September 11th

I wonder who is behind this post

Well there about 100 different Communist parties in America, each having on average about 100 members. 100 x 100 = 10,000

Probably a Marxist.

Allende was a pussy bitch who should never have put Pinotchet in his cabinet in the first place. Sucks what happened but socdems get the bullet too for being bitches

hot take

Lol Allende was friends with Castro. He isn't your average socdem, I'd argue he wasn't a socdem at all.
Also, how can someone who despite being offered multiple times a way to escape but chose to die fighting be called a pussy bitch?

...

While this is one of the most disgusting displays of US imperialism at work, and while you can not find any arguments supporting it except you are a complete right-wing nutjob, Allende needs to be criticized for allowing Chilean capital to manipulate the currency, disarming the Chilean working class and appointing Pinochet as head of the army just one year before the coup. This wasn't inevitable and shows the shortcomings of DemSoc just like in Venezuela today, although in a different fashion.

Castro was a national liberator first and a socialist second. But he did create a socialist mode of production in Cuba, what he failed to do is to promote the ideological edifice for Marxism-Leninism as the dominating force in Cuba. He was the obvious choice of the Cuban petit-bourgeoisie, which was the driving force behind the Cuban Revolution.

While I agree with those first criticisms, that last one is one I feel most socialists who aren't chilean don't understand. Allende appointed Pinochet because everyone thought he was the most constitutionalist option. He hadn't expressed any coup suggestions and/or declarations prior to 1973. You can't blame this one on Allende.

pls elaborate
what does this mean?

How do most Chileans feel about Allende and the coup?

From what I recall in somewhat recent polls, about ~60% of the population say the coup wasn't necessary. This distinction is necessary because just a very small percentage of the population (roughly 10%) like Pinochet and say he was a good leader. The thing is, many people here don't like Pinochet but still believe the coup was necessary, simply because of how fucked Chile was, not only by some mistakes of Allende's government but also by American and rightwing sabotage, like most people here already know.
Either way, Allende is much more respected and liked than Pinochet. Almost all chilean leftists like him, while only the most conservative and nationalist rightwingers openly like Pinochet.

Allende was a pretty good leader. Project Cybersyn is one of the most interesting economic planning projects that have ever been implemented and should be used as an inspiration for future socialism. More or less everything in Chile would have been much better if the American imperialists didn't murder him and bring a blood-thirsty neoliberal to power.
F

Leftcoms get the bullet too.

Pinotchet was never in Allende's cabinet. Also Allende was very alpha, especially in comparison to Augusto 'I fap to dog-on-human rape' Pinochet.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (580x421, 239.04K)

Pinochet really was a degenerate. A common torture practiced against women was to shove rats up their vaginas. Fucking imagine that

any sources on that, would be pretty interesting to show to lolberterians?

They will probably say that it wasn't REAL libertarianism

Source on what exactly? I might have something.

Why not do the same to anyone with a helicopter logo in their possession?

Just with starving rats.

I wouldn't do that to the most reactionary fascist. But you go right ahead.

On Pinoshit being a degenrate

Pinochet tortured female dissidents by training dogs to rape them. He would also sometimes force prisoners to fuck their family members.
I’m on mobile but this is fairly well documented

To be fair Cybersyn was a much watered down version of Victor Glushkov's proposed OGAS given the far less resources Cybersyn had to work. Glushkov was imagining a completely automated inventory system like Wal-Mart and Amazon uses today.

Attached: VictorGlushkov.jpg (784x445, 61.93K)

What ended up happening to OGAS? Did the USSR dissolve before it could be finished , lack of funding?…

Nah the Canadians deserved that shit. It's all based off who invaded first. Plus it should happen again considering how much Trudeau wants to play dress up instead of caring about the concerns of the Canadian working class. We just didn't have nukes back then. What a shame. Only legitimate part of Canada is Quebec, imo.

I hate Pinoshit but nowadays women just do it voluntarily. Cest L'Vie.

What the fuck are you on about

Theoretical work on OGAS started in 1962, it ended up in development hell due to disagreements on funding and scope as it would have required a complete reformation of GOSPLAN and GOSBANK around regional computer centers.

What a fucking shame man. Do you think cybernetics could've possibly saved the USSR?

Cybernetics would have streamlined planning yet more importantly as Glushkov pointed out it would have provided accurate and precise data as you integrate more machines to report directly to OGAS. So the planner can could for example see where every pallet of food is currently sitting anywhere in the Comecon even it is currently in sitting in a truck.

bump, cos I really want Maonon to answer this question

Attached: struggle1.jpg (484x540, 56.89K)

It means that Cuba would have actually developed Marxism-Leninism further instead of just cloaking their patriotism in red with a nationalized, albeit planned economy. Ideological revolution doesn't just stop after you take over, you need to make effort in schooling cadres, and make actual scientific contributions to it. From what I've seen Cuba never went beyond the anti-imperialist and left-wing patriotic rethoric. To give a concrete example, Cuba never made any effort to alleviate the big dichotomy between city and countryside, something that has been an agenda point of communists since day one.

but what is the actual (positive) effect of
?
using a historical example would illuminate your position here I believe

To give another example: Vietnam. It's a pretty similar case to Cuba. Ho Chi Minh only adapted Marxism-Leninism later in his life, but national liberation remained the ideological centerpiece of the Vietnamese revolution - and while his efforts to build socialism in Vietnam were honest, and of course under atrocious conditions with the US destroying most of the country, this is also one of the main reasons that the CPV adopted "Ho Chi Minh thought" which is basically just anti-imperialism and reverted back to what they call a "socialist-oriented market economy".

The positive effect of it is to leave all traces of bourgeois ideology behind, and I think the USSR after 1917 is a positive example of this. Even way up into the Krushchev era they never lost communism as the goal out of sight, and never stopped having debates over theory. Stalin stratified Marxism-Leninism as the state ideology and ideology of the international communist movement. And while I take issue with Stalin's mechanistic DiaMat, and his political decisions towards the end of his rule, there is no denial that even through WWII, where patriotism was a mobilizing force, there was no doubt that Marxism-Leninism remained the leading Weltanschauung of the CPSU, with anti-imperialism and patriotism being subsumed elements of it and not the other way arround like in Cuba and Vietnam. Another example would be China, there was a constant struggle against capitalist roaders, the Cultural Revolution and bureaucracy - the problem was that by the point of Mao's death and the ousting of the Gang of Four, China wasn't a fully developed socialist country as yet - it still had NEP style market elements while other elements actually went further than the USSR ever did (communes, etc.), which allowed Deng to dismantle all of it.

interesting, and I totally agree with you about the postwar newly independent countries' socialist movements being nationalist and anti-imperialist first and socialist only because of circumstance. Though I'd add Mao's China and Maoists in general to that list - something you'd take exception to no doubt.
This is the crux of my line of questioning: what exactly was the positive effect of this ideological edifice?
can you remind us why China had those market elements? and why Deng did Deng things even after an entire generation of bureaucrats were eliminated in the Cultural Revolution? Now that you're here, can you also point out some positive effects of the CR?

Internationalism would be a point. I know Stalin made some mistakes when it comes to supporting foreign communist movements (Greece and the DSE comes to mind) but his ideological foundation never abandoned internationalism. The USSR helped the Third World, supported liberation movements, and in general was a big bully to everyone who was mean to commies. Without Marxism-Leninism on top of a state, it might retreat into the "Third Way", becomes part of the "non-aligned movement" - examples would be Yugoslavia or the DPRK (although they never broke with the Eastern Bloc completely). To have Krushchev entering power was a political mistake, not really an ideological one, the were structural problems with the Soviet state in general. But Marxism-Leninism remained the leading ideology which allowed the USSR to survive another 38 years, before it was dismantled after decades of revisionism, but even Krushchev, Brezhnev and to an extent even Gorby believed in communism and Marxism-Leninism. You can easily imagine a future where cornman and eyebrow man made some different decisions and the USSR would still be arround. So while the USSR was dismantled, Yugoslavia actually did collapse under its own weight.

Because China was in a very different situation than Russia. I am not going to apologize for every policy Mao did (he was a better theoretician and guerilla fighter than politician), like purging Peng was a mistake, but China, unlike the USSR, was not energy self-sufficient, had a bigger population, wasn't food self-sufficient, not enough working class, etc. - but New Democracy isn't just like the NEP, it was trying to develop full socialism simultaneously with market elements which were needed due to the specific class composition of Chinese society.

I am going to sound like an absolute tankie now but besides Liu Shaoqi the bureaucratic leadership of the CPCh wasn't killed, just removed from their posts. Most of them were reinstalled after the GPCR, and the people who were killed were mostly teachers and the sort. And then Mao sent the Red Guards into the countryside which was a bad decision. Also, ironically, while the anti-bureaucratic campaign forced many enterprises to rely more on their own self-organization, Deng actually took advantage of that later and introduced the concept of "self-responsibility", effectively letting them compete in a market which led to a petit-bourgeoisie class emerging.

It was destroying reactionary culture, obviously, China had a huge sexism problem, for example. I think in that regard it was succesful, it also stratified the people's communes which lasted long and were replaced by townships 1983 (because Deng's policies didn't further the policy of overcoming the distinctions of production between countryside and city).

Attached: People's_commune_canteen2.jpg (760x590, 177.14K)

Secondly, and I should've mention that, the CR was also pretty unique in organization as it was mostly a grassroot movement. Sure, Mao incited it, and most of the Red Guards were following Mao's word, but I think there was never any other mass movement in history that was so genuinely communist - which makes it idealist in a way, but still fascinating.

What about China itself? In general the Soviet policy regarding China seemed quite self-serving, actually moreso during Stalin's rule than later. the Soviets even supported KMT for a long long time, far into the Civil War for example. To me the similarities between the practical geopolitics of Imperial Russia and Soviet Union are far more pronounced. Related to this, apparently Konrade Adenauer had predicted the Sino-Soviet split already in 57' or something - but this information comes from a DDR career diplomat in China in 58' - based on his belief that no amount of ideological alignment could overcome the fundamental conflicts of interest between China and Russia (or idealism vs materialism, to simplify).
That- and certain European communist parties following the Moscow line against their local, political interests. I haven't done much research on this front but it seems that oftentimes the communist parties around the world were expected to serve the needs of the Soviet state at the expense of communism-as-the-real-movement.
How would you rate its success? Personally I think Liu Shaoqi's plans were a completely reasonable reaction to the GLF.
Am I misunderstanding or are you saying the problem was that the bureaucrats weren't killed?
Didn't the communes already normalise women working, albiet at a lesser wage? Do you think it was specifically the GPCR that reduced sexism, or would it have happened otherwise?
would you call the GPCR a success, from an overall point of view?

Attached: something to consider.png (683x338, 64.32K)

Bumperino, cause I want to know the answers to these questions too