ANARCHO-LENINISM WHEN

...

We need to develop the nihilist connection first. It's pretty clear that nihilism was a huge influence on Lenin but nobody seems to be talking about it.

And he was influenced by the narodniks aswell, why don't you talk about that?

Because we want anarcho-Leninism.

he sure had a lot of trouble getting there

I want you

...

nobody is 100% tankie or 100% anarchist tbh.

Eh

Tfw no flag to accommodate your special snowflake views

...

So platformism then

FFFF I see what you did there

Hey! Platformism is actually pretty 'aight.

This tbh. You can more easily destroy the peasantry by "collectivizing agriculture" and taking all their grain at gunpoint.

every time.

CHOOSE ONE

...

"Why can't we be friends…"

Because we're leftists. The first International sealed our fate as sectarian bastards who can't cooperate with one another for a moment without bringing up some historical betrayal.

this is why capitalism is winning

its almost heartwarming

What a strawman. The only anarchists that argue against rojava are post-left "anarchists". It's hilarious how state socialists went from calling rojava a "petty bourgeois revolution" to trying to take credit for it.

Ya know this can all be solved by a direct democracy voting after the upcoming, hopefully, maybe, probably not even in this generation revolution. But we're all flinging poo at each other to do anything.

/thread

Marxists are free to assist libsoc revolutions like rojava. Nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Someone is taking credit here.

...

libsoc doesn't even exist.

Nigga da fuck you talking about?

liberalism and socialism don't work together
granting any liberty to the capitalists is a guarantee for counter revolution

Libsoc= libertarian socialism

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

thats what i said

It's just a fancier way of saying social-anarchism without looking like an atomize teenager to baby boomers (can't they die already though. I fucking hate old people)

Liberalism =/= libertarianism

you're wrong

Marxism-Leninism belongs in the dustbin of history. The closest thing to a M-L revolution going on right now is via the naxalites, and you most likely consider them to be "revisionists".

No u

the clostest things to marxism leninism are the only things that were and still are relevant

no other fringe ideology of leftism actually got anything done

grow up fgt :-)

In what way is M-L still relevant?

see any socialism nowadays? no?
that's because ML was taken out of control
this is its relevance

of course you can be proud of anarchists and other faggots supporting socdems over and over again and having taken government, executing bourgeoise demands in greece
good job on that
at least they are "relevant", unlike the KKE amirite? :^)

Marxism ain't free. The tree of Communism needs to be littrd with the blood of First and Second International.

The problem is the approach.

1) Some people want to sit and wait for a miracle to happen. SocDem
It is useful for making people class-conscious. But it is also counter-revolutionary: sitting on the ass doesn't change anything.

There is no magical Revolutionary Situation that happens when you sit on your ass. Revolutionary situation is when people get off their asses and make things happen. You can claim that not enough people are making things happen right now, but it is self-defeating approach. It implies that Revolution can happen only when most people don't listen to SocDem.

Hence, once you decide to do Revolution, shutting up SocDem is the first thing you have to do.

2) Some people simply want to destroy the Capitalism. Anarchists
It is useful as a protection against Capitalists, but it is also counter-revolutionary: once you destroy Capitalism you do not magically go to Socialism. You go to Feudalism.

Just like Capitalism did not magically appear out of dead feudal lords, but was built on top of Feudalism and replaced it, so Socialism has to be built on top of Capitalism and replace it. It will not magically appear if you start sacrificing porkies to the idols of Kropotkin or Bookchin or whoever (I'm not against such hobbies; just keep things reasonable and do it in your free time). Anyone who simply runs around, randomly setting thing on fire, hinders creation of Socialism.

Hence, once you start building Socialism (and unavoidably, have to make some concessions to the reality), Anarchists should be put on a leash.

How do I stop myself from becoming a tankie?

I didn't see any socialism when M-L was around either. The only groups that successfully established socialism for any amount of time were libertarian socialist groups. Even M-Ls in Europe are flocking to support rojava.

Read animal farm

Anarchism in no way just wants to destroy capitalism. The fact that you think that just shows how little you understand about anarchism.

Turanic communism when?

I'm fully aware that Anarchists have a good explanation for everything (just like everyone does).

Just like SocDem don't actually want to sit on their ass. They've got "Evolution, not Revolution" and other fancy explanation for their Grand Master Plan. Just like any ideology.

But I was talking why I (from the ML position) do not accept Anarchism as an option.

You don't - you recognise that your stigmatisation of people considered "tankies" comes from extreme, enforced anticommunism that is prevalent in the west.

You also recognise that anyone with a sincere interest in the uplifting of the proletariat would recognise the huge strides that marxist-leninist countries made - rather than denouncing them to make their views more palatable to European and American liberals.

And your reasons are based on a false narrative. Actually critique the federal structure of an anarchist society instead of just reducing it to falsehoods like "anarchism just wants to destroy capitalism"

Great strides like what exactly? The ussr was nothing but an authoritarian welfare state at best.

Why should I do that?

Because otherwise you have no argument and are just constructing strawman.

The elimination of unemployment
Massive increase in living standards and quality of consumer goods
Massive increase in welfare programs - childcare, holidays
Social justice

i.e the things that actually matter to working people

I find that most people using the "tankie" insult do so because they don't really care about advances such as this - so much as they value their image and don't want to associate with what the west thinks were "brutal genocidal dictatorships"

I don't subscribe to Leninism or M-L is because a one party state that basically does everything for everyone is whoa hey a very easy way to start a oppressive regime

The working class don't like to feel like a disposable cog at the mercy of the nomenclature either. The living standards in socdem countries where in fact better then that of the ussr, and without having to worry about being put in prison because they listened to "bourgeois music", or irradiated from nuclear bomb tests because the nomenclature couldn't be arsed to relocate them.

That's true - however as the only alternative to capitalism - it must be embraced wholeheartedly.

Nice false dichotomy.

Please explain how it is false? What evidence of any other route is there? How would a fledgling anarchist society fight imperialism - american or otherwise?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat ain't free …

It is oppressive regime. How exactly are you going to wage a war (and make no mistake - this is exactly what we are talking about) if you do not have an army?

The only way to do it, is to do it Anabasis-style: elect leaders, but strictly oversee their activity. Democratic centralism and all that.

If you're making the claim that centralized bureaucracy run militaries are more efficient, then I have to point out that every modern military uses the decentralized Prussian model for a very good reason. If you're saying that anarchist societies lack the production capacity, then I have to point to the fact that production efficiency increased 50% under the CNT. In fact, even bourgeois are starting to realize that selfmangment in the workplace is by far more efficient then top down bureaucracies

...

ideologies arent youtube channels, user. you can agree with some aspect of one and disagree on others.

Oppressive regime against all who oppose the nomenclature, bourgeois or otherwise. In practice, there is absolutely nothing democratic about democratic centralism. Only members of the party could be eligible for election, and whoever ran the party was defacto dictator of the country.

...

Of course you can.

But don't come crying when you suddenly find yourself supporting fascist coup or dying for porky.

And whoever runs the country, is also de facto dictator of the country.

You logic is flawed.

Yes, it is.

I don't think that's entirely true, we can look at the Spanish civil war as an example. While it did have a rocky start and… Well… Hitler funding some fascist bastard; crushing the CNT.It did well for itself production improved and alcoholism went down. One of my major concerns is how we take back some land and stave off Porky and his nukes with very low equipment.

its not that much different from bourgeois democracy, is it? instead of having an illusion of choice with colorful party logos and fancy abbreviations you just have some candidates and some ideas and the people within the party discusses and whoever gets the most support gets the idea carried out. its way more effective and despite having risks of corruption and revisionism, is still far more favorable than this shitty "democracy" we live in

dogmatism also doesnt help either. if any movement helps further the cause of the revolution, even figuratively, it should be supported unconditionally.

My point was that I would sooner have 3 years of communism then 80 years of state capitalism.

I agree - except I don't think the last point is a "major concern" - I think it is the crucial fact that makes anarcho-communism an impossible dream.

I simply can't envision an anarchic society emerging within a capitalist globe and somehow withstanding every effort to destroy it.

That's no dogmatism. That's pragmatism. You can't put sticker "It's a tank" on bicycle and expect it to function like a tank, but consume less fuel.

Even if there is better movement? The one that actually supports revolution?

Now that's what I call dogmatism. Also schizophrenia.

Reality check: you are not getting a single second of Communism.

Sounds like your dogmatic allegiance to a particular ideology trumps your interest in the wellbeing of the working class.

State-Capitalism is not in the interest of the working class anymore then socdem is. You might as well just become a socdem.

Reality check: Marxism-Leninism is incapable of achieving socialism.

Leaders =/= oppressive dictatorship
We can look at Free Ukrain for example while NM was the leader of the black army by no means he, himself, owned means of production. So what if he stole from the Reds.

My hope is that if it does come down to Leninism being the post revolution state; that whoever is elected the leader doesn't go power mad and starts killing random people left & right like Stalin.

the workers controlled the means of production through the state, and despite there still being some private ownership in past socialist countries, they were very close to socialism at some point. but its just plain stupid to think absolutely no private ownership is possible in the current time, even rojava has private ownership. the socialist countries had to compete with others and resist imperialism, stop being dogmatic.

of course if theres a better one, we should support it, but we should not neglect any current self-proclaimed socialist countries just because they fell for revisionism, they're doing what they have to do to develop and fight imperialism

reality check: anarchism is incapable of achieving anything

You probably think China is a socialist country, am I right?

you probably think america has a democracy, am i right?

Except it demonstrably is - as proved by the socialist nations of the 20th century (which you would call "state-capitalist" in an attempt to denounce them)

I understand. Maybe take porky by surprise and take it back before he has the time to react (pipe dream). Perhaps because the nuclear silos that house such monstrosities use dated tech it would be unwise to use them anyways because they might not work as it would have 40 years ago and would have a world wide Chernobyl. (Again another pipe dream)

this is your brain on anarchism.
even with your own logic, both of them are equally shit, but youd rather support one whos obviously pro-status quo than a revolutionary one.

Even post-leftists don't do that since one of them visited Rojava and jizzed his pants

See

...

Oxymoron. Also tankies are right wing of the left.

America isn't a democracy. Neither was the USSR.

...

Nice strawman. Bourgeois capitalist socdem countries were able to do much of the same for the working class as the USSR. Marxism-Leninism has as much potential to help the working class as social democracy, and no, I'm not saying I support socdem. Both are utter shit.

Ah yes just look at all the good industrialized places in africa where capitalism worked so well.

What African countries are social democracies?

Lots of them claim to be.

Sort of how Marxist-Leninist countries claim to be socialist?

The PYD sprung from the PKK, who are reformed MLs. Most of the reason Rojava is working is because the Kurdish vanguard, TEV-DEM, is enforcing feminism, collectivization, the establishment of communes, etc. It's a pretty exciting thing to watch.

DELETE THIS

Now that is just blatant propaganda. Or pure ideology?

Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. And you can't spin it as TANKIE because it is objective reality. The only time Soviet Union had something akin to one leader, was Gorbachev's coup in 1989.

Call it oligarchy, call it kleptocracy, call it police state. But don't go full retard and call it dictatorship. It's incredibly dumb.

And - no. I'm not agreeing even if you call it "oppressive oligarchy".

What.

Anyway, I'm not impressed by Wild Fields. It's basically Somalia plus khmer rouge.

He was a gangster who protected kulaks. Warlord for hire. That's literally all there is to his "freedom".

Also, there were no means of production. Khmer rouge, remember? Makhno was pro-peasant. He didn't like intelligentsia nor industrial workers, nor had any intention to manage cities.

The TEV-DEM doesn't enforce these things. People aren't forced to participate in communes, and the PKK has left their M-L past behind in favor of bookchin style anarchism.
kurdishquestion.com/oldsite/index.php/insight-research/introduction-to-the-political-and-social-structures-of-democratic-autonomy-in-rojava/1153-introduction-to-the-political-and-social-structures-of-democratic-autonomy-in-rojava.html

Lenin literally ruled by decree.

Rojava has no "police" as such but it has enforcers; it has the YPG and YPJ; it has the courts; and the parliamentary system where the PYD is dominant.

The communes did not spring from nothing. It started with the vanguard taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the flight of Assad and the regional bourgeoisie. The fact the vanguard is open to anyone does not belie its Kurdish origins or the prominence of its Kurdish members.

But that's not the same thing as cherry-picking bits of ideologies.

Allying with revisionists is one thing, becoming one is another.

Except they didn't do a thing until USSR was there. Now, consider what a coincidence that was: we got actual threat of violent revolution AND a radical socialist foreign power. But we will start making reforms out of our own free will, yes. Trust us on this.

Oh, wait. Soviet Union is gone now? Let's ROLL IT ALL BACK. Complete coincidence again, amirite?

Really? Pray tell me how exactly that worked.

The YPG and YPJ don't force people to participate in the revolution. To call it a vanguard is to ignore the kind of coercion, and exclusivity, that vanguards historically employed.

Who the hell was coerced by Vanguard? Anarchist sailors and soldiers? I don't think so.

If you are talking about Civil War - that was government. I.e. state. Soviets (not Bolsheviks) were in charge already.

Oh, yes, the expansion of the Cantons was done by pleasant negotiation and mutual agreement. The tribesmen they co-opted weren't forced to accept co-leadership with a woman. The property they seized wasn't taken but handed over willingly. Give me a break.

How new are you?

What do you read?

Thats Platformism fam, they were voluntary bandits while the Leninists legitimized with the state. :^)

*Leninists legitimized their banditry with the state

Isn't that just business as usual?

I'm rereading some stuff actually, because I've found note taking really helps me grasp concepts.

Today I've read Trotsky's lessons of the Paris commune and Lenins state and revolution. Basic stuff, but it's compelling.

Notes make me feel involved.

Social Democratic reform began before the Soviet Union, not because of it.

The expansion of the canton was done with the consent of the people within the cantons. It being a majority kurdish population made it easy, and creating assurances that every ethnicity would be represented helped to solidify it.What property did they seize, besides property left from the retreating syrian government/army?

In the middle of the state and revolution that is

etc etc. You can say that "well the congress of soviets had to approve it", but in reality it was nothing more then a rubber stamping body. If you want to prove that it wasn't I would love to see some noticeable examples were they didn't agree to Lenin's wishes.

meant to link to

Once the Vanguard took power of the state, they implemented a program of repression against those that would oppose them. I'll reiterate: soviets were nothing but rubber stamping bodies for the bolsheviks, and by extension, Lenin's will.

If you base leninism on just that book instead of what Lenin did then I can see why you might find it appealing.

Conveniently ignoring those on the outside and glossing over any internal struggles.
The Assad government still has enclaves nestled within the bosom of Rojava, and IIRC they've left the airport within their territory in its control too. Also, the fact that most of the bourgeoisie fled doesn't mean that property wasn't seized. They turned most of it over to collective ownership once they'd done that though. But people did not spontaneously rise up and institute these things absent political leadership. TEV-DEM was there from the start.

Lenin was not a dictator; no more than Ocalan. Trotsky with the Red Army, however, had his moments.

You can have political leadership without having a Vanguard. Squatters seizing unused buildings aren't a vanguard. A vanguard is something with historical context attached to it, not just anything you want it to be.

How is he not a dictator exactly? To compare him to Ocalan is completely laughable. Do you even realize that Ocalan called marxism economic reductionism?

Squatters aren't engaging in politics but resistance through the occupation of property. A vanguard is political.

Ocalan was a hardcore ML for many years before he made that turn; you can cast the ideology aside but the organizational aspect clearly stuck around to an extent.

Ocalan is also not in the kind of direct in-country leadership that Lenin was, but all the same people look up to him with the same kind of reverence. You can't enforce that in a society like Rojava; it's genuine, as genuine as it was for a time during the Russian civil war.

Makhno also had a secret police force and showed "leadership" with an army at his back, but anarchists have always seemed to look past that in his case, due to his noble service of opposing or cooperating with the Bolsheviks when it suited him.

Specifics, please.

Because I already see some minor details that got forced through by pre-existing threat of violence.

Is this a joke?

Yes, I will.

Oh, but in reality we have mind-controlling devices and secret police secretly forcing everyone to vote? Get out of here.

I want you to prove that it was. You are the one with tinfoil conspiracies.

Out.

Full stop. It is no longer Vanguard, but a state.

And this is called Civil War. You know, the thing that happens when people are trying to kill you.

[citation desperately needed]

And don't quote butthurt unbiased Anarchists on me.

It looks like we're flinging poo at each other again sooooo I'm just gonna get drunk and go to work

Take the booze to work and try to organize a union there.

reminder that the Anarchists in Spain literally ran concentration camps and collaborated with the Nationalists

The goal of squatters is a political goal. You can't just say that they're not engaging in politics because it doesn't suit your argument.

Bookchin was a hardcore M-L as well, but both abandoned Marxism in favor of Anarchism. What organizational aspect? Rojava is bottom up and the communes have the last say. Indeed, I do believe it to be genuine, unlike the Russian Revolution where it was forced using terror. I'm not going to take a side on Makhno. It's difficult to discern the truth of him.

hahahaha

hahahahahahahaha

Name it. Go on. "Fuck your property" isn't politics btw.

And who organized it to be this way? You can duck the issue all you like but this complex political arrangement of communes, municipal councils, and a parliamentary system did not spring from the people fully formed like some kind of Greek god.

Czarism was terror.

The Gotha Program should be an obvious example. No joke. Even good decrees are still decrees. You don't need mind control, or whatever other strawman you want to construct, to coerce people into submission. This isn't tinfoil conspiracies, so much as agreed upon historical fact.And I asked for examples where the congress didn't agree to Lenin's wishes, not other high ranking members of the nomenclature like Trotsky.

The vanguard takes over the state. Does it matter? The two become one and the same at this point, in the sense that the vanguard ultimately controls the state, or rather whoever controls the vanguard controls the state.

Civil War does not justify executing anyone with a dissenting opinion.

amazon.com/Origin-Communist-Autocracy-Political-Opposition/dp/0674644514

I don't even know the reason of your amusement. Nor do I care to learn it. Apparently some myth along the lines of "Stalin was anti-semite" or "Stalin was religious".

What I really want to do is to congratulate you on becoming a meme machine. AI bot could easily replace you.

The goal is the abolishing of private property.

I'll reiterate: Political organization does not automatically make a vanguard. A vanguard is a term with historical context, not something that you can define to suit your purposes.

Stating that czarism was terror does not mean that Bolshevism was not terror as well. I can dislike both and support neither.

Different person from

Of what?

This changes everything. You don't need to prove Secret Bolshevik Conspiracy.

Oh, wait. You still do.

Cold War propaganda is not a history.

And I told you that it is you who has to prove things.

Let's get back to reality.

Once Vanguard takes over, it is no longer Vanguard, but a government (or part of government - as was the case for Soviets) of a state. It has different responsibilities and powers. Yes - it will oppress people. But not because it was Vanguard at some point, but because that's what a state does.

Causality is important.

Before or after they kill you?

This is important. I want to be able to kill the other fucker first.

...

The praxis doesn't fit the goal. How will squatting lead to this development? Are we all to squat our way to communism? Don't be ridiculous. Squatting has and always will be resistance to private property; it will not lead to its negation.

I never equated all political organization to a vanguard, only that Rojava had been set up and is still being coordinated by a Kurdish vanguard.

A vanguard is a mode of organization as theorized by Lenin. Ocalan is a former ML. There's your historical context.

By all means, deny what's happening right in front of you. You're already doing that by claiming that Rojava is a bed of roses without coercion.

Forgot my reaction image :^)))))

I'm having a deja vu here.

I could make the argument that M-L praxis doesn't fit the goal of communism, but that doesn't mean it's not politcal.

TEV-DEM is a political coalition that anyone can join, not an exclusive political vanguard where only the ideologically pure are allowed.

The key word here is FORMER M-L, and no I don't think Rojava is by any means perfect, but it is most certainly a libertarian project divorced from Marxism-Leninsm.

I've given you the hard facts but you refuse to see them. Instead, you would rather believe the unlikely. You would rather believe that the congress of soviets always agreed with Lenin not because there was corruption or coercion in the system but because they just thought he was infallible and could never be wrong. So then what was the need of the Cheka then, if all of russia truly though him so infallible? Why would peasents and proles need to be violently suppressed if Lenin was a god among men and all russians adored him and followed his every whim?

By your definition the homeless are engaging in the overthrow of capitalism if they trespass to keep the weather off them.

It's almost like you have no idea what lead to the split between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.

Ideologically divorced, not organizationally. TEV-DEM and the PYD have been compared to the Bolsheviks by the Anarchist Federation, so clearly it's not some exclusive Marxist delusion. But I've had enough of this, it's going nowhere.

Anarchists squatting do so for political reasons. I don't think that it will succeed in doing much, but that doesn't make the action not political.

Do you?

In no way does the organization of Rojava fall in line with the organization of the Bolshevik controlled Russia, nor does TEV-DEM have anything in common the the bolsheviks besides being a socialist party (or in this case coalition of parties). Anarchists don't always have to agree with one another.

This is the secret of the radical left weakness
We are united by the goal divided by the method ;_;

this is why i have no hope for revolution.
either one day everyone get's so fed up and educated that they actually just vote for a rad left party(hur durr not enough people agree with us now, so bourg democracy will therefore never work even if most people one day do agree with us) or we're all fucked

Yep. Can't see a single hard fact among the claims that USSR was a dictatorship or that Lenin was a dictator.

Stop lying. I explicitly pointed out that even Party didn't always agree with Lenin.

You, on the other hand, never produced anything to support your incessant prattling about Muh Dictatorship.

> OTHERWISE ITS DICTATORSHIP
Whatever. I got bored of your shitflinging antics.

What is Leftcom?

it's a meme you dip

oops forgot to take off my shitposting flag