[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / asmr / choroy / fast / klpmm / mde / vichan / x ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 609c000b6482f19⋯.jpg (48.19 KB, 546x640, 273:320, 609c000b6482f191f6b50ba1f8….jpg)

File: 80f02e0d23068cb⋯.jpg (51.27 KB, 960x539, 960:539, 23j7hh.jpg)

File: cc9f43f3f2987c6⋯.jpg (89.28 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-what-would-happen-if….jpg)


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

Starting with some links for discussion

>poll from 2019 shows Stalin viewed positively by 50 percent of Russians today


>60% of Russians want communism back


>Gallup: Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup


>76 percent of Soviet citizens voted for preservation of the USSR in 1991


>Growing Up Under Communism was the Happiest Time in My Life


>More Fulfilling Relationships and Better Sex Under Socialism


10s of Thousands of Russians Protesting Yeltins Government Adorned in Red Flags and Hammer and Sickle back in 1993


>Michael Parenti-Communism Has Worked


>Michael Parenti-Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries


>Truth About Starvation in North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela


>Why Communism is Important


Playlist of cool Communist music including from the USSR and other socialist states



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.




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.




Having said that, what conditions develop will develop.



okay. thanks. to get confirmation on this actually opens me up to leninism.



>Brutal leader

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


>posting objectively true historical facts about the ussr means you are a Stalinist cultist

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


File: e810dddc17e7a56⋯.jpg (22.88 KB, 431x311, 431:311, thinking leninism.jpg)

All the MLs are newfags tho


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



>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.

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.


"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


File: 353175a6c8d38ea⋯.png (189.2 KB, 712x650, 356:325, on19ckkqoye21.png)

Im not sure how I've acted like a Stalinoid itt tbh other than posting a few pictures of Stalin. I recommended that anon read 3 of Lenin's works, 1 work by stalin, and a historical work by Michael Parenti who is not an open Marxist Leninist, defends tito (which I agree with him on despite many online ☭TANKIE☭s disliking tito) and who in the very work I recommended has a long section devoted to Stalin's actual pitfalls

I also encouraged criticism of Stalin as a figure myself. Where's the Stalin boner or whatever? Kind of seems like you two are having this weird knee jerk reaction cuz Twitter ☭TANKIE☭s are either sjws or edgy contrarians who make anyone who defends Stalin and the Soviet union at all look bad. If I came off that way I genuinely apologize but it wasn't my intention at all.


I've been here since 2015 and I believe leftypol has only existed since 2014? I used to be an ancom as,well so idk, I was around when yui and anfem poster were still here. I haven't seen any stats though so maybe ur right about most mls being newfags


Nah fam but check out pic related


File: 096eb58944aae08⋯.mp4 (2.25 MB, 640x360, 16:9, stalin.mp4)

M-Ls are unironically some of the most big brained leftists. Their assesments of actually existing socialism are a lot more impartial and unbiased than you'd think. The problem is that many left critiques of the USSR and such are drenched in capitalist propaganda and thus "tankies" are forced to engage only in defense. When you're not forcing them to play defensively all the time you can actually get solid critiques and materialist analysis of AES from them. People are just salty that M-Ls call them out on buying capitalist propaganda wholesale and thinking they can repurpose it in favor of socialism.



I agree with this

What do you think about the Soviets failure to give adequate support to the anarchists in Spain during the civil war? I always kind of thought it was a pretty big misstep personally along with the alienation of Yugoslavia (although I understand the reasons for the latter a bit better)


File: 2255da0dc54710a⋯.jpg (156.16 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, Cbv3OkrW0AADyW5.jpg)


In the UK the only proper M-L party genuinely do have 'freaky Stalin boners'.



there is something very progressive about that picture


File: 3f2c9b3bcfd714e⋯.jpg (9.25 KB, 240x240, 1:1, trippin_bowls_medium.jpg)


>Middle girl looks like a Puerto Rican I know


File: 333c9bd30cb5b21⋯.png (108.77 KB, 535x550, 107:110, ClipboardImage.png)

A question for fellow MLs, from someone that considers themselves an ML also:

What place do soviets have in the 21st century? I see plenty of reasoned critique of existing socialism from MLs, but I've never really seen anyone critique the specific organisational form that is the soviet itself except for Paul Cockshott, who, I believe, is an ML.

Will we perhaps discover new forms in the course of things, like how the 1905 revolution created the soviets for the first time? Will soviets be used instead as a transitory stage to some radically new form, as Cockshott seems to imply in pic related? I don't know. I was just kinda curious, as I said, as to whether there existed any other ML critiques of the soviet system.



I mean I think something like what Cockshott proposes or cybersyn is an obvious next step for Communists who believe in following Lenin's path to revolution. A Stalin stage is mostly obsolete in the first world so it's obvious that even if a Leninist vanguard or party forms and takes power it wouldn't literally look like the USSR



Oh CPGB-ML, the autists that will never die.


File: 5d3eb123f366f43⋯.mp4 (14.43 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, dprk ambassador cpgbml.mp4)


They even have meetings with the DPRK ambassador to the UK.


File: aa1c9cdf7f69e0d⋯.jpg (6.54 KB, 170x217, 170:217, Robert_F._Hoxie.jpg)




Of the centralizers, Hoxie observes,

The centralizers believe that the actual building up of the industrial organization will train and educate the workers in the conduct, not only of industry, but of all social affairs, so that when the organization has become universalized it can perform all the necessary functions of social control now exercised by the state in its legislative, executive and judicial capacities. This universal organization of the workers will then displace the state, government and politics in the present sense; private ownership, privilege and exploitation will be forever abolished. The one big union will have become the state, the government, the supreme organic and functional expression of society; its rules and decisions will be the law.


Hoxie explains the decentralizers,

The decentralizers look forward to what they call a free industrial society. Each local group of workers is to be a law to itself. They are to organize as they please. The present industrial and social arrangements are to be overthrown simply by making it unprofitable for the employing class to own and operate industries. Future society is to consist of independent groups of workers freely exchanging their products. The proper proportions of investments and production, the ratio of exchange of goods, etc., will automatically be determined, just as they are under competitive industry, only then the competition will be between groups of workers, instead of between individuals. Universal knowledge and a superior morality, which will spring up as soon as capitalist society is abolished, will take the place of our present complicated system of social control and do away with the necessity of government in the present sense.

Beyond the described differences, Hoxie concludes, the theories, methods, and policies of the centralizers and the decentralizers were much the same)



Also I believe that a workers state in the first world's primary function would be the suppression of counter revolution. For instance a while back I was discussing with Stalinstache in /leftytrash/ what a Leninist state in the USA might look like and we agrees it would keep the security apparatuses developed my capitalism to suppress dissent but use them instead as a mechanism to monitor and suppress porky. In a country like the USA you'd have a lot of rich people to keep at bay as well so the massive amount of private prisons after being nationalized and the majority of their populations freed (insofar as they weren't serial murderers or rapists or something like that) they could be used to contain folks scheming against the State and so on. Ideally while this is happening the intelligence and productive forces of stem types could be mobilized to develop the technology necessary to provide necessities while forming more communal spaces and so on.

This is all really abstract and none of it would be this easy though which is why I kind of take the line that fantasizing about the role a party would play post revolution is a bit useless and instead we should focus on how to actually get there



Where is this from? It's reminiscent of Lenin in the State and revolution but more sober and concise



Agreed, it's cybercommunism or bust. As you said, there's no need for rapid industrialisation per se, though I do wonder about the fact that a lot of production is outsourced today making some sort of "re-industrialisation drive" necessary - needless to say I wouldn't expect it to be anything like what the USSR had to do, though. And yeah, definitely agreed on the last part.


>Also I believe that a workers state in the first world's primary function would be the suppression of counter revolution

Well, as with any worker's state, no? Can't say I really disagree with any of this post either though; the tools exist, and it would be foolish to discard them.



Right I just meant that in the third world the State might have to industrialized of rendustrialize parts of the country while in the 1st we could pretty much just focus on suppression of and resolution of class antagonism.



Robert F. Hoxie




Fair enough, I was thinking more of how some countries in the first world, as I understand it, don't have all that much industry left in them due to shifting it overseas/to the third world. I dunno, I might be talking out of my ass here.


Page 167 in specific, even.



>brutal leader like Stalin

In the early-mid 1920s Stalin was seen as on the more "moderate" side, allied with Bukharin against Trotsky who claimed both men were afraid to move against kulaks and other exploiting elements.

If you mean "brutal" in regard to industrialization and collectivization, it's debatable, but at the same time Stalin did point out in 1931 that the USSR had ten years to catch up to the advanced countries or else be crushed.

If you mean the purges i think Stalin was just retarded.


ML parties' complete top down structure led to the demise of the USSR and the fall to revisionism in China because once people chasing power got to the higher up positions there was nothing stopping them from ruining everything.

Change my mind.



yes, like i said, i recognise the material pressures put on the soviet union, especially during WW2 - but my crucial point was that these constraints do not exist in such a way today that a leader in the fashion of Stalin could emerge as he did. So a marxist-leninist leadership would be much more 'libertarian' in regard to overall autonomy.

The history of the Soviet union is actually hardly relevant in consideration to contemporary western abundance, but many on the left are afraid of another failed communist project, or a scary dictator. I think the 'tankie' role in his propaganda must be to teach of the safeties and exceeding benefits of continuing the leninist approach.



USSR was smashed because of US hegemony.



The burden of proof is on you



>Stalin was just retarded

This is a pretty bad misreading of the purges. It's a know fact that the number of people purged, like nearly every other statistic people always talk about from Stalin's era, are often inflated. When it comes to the fact that Stalin took the purges too far that doesn't make it okay but to say he shouldn't have done the purges at all and he only did them out of ignorance or paranoia completely misrepresents the situation. It reminds me of when people act like the Cultural Revolution was a psyop from the start and not a necessary attempt to try and quell revisionism that started as a legitimate bottom up movement which Mao than later used to salvage his name after he fucked up the great leap forward.




Explain how Gorbechev and Deng got to power then.



Yeah, I agree. The party's structure was ultimately very flawed. I think another attempt should have been made toward a more democratic system, but I'm not sure how that would have been best accomplished. I mean, ultimately the Soviet Union wouldn't have been abolished if it were actually democratic as most still wanted it.



I would smash the girl in the middle.



Gorby was a reformer who, while being retarded, had his heart in the right place when he started collaborating more with washington and the west in general. He rose to power because the ussr was in a recession, partially thanks to large amounts or military spending in Afghanistan throughout the last decade, a war they got involved in only because the cia invented a crisis which wasn't there. That combined with sanctions and tarriffs that had existed for decades really put a boot on the back of the ussrs neck and opened the door to Gorby who in turn opened the door to the US to come inn and wreck his nations shit

Now to be sure there was a level of corruption that allowed certain self interested individuals into positions of the party that had various levels of influence and yeah, this was partially because of kruschev and Brezhnev blowing it, but to say that within the heart of Leninism itself is some guarantee of its own decimation is a total exaggeration that is firmly ahistorical

I don't know much about China after Mao so idk maybe a mlm fag can give their take



This ad sums up the entirety of Gorbacheff's presidency. I can't believe that faggot got to be the last president of the USSR.





>because once people chasing power got to the higher up positions there was nothing stopping them from ruining everything

No, democratic centralism effectifly prevents this, by having elections from bottom up and- this is important- by having every legislative body be accountable to the lower one, meaning that people who would be power greedy and this resulting in breaking promises or bad handling of issues in power, were stripped of their ranks when the bottom legislative body reported them to the responsible comitee. This combined with a regular report on the work of each body/high positioned leader and a critical and self critical evaluation of the work oneself has done, safeguarded the vanguard from those power hungry careerists.

The downfall of these socialsits state where not the fault of a few "bad apples" that where "overseen" by "good" Communists and destroyed the Socialist states, this is an inherently idealist analyis of the demise of socialist states

If we analyse the counterrevolution of 89' through a materialist lense, meaning that we look at the economic and cultural changes that led people develop a specific trail of thought and act in a counterrevolutionairy way, we see that primarly there where mistakes that the communist parties did that led to revisionist ideas grow inside the party and creat apathy from the masses to the party.

Namely this would be communist partíes losing connections to the people,the same old people inside the party congresses, not much change in the country, a state apparteus that wasn't a dynamic between state and people rather an apparetus that just guarded the status quo and didn'T change much else.

This combined with an influence in western idealism inside the GDR for example gave fire for people that were tired of the current political crusted system and wanted *new* things, fancy western fruits, coca-cola etc.

Revisionist tendecies also grew inside the SED with people like Gregor Gysi and others advocating for "democratic socialism" losing connection with Marxism-Leninism, even many SED politicians filled the streets and protested for an end of the "SED Dictatorship"

In the Soviet union I would probably say that stalins neglegtic of keeping the Socialist democracy vivid with increasingly infrequent meetings of the Central Committee and Politburo and a long delay from the 18th Congress in 1939 to the 19th in 1952.

This lead to revisionist like khrushchev coming to power and his unmarxist evaluation of stalins mistakes gave further growth to revisionist tendencies, Breshnev, while not revisionist in policies or else, kept things at a status quo, not keeping party life vivid and not working on the socialist state, helped revisionist grow further. This ended in Gorbachev who threw all of Marxist-Leninist thought and theory in the trashbin and proposed social democracy and killed the soviet union

In conclusion we see that democratic centralism wasn't at fault for the demise of socialist states, rather its usefulness wasn't exerciced enough and this enabled traitors to rise to power.

Democratic centralism by itself is the most effective tactical tool Marxist-Leninist have. It enbodies freedom of discussion and unity of action, it combines the power of Marxist-Leninist thought and puts it into praxis, with a vanguard party at its top. Without it communist parties wouldn't be more than movements, mere loose connections of communists, without a competent leadership, without unity of action, resulting in a uncoherent praxis without direction. No Socialist state has ever been achived without a vanguard party and democratic centralism



You know I've never actually watched this commercial before and god damn. They literally equate pizza hut with freedom lol


File: dda592246143448⋯.jpg (45.82 KB, 605x336, 605:336, stfu.jpg)


>Gorby was a reformer who, while being retarded, had his heart in the right place when he started collaborating more with washington and the west in general.

Oh, shut the fuck up. A reformer who had his heart in the right place was Andropov. Not fucking westernboo Gorby who showed being a cocksucker for the west before and during his reign.




le free market




Fair enough I was just trying to give that guy a sober answer so he didn't accuse me of having some illogical hatred of Gorby or something, I agree he was a retard.

The pizza hut commercial is unforgivable



After that pizza hut commercial he should be put to the wall and be re-educated, of course. Not that it would have helped much at that point.


File: 0b9fbd5444572a2⋯.png (371.58 KB, 600x330, 20:11, ClipboardImage.png)



Socialism with Vuitton characteristics is the only path to communism. Dissenters will be sentenced to wage labour for life or, if the offense severe enough, to death by lethal injection of Krokodil







File: 6122481a0538a09⋯.webm (7.7 MB, 640x360, 16:9, truthstalin.webm)


>krokodil lethal injections

How inhumane. Heroine lethal injections are better.



>old lady literally saying she would go to prison if it mean Stalin could be the leader of Russia again

And yet people try to debunk the nostalgia for the ussr by saying it's just young kids trying to be cool and if you talk to the old people it drops off


File: f6556f17cc9eaff⋯.png (29.41 KB, 500x500, 1:1, lmao.png)


>That boomer ☭TANKIE☭



THis addresses my other issue with ML states: the parties eventually becoming a Blanquist-like disconnected ruling class. I see this as an inherent danger in the existence of a party post-siezure of the state apparatus tbh.

My question is why do you refer to democratic centralism as an exclusively ML thing when trots believe in it as well?





File: 84bb965ead109ab⋯.jpeg (78.71 KB, 270x367, 270:367, grover-furr.jpeg)

What do we think of this guy



good for making clear the innumerable contestable claims of liberals, but his actual work that goes on and says "well, it was actually like this instead" is bullshit and he's an academic joke in this line of inquiry


>muh ☭TANKIE☭s

tankies represent the opposite of MLs, stop using this word


File: 6d88a52147a5a77⋯.jpg (45.91 KB, 640x400, 8:5, Mideast-Syria-Acciden_Horo….jpg)


Make me faggot



gtfo, muke



>buy your crops at a fixed price





Back in the day ☭TANKIE☭ meant khrushchevite, something that most MLs hate.



Gorbachev admits he was not a communist but a social-democrat and wanted to destroy the Soviet system.







That's a nice link though. I have to admit I never knew a while lot about Gorby outside of the general story of his rise to power and then the fall. My knowledge of the union gets a bit fuzzy after kruschev particularly on the nuances of everyone after Stalin


File: 618136acadaa8a8⋯.png (443.21 KB, 1350x1080, 5:4, fd939af6ef7c3e52eeaaf0fe3b….png)

How do we feel about Arab socialism



Far better than what exists in most Middle Eastern/African countries now


why was lenin able to maintain party discipline without killing people, but Stalin was not



How long should the Vanguard party rule? When will the state devolve into higher stage communism?



Until there's world socialism


File: c19488bea9f8b6f⋯.jpeg (1.83 MB, 2040x1107, 680:369, dotp.jpeg)


Now it seems to be used to refer to basically anyone who wants some sort of state structure to defend the revolution, or questions literally anything bourgeois media says about a force resisting its imperialism.



Why wait until then? Does socialism need a state to expand?



Because Lenin died while the main focus of the party was purging remnant fuedalist/capitalist elements of the country writ large and not trying to maintain party discipline without a common enemy with which everyone agreed to fight at all costs



First, because if you don't you'll be crushed by the still existing capitalist powers. Second, because the state can only be abolished when the conditions for not needing a state are acquired, otherwise the state will simply reappear as a necessary force to address said conditions.



What are those conditions? The CNT and Zapatistas seemed to meet the needs of the people fairly well without a state.



>The CNT and Zapatistas seemed to meet the needs of the people fairly well without a state.

The CNT got crushed by both the monarchist government and other reactionary forces, and the Zapatistas are relegated to their small sphere of influence and survive due to not being large enough to be a threat that would get other countries involved. The CNT also had somewhat of a state, and utilized work camps not so different from the USSR.


File: 7ce1f2ac284727b⋯.pdf (3.36 MB, Lenin - State and Revoluti….pdf)

File: 793321b17a1401b⋯.png (25.35 KB, 526x386, 263:193, ClipboardImage.png)


The state is the instrument by which one class suppresses another, antagonistic class. For as long as class struggle goes on one class will be compelled to wield state power against the other class in order to force it to submit even if they do not call it a state. When class society disappears, so too will the state.



Do I need to have a solid grasp on Marxism to fully understand this, or am I good starting out with this?



Go for it, I'd say. Lenin writes well. It's one of the first Marxist things I read, back when I was an anarchist.


File: 70eb9d684862c15⋯.png (133.4 KB, 843x846, 281:282, makhno state.png)



Is it really a good argument to say a single anarchist state (hehe) did exactly what a state would do, and thus all anarchists states would follow? isn't that like saying the problems of the USSR will follow every single socialist state to follow? the problem of democracy, of distribution?



MLs want to arrive to communism by creating a transitional socialist state and eventually when the world is socialist (or most of it), it will transition to communism. Ancoms want to create a socialist anarchy and directly transition to communism


In this video ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jxhT9EVj9Kk ) Chomsky claims that Lenin destroyed worker’s councils and thus did not have the worker’s interests at heart. What is he referring to, and what are your thoughts on it?



Buhkarin was a Leninist

Lenin was fundamentally opposed to coercing the peasants in the way that Stalin did to extract the grain needed to rapidly industrialize.


File: fb53e7e9b0f19b5⋯.png (926.37 KB, 877x585, 877:585, fb53e7e9b0f19b554b6297a55c….png)

Most MLs here aren't newfags, it's just that by 2017 many here converted to some strain of Leninism, because they realised Stirner posting and Žižek memes won't move anything forward. Just look at into what type or creatures Muke, Yui, Bat'ko or Rebel turned.

I joined /leftypol/ in 2015 as a idiosyncratic Marxist but I always regarded the notion that the USSR was state-capitalist as incorrect (for example the argument that commodities existed is completely redundant considering that Marx himself wrote that the exchange of commodities and the distribution of goods under socialism organises itself amongst the same metric, e.g. labour in time units, this difference is that there is no market exchange in socialism by individual producers), and when I learned more about Leninist theory and read more about the historical aspects of Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht, etc. I came around as a ML. One negative example of maintaining false believes based on ideology are the anarchists who were populating this place, they didn't make a Leftcom argument but rather fell in line with the 100 gorillion/redfascism stuff, and now look what happened to them at /leftpol/, they went full circle and became NazBols. Such is the case when you are forced to use right-wing authors constantly if you want to cling to your outraged historical beliefs.



As a M-L, I believe the immediate stage of future would mirror the current capitalist three-level world system, a kind of "reflection"

The Core - "Centralizers"

There would be a single huge core country, or several core countries with Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Their centralised economic system would enable an advanced heavy industry and sophisticated large-scale infrastructure (other word, modern wonders compared to the ancient pyramids). They are responsible for carrying out the great missions of humanity, space exploration and nature preservation. In contrast with capitalist core state, socialist core state doesn't focus on consume, but investment.

The Semi-periphery - "Decentralizers"

There would be many of smaller decentralised socialist countries who would not adhere to Marxist-Leninist doctrine. However, they still live in peace with core countries and getting assistance in heavy industry investment from them. Their society would focus mainly on consuming and idyllic life, in harmony with nature.

The Periphery - "Barbarians"

There would be a remnant of capitalism and other old mode of production like feudalism or nomadic, agriculture tribes. But the principle of non-intervention in internal matters keeping us from exporting the revolution to them. The semi-periphery and core would keep a trading relation with them. The core may in need of raw materials, while the semi-periphery might need consumer products.

As socialism in the core and semi-periphery are different to each other, so are the people. People in the core state would live a simple, rustic material life. They consider labour as their greatest need, instead of consuming, the kind of human that Marx and Engels had envisaged in later communism stage. By contrast, people in semi-periphery would lead a "balanced" life in the same veins of the old mankind.




I predict there would a huge tendency for Marxist-Leninist revolution in the semi-periphery countries of capitalist system (a main example in history was Russia), because of their main focus on investment and low level of consuming. That's why Marx and Engels had huge hope for revolution in Britain, when it was still a semi-periphery capitalist country who focus on industrial investment, "the workshop of the World".

And on revisionism in USSR, the greatest fault of Khruschev and CC of Communist Party was not the denouncement of Stalin, but the denouncement of Stalin's policy. They want to manage a core state (USSR) like a semi-periphery socialist state. The main motivation of Soviet labour was not of consuming products, but seeing their great achievement of labour in own eyes and take pride in it. Stalin and previous Soviet managers understood it, while they still kept the wage rising each year, but they were never wavering on the matter of primary sector focus. They let the Stakhanovists had wage as same as the manager, or even higher, because it's not money that matter, but it's a statement that it's high skilled labourers who were the greatest honourable people in USSR. They "wasted" time and labour on "Stalin's excessiveness" in architecture, not for the sake of vanity, but to display the greatness of labour itself.

Khruschev and his managers, didn't understand that. They removed everything positive from the Stalin's era, but kept all the bureaucratic nature of it, which by then was unnecessary with the advancement in planning science. They switched focus from primary sector to the secondary sector, trying to race with USA in the tasteless consuming game. They declared better consuming than capitalism is the only criteria of socialism. This eventually created apathy in labour, generated instability and finally the destruction of USSR.



>Lenin was fundamentally opposed to coercing the peasants in the way that Stalin did to extract the grain needed to rapidly industrialize.

I'm sure Lenin would have let the double the people that needed to die die during the famine, ww2, and it's aftermath just so he wouldn't look "coercive" lol



>My question is why do you refer to democratic centralism as an exclusively ML thing when trots believe in it as well?

It is a Leninist concept, non- MLs can adhere to it, wich is good, but utimately they are still a left or right deviation from ML wich leads to their demise eventualy


File: e95038fb67c2357⋯.jpg (426.16 KB, 2000x1500, 4:3, ouc3odgajkzy.jpg)

What do we think of this guy



big brain



Based and redpilled



The based-est leader ever. He sacrificed himself for the proles.

We should steal his mummy from the mausoleum and revive him.


File: 480d39249565d59⋯.png (116.71 KB, 500x438, 250:219, the-simpsons-already-predi….png)






It is really a tragedy how little Lenin gets counted in the pantheon of great men while absolute ghouls like Ghandi or mother Teresa get jerked off by liberals constantly




i was not even taught of the existence nor importance of Lenin while in school. I grew up not knowing an essential aspect of the world I lived in, so I grew up as a fractured, incomplete being.



Yeah, it's because he was a communist. If he didn't do what he did in the name of communism, he'd have been called one of the greatest, if not the greatest person to live (which he is, but he isn't recognized as such).

I'm so pissed at the hypocrisy of the society we live in, honestly.



would there be a lenin with karl marx though?






Well no but Marx also gets trivialized



I think my idea was that lenin is great necessity of the communist continuity, so he should be celebrated for his role in this particular narrative rather than in this individual comparison of other "great men".

very small autistic point, i know.



More credit should be given to his brother, Alexander Ulyanov, than to Marx, I think. I believe he wouldn't have become a Marxist if it wasn't for him.



What did ever happen to Yui? As far as I'm aware of them they just fell off the planet.



Well historically, it is what all anarchist groups which came in control of a territory have done. Established a disorganized de-facto state to defend their territory. And whether you call it a state or not, in class struggles state power is what is used by one class to suppress another class.



Yui is now a trans leftcom who regularly shits on ☭TANKIE☭s on Twitter in between posting about comic books and breadtube



>problem of distribution

You mean the one that housed, clothed, fed and made literate the vast majority of the population in less than 5 decades, accelerating particularly after ww2 and closing the gap with the USA completely by the 1960s?



imagine being so unoriginal



>please accept my cold war fanfiction that directly contradicts the objective historical record as true because the successes of socialist states hurt my little libertarian Marxist fee fees


File: d16017c23f9ee09⋯.jpg (13.89 KB, 255x400, 51:80, 9781898231332.jpg)


lenin was ahead of his time



At least he cared about the Soviet Union. He was a MASSIVE fuckup, but he didn't actively conspire with the US like Yeltsin did.




Also the first.


I have a critique that hopefully isn't going to be taken too harshly, mostly on how a lot of marxists talk about the state when dealing with anarchists.

When discussing the nature of the State under a marxist sense for the sake of defending the creation of a proletarian state, it's very common for marxists to bring up the class nature of the state as it relates to classed oppression, as of one class ruling the other through violence, the necessity for the proletariat to do the, discussing the "withering away" of the state as the dissolution of one class continues, etc.

However when critiquing anarchist praxis, it seems to become very common for Marxists to suddenly revert to an almost naive liberal definition of the state, that of simple governance born of pragmatic necessity, of regulation and organization, etc, with every sense of the State as an organization of class control suddenly wiped away. For example, the picture here >>2871122 suggests the Makhnovites were against the idea of a state, then went on to create a state in all but name, not by describing the class character of the Makhnovists, but rather their regulatory functions.

I highly doubt any marxist intends for public regulatory functions to "wither away", unless we are to believe that the primary reason for creating "mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health" is that of the liquidation of the bourgeoisie and that it too will fade with the rest of the State.

Please try to watch yourselves for consistency.



This is actually pretty interesting.


File: 594754f27644a57⋯.jpg (231.75 KB, 907x1360, 907:1360, 71avnx847VL.jpg)


This, honestly


4chan/pol/ here: Why do you call yourself ☭TANKIE☭s?


File: 3b79ed4b1613092⋯.jpg (43.14 KB, 325x325, 1:1, Kim-drinking.jpg)


Tankie originally was a word that leftists lobbed at other leftists who defended kruschev sending tanks to put down a revolt in Hungary against the Soviet government. Then throughout the 20th century it expanded to mean anyone who defends the USSR and now it basically is just a pejorative used to describe anyone who isn't a "libertarian" socialist. On /leftypol/ people kind of reclaim it in a tongue and cheek way and most here aren't actually supportive of kruschev specifically and moreso the Soviet union and it's allies in general and moreso Stalin and Lenin specifically. On Twitter there's really stupid idpol faggots who try to reclaim it unironically and they're usually always cringe Maoists



thank you


File: dba754664102305⋯.jpg (19.96 KB, 220x331, 220:331, 220px-Josip_Broz_Tito_unif….jpg)

How do we feel about this guy?



>For example, the picture here >>2871122 suggests the Makhnovites were against the idea of a state, then went on to create a state in all but name, not by describing the class character of the Makhnovists, but rather their regulatory functions.

The Makhnovist state was objectively used as a tool of one class against another, however. Unless the Makhnovist army never engaged the White army in battle, never engaged in the suppression of counter-revolution, never created their own secret police? It even says in the image itself:

>Why did self-proclaimed anarchists create a state? They were not confused or impure. They built a state because they had no choice. Ultimately, states are coercive instruments whereby one class rules society. A workers’ state is unique in history because the class wielding power does so in the interests of the vast majority. During the civil war, the Ukraine was far from a classless society, as the actions of the Makhnovists show.


File: d4a21bab9f92986⋯.jpg (54.79 KB, 600x806, 300:403, d4a21bab9f929860b0fc1d3a0a….jpg)



Oh, sure, I'm not going to argue that they didn't go about fighting the upper classes in an organized manner. I think most anarchists would agree that this is only right and proper. I'm just saying that if this constitutes building a revolutionary State then so to would any properly organized anti capitalist revolutionary subject, and there is therefore no reason to discuss the organization of public regulation. My criticism is that a lot of Marxists end up calling anarchists "state but in name" for their adherence to regulatory function.

I actually disagree that an organizational body attempting to liquefy one class is a State, though. The capitalist state has interest in regulating the proletariat, not liquidation



>My criticism is that a lot of Marxists end up calling anarchists "state but in name" for their adherence to regulatory function.

I don't disbelieve you, tbf. For my part, I've only ever really pointed out the role of the state in class struggle since I moved over towards Marxism from anarchism.

>I actually disagree that an organizational body attempting to liquefy one class is a State, though. The capitalist state has interest in regulating the proletariat, not liquidation

A fair point that requires a little elaboration from the Marxist end more often than not, of which I'm definitely guilty here, I'll admit. Engels notes in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that:

>The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.

>But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society, thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organization of the particular class which was, pro tempore, the exploiting class, an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labor).


>As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out.

Marx also suggested in a letter to Bebel that it might be an idea to drop the word "state" altogether when referring to the "state-in-withering":

>so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”

Might've saved everyone a lot of trouble had that been the case heh. Though, "Commonalty and Revolution" is a much less catchy title.



If I ever am involved in the creation of a proletarian state, I'm definitely gonna be pushing for naming it "The Commonality of X" tbh.


File: 428f05b0724799d⋯.jpg (59.6 KB, 570x629, 570:629, Tito.jpg)


File: f44e6f2c8f00519⋯.jpg (44.5 KB, 468x631, 468:631, Linen.jpg)


File: 45c170fe558fc1e⋯.jpg (27.49 KB, 415x466, 415:466, 85563ce9faa9242a63b529c033….jpg)


Really good video I found about the USSR the other day.



Usually the people saying this are, ironically, huge liberals



>If you defend Locke you’re not a liberal

>If you defend Hitler you’re not a fascist

>If you defend the pope you’re not a Christian



So communists and anarchists were liberals all this time? Damn.


>retarded analogies

Hello, /v/!



Stalin had problems but was definitely a comrade.


>You might as well worship Judas and call yourself a Christian.

The only way to be a coherent Christian is to at the very least acknowledge that Judas was extremely important for the development of christianity and for Christ himself. Also the gospel according to Judas btfo's most christian stupidity.



>there are only two narratives: Stalin is the worst thing ever and Stalin did nothing wrong




Can you please fuck off back to reddit or wherever you came from. Also this >>2874740

This isn't a religion you dumb faggot, we're allowed to be nuanced about shit



what a well put, logical argument

stallinoid trash



>literally agree that we're allowed to be critical of Stalin while also pointing out the good things about him


Try harder



If you don't love Stalin, you're a liberal.




A petit-bourgeosie who couldn't put himself below the revolution


A theoretician who have soft spot for kulaks and NEPmans

>Bolshevik revolutionaries

Any other names?


File: 119f6a6fe995197⋯.png (1.62 MB, 1080x1783, 1080:1783, kim jong il on marx engels….png)

File: c920e3d52404be1⋯.png (464.84 KB, 1952x600, 244:75, 6f8d74bc747cbecc109ac4e6be….png)

File: 80106a772c207ed⋯.jpg (116.44 KB, 958x960, 479:480, 077e6c05d8c11c61c75c973c12….jpg)

File: 250014583745f4b⋯.jpg (68.03 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-i-have-sworn-before-….jpg)

File: 82eb99b191f7804⋯.jpg (124.53 KB, 939x1024, 939:1024, f0ea1221ceedb71145355b4f64….jpg)


>building up and developing the first socialist country into a superpower, defeating fascism, and aiding in the spread of socialism to China, Korea, East Europe etc was the worst thing to happen to Marxism



That's why Stalin is great. If your enemies are praising you, you must do something VERY VERY wrong.


File: 9a043e5e94f0b77⋯.pdf (510.28 KB, JV Stalin - Foundations of….pdf)

If anyone cares, I made a pdf of Foundations of Leninism from the marxists archive, since I noticed there wasn't any



Based. Was looking for a .pdf of this.





There are arguments to be made of Stalin, but they are arguments in favor of nationalism and authoritarianism, not leftism.


Great examples here.

>building up and developing the first socialist country into a superpower

I'm not Russian, I didn't benefit from their rapid industrialization. The side effect is that communism has been associated with brutality, authoritarianism, oligarchy and famine for generations since. This characterization has adversely affected every leftist on the planet and has given right wingers and liberal societies a mandate to destroy communism where ever it takes hold

>defeating fascism

Perhaps somebody who didn't kill as many of his own people as the Nazis did could've done a better job.

>aiding in the spread of socialism to China, Korea, East Europe etc was the worst thing to happen to Marxism

Real workers paradises. Just what Marx had in mind, no? These societies are only "communist" in the worst right wing definitions of the word.


File: 87b0eb62af6966f⋯.jpg (465.81 KB, 2592x1944, 4:3, 1484755615243.jpg)

File: b9c9b79e77561c0⋯.jpg (34.9 KB, 480x335, 96:67, 1488962158341.jpg)

File: 89c84848ba4eba9⋯.jpg (44.02 KB, 220x302, 110:151, 1550188648531.jpg)

File: bf9aef6116e0668⋯.png (2.67 MB, 1600x1079, 1600:1079, 1552951848191.png)


File: 89ae451adf21598⋯.png (48 KB, 756x760, 189:190, 1492901552301.png)

>tfw computer broke

>tfw lost my collection of ML pictures, art, books, quotes, wojaks, pepes, military shit


File: ae79069d3ce3156⋯.png (17.81 KB, 200x252, 50:63, thumb_a-revolution-is-cert….png)







maybe it was a sign from the universe to stop spending so much time on imageboards.



>The side effect is that communism has been associated with brutality, authoritarianism, oligarchy and famine for generations since.

Imagine my shock. Anticommunist propaganda exists since before even the October revolution and will continue to exist. Bolsheviks were accused by capitalist media of the most absurd things, like eating babies and nationalizing women.

>Perhaps somebody who didn't kill as many of his own people as the Nazis did could've done a better job.

Stalin didn't kill tens of millions or whatever. I don't know how you can believe trash like this when it's so easy to debunk

>Real workers paradises. Just what Marx had in mind, no? These societies are only "communist" in the worst right wing definitions of the word.

They were socialist states, they had their flaws but those states helped defeat imperialism, had to rebuild after being destroyed by war, lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty, achieved high life expectancy, eliminated illiteracy, disease, gave people healthcare, education, housing, etc. What's your example of real socialism? Sweden?



"Where there is no unemployment, and where a person is not in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for REAL and not on paper" -Jospeh Stalin

Think I found my new favorite quote, thank you leftyanon. People in the US think they are free because they're given the choice between a job they despise or having their family starve, so this quote from Stalin, a great man who died more than 60 years ago, can be applied today. Only the true (non-libcuck) left can boast such a feat


File: 572242c4b205fd1⋯.png (1011.96 KB, 1743x916, 1743:916, hoxha folder.png)


This is why you keep backups on external storage



would you mind uploading this folder somewhere




why do you have so many hoxha pics? can't really talk tbh since i have over 2600 eastern bloc pictures saved. i really need to sort them sometime.



Powerful folder


File: d5236b289ac2dc8⋯.png (255.98 KB, 853x480, 853:480, rnf459i620f21.png)


>I'm not Russian, I didn't benefit from their rapid industrialization.

Well, the Russian working class certainly did, and the working classes of other countries did as well. The USSR supported communist parties all over the world and built the strongest international socialist movement ever seen. Even working people in anti-communist states benefited, since most of those nice social democratic welfare reforms never would've happened without the threat of communist revolution. Not to mention that Russian industrialization was literally necessary to defeat nazism.

Is this really how you evaluate the history of socialism? "Russian industrialization didn't personally benefit me, some spoiled kid posting on an image board a hundred years later, so who cares?!".

>The side effect is that communism has been associated with brutality, authoritarianism, oligarchy and famine for generations since.

How naive are you? Anti-communist propaganda would exist regardless. The Red Scare started before Stalin. Listen to the lecture "Anti-Sovietism in the Media" by Michael Parenti (it's on youtube). I don't know what flavor of leftist you are, but whatever anarchist movement you fetishize, the reason they're not as vilified is that they're not a significant threat to capitalism and imperialism. That's it.

By the way, I'm not saying the USSR wasn't flawed, that mistakes weren't made or that crimes weren't committed. It's perfectly fine to be critical of the USSR and Marxism-Leninism, but this notion that it would've been better for the USSR to not have existed because there would be less anti-communist propaganda around today, is extremely stupid. "Communist and anti-colonial revolutions bad because the propaganda surrounding them makes it harder for me to argue with libertarians in youtube comment sections". Get the fuck outta here.

>has given right wingers and liberal societies a mandate to destroy communism where ever it takes hold

Again, you are an idiot if you think capitalist governments would need some special mandate to crush anti-capitalist movements. Western governments tried to overthrow the Bolshevik government immediately after the revolution, before there was a Stalin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War). The propaganda is manufactured as a justification for crushing socialist movements. If Stalin and the USSR never existed, some other villain would be created as the reason for spying on and sabotaging left-wing groups at home and squashing socialist movements abroad.

>Perhaps somebody who didn't kill as many of his own people as the Nazis…

This is a narrative that many liberal historians don't even buy into. How come certain leftists go further in their anti-communism than professional anti-communists? Timothy Snyder, for example, whose entire career is basically predicated on equating communism to nazism, concedes that the Soviets didn't kill nearly as many people as the nazis did. Consider, for a moment, that you're more extreme in your anti-Sovietism than people who literally get paid to bash the Soviet Union. How come?

>Real workers paradises.

The workers' states of the 20th century weren't paradises no. If being a paradise is the only acceptable standard to you then there will never be a revolution worth supporting. They did however rapidly improve standards of living, provided healthcare and education for it's citizens, fought imperialism and colonialism and created better, more egalitarian societies than what existed in those countries previously. Watch these:



>Just what Marx had in mind, no?

Marx intentionally avoided making any declarations about what a future socialist society would look like. However, he did write this:

<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.



Lenin was in charge during the Civil War when basically anybody serious about maintaining the gains of February and October on the Bolsheviks side basically decided ride or die all hands on deck until the whites were destroyed.



File: 0f6afc2a69465f1⋯.webm (11.15 MB, 250x140, 25:14, five freedoms plz.webm)




File: 50f52243afe3ba1⋯.png (998.25 KB, 1765x917, 1765:917, stalinfolder.png)

File: 5a08e7d0c90355f⋯.png (1.13 MB, 1770x921, 590:307, soviet poster folder.png)


Most of the images seen in the screenshot are from here:



In total I have like 45000 images saved over the years, all sorted into their folder.



were do you get all your propaganda pictures from


File: e181e71de25323f⋯.jpg (212.57 KB, 1203x900, 401:300, 2abf2a7ecd6eaf3cbcd8f3ff05….jpg)

File: 1f12026a629b82e⋯.jpeg (84.43 KB, 699x945, 233:315, 1f12026a629b82e59222242f2….jpeg)

File: 727c140460bbd22⋯.jpg (1.41 MB, 1210x1753, 1210:1753, sovmilpost18500025.jpg)

File: 0d0d63aa8be3de4⋯.jpg (1.34 MB, 1150x1753, 1150:1753, ksssrpost 0013.jpg)

File: 73b8a662bc6b80f⋯.jpg (265.3 KB, 806x1200, 403:600, flagproletariat.jpg)


Some of the Soviet posters are from this board, but most were downloaded from here:



File: 001c262a5902518⋯.jpg (64.33 KB, 960x540, 16:9, stalin.jpg)

File: ef51af1447544cd⋯.jpg (156.89 KB, 900x541, 900:541, sankara.jpg)

ML quote/info time?

ML quote/info time.



that's one sketchy ass website, why are they posting Soviet posters?


File: 3d060689294f5fb⋯.jpg (89.23 KB, 1500x568, 375:142, ideological workers radio ….jpg)

File: dec05436c08eee3⋯.jpg (733.84 KB, 1307x1769, 1307:1769, kim jong il historical les….jpg)

File: 6948112b745368a⋯.png (356.32 KB, 686x915, 686:915, theimportanceofredoctoberb….png)

File: 0130ca6bbce903e⋯.jpg (951.64 KB, 2222x1695, 2222:1695, 8c212ffd65e2cf204937126f4e….jpg)

File: d4fa6dd33278065⋯.jpg (83.92 KB, 1100x558, 550:279, 42231124 2194140060912726 ….jpg)



It's a website which archives stuff from all over the internet




Why are most of these so god damn ugly?



>Is this really how you evaluate the history of socialism? "Russian industrialization didn't personally benefit me, some spoiled kid posting on an image board a hundred years later, so who cares?!".

You're taking that one phrase out of context. I said in the same paragraph that Stalin's reign has affected the rest of the world adversely. The number of people who have benefitted is relatively small, particularly among those alive today. Stalin did vastly more harm than he ever did good.

>this notion that it would've been better for the USSR to not have existed because there would be less anti-communist propaganda around today, is extremely stupid.

I never said that. The USSR would be fine if Stalin never rose to power.

>"Communist and anti-colonial revolutions bad because the propaganda surrounding them makes it harder for me to argue with libertarians in youtube comment sections"

It's not hard when you disavow Stalinism.

>Again, you are an idiot if you think capitalist governments would need some special mandate to crush anti-capitalist movements.

The mandate I'm referring to is incredibly powerful. There is hardly a living person in the west who didn't grow up believe that communism is the ultimate evil. That's only finally starting to change. Why? Because the cold war and USSR are no longer fresh in people's minds. As somebody barely old enough to remember, the difference between communist sympathies now and then is night and day. I can only imagine where we'd be now if not for Stalin, gulags, death camps and all of that absolutely retarded bullshit.


File: 113ce46eaee24ef⋯.jpg (379.63 KB, 1403x1808, 1403:1808, 113ce46eaee24ef325040f700c….jpg)

tankies = cucks

hope the coup in Venezuela actually happens to see them rage




>Kropotkin: supported WW1 to own the Germans

>Bordiga: discouraged militant anti-fascism pre-WW2; spent most of WW2 chatting to police informants and calling Hitler and Mussolini authentic revolutionaries while actual communists fought and died against fascism

>Goldman: got assblasted that the USSR hadn't gone full communism while recovering from a civil war and two famines under constant siege

>Pannekoek: was kinda chill I guess

>Makhnovtsy: just as "authoritarian" as the Bolsheviks

ok then


File: c3bd35f9b155c12⋯.png (1.46 MB, 1766x2354, 883:1177, 0c2b1e649b34856c3f9245cfd6….png)


>Supporting US globalism to own the ☭TANKIE☭s


File: 3e24f7cad611e87⋯.jpg (86.42 KB, 750x628, 375:314, hoxhaml.jpg)

File: 4c557500b2ea388⋯.jpg (2.99 MB, 2961x2107, 423:301, kaganovichstalinpostyshevv….jpg)

File: 1e721f465199fb7⋯.jpg (145.01 KB, 736x1155, 736:1155, warsawpact.jpg)


I'm a Stirnerist, so I'll probably never be fully ☭TANKIE☭ pilled, but I do think Stalin's reputation as "le evil socialist man" is really over blown.



middle girl is qt



I think that ones opinion on Stalin should become the new litmus test on whether someone is serious about being a leftist or not tbh. In the past it made since not to worry too much about it but if in the age of the internet you can literally have primary sources and things intelligence agencies said shoved in your face and you still believe boomer propaganda about Stalin and the ussr it betrays that no matter what tendency you are you're really just a crypto liberal who isn't actually interested in combating capitalism


File: 0c004d8e99ba0e7⋯.png (5.56 MB, 2056x2808, 257:351, kropotkin anti imperialism.png)

File: 5deee6578cf9852⋯.png (3.99 MB, 2057x2451, 2057:2451, bordiga anti imperialism.png)


File: 886b56ecd2c968a⋯.jpg (279.77 KB, 2048x2048, 1:1, 886b56ecd2c968a500cbf6e9b1….jpg)

File: 3b79ed4b1613092⋯.jpg (43.14 KB, 325x325, 1:1, Kim-drinking.jpg)

Daily reminder that the DPRK were the good guys in the Korean war and when capitalism finally falls will probably emerge as a leader into the next era



I know that the first guy is Kropotkin, but whos the second one?






>right wing

Joseph Stalin, classic Nazi sympathizer



Stalin is upheld everywhere except shitty anglo honkey lands



This tbh. The third world loves Stalin just as much as Mao, Castro, Sankara, or Minh and for good reason


File: 29b37a444d93d80⋯.webm (3.02 MB, 250x140, 25:14, tankie calls ML podcast.webm)



Is that why Stalin tried to get Europe to do something about the Nazis both before and during Molotov ribbentrop you pea brained faggot?



>Preventing your country from going to war with a vastly technologically superior foe is good, waiting and rapidly militarising and building up defences in the time you can buy with a non aggression packs is bad.



>They only became enemies when Hitler violated it.

You're kidding right?



Stalin offered an anti-Nazi alliance to Britain and France before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They refused because they didn't want to ally with le ebil communists. Stalin couldn't risk war with Germany until the USSR had finished industrializing. He had to maintain peaceful relations with Hitler until the USSR was strong enough to fight them off. Since the West didn't want to team up against Hitler in the beginning, Stalin was left with no other choice. The West created Hitler by appeasing him, and then rebuffed the Soviet Union's attempts to contain him.





File: d4069be8f6549d7⋯.png (847.54 KB, 1064x762, 532:381, 1526139390383.png)






>using liberal buzzwords

That's a paddlin


>we can achieve a stateless society be creating a totalitarian state!

>the state will wither away trust me bro!

Marxism-leninism was a mistake.



>Literally the ideology that caused Fascism making that joke.


File: 042c3f757dd2ca1⋯.jpg (27.43 KB, 399x385, 57:55, laughing-pepe.jpg)


>original anarchism caused fascism

>coming from a supporter of stalinism that was fascism on steroids




Proudhon was the harbinger of Fascism


File: 12904d584cbd397⋯.png (191.9 KB, 1187x863, 1187:863, Peoples Republic of Korea2.png)

File: eeea2689d900699⋯.png (168.71 KB, 645x541, 645:541, survey korea 1946.png)

File: c2226e4e47bb17d⋯.png (507.61 KB, 1080x1040, 27:26, korean genocide 1950 1953.png)

File: bb694798e984be0⋯.png (179.99 KB, 717x675, 239:225, rok capitalist hell.png)

File: 4cf87000cb10edd⋯.webm (12.64 MB, 640x360, 16:9, arrested for praising kim….webm)


The DPRK originated from the PRK and people's committees which were established by the will of the working people of Korea and aided by the USSR. By contrast the ROK came from the US military government which was established by force of arms and cracked down of the people's committees and the PRK while massacring the population.


File: fa7e1ec9f93fc5a⋯.jpeg (20.14 KB, 310x311, 310:311, stalin shades.jpeg)


ikr, she's quite attractive


File: c0eb653172849f2⋯.jpg (75.29 KB, 628x534, 314:267, c0eb653172849f2dee5b1102f7….jpg)


>WWII was fascist infighting


Anarchists are so fucking cringe and bluepilled bros



I feel like the anarchists itt are newfags from /lit/ and reddit cuz of the Peterson debate or /pol/fags larping. I know that we've regained some anarkiddies since /leftpol/ started going to shit but most of them at least concede that the ussr wasn't as bad as cia propaganda says. These ones are posting like they just came here



This is a good post. If anyone here hasn't seen the short documentary "The Haircut" I highly recommend it



Fuck ☭TANKIE☭s and fuck jannies.




Well memed. Now show the video where a Nork boasting his privilege and disposable income flies to Australia for a haircut.


File: 7abdfc918448605⋯.webm (1.5 MB, 480x360, 4:3, 中天進入北韓 採訪過程全紀錄.webm)

File: dedf0592f145bc2⋯.webm (2.51 MB, 480x360, 4:3, DPR Koreans in finland te….webm)

File: 10b95950269021c⋯.png (74.39 KB, 668x706, 334:353, dprk citizens china.png)

File: fcf50ab38cec310⋯.webm (1.63 MB, 640x360, 16:9, defector on dprk dictator….webm)

File: 750c472cd04a4aa⋯.jpg (206.75 KB, 1080x1350, 4:5, al szymanski human rights ….jpg)


>muh evil gommunists are imprisoning everyone inside the country



It was though. Hungry was planning to conquer parts of Germany instead of sending troops to the front-line, and Italy made Hitler attack Greece.

It turns out Ultra-Nationalists tend to fight a lot because of MUH NATION



Oh and British Union of Fascists people were the first people that Hitler killed from Britain.


File: f8ae7b786745ac4⋯.webm (11.71 MB, 640x360, 16:9, defector think tanks Loya….webm)


Also these documentaries:

>My Brothers and Sisters in the North:


>Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul:



Bump for the raid ,)


File: 88df83a6e48b10f⋯.jpg (5.97 MB, 4608x3456, 4:3, IMG_20190426_173221.jpg)

Mark station, Lianozovo district, Moskva



that last video is great. remember korea copied the "western freedom and democracy" blueprint and this is what they do…in the west.



another great point. the right wing neoliberal think tanks are publishing houses for the Rich Elite.


File: 34f7aa7b0558d92⋯.jpg (22.74 KB, 344x400, 43:50, xEexxPR.jpg)


>Stalins approval rating hit a record high amongst Russians recently showing a 70 percent approval rating of Josef Stalin published by the independent Levada Center pollster.


>“A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country’s economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country’s switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary’s integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.

East Germany

>“Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. “The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there,” say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: “The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today.”


>The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.

Serbia :

>A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -”during the time of socialism”.

>The survey focused on the respondents’ views on the transition “from socialism to capitalism”, and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito.


>The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.

Ukraine, Lithuania and Bulgaria

>The poll showed 30 percent of Britainrainians approved of the change to democracy in 2009, down from 72 percent in 1991. In Bulgaria and Lithuania the slide was to just over half the population from nearer three-quarters in 1991

>In Bulgaria, the 33-year rule of the late dictator Todor Zhivkov begins to seem a golden era to some in comparison with the raging corruption and crime that followed his demise.

>Over 60 percent say they lived better in the past, even though shopping queues were routine, social connections were the only way to obtain more valuable goods, jeans and Coca Cola were off-limits and it took up to 10 years’ waiting to buy a car.

>“For part of the Bulgarians (social) security turned out to be more precious than freedom,” wrote historians Andrei Pantev and Bozhidar Gavrilov in a book on the 100 most influential people in the Balkan country’s history.


File: 8fe6a03aa25b5d1⋯.jpg (24.11 KB, 375x500, 3:4, 2337609-CGOKIQPU-6.jpg)

More good stuff from the medium article:

>"Most East German citizens had a nice life,” he says. “I certainly don’t think that it’s better here.” By “here,” he means reunified Germany, which he subjects to questionable comparisons. “In the past there was the Stasi, and today (German Interior Minister Wolfgang) Schäuble — or the GEZ (the fee collection centre of Germany’s public broadcasting institutions) — are collecting information about us.” In Birger’s opinion, there is no fundamental difference between dictatorship and freedom. “The people who live on the poverty line today also lack the freedom to travel.”

>“From today’s perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down,” one person writes, and a 38-year-old man “thanks God” that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn’t until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars and homeless people

>Another man, a 51 year old who remarks that ‘“There’s no doubt it: I’ve been fortunate,”when he set up his business post reunification and did quite well for himself. This well to do man remarks

>“In the past, a campground was a place where people enjoyed their freedom together,” he says. What he misses most today is “that feeling of companionship and solidarity.”(Ibid)

>And summing up bourgeois democracy quite succinctly:

>“As far as I’m concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today.”

>The troubling economic situations in some of the post soviet countries is worsened by demographic decline. With the return of the ills of unemployment which has been accompanied by a huge drop in the birth rate. As mass privatisation and de-industrialisation entered the former GDR the former GDR required mass West German subsidies of 130 billion annually to the crumbling East German economy which has still not recovered.

>With ahopeless situation where they grew up East Germans migrated en mass. A stunning population decrease of 2.2 million people from 16.7 million in mid-1989 to 14.5 million in 2005.

>In Bulgaria the devastating ramifications of economic privatisation and ‘democratic transition’ was the loss of jobs and professional occupations in Bulgarian villages.

>Mike Donkin, a BBC reporter and journalist, stated in 2006 that Bulgaria had the fastest rate of population decline in all of Europe: “and the sense of abandonment is even greater in the countryside…Scattered across the landscape now are dozens of deserted or almost deserted villages”.

>The same thing has happened to Poland.

>“Poland is in a more dramatic version of the cycle of decline in which Britain found itself during the 1970s when we lost a net half a million residents over several years. As people leave, the economy is suppressed which encourages yet more people to up sticks and seek better opportunities abroad.

>And of course it tends to be the most entrepreneurial people who leave, while more conservative-minded workers stay behind. Job-creating businesses which might have been set up in Warsaw or Krakow end up being established in London or Berlin.”

>Having ruthlessly smashed the communists in Poland and 3 decades of Polish Nationalist propaganda means there is not room in Polish society to manoeuvrer to the left. The plummeting birthrates, the young Polish abandoning the country has brought the spectre of fascism to the fore.


File: 2c1c6e47119e027⋯.webm (11.42 MB, 480x267, 160:89, 2c1c6e47119e02744d655affe….webm)

File: ec6204404c72135⋯.webm (3.92 MB, 480x360, 4:3, ec6204404c721350e5f0c98b6….webm)



I like how liberals always,smugly dismiss Soviet aesthetics as being brutalist architecture and propaganda posters and nothing else. There's people who literally think that Soviet citizens had nothing cool or pretty to look at all day and it's just such bullshit



Man I love that second webm so much.


File: df3340909981118⋯.png (1.88 MB, 1000x664, 125:83, ClipboardImage.png)


It's especially jarring when you compare it to American suburbia where there is absolutely fucking nothing to look at.



Do Americans actually enjoy living there? I've seen suburbs done right but this isn't it.



They usually do because people in those houses probably have a household income over $150k.



Most were built with federal money, and had subsidized mortgages so while they might suck to live in, you don’t have to pay rent which makes up for it. this was in the 50s and 60s so now if you want a house their you have to actually pay rent so it’s not the same


File: 1588b7cc17c9e94⋯.jpeg (1021.5 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, simcity.jpeg)


this looks like video games



Actually looks better.


File: 39018a2b8e1f697⋯.jpg (166.76 KB, 900x617, 900:617, einstein.jpg)



iirc on the RevLeft radio episode on Stalin they pointed out that Stalin purged less people then Lenin. In my uneducated opinion I think the purges were paranoid but ultimately necessary to preventing a trotskyist coup or worse.



>preventing a trotskyist coup

because that would be a bad thing



Well, if you like fascism I guess that's a desirable result.

Whatever, no kink shaming here.



Trotskyists are anti-fascist. How would a trot coup lead to fascism?



I like how everyone this argument happens it goes exactly the same way and then you fags just ignore it and start it all over again in another thread


File: 4fc711f5d91a7e7⋯.jpg (13.86 KB, 460x258, 230:129, 5cc0baadfc7e937b358b458c.JPG)


>Trotskyists are anti-fascist. How would a trot coup lead to fascism?

Woooaaaahhh Trotsky was an ANTI-fascist? Oh, my bad, when I skimmed the overview of his Wikipedia article in 4th grade I missed the word anti and just thought he was a -fascist. Which, in hindsight was a negative fascist meaning he was actually not a fascist, but alas my grasp on mathematics was insufficient at the time to make that conclusion.

I guess that, like, totally destroys the mountain of evidence show that he collaborated with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. He was, after all, antifa.

And a full blown civil war in the country that sacrificed the most men to stopping the Nazis would have no effect on things like manpower, coordination, logistics and equipment, and loyalty.

One minor detail, here's a report with evidence showing he collaborated with the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. So, what's the deal with that?




>I guess that, like, totally destroys the mountain of evidence show that he collaborated with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. He was, after all, antifa.

That “evidence” does not exist. It is made up. Stop lying.



>no actual refutation just "no bully pls"


>trot telling someone else to stop lying



File: 5070465dab34af6⋯.jpg (123.45 KB, 886x774, 443:387, 1509220945844.jpg)


Comrade Kim going for the Enver Hoxha look


File: dd399f14e40766d⋯.png (1.03 MB, 1738x3346, 869:1673, Anti Trotskyite Gang.png)


File: a2300f61c1901cd⋯.jpg (254.91 KB, 749x900, 749:900, Krupskaja 1890.jpg)

File: dbb44d227531b91⋯.png (645.79 KB, 1080x1196, 270:299, krupskaya on trotsky.png)


You know what my biggest problem with trots is? It's not even s matter or principle or of feeling superior. Stalin did a lot or things he can rightly be,criticized for and I think trots on a purely ideological level have plenty in common with Marxist Leninists. My problem is that trots if given even a modicum of influence within a party immediately start working overtime to completely dominate the fucking thing and if they are unsuccessful have s massive autistic meltdown and try to tear the entire thing to the ground or split it

I would have no problem working with Maoists or even Ancoms who were critical of the ussr and Stalin so long as they were genuinely interested in s popular front and actual workers solidarity. Trots however are incapable of this. They believe, in a very un-Leninlike fashion, that their mathematical equations of political programs are destined to bring full communism and anything which stands in their way is just as bad as capitalism



>"Fake news"

Weak as fuck. If you can't counter with any actual arguments then fuck right off, historical revisionist.


File: ec009abdecf3447⋯.jpg (250.77 KB, 1397x1404, 1397:1404, Victim-of-the-Cultural-Rev….jpg)

Thoughts on the Cultural Revolution?


File: 1bb7751b50c2881⋯.png (14.55 KB, 447x378, 149:126, 158.png)


>trots who want to hold a coup and install socialism then throw a hissy fit when they dont get their way

>neocons who want to hold a coup and install "democracy" then throw a hissy fit when they dont get their way



>Marx also suggested in a letter to Bebel that it might be an idea to drop the word "state" altogether when referring to the "state-in-withering":

This really shows how there isn't really too much of a difference between anarchism and Marxism which rejects stagism.



Marxism is a branch of anarchism and the only way to get around this is to use an inconsistent and incomplete definition of the State.



>Marxism is a branch of anarchism

You meant the other way around, right? I always feel that anarchism tries to be a more libertarian Marxism but fails by staying really vague on the question of the state. Probably one the causes is that anarchism wasn't created by a single person.


File: 8fd9acbe6658638⋯.png (220.5 KB, 996x1020, 83:85, 8fd9acbe665863894b998d7bcf….png)


No, Marx witnessed anarchists snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in his life-time.



Nah, marxism falls under a branch of anarchism. A specific one that is much better defined and developed than most, too. However there are large numbers of other anarchist branches that would not be compatible with a lot of the very basic tenets of Marxism (a lot of anarchism does indeed start with idealist theoretical basis but not all)



Wait… if Krupskaya was actually supportive of Stalin, then Kotkin and Furr must be wrong about Lenin's Testament.


File: 421044af80c9047⋯.jpg (228.25 KB, 845x1200, 169:240, ho-chi-minh-2.jpg)

What do we think of this guy?



Most underlooked Communist leader, him a Le Duan should be an example for communista around the world



I'm vegan so I don't eat chicken so no opinion



Redpill me on Le Duan I've actually never heard of him


File: 5c488be99fb484d⋯.jpg (85.37 KB, 804x802, 402:401, nrhj2rz4qu911.jpg)

I'm reading the Foundations of Leninism right now and I'm having a hard time understanding this particular passage. Basically I don't really get what Stalin means when he says there's a difference between economic and political general strike if someone could help a brainlet out it would be appreciated

>Third dogma: the proletariat cannot accept the method of the political general strike because it is unsound in theory (see Engels's criticism) and dangerous in practice (it may disturb the normal course of economic life in the country, it may deplete the coffers of the trade unions), and cannot serve as a substitute for parliamentary forms of struggle, which are the principal form of the class struggle of the proletariat. Very well, reply the Leninists; but, firstly, Engels did not criticise every kind of general strike. He only criticised a certain kind of general strike, namely, the economic general strike advocated by the Anarchists 2 in place of the political struggle of the proletariat. What has this to do with the method of the political general strike? Secondly, where and by whom has it ever been proved that the parliamentary form of struggle is the principle form of struggle of the proletariat? Does not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the parliamentary struggle is only a school for, and an auxiliary in, organising the extra-parliamentary struggle of the proletariat, that under capitalism the fundamental problems of the working-class movement are solved by force, by the direct struggle of the proletarian masses, their general strike, their uprising? Thirdly, who suggested that the method of the political general strike be substituted for the parliamentary struggle? Where and when have the supporters of the political general strike sought to substitute extra-parliamentary forms of struggle for parliamentary forms? Fourthly, has not the revolution in Russia shown that the political general strike is a highly important school for the proletarian revolution and an indispensable means of mobilising and organising the vast masses of the proletariat on the eve of storming the citadels of capitalism? Why then the philistine lamentations over the disturbance of the normal course of economic life and over the coffers of the trade unions? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle smashes this dogma of the opportunists too?

Also what do you guys think of foundations? I like state and revolution and imperialism more of course but I think Stalin's matter of fact prose does a pretty good job of summarizing Lenin's main points I haven't struggled to understand anything til this passage.



I think he's saying that general strikes purely for wages and benefits will not lead to revolution, but general strikes with revolutionary political purposes can.



I think one could only read stalin and have read all the things they need to read.



bad b8 m8

stalin's good, but you really do have to read the five heads


>Also what do you guys think of foundations?

It's funny you're posting about it right now, I took a break from reading Marx and picked up Foundations of Leninism for something lighter. If you're new to the literature, I can tell you that Stalin isn't distorting anything and it really is a good primer.




What do you think of the accusation that Stalin didn't actually write any of his books and just out his name on them? I don't really give a shit personally but I've never seen any actual evidence of this



parliamentarianism -> incremental changes through democratic means.

The downside in activism in bourgeois democracy is best displayed in a numbers game. A few people can steal from the masses because on an individual level, the thieves, get a lot of reward and hence will have a lot of motivation, while members of the masses will on an individual level at best experience mild motivation from being nickel and dimed. It is possible to temporarily reverse this dynamic because the pain of small cuts can add up to highly motivated political action. However once most of the pain is looked after the previous dynamic becomes more prominent again, and the course is reversed again. There are many proposed solutions to this, for example one is to provoke a capitalist crisis when you have your people in office, and use those crisis to continue your reforms beyond what would normally be possible politically. Also of note is the use of referenda.

The general strike, can quickly turn into a situation where you get a battle of reserves, the capitalists have the larger reserves. If you want to engage in this you have to be in a position to produce double pressure on the capitalists because your strike also has repercussions far down the supply lines. This generally is the case only in few places, For example blocking the distribution in very large countries with high levels of import, would have an enormous effect on the global economy, causing pressure from the outside to grow a lot. However you are basically gambling that the capitalists that produce locally see this as opportunity to increase their relative market-share against other capitalists that have outsourced production, and they back-stab each other. There no longer is local production for everything that is outsourced, and hence this is probably increasingly less viable.

Lenin's imperialism is no longer up to date, there clearly is a new phenomenon where the capitalist centres are aiming to just destabilize the periphery to "brain-drain" and "youth-drain" and generally erode the level of organization of societies. On top of that you have increasing third worldisation in first world countries, where some areas are on the verge of falling back to pre-industrial conditions. Other factors are the new limitations imposed by the environment, where a new dialectic between human activity and environmental consequences, is slowly imposing new constraints to the system.

Other aspects you need to take into account is control over technology, now has political ramifications as well.



Mostly, it was Mao's power grab after having been justly sidelined for the Great Leap Forward trainwreck. The rest of the party barred him from positions of real power, yet not only did nothing about his cult of personality but actually kept fostering it, being a valuable tool of soft control. Well, Mao decided to leverage that one thing he had left in order to get back in the game, and boy did he succeed. It was, partly, a Great Purge Made in China.

Some areas actually benefitted, see The Unknown Cultural Revolution. But it's nearly impossible to measure the impact accross the endless villages which dotted the imense Chinese countryside. Besides, it's very unlikely that these improvements outweigh the disaster unleashed in urban centers.


File: 2d1307f04217daf⋯.png (378.02 KB, 467x562, 467:562, c1fa8166d44bb2f824ad0611b8….png)

This reeks of bullshit, but it doesn't hurt to ask tho it would if I were under Stalin's reign kek, is there anything to it?



I unironically voted Gloria LaRiva of the PSL last major presidential election. No regurts. Only regurt is still not yet having eaten Kevin McCarthy for dinner. Still working on that one. He’s top of my “to eat” list.


File: 60aab88f2c00e86⋯.png (1.19 MB, 1881x2651, 171:241, ClipboardImage.png)



I voted for jill Stein but only cuz Gloria wasn't on the ballot in my area


File: 1582c0be6cecceb⋯.jpg (8.7 KB, 226x250, 113:125, 1487803357405s.jpg)


This brings me to my second question. How do we feel about Mao? It seems that ☭TANKIE☭s are split on this issue, with Maoists nowadays usually willing to defend Stalin but many Stalin fans being unwilling to go to bat for Mao or at least be more generally critical of him than Maoists are of Stalin



There's a lot to praise him for and a lot to criticize him for. He had some useful ideas and some not so useful ideas. Maoists are usually morons but some of their theory is worth reading imo (C&R by JMP for example).



It's true. Stalin lived rather simply and plainly, to the point that some saw him as more of a Georgian "brute" rather then someone "refined" in culture. If you read about his childhood and his life in general, you would understand why.


File: d5ea4a73f15e263⋯.png (503.01 KB, 1184x857, 1184:857, stalin.png)


Pic related, Stalin's vast fortune at the time of his death



It's due to Mao being a rather poor statesman, and his somewhat autistic attitude towards things that fostered unneeded division with the USSR. His retention of both the petit and national bourgeoisie also inadvertently fostered the situation China sees itself in today.



>with Maoists nowadays usually willing to defend Stalin but many Stalin fans being unwilling to go to bat for Mao or at least be more generally critical of him than Maoists are of Stalin


I have not seen any people praising Stalin and shitting on Mao. Mao was amazing.



>I have not seen any people praising Stalin and shitting on Mao. Mao was amazing.

You may be forgetting a certain split.



>Mostly, it was Mao's power grab after having been justly sidelined for the Great Leap Forward trainwreck

The GLF was a success.




You mean the split between the Kruschevites and Mao? During which, the Kruschevites shat all over Stalin?



I can't really talk about the GLF and the Cultural revolution, but before that Mao undoubtedly did more for China than anyone else in history.



I feel like ML's nowadays need to concentrate on how to fix issues socialist countries had more than to justify the bad aspects of these countries.



To then break with the USSR is something which is devoid of pragmatism and to back groups which were against its interests is something Stalin would have never advocated for. Regardless of Khrushchev's slandering, to take that and push it to the point of the communist movement becoming divided when the enemy is right there is careless.





'ad a laff



Stalin's most successful flunkie, and as with all his fellow flunkies, save perhaps for theory, into the garbage he goes. Stalin was a product of his time, and to take his legacy as something to be emulated would be the death knell for the second wave of socialism, because it was for the first one. Had he avoided the 30s famine and not executed the Great Purge, he would have been nothing short of a legend, but as history played out, sadly, he killed the revolution in order to save the revolution. Napoleon and Robespierre rolled into one.


File: 2c35eaeca7a9d6c⋯.pdf (2.82 MB, carley1993.pdf)


I'm aware of that, I'm curious about the "estate" he left behind.


Is that in a museum?


>the Soviet Union would launch a campaign to conquer Europe


The USSR never had any intention for overt imperialism like this, despite the lingering assumption made by just about everyone in the West. Further, Stalin insisted for a long time on an alliance with France and the UK to cordon Hitler off, but the former was pathetically deferential to the latter, which was, itself, horrified at the prospect of alliance with the "Red bacillus", which was compounded by Poland, Romania and the Baltics refusing passage to the Red Army in case of German aggression. All of Europe saw Nazi Germany with better eyes than they did with the USSR.



to quote Chen Yun possibly the most based of the Chinese Revolutionaries

>Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?



Cornman was the one who fucked up relations with China. He ruined the GLF as well.



Looks like /leftpol/ is back folks



not true, Sino-Soviet relations had always been rocky since the 30s because Mao always felt like China was playing second fiddle to the USSR. Mao, like Khruschev and the CPSU post-1956, considered Stalin 70% good and 30% bad. he was a good revolutionary and statesman, and was an important figure in the defeat of fascism and building socialism, but made many mistakes (some of which Khrushchev even admitted were done because Stalin saw them as necessary to safeguarding the revolution). the whole "revisionism" thing was purely an ideological basis used to justify Mao splitting off from the Soviets.


File: 860b2bd1fe01abd⋯.jpg (13.46 KB, 465x288, 155:96, ples dont.jpg)

I really think we're in clown world because of the position I'm in.

Cliffite here, be a Marxist for fuck sakes.

Watch the Finbol video and then come back.


It is an admissible argument to say that it was the Stalin factions moderate measures on the peasant question in the 30's that inevitably led to the Kulak uprising. The economic power of Kulaks lay entirely in their ability to produce more grain, a result of owenrship of lands and tools. This kind of class domination is mutually exclusive with socialist construction and not commiting to a programme of armed expropriations by the peasantry was a betrayal of the worker-peasant alliance. Going by pure Stats, the kolkhoz policies were a success in subverting the productive power of the Kulaks and sending them into the sperg of the century.

Or rather, in socialist construction, reinstating One man ownership in the factories, tying worker's means of subsistence to their employment status in singular enterprises, which consisted often of lodgings/towns and cities around factories, logging facilities, mines etc. set in place a dynamic by which workers must submit themselves to the discipline of their managers and bosses. This breaks the dynamic of soviet power, whilst the worker under the constitution was harder to fire, penal measures were common, threatening the worker and their families with downgraded worker status.

The penalties threatened the access to health, docked wages and participation in social life.

The survival of militant or rebellious workers and their families in a fledgling economic order were in the hands of isolated bosses who had the mandate to stay the discipline of the soviet. Noting also that the infrastructure for a mobile labor force was not in place at this point.

The reorganisation of the economy under Stalin, both spatially and judicially put down militant workers and in turn empowered layers of the deposed bourgeois and petty bourgoisie, the people who brown nosed their way into specialist positions, foremanships, soviet appointments, party membership and careerism. Worker militancy, has a conspicuous nature in the DOTP, it is hard to tell whether a militant worker is upholding the revolution or undermining it and as far as owners are concerned, it is definitely the latter. Soviet power holds worker's industrial action accountable to worker's and their interests, it is absolutely necessary to navigate a post-revolutionary society.

The too many various ways in which soviet power was undermined, either by what was arguably necessity in the civil war, and by the economism and class collaborationism that followed as the soviet republic was consolidated in the period of the NEP.

This had the double edged effect of availing the means of production to be worked outside of the near constant post-revolutionary antagonism, between the soviets, the workers and the government, specialists and the Trusts. But allowed the germs of bourgeois power to remain and to be consolidated into political power. Given the Death of scores of Cadre in the Civil war, this is exactly what happened.

At a cursory glance, Stalin was aware of this and so was Trotsky. My only critique of Trotsky was him painting Stalin as an architect of the ascendance of these layers. His faction was Party to the decisions that produced this, but not for the reasons the Kruschevite faction was. In fact I'd be bold enough to say they had each other backwards and ignored a more potent enemy, regardless of Trotsky's misgivings upto '33.

I don't have the time or patience to cover the mess that was purges and War period or even parse Trotsky and the fascists because fuck that. but given the dynamics set off early in the revolution, the important political conclusion to note is that the proletarian camp lost it's most important beachheads of political power in the soviet union.

Stalin may have tried to reverse the counter-revolutionary impulse, but he was too late, he was politically isolated and flailing in the dark landing more misses than hits, owing to the fact that key positions of power were 1. Already heavily influenced and stacked by the counter-revolutionary faction and 2. Had the entrenched judicial power to act independently of the party and worker's organisations during the purges and after the war.

So can we stop with the 'Stalin was an Authoritarian meanie' Or dealing in Abstract ahistoricals? We aren't liberals. There are critiques we can deal to Stalin and the CCCP and there are far better ones than the cursory overviews In this post. Acknowledge where proletarian power was won and where it was lost, that is where we can historically measure 'liberty'.




>bad b8 m8

In fact i will further it and say, one needs only read dialectical and historical materialism from stalin. Once the basic idea of historical materialism is planted in your mind, you should be able to reconstruct, on the fly, the entirety of maxist thought.

Reading other things then, are only for moral support, as you see people like lenin also thought the things you have thought. And also to spot the beliefs of revisionists, to let you know to be suspicious of them.


Stalin surely wrote everything, with out reading anything. He absorbed his knowledge through his revolutionary activity alone.



>so a brutal leader like Stalin is wholly unnecessary today in capitalist abundance

Two points to make here. First, capitalist abundance exists solely in the countries within the imperialist alliance. In second and third world countries, while industrialization obviously exists, production is geared towards commodities that can be sold to the first world, not towards the country's self-sustainability.

The second point is that M-Ls aren't against critiquing Stalin, they are simply against the revisionist unscientific approach of various "leftist" fractions (trots, ultra-left etc) that leads them to denounce the achievements of the USSR, or spout bullshit like "state capitalism", essentially creating the worst kind of anti-communism, one that regurgitates neoliberal and nazi lies with a "leftist" facade.



>coups are a good thing and democratic centralism is a bad thing

trots aren't even hiding their anti-communism anymore



It's funny because all the faggots saying "my parents lived there" mean "my parents lived there during the 80s for a few years" and then proceed to discuss Stalin as if they are an authority on the subject, while people who actually lived under Stalin love him. Same thing in Yugoslavia about Tito



>I'm aware of that, I'm curious about the "estate" he left behind.

Due to both the laws and the fact that most of his children were dead, there wasn't really an estate to be left behind besides to his daughter (who left) and his adopted son (of whom I have no idea was left anything).


File: 25a184ced86f58e⋯.jpg (196.78 KB, 1280x1707, 1280:1707, Duan.jpg)


Pretty based if I have to say so myself. He did a lot of good during and after the Vietnam War:

>Against all protests and doubts from inside the party, try and then succeed in changing the poliburo's fears of a 2nd Korean War.

>BTFO'ed both the Chinese and USSR suggestions of keeping the fascist South Vietnam government. Once and for all pushing the Vietnamese gusanos to California.

>Pushing all of the Chinese bourgeoisie back to China so they can be re-educated.

>Rightly calling Dengoids imperialists for invading the spratty islands and conspiring with the US in 1974

>Led Vietnam in defending against /pol/ pot's gang of fasprims and their revisionist Dengoid masters in 1979.

But the guy could be criticised for a lot of shit as well:

>Basically did a terrible job in changing the South's economy to socialism.

>Not going far enough in annihilating the US's main grip in South East Asia like Thailand.

He's basically Vietnamese Stalin.



*Dead or imprisoned

Sorry, had to clarify that


Is there any accounts or writings of stalins views of his profession? (cobbler). Why did he choose it? Did he continue staying up to date with the latest in cobbling after he became a revolutionary and statesman? Is the reason he liked those old boots of his because he did personal work on them? I imagine him perhaps rebuilding them while contemplating his next course of action. As he gets new ground to stand on he simultaneously makes the new ideas, assembling the shoes, assembling the plans.



>Why did he choose it?

Stalin did not choose to become a cobbler, he was kidnapped by his father and forced to work as one. He spent more time enrolled in the seminary.



because expat dissidents always have a huge axe to grind ,the same with venezuela/cuba which is why you cant trust those guys. Of course they are mad that castro took away their grandpapis slaves and gave them healthcare




he also worked in an observatory or radio stattion or something like that if i recall



but i thought it was his parents who were upset that he became a cobbler to start with

do you mean my image of stalin, as humble man who just wanted to cobble shoes but whos rejection by his parents as he failed to live up to their standards of a more prestigious profession lead him to become a revolutionary and future leader of the ussr is wrong?



Why the fuck did the ussr keeping the south Vietnam gov


File: 9a9d56e82fea8ea⋯.jpg (8.91 KB, 480x360, 4:3, 1234342123123123.jpg)


>Gorby was a reformer who, while being retarded, had his heart in the right place when he started collaborating more with washington and the west in general

You what mate?


File: 1282888cc7a1a03⋯.jpeg (110.21 KB, 960x629, 960:629, 86F9B6D6-7430-43F6-98C8-4….jpeg)


Even in Stalin’s time, the USSR has never really believed in Ho’s commitment to communism especially after the disillusionment of the Indochina Communist Party (with Ho wanting to put the party operations secret in preparation for protracted people’s war against the Chinese nationalists and the French). Surprisingly that it was Mao who convinced Stalin and the USSR politburo into supporting the Viet Minh. Later on with Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the USSR only supported North Vietnam for building socialism and protection against American bombings but not reunification. Since the complete disaster that was the PKI in Indonesia and the strategic failure of the Tet Offensive really made the USSR doubting the possibility of a North Vietnam victory.

Luckily Duan actually did the impossible and the Tet Offensive actually succeeded in completely changing the US involvement in the war. This did increased the Soviet’s support but only to make sure that Vietnam would continue to be allies with the USSR and lessen Chinese influence in the region.



>Later on with Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the USSR only supported North Vietnam for building socialism and protection against American bombings but not reunification.

should note that the change of Soviet policy in the Vietnam question is prob the most major consequence of Khruschev's deposing. The corn man was unwilling to risk his "good personal relations" with US leaders by supporting Vietnamese communists. Under Brezhnev the course changed, which ultimately lead Vietnam to realign away from China and towards Soviet Union.


File: 609ff5486df444a⋯.jpg (290.22 KB, 1315x2748, 1315:2748, 60338860_612711739219149_7….jpg)



is this a parody? i'd call it /pol/-tier but I think even their more schizophrenic infographics have some semblance of sourcing, or a least some manner of viable metrics

the attempt at trying to seem authoritative with graphs and figures only makes this twice as retarded for anyone with two braincells

if I understand this correctly, the main point is that 20th century socialist states were repressive because of circumstances, rather than some inherent quality in socialism itself, and that a post-industrial socialist country of the 21st century would look very different to semi-feudal continental countries in the 20th century. This is a very very important point, but there are a million better ways to convey it instead of this ☭TANKIE☭ logic stalin-dindu-nuffin rubbish.



Sources: Dude trust me lmao



Pretty much this. Also is it weird that this board have such an disinterest in the Vietnam war or even the Vietnamese socialist movement. Most threads about fucking Hoxha and his autism of calling everyone revisionist (some were rightly so, but it led to him defending /pol/ pot and his gang of reactionary fucktards) have much more interest while most Vietnam threads dies in minutes.

I mean it’s one of the only anti-imperialist war that had both people’s war and full-scale war with a 2 major imperialist countries and won. It also completely changed the perception of America and its strategy in intervention in the developing world. Especially in the recent trends of US cuckservatives in revisioning the war into a US victory and somehow the communist forces caused more war crimes somehow.

This is not even talking about how modern Vietnam is much more open to other “capitalism with socialist aesthetics” countries like China and can be more easily radicalized to leftism and non-revisionist socialism than for instance China.


File: 260b9724ba8f2d3⋯.png (529.89 KB, 1705x931, 1705:931, 1500173356335.png)


I once knew an anarchist Vietnamese-American girl who was basically s huge lifestylist and pretended to be homeless despite having petty bourg parents. Her grandparents were Vietnamese gusanos and when I asked her what she thought about the Vietnam war she said it was probably a good thing that the USA invaded because if they hadn't even more people would have died then did with them invading lol


File: 6abbf034191bf73⋯.jpg (9.29 KB, 220x277, 220:277, 220px-Pol_Pot_Headshot.jpg)

I know this is going to sound stupid but I legitimately think this motherfucker had autism. I'm 100 percent not joking, Pol Pot and people who today claim that he was just as good of a "socialist" leader as Stalin are fucking nuts, every piece of objective evidence proves that he was a CIA backed puppet, he literally went to war with a socialist country RIGHT NEXT DOOR and his theory was essentially an inverse of Leninism (instead of "seizing the means of production and State institutions to accelerate development and create a socialist society with the tools of industrialism" it was "seize the means of production and State institutions to obliterate them and create the primitive communism Marx and Engels precisely said shouldn't be returned to")

Gadaffi was basically an Arabian socdems and he was more of a Marxist than fucking Pol Pot



Vietnam became less socialist than China or even Venezuela


Communism has great ideas, but the KGB was horrible.



>Rapidly decreases carbon output by steadying the population and heavy industry

>Appreciates the simple life

>Sought to export his revolution to the opportunists at his east

How based can one man get?



khmer rouge cambodia was allied with/a proxy of China, which after Nixon Went To China was an American ally against the Soviet Union. Vietnam was a firm ally of the Soviet Union, and therefor at odds with China and the US ofc.

In 78/79 the Khmer Rouge, being basically an insane fascist government, picked a doomed fight against Vietnam. Eventually they straight up invaded a few border towns and massacred the entire populations. the Vietnamese had enough and invaded Cambodia, and the KR fell almost immediately except for a few die hards who fled across the Thai border.

The US, through China and Thailand, funded and armed the remnants of the Khmer Rouge for the next 10 years as they fought a guerrilla war against the Vietnamese occupiers and the largely puppet government (under Hun Sen, the current de facto dictator of Cambodia). the KR, once they realized where there bread was buttered, fully renounced marxism and became a purely anti-vietnamese nationalist movement, still under Pol Pot and basically the same ideological leadership. Also immediately after the Cambodian liberation, China invaded Vietnam to punish them for removing their proxy. Vietnam managed to whip the much larger Chinese army, and Giap should be recognized as the greatest military commander of the 20th century.

Throughout this the United States and China recognized in the UN the Khmer Rouge government as the legitimate government of Cambodia, vs the Soviet and Vietnamese backed government that effectively controlled 90% of the country. It was only after the Cold War ended that America stopped geopolitically backing the Khmer Rouge and suddenly got cosy with Vietnam.

ideologically there was certainly some insane twist on maoism that played a part in the Khmer Rouge's crimes, but the United States was absolutely an accessory to them.



i've heard this type of "argument" so many times and it really doesn't mean anything. you're just saying "oh communism works in theory but not in practice", without any further explanation and completely ignoring the context of muh scary KGB. do you think the USSR, during the cold war when everyone was doing espionage and trying to subvert them, just shouldn't have had an intelligence agency? it's such a retarded thing to even suggest and just assumes that the Soviets existed in some vacuum without any outside influence and everything they did was just because they were a big scary police state all for the sake of being evil.

the CIA? FBI? MI6? those are all fine and dandy but god forbid a socialist country have anything of the sort because then it's just a pure evil and human rights abuse.

the KGB weren't even as "horrible" as say the Cheka or NVKD were, but people still harp on about them because the name sounds spooky and it's easy to compare them to 1984.



Ironic shitposting is still shitposting



Good christ. Fuck even those who joke about supporting him.


File: 4e8a30c164274ec⋯.jpg (67.19 KB, 430x269, 430:269, justlookatthisshit.jpg)



>>Gusanos sucking American imperialist cock

>>Gusanos knowing shit about history

>That's not a surprise mate. But with that being said, this opinion is not at all unheard-of in modern Vietnam, most boomers are still Marxists at the core. But the rest like millenials, zoomers and the religious are either libshit or straight-up reactionary libertarians.

>This comes from the fact that modern day gov propaganda and education always paint the time before revisionism (or "Doi moi") as bad even though back then health care, education and basic necessities are free and the coruption was much less rampant. I even once talked with a zoomer who unironically support another French occupation because he believed that the French will help making a better train system than the modern one.



Sad but true.



>. I even once talked with a zoomer who unironically support another French occupation because he believed that the French will help making a better train system than the modern one

You know what? Say what you will about America but at least they don't fetishize fucking trains jesus. Both in fascist and normal conservative circles Asians and Europeans freak the fuck out over public transit which is preferable to the highway but god damn


File: 815d8b4166d744e⋯.jpg (20.9 KB, 624x351, 16:9, _86400097_943a4381-837a-44….jpg)

How do we feel about Lukashenko? I don't know much about him but he seems to essentially be a socdem who uses Soviet imagery for good pr. I've also read he is basically just Putin's guy in Belarus but idk if that's legit or just western propaganda, along with other things I've read about Belarus. It seems to be a place with decent living conditions that's just really boring





reminder the CIA funded domestic terrorists to murder anti-imperialist Vietnamese immigrants



Same situation with Cuban immigrants and others. One reason there are so many gusanos in the USA is that the non-gusano immigrants get murdered.



>The USSR never had any intention for overt imperialism like this

Well they did, but it wasn't military, more a support for any communist uprisings that sympathized with the USSR. It's not talking about Ledokol shit from Rezun.



But state violence only happens in communism muh nkvd



He used to be a soviet bureaucrat, and he's supported some pretty strong nationalization measures inside of Belarus. I doubt that he really is just a Putin puppet because the things he's done have been legitimately helpful to the Belarusian economy. The Belaya Rus party on the other hand is fucking stupid, they have no real politics and are literally just a cult that goes along with whatever Lukashenko does.



Trains are the only true socialist mode of transportation. Individual transport is bourgeois counterrevolution-ism.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / asmr / choroy / fast / klpmm / mde / vichan / x ]