Countries closest to revolution

Turkey already has multiple Maoist groups that have been fighting since the 70s

lol

Yep, if anything will radicalise the russian youth: it's fucking with online gaming.

Ask in the economics thread, someone will explain.

...

Son of Anarchy is going to spergout hard ITT.

I think there's no hope for revolution in LATAM / Brazil as long as America has such a strong stranglehold in the region. China might be closer to reform than revolution.

NIGGA FINNA GOT DABBED ON
Jokes aside, how much of a fucking loser one must be to be an anarchist in russia? Like he's doing it on purpose for the sake contrarianism imho.

Attached: _20180629_173531.JPG (720x521, 68.2K)

Why does being an anarchist in Russia specifically make you a loser?

Because it's a country where everybody loves stalin and the ussr, it the wet dream of any ☭TANKIE☭. You can ask to whoever stories about it and you'll get your answers. You can join groups easily and there a lot of people in there.
No. Instead he chooses to be an anarchist

First not even true, SWP literally organised the biggest protests in british history fuck them mind, trot rapist scum, but still, and Socialist Party (the remnants of militant) are pretty active; if also scum for different reasons. Secondly the major anti-tory march in Manchester which had 150k people had the CPb there, the SWP, SP, a whole host of others. While yes, the CPGb-ML were there: they were a pretty small and mostly teenage memers who had a DPRK flag: at a march about austerity. They are hyper LARP and anyone who thinks they are anything more can neck themselves. Oh I was there btw, I saw this with my own eyes.

The country that will complete maybe it's revoution is nepla, but we will see ass after the succes of peoples war against the Monarchy, the Communists have now decided to stablish elections (and won by huge majority) but I don't know if is possible to turn Nepal into a socialist country using liberal democracy, without a dictatorship of the proletariat, (although maybe Nepalese democracy is different)

Attached: Lenin GURREN .jpg (1555x2048, 1.8M)

*Nepal

I wouldn't call Nepal a liberal democracy though, purely because it still hasn't solidified its constitution and governing structure. I mean its local government units don't even have names yet. I think what will develop is a political system where the overton window is firmly set on Marxism-Leninism being the middle. The main issue is that economically it will not be able to achive above social democracy (which in itself is not bad for an LEDC) but is also beholden to either China, India or both.

People don't choose to be anarchists because there are a lack of ☭TANKIE☭ organisations to join, they choose to be anarchists because they realise authoritarianism isn't the way to freedom.

Attached: sweet marx and hella bakunin.jpg (788x1024, 122.73K)

I think their best option is to apprach China, look China is not perfect and not a socialist country, but India will probably try to avoid having a socialist state structure in Nepal, and push for "liberalization" of the nepalese goverment, and we all know what this leads to

*they choose anarchism because they don't like clean streets, healthy people and want mandatory homosexuality

...

Anarchist are the biggest PR tragedy in the history of anticapitalism

Attached: Screen_Shot_2017-11-01_at_10.40.36_AM.jpg (1554x958, 291.99K)

>

Stalin is the favorite figure in russian history and everybody loves the ussr

Well there are a few issues with getting friendly to China: first is antagonising India, second is that Chinese porkies take major interest in controlling Nepal's dam potential, another is that the Tibet-gov-in-exile has infrastructure in Nepal because of geographical, cultural and religious links between the Nepalese and Tibetan peoples. Nepal historically has been aligned with India because a lot of its population live as workers in India. A shift too heavily towards China could be risky.

Culturally Nepal is closer to India than to china due to the dominance of Hinduism as well.

Considering there was an attempt at a coup not long ago it is very probable it will happen again

Yeah man anarchists are, like, cultural marxists that hate the west and want to inject all straight males with estrogen to eliminate fascism

Attached: 20180521_143343.jpg (277x388, 88.69K)

Wasn't this proven to be a false flag?

Attached: adb03373af0ccb77621897835a92128eb608d76117270363c46f3f7b35e7f006.png (1078x458, 487.62K)

No. They are a bunch of fags lifestylist who wouldn't even know what to do with power in their hands. Not to mention that they all look like shit and are too weak willed to defend the greatest achievement in Human history

anybody calling themselves antifa would be de facto antifa

Ok, but do they care about the Left? About Communism? Or do they care about the Great Big Strong Leader who made their Nation Strong(tm)?

This is idealism. People in the west don't care for capitalist ideals at all, everybody in the world care if they're doing well materially.

Zyuganov and the other main politicians of the party are not what the OP is talking about.

Idk tbh. Nor I care, because anarchist really want that kind of shit

Iran, Iraq, and India

Attached: 1462614279491.jpg (187x250, 4.41K)

If they love Stalin and the USSR because of MUH RUSSIA STRONK or because of anti-capitalism matters, actually

No it doesn't. Why do you have to complain?

What, was the Russian regime not true liberalism?

Yes.

Only autists care about political ideals, most people only care about their material conditions.

Which is why vanguardism is the only viable path for socialism.

Russia has no hope

It is, though?

Attached: 8fd9acbe665863894b998d7bcf45c3140930e4ee42dc826b0bdae5c5e2818378.png (996x1020, 220.5K)

lmao just lmao

Is that from basedman Parenti?

It matters because you could easily imagine russian nationalists and quasi-fascists glorifying Stalin because he represents an era when Russia was a rising power that defeated Germany and was a threat to western hegemony. I know there are russians like this, but I don't know how widespread it is.

Russians loving Stalin doesn't necessarily prove that the Russian love communism. It could just as easily be an expression of Russian nationalism.

Actually Navaly's argument is that Russia is too corrupt to stand up for itself and challenge the west: no joke.

t. paid fabian shill

Doesn't mean they don't want communism back. Even if it has some slightly reactionary shades, who gives a shit?

Kek, that's a fucking new one. Sure, a Fabian would be applauding the work of *checks notes* the Communist Party of britain.

okay jizza

Attached: too smart.jpg (680x598, 54.42K)

But then why does a high opinion of stalin help? If it is like you say, all that matters are material conditions. Unless you posit that there is a second quality that determines that, in the right material conditions, things sway one way or the other?

Stalin was not a left-wing figures.

He:
- nationalizes industry
- restores the church
- restores reactionary folktales and mythology
- uphold gender roles and original family relation
- stab actual leftists in the back (Spain, Greece, even Korea…)

Go immediately back to Zig Forums you disgusting liberal piece of shit.

Attached: a7275f37e07a4610738ea355a4c7436226159a36a611ae15b90278d16c517d8e.jpg (585x707, 275.07K)

Attached: 1529984064654.jpg (500x465, 29.79K)

You're delusional OP, Putin is genuinely popular in Russia. However, if he dies or retires from politics, communists might have a chance at Venezuela-style protracted revolution.

Prove me wrong, tell me one fucking "left-wing" that he even did.

And no, industrializing is neither left or right wing.

inb4 beating fascist

Collectivization.
Now go back to reddit you piece of shit.

So I guess all the kings and capitalists are secretly leftists then, because all leaders do collectivize, even George Washington and Hitler.

build socialism

Yeah I don't see workers having the meant of production in USSR.

inb4 election in USSR is legit and if you vote, you control the means of production

You got a problem fam?

Attached: JIZZA.jpg (600x900, 105.41K)

Jesus fucking christ dude

Attached: 1530056279528.gif (379x387, 70.81K)

North Korea.
They're close to having a capitalist revolution.

Is that not true?

inb4 Jizza decides to support Remain like he actually did during the vote

inb4 EU is actual socialism

No they are not

Yes, you obviously don't know what collectivization means

Obv.

Literally put the first woman in charge of a Contry in the Tuvan Socialist republic.

Is what you mean?

Because that's what the kings and capitalists did.

...

It's not as widespread as you think. Most of these quasi-fascists have actually rejected Stalin because he hated the lot of them and his real-defenders have confronted them about it.

I'm gonna guess Navalny himself is a corrupt piece of shit.

1. Nationalizing industry is not a communist thing, every states do that
2. The church is reactionary bullshit and continue to remain reactionary bullshit to this day.
3. Read on russian folklore.
4. Equality for women is not a communist thing either, fucking capitalists also do that.

You're literally at Rand Paul levels of not understanding collectivization.
Read fucking Stalin you dopey fuck ->
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

Attached: collective laughter.jpg (2000x1087, 442.38K)

you're fucking retarded

Attached: manletfeels.jpg (293x397, 17.68K)

So I guess collectivization means another different thing for Stalin, and you gotta read Stalin to understand collectivization?

Picture of another guy who does collectivization?

Lel, so basically you are now backing on everything you said before , Nice
Read Stalin you moron

Attached: Voyage-timonel-Stalin-propaganda-Uni-n-Sovi-tica-URSS-cccp-vintage-retro-lienzo-Marcos-cartel-DIY.jpg (580x435, 50.25K)

Well they seem to be moving towards reunification with South Korea, and opening their country up to outside businesses; so they seem to be heading towards a capitalist revolution.

The what?

Attached: castro failure of socialism.jpg (850x400, 65.56K)

But it's true?

inb4 Collectivization can only happen during a "socialist" rule

Kings and capitalists did not have collectivization, because collectivization is not having one person owning everything. Read Stalin dweeb.

Navalny is an oligarchal puppet, a fake opposition for Putin.

Neither does kings and capitalists own everything, boyo.

They have a bureaucrat of managers who own things, like Stalin.

Source? Can you just leave the board already?

First, that would be capitalist reform, not revolution.

Second, they aren't opening up to foreign business, the mcdonalds shit was hearsay from a random south korean envoy.

Attached: 7c9.jpg (500x500, 46.4K)

No he is a Macron-esque lib who wants to restore the Empire in the name of freedom or some bs. His entire angle is to get Russia stronk so it can reclaim dominion over slavdom. However he grows closer with the Sobchak clan: aka the oligarchs who got Putin his first gig in politics in the first place.

inb4 McDonald in Pongyang
inb4 KJU i.e. the McDonald man himself shows up
inb4 WHY DOES IT MATTER?

businessinsider.com/north-korean-economy-shopping-black-markets-2017-10

Go to the north korean thread and get some education

Lords and managers
False. Stalin did not appoint managers, they were locally elected. Don't talk before you study, all that's coming out of your mouth is shit.

Educated yourself ->
The USSR was not democratic in the traditional western sense, because it democratic means "Mob Rule", the USSR was a Polity of worker soviets, which started on a local level, and built up to the federal government. It is a Cooperative Federalist system in that sense. No soviet leaders until Yeltsin were appointed power based on bloodline, political position or that kind of tripe, even Stalin was elected.

departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html

departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2185/the-ussr-the-democracy-you-didnt-know-about

Stepehn Kotkin - Magnetic Mountain (good overview of the party/state tensions during industrialisation, has a big section of the later purges, policing, the NKVD etc.)

J. Arch Getty - The Origins of the Great Purge (very much about structures, a bit outdated and contested, but I think a good overview of the administrative purges and what local party politics could be like - the later book The Road to Terror with Getty and Naumov is better in terms of the origins of the terror etc… but less specific about local power politics.)

Sheila Fitzpatrick - Everyday Stalinism (this is more so about what it was like to live in the era than about structures and such but does a good job of explaining the role of the party in everyday life and how people felt about it all)

Patrick Sloan Soviet Democracy: docs.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-R1pjc2NVQkQxYmM/edit

youtube.com/watch?v=9PoYzPfguJc

youtube.com/watch?v=Okz2YMW1AwY

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=c22e40075143d321a449a15690f82720

marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover Furr/index.htm

OK, user, a really long fucking post for everywhere is fake democracy, my USSR is true democracy.

And no, the lords and capitalists did not personally select every managers either, and that alone does not matter, they still fucking collectivize.