In the Defense of Marxism-Leninism

In the recent months Holla Forums has become increasingly biased against marxist-leninism and even marxist views in general.
This has resulted in little to no discussion on this subject and the active suppression of ML views
so I have decided to make a thread about the discussion of marxist-leninist politics. I would also like to advertise >>>/marx/ since it is a good place for actual political discussion of marxism unlike Holla Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/marx/res/3587.html#q3592
davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm
books.google.com/books?id=RUHn9nCC9EoC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=wilson administration money to russian provisional government&source=bl&ots=-wJD24gXha&sig=SSrdwTFXH53z2Zj-xhrqtsNbMP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXroKwucbNAhVL5oMKHS2gD9EQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=wilson administration money to russian provisional government&f=false
twitter.com/AnonBabble

When I read Marx he seems so human and down to earth. I really like Marx's writing. I'm an anarcho-communist btw.

But ML as imagined by Stalin is shit. =/

Good, that means that Holla Forums is becoming more intelligent.

nah this board is fash af now

Pls come to/marx/ legitimate followers of the Marx Engels Lenin banner

I'm gonna start reading the State and Revolution soon, and then I can be officialy a Leninist.

M-L is shit though.
Stalin fucked up the USSR, messed up agriculture, didn't prevent the creation of the nomenklature and in the end, by refusing any other views, he refused dialectics.

Mao is also shit. No, it's not all about culture.

And Pol Pot… Not even once!

Anyone after Lenin was shit.

Except Fidel. Fidel was fine.

No Stalin or Mao then???

Still waiting…

*defense

K.

You and I know this isn't true. Leftcoms and anarkid crypto-liberals are worse than MLs and Maoists.

Of course, but at least with ML shitposting being shut up we can focus on educating just one side of the leftcoms and anarkids who are more naive than stupid.

Hate to disappoint ya buddy…

I would hope that's only the Holla Forums shitposters.

What are you?

A Left-Hegelian!

Inteligentsia.

probably because you're never a right Hegelian.

You could just say irrelevant.


top kek

I renounce my former ways as a Hegelian.

After being blown the fuck out by a Marx poster, I have decided that the only true philosophical science is that of the historical materialist project.

May Marx bless my fuckboyhole.

This too.

*ba-dum-tish*

I prefer irreverent.

Impostor! Be gone, congealed and conjured clone!

...

Yui, despite being well-read, is a tripfag and thus retarded.

Right up until he posts.

OP here.
Have any of you even read Stalin's works? Or read a source that wasn't from leftcoms?
All Holla Forums ever does is regurgitate cold war propaganda as it suits you, while denouncing the same bourgeois notions about your ideology. It is pretty ironic I think.

And Yui, your ideology is useless if it does not have a practical use. You admitted that it has no practical use yourself.

I still view it as utterly bizarre that there are people who call themselves communists while denouncing existing examples of communism. The concentration of total power over state organs into a party was never meant to be the political ideal, it was an extreme measure forced by extreme conditions in Russia and China. But the imperfections of the Soviet model did not make it incapable of breeding fanatically revolutionary populations. People were disenfranchised from the political system, but they showed no real signs of being bothered by it. If anything elections in the USSR were treated like national holidays. But all of their sacrifice and achievement today is simply branded "totalitarian" and ignored. Nobody today speaks of the fact that from 1950-65 (65 being the a year of more capitalist "reforms") the supposedly inefficient Soviet economy grew at an annual rate 50% higher than the USA, nobody speaks of their sacrifice and patriotism in winning the largest conflict in history, and nobody speaks of the fervor with which they tore down the old class society in the 30's during socialist construction.

Even among socialist circles this is all branded as another example of an oppressive total state, a horror that supposedly far surpassed the crimes of Western "democracies." Is it really so hard to just admit maybe, just maybe communist governments had some real achievements? In the PRC life expectancy was doubled, wages and rent replaced by radically egalitarian work-point distribution, petty rural industries were established that laid the groundwork for capitalist urbanization. For whatever the mistakes of the Mao era, of which there were many, can we at least make an effort to put forth a balanced assessment? All you see anywhere is rabid hatred past the point of good sense. The seething rage directed at 20th century communism you'll find from left-coms and anarchists here is completely indistinguishable from the most radically religious Cold War anti-communism.

If Marx was able to live a few decades longer he would recognize all the states practicing the Soviet model of communism as a legitimate extension of his legacy. A form of "barracks communism," but communism nonetheless. What other kind of society could cause the international bourgeoisie such distress?

I should be part of a movement. I acknowledge the fact that the proles (probably) need revolutionary leadership (I say probably because objective conditions could suddenly make people semi-conscious or fully conscious but right now they seem stupefied). I acknowledge that this leadership or vanguard must be on the watch for revisionism and such. I just don't think the leadership should constitute a separate body from the proletariat as a whole especially in this nebulous of a stage in the struggle, I think the stage of the struggle is such that any separately constituted party would be functionless, sort of free-floating (think of all the student activists and little ML or Maoist groups). I uphold Marx and Lenin (to a degree, really I just don't like that he outlawed Worker's Opp but you probably think that was dandy), but I don't uphold what you call Marxism-Leninism. I'm always game to bring ML's into the fold but the problem is ML's think they have a monopoly on the legacy of the worker's movement and want everyone to join THEIR group and obey THEIR discipline…nope, you only have the legacy of 20th century communism, ML isn't the alpha and the omega of communism.


I know this term but what does it /mean/ Yuiposter?

Do you even understand dialectical materialism? Go read Iоsif Stalin, you breeder.

nice flag, you got there.

And Stalin is only good for robbing banks.

When Holla Forums started out it was almost entirely anarchist/libertarian marxist dominated. It's become more red-fascist than ever.

like actually organizing protests, rallies, doing actions against the bourgeois and organizing strikes. Your understanding of marxism means nothing if you don't apply it.
What parties/movements are in your country?

Have you considered that the vanguard IS made out of workers, but workers with the understanding of marxism? I am part of a party, but I work in the factory as well. Most people in the vanguard used to be workers educated in marxism that no longer worked in industry since they were more needed as professional revolutionaries. You also have to consider this fact, you seem to make a mistake that most anarchists make, in conflating the party with a different ruling class. read my posts here to see what I mean. The state did not own the MOP, the workers did, and they organized it as well on the local level trough soviets. And what I wrote up there was under the revisionist USSR, all the information points to the fact that the USSR under Stalin was an even better place and workers had even more liberties. Basically the only thing the bureaucracy did under Stalin economy wise was calculate the amount of production needed and set up quotas, it was up to the soviets (workers councils, and the workers elected other workers to represent them) to produce this amount of goods and how. These calculations were necessary to meet the needs of the workers and industry better, and I don't see how they infringe on workers freedoms.

The party needs to be separate from the proletariat because you will get the common problem of Yugoslavia and the post-Stalin USSR: With opening up the party to workers many people with bourgeois consciousness get into the party, you simply cannot open the party until the old generation that was born during the revolution has completely died off, since you still have your loyalists to reactionary regimes, whether they are proletariat or not is irrelevant. If you let any worker into the party then you don't even need a party. A party needs to be formed from people well educated in marxism and which know how to use it in actual practice, not only in theory. In my party we have the motto of learning theory trough practice, and it works very well. Understand what I mean?

Also, have you read any actual marxist-leninist literature? If you are interested read my book recommendations >>3592 here.
Please consider checking out /marx/, and specifically the Stalin thread. At least hear our side of things.
If you ever want to discuss theory you can add me on skype, my name is Vlada Bosanac.

Hello! You must be the part of the crowd that calls any vanguardist a fascist.

messed up reading link:
here. these are my book recommendations

fuck it, just go here.

8ch.net/marx/res/3587.html#q3592

I'm going back to build up my philosophical foundations. That means reading Hume, Paine, Mill, Kant, Locke. That is to say, a bunch of liberal stuff. Then I'll read more Hegel and Marx later.


More like "Left-sorcerer" amirite?

No, I mean literally red fascist. Illiterate tankies and nazbols and ML's.

define fascism, this will be good.

I wasn't coming into this thread to debate this shit, just point out that leftypol almost two years ago was almost entirely anarchist dominated.

Currently reading Capital Vol 1 alongside David Harvey's lecture series.
Anyone else done it? Is his course on Vol 2 the same quality?

I can't say, I had a better understanding of capital after I read these books.
8ch.net/marx/res/3587.html#q3592

Link to David Harvey's lectures if you can, I am interested.


kek

davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

I feel like it's definitely helped with some of the more complicated chapters, but at the same time it's kind of hard to tell how much is orthodox marxism and how much is David Harvey's own spin on things.

...

you still haven't defined fascism. What's wrong? Don't know what it is?

Hello friend thank you for the response. I will respond in full later. For now I will tell you I am a burgerfat and was part of a university group of activists who were basically ML/MLM and did antipolice stuff but nothing substantial or of great value. The university group was an ML front group and they basically schemed to monopolize leadership and were lazy, poor organizers.

I am very interested to hear more about this ML front group, please talk in more detail about this later.

added ya friend

Marxist here.
Anarchist>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shit>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MLs

Daily reminder that if you are a "professional revolutionary" you are automatically a porkie

by all means, explain.

LOL

The Marxist-Leninist strategy of a political revolutionary vanguard party, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been just as effective as Post-war National-Socialist efforts to restore the Third Reich in the United States or Great Britain. These strategies simply do not work in the current socio-economic paradigm. People are happy, content and satisfied in contemporary Capitalist nations. They can afford 3 cheap televisions, endless junk food and a million distractions. It doesn't really matter if the system causes them to feel a sense of profound alienation, if it causes depression and anxiety, social atomisation and cultural anomie because their short term desires are easily satisfied. If you feel depressed just watch another episode of that Netflix series! If you feel despair and existential anxiety just buy some KFC!

The reason why the Marxist-Leninist strategy was effective in Tsarist Russia was due to the abysmal state of the economy, the chaos of the first World War and declining trust in leadership. The economic and social conditions of the workplace were intolerable, people were furious, they couldn't feed their children, their living conditions were disgusting and a climate of revolution was in the air.

No such environment exists in modern western societies. We are in a time of peace and prosperity. The economy is stable and living conditions are satisfying. If you want your Communist revolution you going to have to wait for an economic crisis, or accelerate capitalism to the point at which the revolutionary strategy becomes useful again.

With the current European migrant crisis and the waves of crime, rape and terrorism which it has brought to Europe, in addition to an impending crisis of the EU with several nations calling for their own referendums to leave the institution this state of emergency may well be looming on the horizon. As white fertility rates continue to fall, as the white population continues to age and decline and as non-white fertility rates increase, young demographics continue to immigrate to Germany, France and the UK we're going to see a major destabilisation of political, economic and social power structures. Power is going to be displaced in favour of the invading population, and the white natives are not going to respond to this situation peacefully when the time comes. If I were a Communist right now I would be encouraging mass immigration and refugee migration as much as possible to accelerate the collapse. But alas, I am but a humble Nazi.

While these thing do alienate workers further from their labor there are many places even in western society where the disparity is too overwhelming even for that to distract people. Take a look at France for example, those are class riots. And I don't even need to mention the rest of the world, the majority of the world is still discontent and fighting capitalism.

accelerationism has always lead to stricter laws enforced by the bourgeois, never to socialism. As for the immigrants, they benefit socialism in no way, in fact they just make us look even worse since the liberals accepting them present themselves as the left.

this crisis was fabricated for at least one of these reasons
1. To devalue the euro
2. To push workers to the right and to lower the value of labor so local wages drop and work hours are raised, this is done trough unemployment. I can explain this in more detail if you like
3.to cause a crisis in Europe that will cause greater government regulations akin to 9/11 in america, in the defense of capital.

This is quite a claim.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this just speculation on your part?

Do you have any sources for the Holla Forums shit you just spewed?

every time lol

The white European working class has no control over society at all and will continue to have no control, real power is in no danger of shifting hands.


Nationalist ideals still have an edge over labor ideals. Collapse won't benefit us yet.

how can anyone calling themselves a marxist cling so desperately to decades old ideas? marxism is a historical and dialectical theory, and so it demands that aspects of the theory are reevaluated and updated in response to changes in the conditions of society.

Three decent and generally true paragraphs followed by spurious muh Nazi masturbation fantasy shitn. Even in Europe the meme crisis of immigration isnt half as ebin violent as portrayed by internet armchair warriors. But it is true there will be no movement without crisis. However as Brexit shows us, capital has not made an everlasting classical liberal alliance as Fukuyama prayed for nor has it solved the fundamental trend for capital to cause its own crises. So with the EU on the verge of disintegration over the next few years one must be hopeful.

Understand though about "protecting whites" and making "national socialism": petit bourgeois supporters of the far right such as yourself always wind up pawns. The owners of fascism are as the Comintern and comrade Dimitrov note the most radical and threatened elements of finance capital who, like cornered dogs, lash out with ultra violence and nazi street gangs. But ay the end of the day they will always return to their masters in the forms of tje bankers, the capitalists, and the exploiters.

On the contrary Podemos and SYRIZA both have power. Now, both are Sellout shills of the ruling class. But with a push many of their members could discover true Marxism Leninism which prpovides real solutions in the form of thr abolition of capital and beginning of socialist construction

I have no problems being ridiculed, that is just banter. The problem is that there is literally no more political discussion left in this place, and /marx/ offers a legitimate political discussion about marxism. No funposting and ebin memes though, some posters here might not like that But I enjoy it


When was the last time you saw a political discussion here?

also, this is the exact same thing Holla Forums was saying when Holla Forums was created, when the fascists spammed our threads on Holla Forums so badly there was zero socialist discussion and we were shitposted into oblivion. The same happens today on Holla Forums not just with ML's but anyone who is not a liberal.

It's hardly a masturbatory fantasy. The fact is that in democracy demographics are destiny. The majority demographic holds political power democratically. If the majority demographic shifts from white to non-white or from European to Muslim we will begin to see more political parties and politicians directly representing their interests. If you think there won't be Muslims running for the Prime Minister or Chancellor of Germany or France if the population becomes more than 50% Muslim then you don't understand the basic logic of Democracy.


What about the Brussels and French terror attacks? What about the epidemic of rape and crime currently sweeping across Sweden and Germany? What about Rotherham and the countless other Muslim pedophile rape gangs found across the UK? What about the street riots which are becoming increasingly frequent in countries like France and Spain?

Your paragraph about right-wing pawns and puppets could just as easily be used to describe those on the Left. It is a fact that Leftists groups who promote open borders, mass immigration and multiracialism are directly serving the interests of the Neo-Liberal Bourgeois who want the free and open migration of human capital for the depression of national wages and the creation of cheap third-world labour. Many wealthy Capitalists, through foundations like Open Societies and the Rockefeller Foundation have funded these "grass roots" leftists movements. Kerry Bolton documents this process extensively in his book "Revolution from Above". The social/cultural Left is a pawn of the economic/financial Right. They falsely believe they are rebelling against the "evil capitalist white supremacist patriarchal" establishment, when in reality Antifa groups sporting "refugees welcome" posts are working in the interests of their perceived enemies. I am unaware of any Neo-Nazi or Neo-Fascist far-right nationalist movements who have received funding from wealthy cosmopolitans.

The fact is Fascists and Not Socialists are the enemies of the Bourgeois, not the allies. Globalist bankers and transnational corporations do not benefit from political and ideological movements which emphasise nationalism over internationalism, ethno-nationalism over multiracialism and a "third-positionist" economic policy which hinders the economic plans of the Capitalist class by placing the health and security of the folk and the state over and above liberal individualism. Can you imagine a corporation like MacDonalds or KFC making billions of dollars from obesity in the Third Reich, with its policies on national health and fitness? Can you imagine a corporation importing millions of illegal Mexican immigrants into a racially conscious United States, because I certainly can't.

Shit. I meant to quote

this is why you're being ridiculed

on all the polls Holla Forums is 90% libertarian. Usually 50% anarchist and the rest are libertarian marxists. Am I wrong? These are not my words, they are the general Holla Forums consensus.

fuck I'm dying

Fascists were never opposed to the bourgeois, quite the contrary you have historically been the leashed dog of the liberal capitalists. Whenever a socialist revolution failed or did not throw the country into a full revolt fascists were funded and armed by the liberals. How can you say Hitler was against the bourgeois, or even the jews, when the judeo-british Bush family funded Hitler from day one, and even Rotschild because it was in his interest? Not to mention the countless German, American, French and British capitalists that were afraid of the spectre of communism that was over europe. Mussolini is a prime example, where he co-opted the syndicalist revolts and was funded by the monarchy, and later most of the royal family remained in the family and kept ownership of factories, of the means of production. Nothing changed, the same people ruled from behind the veil. And once Mussolini's usefulness ran out the king collaborated with the americans to oust him.

And the current trend of liberal immigration was started by Hitlers blunder in europe when cheap labor had to be imported from africa, the middle east and asia to rebuild european cities due to the shortage of manpower in labor. Heil Hitler the great diversifier.


By the political definition there is little to no difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Economically libertarians are defined as left while liberals as right, but they hold the same moral principles, even though this contradicts with the principles of capitalism. I like calling you liberals however because it triggers you.

Balanced assessments of some of the most notorious regimes of the 20th century are naturally scarce, no matter your political affiliation. And for all the talk of the left being unafraid of ruins, the ruins of the 20th century seem to intimidate many – to the point of denouncing them entirely.


It means he's an anachronism: a modern Young Hegelian. Zizek, at least, has the good sense to incorporate some materialism via Lacan. No so for our resident fuccboi: pure, unadulterated Idealism. And unsurprisingly he despises "Marx the Applied Idealist"; what a bad philosopher he was, rejecting Idealism!

In that case, you have no complaints if we just call you guys fascists, right?

I mean, there's little to no difference. You hold the same moral principles, even though it contradicts the principles of communism.

How can you say that Stalin and the Soviets were against the Bourgeois when wealthy capitalists from the United States funded Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin from the beginning, as extensively documented in Antony C. Sutton's book 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' among other publications. If you had read his 'Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler' you would know the funding from those sources dried up pretty quickly once it became apparent what Not Socialism really was, that is Anti-Semitic, anti-globalist and anti-private central banking.

And yet not so afraid to finance its rise in Russia? Not so afraid to fund people like Marcuse, Reich and the Frankfurt School among other moments.

The Aristocracy is the bourgeois now?


This is like saying the current trend of liberal immigration into Russia was started by the Soviet's blunders in Europe after the collapse of Communism. What happened after the collapse of the Third Reich has nothing to do with the principles of Not Socialism, one of which would never have permitted the mass immigration of third world immigrants, that was my original point. Après nous le déluge.

top kek

Both of Sutton's books are extensively documented with exhaustive bibliographies. Other publications have also supported his findings. If you're aware of a debunking of his thesis feel free to link it here. Otherwise you can fuck off.

dropped.

The aristocracy became the bourgeois to preserve itself as a ruling class. You can see this troughout europe.

Yes, but Hitler was still responsible for the current trend of immigration, because his policies during his reign set the stage for mass immigration trough his european war and genocide of the inhabitants of europe (slavs, gypsies, jews, and other less historically relevant ethnicites)
These were his policies, nobody but him decided on these policies.


ahaha what? There was more immigration into the soviet union than there is to russia.

You're still going to get shit from my comrades. Sorry user.

liberals want greater economic freedom for the free market from the state, with greater autonomy of the individual.
libertarians want greater economic freedom for the proletariat from the state, with greater autonomy of the individual.

one of these is not like the other, since the free market cannot function without the state. However both liberals and libertarians value individualist freedom on an ethic or moral basis.

dropped.
See

Hitler and the German Not Socialists are responsible for the current trend of non-white immigration, despite the fact that they were explicitly ideologically opposed to non-white immigration? Right.


It's to be expected. I've been getting some good replies in this thread though, so it's not all bad.

Proofs? His entire book on Hitler was based on a ghostwritten Thyssen autobiography which historians have lambasted as laughably idiotic.

His Bolshevik Revolution one and "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy" were similarly hilarious conspiritard works loved only by fellow alt-rightists. Pleas tell me also about how I should read "Did Six Million Really Die?"

Funny thing is too if you like Sutton but are a Nazi then you're admitting Hitler was a pawn of a Judeo-Wall Street conspiracy lmao

The problem with ML'ism is that it was great for the countries it was applied to, but thoes types of countries - feudalistic countries - no longer exist, so ML'ism is irrelevant. A more libertarian take on marxism is much more desirable for the working class.

Again, please provide a link to a scholarly debunking or fuck off. I'm not on the Alt-Right and I didn't mention anything about the Holocaust.

[citation needed]

Hey man that quacking feathered thing over there ain't a duck, either, now is it?

Well you're going to get asspained at all these pieces debunking Sutton, but:
publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm

You do realise those views existed before Richard Spencer's sodomite cabal showed up on the scene, right?

I have to go to sleep now, but I'll read this tomorrow and respond if this thread is still up.

The fact that the only places that take his ideas seriously also happen to be the same places that believe Obama is a reptoid, that the moon is hollow, and that the Jews are really out to get them should be an indictment in and of itself.

...

was listening to something yesterday about this. I think it was "down the rabbit hole" radio program. Anyway, they were talking about how the Nazis were funded by the west specifically to do "black science" that was intolerable in western societies.

I dunno if it's exactly what you want but why would the US fund the provisional government if they were pro-Bolsh?

books.google.com/books?id=RUHn9nCC9EoC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=wilson administration money to russian provisional government&source=bl&ots=-wJD24gXha&sig=SSrdwTFXH53z2Zj-xhrqtsNbMP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXroKwucbNAhVL5oMKHS2gD9EQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=wilson administration money to russian provisional government&f=false

poor oppressed tankies I guess?