Anarchist-Leninism

So, I've been an anarcho-communism for a while now. Now, I don't have a problem with Stalin, Mao, or Juche and the like. While I can criticize certain things (no regime is ever perfect), I'll defend them against anyone non-marxist any day. However I don't think in the first world marxist-leninism can work.

The reason for this is that I've noticed the longer some form of state exists, the more the revolution degenerates into capitalism. We've seen this with the USSR, and whatever you think of China, its certainly more capitalist than it was under Mao. I have no doubt we will see this trend in Cuba now that Castro has sadly passed away.

However, I , like Lenin, do not believe that the working class are going to ally with the proletariat over national interests: WW1 and every war following proves his thesis. I'm not criticizing Lenin: the 1917 revolution was spectacular, but first world conditions will not allow for a vanguard party ,*especially* a non-authoritarian one. No, I believe the bourgeoisie and the state need to be dealt with as quickly as possible in any given region for a revolution to have any chance at succeeding. The longer the state remains, the more chances capitalists have to influence it and impose their hated ideology on us.

So, faced with this dilemma, how does one resolve it? I say Anarcho-Stalinism: a highly disciplined militarized proletariat that has no state but uses trade unions as the basis for both democratically elected nuclei and military training. We craft Workers Battalions and temporarily crack down on frivolous behavior such as free love, homosexuality, drugs, NEETism and so on, basically, behavior the workers should be entitled to after the revolution but produces nothing during it. We've already seen this tendency in the zapatistas, who have communally decided to ban alcohol. What do you think?

Attached: rightwinginfighting.PNG (627x753, 759.44K)

So the same thing but call the state "the union" or "the commune" and such?

The state would no longer delegate power and would be under workers control. If the anarchists vote something else, fine. This is merely my ideology, and I think we all know how powerful ideologies can be.

Literally why? I could understand drugs if there were significant problems with addiction, etc, but homosexuality? Free love? Putting any effort into suppressing that shit is just dumb (and your reason for thinking it should be cracked down upon is probably reactionary Zig Forums tier garbage as well). I've seen the word on here before but I don't know what NEETism is.

nah OP your shit's retarded and you should feel bad

Because its not conductive to the military. Why do you think capitalists have such an issue with it? Also, sex outside of procreation has no value to the revolution, if we're to win every joule of energy we have must be directed at eliminating the bourgeoisie. Frivolous activity is neutral activity that doesn't do anything for the war effort. While the spoilt western bougie armies dine on fine food, play video games and rape prostitutes, we will be out there sowing the seeds of their downfall.

Attached: spooked.jpg (680x320, 70.86K)

lmao

Get out of here egoist. Go troll some other thread, egoism is not based on dialectical materialism and therefore not marxism.

read Lenin

off yourself

I have read Lenin. His main gripe was that the proletariat didn't unite during WW1 like marx said they would and so they needed to be guided and educated into revolution. He thought a vanguard party would do it, I don't because we live under different materialist conditions in the 21st century first world. Nothing I've said contradicts Lenin, it branches off.

You're a stupid faggot. The states degenerated because THE ENTIRE WORLD GOVERNMENT was against them! When will these retards get it through their heads. Can you even conceptualize the blood alone spent crushing Communism? How about the money? It could probably fill a sea and a thousand warehouses, at the very least. But, as blind as you are to this, you do manage to make the (don't mind if I say it) mind blowing assertion that the longer something is around, the more chances it will be changed, and thusly it could fail. Welcome to elementary school math class, today we will discuss probability.
You are a utopian piece of shit. Where will this discipline come from? Not any sort of hierarchy or state, so it will have to be spontaneous! I can't even believe I have to explain why this is ridiculous. You're like a child telling me your plans to revolutionize society. No, you are a child telling me your plans to revolutionize society. Your plan is absolute asspull;it's absolutely nothing but the product of a mind disconnected from reality. The proletariat of the world will spontaneously come together in bloodlust and fervor, linking hands through trade unions (why), and will morally and gloriously overthrow Capitalism.
I think your word choice of "craft Workers Battalions" perfectly illustrates your problem. You see the world in fantasy terms. Communism can be simply wrought into existence. I imagine this is where your critiques of past Socialist state's comes from. You don't know shit, about shit. Do you know the strugglet that was had just to collectivize agriculture in the Soviet Union? Exactly, it's unknowable, but you can read simply of deaths from famine to know that it wasn't easy. Surprise, surprise, revolution isn't easy. It's messy. Things fail. That's why your decentralized pile of shit decays away faster than a literal corpse, but a centralized revolution can actually weather a storm.
……. I'm completely done now. This is good.>>2552984

Read a book and quit shopping at the ideological supermarket.

Attached: c5313e90cb2173c004dcddd6699fad89.gif (499x374, 475.07K)

OP is a dumbass but if, for some reason, you feel the need for "anarcho-leninism" then read Gaddafi. He was a staunch anti-imperialist but he also supported a system of local councils to the point that Libya was the closest thing to "pure" democracy in the world, for better or for worse.

Attached: Muammar_Gaddafi,_1973.jpg (273x373, 23.8K)

Attached: 5552ca6e625033f671096fc010711f3b51c7844836c389abe1bd25bb46db52f7.png (1280x1109, 535.54K)

This is true.

Between the breakdown of capitalism and the construction of socialism/communism a great deal of things can go wrong. The USSR in particular had a small number of revolutionaries that were theoretically equipped to build socialism but the masses of working people were not ready. Lenin's idea was that you would overpower the bourgeois state then reorganize it on the basis of administrators who earned ordinary workers wages and were subject to recall if they proved unsuitable to the job.

The problem was that the ordinary working person in the Russian empire was illiterate. The culture of working people had not yet advanced enough for them to assume a leadership role in society which meant that such a role had to be taken by Communist Party intelligentsia, members of the former elite, "bourgeois specialists," etc. It was a necessary evil.

The good news is that even in many developing nations the cultural and educational level of the working people in infinitely greater than it was during the Russian and Chinese revolutions. In many places we can count on a working person to be capable of reading, writing, and performing basic arithmetic. We also have better lines of communication and most young people (again, even in developing countries) are familiar with electronic devices. This means problems can be solved far easier than they were in 1917 or 1920.

In a socialist revolution today there will be little need to rely on the state as a crutch when the working people themselves (however apathetic they might seem) have the basic skills needed to become self-organized.

Attached: 00b5998d4a8541fd01189eef18d2d8661768e5469bf9bbc2e7e163d2cae03e56.jpg (1513x982, 427.17K)

Attached: tough luck spooked cuck.png (744x744, 56.38K)

GADAFFI WAS LEFTCOM GANG

I'm not against any kind of free love, homosexual or trans person, we just all have to make sacrifices.

great idea

lol, OK Marksie.