How do we end the split of the left? Holla Forums at least seems to be divided broadly into three categories...

Also stop calling anybody who isn't a hardline ML a revisionist. Also stop using that as an insult because Marx isn't fucking Jesus and you're allowed to criticize and modify his ideas.

Theory is good. The problem is people getting too stuck in their own shit instead of arguing with people who disagree. To be scientific about it we should of course experiment with these parties in a constitutional democracy.

One of the biggest problems is theory wank scaring away would-be leftists. To be a leftist you really just have to be class conscious and opposed to capitalism. For fuck's sake we need raw numbers for revolution, reform, WHATEVER movement to accomplish anything.

This. Marx lived in a very different time. It's the same shit where Murricans idolize the founders' vision even though so much has changed since then.

I agree. We do need many more people but we should all be literate and read. We just shouldn't act like pretentious elitist assholes to other people

I'm not ML. Most of us aren't ML.

The main divide is between state socialists and libertarian socialists or those who wish to use centralized power and those who wish to use decentralized power to attain their goals.

Ideally yes but most won't read and we won't be able to change that. We need to meet people where they are. Not everyone will read and that's fine. They can still work to help the cause of overthrowing capitalism; they just have to be on board with it. Tbh we need more people like Wolff and Xexizy trying to make leftism more accessible to Joe six pack.

That's oversimplifying it. All of us here are anti-idpol, but like I said here there are clearly three factions in the anti-idpol left. /r/socialism, for example, is a bizarre mix of ultras and idpols.

None of us are really opposed to idpol. We're just opposed to the emphasis on it.

What I meant was that the other two would quickly collapse.

This should be resolved by letting different countries run their shit how they please. If one place wants central power they can have it. If another wants decentralized power let them have it. Do it scientifically. Try everything and see what works.

We already know what works but ok

There needs to be a mechanism for allowing the two groups to co-operate and coexist in a single country though. Imo they should just allow every region to vote to become an autonomous territory whenever they want, and come back whenever they want too. That way you can have a socialist state dotted with pockets of Anarchism and they won't be killing each other.

I'd say do what Thomas Jefferson suggested and rewrite the Constitution periodically. Provisions like that would probably gain popularity and keep getting brought back and refined over time.

Do we really want to do this and have to share our spaces with the type of person who now inhabits Maoist, or Anarchist, or Stalinist spaces? Or just open the gates and allow TERF feminists to chime in?

The self-exile of these people is the best thing to have ever happened to the sane Left.

This is the same type of empty rhetoric that normies who go "stop with this Left and Right thing, let's just work together!" are guilty of, and you should feel nothing but shame rn

And this is how Obama thinks about his "progressive" policies while trundling along and doing the bidding of his corporate puppet masters.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Makes sense, to be honest

Divine violence shall liberate us all.

Or you could just have a constitutional convention every couple decades.

Fuck communism

cuck fommunism

Allowing the same people who turned the Left into a joke to continue to discredit for the sake of a small increase in numbers (how many Stalinists are there, really?) is not pragmatism, and what I'm talking about is not ideological purity. The tankies who sperg out about "reformism" whenever we talk about increasing the minimum wage or the anarcho-shitheads who think that having an official spokesperson is authoritarian is what ideological purity is, and is exactly what we need to keep out from growing left-wing circles.

Trust me, it's ok to be divided. People who think the Left being divided is a huge problem are typically newbies who haven't even read the Manifesto yet (as you didn't) but think they got all the solutions to our problems. Lurk more, visit other groups, see for yourself what a murderous row of imbeciles inhabit the Left and you'll think twice before wanting to unify us. There is absolutely no fucking point in coming together for the sake of coming together if the final sum of those parts will be an incoherent, self-contradictory and inefficient mess.

We should grow not by imploring the tranny Maoists to join us, we grow by allowing every tradition to independently breed its own groups and organizations, allowing every group and organization to freely preach to the audience on its own way and then by having successful groups with similar ideas merge into larger groups, then into parties, then into a new International. Don't waste your time trying to team up with everyone who learned to parrot "capitalism sucks" because there's nothing to be gained from it.

Well there was something Zizek said that I think can help. What we need to do is make finite, doable demands of the ruling class. Some aspects of market socialism fit that bill. If the changes happen, then great, things get better for the working class, if they don't, the anger builds more and more for revolution, at which point if revolution succeeds I think it's not a bad idea to split different areas up for different kinds of socialism depending on their levels of support and strengths, so to kinda figure out what works best.

That makes sense. Particularly if our demands are realistic, doable, and more "socialists" when considering the long-term implications than immediate benefits.

For example, a certain type of muh privileged education is essential for the "self-reproduction" of upper classes in class society, which in turn cement its class consciousness and cohesion to rule. If we can systematically remove it by preching a democratization of access to education, setting a limit to school prices, abolishing interviews, making tests the standard entry criterion for elite schools and universities, improving public education and so on we can gradually erase this muh privilege. But if they fight back against those, like you said, they look bad and it builds resentment.

I was talking about normalfags. My point was to stop driving people out with "you're not read enough to be my comrade" shit. There are a lot more normalfags than tankies and bringing those people into leftism would do a lot to dilute the influence of the insane people.

This is pretty much what Barney Flanders was doing.

For the love of God, what is wrong with that?

Because nobody wants to associate with smug condescending assholes?

Certainly free college level education is one of the goals we can add to this list. But I think we should even go beyond socdem demands. For example, asking for a sort of UBI provided through a sovereign wealth fund set up by local, state and fed governments. Present as a compromise option instead of a minimum wage hike, firms can instead decide to give employees a certain value of shares. Or perhaps saying that employees be given the right of first refusal on the sales of equipment/facilities, or municipalities for the same thing in regard to electrical/clean water production.

Nobody wants to associate with dumb people either m8

I agree with this. There also needs to be some coordination between them for security reasons. That is, to defend against the counter-revolutionaries and make sure capitalism doesn't return. We need to be able to get everybody together.

You're right on this.

Because leftism is supposed to be a movement for working people and nobody has time to read all that shit when they have to work for a living under late stage capitalism.

Most working people have time to read, they just choose not to. Most working people have the means of access to information, they just choose not to use it. Most working people could afford intellectual hobbies and interests, they just choose not to pick them up.

We're not going to progress as a society if we think that raising the cultural standards of the average person is some task that is impossible to achieve. Because if it is, then our philosophy is flawed.

Not the person, but I agree here. We shouldn't raise the standards too much of course, and we'll never be able to do anything without the help and support of our fellow proletarians.

Raising the standard is one thing. Expecting the average prole to start reading complicated philosophy and political theory is another thing altogether. Leftist literature is far from accessible, and looking down on people for not reading just makes it worse. We should meet them halfway and engage with normalfags on terms they understand.

then why the lenin hat?

Let's look at, say, George Jackson and James E. Carr, before they were sent to prison.

You have two black, young criminals, who certainly never bothered going to school, probably didn't even know how to read well, and were more accostumed to robbery and gang rape than to any type of intellectual activity. Would you think to yourself that these are two people who'd read Marx and Trotsky on their own time, who'd study subjects such as calculus and economics, and who would read every History and Philosophy book they could get their hands on?

You probably wouldn't, but in jail that's exactly what they did. And towards the late 60's these two were greatly admired by west coast college radicals, the type of person who is expected to read "complicated philosophy and political theory" and who, in theory, should be dumbing down all the complex, brainy stuff for the ghetto kids like them. But they werent, because despite the odds Carr and Jackson were more educated in much of that stuff than most of them.

This is because there's nothing inherent in people tying them to a particular type of intellectual activity. Cultural habits, social customs and professional demands may alienate them from the humanities and literary works, but these are not above them. It's not beyond their intellectual capacity. It's just outside the scope of their mundame, day-to-day concerns. Once we can explain to them that it's in their long-term self-interested to dedicate a few hours a week to the study of these works, and once we get our shit together and start being able to provide the proper guidance, I'm sure people you never expected to bother with this shit will give it a go.

And if you think this is unlikely, then I'm sorry to tell you, but this is an indispensable condition for our success. Again and again the Left has tried to "popularized" simplified versions of our ideas, to make them easy to digest, to spread it through pop music or whatever, and again and again this approach has failed. Our aim should not be to get as many people as possible to say capitalism is bad without even knowing exactly what capitalism is or what could replace it and how. Our aim should be to equip with the proper tools for criticism and analysis, with the proper historical frame of reference and the proper means to help transform society. We shouldn't lower the level of our message, we should raise the level of our listeners.

Those guys were exceptions. There are always exceptions. You can't make strategy for how to have a mass movement based on the exceptions. Furthermore, not everyone needs to understand all of the theory because that's extraordinarily inefficient given how much theory there is now. It's just like how not everybody can be an expert on every subject and know how to vote on every issue in a democracy.

Can you count suckers? I say the future, is ours! If you can count.

Now look what we have here before us. We’ve got the Black Flag posting next to the Bunkers. We’ve got Lenin Hat, right by The Mutualists. Nobody is wasting nobody. That … is a miracle … and miracles, is the way things ought to be.

Easy

Stage a successful Marxist-Leninist revolution, then put the other factions in reeducation camps. Kill the ones who continue to hold on to their stupidity.

People like you are why we can't have nice things.

Actually, it's Trots and other saboteurs like you that keep us from "having nice things". The Soviet Union started its decline when your kind took control.

Lel

this

Sometimes it seems that "revisionism" translates into "heresy".

Are you actually retarded
Do you have no idea who Khrushchev was?

...

You are a fucking fool friendo

This

So I always saw a tankie as a Marxist lenninist/stalinist that specifically supported kruschev, then posting here it seems tankie just means Stalinist in general, but now people are seperating them again. For all intents and purposes is there a real difference?

Tankies/ml/stalinists just means state capitalism with some vague promise of building socialism in one country, generally under a single party government with limits on private ownership, and since there are barely any left it seems the stalinists can always just reference how things would have gone right had revisionists and traitors had not corrupted things.

I don't think there are that many stalinists/tankies/mls in the first world left, and most people who talk of socialism also include democracy, and don't generally idolise dictators like Stalin, Hoxha or Mao.

AYY LMAO, every anti-revisionist ML(There's no such thing as Stalinism) like Stalin(peace be upon him), Hoxha and Mao, and tankie is a term that was used when Khruschev invaded Hungary and as he's a revisionist i don't think you can put tankies and ML in the same category.

This idea fascinates me. I think people who are new to leftism might find it helpful to be aware of some broad streams of thinking within leftism.
I want to know if this division into three broad categories catches something significant in your opinion:
poal.me/o6xf5s

Oh boy.

Market "socialists" and anarkiddies are never going to achieve anything so it doesn't matter anyways.

Funny I seem to recall one of the most developed countries in Europe being marksoc…

There is no such thing.

Khrushchev was rabidly anti-Stalin (literally Goebbels levels of hysteria), initiated anti-Stalinist purges, and made reforms that contradicted Stalinists views. He had a Stalinist coup against him in 1957. He is hated by each and every Stalinist alive for fucking things up with his inane ideas. Even self-appointed Stalinists (who didn't read anything, nor understood much - i.e. aren't actually Stalinist) don't like him.

That's like the litmus test for Soviet Communists. If you are pro-USSR, but hate Khrushchev with unrelenting hate - you are definitely Stalinist.

oh shit

kys eastasia and oceania cucks

it's simple, we kill the anfem

SocDem =/= MarcSoc

Yugoslavia was marksoc, and they're considered an "economic miracle" country alongside Japan and South Korea.

OP is loltrot trash. Like, good luck getting Islam under the red banner of Socialism, retard. Also, if your ideology can't stand against even the mildest opposition, even thought it's a "historical inevitability," your ideology is fucking stupid.