Leftcom self-crit

samefag

read the picture they weren't failures

My impression was that, in order to be a successful communist, you must successfully build communism.

lol nope. I’m a tanky but tankism is mostly “boohoo America done fuck with us and this is why it didn’t work” which is true but also the USSR was sold from the top down not the bottom up, more democracy would have been insurance against revisionism and none of them can admit this and all of them think tactics should remain the same

you didn't read the picture

you wish faggot
You don't seem to be amenable to reason but i'll try again. The post you responded to does not contain any 'whining about the USSR', it only rather recognises that the USSR sustained ML revolutions and states in the 20th century and that due to material conditions unsuited for socialism the 1917 attempt and everything which developed thereafter was doomed to failure and a victory for reaction. This happened, there's no question about it.
As such the image refuting the dumb 'lel its muh not real gommunism xD' image is inane as a response to it as it has no relevance. The post you responded to didn't claim that communists see past attempts at communism as 'not real gommunism xD' or that MLs don't uphold the achievements of past communist leaders or regimes, which is all that pretty fucking useless image refutation ""meme"" does i sincerely hope whoever made that didn't genuinely think that it would convince anyone who isn't already a leftist

Now as for the question of 'they weren't failures >:🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧((', its one thing to maintain that communists have organised good societies, implemented good reforms, improved standards of living, even introduced socialist menthods of management in economic work, and to uphold these achievements against bourgeois slander and historical revisionism which aims to portray communist ideology and government by communists as destructive, incompetent or downright evil, however it is quite a different thing to assert the 'success' of communism in the 20th century, afterall if you think the introduction of some good things, even socialism or communism by some definitions into being in one place or even many places is enough to qualify success then you're setting a rather low bar. If we're to be honest with ourselves as communists then surely it is not even a question that 'success' means communism, pure and simple. Worldwide communism, fully developed classless society, with capitalism thoroughly defeated on the world stage and relegated to the dustbin on history.
We can definitively say that this has not been achieved, that the Great October Revolution failed to achieve this as did its progeny. That despite some battles won, some achievements made, that war was lost. The revolution was encircled and despite some valorous attempts did not break out of the encirclement of the imperialist camp, the revolution was under siege and though it lasted in some form or another for over half a century in the end it was crushed by the overwhelming military and economic power of reaction.
Now we are living in the aftermath, the dark age of reaction that has followed the fall of the republic of the soviets, and while we can argue over the merits and pitfalls of 20th century socialism, it remains irrefutably true that no matter whether its '60 years of socialism' in the USSR or '60 weeks of communism' in catalonia, it was a failure. It was a defeat. Regardless of how admirable the past attempt(s) might have been, it fell short of success, terribly short, catastrophically short.
And such an admission of failure carries if anything the very opposite affect than the taunting defeatism of 'muh not real gommunism xD', rather it calls upon us to repeat Lenin, to try again at a 1917 of our own time and make another attempt with all the intention to succeed that Lenin and all the communists of the 20th century had.
also fucking hilarious that in the thread where the OP asserts MLs as some enlightened breed of self-critical theorists capable of honestly confronting their historical errors and reasons for failure there's literally a poster who has driven himself into feverish self-delusion because he is literally incapable of defending his communist politics without of counterfactually insisting on the success of communism

Attached: what would lenin do.jpg (477x199 170.83 KB, 26.06K)

you edited the html good job

the absolute state of nu/leftypol/

Attached: lenin shiggy diggy.jpg (600x450, 29.1K)

...

Attached: the kind vladimir ilyich would have shot everybody here.jpg (1200x773, 112.55K)

non-Marxist democratic state socialist master race

Some might but others unironically think that the USSR has no structural problems whatsoever and it was 100% Gorbachev’s fault who did it just because he hated socialism.

...

Since itt we mostly have shit responses and answers to said responses, here's my take:
This is pretty much my biggest criticism of anarchism too. How can they properly defend themselves against imperialist forces? Can in any future scenario an anarchist militia compete against a proper army? This is something they need to work on, an effective way to defend themselves. I know most anarchists here believe that not all hierarchies are bad but unjustified hierarchies, so wouldn't a hierarchal army be justified if it's the best way to defend your commune(s)?
Imo, demsocs can keep attempting to get into power constitutionally but to actually mantain power I don't see how they can do it without employing at least a few "tankie" tactics. Purging the army, changing the constitution (unconstitutionally if necessary) might be necesary. For example what if your constitution says private property is a right and you aren't popular enough to legally change it?
Probably out of all tendencies mentioned here this one is the one that got the most fucked not by their own mistakes but by MLs. As for excluding ML actions, I guess a lot of trotskyist theory is misinterpretated. People don't know what Permanent Revolution means, some believe trotskyism is supposed to be this libertarian form of marxism and that's why they like it, shit like that (hell I've even met people that though Trotsky was an anarchist lmao). That being said though, in places like Argentina trotskyism is much more popular than MLism, so there's that.

My sides are in orbit.

Then we wouldn't be popular enough to win a revolution either. Also, there are revolutionary democratic socialists.

I know there are, but I was assuming OP was talking specifically about reformists. Also:
I gotta disagree with this, the beauty of voting is that anyone over 18 can do it. But of all those people it's very possible many of them aren't capable of fighting or are willing to die in a revolution to achieve their goals. Doesn't mean you habe any less support.

Name me a branch of economic theory which is more rigourous

Labor theory of value isn't true.

So you can create value in some other way apart from labouring?

Also that doesn’t answer my question, which system of economic theory is more rigourous?

It's not just about fighters, it's about who is willing to give support to the fighters. We'd need to have broad support to win a revolution so that we can take advantage of strategic resources, people's houses for instance. But if we had that kind of support, we could win elections. And in the US at least, the constitution is amendable.

There's a lot more to the LTV than that.

Couldn't tell you, but that doesn't mean that Marxism is true.

Well you've already shifted the goalposts majorly there, your claim concerned the rigour of marxist economics, given that the academic rigour of a discipline can only really be considered relatively to the rigour of another your failure to present any economic theory more rigorous than marxism would seem to indicate that marxism is in fact not only rigorous but the most rigorous, at the very least that you had no ground to dismiss it as anything other than such.

Attached: alanwoods smug.jpg (480x360, 17.58K)

that is shit logic

True, but that is it’s founding premise and you can’t dispute it.

So you can laugh at the fact that Marxism is apparently not a rigourous economic theory but you couldn’t name one which is more rigourous… you don’t even make a case for any other economic theory being more rigourous. You don’t even attempt it.

Jesus Christ who let you in here

Lightyears ahead of your entirely baseless non-argument assertions that's for sure.

I don't need to have an alternative economic theory to know that Marxism isn't true.

I see what you mean. By amendable do you mean it can be changed with enough support? And also I suppose in countries where the constitution can't be changed at all then a ruling demsoc would be forced to make some unconstitutional changes if necessary.

In places where there's a chance of achieving full socialism democratically, I think we should try try this. In places where this isn't possible, revolution is absolutely necessary.

no, but you need a comparably more rigourous economic theory in order to laugh at how rigourous Marxism is or is not.

Why?

Could I ask why you think Marxism is “not true” which bit do you disagree with

ebin
if you can claim something not be true, you must also have a belief in something else being true to measure it against and find lacking. Clearly whatever you believe to be the truth about economics must be closer to reality than marxism or else you wouldn't have the grounds to be making any of the assertions you're making. However the burden is on you to make some sort of argument, ie. give reasoning, rational or empirical, to support your assertions.

Do you realise how childish and retarded you are. Imagine you’re at a conference for engineers, let’s say ministry of defence engineers, and somebody has just done a presentation on the advantages and drawbacks of certain heliocopter blade designs, the maths is there, the physics, costs, production processes etc and the engineer concludes a certain type of heliocopter blade is best for jungle warfare. Then you stand up and go “I don’t think your analysis was rigourous enough, in fact it’s laughable” so the guy on stage goes “oh which part didn’t you like, do you have a different suggestion of heliocopter blade?” And you just go “ I don’t have to tell you anything, you’re just wrong”

Tell me whose heliocopter blade will be used in the jungle yours or the engineer doin the presentation? And who looks like a dickhead and doesn’t get laid at the after party?

Labor theory of value and the exploitation theory based on it, and historical materialism.

I mean personally speaking I think while reformism is noble and all, I honestly think it doesn't work. And this is coming from someone who loves Allende. And even if we managed to get a socialist president, the actual road to achieving socialism (expropriating, collectuvizing, etc) would still be violent, like it did happen in many cases of the Unidad Popular government.

Let's take control of the government first, then there might be some necessary violence, true.

I want to add, I obviously don't wish a demsoc government wouldn't succede, and if one managed to survive potential coupes/sabotage and managed to go on to implement socialism that would be amazing.

Does it not speak volumes about the ideology of Trotskyism, if actual leftists resist it rather than capitalists?

Attached: 34b531bf95a71a162dda9f5050fcd36ec63198f020e8670e17a8fa78862ef117.png (1343x1637, 1.09M)

xD

XD

Attached: kmpxo9sgbx121.png (960x640, 1.27M)

Capitalists did and do resist Trotskyism, and all forms of Leftism. It was just a lower priority because it did not have the backing of, and was less likely to fall into the orbit of the USSR. All that means is that the USSR was America’s most powerful enemy during the Cold War, not that they had the best line or theory.

xDxDxD

This is the same argument facebook liberal 'socialists' would make about it speaking volumes that MLs are opposed by every other type of leftist. Blow it out of your ass.

So again, you think a subjectivist value theory is true and labour expoitation doesn’t exist? What about historical materialism don’t you like and what is your preferred lease for analysis?

Then why do capitalist schools teach that Trotsky was "the good communist?"

Capitalists also despise us, that's the difference

Attached: Capture.PNG (503x470, 415.25K)

No, labor exploitation does exist, but not because of the labor theory of value. In a just economy, all labor would be voluntary, and distribution would be based on need.

They don’t?

Also as Marx said, bourgeois states have a strong tendency to neuter and rehabilitate sanitized versions of past revolutionaries. So if any porky institutions do prompt Trotsky, that’s not the same thing as Trotsky being a liberal. Liberals have tried to do the same thing with Marx.

...

They'd like Stalin if they weren't spooked as well

that would make sense if the census of capitalists was paranoia about Trotskyism in the past, which it wasn't. if anything they valued Trotskyists for ratting out other leftists like in the UK

you know… "the good communists"

Attached: megathunk.gif (300x300, 1.05M)

All Marxists are bad socialists, as they call for the mass murder of relatively poor small plot owning peasant farmers.

No one says this you retard, the only people that say this are red liberals that think Trotsky was le libertarian socialist anti-authoritarian and don't realize Trotsky was even more bloodthirsty than Stalin.

Guillotine every kulak while only embracing the IWW because of its burgerness.

my point was that liberal teachers say this, thank you for backing up my point

Attached: 1536882847502.jpg (286x300, 11.11K)

I'm not defending anarchists either.

And I say this because no one actually knows what Trotsky really was, you bellend. Liberals do the same thing with Che and Marx, as others have stated itt.

comrades need to learn about the anarchist death squads

Murder can be justified

Attached: 8e6.jpeg (742x560, 91.47K)

the difference is they resist marx and che

Homicide can be. Murder, by definition, cannot.

Attached: language.PNG (735x413, 429.2K)

It's an important distinction.

Not all, in fact many appropriate them as theirs.

t. Richard Wolff

resist as in action, not some edgy teen wearing a che t-shirt. the difference is that capitalism as a force resists them, while not resisting Trotsky due to a history of intimate, not necessary, collaboration with capitalists

The difference here is crucial.
This violence cuts off the head of the snake, the bourgouise.
They constantly beat you to work faster, and retaliate against all resistance.
Beheading them isn't preferable, but they don't want to hand over power, and it's the only way to prevent the examples of harm i listed

Nobody says that. Animal Farm was definitely a Trotskyist take on the Russian Revolution (pro Bolshevik but anti-Stalin) but the liberal interpretation of it is just “see kids socialism is bad”. Also despite Animal Farm Orwell himself wasn’t a Trot, he was a demsoc.

That’s just because Trots weren’t backed by or linked to a superpower. In the absence of the Soviet Union they are just as dangerous to capital as any other tendency. You are confusing ML being a temporarily dominant force in geopolitics with ML being the best theory.

Right because the White Army just rolled over for Trotsky during the Civil War. The fact that liberals try to claim or rehabilitate him doesn’t mean shit, since they do the same thing with all kinds of genuine socialists. Beyoncé dressed as a Black Panther ffs, that doesn’t mean they were le woke Hilldawg liberals.

Attached: uwot.PNG (431x242, 113.93K)

it was a dominant force BECAUSE it was the best ideology

by that logic capitalism is the best economic system

this thread should have ended with this post

it was the dominant force against capitalism and for socialism

there, better

Attached: 1536893432726.jpg (480x360, 14.21K)

How undialectical

The Russian Revolution wasn’t ML since ML didn’t exist yet. It was Leninist, but Trots are also Leninists. Not to mention that Trotsky himself arguably had a more important role in the revolution itself than Stalin did. He commanded the Red Guards when they foiled the coup against the provisional government, was a member of the first Bolshevik cabinet, helped negotiate the peace with Germany and was the top commander of the Red Army.

ML’s didn’t create the Soviet Union, they just won an internal power struggle after it was established. After that ML’s had Soviet backing while Trots did not, which is the sole reason for the disparity in accomplishments.

Marxist Leninists are leninists

also I'm sorry that you hate democracy

So are Trots.
The fuck are you talking about?

I'm sorry that you dislike the democratic process so much

Internal power struggles can be decided via democratic means m8. All I’m saying is that there was a rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky, and Stalin came out on top. I didn’t say that he did so via undemocratic means. Even though he proceeded to kill inner-party democracy as soon as he took power.

then it wasn't a struggle, they agreed on the outcome, that's democracy. "power struggle" has a loaded negative connotation to it, you could've just said "Stalin was democratically elected" but no, you had to have convinction because it had an outcome you didn't like

Also he upheld democratic values, he literally couldn't do much of anything unless the party supported his decisions.

I'm really indifferent to the outcome, I'm not a Trot and I don't hate Stalin. I also think the course of the Soviet Union would have been more or less the same in either case.

the soviet union literally abolished capital punishment, try again

dissapoint

And then the reinstated it in pretty short order. Of course capital punishment isn't the issue here. I'm talking about the banning of the Left and Right Opposition factions and the Moscow Trials, which effectively killed Soviet democracy.

They were failures (with the exception of the PRC) in the sense that they ultimately did restore a capitalist economy and collapsed the dictatorship of the Proletariate because of both internal and external factors and failings in their societal models as well

Left and right oppositions were mostly unpopular cliques that were banned at the will of the majority, so it's ironic that you say democracy was gone.

Democracy requires freedom of criticism and the freedom to organize and advocate political opposition. Repressing the legitimate opposition, even by majority vote, destroys democracy in the long term. Would you allow the reinstatement of slavery if the majority voted for it?

...

I get your point, but what can more factions and criticism achieve in the end? They can only delay or accelerate the inevitable