Let's see what people have to say

Let's see what people have to say

strawpoll.me/11262182

Also:


I'm not talking about co-opted, liberal social democracy. I'm talking about the real social democracy and its evolutionary approach.


I'm using libertarian Marxism as the label for the collection of tendencies arising from the interaction between libertarian socialists from anarchism and Marxism. This includes left-communists, autonomists, council communists, etc.


This is a historically ignorant view. Marx did an incredible critique on liberal markets, but he didn't conceive of socialism or communism. There was already a generation of market socialists predating Marx but they just weren't called by that name. Proudhon, for example, called himself a socialist, was known to be part of the socialist movement and followers of mutualism (the libertarian tendency of market socialism) called themselves libertarian socialists in their day. Mutualism even used the labor theory of value.

Market socialism as term however arose much later from socialists during their discussion about the economic calculation problem.

No matter whether you think markets possess irredeemable negative intrinsic elements, you'd be ignoring history to denounce it as non-socialism.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg
poal.me/krqpa3
marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/orientation.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

nice try fbi

If you didn't notice,we're already fucked and dead.

True, but besides the point

damn, that's hard

There are not four leninisms to choose from/ You're paying too much attention to the names.

Ha, why are people hating on MLM?
It doesn't mean whatever the fuck Jason's stupid ass says.

It's really hard to choose between the fans of angry Georgian manlet and comrade Jason

...

It's a sum of small things like pic related

There are no 3 Leninisms. They're different.
There are however, multiple Marxisms

no, that doesn't count. Shit like that has infected every tendency and not just mlm

You can't deny that ml and mlm seem to have most of such people

Inherently statist and authoritarian.

but Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is different from Maoism Thirld worldism aka unhrue

It's very misunderstood

Isn't it sad that the left still clings on to the kitschy Socialist Realism of yesteryear

how unoriginal that artwork is.

New revolutionary avant garde when??

So memes?

worked for Holla Forums

The problem is that Holla Forums is nowhere as funny as Holla Forums was during its prime.

Kill yourself

Thats democratic socialism. Socdem by definition seeks to NOT abolish capitalism.

Wanst pols prime back in the 2000's? recently its not been in its "prime"

Read what the guy says.
If you're hate left-communists, just choose libertarian Marxists.

/new/ and early 4/pol/ were pretty nice. Ron Paul stuff was definitely quite good no matter what you think about him

No. Original social democracy did indeed seek to implement socialism.

good to see the amount ML and MLM nice to know alot of you arent anti communist

...

hello revisionism

...

you're very welcome, comrade
glad to have you hear
making this insufferable shithole a bit more endurable

ever read lenin?
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone."

and now go >>>/kys/ you stupid bitch

I didn't know Lenin was actually Karl Marx or Engels and therefore any additions he makes to Marxist theory are not revisionism.

or how about Engels
Principles of Communism

What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

btw i'll continue on the quote out of Principles of Communism in the next post

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No."

but:
"It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace."
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

now, why did lenin say something different? see next post

as quoted lenin above, he talks about an "uneven development".
this was new in the era of imperialism
taking marxism as a dogma and not applying it on new conditions, as imperialism was one, is absolutely anti-marxist and lazy shitposting on your part

read lenin
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

especially following chapters:
V. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS 246
VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS 254
VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM 265


probably more following on lenin if i feel like it and find the texts i have in mind

Which if he means nationalization, run by bureaucrats this is indeed revisionism of Marx's theories.

youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg

In Anti-durhing


You faggot I'm not asking what Lenin said. There are other Marxist like Rosa Luxembourg that disagreed with Lenin about the National Question and was closer to orthodox Maxism than any theory Lenin or Stalin ever drafted up. I'm pointing out that it's ludicrous to call non-ML's "revisionist" considering ML is based on revising Marx's theories in order to industrialize the country as fast as possible


Lenin was right about imperialism but wrong about how to reach communism.

since we're on the topic of polls (kinda) what do you guys think ?

poal.me/krqpa3

you were not asking what anyone said
you said stalin were the "revisionist"
he wasn't as clearly shown: lenin went ahead and "revisioned it"
and still
we have 1. new condition of imperialism and 2. engels laying out the path of the revolution and furthermore explaining his argument for why socialism would not be possible in one country - which directly corrosponds with lenins response of uneven development

you gotta try harder with your shitposting to not look like a massive faggot with no fucking basic education on anything

you still have not posted anything of substance either
discarded, back to >>>/faggotville/

as you can see
there is no possible way of working together
we have nothing to gain of working with absolute amateurs who are just "left" as a teenage fashion

I didn't used Stalin as an example and meant ML in general. ML, which has failed in establishing socialism everytime it's been tried. But have fun with your shitty system. My whole point was that you were calling Non-ML Marxist "revisionist" which doesn't make sense.

I didn't, I used*

Why don't you read this, and address it?
marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/orientation.htm

nice maymay, you irrelevant fringe-"socialism" shitposter

lel, now saging to hide your worthless shitposts? faggot

so throwing around a random link without any context or quote is making an argument?
this is why nobody takes you serious, kiddo

also
kek
oh you're so sweet, my child, how desperatly you're trying and just shit all over the place

Bordiga is one of the most important leftcom thinkers right up there with Luxembourg.

And it did fail. The USSR failed to establish socialism via the Marxism definition and never got close to communism. It was a failure.

Oops didn't mean to sage.
Tankies are a cancer on the modern left.

kek, you're so fucking sweet delusional, after losing a honest discussion in which you supplied jack shit but yelling "muh true scotsman" without providing any arguments, yet again you're getting wrecked
and it doesn't even take effort, that's how sad and pathetic you are
if i were you i'd seriously just kill myself

Not exactly a fair comparison

Capitalism has achieved a lot :)

And yet it didn't establish socialism and was an authoritarian hell hole.


I did, I said Lenin got the idea of the transitional state wrong and the prevalence of wage labour within the USSR prevented it from being a proletarian state. I supported what I said with an Engels quote from "Anti-Durhing" where he discusses the concept of nationalization and rejects it. You have yet to address this then.

Since you like "reading" so much I offered you a piece that critiques the Soviet Union from a Marxist perspective. Instead you just attacked the guy who wrote it and started engaging in tankie masturbatory nostalgia over your dead country.

This whole thing started when you called Marxist who didn't subscribe to ML "revisionist" where I pointed out that "ML"(which usually refers to Stalin's ML not Leninism in general) is a revisionist ideology. You have yet to refute that either.

yes, it genuinly had
if you read marx you wouldn't be a "leftist" out of moralist objections, faggot, and actually acknowledge this fact instead of using it to shitpost over arguments you keep on losing

:)

YOU KILLED ROSA LUXEMBURG

I have read Marx you dumb faggot. I was pointing out that your """""achievements"""" are not the sole way to judge the quality of a theory.

So are you gonna address what I said about the USSR still making use of wage labour, and having markets(like the one the farmers of the kolkhoz's traded on) and therefore despite ML industrializing Russia did not achieve socialism? Or my original point that ML's are the "revisionist" and not other strains of Marxism?

Or are you just gonna stand there like a dumb faggot?

I still have no idea what a leftcom is.

It doesn't have a specific definition.

Then you're talking about democratic socialism, you dumb fuck.

do you faggots seriously think the fbi gives a shit about you? name a time in recent history the fbi started infiltrating and destroying communist groups

It effectively destroyed the American Left in the 70's.

You a massive fucking retard. Do you know how Eduard Bernstein is? Fuck off.