I am a libertarian socialist. Can someone please redpill me on marxism-leninism?

forget

I don't ever really refer to myself as a Leninist or really anything other than a communist or, occasionally, a Marxist. But I'm generally supportive of the SU and have mixed opinions on other socialist states. The gist of pro-Soviet sentiment is that bourgeois sources have exaggerated death tolls to comical extents, often relying on Goebbels' propaganda to do so in order to counter the threat to capital that the greatest worker's revolution in history posed.

Their achievements were monumental. The Menshevik-SR reformist traitors were beaten alongside their mass-murdering Western-Japanese supported White army buddies. One of the world's foremost economic powers was constructed mostly isolated from foreign capital. Fascist armies were destroyed totally in humanity's largest armed conflict ever and the same industrial development seen in Russia was brought to the horrifically backwards, war-torn regions of Eastern Europe. Perhaps the most extensive welfare-state in history was constructed in a country with a higher population than the US and a high military budget. Which throws more than a few bourgeois laissez-faire arguments right out the window.

Generally speaking, people in the Soviet Union were socialists. Support for the party was at it's peak after the Great Patriotic War when Stalin was effectively a god, and was at it's lowest from the 70's onward when a fair percentage of the population grew up disenchanted with the system. During the 50's and 60's Soviet economic growth outpaced the US and only a raving lunatic could've possibly stated some dumb shit like 'socialism doesn't work.' It really was a bad time to be a free market liberal. To see socialism succeed so spectacularly and even bourgeois states revert to extreme welfare-state measures. And it was all thanks to the SU's success.

I'm in no mood to explain Soviet stagnation in-depth. Suffice to say the flawed Soviet growth model of spending a third of their wealth annually on investment into new factories & agriculture equipment eventually caused technology to catch up with them and the old factories just weren't producer enough and everything about agriculture was just a total disaster even in spite of record investments in the 70's. With monstrous military expenditure economic stagnation turned into failure and revisionists in the communist party stole the opportunity to divvy up the state's wealth between themselves. Bam. The CCCP was done. And now we have to hear the same boring market worship and anticommunists lies every fucking day until the end of our lives.

tl;dr the SU brought increased lifespans and standards of living to hundreds of millions around the world and saved Europe from catastrophe yet anticommunists think they can just ignore this and screech about bread lines or some shit.

Attached: 1436978693021.png (600x1050 185.8 KB, 90.48K)

"im not a leninist but LET ME TELL U BOUT THAT RENEGADE KAUTSKY"

Attached: bullshit_but_i_believe_it.jpg (720x439, 42.05K)

Surely you're not actually implying Kautsky is worth defending? The man was a nutcase who abandoned socialism for parliamentarianism. SR's were of the same breed.

Stop this meme. Stalin secured huge loans from the West and used forced grain extraction secured through collectivization to obtain machinery and expertise from the West on an unimaginable scale because the Great Depression made capitalists desperate for a place to make a secure investment and Stalin paid his loans on time through forced labor.

however i don't want to trivialize the growth that was created through stalin, but only that the initial foundation was from huge luck as throughout the 1920s, nobody really cared to loan money to the USSR and the crisis of the NEP was coming to a head.

better than authoritarianism

It's Marx's analysis of the world (HisMat, PolEcon, Communist project) weaponized through Leninism as a guide to action (DiaMat, Revolution + DotP, state capitalism, socialist stratification). I'm a Maoist which is a continuation but also a rupture from Marxism-Leninism, our critque is targeted towards the Stalinist stratification of bureaucracy and parliamentarianism in favor of abundance and industrialism and a too mechanistic interpretation of dialectical materialism. Marxism-Leninism is still our basis, we uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin but we also see the need for further development and pushing towards communism whereas orthodox Marxist-Leninist are often too content with the Brezhnevite "slow-and-steady" freezing in time in favor of a hundred years of centrally planned development or something. We believe Stalin himself identified many of the problems in his last work where he called for the abolition of commodity production and implied the forming of communes to overcome the dichotomy of town and countryside (things that were largely put in practice by Maoists later) but he's not innocent in creating the social relations that would cause his vision to be inhibited, for that he is to be criticized.

To some, a way to organize a party pre revolution and a way to organize socialism immediately post revolution.
To others, a pragmatist way to organize a party pre revolution and a way to organize socialism immediately post revolution.

IIRC you can be super critical of the USSR and still me an ML or you can support the USSR to the end of time and be an ML
Some accuse MLs of wanting to do exactly as the USSR did but as I see it, ML is just about securing the revolution in the face of great adversity.

Remember, the supermarket of ideology is fit only for looting. Pragmatist approach to socialism is best imo.

marxism leninism is what happens when a few very literate people interpret marx to switch feudalism to state capitalism in which the state controls the means of production for the most part (private property was allowed to a certain extent) and the workers become employees of the state. The state frustrated workers councils of soviets and totaly took control of the politic landscape with their bureaucracy. They even backstabbed makhnoist in their free territory, an anarchist piece of land in Ukraine defended by de democraticly structured makhno's army in which according to wikipedia "The economy of Free Ukraine was a mixture of anarcho-communism and mutualism, with factories, farms and railways becoming cooperatives and several moneyless communities being created. The majority of territories continued to use money but planned to become anarcho-communist territories following the Russian Civil War.[17]".The bolsheviks initially helped Makhnoist against the anticommunist white army, but they would end up conquering them themselves and forcing their rule into the territory. Marxist-leninists argued that russia would be incapable of shifting to socialism because of its industrial backwardness, thats why thay established state capitalism, but that is completely false, since in the previously mentioned free territory of ukraine anarcho-communism was working and working councils were being developing in all of russia. History is a witness of bolsheviks agendas, they pursued their own political interests in the name of socialism, and in the long run what happened is a slow liberalization of the markers and a return to capitalism at the end. To me modern day marxists leninists are just incredulous socialists and the majority of them come from right wing or authoritharian lives backgrounds. They cant see how society can work without some authoritharian control even if communism is their final goal, which is contradicting. I'd go as far as saying that they often even have reactionary tendencies on libertarian politics and their reaction is almost always conservative, being completley stubborn on their disbelief even when strong factual and theoretical evidence is given to them. I will not tell you to not be marxist leninist, but let me please ask you to be very critical, just like with anything else really. But still i consider them my comrades, i prefer them over liberals and conservatives and a lot of them are very informed, i only think they should more open to libertarian theory and history.

Read Trotsky

not today LEV i won't let you take another innocent

Attached: d40f8780808e13daab268edf0e02ce28287cddb9cb8882d235d3abcef2268f9d.jpg (281x234, 9.62K)

Im going to take as many sacrifices as I want and you can't do anything to stop me Iosif hahahaha, no one can stop the permanent revolution from staining the streets with blood from burgeoisie and proletariat alike

Attached: 436px-Leon_Trotsky.jpg (436x600, 307.74K)

i didn't want to have to do this, bronstein.

Attached: 6a0133f3a4072c970b017ee5e0621e970d-800wi.jpg (750x500, 32.93K)

Western 'democracies' have more capacity for violence than any other states in human history, and have repeatedly shown their willingness to use it these past 200 years. You are not a socialist, plain and simple. Just an imperialist bootlicker. Go head to Zig Forums where you belong.

I don't have any issue admitting I was wrong, if that is the case. In fact I considered retracting that line several times before I finished the post but opted to keep it because I couldn't recall anything about foreign investment under Stalin save for reading some capital that was later nationalized. It's been a year since I've read anything on Soviet history so if you've got any sources in mind I'll read them.

Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country.*

*May not include soviet power.

Guys, stop arguing. This thread is pretty much by definition for people who got fed up with the mods at Zig Forums, but since all those mods are authoritarian Stalinists and Maoists, it effectively means all the non-authoritarians come here. So you're both right.

*boards
not threads
sry

the west has been democratic for like a century, maybe less depending on how you define it

democracy is the road to socialism my man

go back to twitter

If would you rather live in an authoritarian shithole than a bourgeois democracy I truly pity you

"Authoritarian, authoritarian" - that's all you can muster.
Your intellectual inadequacy is showing.

Guys, quantify what you're talking about, before this just degrades to you two calling each other stupid. Talk about why a "bourgeois democracy" is better or worse than an authoritarian, but left wing, state.

Parliamentary government has been around for a while. Suffrage slowly being extended to a greater number of the population in the 19th and 20th centuries has not changed the way it works in any meaningful way. It has been a well-understood fact since classical antiquity that elections are always dominated by the wealthy and elected officials have the same ability to abuse their power as unelected ones. That you can't understand this transparent truth is a testament to the effectiveness of Western propaganda, nothing more.

You have no right to call me authoritarian when you put so much energy into defending Western states with track records of mass incarceration and slaughter of anyone who dared to defend their rights.

The West is authoritarian, that is inherent to any state, bootlicker.

Of course, but authoritarianism isn't an on/off switch. There are varying shades and degrees of authoritarianism and this said I would rather live in a less authoritarian state than a more authoritarian state out of Zig Forums's red fascist fantasies or some Pol Pot-tier nightmare state

and thats not an argument faggot, less crying more debating

No shit, you fucking goober. Thanks for stating something everyone on the planet already knows. It doesn't change the fact that the second person I replied to in my post was strawmanning my point. Nothing you said in this useless post contradicts anything I said.

if you think that things haven't changed since 1818 then you're clearly just a larper with no understanding of history

[citation needed]

move to north korea then you fucking tankie

literally all i said was that taking part in elections is better praxis than some impossible insurrection but if you want to indulge your psychosis then go right ahead

seriously though, find a new word

Kill yourself faggot

I'll take your meaningless insult as an effective admission of defeat.
North Korean has meaningless sham elections just like every other democracy. By your logic, we might as well just opt for an elective monarchy. Since the magical properties of suffrage ensure elected rulers cannot possible ever abuse their power.
I have no interest in derailing this into some reform vs revolution debate, which is why I intentionally ignored your fake Marx quote. My point was to illustrate your laughable, naive blind faith in parliamentary government, despite their long history of violence.

I was trying to create a structured debate on this issue but, unfortunately, you two just resorted to name-calling and strawman attacks.

What. You just gave up after I pointed out I'm not going to let you misrepresent my position unchallenged?

Attached: 1469848410948-1.gif (398x538, 9.89K)

kys

are you from reddit by any chance

What I've gathered from this informative thread:

Any system with elections is democracy. Even if the Judicial system is unelected, the head-of-state is indirectly elected, the only candidates you can vote for are filthy rich, and all attempts at creating alternative working-class parties historically ended in violent state intervention when they get too powerful. Fuck authoritarianism, God Bless America. Things are so much better than they used to be back when only property owners could vote.

Cry more larper faggot

nobody said that liberal democracy is perfect, but it's closer to a socialist government than some cancerous vanguard shit

Lots of non-sequiturs in your post, dumbfuck. Go masturbate over your red fascist paradise

You will be the one who cries in the end child. It's kind of sad really. How many more of your ideological kin will have to be lined up against a wall and shot by fascists before you realize the absolute castration that is liberal anarchism?

Straight up fucking kill yourself.

Attached: 1490f792e1a948bdf305de910e926717ca84525c5e07da4a4bcbb4ae5eff92c0.jpg (720x720, 310.27K)

Your information gathering skills leave much to be desired.

Crypto-reactionaries get the bullet too.

Attached: stfu.png (408x272, 86.89K)

What the fuck is a brown liberal?

A liberal from the third-world.

Ah yes, because Assad, Khomeini, Saddam, etc. are very liberal.

If you're going to accuse tankies of something accusing them of supporting liberals is the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

Assad introduced liberal "reforms" to Syria when he came to power and dismantled the socdem programs his papa had setup, he is most certainly a liberal. The others may not be liberal, but they are certainly capitalist and thus enemies of or socialism.
Supporting brown capitalists then.

Attached: 8fec907bf729c02037178321de2e136256d08902df60f3370a425aa842a084ea.png (619x434, 42.1K)

Yet every every time I tried pointing that out, you guys just started insulting me and claiming I was a DPRK supporter/authoritarian/fascist instead of addressing my arguments. So your argument here seems more than a little shoddy.

I never even got a chance to propose an alternative system or elaborate my views on the matter. Simply daring to badmouth your precious parliamentary elections was enough for you capitalist apologists to go into a tantrum and accuse me of fascism. I repeat: none of you are socialists.

America is capitalism at this point in time. To be anti-american is, for all intents and purposes, to be anti-capitalist. Deal with it or just die already.

Give me your definition of capitalism so I can easily demonstrate your folly to everyone ITT.

What an absolute shitty post, as expected from a fucking christian ""communist""
CHRISTCOM PURGE NOW

Daily reminder ChristCom is BO and you'd best not piss off Miss Piggy.

No it isn't you retard, if burgerland were to disappear tomorrow capitalism would still dominate the globe because every state is ruled by porky. You've substituted standing with anti-burger porky and have abandoned the class struggle in hopes third-worlders will do the revolution for your lazy ass. This board and the world in general would be greatly improved if you hung yourself, go meet your god.

Attached: fd226537d244cf0f5f82c19fe0a5a81d6219976bb2778d0c8ca912effe5361c1.jpg (330x258, 16.5K)

There is not a single state on Earth that could, at a moment's notice, fill the power vacuum that would be left by America's sudden disappearance. It's not the 19th century any more kid. Grow up. Liberalism is dead. Until the first world has died there is absolutely no possibility of revolution anywhere on this planet.

stop being such a wordy faggot and explain what the fuck your position is then, or are you just here to deposit your cloying prose onto our lap

the point is that america is not going to suddenly disappear

dad trolling: when someone says things like kid or little buddy to make them seem older than 13

not if we blindly support regimes just for having red flags

The EU and China could and would fill that vacuum. It's not inconceivable that one or both of them do within the decade.
That doesn't mean that capitalism hinges upon burgerland you fuckwit.
Burgerland is liberalism you retard.
Anti-revolutionary and utopian, imagine my shock.

I mean, it's not like it's any great secret. It's pretty transparent I was trying to prove that calling Western countries 'democracies' is a useless classification and their capacity for repression is just as great as any 'authoritarian' country, whatever that is.

This is my second time explaining this. I made my point unmistakably clear here which was of course followed by once-more misrepresenting my position and putting words in my mouth.

i wouldn't say that they're all full democracies, but that most are places where voting still matters to some degree

not really, just abandon the dogma for a minute and actually think about how dissent is treated in various countries

Democracy used to be considered a specific form of government. Reducing it to a spectrum of different behaviors just turns it into a feature, which means almost every country on the planet is a democracy.
Sure, voting mattered to some degree in Leninist-inspired states as well. Thousands of proposed candidates for positions were rejected. And what did that change?
Better yet, think about how dissent is treated by the countries that call themselves democracies. The British starved and murdered the people of India in droves. The US has completely destroyed several nations with direct force in the past few decades for daring to pursue an alternative to American domination. What do you think has stopped them from using the unlimited power all states have by definition on their native populations?

Nothing. It simply hasn't usually been necessary thanks to the higher standards of living in the West. Historically, when they have become unruly, the result is obviously going to be violence. I didn't post this image here for no reason I was highlighting how, in an era of greater social unrest, the US resorted to massive infringements of civil liberties in the First Red Scare. Suffrage didn't save the socialists who were deported, arrested, and brutalized if they dared to strike or demand their rights. If these attempts failed to pacify them, do you really think the state would've hesitated to use greater violence to subdue them? What exactly could have stopped them? Their well-intentioned hearts, I can only assume.

words change, the fuck am i supposed to do about it

the difference is that you could only vote for one party

clearly something, or else they would have but anyway, you really seem to think i'm saying that bourgeois states are infallible for some reason, when my point was only that they're better than the quasifeudal nightmares which arose from vanguardist insurrection

I will also note that that reducing the definition of democracy down to an arbitrary, undefinable 'some degree' of voting privileges just turns the word democracy into an honorary title you can bestow on the countries you like to give false moral authority. This is how the democratic cult works in the West.

If a country that is totally dominated by capital can be considered a democracy, then how many rights have to be stripped away for a democracy to stop being one for you people? At what arbitrary point do we draw the line? When they extend the terms of service by four years? Ten? Twenty? Or when we starting voting every six years? Or ten?

They changed because it was politically useful for capitalists in the 19th century.
Don't use their terminology.
OK, so when the choice is between two parties of rich men like in the US the state suddenly becomes democratic then? Or do you have some other arbitrary number in mind?
Uh, yeah. It's because their efforts were hugely effective at eviscerating work-class resistance and further violence wasn't necessary.
You can't compare modern totalitarian states to feudal ones. The worst crimes of the relatively-powerless old monarchies could only manage to kill a several thousand people in a day. Not even a thousandth of the power modern states have, or a hundred-thousandth of the United States.

I don't think you're implying they're infallible. The biggest apologists for 'democratic' governments go on all day about how government is the worst thing ever. It's a key element of their statist propaganda. You're just implying they're the best governments around today. Yet you seem incapable of explaining why, just like everyone else who peddles the lie.

technically there are third parties, and the united states isn't a great example because of its unproportional electoral system but yes, i don't think it's particularly outlandish to say they're more democratic than stalinist russia

compare everything my man

almost like there's been significant advances in technology

i actually don't oppose the existence of a small government that upholds basic rights, so who's strawmanning who now

what did he mean by this

i'm not implying it i'm saying it

do you really think that china or russia or whatever would allow militant anarchists to demonstrate in their capital and call for their dissolution

If it was just less democratic, instead of being 'authoritarian' and unquestionably not a democracy at all then that's the only point I was interested in making from the start.
Yeah, and population. Your point? I was just pointing out that today's so-called democracies are far more powerful and centralized than the states that existed a millennia ago. Which is a blow to their narrative of being a small government republic compared to monarchies.
I wasn't referring to you as one of their biggest apologists. Though in retrospect I can't find much difference.
Go on /liberty/ or watch Fox news if you need examples. The small government narrative is routinely peddled to justify the incarceration and massacre of all opposition. Mostly foreign but occasionally domestic too, which will become more common as living standards for the democracies plummet.
No. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that you refused to confront the historical fact that the states you adore so much have done the same. 'Clearly something' is no substitute for an argument.

I'm honestly starting to thing you're just some fucking lolbert here to confuse socialists now. Or maybe just some Jacobin-reading DSA loser who became a socialist last week.

What is this?

Do you really think militant anarchists demonstrating is a threat to capitalism?

oh so you're one of those cunts that makes everything into semantics

that technology is the reason why modern states can and do kill more people than the ancient egyptians

centralised maybe, but they're certainly less able to act arbitrarily

it proves that america is more tolerant of dissent

see this is why we can't have a rational assessment of things as they are, because you'll get autists like this guy calling you a liberal because you dare to suggest that the great satan america has a better political system than north korea

dictatorship of the proletariat

And "liberal democracies" are the closest to that?

do you think pussy riot is a threat to the russian government

not the closest that there could ever be, but certainly the closest in the world right now, apart from maybe rojava

Imperialist action abroad has broad popular support in these countries.
lmao who is the liberal now? The only reason the US was able to get away with repression of leftists historically is because of democratic support for those measures. In a real democracy people will often support reactionary measures.

More than anarchist protesters are to the American one, yes.

This is my last reply. You've effectively given up and I think most people can see how lame your attempts to defend your pet governments are.
I was just pointing out you changed the way you define democracy without even realizing it. If the US is simply more democratic than the CCCP then that leaves room for the latter to be a democracy instead of a strict democracy-tyranny dichotomy that I was trying to get you to abandon.
This is the main reason I've chosen to ignore you from here on out. I wrote quite a bit in my last few posts trying to demonstrate, with historical evidence and logical arguments, that you were wrong. And you just respond every time with the intellectual equivalent of 'nuh-uh.' This is exhausting.
You have no ground to stand on here. I was immediately accused of being a red fascist super-nazi totalitarian DPRK supporter any time I dared to question the supremacy of Western government ITT.

You and your reformist buddies devoted several posts that were nothing but empty insults and you remained silent. But suddenly when my actual counterargument has a few words you don't like you accuse me of sabotaging the debate. Grow a pair, you fucking baby.

I'll give the guy below you a reply though since he actually addressed a few of my main points even if his arguments are bad.

I'm gonna do you a favor and ignore your massive oversimplification of history and not only assume most people knew about or cared about most interventions, but supported them wholeheartedly. Even then, what's your point?

Bonaparte and Stalin both enjoyed almost unheard of popular support at the height of their power yet no one would question their governments were in the hands of a minority with unlimited authority. So I don't see why you think this would prove Western governments were/are somehow different.
True that democracies can be reactionary but that actually doesn't help your point at all here. In real democracies historically the political power of the wealthy was broken and they were taxed to hell. The same would be the case in the US where certain reformist policies, particularly healthcare-related are overwhelmingly popular in the population but unfortunately you're actually just totally full of shit and people have no way to enact these changes at all.

It's also worth noting in attempting to portray the actions of the American government as merely the will of the people, you have also totally ignored the role of state propaganda and corporate funding in influencing their opinion. Do you have the courage to admit you neglected to mention this?

I am truly baffled to see so many here sucking American cock like it's the only thing they live for. Maybe I'll go back to arguing with open reactionaries on 4pol. Just give it to me straight, I'd rather not have the false pretense of socialism accompanying my imperialist propaganda. Maybe make a board called communist politics instead of 'left-wing' and you guys won't get so many liberals next time.

Attached: 1470075231977.png (1342x1940, 765.18K)

as a socialist I know the us is uhh a democracy every elected official is always rich without fail and it kills socialists that's just what real democracies do uhhh if you disagree then you need to move to north korea

lmao ok, i only got involved in this thread because someone was being ignorant about kautsky, the next thing i'm getting accused of not being a socialist, a bootlicker and from pol but if you want to jerk yourself off about how logical you are then whatever

Cool. Saves me the trouble of arguing against that stupid myth.
Just pointing out that imperialism can be democratic. If you agree then there is nothing to argue. You're the one who brought up those events in the first place.
Except people do have a way to enact these changes. It just takes time. You really gonna tell me the US is incapable of socializing healthcare like any number of capitalist democracies have done and then say I'm full of shit?
Yes I do have the courage lmao. I never denied propaganda exists I just don't think it's all that influential. Propaganda is only an issue if you're someone who believes most people are dumb and manipulable to begin with. That's not what I believe. If people support something then there must be something about it that appeals to them. Brainwashing through propaganda is a lazy explanation. I don't believe people supported Stalin because of propaganda either. Do you?

The USSR was certainly more democratic than the West. But liberals equate democracy with having lots of colorful parties that are all neoliberal and going to a ballot box every four years to deicde whether or not abortion is cool or uncool. Cuba is one of the most democratic states in the world. Even the DPRK has democratic institutions, where more citizens are involved than in the West. I mean, the whole tyranny - democracy is so fucking idealistic and liberal, can't believe people shill that here just to trigger le tankies.

tyranny - democracy dichotomy*

Of course they were more democratic, they offered people a real choice; support our party or get shot for being a counter-revolutionary. You don't see that in the neoliberal west, you can be a communist and call for revolution, be an ancap and call for the destruction of the state and nation, be a muslim and call for a caliphate.. it all doesn't change a thing, nobody listens, while in the USSR they were attentive to the political leanings of their citizens.

Sure, provided you creatively reinterpret the meaning of the word 'democratic'
And tankies equate democracy with banning all opposing parties and purging dissenters from the one party that is allowed to be in power.

The marxist-leninist party is the material manifestation of the will of the people, opposing parties and dissenters are therefor enemies of the people, making their elimination a necessary policy to ensure the safeguarding of the people's democratic will.

Yes, we aren't seeing the unmasking antifa bill or the recent wave of anti-socialist propaganda for no reason. Anarchist protestors could and should transform to anarchist unions and other such organizations challenging capital through strikes like the late 19th and eatly 20th century labor movement. That's far more dangerous to America than Pussy Riot getting Russia to be nicer to fags.

The larp party is the material manifestation of the will of the larpers, opposing parties and dissenters are therefor enemies of the larpers, making their elimination a necessary larp to ensure the safeguarding of the larper's democratic larp.

So what you're telling me is that the US do not allow militant anarchists to demonstrate in their capital and call for their dissolution.

It's not that hard, you just have to be yourself, that is all it takes for a worker to embrace the science of marxism-leninism.

Reminder that the uninterrupted march of the USSR from workers’ state to bureaucratic nightmare totalitarian hellhole was easily and correctly predicted in 1918.

Attached: 97583720-8218-49A1-B3BB-7A7CC0C340E6.jpeg (850x400, 59.68K)

You are painting a caricature of the Eastern Bloc ("speak against the party and you get shot") while painting an overly rosy image of the West - no, you can NOT call for revolution in the West, almost every European country has an article in their constitution that prohibits you from exactly that. Sure, they tolerate it as shitposts on social media but once you gather a crowd of people and call for revolution or a caliphate or whatever you will get arrested. In Bavaria you can't make your PhD if you are in communist party, to name one example. East Germany has a conservative and a liberal party that openly advocated capitalism, while the KPD was outlawed and criminalized in West Germany. So don't give me this shit.

What does democracy mean in your opinion? It means rule of the masses, if we ate going with the Greeks. It's not restricted to liberal democracy only.

Again, is there a good reason to allow capitalist parties in socialist countries? Communists want to go beyond the political scale of capital (left and right) and abolish party politics. This means that the communist party is not "the only party in power", because it's not a party democracy. In Cuba the PCC can not even nominate candidates. It's a grassroots process where money for campaigning is strictly outlawed and the PCC is by constitution forbidden to speak in favor or the candidates. The Soviet systems was a bit more repressive but functioned similarly. I mean there are plenty of books about it, like "Working vs Talking Democracy". You need to let go of your liberalism, you fetishize bourgeois democracy that you equate with casting a ballot, this is not how a real democracy works. In a real democracy the masses gather in regular meetings, discuss an issue, and then nominate a candidate who is supposed to deal with it. The actual election is rather unimportant and more of a fail safe.

I mean the USSR was social imperialist after the 50s but no reason to become McCarthy out of spite, dumb motherfucker.

I was referring to the Stalin era specifically as an inevitability, afterwards it was as you said still naughty in other ways but nowhere near as bad as that.

The bureaucracy in the USSR was worse after Stalin, as a result of Krushchev's market reforms. There were more bureaucrats necessary to mediate between plan and social capital.

Sure but the whole totalitarian nightmare bit no longer applied. I feel like I have to spell out my entire thoughts to you, you keep interpreting my posts to have the dumbest possible meaning.

Fucking hippies. Get a job.

Sure, they might allow even marxists freedoms than they ever had in the USSR, but they don't allow you to march on parliament and install the caliphate or the soviet.
Those were required to be members of the National Front (the organization that actually appeared on the ballot) which was controlled by the SED, being its virtual subsidiaries. The only options were voting for or against the list set up by the National Front.

Marxists-leninist's live in a paper reality.

No, I'm telling you that socialists organizing is more of a threat to America than some lgbt group is to Russia. Burgerland values the appearance of freedom so it allows protests while working to suppress them if it grows too radical, to my knowledge Russia is more honest about capitalism being authoritarian.

What has this thread become?
just go to >>>/marx/ lmao

Attached: eaa426352ad638a5aefb80dd29e0f135b6054f9fb342f625ea80b7fdb1045685.gif (250x257, 538.85K)

You forgot superauthoritarian megafascist turbotyrannical hellscape. Also Luxemburg is not a good way to illustrate you point. Being critical of some Bolshevik actions doesn't mean she was some batshit faux-Marxist like Kautsky.