Is there any good reason to not be a marxist-leninist?

seriously, think about it
plus we have Cockshott.

Attached: Stalin3.jpg (500x638, 87.54K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#Political_role
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Galanskov
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Kharuzin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniil_Kharms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Sokolovsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Bahrianyi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Barkova
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bolonkin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Borodin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bukovsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuli_Daniel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Getman
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Franken
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Grigorenko
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Grigoryants
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

is there any good reason to not be a marxist-leninist-maoist?
seriously, think about it
plus we have Sendero Luminoso.

...

Because it failed. See any USSR around today?

It failed because the USA exists and because those children were of troublesome genetics.

It failed because it allowed revisionism to take over. For all of Stalin's purges and stuff his policy eventually led to its collapse.

It failed. It doesn't matter if it was because of the US, internal revisionism or other enemies. If it can't take a stand against adversity, then it is a crappy system.

Most ML parties in 2018 are LARP cancer, and if you're not in a party, what's the point of going around proclaiming your fidelity to some specific tendency or sub-ideology anyway? When I strongly identified with the ML label I eventually noticed that it made me less open minded to good ideas within other tendencies, and I got so caught up in defending the legacy of 20th century ML states that I started to lose sight of why I was even drawn to socialist politics in the first place.

Lenin made valuable contributions to Marxism, and the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and the other ML revolutions improved the lives of hundred of millions of people and should be carefully studied by all socialists. But it was a historical project that ultimately failed, and had many unfortunate negative aspects. Lack of genuine democracy and popular control, human rights abuses, authoritarianism, economic mismanagement, police states, etc. The situation in a western liberal democracy in 2018 is completely different from the situation in tsarist Russia prior to 1917, so we need to study 20th century socialism and take with us what is applicable to our own situations and forget about the rest. It seems to me people who cling to and identify with the ML label are often more inclined to romanticize past socialist states, and relativize and brush aside their failures, than to actually study them critically.

I don't see the point in calling myself anything more specific than simply "socialist" or "communist" or "marxist" tbh.

Attached: turn back time.webm (640x360, 1.98M)

Attached: me_irl.png (809x1000, 579.73K)

This is a good take. For the most part the tendencies of marxism aren't particularly relevant to today's conditions nor will the actions of the people 'belonging' to these tendencies find expression in the real world comparable in the slightest to those of the past. October and its legacy is over. We should keep bolshevism as the core of marxist revolutionary theory and like zizek says repeat lenin, not in repeating his actions but in repeating his method, by approaching the current crisis with the same thought process as he did to so clearly identify what would comprise a revolutionary program in his time, so we must find the revolutionary program of our time.

Attached: when you and the lads are about to drop a revolution.png (800x449, 451.24K)

Ice cold take

honestly you should just take what you like and what you think would work based on the conditions where you are
the socialists of the 20th century were pretty good but you shouldn't idolize them or brush over their mistakes and just do exactly what they did
learn from them, but don't emulate them, I guess

I'll never get why MLs always get accused of wanting to repeat everything the USSR did step by step.
If you read Lenin you'd immediately understand ML is adaptable, based on material analyses.

Yea, like 90% of the bickering between trots and ML's (just one example) nowadays, especially online, is literally just rehashing arguments over what should've been done in Russia in the 20's and 30's. It's so fucking stupid when you think about it.

Definitely agree with this.


Does that mean it's a good take, or a sorta obvious and uninteresting take?


The social media presence of one of the ML parties in my country is literally posting USSR fun facts along with Soviet art/propaganda posters on facebook and instagram. We have quite a few ML youtubers whose content consists of slideshows showing different pictures of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. and an argument that basically boils down to "uhh actually soviet union good". Not all ML's are like this but there is a significant amount of them who focus all of their energy on defending the legacy of 20th century socialist states.

uh yea but most ML's do not "think like Lenin".

This

Attached: Kim-Jwa-jin.jpg (300x243, 11.94K)

...

is there any good reason to not be a post-leftist r/acc hypercapitalist?
seriously, think about it
plus we have cybernetic transgenic catgirl prostitutes.

Attached: racc.png (916x690, 75.92K)

Because on the internet you're going to get bombarded with "muh 100 gorillions USSR failed state stalin = hitler" retardation ad infinitum. Defending the gains made under 20th century socialism is the best possible course of action for >individuals< on the internet imo.

It's like you guys aren't even leftists
Is there any good reason to not be a self marketed new original leftist scholar?
Seriously, think about it
plus we have Me.

Attached: TruthSeeker.jpg (749x494, 21.45K)

pdf or gtfo

Not really.

Shut up Cancervative I'll release a free pdf for non liberals once a publisher finally accepts it.

It's not done yet either, I don't know where Marx got the idea for volumes but I'm fully writing my shit out before I publish it, it's like 20% done.

was with you before the liberal anti-communist rhetoric started. It's funny that you spout bourgeoisie historical falsifications after saying "the ussr must be studied by all socialists". why don't you follow your own advice?


As for the OP, M-Ls are dogmatic and that's the main issue with M-L parties today. That being said, they're still genuine workers' parties unlike all the other petty-bourg pseudo-leftists (trots smashies etc). What needs to be done today is the advancement of marxist theory, based on the work of soviet philosophers like Vaziulin. Many M-L parties are open to that, so in my eyes they are at a far better state than revisionist "communists" in the west who mix Marx with whatever flavour of post-modernism they fancy and turn marxism into some strictly academic observational school of thought akin to the work of the left hegelians (that marx himself despised)

The Trot shift to neoconservatism is the weirdest fucking thing ever.

But combining all the valid leftist ideologies into one is making a new political theory.
We're comming.

Attached: images (3).jpg (194x259, 6.87K)

...

That's because it never really happened. Burger evangelicals latched onto the notion that some reagan era policy makers were taught by professors who were taught by trotskyist professors at some point and that this was cultural marxism because they were butthurt that that neocons were infringing on their influence in the republican party. 'Neocons are actually crypto-commie infiltrators' was literally a small-scale red care within the american right.

Those points are brought up and exaggerated by liberals and anti-communists, sure, but I mean, show me the lie.

Isn't that the natural result ?

Attached: 35ac9a4d947646eded1265fbe52906ce65dc75946ba51545af5c1a817b4f47ff.jpg (800x435, 112.58K)

where to start? show me evidence of any of these

this is plain historical falsification. every single position inside the party was held through elections, with no evidence showing any of the elections were tampered with

this is a liberal buzzword that no leftist would even dignify as an argument

same as argument #1

in the late 80s, sure.

again, not anything special if you take into consideration the climate of the cold war. there was documented heavy espionage and sabotage going on from both sides, but the police still couldn't murder civillians willy-nilly like the do in the US. If they could, do you think yeltsin and his lackies would have been able to protest like they did? If you want a brutal police state, try russia after 91. check how many protesters the neoliberal police murdered in 93 in moscow alone

Yeah ellected by a selection of workers chosen by the party…

20% of a manifesto is as useful as 20% of a submarine
get writing

First draft or its not real

elected by party members, something that anyone that wanted to could become

Attached: lenin.png (533x140 15.12 KB, 21.46K)

Party members select workers who vote for party members who select workers who…

I'm surprised there is no serious thread about writings on here. Inb4 everyone here is just a memer and not serious

Because I don't support state capitalism

Attached: marxism leninism works.png (481x524, 305.67K)

what the fuck are you talking about. anyone interested in politics was free to participate in the party, there were no limitations or requirements for joining the party other than basic understanding of marxism

marxism leninism is not an economic system.

Why do you want to surrender everything to the state? Are you out of your mind?

>>>Zig Forums

We had one dude write a manifesto here, but then he got btfo for posting pics of him larping on deviantart.

is there any good reason not to use Zig Forums?
seriously, think about
plus they probably have Y.P.J qts

...

And Zig Forums is crypto-liberalism which is not any better.

Anarchkiddie Zig Forums retard detected

newfag lel

leftpol is full of rad liberals

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

Everytime I find something about the great purge that I think "wow! Thats really bad, can't believe they totured that guy." I click sources and its always fucking Conquest.

DeLeonism is good as it supports state directed economics and worker management

It's hard to show get too different from them since they all post here anyways.

Get off my proletarian-owned lawn you fags.

Is that really you Muke?

it's full of radlibs

Because in order to perpetuate it's existence, it becomes increasingly more authoritarian and repressive with time. the USSR went to shit because muh revisionism or some other excuse and how are NK and Vietnam doing? Oh yeah, one is a bad joke and the other is the world's biggest sweatshop.
and your perfect vision of "and the state will just melt away" isn't?

Aye, this.

What about the great purge? Thats well documented isn't it.

nom they were outright rigged. the party picked and chose their yesmen while everyone else was shut out
address it you faggot, human rights went out the window, the gulags weren't exactly a bogeyman
so you're not even going to try and answer it?
"everyone else is doing it" is not a valid reason for shitty policy

Attached: 1419007872631.gif (255x229, 1.63M)

source pls

specify

the great purge was invented by kruschev

That the ellections were rigged.

Did all those old bolsheviks disapear overnight?

Stalin must've been superhuman, rigging thousands of councils, committees and congresses in the USSR

The better explanation is that the lower councils and such didn't enough power to be a threat while Stalin simply kept the CPSU under his control which would have effectively made him diactator no matter what was going on underneath him.

see

they never lived in the first place
they were all fictional people invented by kruschev
read hoxha

Thats an explanation on how it could have happened. Not a source that it actually did.

well documented? revisionists were purged from the party and reactionary tsarist remnants from the army, but the numbers are grossly over-exaggerated in bourgeoisie academia.


every single worker could join the party and choose to take part in the management of the state. every position was filled democratically, no one appointed any position autocratically without a vote


what else would i expect from a dumb liberal like you. first of all, gulags weren't for political prisoners but for criminals. they were ran with the purpose of reintroducing prisoners back to society as useful workers, and were very successful at that. most people in gulags got their sentences severely diminished, you can also check the reincarceration statistics of prisoners in the ussr if you don't believe me. this would probably be too much work for an idiot liberal like you though


again, you display your blatant ignorance and lack of understanding of realpolitik. why don't you look up the only remotely successful anarchist "non"state that ever existed, and see that even there an organized militia (akin to a police force) existed and laws were followed. you cannot fight a class war without security measures


stalin was voted into position by the party, he even resigned multiple times and was still voted back into position by his peers.

and also read grover furr

Oh and also even then he would have to at least rig the ellection to ellect his secretary somehow.

I don't wanna live among baboons.

Your imput is always welcome baboon poster.

Take the execution and arrest quotas and such.

Attached: thonking.jpg (1200x1200, 44.26K)

Never mind that didn't happen under the great purge, that was under the Holocaust. Ignore that.

gulags were for criminal prisoners, not political ones. go easy on the solzhenitsyn cool-aid

What about all the deportations of vast groups of people?

never found any sources on any of those claims, other than ww2 evacuations that were emergency wartime measures. do you have any sources?

oh sure, they COULD but how easy is it go get things done when there's a """""people's""""" comissar breathing down your neck. Also, who's to say these democratically elected and passed measures wouldn't immediately be dismissed by the higher ups
typical
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#Political_role
oh dear, someone hasn't red Bakunin. Anarchy =/= chaos. organisation is sideways as opposed to monolithic, there's nothing to say that agreed upon laws and peacekeepers can't exist so long as they fit this definition.

Attached: 1422807076610.jpg (255x143, 7.59K)

...

no

You're actually right. I find something horrible that the soviets did, look into a bit more and find next to no sources or just secondary sources and Conquest. I think I'll just read all these anti-communist books myself and see if they have any sources.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

So you just trust Conquest and the Black book when they also lied on so many other things and are cleary biased? Can I quote Grover Furr to prove my point?

ye your childish fanfiction might pass as an argument with your "comrades" in your smelly squat, but if you want to argue with me you either have to provide concrete evidence showing that the "higher-ups" in the party affected the results of elections or appointed people in positions autocratically, or kindly stfu.


embarrassing, even for you


ye how about you read up on the makhnovshchyna and tell me how voluntary and sideways the mandatory draft in the militia was. and when i say read up on it, i don't mean wikipedia


The only anti-communist "point" that holds any historical merit and isn't blatant anti-communist is the shameful endorsement of that hack Lysenko for more than 20 years. Other than that, the bulk of it is either extremely over-exaggerated or straight made-up bullshit

if he got educated through books and not wikipedia articles he wouldn't be an anarchist

at least try
make like your mother and suck it up
Pot, Kettle, Black. orders of magnitude more conscripts died during the great patriotic war than in FT Ukraine. Makhno wasn't perfect, but don't be a hypocrite.

oh im laffin

no i don't. you make the claim that the soviet union wasn't democratic, the historical record says otherwise. so either provide proof of your claim, or i have nothing to address

yes muh wikipedia you drooling retard, are you so stupid as to not realize how wikipedia isn't a valid source? someone already told you above that the only sources in the 2 articles you linked are known anti-communist propaganda works that even bourgeoisie academics deem unscientific

Attached: 1519903976052.jpg (645x729, 81.17K)

how could someone possibly believe something which is so plainly false
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Galanskov
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Kharuzin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniil_Kharms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Sokolovsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Bahrianyi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Barkova
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bolonkin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Borodin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bukovsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuli_Daniel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Getman
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Franken
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Grigorenko
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Grigoryants
I could go on all day.

This is what the great purge looks like based on soviet archives compared to what it is said to look like by bourgoise historians.

Attached: DOUMENTABLE.png (688x301, 79.97K)

and now we've just devolved into angry shouting. a pity.
from what i've learned about ☭TANKIE☭s "western propoganda" translates to "anything contrary to my position"

Get it through your head. Conquest is a know liar and the rest of the sources are secondary that lead to an infinite rabbit hole of citations.

This but unironically.

i rest my case