Things other leftists do that you hate

What's wrong with being a soft-nationalist and a Leftist? Like being a nationalist but not wanting war or shitting on other countries? Is left-wing nationalism not a thing or a spook or some shit?

Leftists get so triggered by nationalists/fascists that they adopted globalist propaganda which ironically is mostly caused by capitalism.

What is "soft-nationalism"?

Not read Stalin

Read marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1904/09/01.htm

Caring about your country and borders without all the xenophobic, jingoistic and racist shit.

...

revisionism

internationalism isn't an isolated, intellectual, moral position, it is a necessity, there is no communism without internationalism

not leftist

Internationalism is a form of nationalism. Literally it means political, economic and cultural cooperation between nations.

You didn't read the linked work by Stalin did you?

Disgrace and dishonor our beloved mascots by posting lewd images of them!!!

That stirner meme comes to mind.

it was pretty hot ngl

aren't you already getting btfo in all the threads you post this shit to?

Nothing. By that I mean that I hate that they do absolutely nothing.

Not reading theory but instead spending all their time circlejerking and shitposting. Here, reddit, twitter, fb, wherever.

This goes for the tankies who are tankies, the leftcoms who claim Marx never spoke of DotP and the anarchists who keep making shitty threads flaunting the fact that they're too illiterate to even read a wiki article.

Be authoritarian. If you get upset over their people voicing their opinions, the solution is to shut them up by being better than them and proving them wrong. Red terror is not the answer, it never has been and it never will be.

I hate it when lefties talk about their favorite Nation™

...

...

There's a rare version of that porky that was an earlier draft of it, you wouldn't happen to have that as well, I misplaced my copy

sorry fam, that the only one I know of…

That's alright, you probably should read that link though

yep

wat?

Saying that your system works if [insert group that doesnt agree with your system] would do exactly what you said.

the one useful thing I could extract from it:
"are co-operatives (i.e., consumers' and producers' co-operative societies) useful or harmful to the proletariat? It was not difficult for the Marxists to prove that this way of presenting the question was pointless; they explained very simply that everything depends on time and place; that where the class consciousness of the proletariat has reached the proper level of development and the proletarians are united in a single, strong political party, cooperatives may be of great benefit to the proletariat, if the party itself undertakes to organise and direct them. On the other hand, where these conditions are lacking, the co-operatives are harmful to the proletariat, for they breed small-shopkeeper tendencies and craft insularity among the workers, and thereby corrupt their class consciousness."

As for the rest of the main point:
"The question is: Where is the need for separate national parties? Or, where is the Social-Democratic "basis," on which the organisational and political views of the Federalist Social-Democrats are supposed to be built? No such "basis" is to be seen—it does not exist. The Federalist Social-Democrats are floating in mid-air.

They have two ways of getting out of this uncomfortable position. Either they must entirely abandon the standpoint of the revolutionary proletariat and accept the principle of reinforcing the national barriers (opportunism in the shape of federalism); or they must renounce all federalism in party organisation, boldly raise the banner of demolition of national barriers, and rally to the united camp of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party."

He gets going on the right track, but then falls on his face.

He fails, like the proletariat at the time, to escape the framework of social democracy.

As for closer to the end of Lenin's life and his struggle against the nationalism of Stalin:
leftcom.org/en/articles/2008-09-01/georgia-on-his-mind-lenin’s-final-fight-against-“great-russian-chauvinism”

That link deserves more of a response than I can give it atm I'm afraid

If I remember correctly, at this point the reason for this was because of doctors orders that Lenin was not to be bothered with such things

People who make shit threads.

this famalam

Lenin continued to work tirelessly many a time past being given instructions by doctors. An ML who sees much more in Lenin than I do, and probably knows much more about his private life and such should know that. It is no excuse to deny him materials. Preventing Lenin from engaging in political activity as he is moving towards a class perspective would be treachery, Lenin, rightly, continued to work even when (from the later strokes) he could no longer speak!

This is coming from someone who sees Lenin largely as a counter-revolutionary after 1921! Even though I think he gave tremendous weight to the counter-revolution, there were points where he moved towards revolutionary positions in his last moments! Stalin helped rob him, and the communist movement, of this!

To the larger point:
The party was pretty much already almost completely bourgeoisified at this point, the state was almost completely degenerated, the proletariat was almost completely absent in russia, both socially and physically. The revolution was dead in the water; the only hope was, not just merely for the "spread of the revolution" (a.k.a. put the rest of the most conscious sections of the proletariat, the world class party under the control of russian national capital), but for the internationalist communist revolution to succeed elsewhere and put russia under the control of it.

The amount of change that any "intervention" in the Central Committee by Lenin could do by itself, to be sure, was far from enough to change the course of the world revolution, which is determined not by the actions of leaders but by the movement of the world proletariat to transform the relations of production and seize power, but it could certainly have made a difference in slowing the degeneration of the workers' state and its transformation into a totally bourgeois one, which could have given more breathing room to the rest of the world proletariat.