddle thumbs waiting for a window of opportunity, but let's face it, socialism just doesn't fly in a stable, prosperous society. Shit has to really hit the fan for us to haave any real chance.

I see Leftcoms use this term from time to time. What does it mean and what is the criticism attached to the term?

yes exactly

Leftcoms don't see themselves on the left, they only see communism as the real movement which abolishes the current state of things, which is supposed to transcend both left-wing and right-wing policy.

Therefore you get autistic shit like Bordiga refusing to do a popular front because liberal democracy and fascism are, like, totally the same thing.

The differences between them are trivial.

Isn't socialism about that too?

And anarchists.

And Trostky and Preobrazhensky stolen the idea from the menshevicks.

And reminder Lenin told them all NOT TO FUCKING COLLECTIVISE THE FARMS.

It worked tho

so is marxism-reaganism to true continuation of marx?

Lenin literally predicted the Ukrainian famine, it did not work.

The Ukrainian famine was not because of collectivization. It was because of grain hoarding and bad weather. Collectivization ended famines in Russia which had happened pretty frequently for hundreds of years but after collectivization, never again.

are you sure it was collectivization and not industrial agriculture, satan? and the USSR had to start importing grain in the 1970s.

The acute causes of the famine (them being kulak resistance and the drought) ignore the fundamental fact that the policy of collectivisation started in 1928 went against the explicit plan Lenin had laid out: the land was never meant to be owned by the state but by the peasants that worked it. The first five year plan shattered the "peasant-party link" that was meant to have been fostered before any major reforms could be made. Read Lenin's speech to the bolshevik conference of 1922.

go to tumblr if you want to blogpost about how you feel about evil MLs shitting on you for being a retard

Most of these collective farms were co-operatives owned and managed by the people working on them. They sold grain to the state.

or you could actually quote it instead talking shit

Large scale industrial agriculture would have been far less effective on small seperate plots of land. With collectivization each small plot didn't need to have all the tools necessary, instead a larger group could share them.

how 2 seize land if peasants are uncooperative kulaks that don't want to form collective farms though

read Dizzy with success

use gulag

Wrong, in 1928 around 15% of [total] arable land in the USSR was under the control of state farms, compared to 4% being kolkhoz. (I would give sources but I imagine you don't speak Russian).
In "To M. F. Sokolov, 16th May 1921", Lenin counter argues Sokolov's point that radical action must be taken to modernise the peasants rapidly to deal with the bureaucracy. Sokolov says:
As such he advocates for mass collectivisation of agriculture in a rapid way; to dispense with the local bureaucracy and bring things under national control quickly. Lenin counters this:
You can see clearly here that Lenin advocates for a slow and gentle policy, as opposed to Stalin's rapid plans that involved the collectivisation of in large bursts: like hte winter of 1929-1930.

still talking out of your ass, just like the faggot you are


Looks like Stalin was right though. Nazis attacked in 1941.

Are you shitting me? You are justifying policy from 1928 to have pre-empted a nazi invasion threat? Also how would have a soviet state with lower levels of collectivisation been less able to resist invasion? And surely having the extra manpower in Ukraine and the Volga-Don region would have beneficial to the soviet war effort, no?

I'm interested in the sources
Even if I have to use a shoddy Google translation it sounds like a good read

Not without guns it wouldn't.

The amount of industrialization that would have been lost if the NEP was kept is not even that much. Collectivization only added approximately 5% to GDP. Pic related, book is Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution.

Also Stalin's purges completely fucked up the Red Army anyways right before they got invaded so to argue that he was some great prophet who had forseen nazi invasion a decade in advance is pretty stupid.

user, are you just using words you don't understand again

And not having a scientific plan of action leads to stalinistic retardation

which means trotsky is responsible for Stalinism.
Trots btfo

the rate of profit has been falling steadily since early last century, last time I checked
Only in extremely specific conditions. Marx and Engels only advocated it as a means of propaganda and counting numbers, in a time where universal suffrage was a demand of the workers' movement, and absenteeism and private lobby weren't as big a thing as they are today. The Bolsheviks actively boycotted elections until right before 1917 when they were an actual organized majority in Russia. You don't advocate for a certain tactic because a text from 150 years ago says so - you advocate for a tactic because a materialist analysis of current society leads you to the tactic in question. Any coherent analysis will lead the the conclusion that reformism under current neoliberal parliaments is a dead-end tactic and that at the very best it'll serve the left as a means of propaganda that will be constantly ridiculed by bourgeois media.
"left unity" doesn't imply a lack of critique against the theses of anarchism, all of which have been BTFO by Lenin and various others. This is also not an excuse to work with idpol liberals or smashie lumpenproles (AKA antifa)
Developing an actual program for socialist transformation is fundamental for any change in that direction - the working class needs a viable alternative. This is what Cockshott and co. have been up to for years.
I have no idea about this, but your arguments don't seem to back your premise whatsoever. Why does the fact that there was a split and ideological struggle between "Stalinism" (i.e. the official Soviet line) and Trotskism imply that the latter is not close to neoconservatism?
Just as the left has grown strong under dictatorships (Cuba, Chile) and civil wars (Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua) before, yes.
Oversimplifications if anything - what is certain is the Marxist principle that "revolutions are done by the masses" and that a necessary state of historical development of the productive forces and the subjective status of the working class is necessary before a social revolution is viable.
I am, thank you

stalins death day :)