ITT: dogmatic retards

revisionism

Any arguments as to why these factions were revionist other than the connection to le cornman? This massive personality cult around Juche and the nationalism is not a good thing and plants the seed of revisionism itself.

Enver Hoxha was the first esoteric ML

What a fucking joke coming from the guy who had his name as glorious leader written in all the school books.

The more I read about him the more I realize how bunkerman was shit. Sure, he did conduct a partisan war and modernized the country quite effectively (without any famine, mind you), and while I can understand the split with the USSR and Yugoslavia, the split with China was completely retarded. Remember that the split occured before Deng seized power in China, and the Gang of Four and Mao were still arround when he decided to throw the Chinese experts out of Albania. There is literally no reason for a leader to do this, this was purely motivated by autism. Something that is rather rare in world history, not even the DPRK would throw out allies who have the same line as them.

Living standards stagnated after that whicht left many Albanians unhappy with the Hoxha period overall, go talk to older Albanians about it today and compare it with older Russians.

Completely irrational Stalin worship. We know it was Stalin's incentive not to help the DSE because he didn't want to upset the allies of which he still thought to be friends with at that point.

Mao literally hooked up with Nixon.

And Stalin hooked up with Churchill and Truman. Just because you have diplomatic relations with another country doesn't mean you are anti-communist now.

mmm actually if you read him he says that the Khrushschevites were holding back information on who was backing the uprising (aka Yugoslavia, the US and the Zionist spy-networks) while trying to make nice with Tito. The only reason Tito had Nagy arrested was that Khrushchev was already passing along all of his ideas and the revolt had already failed by the time he fled.

That wasn't official until after Mao's death and it really should have happened earlier but its pretty obvious that the party wanted to keep trying to see if the Chinese would ever fix their line or correct their "mistakes" which they made all the time despite muh self-criticism

You know that the Yugoslavia was kicked out of Cominform because of their treacherous actions against the Greeks? Remember that Mao who praised Tito when he thought no one who would squeal was listening.
espressostalinist.com/2016/08/14/mao-apologised-to-yugoslavian-delegates-told-stalin-blocked-our-revolution/
espressostalinist.com/2012/07/02/nikos-zahariadis-tito-cliques-stab-in-the-back-to-peoples-democratic-greece/

Yes, but Albania was probably the only country in Europe as poor as China. Both Albanians and Chinese saw real improvement in living standards but it can't be denied that while Mao made progress he left China an underdeveloped nation with relatively low super-powers. I don't think the Albanians criticism of Mao's economic "legacy" both in terms of output and real results was out of place; Mao never moved China out of its position as the fifth largest economy in the world. It's estimated that growth was just 6 annually under Mao and some Maoists even defended this on the grounds it was better to have a cultural revolution than to take a Stalinist productionist line.

The Soviets managed to move Russia from the sixth-largest economy to the second largest in just a few decades and even kept hold of that in spite of revisionist idiocy. Not to defend Deng but given that China fell-out of the number five spot even with high-growth it is plausible that China would have been left further behind if Mao's policies continued.

Yeah, these aren't the same. There was no proof that I've seen that the Soviets were gonna invade China and China already had nuclear arms, which meant it was capable of retaliation by itself.

Also, Chile and Bangladesh had fuck all to do with the tensions between the two countries. It was just away to please America by proving they wouldn't spread revolution or subvert its policy. Read the transcripts of Mao's meetings with Nixon, Kissinger and Ford for yourself–nothing cures mautism faster!
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MaoNixon.pdf
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MaoKiss.pdf
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MaoKiss2.pdf
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MaoKiss3.pdf
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/MaoFord.pdf

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 3.35.11 AM.png (380x542, 77.82K)

*low level of development
**fifth position under the KMT

Wew, who knew Mao was /ourguy/?

Attached: Mao our guy.jpg (1280x1024, 437.92K)

Goddamn Nixon was one smart mofo.
He literally divides conquer the communist bloc.

If only the dems didn't bring him down with Watergate.

Reminder no Marxist-Leninist-Maoist or Naxalite will deny Mao's right wing turn or how harmful it was.

What IS worse than the admission that the democrats are fucking pro-Soviet.

And they say democrats aren't communist!

...

Hoxha was based. Fuck you. Bait thread.

Attached: bde3eb47a7fb9cde138c78698fc1f4d16abeb556a6f21a6c1ceab753cc6b7bc4.png (600x333, 110.74K)

no he wasn't
he totally bungled it with his "soviet imperialism" shit
why do these "anti-revisionists" have to be such revisionist sectarians… c'mon…

Attached: presidente gonzalo.jpeg (1440x955, 123.99K)

...

Are we allowed to post non-coms?

Nice meme. The revolution of 1956 was clearly an anti revisionist spontaneous uprising of workers.

yeah… suuuure
apply a noose to your neck du revisionistisches stück dreck

imre nagy was a revisionist who cried about "stalinist monopoly".
pic related

you're thinking of dubcek.

Attached: 1956-Hungarian-Counter-revolution.jpg (980x552, 119.24K)

...

The revolution wasn’t Nagy alone, he was swept up in it more than anything else. Even so, Stalin is not the be all and end all of communism, so denouncing him is not the same thing as embracing capitalism.

I hope you realize that if Marx himself rose from the grave the US would still opportunistically back him if he talked shit about the revisionist USSR.

the point i was trying to make is that hoxhaists will both cry about destalinisation but then excuse it when the hungarians try doing it than it's okay because muh soviet imperialism. it's this stupid double standard that i'm getting sick off where they bitch about revisionism but then support people who are just as revisionist by their standards.

Attached: stalin 2.jpg (1180x729 359.41 KB, 360.3K)

Attached: 53547.PNG (890x741, 224.32K)

Attached: 1516921007967.jpg (631x480, 78.2K)

Attached: Hungarian counter-revolution violence 1956.jpg (607x400, 129.83K)

So this is the argumentative power of Marxism Leninism?

Attached: 426D1FBB-8201-49D2-9DC1-5DA3937F8820.jpeg (307x409, 51.93K)

Attached: 698e789056d80740f86e237acae6369f517e8e4c9aa8ff5d139f368a7ef307b3.png (338x333, 93.98K)

what did user mean by this

Stalin was a communist. If you intend to denounce him, you need to either heavily distort history, or to denounce communism, or both.

I didn’t say MLs are dumb, I agree with them on many issues. I said stacheposter is dumb and a bad example of ML.

Lots of people were communists. ⛏️rotsky was a communist, that doesn’t mean that denouncing him is tantamount to denouncing communism.

Attached: 1505422501996.png (276x256, 57.33K)

Revisionists aren’t communists.

Attached: 1197e825d6e8540f8ea10d3d94783bc3927b5cf0a30e304452657078002fcf07.gif (212x176, 925.43K)

Start making actual arguments anytime.

no user you don't get it they were anti-worker revisionists
unlike those brave revolutionaries tearing down statues of Stalin and murdering party members in the name of justice

Also is prooven that everyone who disliked Stalin was an anticommunist agent

Attached: edgy_unicorn_by_epesi-dbpbvyn.png (693x1154, 489.8K)

Attached: 1518292535359.jpg (321x369, 47.13K)

Attached: C2642890-EB47-4517-BB5A-FB034D0E02E1.jpeg (812x1200, 197.82K)

No. It is tantamount to denouncing communism if you are denouncing ⛏️ for those of his actions that were communist.

Stop pretending that anti-stalinism isn't the most beloved tool of anti-communists.

Attached: 1dddd72c48a0b5d2eb7ed66a406292d98ddff34b7b7333cb750db49cf79e9dc8.png (541x569, 584.25K)

Attached: 1523112858012.jpg (229x231, 44.14K)

I do have arguments, I listed facts about the Hungarian Revolution that display its legitimacy, such as its endorsement by various Marxist thinkers, various leftist forces in Hungarian politics, and the Hungarian proletariat itself. Then you just posted some epic meme pictures and congratulated yourself.

Attached: 3BD2D19F-EAE7-4976-B4DB-8E55D0885DBF.jpeg (1019x1005, 154.42K)

Reminder that Literally no evidence exists that the Hungarian Counter Revs established workers Soviets and that Muke ripped that shit straight off the Wikipedia Article

Attached: 6487487.jpg (640x932, 89.92K)

Such endorsement, much wow.

->

Also even if the Hungarian Counter Revs claims of Workers Councils were true that dosent stop the Councils themselves from being Reactionary And / Or Counter revolutionary and dosent change the fact the political faction liable to gain control from the coup was the SocialDemocratic Anti-Communists and Open Fascists

Depends really
But still there is no reason to argue about
stalin anymore
Also we can say that anticommunist also use fanatic stalinists to sabotage non stalin loving states

Depends but ideological differences does not mean anticommunism especially today

Attached: d0af37595c9fce945d26362f4f14ae952372f9aadac72376d99ab99fe42f5a61.png (255x137, 11.94K)

Attached: 9c20CXx.jpg (930x573, 37.19K)

Attached: 1518288065446.png (654x702, 415K)

Sorry

I was not really talking about Hungary bro
I have no idea what happened their

I have no idea what your post was supposed to mean.

Sure, there is ~1% of Revisionists who support Stalin. But doesn't change the fact that Stalin is still major figure of Communism and is used as a litmus test practically everywhere.

Let’s not much of an ML, but this unibrowed fuck was one of, if not the worst Soviet leader. Khrushchev for all his flaws actually wanted to spread socialism, while this fuck just sat on his hands and did hardly anything to help the Soviet Union or socialism worldwide

Attached: 8B75EB8C-8292-4293-B4C1-3DDA6D56C323.jpeg (550x374, 28.83K)

I hate my computer with its retarded ass autocorrect which snipes “fixes” things

except for when he helped Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (not Pol Pot), Afghanistan, Angola, Zimbabwe, and provided economic and military support to already existing socialist countries. he also prevented Dubcek from reforming Czechoslovakia.

he also stopped most of Khrushchev's reforms. also worth mentioning that the majority of Russians view him in a positive light, and many former Soviet citizens consider the 60s-70s to be the golden years of the USSR.

I should have clarified, later years of Brezhnev. When problems arose, he as I stated, sat on his hands. Plus his refusal to retire caused a secession crisis since nobody could fill in his shoes upon his death (or at least, nobody who could live for over a year) resulting in the birth mark fuck

oh alright yeah that's reasonable. he should have handed the torch on to Andropov earlier since he got really senile and Andropov could have had more time to make his reforms and crack down on corruption.

No no, it’s my own fault. I’ll admit early Brezzy was a godsend for the Soviet Union, but a curse as he started turning senile.

re: hungarian revolution
marxists.org/archive/fryer/1956/dec/index.htm

the above book is a short but interesting look at what happened during the hungarian revolt. based on his writing it sounds like the people were generally in favor of keeping a socialist system but absolutely hated their own government, the secret police, and the Russians.

also, i haven't read much of Hoxha's writings but from what I understand the Soviets werent "imperialists" in the sense of trying to extract surplus from their allied satellite states. they actually pumped a lot of money and resources into different countries like Poland in order to support national governments and build their own prestige. It was Soviet interference in the internal affairs of these countries that led to accusations of being social-imperialists or whatever.

I've always found it disgusting that he received the Hero of the Soviet Union award several times as fucking birthday presents. A minor thing perhaps but gives you an indication of his disrespect for the people.

Do you have a source on the claim that the Hungarians requested NATO intervention?

Haha, can you imagine

He did not. He was destroying socialism to increase his power.

Which is better than actively destroying socialism.

The fuck are you talking about?

Except Andropov might've also wanted to divide USSR in several independent economic zones. I.e. continue decentralization of Khrushchev. Additionally, Liberals in USSR were protected by Andropov - so it is partially his fault that Perestroika was attempted.

What even is a Marxist-Leninist anymore? Like, I can tell you exactly what concepts distinguish ⛏️rotskyism from other tendencies (permanent revolution, uneven and combined development, degenerated/deformed workers' state theory, the transitional program, united front, etc.)

Marxist-Leninists believed in socialism in one country, the popular front, stagism, etc.) But now the only thing I ever see Marxist-Leninists arguing about is which particular historical figure was revisionist swine and which one was a holy, inspired saint. It's like the Great Man Theory on pure, unadulterated autism is all that is required to be a Marxist-Leninist.

Actually, yes. I can.

Radicalising Left (outside of university campuses) seem to choose politically incorrect Stalin over "correct" (or should I say "right"?) ⛏️rotsky.

What can Trots suggest? Anarcho-Capitalist mumbling about EBIL BUREAUCRACY?

he's talking about the fact that Brezhnev stayed in office for way too long and by the time he died his two successors were both terminally ill and died within a year or so

This is easily the most infuriating thing with *some* MLs. It’s the same mode of thought that leads them to blaming revisionism for their failures and talking as if it simply appeared out of nowhere, instead of being the product of the conditions they created in the Soviet Union and co. ML’s created the political/class relations that gave rise to revisionism, and they created the political systems that allowed them to take power, rule with impunity, and betray socialism. Just blaming a lack of ideological purity for socialism’s failures without critically examining the conditions that created this problem is idealist as fuck. The cult of personality is retarded too. Even if you think Stalin did no wrong, he was still the product of a historical process, he didn’t rule as an individual, and without him the inertia of history would have carried the Soviet Union and socialism in general down a similar path.

If are actual Trot, then explain system of payments for work that would be introduced during first year after the Revolution (i.e. for workers who work on factories that were expropriated).

->

Gah.

are from any country with a strong ml party

Yes, enjoy your no revolution ever otherwise. Let's all worship weakness, because that is the only way to not brutalize the weak like your precious lifestylism under capital does and makes excuses for.

No.

What's the problem here, liberal?

Okay. I'm not even going to address this rabid strawmanning. I'll just express my hope that you'll get brain cancer.

What planet are you even on? ⛏️rotskyist groups are almost universally more popular than Stalinist groups in the first world. And the reason Stalinism is more popular in the third world is because it's a petty bourgeois praxis that appeals to petty bourgeois peasants and their bureaucratic intellectual leaders.

That's obviously gonna depend on the particular conditions of the particular revolution taking place. I personally share ⛏️rotsky's suspicion that money will take a while to be phased out and a wage system will continue to prevail for the first little while. In the first world countries it would presumably be phased out quite quickly by a voucher system, but again, this is all speculation.

I'd like to believe it isn't universal to MLs, but I rarely see MLs debating theory. It's always "This historical figure was a traitor" or "This historical figure was a hero and was right about everything".

Not an argument.

->

Okay. I'm going to sleep now.

I.e. you are a fucking larper.

Trots were arguing for equalization of wages, while ML - for differentiation.

It's not for you.

I had heard about bunker guy but never actually read about him.
BASED
FUCKING BASED
literally screaming
Is this what Plato meant by philosopher king?
When does this fucking end!
25,000 people is a drop in the bucket. There were more than 25,000 homicides in Mexico last year.

What happened in the later years of Albania? Why did the economy stagnate?

No self-respecting Trot has ever argued that all workers should be paid the same wage. In fact, in the Revolution Betrayed, ⛏️rotsky argued for the exact OPPOSITE of that in the USSR, you fucking dingus.

I see where you're getting confused now.

Trotsky pointed out that IF the USSR had actually entered socialism, then wages should have been starting to be equalized. This is correct and was merely ⛏️rotsky pointing out that the USSR was nowhere near socialist.

Why have socialists been constantly voted into power ever since the collapse of the socialist regime?

Trotsky was the first faggot to bring the millitary edgyness to the left
(other than that ⛏️rotsky was ok

this

With the banned poster
Mods now have to stop denying the fact that we are full of r/fullcommunism fags

what the fuck has that got to do with me post about Brezhnev you sperg

lol sorry dude, I quoted the wrong person lmao

For what reason?

Moreover, this misses the whole point of question: what policy on payments for work should be supported. You failed to give coherent answer. Are you claiming that it emerges spontaneously?

Oh my.

Because socialism doesn't make a distinction between skilled and unskilled labor, by definition. Fucking read Marx.
You can't make a universal policy prescription without knowing the specific context and material conditions of the revolution in question. This is the whole fucking point of Marxism and it's how I know you haven't actually read Marx.
Socialism, again, by fucking definition, has to have more advanced productive forces than capitalism. There were several capitalist countries with more advanced productive forces than the USSR at every single point in its history, so it definitively COULD NOT be a socialist country.