M-L here. I want anarchists to give me some reasons why anarchism is preferable to marxism-leninism. (Genuinely curious)

M-L here. I want anarchists to give me some reasons why anarchism is preferable to marxism-leninism. (Genuinely curious)

Try not to bring up the USSR/"AE socialism" as an example. Even though i overall support the USSR (at least up until the 50's when the path to degradation to capitalism was set) my criticisms are mainly from a "libertarian" perspective. F.e I believe some kind of grassroots worker organizations (horizontally organized and with no special privileges amongst its members) should have been set as a mechanism to prevent the corrosion of the party by bourgeiose/revisionist elements. In the very least they could have given power to the 77% of Soviet citizens who denied the criminal overthrow of socialism.

pic unrelated :p

Attached: 29s9files-thumb-large.jpg (960x600, 43.22K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_People's_Liberation_Party/Front
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

the state is fascist brooo we can just make collectives that get run over by fascists like franco in cataluyna

The state is oppressive. The state is what sustains capitalism. To abolish capitalism abolish the state. Capitalist states like the USSR prove that Marxism is just fascism with red paint(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Reported

much more palpable to burgers/euros
already exists on a verrryy small scale
only issues with upscaling come from industries that require large supply chains or workforce, which may be negated in time by 3d printers.

The state is an enormously powerful system of social organization. To think you'll be able to carve out a piece of territory from an already-existing state and actually defend it without an equally powerful organization is pure optimism.
Look at the Kurds. Look at the Spanish Civil War. The USSR fell to revisionism, but it would have fallen much sooner to German tanks if you anarchists were in 'charge'. You should be thankful that the M-L's saved you from yourselves

You say "the criminal overthrow of socialism" but by the time that referendum was made socialism had been dead in the USSR for a long time.
As for the actual question, I'm not an anarchist, but one anarchist argument which makes sense to me is that anarchism is much less likely to fall to revisionism than MLism is. Then again someone might say they don't last long enough to even become revisionist but whatever.

(assuming you ain't trolling cause that's one hell of an answer :P)
The state is not a metaphysical entity. I understand that maybe our definitions of the state differ, but the state is simply the apparatus by which a class exerts its authority. The state is only oppresive against whichever class is not in control of it, currently it's oppresive against the proletariat which happens to be the vast majority of the population (suppressing strikes, worker-revolutionary demonstration, spreading propaganda regarding the revolutionary movements etc). Under socialism it suppresses private property and as a result exploit the working class. Also safeguards the revolution through an organized military against imperialist intervention (which happens 100% of the time when it can).

Abolishing the state => abolishing capitalism? No, not really. As i said it's not a stable entity which disregards the class which is in power. You can fight against and abolish the offshoots of the bourgeios state (police, military, government) but practically that doesn't erase the social-economic relations which hold capitalism.

Not even gonna comment on the communism thing, just disgusting :P

However the USSR was not capitalist. There was no private property, no private profits and accumulation of wealth. Putting aside the very high wages of the workers of the USSR, the profits went to the state which was a representative of worker authority and redistributed amongst different sectors of society, serving the working class. The results of this are evident, illiteracy was eliminated, the most brutal and powerful army ever seen in history was defeated, a fourth of the world's doctors and scientists in 1987 came from the USSR.

Yeah ideally it would because of the fact that there could be no authority that could be exploited by one man or even a group of people. But the fact that they deny the neccesary strict organization (and eventually hierarchy) which is needed in a military force (but also politically and economically) which would likely have to face intervention by imperialist superpowers makes succesful anarchism pretty unlikely.

Is that photo real or just from some LARP group?

iirc members of a banned turkish ML party held some judge? hostage over some protesters death and killed him when the police came.

Good praxis

We save them by putting bullets in them, like how you save someone who has been infected with a zombie virus.

based and breadpilled

I'm not a fan of any kind of political repression that doesn't include tanks

tanks can fire bullets

Yes but if it only shoots bullets, you're not utilizing it's full use-value

Read "Listen, Marxist!" by Bookchin.

So here's a question about antifa that always bothered me, are they for or against big government? I mean if it's the latter, a full blown civil war would obliterate the government in the process so effectively they have no path to victory which makes their efforts futilely retarded. What's the end game for that collection of retarded leftists?

Stands for anti fascist. Their only 'goal' is to combat fascism. You burger right-wingers never fail to understand that antifa is just an ad-hoc collection of people protesting fascism. It's not a cohesive group

To protect local communities from marching fascists (have you been paying attention?)

Like if some proudboys were prowling about in my neighborhood (which pooice have been caught turning a blind eye too their actions) id want some smashies around.

Should be
I'm retarded. Apologies

Antifa are liberals with a red fetish like most anarchists.

The will shout #smashTheState but at the same time be in favor of succdems like bernie>>2769628

Tbh a less authoritarian form of ML would also be effective in combatting revisionism. Revisionism takes root when the interests of the bureaucrats and party elite diverges from those of the people while those same elites become unaccountable to them. ML lends itself to this by having a very strict interpretation of what constitutes socialist democracy and legitimate criticism.

what about a more authoritarian version of ML where revisions were put against the wall

Not an anarchist here, but given the choice, I would always choose an anarchist group over a ML one.
I've got many reasons for this, first being the authoritarian structure that comes with """""democratic""""" centralism. Organising a party in this way of course makes it easier to win in times of civil war or imperialist aggression. However, all victories won by such a party also always seem to fall into themselves ones dominance has been achieved.
If the party line is decided upon by the head of the party and criticism by the base is not allowed (which it theoreticly was, practicly not), the party head will just reproduce itself. New ideas and candidates from the base are unable to rise to the top bc if they bring any new ideas to the table, they will be regarded as revisionist by the head of the party and excluded (gulaged). The only way to rise up the ranks in such a political structure is to mindlessly repeat what the head of party already thinks, making pluralism impossible.
Another point is the ridiculous amount of social and cultural control carried out by every ML state in history. Music, movies, literature and so on are not allowed to be imported from capitalist or revisionist (basically anyone who isnt the special snowfalke kind of ML that the state represents, even other socialist countries) nations. This has almost fascistic character in that the punishments of such "crimes" are ,in almost every case of this I came across, almost cruel. My own uncle had to go to prison in GDR for listening to Westradio (muic from the west) and owning a copy of Star Wars for 8 months. Afterwards he payment was cut and he became socially isulated by his colleagues and friends bc being seen with an enemy of the state could mean you yourself would be checked by the Stasi.
And don't even think about comming up with shit like >muh personal experience or isolated instances, there are thousands of stories like this out of the ML states.
Thirdly, I can not support any party to build any state in which the justice system is structured like it was in ML states. If you only have a chance of high positions in the justice system if you are a member of the party (especially a ML party), there is no way things like favouritism don't take hold.

Of course you can argue that every anarchist project failed to sustain themselves, but also every ML state became a shit-show and eventually reverted back to capitalism.

I know authoritarian structure sounds mean but its really more effective than any anarchkiddy groups.

It's effective in fighting a revolution and building a stable state, for sure. But what sense does that make if the state being build is flawed? Why should I try to overthrow capitalism as a western worker if I loose so much personal freedom. I know this is a life-stylist argument, but isn't that how the majority of proles today think?
Sure, the bourgois democracy deson't empower me and the capitalist exploits me, but at least I can read every book, visit every nation, listen to evry song. Of course I need to have money, to work to be able to enjoy these things. And sure this things are only created as commodities and most books, songs and so on are thus of bad quality, but not all.
In a ML state I can't even do that. I can only read, song, view , know, think those things the party decided I can have access to. In capitalism I am alienated while I work, because my work doesn't belong to me. In a ML state, I am always alienated bc the the grip of the ML party touches everything inside that system. I can NOT choose what I wanna spent my time with.
In the USSR every movie had political character, since they all were made with political intent. They had to be pure of what was called "western decadence". Same was true for the music in the GDR. Making songs just about fucking, or partying or celebrating desitructive behavior was not possible. I know this sounds retarded compared to the problems of capitalism (destroyng the ecology, starving the third world), but these things arent feld by the first world worker, and saying to him that he should abandon all things that currently give him purpose, all the (meaningless) lifestyle and culture, just to create a system that will not allow him to have these things but might be more egalitarian (on paper, Stalin still lived in giant old buildings, Honecker still had private hunting lodges nobody else had access to and the payment in the east was often worse then in the west) is insane. Nobody will follow that call, and as a muscian, neither would I.

Another point I would like to mention here is that I find it funny that ML's always talk about anarchists being not effective, meaning unable to secure the revolution, even though the best example of an anarchist revolution (spain) was disrupted by ML's and the success of ML revolutions being based on the Soviets winning and then simply exporting their revolution, making the lead that ML's have over anarchists in terms of revolutions creating a stable system 1 - 0, which really isnt that impressive and definetly not "historic" proof that anarchism isnt effective.

From a Marxist/materialist perspective socialism is an improvement from capitalism just as capitalism is an improvement from feudalism. Imagine a surf asking why he should over throw feudalism in favor of capitalism when the work hour are longer


you're saying you're content with the soul crushing life style of capitalism provided you have cheap pleasures.


its no different in capitalism. anything deemed harmful to the status quo is restricted. this is inherent in all power structures.


Did you get this from any real life ML state or is this from dystopian media?

All movies have a political intent. Movies lacking overt politics encourages apathy towards politics which is also political.

this is a good thing.

capitalism doesn't give people meaning, media about self destruction does not give people meaning either nor does restricting these harmful elements refuse people of a meaningful life.

they lost almost every battle that the soviets weren't involved in.

Attached: 1418412236457.jpg (1273x867, 122.29K)

Tanks > No tanks

Who defines revision then? The ruling Dengists?

Thanks for stating the obvious I guess?

The surfs conditions changed from feudalism to capitalism in that he became free in two ways: free of the feudal stances but also free of productional means. In russia, I would argue, they didn't get them back. Democratic workplace control under ML means being giving a plan by the party cooked up by "experts" where you can now decide how many hours you want to work etra without pay for the glorrious revolution. So the step from feud to cap obviously imrpoved their conditions, the construction of the USSR didnt, unless you were blindly following the party and not questioning anything the party said.

That's clearly what you would like my position to be. I obviously pointed out the flaws of these views and how they are life stylist. I am not content with capitalism, which is why I am a communist. But I wouldn't be content with the ML system either.

Which is why this board still exists and there are several marxist parties in my country as well as all over the world? Of course you could say that capitalism deosnt need to supress marxist views since there is no revolutionary potential anyway, but it's not like the ant-soviet forces in the USSR were any stronger from end of WW2 onwards. Still there was draconic punishments and an extremely small amount of personal liberty.

Get this: I actually got it from a fromer ML who lived in a ML state, namely my uncle who was a citizen of the glorrious GDR.

Wrong.

That doesnt mean that they were made with political intend, but rather that implicit political visions take form in apolitical art too.

Objectively not. Fucking is one of the most important and emotional things any human can experience. Being not able to express feelings and thoughts connected to it by state law is insane. Generally not being able to artisticly express yourself is the worst nightmare I can imagine.

No, people create culture, culture reflects humans, and humans then reflect themselvesin culture. Neither Socialism or capitalism, create culture, if anything culture can have socialist or capitalist character based on where it originates from.

So there are no self-destructive personality types or are they just not allowed to express themselves. This is the problem with autoritarian
ideologies: you have a vison of how society ought to be and everything that goes against that is to be repressed.

How do you know that? If I find my meaning in living on the streets and doing drugs because I cant stand living in hard structures due to traumas from my childhood and me doing drugs because of living in a societal group in which that is the norm this is exactly what fullfills me. Trying to define meaningful life as anything other than what ppl decide what they thing meaning is is pure ideology.

Marxism-Leninism is absolute shit. There are two types of M-Ls: The ☭TANKIE☭ cultists online, and the actualy M-L parties who function as caucuses for the Democrat party. Time and time again, the CP, FRSO, PSL and all the other stalinoids pony up behind the Democrats. Why? Their politics/theory is infantile.


The two-stage theory of revolution, which Stalin confusingly described as "Marxist-Leninism" has never proceeded past the first stage. The revolution in Russia, of course, as a permanent revolution is NOT what Stalin would have preferred. Whether in China, North Korea, Vietnam, or anywhere else once the capitalist revolution happens, the bureaucrats realize how much power they'd lose continuing the revolution they universally embrace state capitalism.

Anarchists don't have much theory, but it's better than a shit ton of bad theory, which is all that MLs have to offer.

so being anarchist is a bannable offence now?

/thread

Been tried numerous times, literally never works. Albania was probably the most hardcore anti-revisionist state and they went revisionist the second Hoxha died. Stalin purged revisionists by the thousands but it didn’t stop them from taking over within a generation. You can never get them all, and if you try to do it with brute force all you do is create a massive repressive apparatus that stifles party democracy and legitimate criticism. Then, once the revisionists worm their way through the cracks, they now find themselves in control of the repressive tools designed to destroy them. At that point they can mobilize them against real communists with impunity. See, Xi disappearing Maoists. The solution to revisionism is to check it from below, not above. Genuine proletarian democracy will not allow the return of capitalism.

This shouldn’t even surprise you at this point, if its not pure ☭TANKIE☭ you’ll be banned if someone bothers to report you

There’s a middle ground between “””””democratic””””” centralism and anakiddie bullshit. The principle of diversity of thought, unity of action is sound, but needs to be carried out consistently. That means no bans on factions, no stifling of criticism once a decision is reached, etc. Free criticism must be allowed within the party at all times, and expulsion should be reserved for people who take action against the agreed upon line, not those who consistently criticize it.

Of course a ML style leadership will always have a revisionist opposition since every genuine socialist who critizes their line will inevtibaly be be grouped together with revisionists, strengthening their power overtime.
Examples of this would be the actions of the red army in situation like hungary, where the repression defintely was not proportional to the threat the rebellion was. It would have been much more rational to maybe let the military mobolize but not engage and negotiate with the seperatists (still demonstrating the higher ground).
Of course now ML's will claim that this was necessary since there were actually revisionist and anti-socialist forces involved in the rebellion, which is of course true. What needs to be asked tho is why the non-ML socialists and anarchists sided with anti-socialists in this situation?
Obviously because by ML line, they already were revisionists, were grouped with the enemies of the revolution according to the bolsheviks.
I think that if the bolsheviks didn't act in such a repressive measures, it would have made them stronger against revisionism instead of weaker.

I think this thread was really productive and wanna mention that I am not an anti-leninst or think that ML has no points, but it's definetly time to stop coppying 100 year old political strategies and seperate the left in revisionist or trve ideologies.

He was banned for calling the USSR fascist, dumbasses

Mls were fucking traitors who didn't save anyone and backstabbing someone who's fighting the same force as you were which lead to even more deaths of your own soldiers is the height of stupidity and short sightedness. ML is the equivalent of the angry kindergarten child who kicks over the school project, ruining it for everyone, because the rest of the group didn't want to do it the way he did.

Because the state apparatus grows to oppress the same people that it claims to represent. The fact that nobody is actively trying to dissolve the state after its objectives should raise a massive red flag (pun). Then we get the "the state will wither away" line, m8, do you think the state is a plant? State will not "wither away" unless people are actively trying to make it wither away, but, this never happens. Like it or not, anarchists have been the only group in history to give the workers the MoP.

Also to claim that one side didn't win solely because they didn't consolidate state power is pure ideology. You're oversimplifying and entire complex network into a single defining cause, which is ridiuclous. It's the equivalent of a freudian saying that all the schizophrenic, depressive, and autistic episodes located within one individual are solely because he wants to fuck his mother.
When taken to its logical conclusion this obviously shows why this reasoning MLs use is fallacious: do you honestly expect a group of 100 people to take on an imperialist country of 10 million or more so simply because they had an ML party in power? Of course not.

TL;DR tankfags oversimplfy everything not working because there wasn't anough centralization

The GPCR did this, and even that didn't last forever.
The only solution is to build a system that is stable and strong enough that it doesn't depend on a "honeymoon phase" of revolutionary spirit. This is what Cockshott is basically proposing, which is part of what makes his proposals so attractive.

Attached: mao_zedong_cultural_revolution.jpg (874x584, 290.08K)

Based. Star Wars is fascist.

Why not just take a page from America's constitution? Create some kind of foundational, constitutional law banning private capital ownership etc. that requires 4/5ths of some voting body (either direct referendum of all voters or special constitutional delegates) to overturn. Make it even more difficult, make it so that 4/5 of each individual state or province must also vote to ratify, so that if the total voting base hits 4/5 because one region is in unanimous support, but another region is only 3/4 in favor then it still gets shot down.

Of course, a coup could always just suspend the constitution by force, but I feel like this security in the notion that the US Constitution is legally and legislatively, effectively indomitable creates some security in the idea that nobody really needs to be repressed because they'd have to really create some kind of insane mass movement to make constitutional changes.

The main difficulty for this is that socialism needs to be able to move forwards into communism. So you need a flexible constitution that allows quick changes and revolutions in the economy and MOP as long as they are further enhancing DOTP or abolishing private property, etc. This could help prevent revisionists like Cornman and Eyebrows who don't technically roll things back very much, but don't move things forward as needed. As well, you should have communist supreme court: a body of highly-educated, qualified Marxist scholars whose sole purpose is to strike down counterrevolutionary laws, bureaucrats, and politicians. The USA and Iran both have an example of this.
That said, if you look at how the US constitution has held up, a lot of the amendments have been torn to shreds.

Funny, anarchists and MLs have had their revolutions, no matter how flawed or short lived. Where were yours?

What is Pic related from exactly?
I obviously assume it's some Turkish / Kurdish thing?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_People's_Liberation_Party/Front
reverse image search dude

Blah blah blah find new material

“Big Government” is an Amerifat meme used by conservative suits to appear populist despite the fact that they’re campaigning for everything to be worse for the working class at every election.

Stop this meme

Ideally it should be.

Antifa is a tactic, not an ideology.

TBH I'm a Leninist of sorts, but every single western Leninist party is full of retards who will never lead a revolution because they cling to dogmatic ideas which do not chime with the reality of modern society and are all mired in defeatism. I believe some level of authoritarianism is necessary for a revolution, I do not see any ML party gaining the support of the masses however. As such I organise mostly with Libertarians who are willing to do things outside of hold stalls and sell papers and swear that they are not trots

Attached: Sputtering Baffoon.gif (261x209, 346.94K)

No, but being a dumbass liberal is.

The Bolshevik Revolution

Still not remotely banworthy. I wonder how many of the people who think these bans are good are just newfags who don't remember what this board was like before BO went insane.

...

calling ussr *rouge fascism

Got any screencaps? Because I have no memory of that. People used to say all sorts of shit without getting banned.

ML IS OFFICIALLY ☭TANKIE☭ SHIT NOW ANARCHISM WILL RULE THE WORLD IT IS OVER ☭TANKIE☭ SCUM ALL ☭TANKIE☭S WILL BE SHOT AN THEIR IINNARDS WILL BE USED FOR CUMMM

TANKIES DEAD DEAD DEAD
TANKIES DEAD DEAD DEAD
TANKIES DEAD DEAD DEAD
TANKIES DEAD DEAD DEAD
TANKIES DEAD DEAD DEAD
TANKIES DEAD DEAD DEAD

This tbh. I used to say all kinds of dumb Anarkid type shit before I went ML and I never got banned.

Without looking at the ban page you wouldn't know one way or another.

People still say lots of shit without getting banned.

Attached: images.jpg (233x189, 7.15K)