Are the users of Zig Forums anti-revisionist? Also, what do you have to say about text in pic related?

Are the users of Zig Forums anti-revisionist? Also, what do you have to say about text in pic related?

Attached: KKE.PNG (1133x308, 40.28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

neoliberal Cancer that will ultimately get us nowhere. Look what's happening with the Democrat Cops of America, look at lectures on worker exploitation getting shut down because someone happened to be a TERF. It's definitely productive.

More like "someone was suspected of being friendly with TERFs." These transactivists have no lives and large amounts of funding (totally not suspicious though.) The sooner liberal trans sects are completely removed from leftist orgs the better.

marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm

Attached: 38ed6bba076af3a64bac2e26715961e4a1b730c0.png (1350x900, 252.48K)

Sorry, are you saying that anti-revisionism is neoliberal cancer, the Communist Party of Greece is neoliberal cancer, or both?


What is the Zig Forums view on transgenders?

That really depends per user. I'd say the majority don't really have anything particularly against them, but another substantial sect don't like them too much.

miss me with that weak shit

Revisionism. And we have no problem with transgender people- what we have a problem with is when identity politics takes place of class politics.

Since I've got you guys here talking about anti-revisionism, what do you think about Essence of Time? Doesn't Orthodox Christian Nationalism go against State Atheism?

Attached: essence_of_time.PNG (265x437, 41.54K)

Yeah I'm gonna need the most pea-brained brainlet image for this one.

Attached: 1529559651730.png (422x362, 207.02K)

This is fucking weird, also I'm looking into the guy behind it and it says something about him and oligarchs.
Not buying it.

Here you go!

Attached: maximum brainlet.png (474x711, 90.48K)

One of the things that interests me the most about Socialism is the higher fertility rates that many socialist countries enjoy. For example, look at how fertility rates were higher in East Germany than in West Germany, and then after reunification, fertility rates in East Germany collapsed. Likewise, fertility rate collapsed across much of Eastern Europe after the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The fertility rate in North Korea is also currently much higher than the fertility rate in South Korea. However, Cuba is somewhat a counter example to this.

This does seem to often be intentional. Nicolae Ceaușescu's Decree 770 is certainly the best example, but there are other examples of this being intentional: the image in the OP is one example. Also, see the pic related.

What are your thoughts on this?

Attached: GDR_family.PNG (225x261, 48.62K)

At least for the DDR it's clearly down to better social policies, like free daycare, meaning women could combine work and children easily. We see the same thing in Europe, with both Sweden and France, who have comparatively more generous maternal benefits and offer better daycare options than, sat, Germany, and also have higher fertility rates.

Ironically, the more conservative societies in S and E Europe have the lowest fertility rates.

Growing and shifting leftwards into borderline open Marxism?

Attached: 346.png (440x193, 123.36K)

Could I get your guy's thought on Lukashenko while I'm typing out a longer post?

Attached: Lukashenko.jpg (220x294, 16.86K)

It might come as a shock, but people will have more children if THEY FUCKING HAVE THE STUFF THEY NEED.

But the exact opposite is true.

Hoxhaist "anti-revisionism" is in itself a form of revisionism

I just remembered something critical that I forgot. From what I understand about Russian "shock therapy," the fertility rate in Russia fell due to political instability and economic uncertainty. However, the fertility rates of Russia and Belarus have been almost identical since 1990: both countries even went through the same "valley" shape. This is strange, because the political and economic systems of Belarus have been very different from those of Russia since 1991, with Belarus never giving up their Communism. Because of this, I don't feel like social policies explain what happened.

Also, despite their social policies, the fertility rate in Sweden and France has been falling. I imagine that without high fertility immigrant populations, they would be even lower, much like how US fertility would be lower if it didn't have a large Hispanic population. I've noticed that, in general, the European countries with higher fertility rates tend to be those with larger immigrant populations (although I'm not firmly implying causation; look at Bulgaria and Romania. Bulgaria has a larger Turk population than Romania, but they have about the same fertility rate.)

I also don't think that social policy can explain everything, because I know that some countries in Europe have been experimenting with social policy in order to increase the fertility rate without success.

Also, the US doesn't have all the social policies you mentioned, and yet the fertility rate in the US is higher than the European average, and I imagine that Europe has, on average, more "social policies".


There is a lot of truth to this; one of the best predictors of falling fertility is a low infant mortality rate.


Also, could you guys please give your thoughts specifically about Decree 770? I would like to understand where Zig Forums is coming from on these types of things (the morality and effectiveness of it, etc.)

Attached: 390px-Nicolae_Ceaușescu.jpg (390x599, 72.12K)

Command Economy =/= Communism

Could you give me an example of a Communist country then, either current or historical?

I didnt know a core tenant of marxism was wanting to suppress homosexuality
And they accuse others of revisionism

Attached: thinking.jpg (600x832, 55.01K)

If You mean Socialist countries then i would point to the Warsaw pact up till the 80s the DPRK and Cuba Today

Belarus isn't even a command economy, it is a mixed economy like any nordic state.

Cuba.

From what I understand about anti-revisionism, anti-revisionism is a support of Stalinism. Based on this definition, support of homosexual right would seem to be 100% revisionist. The pic related is from the Wikipedia article on Stalin. Could you clarify why you think gay rights would be anti-revisionist?

Attached: stalin.PNG (1131x184, 37.07K)

Russia has a thing where it has a unique christian nationalism where "muh eastern slavs are united by orthodoxy". Ukrainians and belarusians don't real, not because they don't speak different languages but because we are all orthodox.

You would have to look in detail at the policies pursued in Belarus, it won't do to just assume that because Lukashenko remained in power, so did all the Soviet era policies. As to immigration being the root cause, I'm skeptical. Denmark and Norway also have relatively high fertility rates, but much less migration than say Sweden or France. And Germany has high migration, yet very low fertility.

Likely there are a host of factors we are simply not seeing because we lack comprehensive data. But I'm sure studies are out there on what policies promote population growth in advanced economies - these are issues that matter a lot to porky after all.

Rivisionism is not explictly ML, it means revising course tenants of marxism.

Something being anti would require it to deter revisionism, or un-revise something. It is neither, it is just progressive, just like marxism as a whole, imo. Defending some form of "hetrosexual nuclear family marriage" is not marxist, marxism generally places the nuclear family as a construct of capitalism, and marriage as a contract of inheritance. Marriage has certain benefits under the law. Since we cannot abolish marriage as a construct, I dont think allowing more people to enjoy those benefits is a bad thing, and I definitely don't think allow homosexual couples to adopt is bad, as it gives those children a good home, rather than institutionalizing them.

What changed in Belarus that makes it no longer Socialist?

Attached: adams.jpg (634x961, 797.8K)

It's all relative. Any country you've ever been to has a low fertility rate compared to Niger.

Based on that definition, wouldn't Stalinism, Maoism, and certainly the ideas of Pol Pot be revisionist?

Man, in Europe anything even approaching 1.8 counts as high nowadays. Which isn't bad, it's plenty crowded as is. A managed stable population would be wonderful, but not to porky's liking.

To a certain degree I suppose.
I dont think pol pot was a marxist at all though.

Like any other state, belarus undertook privatisation, marketisation and ending of universal employment.
Also the country works on monetary policy based on using private credit to sponsor growth.

How?

I'm not very good with my some of my political definitions, but I would have never imagined someone calling Stalin a "progressive." Do you consider him to be a progressive? If so, why? And if not, wouldn't that mean he isn't a Marxist based on what you said?

Progression is relative from it starting point.
Stalin eliminated class differences, it created equality for men and women (to a large degree), among many many many other things that are progressive.
Being progressive is not defined by your opinions on gays.
Who is more progressive? A man who eliminated abject poverty, classes, female subjegation and other things, or a rich CEO who drone-bombs third world people and uses child slaves for making shoes, but who also supports gay marriage?

I'm an anti-revisionist in the sense that I think revising the core ideas of Marxism is bad. But in practice "anti-revisionists" are usually pretty dumb. Treating the works of Marx (and/or Lenin/Stalin/Mao) like religious texts is already a tendency that exists on the far-left, and anti-revisionists take this practice to a new level.

I like what Ismail wrote on the topic:

Attached: hoxha is anfem.jpg (800x800, 64.4K)

Thank you for that info. What about the way that Stalin targeted ethnic groups (even transferring them long distances) when he considered them to be counter-revolutionary? And what about his cult of personality? How do those fit into the progressive paradigm?

Sorry if the questions seem strange, I've just never posted here before and don't know what people here think.

Pragmatic responses to fears of collaboration with axis powers. Ethnic minorities had plenty of opportunities to become Soviet cadres and were over represented compared to their share of the population. And always remember that Stalin himself was not even Russian.

It's interesting, I got my idea of anti-revisionism from Wikipedia, where it is presented as a support of Stalinism over Khrushchev-ism. It seems everyone here has a different idea of what it means.


What about when he targeted minorities at times other than WWII? For example, I read that he became increasingly anti-semitic towards the end of his life. I'll see if I can look up specific dates for when he transferred various populations.

Yeah, where the doctors plot came from is a bit of a mystery to me. Better ☭TANKIE☭s can probably explain that. As to earlier deportations, don't forget that the Soviet Union and Japan had pitched battles with thousands of dead in the thirties already, without it escalating into war.

Okay, thanks. There do seem to be population transfers listed here that don't seem related to WWII or Japan. In you best estimation, were these more likely to have been anti-progressive errors on Stalin's part, or where they justified according to Marxism or progressivism?

Attached: population_transfer.PNG (1145x422, 136.24K)

Could you link the sources, by chance?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

Well right of the bat I can see that the article mentions "nine different nationalities were deported" before the conflict got going. The source for this gives no further details, though it does link to other sources. Among the cited works, though, is Robert Conquest, an known anticommunist, who wrote before the soviet archives were even opened to western scholars. This would seem to taint the sources.

When it comes to these issues, wikipedia is not reliable. Who knows, maybe these things did take place.

Neolibs think that helping workers is Fascism

Anti-revesionism is a joke
There has never been a pure marxist state so who cares
KKE is retarded and all there voters are 70+ ww2 veterans ,ther children and proffesional union members
There anti-gay stance is retarded cause "muh christan values" is the most antimatrialist shit ever

You've never interacted with D$A in your life have you?

Everyone is a filthy revisionist except for meeeeeee.

Stop shilling this guy. He's basically a socdem without the dem part.

Again, doing a few thing we now consider anti-progressive doesnt make them unprogressive within their own timeline. Stalin and castro were progressives, even if they disliked homosexuals (and castro turned around on that one) or targeted ethnic minorities, because they progressed their society very far into betterment compared to what it was before.

As long as workers rights keep the primary focus, there's no reason why a party should not also support "gay rights" (or better: equal rights regardless of sexuality).