I made this, is this a good chart for explaining Leftism to liberals?

I made this, is this a good chart for explaining Leftism to liberals?

I understand there are huge caveats and things I left out, but the goal of this was really to kill the communism = stalinism meme.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It should be flipped on the x axis to start.

Could use more info on anarchism and marxism.

Reformism should go back to capitalism.

Now, now, I'm being fair to every theory. If you want to go that route then I'd have to do the same for Marxist Leninism.


Hmm, I'll try this right now, thanks.

Yeah, I'll make the distinction between ayncraps and anarchists, as well.

I see no issue with this.

...

Shouldn't the arrow from Anarchism go directly to Communism? And while we are at it, how about replacing the term Socialism with State Socialism? Or let's replace the terms Socialism and Communism with "conquering the state" (or perhaps "remodeling the state) and "dissolving the state", respectively. And if we feel special we can add a thin arrow that goes from Capitalism to merging with the arrow that is "between conquering the state" and "dissolving the state" and this thin arrow gets the label

I would replace each of the arrows from capitalism->reformism and reformism->socialism with arrow pairs going in both directions, and a question mark at the center of each arrow pair to emphasize that I don't mean that there is a circular movement and that I don't mean the equal-size arrows symbolize equal strength either, but that things on that path tend to go back and forth a lot.

But anarchism necessitates some form of social ownership over the means of production, otherwise, you can still have monopolizations of power and then class conflict, thus minimizing individual freedom, thus ensuring illegitimate control which undermines the entire point of anarchy.


Socialism also seeks to dissolve the state, once the workers own the means of production there is little to no need whatsoever for a state. I'm adding in definitions for both right now, about to post it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most left anarchists seem to desire socialism as an economic system.

I don't think liberals would understand what reformism or marxist-leninism means, and would misunderstand what anarchism means, so more explanation is required
It's useful to understand that these are strategies though, so you're on the right track

Where do want me to even begin?

Updated


Make an argument, retard.

Updated again, slight grammatical changes.

Democratic Socialism is explained well but anarchism is less clear and marxist-leninism is more antagonistic than helpful. This is for normies, yeah? I would describe anarchism as something like a horizontally organized society where both corporate power and state power is decentralized (as long as people understand that it is still a society and not a non-society), and marxist-leninism as one where the state is seized and made into a transitional state. Would also remove tankie and Holla Forumsack, but making sure people know where this was applied is good, should also do this with anarchism.

In that case then anarchism goes back to capitalism too

You already fucked up the most basic idea of what an infograph is supposed to do

Ok, will update.


??????

Fixed your chart to represent what has actually happened historically.

This. You do not need to be an M-L idiot to be a pragmatist.

I feel like ML is too specific since it entails a party with special muh privileges, repression of free speech and all that shit. A more generalized "revolutionary state" would be better.

fix'd


hey, that's preddy good

wut

Remember this is for normalfags. I don't mean Socialism In One Country, I mean socialism but only in one "country."

Pshhh, this'll get all the socialists pessimistic

...

user I…

This is a better chart

yeah that's pretty spot on

"Leninism" (an invention of the counter-revolution after Lenin died) isn't communism. And only a few Anarchists are communist.

Nah, most anarchists are communists.

most anarchists are communists

Nigger you better not be counting ancaps and lifestyle faggots as anarchists.

"Anarcho-communists" =/= Anarchists who are actually communist. Plenty of them are glorified edgy liberals. Most of the ones who aren't are still pro-work, aren't internationalist in any meaningful sense beyond rhetoric, and can't abolish the state (regardless of if they try to define state in a shit way, it still exists) so they end up essentially just democratically nationalizing everything, managing things through unions/syndicates/councils/etc., never abolishing value, making them essentially civil-war-powered, social democrats with a fetish for workers' ownership and democracy.

There are plenty of anarchists who are communist, but not "most" of them.

Case in point:
Most of the "revolutionary anarchist/syndicalist" unions supported WWI just like the "statist" social democratically controlled ones did. Kropotkin himself supported it, etc.

That isn't "strategic error", that's being anti-communist to the bone.

What has actually happened and what will forever happen until revolution porky destroys the planet.

Reminder to ignore leftcoms.

Oh, well then okay.

Yeah, anarchism is facing a plague these days especially. They need to get serious and leave their shitty edginess

While the lifestylists and traveler kids are part of the problem, I think the larger problem is Anarchism itself being a petty-bourgeois ideology that isn't very conducive to revolutionary activity, it fetishizes democracy and decentralization.

The larger picture, though,is that "Anarchism" as an ideology isn't revolutionary, no ideology is. Only classes are. And that's the problem with the pics/graphs: it ascribes powers to ideologies, not to classes.

He means an infograph is supposed to be concise. Avoid walls of text.

Except reformism doesn't lead to socialism.

Great chart. Carry on, revisionist scum.

1) Anarchism does not pass through Socialism. It goes straight to Communism (which is why Anarchist revolution makes sense only in fully-Socialist societies that are transitioning to Communism).

2) Reformism … well … in practice it goes back to Capitalism, yes. In theory it can go either straight to Communism (via reforming Capitalist society) or pass through Socialism.


Still haven't corrected anything.
1) ML description is 100% bourgeois propaganda.
2) Reformism is about peacefully reforming Capitalism via voting for the right candidate. Without Dictatorship of the Proletariat or worker co-ops (Soviets) taking arms and ruling the state. And you put there part of real ML description for some reason.
3) Communism is hilariously dumb. Where did "paid for" even come from?

(Pure) Anarchism is sufficiently retarded to be correct. I've had enough of those morons this year.

Fucking glorified social democrats

> What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. …

> But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!


If you call Marx SocDem, I have no objection. Just stop calling yourself Communist.

Lower phase communism =/= what tankies call "socialism"

if you can point to where it explains that lower phase communism is a separate mode of production which still has the state, the law of value persists, etc., and explains why, then I will agree.

Until then fuck off you counter-revolutionary socdem.

"All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ['commonalty'] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French 'Commune.'"

you're a fucking dumbass and do not speak for ML / "stalinism"

nice butchering of marxism tho, faggot

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

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

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.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

If you call Engels an infantile ultra-left I have no objection. Just stop calling yourself a Communist.

Do I need to memetext everything?

That's fucking stupid.

Nice argument, socdem

Feel free to post arguments.

Literally the skipped bits (maybe some before and after too).
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Yes. I've already told you, anarkiddies: USSR should be called a Non-State Anarchy according to your dogmas.

Why are you so hung up on how the things were nmed? Shouldn't you consider how they function?

You also have my permission to post arguments. I assume your politeness was the reason that prevented you from posting anything beyond bare minimum of words that would convey your opinion.

And so it happened. Revolutionary changes that were introduced by the Soviets spread out throughout the globe.

Revolution is a historical process, not a single organization.

quoting isn't memetexting you retard

I've read Critique of the Gotha Program.
It never says that the law of value and the state persist into socialism/communism.

Unless you are confusing labor tickets with wages and the centralized administrative apparatus which manages production with a state which extracts surplus value?

The USSR was not the Paris Commune, it was comparable for the first 4 or so years, after that it was purely capitalist counter-revolution


Then what could I possibly be doing wrong besides adding quotation marks at the beginning of every paragraph?

...

I'm not.

The USSR was state capitalist, despite its name. It was still commodity production which bought labor power and extracted surplus value and accumulated capital.

In the 60's the state even made law that companies should ignore the "plan" for more profitable actions, which obviously means for a long time beforehand "profitable" was a real category.

*"profit" was a real category

Are you literally incapable of understanding the nature of things without labels put on them?

If you want to present an argument - do it.

Again - arguments?

Put it back. I'll be afk for quite a bit and will respond later.

This

Go away Southern European.

Wait, memes aside, you actually think wages and labor tickets are the same thing?

...

"no"

Literally nothing is correct in this shit, most anarchists don't percieve of any transitional stage, Socialism=/=communism is a meme by Lenin - but the fact that you uses MLism as a catch all term for Marxism just show you prob don't know anything about the latter.

All in all it's just a poorly made image that confuses more than it helps.

this is how your graphics and comments looks like when someone else does it you disagree with

lazy shitposting aimed at nothing but petty "hurr i'm smart u're not"

but what else is to be expected from people attacking ML, wannabe marxist who don't even know how to quote or read in the first place and the other low life faggots populating this cancerous leftist maymay shithole

Now this is good shitposting. Or at least I hope it's shitposting.

treating anything theoretical as a scale

Allow me to introduce you to my buddy Hegel!

I'm pretty sure that's a shitposting infographic.

...

Are you really that devoid of humor to think that I was serious about this?

oh my goooOOOOD leftcomflagfag you're even more annoying than stalinflagtripfag the definition of capitalism is private property not any of that other shit