Thread for asking questions that don't deserve their own thread

I can't think of one!

Attached: rosoa.png (660x615, 609.94K)

Who's your favorite ML? Mine is without a doubt Che, just someone I have so much admiration and respect for. He could've lived a peaceful, luxurious life after the Cuban Revolution but he chose to keep on fighting where a fight was necessary

Attached: M-26-7.svg.png (500x333, 7.94K)

Well, that goes without saying, he could've lived a peaceful, luxurious life without ever leaving his home in Argentina.

Well yeah but you know what I mean.

Is Thalmann considered ML? I really like Thalmann.

If you live somewhere in North America, then I reckon that you get ready for a civil war. Wars never end because…they simply change tactics and money is shifted here and there. There is no honor in anything besides defending one's country and then pushing back until ruin. Don't you want to see this system destroyed?

well probably lenin although some might argue that he was just a plain leninist and not an ML despite them being basically the same thing
i also like pic related since he was a godsend for the USSR by bringing back collective leadership and improving living standards, as well as rehabilitating stalin a fair amount
don't really think he was that good of a leader (for example the fact that he refused to leave office earlier and didn't really deal with corruption) but soviet life was at it's peak under him

Attached: 81DE3D28-1398-492E-81F2-DAA17EC8CDB5.jpeg (1000x704, 354.94K)

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The so called "middle class" has been shrinking, but I mean Marx & Engels weren't right about everything, that's a given.

I live in South America though.

Oh good. If you're Brazilian, and you start the fighting…then everyone is going to get in on it; North and South. It's going to be WW3 and everyone is invited. Hahahahahaha.

I'm chilean actually lol

These are all from episode 1.1 of Emancipation Materials Podcast, the only one I can vouch for actually being useful is Erik Ovin Wrights work Understanding Class. Half of this other stuff is Leftcom shit though so I'm suspicious of it.

I actually had to look up who this was but I'd say yes. Also I think it's very interesting how so many german communists of the 20th century fought in WW1. Someone said something pretty smart about this, that war if you are a rightwinger will probably end up making you a leftist or even more rightwing.

Look you fucking dirt: Communism doesn't work beyond 100 people and I stand by this proposal because I believe in Communism at a very limited scale. I want my research and I think we missed something when it comes to plants and perennials you see? If I have to kill my own brother to get the chance to finally have my research on the get-go…then so be it.

He also scrapped cybernetics and invaded Afghanistan, which were two decisions that at the very least shortened the lifespan of the USSR considerably if not doomed it altogether.

Was there any reason as to why he chose to end their cybernetic project? Cause this was a massive mistake imo, like cybernetics are really that important and something we should strive for. I legit think there's no reason for any self-proclaimed ML to reject cybernetics.

Eyebrowboi had two main plans for reform put before him in the late 60s: Soviet Cybersyn; called OGAS, and a Kadarist/Titoist style self management system called the Kosygin reforms (named after the soviet foreign secretary and wartime ambassador to the US). Brezhnev rejected them both, as they were proposed under Cornholio: likely out of pure conservatism and a weird adherence to maintaining the status quo no-matter what.

If Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably and came up with the idea of the DotP, what was the DotP supposed to be? Capitalist? Socialist?

Foucault?
Who likes him? Who hates him? Why?

Attached: panopticon-image.jpg (220x270 1.21 MB, 18.82K)

Neither but I never really got into him because of his writing style which is too complicated and I don't have the brain power / energy / patience

Attached: 344180.jpg (365x363, 35.96K)

Man that's such a shame

Marx thought that the DotP should abolish capitalism, but that it would have to “bear the birthmarks” of capitalism, ie maintain some elements of capitalist society (the state, currency/medium of exchange, division of labour) iirc from Critique of the Gotha Program. You should definitely read that though to make sure I’m not getting it wrong.

But this transitional stage, does he state what economic/political stance would take? Or does he just refer to it as a lower stage of communism?

Note that the dictatorship of the proletariat and lower stage communism are two different things. DOTP is when the proletariat first seizes state power, but capitalist relations still exist (because obviously capitalism can’t be destroyed in one stroke). After the DOTP engages in a period of struggle against the bourgeoisie and defeats them, they then enter into lower stage communism.

Sexual minorities, people who don't want to have their every step watched.

Tankies, """anarchists""" who still like Chomsky, analytics.

So the bourgeoisie still exists in the DotP?
Also

Daily reminder Foucault literally said “Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else.” How anyone here can like this guy is beyond me.

Yes, the DotP period is when the working class seizes power, organizes itself, and fights off any attempt at counter-revolution. The DotP is a state created by the workers to suppress the bourgeoisie and abolish exploitation. It's during this period that the revolution is consolidated and the real transformation of society can begin.

Lenin explains it very nicely in this chapter:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

Attached: originalsource.png (1600x557, 261.62K)

But do you take a more orthodox marxist approach and use this interpretation or a leninist approach and think the DotP is socialism?

State and Revolution is actually really accurate to Marx’s views. You can contrast some of Lenin’s other opinions with Marx’s, but in State and Revolution their views aligned.

Can we find some evidence of whether or not the ML cult of personality leaders (Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Kim Dynasty, etc.) used ghostwriters for their theory? The sheer quantity of works allegedly written at the same time as leading a country naturally makes me suspicious. I've heard contradictory reports from both Liberal and Anti-Stalinist left sources. For example, "contrary to popular belief, Stalin refused to use ghostwriters" on one hand and "doctrines were issued in his name from an army of ghostwriters" on the other, both without any supporting evidence. So which one is it?

For Stalin, the quantity and quality of the work written seems plausible, but for Mao, Hoxha and especially the Kims it just seems like an improbable amount of work.

Attached: Ghostwriter.jpg (3264x2448, 1.98M)

Lenin used the word socialism to describe lower stage communism
He clearly distinguishes between the DOTP and socialism.
So the DOTP is the means by which the global bourgeoisie is smashed. Once they are smashed, then we reach lower stage communism, in other words socialism.

Lenin wrote a shitton of stuff while organizing the revolution and navigating Russia through civil war, intervention and NEP reconstruction. I don't think there is any doubt he wrote it all himself based on style and quality, and yet his rule was perhaps more demanding and stressful compared to everyone you named.

I see. So socialism is a development of of the DotP? Basically let me know if I got this right:
Capitalism-》DotP-》Socialism-} Communism

1. I'm not an ML
2. What this user says is correct. Lenin's explanation of the DOTP

tbh i don't believe even Lenin thought that was true. the confusion came later.

…is accurate, and he explains how Marx & Engels used the term and how it related to the state in Marxist theory.

What's with all these brain damaged new leftists since 2016 being such theory-memorizing morons? Am I really unique for being a poor person legitimately brought to revolutionary conscious by my experiences? Because it seems like every other moron in say, my Democrat Cops of America meetings, just got upset that Hillary was nominated and decided to google search what was left of the DNC.

What is wrong with reading theory?

not a question so polite sage but i just had to say it
i KNEW i recognized that bounciness from that gif in the OP
youtube.com/watch?v=cjTugPleGow

Well my local chapter has this bar night thing, right? It's supposed to be a casual meetup for everyone to bullshit, and its also for potential members to approach us on casual terms and talk about stuff in plain language. But there's always at least one jackass in a newsboy cap that sounds like he was sent to the future to spread socialism via 10,000 thesis and I can't fucking stand it

DPRK has a religious party and a social democrat party in their parliament

I might get shit on for this very hot take but personally I think everyone should be allowed to believe in whatever they want. Like being honest, I'm against killing random fascists who have no power to do anything. Hell I'd even allow them to protest with nazi flags and shit, let them say what they want to say, regardless of how retarded they are. Only if they are violent should we act. The difference between being violent against the ruling class is that to oust them you need to take their power by force, it's the only way it's possible. Voting the bourgeoisie away is ridiculous and will never happen. But once we hold power, all the fascists, nazis etc won't be able to do anything about it. If they attempt to fight back, we'll crush them. Plus, just living in a socialist society will be enough for many rightwingers to not speak out of fear.

Mao Zedong baby, cultural revolution and one divides into two theory of dialectics are absolutely indespensible

Attached: IMG_20180925_200342.jpg (820x1024, 220.15K)

I like him as a theorist but as a leader he did a lot of stupid shit.

On the free market of ideas, fascism and reaction will win more often than not because it requires no thought and is easy to sell through emotion and aesthetics. Fascists won't care that material conditions in your socialist paradise are good, they are driven entirely by spooks. Allowing them to speak freely gives you Zig Forums. Until full communism when there is no material base for fascism whatsoever, it will have to be dealt with. Dont worry, we'll just put them in nice scandinavian style prisons and make them read Marx and Lenin

and he's of great value despite all of this

I suppose you are right, I just believe people should be able to believe whatever they want. Idk it may be a bit idealistic of me but whatever.

I guess, I don't hate him. I just disagree with a lot of what he did but his theory is pretty good.

It is definitely nice to let people believe what they want but often what is nice is not the optimal course of action. Perhaps the best way to combat reactionary (lack of) thought is rigorous education. We could allow free access to shit like Mein Kampf and Austrian economists, but with mandatory Marxist commentary that explains how silly and impractical believing in all that is.

Providing a factual history of the Nazi party and the Pinochet regime would be more than enough to dissuade tbh.

What we need is a well-designed marketplace of ideas. One that enables people to see through dumb emotional manipulation in its very design. Organizing this requires a lot of thought, but I'm sure it should be possible.

The main thing I would want to do is force political groups into having respectful conversations with each other, so that a fake news story is quickly identified as the bullshit it is. With every political post, prominently display respectful individuals who disagree with it. Also find a way to make collaborative fact-checking work. Create Wiki pages for popular news stories that nuance or refute their content. Then have people link to them whenever they pop up. The critique is then listed alongside the story itself.

If for every idiot posting a racial I.Q. study, we could link a page that explains why the study doesn't say what they think it says, this would likely defeat fascism on the internet. They rely on being able to leave things unspoken.

Agree with this.

Fascists don't give a fuck what the studies they post say. They just follow the rules of debate by sourcing, but what matters to them is not truth but that their emotional message gets through and perhaps brain-worms their way into someone. There is a crapton of refutations of racial realism on the internet already, and all they do is put brackets around the author's name and continue circlejerking around roman statues. I am sorry, but fascism cannot be "owned with facts and logic", that has been proven time and again. Only class terror, conscious education from childhood and, in the future, global elimination of the material base for revolutionary thought can "own" fascism.

Thought I guess revolutionary thought too, in a way.

To anarchists: why don't you read Lenin?
To Leninists: why don't you read Althusser?
To Althusserians: how do you justify his more controversial positions (Marxism=science, his reliance on Spinoza)?

Why or why not would syndicalism be a viable phase between capitalism and socialism?

Name one thing wrong with reading theory as long as it doesn’t slip into dogmatism and book-worship. It’s not the end all be all but I think it is important to have a basic understanding of. Ultimately, though theory is merely a guide to action. Praxis and real life experience are arguably more important than theory in many ways, though.

What's better: AKM or M16?

I just haven't gotten around to it yet, ok? Why don't you recommend me where I should start? 'What is to be done'?

That work is good

State and Revolution
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm
“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

Because it would be socialism. Why the ☭TANKIE☭s never adopt it/adapt it is baffling tbh

Lenin's earlier work is a bit outdated. He changes his mind on a lot of things after 1914. So I would recommend sticking to works made from 1914 onward.

Thanks for the info, I'll get on it.

How many pages have you sentenced him to?

Attached: Leninism.jpg (2400x1944, 398.32K)

IMO the m16 series is better all-around than the AK series, I've used both.

They both have strengths and weaknesses, it's hard to say whether or not there is a clear winner between the two. There's a reason why that particular comparison has been the subject of debate for decades.

can you ever go a thread without bitching about MUH CRYPTO CAPITALIST ☭TANKIE☭S
at least stop being a fucking tripfag

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=AAF8B2E104D5F9F72E065069DD24C283

Attached: kJ23zON.jpg (900x675, 411.07K)

jesus christ i know it's wikihow but what were they fucking thinking

Syndicalists aren't necessarily committed to transforming society or abolishing hierarchies.

This doesn't work if the message is immediately undermined whenever they try it. I'm proposing is that we implement a mechanism that provides nuance to every claim that's made. Puts it in a larger context. Most of the bullshit fascists come up with is endlessly rehashed, so what we do is automatically attach it to a page telling the other sides of the story.
The point is not to disprove them, but to undermine their emotional appeal. Their emotional appeal relies on the idea that they're giving you an objective truth. Without that base, it doesn't work.

Either way, this kind of mechanism would at least get people to look outside their political bubble.

Syndicalism is a form of socialism.

Stuff like that is already done. Fascists don’t rely on facts or reason, they are completely feels > reals and make their own truths. Whatever you throw at them they’ll claim is fake, distorted, lies simply because they cannot be convinced otherwise. A bullet is the only way to win an argument with a fascist. So much for the tolerant left

That is what the hyphen is for in anarcho-syndicalism
Unions and co-ops are terribly marginalized under a capitalist system, so it stands to figure they would oppose it if given the chance and spread their mode.
Don't you marginalize those who have taken the means of production peaceably

Are you suggesting implementing a hyper-advanced AI that is capable of scouring and comprehending all the claims being made on the internet and adding on "correct" information in every case?

That FBI gif is fucking cute, where is it from, is it a reference to something or is it just something random someone made?

potato brain post

it's from a porn artist called minus8

How is it not? Unless you’re referring to Syndicalism as praxis rather than as a form of economic organization, because it can be both. There’s also fascist Syndicalism which you may be confusing with Anarchist or Marxist (DeLeonist) Syndicalism.

Syndicalism is an outdated joke, unions have basically zero revolutionary potential today.

Within the charged atmosphere of a civil war, especially ones caused by political chasms, words can spark armed rebellion, I'm afraid. Lenin got so fed up with dissidents openly calling for "resisting *cough* maybe with a few guns perhaps *cough* the Soviet State" throughout the civil war he had them exiled instead of gulagged.

He's kind of the founder of spookology, meaning analyzing the spooks guiding someone's actions, which is rather valuable. It helps one understand how capitalism isn't a system that "arose naturally and that's why it stays firm", but rather an institution that had to violently establish and protect itself, even if its earliest agents weren't aware of the gestalt/spook (geistalt? I'm trademarking this, do not steal) they were fighting for.

The Kims are its own creature, but as for the rest, I'd guess that they didn't need to bother with ghostwriterrs because whatever they wrote would be holy writ regardless.

That's some hot prophylaxis.

Neither do communist parties, for that matter.

Attached: 1288031575558.jpg (184x184, 6.73K)

Sure buddy.

Actual IWW style unions hardly exist today of course (liberals marginalize them and Marxist-Leninists shoot them) But you're probably just thinking of New Deal bureaucratic unionism. Yeah, not a force to be reckoned with today.

What? Where? Jesus your posts read like standard Zig Forums fare but with MLs instead of jews, it's embarassing

You are by far the worst trip poster to ever exist. If you would actually read Marx you might even get why syndacalism is not socialism. Separate independent economic entities are antithetical to socialism. And please do show an example of MLs shooting down IWW unionized workers. Or maybe look at the history of the IWW and the Marxists that worked within and gave support to it.

except that he actually says that.

this is from the manifesto no less

No offense intended. I don't mean to implicate all M-L in the murdering of the socialists, just some pivotal moments in socialist history.

Pardon, I was being too brief. I meant the Marxists in Spain who killed their comrades before the fascists broke them all. Donno how many if any were IWW.

Not sure what the point it.

The point is that ownership of the means of production is not enough. If the product of labour is still a commodity the capital relationship has not been abolished. And, how it's put sometimes, "communism is not a mode of management of capital". There are plenty of worker-owned productive entities, none of which constitute any kind of socialism.

Ah. So, as I said elsewhere, that is why it is called Anarcho-syndicalism
Dissolving the owner class and challenging all unjustifiable hierarchies leads to an environment that can transform from vouchers and whatnot to merely a resource based shared economy.