So all this infighting

Well since you are Leftcom, you don't have to align with anything, because your ideology is like Napoleon at Waterloo waiting for Ney, only to realize that the batallion behind the hill was the whole Prussian army all along.

Yes.
Social democrats aren't even socialists.

Marxists definitely are comrades.

I'd rather be stuck with them than in liberal bull shit.

le sick diss, dude lmao XD

What the fuck is that reference

...

Tankies are ML's which are Marxists.

...

I just come here for the memes my dude

I've notice every argument tanktards have against leftcoms is that its irrelevant

It's okay, summer is almost over, tankies will go back to high school soon.

Honestly, do non-stalinists even loathe anarchists, anyway? I certainly don't.

Anarchists and Marxists can, have, and will work together. Just not with people who refuse to see Stalinist bureaucracy as not only a mistake, but also a dead end for socialism and workers.

Anarchists want the same results I do; worker democracy and worker ownership of production. Stalinists want worker democracy and ownership through proxies.

I will always be on the same side as the anarchists right up until we decide whether to replace the bourgeois state with a proletarian democracy, with a gradual transformation of human society into communism, or whether we attempt to eliminate the state altogether. That decision doesn't require fighting or bloodshed, and any decision can be changed if the workers want to.

Again, I have no problem with anarchists and welcome them as comrades, so I hope they do the same to me.

The majority of Americans are jaded and don't participate in the political system, you bourg-cornholing thunderchode.

What does this even mean honestly? If you have worker democracy, how is a democratic state owning the MoP any different from state-not-a-state syndicate or whatever body the anarchists use? In the end the MoP are owned by the collective and not (sub)groups of workers.

Owning, and being in control of the means of production are different, and unfortunately that distinction has come about since we have had various state bureaucracies controlling the means and the fruits of workers' labour without their input. Democracy in name only, just like bourgeois democracy.

THE LEFT IS DEAD=

But then its not democratic.

I have no idea. I was always for direct democracy. Apparently, somebody knows better than me what Stalinists actually want.

So .. You can't appoint managers and every minuscule decision should be made by all the workers? And you say Catalonia operated like this? I'm not buying this.

I would really like someone provide comparison between this imaginary Soviet Union of yours and Most Holy Catalonia.

Hard facts, organizational practices, rather then "it feels more oppressive in USSR".

Stalinist bureaucracy in charge of production and distribution in the name of the proletariat isn't democracy?

Yeah, I know. The bureaucracy becomes a bloated parasite that works to defend it's own interests.

Stalinist, allow me to ask you something…

Would you work with anarchists?

Why not?

Is stating the obvious bougie now

But if its not democratic then it is by definition not what stalinists want, according to
So non-democratic "stalinism" would not be the goal.

Thank you

Uh, no. I didn't say that.

No, you misunderstand. The problem is the bureaucracy that has too much control uses that as a way to assert its dominance in the running of the means of production. People can move between bureaucracy and normal worker, but the divide is still real, especially as you get higher in terms of responsibility. The divide reinforces itself and ordinary workers lose any semblance of workplace control they may have had.

Is your only defense against criticism of state bureaucracy controlling the means of production rather than workers having direct control to spout off how much you hate anarchists?

OK, stalinists want a bureaucracy to control workers and production on workers' behalf. I change my original statement for sake of semantics or clarity.

tankies are glorified etatist sockdems, nothing more.

Please, explain what exactly you are suggesting. AFAIK all reasonable methods of keeping bureaucrats under control were used. Well, until destalinization reforms, of course.

Please, don't use "State Capitalism" without explaining what exactly you mean. I have no idea what sinful practices you are attributing to the Soviets.

Much more importantly, I have no "defence" because I have no idea what the accusation is.

Apparently, we are talking about putting an evil authoritarian label on factory "run by state bureaucracy" instead of putting truly democratic label that says "run by Anarcho-Syndicalist non-state worker councils".

But everything inside stays exactly the same.

I repeat: how does it actually look like? What did Soviets lack?

Strawmanning. I don't hate Anarchists. I find demands of certain people who vocally identify with Anarchism (or similar movements - LeftCom) to be utterly ridiculous and uninformed.

While some had backpedaled from "having any manager is not Socialism", there is no definite answer what kind of worker control we are talking exactly. Most people automatically assume that Soviet practice is simply about appointing manager by bureaucrats. Which is not true.

You accuse me of straw man tactics while you bring up anarchism out of nowhere for the sake of shooting it down. Again.

I've read other posts by you on this board and you seem content to assume what everyone else is thinking and then stick to that. Like everyone thinks Stalin killed 900 gorrillion and that's absurd so everyone is wrong, or the failure in Spain is the only alternative to Stalin so everyone is wrong because Spain failed.

The main reason I don't want to work with stalinists is because they are horrible people.

I wasn't suggesting anything other than a bureaucracy operating on behalf of the workers that gains too much control will use that control to reinforce it's position rather than wither away.

Membership from workers who felt they could control their workplaces, originally, without a bureaucracy stepping in. The soviets also lacked an atmosphere where alleged spies, traitors, wreckers, fascists were routinely purged from the party, or worse. The bureaucracy used it's control to maintain it's position despite the soviets, and I'm not accusing it of being because of them. These things became worse after Stalin, as worker participation apart from voting was not even something workers considered.

Sure! Am all for unifying the left!

But I cannot accept that Stalin did nothing wrong. And the anarkids want it their way or no way! And SocDem ain't my comrades! And third wave feminism is bourgie BS.

But, sure. Let's all unite.

Only if "the obvious" is bourgie propaganda.

Reminder that tripfaggots are cancer.

"le over 9000 austism", "Global warming is a myth" and many other great things

...

...

This is not a fucking vanguard party you shit waggon this is a online forum where people can learn, have their opinions challenged and shitpost.

Infighting is good here, it makes our minds sharp and strong and our talking points better than they were previously.

TL;DR Its Holla Forums grow up

Tripstalin is a fucking retard, all his trip does is signal a post I can skip.

They've already taken over, dingus. That includes liberals.

I'm sure the capitalists will allow us the freedom to choose without utilizing their full arsenal of espionage and military force.

Don't believe his lies.

Glorious materialist analysis, comrade.

Materialism is bunk, it's not scientific.

...

Nope. Most of it is shitposting.

"Anarchists" that have problems with USSR can't even pinpoint a difference between Soviet Union and Catalonia, but are absolutely certain that Soviets were bad and Catalonia was good.

Come back when Anarchists will be unified. They are even more sectarian than Trotskyists.

So polls are bougie propaganda.

Gotcha.

Let's take away your computer invented by science and then see how much of a smartass you can be, tankie.

If you were to construct a spectrum between Anarchist and Tankie I think I would lean more toward anarchist.

I think I would still trust the tankiest tankie over a socdem or other reformist/capitalist type. At least the tankie wants to abolish capitalism.

science didn't invent the computer. science is a spook.

charles babbage invented the computer

I was talking about bloodshed between Anarchists and Marxists. I thought that was obvious since this is a thread talking about the conflict between anarchists and Marxists.

Do you think its the other way around? Soviets were good and Catalonia was bad? Can you pinpoint a difference between the two?

I can agree with this if you replace Stalin with Krushchev.

Seeing how theorizing isn't an ends in itself but serves to bring about revolution that is a pretty sound argument desu.

Both revolutions were genuine attempts at socialism and they had their problems.

I will say this though, Marxists dismiss Revolutionary Catalonia so ridiculously. You are right in that it works the other way. Spain wasn't in the same conditions as Russia. There is no comparison. Whoever dismisses it is an illiterate idiot who doesn't understand the circumstances of Spain.

I am starting to cringe everytime I read this word. Materialism doesn't need to be scientifically verifiable because a philosophy applied to study historical developments can not be scientific you stupid retard.

I don't see MLs making threads about Catalonia not being real socialism. As far as criticism of Catalonia goes it's more like "it wasn't as anarchistic as people have you believe" and "its structure made it impossible to defend from the reaction". So Catalonia wasn't "bad" but unsustainable.

I seriously doubt that even if the Marxists had control of it, they wouldn't have been able to take down the trained rebel army. The anarchists were not the only ones fighting the fascists, it was also the Republicans and they lost too. Consider that.

Ignore the point at your peril.

I believe Soviets to be good, but I don't enough about Catalonia to make any judgements. Willing to give a benefit of the doubt. Cue: ("mostly sane", because they should've just called themselves Communists and didn't pretend that they can avoid state with industrial economy).

Hard to say. Most differences are due to different conditions. Soviets were doomed to semi-feudal way of doing things: the further you got from Moscow, the more independent you got (no way to keep you accountable - it's hard just to have any kind of contact), and then there was absolutely hideous illiteracy of population.

Imo, Soviets also were more supportive of grass-root democracy because of this, but I don't know enough about Catalonia, and it's primarily post-Revolution here.

I'm mostly annoyed when people use Catalonia as proof-of-concept that True Communism is easily achievable and Soviets didn't try hard enough. And even then it's Wolff's ideas that are much more annoying. Kolkhoz is a private capitalist now! What the fuck is he smoking?

I don't know enough about the Spanish Civil War to have a qualified opinion really. It's just that historically the Leninist party model has been more successful at bringing about revolution and defending it compared to the various so-called libertarian Marxist and anarchist attempts. The problem of vanguardism of course being the tendency to a lack of democracy and development of a reactionary bureaucracy.
I think there is something to be learned from both the USSR, PRC, Cuba etc and Catalonia.

and also, Russia was easier to take because of how broken it was after the WW. The situations aren't comparable at all. I could go on.

Well, I can certainly understand that sentiment.

Socdem here, can't agree with authoritarian ideals but agree further division is not going to help us. I saw /pol saying that they can use Craigslist rants and raves to red pill shills. We could always just work together to proactively bring leftist ideals to the average person.

Socdem, you aren't even a leftist.

To be fair, solidarity or not, it's not like we're going to be able to do anything.

Maybe if Holla Forums had any actual goals to achieve something, even if just on the internet, I might feel encouraged to stop shitposting about anarchkiddies.

Make up your mind. What are you even arguing about?

I can tell you that Russian Civil War was far from "easy". St.Petersburg went from 2.5 mil to 0.7 mil. Cities were literally starving for years. IIRC, the Kronstadt happened when there was something like 3 days worth of food left in warehouses, railroad was broken (no supplies from Siberia), and workers were demanding to increase rations (government had to use the last reserve with canned meat to keep situation from imploding - which is why they had nothing when Volga famine happened).

Sure, you could "take", but you were hardly the only one "taking". Chances were you'll get shot next day by the new King-for-a-day.

And - no, I'm not going to engage in discussion "who got it worse".

Bringing up Catalonia is that particular stalinist's favourite way of evading an issue. In fact stalinists always bring up Catalonia and pretend the anarchists defend it to the death as the true ideal way of socialist perfection. They attack that just like they attack "100 million deaths" (which only Holla Forums or liberals believe) because they have nothing else.

A decision made between anarchists and Marxists after a revolution, on how to organise society does not require bloodshed between the two groups. You implying that there will be bloodshed with capitalists to allow that decision to be made is nothing new, comrade.

Then perhaps you shouldn't make judgements on what others think in regards to the differences/similarities between Catalonia and soviets (not that I or anyone else did before you), if you aren't willing or able to point out any of your own.

Can you be less of cancer, user?

My Problem with AnComs mostly is that simply believing that you can reach such an utopian state as communism without a transitional phase, is simply retarded. You either are completely disconnected from realty or play a waiting game for the next 300 years in which case you can just politically bury yourself since it ain't gonna happen in your lifetime.

Libertarian Socialists on the other hand are a little bit more reasonable, since they accept transitional phases and just focus on a central government being obsolete which is realistic but simply ineffective I believe. It becomes kinda spooky when the statist/non-statist dichotomy is no longer a means to an end but the end itself. It becomes a cancerous ideology once the rejection of authority presides over class struggle.

Can you?

Mustache is waiting for a single argument but hasn't gotten one but stupid accusations because leftypol doesn't read.

anarchist communists are libertarian socialists.
I really don't think they think what you say. That sounds like something a real idiot would think.

Welcome to anarchism.

Wtf is wrong with you?

What?

Stop saying stupid shit and you won't get people hating on you, user.

We should all unite under the banner of socialism (my version offcourse) everyone that disagree's is counter revolutionary. (Thanks to the state i can do this without major consequences)

Libertarian Socialism is not Anarcho-Communism. While the differences when it comes to how they act politically might be non-existent, it is quite a huge difference if you are talking about actual communism or a conglomerate of worker cooperatives with money and allocation of commodities still intact.

Libertarian socialism encompasses anarchist communism. Anarchist communism goes under libertarian socialism.

I wrote that. The distinction is still important because both ideologies show distinctive attitudes, especially when it comes to the give-and-takes during an actual revolution.

Anarchism itself goes under libertarianism user. Most libertarians you see are anarchists and most anarchist are communists.

At this level of political activism, these are self-describing terms since people flesh out their ideology for themselves, and don't follow a scholastic categorization when it comes to political action.

Everybody who is a liberal might as well be an anti-monarchist, but a liberal would not describe himself as an anti-monarchist yet he might partake in anti-monarchist action.

The more the "Left" is united, the more this means the proletariat has been successfully convinced to completely abandon its program and own interests in order to attempt to compromise with porky on his own terrain.

Fascism only happens once the proletariat has been defeated by the left.
Think about it for a second, the petit-bourgeoisie can only assert their interests when the proletariat has given up fighting for their own.

What was the name of this artist? I can't remember his DA account.

rednblacksalamander.deviantart.com/gallery/

thx

Fucking leftcoms.

yep

You seem to be missing the point,
"Leftists" are anti-capitalist in name only.

That's socdems. I'm talking about the various factions here. Your anarchists, Marxists, tankies, leftcoms, whaterver.

Many Marxists and anarchists (most of these anarchists are ones take so much from Marx it is hard to draw the line) should get together and engage in collective discussion and try and co-ordinate together.

But this does not follow for anarchist "in general" or Marxists "in general" (meaning "anyone who personally identifies as one of those things"), most of whom are the left wing of capital, they are the descendants of Social Democracy and never broke from it, and have nothing positive to offer the proletariat but lessons of defeat.

To some extent no ideology can ever be totally reconciled with a religion because ideologies, since they concern themselves with the world, attempt to create some sort of "heaven on Earth," seeking a sort of worldly salvation that most major religions would deem heretical (for instance, communism is considered a religious error by the Catholics). Christianity is nonetheless very supportive of collectivism, charity, and opposition to greed. I don't think any communist part in the US will ever be able to appeal to Christians because of the legacy of the Soviet and Maoist anti-religion campaigns and Marx's denunciation of religion as a method of social control and the family as an economic instrument. The issue of coercing people into parting with their wealth is also a bit of a turn off from a religious perspective, since the Bible says not to make people give unwillingly. However, Christians are always to pay their taxes as required.

While Marxist-Leninism will always being fairly incompatible with Christianity, some sort of revisionism with an emphasis upon personal action has a great deal of potential. In the nearer term, the only reason Christians vote conservative is because they all think that lefty = liberal and because of a residual aversion to "atheistic communism." There is no reason for them not to vote for a Christian Democratic party, except that the USA doesn't have one. As it becomes more apparent that "Cultural Marxism" is actually being propagated by the Fortune 500, expect Christians to start giving up on the capitalist order.

fugg forgot flag

I fully understand why everybody else hates you guys so much now.

...

That pic is the most retarded bullshit i've seen in my life

the longer what goes on? Disagreing with each other on a Mongolian illuminated manuscript webring?
Taking over what? Murka? 8ch?
If you're talking about this board that makes no sense, at most the admins and mods can ban people who openly disagree. I'd hardly call that consensus. If you're talking about the election I'm already going to vote for Stein. If you're talking about violence fuck off, Officer.
I'd rather have disagreement than hotpocketry and torture chamberes.

pic is just for you.