Marxism-Leninism

There you have it. How are you going to make everyone agree on one constitution?

Also I specifically said after we fuck porky's shit up then we form a legislature. Basically don't let sectarian nonsense divide us because that is what always fucks us in the end. Once the left is in power then we can entrench our power constitutionally and work out our differences peacefully.

This seems reasonable to me.

You come to a consensus. It would take multiple drafts and hit debate.

We'd obviously have to find a way to work something out based on things we can all agree on. As far as I'm concerned as long as it makes it impossible to revert back to capitalism and prevents the government from becoming too authoritarian it would be acceptable.

So marksocs will be banned for being crypto-capitalists?

Worker reeducation would be in order.

Depends, will tankies be banned for being closet fascists? No, because disagreement isn't a good basis for repression.

so youre not denying being a crypto-cap?

I'm ignoring your accusation because it's untrue, and you just keep going on with your sectarian nonsense.

People like you are part of the reason Franco won.

Ri-ight. Because if you do enough drafts, everyone will agree on one thing.

Just so that we are clear: even in Bolshevik party (war comrades, one ideology, one agenda, structure specifically designed to support cooperative decision-making) every major figure had his own idea and situation got resolved only be kicking people out: first Trotsky, then Kamenev and Zinovyev; then Trotsky again, and, finally, Bukharin, - until only Stalin remained to implement his own vision of industrialization without people messing things up (like Trotsky refusing the idea of heavy industry, or Bukharin trying to stop collectivisation).

And - no. I don't think this was some grand malevolence of Stalin.

In your "parliament" you won't even have the Party structure and shared background Bolsheviks had. Which is why you need Vanguard formed before the actual Revolution - you will be out of time after Revolution happens.

Well, that's the problem. Your "too authoritarian state" is still insufficiently "protected against capitalism". At least, from the point of view of some ideologies.

...

all wealth not used in the expansion of the co-op is returned to the workers in market socialism afaik

Nice meme you got there kiddo ;)

Not to all workers. To the workers of that co-op.

Consequently, not only wealth inequality will grow, but so will income inequality as well. And then everything will drown in corruption a-la Venezuela (which has it much worse than the late USSR had).

I need to add, that I'm not refusing "marksoc" completely, but it needs to be heavily regulated and controlled. I.e. dominant role will be central authority, not faceless market.

You're a simpleton.

I'm not a market socialist, but they came before us and were openly anti-capitalist and part of the socialist cause.

What do you mean by heavy regulation? If it's heavy as central planning you might as well scrap the "market" tag

you fight it with a state.

only one solution comrade OP
we need to kill ourself
you go ahead i will follow just in a bit

give me a single benefit the market has over planning

the restauration of capitalism
duh

You dont need to plan

thats it really, saves a lot of paperwork and burocracy.

ideally, none tbh. it's just a viable option for a transition.

well thats worked out great so far, hasn't it

Yugoslavia was pretty ok.

Nigga what.

creative production

there

there would not be cellphones on a planned economy

all tech in phones, notably satellite reception and wifi, was made in public institutions with public funding…

It doesn't create a massive, inneficient, complacent, and potentially authoritarian bureaucracy. I mean, I'm not even anti-planning, but centrally planning on a national scale has been proven by history to lead to all kinds of issues. At least decentralize that shit to a more local level.

it really wasn't. marksoc would still cause competition and inequality

Youre still being subjected to market forces

It would be democratically planned, dipshit. Besides, under the planned economy of the USSR, the country went from a feudal agricultural society to sending a man to space

Centrally planned "socialism" also caused inequality and competition. The inequality was also in wages, and competition is not necessarily evil and bad so long as it is competition within the real of "extra", not within "i need this to live normally".

State capitalism. How would a democratically planned economy cause inequality
which would exist in marksoc
The whole "you need money as an incentive" meme strikes again. Competition hinders cooperation and the betterment of society. and what does "extra" even mean?

wages, unless you have a pipedream where we dont need money or think that "labour vouchers" are not money because you said so, even if they act the exact same, being distributed by the government, then spend on goods of the government.

Friendly competition can drive people to improve better and beyond. Cut-throat cutting edges for that little advantage, I agree, does not.

Democratic planning doesn't mean shit m8, because bureaucracies aren't democratically elected. They are appointed and typically senior bureaucrats sit and watch various governments and politicians come and go while they sit and consolidate power and influence. This happens even in many states, even free markets. The only solution is to have either a limited or decentralized bureaucracy.

we dont
they aren't
You know what does that better? cooperation and not having the pressure of losing your livelihood to the instability of the market. also, there is no such thing as friendly competition

Pulease.

Ever played sports?

then they would become democratically decided on consensus

They dont circulate, you cant trade them, and they're destroyed on use. that is not money

You're livelihood isnt on the line when you play sports

I could be on board with this actually. I've also considered a system of random selection from a pool containing every qualified person available. Basically anybody qualified for a bureaucratic position would be on file, and rotated at random to avoid what I mentioned in my last post.

But I'd still prefer to see local planning over central planning, and I would still argue that market socialism is the best first step from capitalism.

It also isnt in a properly market socialist system. You should have basic income.

Pure memery.

All bureaucracies are authoritarian. Any kind of human society is impossible without enforcing the status quo by violence.

Obviously a lie.

Yeah, like that time the USSR was growing faster than the US during the 50's I guess. You have yet to prove anything or even provide any form of argument at all. You just repeat the generic pro-Western Cold War narrative. Pretty typical for an anti-communist bootlicker.

Most of the liberal critique of planning is actually more harsh on decentralizing it. (and rightly so. how can New York understand the economic needs of Seattle, LA, Houston, and a few hundred other communes simultaneously?) Why not go read from the Austrian school? You seem to take all of the West's claims at face value.

We don't, obviously. Though we do need vouchers as a temporary measure.

The Dunning-Kruger effect being displayed here is astounding. No, numb nuts. Vouchers are not money because they don't imply any exchange of commodities. They're just a way to measure labor-time and be rewarded accordingly, that's it. It's not that thing that turns concrete labor into abstract labor.

I'm glad we've established ITT that those against Marxism-Leninism are also pro-market anti-communists. Now if only we could get these chumps to drop their socialist label and admit they're liberals it would be much easier to purge these insects from the board.

that sounds fucking stupid.
local planning is horribly inefficient at coordinating resources, especially if external trade is to be a thing

Why not just have a planned economy at that point

Because a planned economy requires you to somehow know exactly what the material wishes of society are, assumes everyone needs the same for time worked and isn't able to properly assess the value of an item in relation to items that could have been made with its resources and labour.

To have a planned economy one would need well developed software and massive infrastructure that we simply can't make immediately after the resolution, as such one needs to go with market socialism, keep everything on track, then work on proper planning.

distributed? yes

that the creators were public workers? no, most of them had capitalists goals

Society plans the economy, so they would accomdate those wishes

Dude have you even tried to do groceries? People always forget shit and you as a human can never know in advance what you are going to want. You should use purchasing data and predictions based on trends if you are going to plan, not fucking filling out forms on how many rolls of toilet paper people think they want to use this year.

why wouldnt we? Society would take its current and potential needs into account and make them part of the plan

Even in a best case scenario, economies are unpredictable. The plan calls for X amount of wheat? Uh oh, there was a drought, now what? The plan for wheat, and everything that relied on it is now endangered. Trying to import Y amount of minerals from Africa? Whoops, there was a civil war and now it isn't available.

Economies can be extremely unpredictable. They're subject to geoplolitics, market forces (since any socialist country would presumably be trading with other countries) and random events like climate. Planning for many of these things is next to impossible, and planning for all of them is impossible.

Plans arent static and things can be planned in advance. this is especially easy with our current tech
Only with other socialist countries. ideally, they'd be self-sufficient

Yeah, planned economies never come up with anything. Except for

colchestercollection.com/titles/G/guerrilla-warfare.htm

like that

>Market socialism is for private property!

You faggots have no idea what you're talking about. Read Kalecki. Read Vanek.

how do you justify their eventual murder in that case? I mean, I could take your argument seriously, but to assert that violence solves disputes among ideological comrades sounds ludicrous to me

is this a thing? does it have a name? i think it should if it doesn't already. platformism, is that it?

...

It's become irrelevant anyways. Instead of giving it any attention, promote libertarian socialism.

I suppose you could call it socialist democracy, revolutionary parliamentarianism, whatever you want to call it.

All I know is that we need to stop bitching at each other long enough to overthrow the capitalist system. Once it's gone we determine things democratically and not kill each other.

No. The immortal science of Marxism Leninism must reign supreme. All opposition will be purged.

...

Soviet-heavy (early half, obviously - Stalinist, not a tankie).

Industrial goods are handled via Central Planning. You can still produce industrial goods, but it will be state that will buy them from you (price is pre-established and there is quality-control), but profit could be increased only through actual work (innovations and so on), not manipulating market.

Consumer goods go into the free market, after state takes a bite out of "life necessities" (food, primarily; those goods are either produced by state enterprises, or each co-op has some amount it must sell to the state), to ensure stability in economy (putting some in storage and so on).

Luxury goods (toys, etc) are completely unregulated.

Yes, they are. I.e. they could be. Because they were. Maybe not regular paper-pushers, but electing bureaucrats (especially senior) - is totally a thing within direct democracy societies.

Especially in free markets.

That's not how it works. If your approach to bureaucracy is flawed, it will go corrupt and start growing regardless of circumstances.

Actually, no.

Provided persons are qualified and randomness is ensured, it's a viable option. There is no point in putting additional system of quality control if changes in effectiveness of candidates are minimal.

Moreover, any system that gauges something unrelated to actual activity is bound to go corrupt. Which is exactly what will happen, should all candidates by "sufficiently similar".

by adding on the third stage :^)

Most of your "free" economy is already planned. Only you don't have a say in how it gets planned, because it is planned privately and is somehow magically "free market".

Moreover, I don't understand how are you using this to argue pro-market.

This is beyond retarded. Educate yourself.

wew lad

U N D E R R A T E D C O M M E N T

this is why the left is dying

Are m-ls and tankies the same thing? Why do either even exist?

The best way to kill it is by the inside, we need more Gorbachev's.

It died in 1991 when you guys reformed to capitalism cause marxist leninism sees it as a betetr alternative than socialism. :^)

...

That's not how you spell Stalinism

Dude have you even tried to do groceries? People always forget shit and you as a human can never know in advance what you are going to want. You should use purchasing data and predictions based on trends if you are going to plan, not fucking filling out forms on how many rolls of toilet paper people think they want to use this year.>>841121
To be fait a market socialist system would be susceptible to the same thing, but the goods would just get more expensive. Even though I am somewhat of a market socialist, thats not an argument.

How accurate is this image? What are your fetishes? Let me now.

Top left, im into dominant women, bondage and im slightly masochistic.

I would say its pretty accurate.

For a moment I thought “masochism” was “Maoism” and I think it would’ve been better if I was right.

Hey Holla Forums, what are your kinks?

I mean yeah companies make plans and occasionally collaborate, but the thing is that if their plan screws up they fuck themselves and maybe a lot of their investors and employees, but it doesn't fuck everything.

I was just trying to make the point that central economic planning is always going to fall flat because of the way in which economies are constantly changing and highly complex. It seems to be logistically impossible to account for every little detail and as well as unforeseen circumstances such as climate, market forces outside the country, and geopolitics.

holodomor :)

Sent from my iPhone

It's the other way round. Bubbles and crises of the free market constantly happen and constantly "fuck everything".

On the other hand, central planning doesn't "fuck everything" if something "goes wrong". It's not one single plan.

At some point it will fail just as bad as market constantly does. That means, that the other time planning is more effective than the market.

Nobody ever does that, nor expects it to happen.

I think aspects of Leninism shouldn't be ignored, but to replicate it within the next century on a large scale is basically as likely as winning the lottery one hundred times. It's more likely less state-centric forms of collectivism will arise.

I just love it how discussions on threads here just stray away from the main topic just like that,

and some people deliberatley try to start another discussion entirely unrelated to the OP

Wat

(OP)
Marxism-Leninism is really what came after Lenin in the SU - put simple it is a term invented by Stalin to refer to the official ideology of the CPSU. Now, I must admit I do not know enough about the ideology as much as I do about the results of implementing it/achieved under it. Since you're concerned with the totalitarian aspects of the SU under Stalin/Marxism-Leninism, I believe your question was already answered
here:

and here:

In order for this comment to actually contribute to the discussion, I don't think Marxist-Leninists actually want to repeat Stalin's mistakes or any other mistakes that happened under ML elsewhere. At least, the one's who actually read about theory and practice of communism would't go and say purge the party, but edgy adolescents who think state violence is "cool".

(OP) (OP)
Marxism-Leninism is really what came after Lenin in the SU - put simple it is a term invented by Stalin to refer to the official ideology of the CPSU. Now, I must admit I do not know enough about the ideology as much as I do about the results of implementing it/achieved under it. Since you're concerned with the totalitarian aspects of the SU under Stalin/Marxism-Leninism, I believe your question was already answered
here:

and here:

In order for this comment to actually contribute to the discussion, I don't think Marxist-Leninists actually want to repeat Stalin's mistakes or any other mistakes that happened under ML elsewhere, at least the one's who actually read about theory and practice of communism, not edgy adolescents who think state violence is "cool".

those are all disgusting

i agree with lenins rejection of the free love movement btw

By lot is how juries are selected and how the ancient Athenians filled many positions

One might even consider instead of voting for representatives having a statistically representative body chosen through a random sample

who is the kiddie now?

fuck off moralfag retard

...

...

The modern left functions as a historical reenactment society. You have so many fucking cultish sects LARPING over who's right and how everyone else is a filthy liberal/revisionist. I swear the modern left just loves having it's civil wars, witch hunts and rambling on about identity politics.
Apparently whining about 'racism', 'cultural appropriation', 'white muh privilege' and 'poor trannies" is more important than overthrowing capitalism.

No group of planners, however skilled, can keep up with a modern economy. This is one of the main reasons the USSR collapsed. Planners couldn't keep up with the needs of the economy and officials started falsifying data to make it look like they were actually on top of things when they were anything but. This isn't just specific to their situation, it's an inherent flaw of a planned economy.

Educate yourself, please.

Soviets effectively stopped planning by the 60s. And Soviets did not collapse due to economic reasons (not in the way you think).

And there is no difference between "not keeping up with economy" and "having no planning in the first place". I.e. anyone who doesn't use central planning is automatically just as bad as someone who does, but fails utterly at it.

Remind them that a transition state makes no sense to lead to anarchy and has always led to more authoritarianism.

Soviets failed due to authoritarianism. The more you try to force top down control of a society the more corruption increases to relieve that pressure. The more corruption increases the less likely there will be equal application of the law. This in turn removes all avenues for reducing authoritarian mechanisms except a new complete revolution and tearing down the entire system. Thus so far all history shows.

That's one part of it.

Autonomy is a lack of sovereignty. It is in essence being allowed to do "whatever you want" but you must ask permission first. A slave thinks themselves autonomous when they can "secretly" do whatever they want. A free man is sovereign when they do not pay mind to the orders of others.

this happened mainly due to external conditions.
Having anarchy or any other decentralized systems of governance means vulnerability to counter-revolution.
How would you deal with external threat and internal progress towards worker's emancipation?

That's like a big fuck you to marxism and to leninism.

like the sailors of krondstad who stormed the winter palace?
And you mean the same sailors who also defended Moscow with few supplies and men from the white army until the reinforcements could arrive which was the decisive moment in the civil war?

get rekt