Since there's a lot of newfags here I decided it was time for another Marxism-Leninism discussion thread. Anarchists and leftcoms welcome but please try not to fling shit
okay but what does stalin have to do with marxist-LENINISM? as far as i know, the industrialisation and authority under stalin were particular to the material conditions in USSR at the time, so a brutal leader like Stalin is wholly unnecessary today in capitalist abundance.
right?
Ian Roberts
yes, exactly. There's a cult of stalinoids online with authoritarian fetishes who get their politics from memes and shitposts instead of doing work in real vanguards. You join an actual M-L party, as in with people who will you see face-to-face, like PSL, FRSO, or WWP and they aren't going to be going on and on about their freaky Stalin boners.
Ian Lee
Right. Having said that, what conditions develop will develop.
Christopher Murphy
okay. thanks. to get confirmation on this actually opens me up to leninism.
Jack Martinez
Stalin was a Leninist my man. You're also fundamentally understanding what people who are called Marxists-leninists believe in but that's okay most people do at first
It's not about installing a strong leader although one usually does arise due to the necessity of material conditions at the time (which has happened both pre capitalism and within capitalism, in the latter instance leading to fascist states if there is no strong and organized left to counter it so it isn't unique to socialist states). There's obviously idiosyncrasies between various ML orgs and so on but the general consensus among us is that if a workers state isn't created in a revolutionary scenario the revolution is doomed to fail. However, due to the conditions within various countries the forms these states take will necessarily be unique to their particular condition and the level of class consciousness in the people at the time and place it occurs. In some instances it also makes sense to support revolutions which are in themselves bourgeoisie as a stepping stone to the development necessary for socialism as a way or keeping the bigger and more advanced imperialist nations from subverting them and incorporating them instead into the network of global capitalism.
Also some retarded people who say they're MLs for clout on Twitter would disagree with this but it's perfectly fine to be critical of figures such as Stalin and is in fact integral to Leninism and a natural following from Marx and Engels own style of dialectical materialism. It's just that we don't do it by parroting Red Scare and Nazi propaganda about the 100 gorillion Stalin personally killed and so on lol
If you're arguing in good faith and really want to know more about this stuff I highly recommend reading a few of those links I posted and also The State and Revolution, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, On the National Question, The Foundations of Leninism and Blackshirts and Reds back to back. That's how I personally came around to more or less agreeing with the Marxist Leninist tendency
M8 PSL and WWP literally so the same shit about both Stalin and other socialist countries to this day. Gloria De Riva gave a speech like last year where she said north Korea was,socialist to a room full of non psl members lol
newfag here. I need a quick rundown on ☭TANKIE☭s - do they actually want to eat capitalists and their children or is it a meme? cannibalism isn't funny boyos
Logan Reyes
I've never been a part of an ML party, but my experiences working with MLs in activist stuff is pretty much this. They're mostly normal, have good criticisms of Stalin(while generally still defending him), and know to tone it down for the normies. It is like a night and day difference from insane twitter ☭TANKIE☭s and the idiot memers that post here. I have heard some of the parties can get a bit more crazy, but I assume most of that is weird Lenin wannabe LARPers rather than regular members.
Justin Sanchez
"Authoritarianism" is a total spook word by the way. Every revolutionary scenario develops a vanguard and leaders even if its libertarian in nature. If they're successful in taking the opportunity they develop their own chains of command and repressive apparatuses to weaken the chance of counter revolution. Even in Spain the anarchists put folks in cages and Robespierre's measures during the French revolution are where the term "Reign of Terror" came from. Look at how the children of counter revolutionaries today still defend their parents atrocities in the name of bourgeoise freedom and combine it with the actual historical record of who and how many died under Stalin and tell me about authoritarianism.
Also modern day imperialists love to talk about "authoritarianism". Look at how Chavez and Maduro are treated despite governing essentially like Tony Benn would have governed the UK if he had been prime minister at any given point in time. "Authoritarism" is literally only ever used to describe things which threaten capital or to associate socialism with fascism and confuse the working class and even moreso the lower sectors of the petite bourgeoisie into thinking that freesom means equal opportunity rather than the abolition of the dictatorship of capital
