[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / arepa / builders / kind / monarchy / nofap / vg / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 58rd Attention-Hungry Games
/8diamonds/ - Death can be a merciful thing

October 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

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


File: 416f4f44d4bc1e6⋯.jpg (25.51 KB, 500x333, 500:333, lenin 3.jpg)

 No.6697[Reply]

So we obviously all like Lenin, but what is your particular opinion of the man and his theory/leadership? What did he get right and what did he get wrong in your opinion?

 No.6721

>>6697

His is right about everything except when he annoyingly called whatever would be a good policy in the situation "communism" or "socialism".


 No.6726

File: 3ed72dae0ad4ca9⋯.jpg (135.59 KB, 1024x682, 512:341, Lenin 1918 assassination a….jpg)

>>6721

Having read quite a few of Lenin's speeches and articles in 1918-1923, I don't get that impression at all. In fact anarchists and left-coms gleefully misquote Lenin being like "HOLY SHIT STATE-CAPITALISM IS AWESOME, LET'S PURSUE STATE-CAPITALISM" to "prove" Lenin hated socialism or whatever.

For instance, in part III of the following article Lenin clearly distinguishes between socialism (which he says hasn't been achieved yet) and state-capitalism, and how the proletarian government can use state-capitalism for the benefit of socialism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm




File: 32533ff53d3d116⋯.png (493.27 KB, 1133x637, 1133:637, 1490495033674.png)

 No.6660[Reply]

Is there a way to achieve communism without a hive-mind or the enslavement of the proletariat?

 No.6661

yes, proletarian revolution


 No.6682

>>6661

That's what I ment for hive mind.

You can't really make everyone get on board. If that was the case the world would be communist at this point.


 No.6685

File: 3811031d4966c88⋯.jpg (123.92 KB, 434x802, 217:401, Marx.jpg)

>>6682

>You can't really make everyone get on board. If that was the case the world would be communist at this point.

Modes of production are not required to have everyone support them though. There are people on the Internet who unironically argue that slavery or feudalism are good, but the danger of society reverting to slaveowners or feudal nobility is nil even if it became a popular idea, mainly since it'd require destroying the present level of the productive forces.

Post last edited at

 No.6724

>>6682

we're already all on board in needing nourishment, rest, shelter. Plus, humans are remarkably genetically self-similar, for apes at least.




File: a3e9d37737094cc⋯.jpg (356.82 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, 466470ad1a80cfb1201d36c541….jpg)

 No.6719[Reply]

Catalonia just declared independence. So far, South Ossetia is the only country to recognize it.

 No.6720

I hope they can keep their autonomy, though things are looking badly




File: 64a9cf4863b9605⋯.jpg (1.15 MB, 1284x1525, 1284:1525, bksc-picket0001.jpg)

 No.6690[Reply]

Anyone else ANTI-GLASSES GANG here? So there's this obscure alt-righter I follow on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMnOYHkeDPc)) who recently made a video on destroying statues/"history" and tried to compare it to Kampuchea's Year Zero, despite the fact the Khmer Rouge was very anti-Marxist in its policies and saw its attacks on the on the urban bourgeisie and its symbols not as a path for creating a Proletarian Culture and destroying the counterrevolutionary elements remaining in the country, like Mao's Cultural Revolution did but as a way to return Cambodian culture and society to a previous "untainted" state by returning it to its roots and removing foreign and degenerate elements, something much more analogous with reactionary polices such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichserbhofgesetz than with any Marxist doctrine.

What were the most dramatic doctrinaire deviations between the CPK and regular Maoism? Are there any good historical sources that detail them? Most of the content I've seen on Kampuchea comes from Soror Adriana.

 No.6692

File: 265084dc910e8ac⋯.jpg (429.48 KB, 1200x843, 400:281, 1918 Soviet monument to Ro….jpg)

This is a good read on the Khmer Rouge in general, including their ideology: https://archive.org/details/KampucheaTheRevolutionRescued

This is also good: https://archive.org/details/ChinaCambodiaVietnamTriangle

Anyway, the comparison is stupid. Statues represent specific periods or trends in history. Destroying them has been a feature of numerous revolutions as well as counter-revolutions (e.g. no shortage of destroyed statues of Lenin and other communists.)

You don't see people calling for the removal of statues to Abraham Lincoln or John Brown, because they don't represent the forces of Southern racism and reaction. If one proposed erecting statues to Southern abolitionists, slaves who joined the Union Army, and guerrilla leaders who fought the Confederacy, you'd see rightists whining about it.

Post last edited at

 No.6693

Here you go: https://8ch.net/marx/res/5838.html

Polpotism it's the only way >:-)


 No.6704

>>6692

was pol pot leftist? wasnt he a right wing us backed dictator?


 No.6705

File: f88d66922472c3e⋯.jpg (606.35 KB, 1197x667, 1197:667, 1989.jpg)

>>6704

He was a leftist initially, but he held views that were completely unique to him and contrary to Marxism (e.g. the whole "Year Zero" stuff.)

After Vietnam liberated Cambodia in 1979, the KR started receiving CIA aid with the consent of China, which denounced the Vietnamese as pawns of "Soviet social-imperialism." China at this point was still arguing that US imperialism had been gravely weakened by defeat in Indochina during the early 70s, whereas the "fascist" USSR was supposedly aiming at world conquest. In practice this meant collaboration with US imperialism was an acceptable "lesser evil." So you had stuff like the KR praising Reagan's election victory in 1980 against Carter, who was accused of "appeasing" the "Soviet social-imperialist aggressors."

As the 80s went on, the KR struck a deal with US-backed Thailand's military regime to enrich both via timber extracted from Cambodian territory. In other words, Pol Pot and Co. became capitalists. By the time Pol Pot died in 1997 he declared it was "over for communism" and that his only hope was for Cambodia to belong to the West.

When the KR was in power from 1975-79 it wasn't pro-US though. Most of those executed by the KR were accused of being either CIA, KGB or Vietnamese agents. The CIA aided the KR after 1979 simply because it fought the Vietnamese-backed and socialist-oriented government that replaced the KR.




File: b139eff8d63022b⋯.jpg (18.94 KB, 219x255, 73:85, C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppD….jpg)

 No.6696[Reply]

hello my stalinist friends:) just a few questions. what do you think of democracy I know you support it but do you prefer a more partipatory style of democracy or a representative based one. how does planning work in your system does the beaurocracy decide how goods are allocated or is the plan supposed to be voted on. do you have any good sources on how the kulaks caused the famine how would you stop something like this from happening in a modern revolution.

 No.6702

File: 4ab7f7cd651405d⋯.jpg (581.65 KB, 1417x1048, 1417:1048, Supreme Soviet of the Ukra….jpg)

Lenin wrote that Soviet democracy is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic, because it involves the mass of the population.

Here's the best introduction to Soviet democracy as it worked in the USSR: https://archive.org/details/WorkingVersusTalkingDemocracy

As that book shows, there wasn't a clear line between "representative" and "participatory" systems, e.g. representatives in the soviets were assisted by committees staffed with citizens doing volunteer work.

>how does planning work in your system does the beaurocracy decide how goods are allocated or is the plan supposed to be voted on.

The Soviet system, very briefly, worked as follows: Gosplan would receive reports from local enterprises and whatnot as to what resources existed and the prospects for production over the next few years. After computing all this and making a draft of the five-year plan, it'd send the draft back on down to receive suggestions and criticisms among workers, enterprise managers, etc.

>how would you stop something like this from happening in a modern revolution.

In the first place, famine always threatened the countryside before 1917. To quote a bourgeois journalist (E.J. Dillon) writing in 1892:

>Famine in Russia is periodical like the snows, or rather it is perennial like the Siberian plague. To be scientifically accurate, one should distinguish two different varieties of it the provincial and the national; the former termed golodovka or the little hunger, and the latter golod or the great hunger. Not a year ever elapses in which extreme distress in some province or provinces of the Empire do not assume the dimensions of a famine, while rarely a decade passes away in which the local misfortune does not ripen into the national calamity. If we go back as far as the year 996 and follow the course of Russian history down to the year of grace 1892, we shall find that, whilePost too long. Click here to view the full text.




File: ce53fb250dac6dc⋯.jpg (161.35 KB, 640x960, 2:3, dudeleninlmao.jpg)

 No.6678[Reply]

Can you be a Marxist-Leninist and still consider yourself a part of the "libertarian left"? I'm a ML but I think democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. are good principles. Obviously if you're in the middle of a civil war or a revolution, you probably won't give a fuck about your enemies' right to spread their propaganda, but I think a future socialist society should stick to those principles as much as possible.

I also think people should generally be free to choose what drugs they put into their bodies, who they have sex with, how they want to dress, what they want to read, etc. I don't mean that any restriction of individual liberty in a society is a unjustified, but I think there always needs to be legitimate reasons as to why such a restriction would be necessary before it's done.

What do you guys think of the 'individual liberty vs. the good of society' debate?

 No.6681

File: dc1b1324b7de8e6⋯.jpg (33.82 KB, 550x382, 275:191, Lenin reading Pravda.jpg)

It's obvious from history that certain socialist countries were "freer" than others on various subjects, e.g. Yugoslavia tolerated pornographic magazines, the position of LGBT organizing in Cuba or China is clearly better than in the DPRK.

There's a great read comparing human rights (in both historical and current terms) between the US and USSR as well as discussing the concept of human rights in general: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion

I don't think anyone denies that democracy, freedom of the press, etc. should be practiced as much as possible, so long as it's kept in mind that there is no such thing as "pure democracy" and that the press is in the hands of the proletarian state and serves its aims, just as democracy does.

As Lenin wrote:

>The “freedom of the press” slogan became a great world slogan at the close of the Middle Ages and remained so up to the nineteenth century. Why? Because it expressed the ideas of the progressive bourgeoisie, i.e., its struggle against kings and priests, feudal lords and landowners.

>No country in the world has done as much to liberate the masses from the influence of priests and landowners as the R.S.F.S.R. has done, and is doing. We have been performing this function of “freedom of the press” better than anyone else in the world.

>All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

>Freedom of the press in the R.S.F.S.R., which is surrounded by the bourgeois enemies of the whole world, means freedom of political organisation for the bourgeoisie and its most loyal servants, the Memisheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries.

>The bourgeoisie (all over the world) is still very much stronger than we are. To place Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.6686

File: f8cf71d662506ab⋯.png (77.84 KB, 888x444, 2:1, anti-tank.png)

>>6678

>Can you be a Marxist-Leninist and still consider yourself a part of the "libertarian left"?

It would be a difficult thing since the vast majority of the libertarian left define themselves in opposition to ML.

> I'm a ML but I think democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. are good principles

I feel the same for the most part. In Albania, religious propaganda was against the law though it technically wasn't illegal to believe in a religion or a higher power. But you can pretty much infer that without priests, imams, and rabbis being free to spread their religious propaganda it more or less amounted to a de facto ban on religion due to the communal nature of organized religion.

I don't necessarily feel this is bad personally since organized religion causes harm, degrades scientific/critical thinking among the proletariat and promotes reactionary ideas. Judaism, for instance, even goes so far as to promote racism against non-Jews.

The Albanians had their reasons, I don't know if a ban on religious propaganda will be necessary in the future, especially in more developed countries. But, it is worth noting that religion played a key role in the restoration of capitalism in both the form of Judaism/political Zionism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodox religions.

>I also think people should generally be free to choose what drugs they put into their bodies, who they have sex with, how they want to dress, what they want to read, etc. I don't mean that any restriction of individual liberty in a society is a unjustified, but I think there always needs to be legitimate reasons as to why such a restriction would be necessary before it's done.

I disagree about drugs but I also recognize that prohibition isn't very effective, especially in capitalist society. Mao tried the 9mm solution and it seemed effective for the most part, though the communists had sold drugs like everyone else in China and thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.6687

File: d426471bfdd8370⋯.jpg (51.83 KB, 494x600, 247:300, Chernenko.jpg)

>>6686

>In Albania, religious propaganda was against the law though it technically wasn't illegal to believe in a religion or a higher power.

Just for historical clarification, it was indeed not technically illegal to privately believe in religion, but in practice even personal belief was forbidden. A person praying in his/her house could be condemned or arrested if found out.

The only leniency was granted to very old people, they were permitted to visit places that formerly housed shrines in order to pray.

And it was rather bizarre for Albania to do it, since every source (even those from socialist Albania) concedes that religion didn't play a major role in the lives of Albanians and fundamentalism was rare/ That's why such extreme measures could be meted out without much adverse response among the population.

No other socialist country went as far. As Konstantin Chernenko put it, "To our Party, the struggle against religious prejudices has always been an ideological struggle of a scientific, materialist world view against an antiscientific, religious one. We are waging this struggle only by means of persuasion and education. The Communist Party has always held that all attempts to make believers give up their convictions by coercive measures are not only futile, but also harmful, that atheism can be spread, not through prohibiting religion, but by means of consistent persuasion, by drawing believers into an active social life. After all, you can't order a man to think scientifically."


 No.6688

File: 50cced4859cd1b1⋯.jpg (114.77 KB, 720x540, 4:3, 3f9a8f97c00523fc043039033f….jpg)

>>6686

>Capitalist-"collectivism" is garbage in general

I agree. The mistake liberal ideologues always make is that they see collectivism/totalitarianism as something that can only be enforced by a state apparatus - therefore, creating a false dichotomy dislodged from material conditions. It is safe to say that (modern) capitalism entertains a different form of collectivism/totalitarianism but no less absolute than what's usually associated with it. In late capitalism, your life is regulated through and through, and your "duties" extent to ridiculous shit like maintaining a linkedin profile or study a subject that will get you leverage on the labor market. Institutions like banks, secret services or big IT corporations monitor everything you do, and will exchange your data with other institutions when required. The amount of data the NSA has about you when you buy something off Amazon is greater than anything the Stasi could ever have compiled about you. Whoever says that capitalism is not collectivist must unironically walk through the inner city, look at the masses of people and think: "Wow, so many individuals!" - obviously such a person probably isn't the sharpest arrow in the quiver.

Modern industrial and increasingly technological societies make totalitarianism somewhat inevitable. Originally, the term was used to describe how far societal institutions are able to reach into communal and private space. Later, political science weaseled arround this definition and came up with a modified one, only to be able to use the term in an anti-materialist way, which means designed to describe only fascism or socialism. But once we move away from this strictly anglo-saxon comprehension of "rights" (which understands rights merely as negative rights) and attempt an analysis closer to the realities of human existence, positive rights are recognized and in the end we can only conclude that such a thing as "rights" can only be understood reciprocally between the individual and the society in which it dwells - society and individual aren't seperated, one forms the other and vice versa.




File: 27cb21268999975⋯.jpg (236.94 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, Great Soviet Encyclopedia.jpg)

 No.6674[Reply]

This is a thread you post in if you want books or articles about a particular subject and nothing more.

If you want questions answered, here's threads for that:

* https://8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html (USSR-related questions)

* https://8ch.net/marx/res/5721.html (questions about anything)

 No.6679

How about a critic of stirner


 No.6680

File: 0f7472e222ad224⋯.jpg (29.91 KB, 286x363, 26:33, Plekhanov.jpg)

>>6679

Plekhanov's Anarchism and Socialism, which can be found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq7aAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (pages 39-52 deal with Stirner)

And of course there's Marx's own criticism of "Saint Max [Stirner]" in The German Ideology: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03.htm

Post last edited at

 No.6683

>>>/freedu/ has a large collection of pdfs, check it out comrades.


 No.6684

>>6680

>>6683

Any choice quotes?




File: db7b2462ebe11d2⋯.jpg (63.33 KB, 561x785, 561:785, weak.jpg)

 No.6658[Reply]

why are there pro-imperialist leftcoms ?

pic unrelated

 No.6659

File: 0eb8e259dc5590d⋯.jpg (46.91 KB, 640x455, 128:91, Brezhnev Assad.jpg)

Because being a left-com, like being a Trot, generally involves retaining a great deal of bourgeois ideology. You can appear as the most "radical" person in the whole world yet your politics still suck and are reactionary in practice.

That's how they are able to ridicule third world leaders as "tinpot dictators," or how they're able to justify supporting CIA-backed Islamists in places like Libya and Syria against "fascist regimes" while belittling the Soviet Union for promoting popular fronts against actual fascists like Hitler and Mussolini.

You might find this thing I wrote a while back of interest since it deals a bit with ultra-left posturing: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/63t8a6/on_accusation_that_assad_isnt_even_that_antius/




File: 89638d330ace913⋯.jpg (143.16 KB, 1100x619, 1100:619, 150622160028-bruno-barbey-….jpg)

File: 4fd02d60ccf8503⋯.jpg (108.4 KB, 768x512, 3:2, 20160515CREXPLAINER-slide-….jpg)

File: c335b75d595e757⋯.jpg (95.97 KB, 640x853, 640:853, image.jpg)

 No.6631[Reply]

It is almost impossible to determine what really happened here. While it was clearly a power play by Mao in the beginning, it did take on a real grassroots proletarian character through the independently formed Red Guard groups. And while it did focus on landlords, bourg teachers, and capital, it also was aimed at Mao's rivals.

Thus it was both a top-down order from Mao, and a true proletarian uprising.

But if it was a decentralized movement, why was it so easy for Mao to dissemble the movement and order the red guards to the countryside?

What does /marx think of this?

4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6653

File: ea431b6f4e56868⋯.jpg (886.41 KB, 3025x2181, 3025:2181, Bob Avakian spent decades ….jpg)

>>6652

When I think of "anti-revisionist Maoists" what comes to mind is the RCPUSA, which (aside from its Bob Avakian cult) has a standard Maoist view of what happened in China: Mao was a great guy who wanted to prevent what happened in the USSR from happening in his own country; the Gang of Four were faithfully carrying out his policy; the "Three Worlds Theory" and other lameness in the 1970s was attributable to capitalist roaders led by Deng and Hua who ended up seizing power and overthrowing socialism.

The RCPUSA's book "And Mao Makes Five" was an influential defense of this view: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/GPCR/Mao5/AndMaoMakes5-Lotta-1978-All.pdf

As far as "Maoist-Third Worldists" types go, the Maoist Internationalist Movement staunchly defended of Stalin and Mao. The LLCO and similar folks definitely share the dismissive attitude toward Stalin that a lot of MLM folks have, and I do know that the LLCO seems to basically claim Mao fucked up during the "Lin Biao affair."


 No.6654

>>6653

I think you're completely right comrade, I was conflating MTWs, who are honestly better described as Lin Biaoists then Maoists, with more traditional Maoists who came out of the 60's and 70's. Although I don't know to what degree those kinds of Maoists still exist, outside of RCPUSA, as well as remnants of that kind of anti-revisionism in orgs like FRSO and PSL. Aside from that, MLMs kind of seem all over the place to me, many of them seem indistinguishable from Ancoms, just Ancoms who've maybe read too much Postcolonial theory, Decolonial theory, World-Systems theory, and are a little too invested in a fetishized idea of the Global South, as well as the idea of the Vanguard party as an essentially paramilitary organization that wages guerilla combat. It's like Anarkiddies who read J. Sakai's Settlers.


 No.6655

>>6654

Yeah I to have thought that MLM has a lot of ultra-left characteristics. You can't just legislate capitalism- it takes a radical shift in both the MoP and DotP. China definitely has a DotP and mixed ownership of the MoP with SOEs being prominent in the most important strategic sectors. Gotta have that dialectical materialist analysis, folks...

I'm in the PSL so I"m a little confused by your critique. The party is anti-revisionist in that we uphold the contributions of Stalin and Mao to the communist movement but we don't think that a restoration of capitalism occurred in the USSR in the '50s, likewise in the PRC in the '70s.


 No.6656

>>6655

>The party is anti-revisionist in that we uphold the contributions of Stalin and Mao to the communist movement but we don't think that a restoration of capitalism occurred in the USSR in the '50s, likewise in the PRC in the '70s.

I think the WWP and PSL are unique, and have a very healthy tendency towards synthesizing different Marxist traditions, mixing ML, Maoist, and even Trot ideas together in a very fluid and creative manner, I think this comes from their origins as Marcyites. My only real point was that from what I've seen certain 60's and 70's Maoist ideas still exist among some WWP and PSL members, especially the older ones. But that kind of anti-revisionism can look very different from person to person and org to org, especially because these 60's Maoists didn't have a Soviet party line to fall in step with, so sometimes they'd be hardline oldschool MLs who denounced Khrechev and Brevhnev, but other times they'd take a much harder stance, accusing the USSR of "social fascism" and "social imperialism", the French group "Gauche prolétarienne" are a good example of Maoists who were so anti-Soviet that they were basically indistinguishable from Leftcoms in that regard. Google "Mao-Spontex"


 No.6657

>>6656

*Khrushchev and Brezhnev




File: 102db9c5d88d15e⋯.jpg (55.66 KB, 580x416, 145:104, sceneable.jpg)

 No.6537[Reply]

Posted this at /leftypol/ but thought I might try here as well:

What exactly does being a Marxist-Leninist entail? Marxism + vanguard party + democratic centralism + analysis of imperialism as the higest stage of capitalism? The thing is, I basically agree with ML on paper, and I find many of the critiques of it to be absolute shit, but I'm still hesitant to actually call myself an ML. Genuine democracy, individual rights, personal liberties, the freedom to criticise your government, and such values are really important to me, but they usually aren't considered to have been to strong points of previous ML states. If we use the USSR as an example, there are three different positions ML's could take:

>The USSR was a genuinely democratic society, were people were free to criticise the government, individual rights were protected, etc.

>There was a lack of democracy, protection of individual rights, etc. in the USSR which was a serious flaw, but that was mainly due to the difficult circumstances under which the country developed.

>There was a lack of democracy, protection of individual rights, etc. in the USSR, but those things aren't really that important anyway. If dictatorship, authoritarianism and supression of individual rights and liberties is necessary for socialism, that's totally fine and will have to do.

Which position is most consistent with Marxism-Leninism? Which is most common among ML's?

Also, ML's are almost always labeled as being authoritarian (both by other leftists and by liberals). Do you reject that label, and in that case on what grounds? I know revolutions are inherently authoritarian, I've read that Engels quote, but I wouldn't say that I have an "authoritarian ideology".

I would really like to hear some thoughts on these sort of questions from an ML/MLM perspective.

 No.6538

File: 45ed44c9d04b749⋯.jpg (510.21 KB, 869x1200, 869:1200, Soviet power is a million ….jpg)

What Marxism-Leninism entails is basically what you described, yes.

As far as democracy and criticism in the USSR go I'd recommend you read this (it's by an American communist who lived in Moscow): https://archive.org/details/WorkingVersusTalkingDemocracy

Then, once you've read that, I'd recommend you check out the following work: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion

As for the "three different positions ML's could take," it's a mixture of the first and second. Even in the middle of the Great Purges, with so many people being arbitrarily arrested and executed on false charges, there was no shortage of criticism in the press of corruption and bureaucracy (which in fact fed into said purges), as noted in such works as http://b-ok.org/book/989260/2309c7 and http://b-ok.org/book/2489176/cdb3cb

The trend in Soviet society was for democracy (i.e. citizen involvement in the affairs of state and society) to increase as the decades went on.

No Marxist-Leninist would describe themselves as "authoritarian." I see no reason to use that term, as if the capitalist state does not rely on "authoritarian" methods to enforce its rule when required.

Post last edited at

 No.6540

>>6538

Thanks for providing an insightful answer. I'll try to take a look at those books but I have a huge reading list already, and I read pretty slowly so I'm afraid it will be a while before I get to them. Could you perhaps summarize some of the stuff you find important in them?


 No.6618

>What exactly does being a Marxist-Leninist entail? Marxism + vanguard party + democratic centralism + analysis of imperialism as the higest stage of capitalism

intensely emotional defense of all the socialist states without nuance is the last part

>The thing is, I basically agree with ML on paper, and I find many of the critiques of it to be absolute shit, but I'm still hesitant to actually call myself an ML.

that's because you, correctly, understand that something is wrong with their analysis

The second position is that of Trotskyism and is the correct analysis.


 No.6619

File: 7b05c1f6550eb3f⋯.jpg (88.78 KB, 600x397, 600:397, Great Patriotic War.jpg)

>>6618

You mention an "intensely emotional defense of all the socialist states without nuance" and then mention Trotskyism, since it presumably has a nuanced defense of what it calls "degenerated/deformed workers' state(s)."

And yet, Trotsky himself not only claimed that the "defense" of the USSR in the coming war required overthrowing its "bureaucracy," he made a ridiculous prophesy about what would happen if the USSR triumphed over Hitler *despite* this "bureaucracy":

>If this war provokes, as we firmly believe, a proletarian revolution, it must inevitably lead to the overthrow of the bureaucracy in the USSR and regeneration of Soviet democracy on a far higher economic and cultural basis than in 1918. In that case the question as to whether the Stalinist bureaucracy was a “class” or a growth on the workers’ state will be automatically solved. To every single person it will become clear that in the process of the development of the world revolution the Soviet bureaucracy was only an episodic relapse.

>If, however, it is conceded that the present war will provoke not revolution but a decline of the proletariat, then there remains another alternative: the further decay of monopoly capitalism, its further fusion with the state and the replacement of democracy wherever it still remained by a totalitarian regime. The inability of the proletariat to take into its hands the leadership of society could actually lead under these conditions to the growth of a new exploiting class from the Bonapartist fascist bureaucracy. This would be, according to all indications, a regime of decline, signalizing the eclipse of civilization. . . .

>The historic alternative, carried to the end, is as follows: either the Stalin régime is an abhorrent relapse in the process of transforming bourgeois society into a socialist society, or the Stalin régime is the first stage of a new exploiting society. If the second prognosis proves to be correct, then, of course, the bureaucracy will become a new exploiting class. However onerous the second perspective may be, if the world proletariaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.




File: 868495ba08939d0⋯.jpg (23.37 KB, 620x600, 31:30, commieok.jpg)

 No.6609[Reply]

Could be great publicity, attract a few more people, radicalise some

 No.6610

attract who though? other 8chan posters?


 No.6617

>>6610

yeah, better then nothing


 No.6620

No, this board has about 3 posts a day and I don't want /pol/ flooding it. Go to /leftypoll/


 No.6624

File: 461086b16189200⋯.gif (140.56 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 60b321ca94c4d0b1e0e98f4476….gif)

No, it'll just bring negative attention.




File: c433eee12134373⋯.jpg (116.6 KB, 600x399, 200:133, arizona-snow.jpg)

 No.6597[Reply]

Why do I get 404 when trying to open the sticky thread?

 No.6600

File: 33d4863b53b5bee⋯.jpg (76.74 KB, 480x270, 16:9, Great Depression.jpg)

8Chan is wonky like that due to all the stuff involving their server.




File: 2bc7841a66ab7fe⋯.png (36.72 KB, 200x199, 200:199, ETA.png)

 No.6594[Reply]

Hello comrades,

In a discussion I had with a Spanish colleague (left-leaning but still dipped in bourg ideology), the ETA organisation was brought up and my colleagues take was that "they were super useful in the fight against Franco's dictatorship but went on to become a full-on terrorist group that kills civilians by the hundreds".

What is /marx's opinion on ETA? Are they a righteous Marxist-Leninist independence movement or a revolutionary group that lost it's cause? Also, any non-bourg resources on ETA would be highly appreciated.

 No.6599

What remains of ETA is a pure nationalist organization.

>"they were super useful in the fight against Franco's dictatorship but went on to become a full-on terrorist group that kills civilians by the hundreds

it's pretty acurate. If you want to read about a real marxist urban guerrilla on Spain check GRAPO or FRAP, even today their members are almost all in jail.




File: 4516f07137fc1f2⋯.jpg (42.74 KB, 330x499, 330:499, Dark Money.jpg)

 No.5847[Reply]

So, I made this thread on /leftypol/ and very few people took it seriously or had much interest in it. Basically, I wanted to debunk the idea that the Right-wing is counter-cultural or somehow opposed to the Western liberal Establishment. Let's talk about the right-wing portion of the bourgeoisie, what drives it, what are its aims, how does it achieve its goals what networks do they run, how influential are they and their propaganda, who funds them etc.

Some workers are under the impression that neo-fascists waiving the protectionist/welfarist/anti-immigrant banner are pro-worker let's show the evidence that the working class under fascism and other right-wing "anti-globalist" electoral is still enslaved as bad, if not worse then it is under liberal capitalism.

Let's talk about the right-wing shills who push anti-Marxist ideas and are in fake opposition to centrist and pseudo-leftist anti-Marxist shills. It doesn't have to be limited to specific people or movements but the general nature of their propaganda and how it is fallacious.

2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5850

File: d50ed47daa18843⋯.jpg (182.7 KB, 1000x1414, 500:707, __kaname_madoka_saber_and_….jpg)

I found an article that critiques Abenomics from an economic point of view:

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/abenomics-raises-profitability-and-misery/

>...over one year later, it looks as though Abenomics is failing, at least the Japanese people. ... The Japanese yen has fallen in value and the Japanese stock market has boomed, but Japan’s economy continues to crawl along. Japan’s economy has expanded at no more than 1% a year since the Great Recession ended. Under Abe, the growth rate has risen to 1.8%, but still no better than before the crisis.

>inflation has risen as a deliberate policy of the government, designed to ‘stimulate’ businesses to invest on the expectation of higher profits. As a result, real incomes for the average Japanese household have fallen significantly. The so-called misery index (the sum of inflation and unemployment rates) is at a 33-year high!

>So what has happened under Abenomics is a sharp rise in the rate of exploitation of Japanese workers and a fall in their living standards in order to boost profitability.


 No.6579

Does anyone have Daniel Guerrin's book "Fascism And Big Business" or any other useful book on that subject?


 No.6580

File: 7ffc6f796ef97fd⋯.jpg (121.69 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Parenti.jpg)

>>6579

Guérin's book isn't online. If it isn't copyrighted I could eventually scan it or have people I know scan it.

Michael Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds" does point out some examples of how capitalists supported fascism: http://b-ok.org/book/981420/378c5d


 No.6581

File: ab31b442814200b⋯.png (129.77 KB, 763x258, 763:258, Parentisources.png)

>>6580

Yeah, I've read that, its good but not as systematic or in-depth as what I'd like. I looked at some of the sources that Parenti cites but I could only find Neuman's Behemoth and Dutte's book I'm not the biggest fan Dutte's writing tbh

Do you have any of these words scanned?

I know Jacque Pauwel's is releasing a book on Hitler and Big Business but it wont come out till 2018.


 No.6582

File: 39626ea987deabc⋯.jpg (251.81 KB, 1107x733, 1107:733, Togliatti.jpg)

>>6581

I scanned Togliatti's book a while back: https://archive.org/details/LecturesOnFascism

Neumann's book is online: http://b-ok.org/book/2030961/9f5846

Salvemini's book is on Questia, which I have access to, but it's not something you download, it's just... text divided into hundreds of pages representing the hundred pages of a book.




File: 7025b1a53376e37⋯.jpg (19.43 KB, 352x256, 11:8, 312-32-112.jpg)

File: 21f1e2be7fe3ac8⋯.jpg (48.11 KB, 490x342, 245:171, 5f29bcefg9d10437886c2&690.jpg)

 No.6545[Reply]

Anyone here wanna do translations for other languages to english? I am fluent in Chinese and would translate any articles you provide me to English (May take some time)

Examples from captions below

Pic with the RPG: "Chairman Mao's People's War thought (or ideology to be exact) will forever (eternally) shine light (In this refrence it means to forever be prestigious).

Guy with the machinegun :

"(if) people don't mess with me, I won't mess with them, (if) people mess with me, I will mess with them."

This is a proverb from Mao's Debating the (government) policy

The original is as such:“对于国民党军队,应继续采取人不犯我,我不犯人的政策,尽量地发展交朋友的工作”

"In the aspect of the ROC military, continue to utilize the '(if) people don't mess with me, I won't mess with them, (if) people mess with me, I will mess with them' policy, try to continue the job of expanding the network of friends."

Pic with the two guys and the little red book:

"Wilderness training trains the red heart, always closely follow Chairman Mao"

Red heart-Originates as symbol of loyalty in ancient China, eg; Wentian Xiang's Crossing the Lingding sea's last line "From the ancients to present, has a person not died? I leave my red (loyal) heart to history to clear my name"

Also, general translation request thread, art, speeches, literature, etc. I'd post a translation rn of some literature from Lu Xun but I'm lazy

 No.6546

File: cf27c3496f09a1f⋯.jpg (309.78 KB, 1745x1227, 1745:1227, PIC 00152.jpg)

>>6545

Not a sage Forgot last pic. Oops.


 No.6560

What does the pic of >>5897 say?




Delete Post [ ]
[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / arepa / builders / kind / monarchy / nofap / vg / vichan ]