/marx/ - Marxism

Лев Троцкий

>>3128

>>3129

>>3130

Furries are not my comrade

Luxemburg had a number of wrong views on the issue of the peasantry, on the right of nations to self-determination, etc., but that did not negate her status as a revolutionary.

Lenin:

>Paul Levi now wants to get into the good graces of the bourgeoisie—and, consequently, of its agents, the Second and the Two-and-a-Half Internationals—by republishing precisely those writings of Rosa Luxemburg in which she was wrong. We shall reply to this by quoting two lines from a good old Russian fable: “Eagles may at times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.” Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of the independence of Poland; she was mistaken in 1903 in her appraisal of Menshevism; she was mistaken on the theory of the accumulation of capital; she was mistaken in July 1914, when, together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others, she advocated unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks; she was mistaken in what she wrote in prison in 1918 (she corrected most of these mistakes at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 after she was released). But in spite of her mistakes she was—and remains for us—an eagle. And not only will Communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete works (the publication of which the German Communists are inordinately delaying, which can only be partly excused by the tremendous losses they are suffering in their severe struggle) will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of Communists all over the world. “Since August 4, 1914, German Social-Democracy has been a stinking corpse"—this statement will make Rosa Luxemburg’s name famous in the history of the international working class movement. And, of course, in the backyard of the working-class movement, among the dung heaps, hens like Paul Levi, Scheidemann, Kautsky and all that fraternity will cackle over the mistakes committed by the great Communist.

Luxemburg's memory, as with Karl Liebknecht's, was upheld by Lenin and Stalin, and by all Marxist-Leninists.

Even if /pol/ weren't heavily skewered towards right-wingers (just like /leftypol/ is heavily skewered towards non-MLs), there's still a need for a board devoted to Marxism-Leninism, both for those who want to learn more about it and those who want to discuss particular subjects that non-MLs wouldn't particularly care about or be definitely hostile towards.

I think the USSR and the People's Democracies already give a pretty good idea of how to treat certain segments of society, so my views aren't original.

>What would you do with the current upper class and ruling elites?

Following a revolution steps would immediately be taken to nationalize land and preventing money from leaving the country. The "upper class" and "ruling elites" who resort to armed resistance or sabotage will be punished either with execution or imprisonment depending on the extent of their activity.

Those who are willing to work under the dictatorship of the proletariat can be given jobs as managers, statisticians, and similar positions, providing useful work for the working-class at a time when it cannot fully staff every economic post in the country.

Depending on the state of the economy after a probable civil war which can decimate industrial production, some domestic capitalists may have their former property leased back to them for a time, though the land remains with the state and thus cannot be bought, sold or rented. The task of the capitalist would be to rehabilitate the enterprise(s) in question, and would receive compensation for doing so. Once this task was done the lease would expire or be terminated and the capitalist would cease to operate as a capitalist, the enterprise(s) in question would be integrated into the socialist economy.

>What about the fascist and liberal (SJWs) reactionaries?

Same answer as above for "upper class" and "elite" types: those who resist get repressed, those who are willing to cooperate will be integrated into the new society in some way.

Some can find employment in propaganda work, e.g. ex-fascists pointing out that communists actually defend national culture and sovereignty, liberals noting the historical democratic traditions which communists uphold, etc.

>What would be your plans for ISIS?

Assuming that a proletarian revolution somehow happened in the USA tomorrow, a struggle would be waged against the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

bump

Well how would you define "libertarian Marxism"?

You use a photo of the Zapatistas. The EZLN don't claim to be Marxists, and they're not exactly in a position to lead the Mexican working-class to overthrow the exploitation of man by man. Their struggle for indigenous rights is noble, but it is not sufficient.

And it does not help that the EZLN's non-Marxist ideology leads them into silly positions. For example, "In 1994, it was reported that the leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico, Subcommander Marcos said that 'he expects the United States to support the Zapatistas once US intelligence agencies are convinced the movement is not influenced by Cubans or Russians.' 'Finally,' Marcos said, 'they are going to conclude that this is a Mexican problem, with just and true causes.' Yet for many years, the United States has been providing the Mexican military with all the training and tools needed to kill Marcos' followers and, most likely, before long, Marcos himself."

>>3032

Well what exactly did the Bolsheviks do that "impeded personal freedoms" and in what sense were the Bolsheviks authoritarian?

I'm sure you're aware of Engels' words on authority: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

>>3033

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-02-24/news/mn-26819_1_peace-agreement

Any particular reason? Besides commies forcing Hitler to blow his brains out and executing Mussolini, that is.

>>3040

Yes but democracy isn't measured by how many parties exist in a country.

See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

This is the only one I know of that's in English and online, a 1974 two-volume "A Short History of the World" published by the Soviet revisionists:

* https://web.archive.org/web/20110824114613/http://leninist.biz/en/1974/1SHW599/index.html

* https://web.archive.org/web/20110824114855/http://leninist.biz/en/1974/2SHW519/index.html

There's also William Z. Foster's "Outline Political History of the Americas" from 1951 which is good: http://bookzz.org/book/872863/1686e1

This is still a thing BTW. Not that I expect people to join from /marx/, but yeah. 40+ players thus far.

The game is still ongoing, currently 1929.

I didn't bump this simply due to game still existing, but also because another person has started a game on eRegime set during the French Revolution.

>>2994

>Is there no influential party in the USA for you to join?

The party closest to my politics is the American Party of Labor, which is one of the smaller parties that identify as communist and which has no presence whatsoever in the area I live in.

I don't think it would help much. If people want to go to a commie board, they can just search for one, and they can see /marx/ among the other options. Same thing with a general politics board.

I don't think the average /politics/ user would care much to participate in /marx/, and vice-versa. I could be wrong, but if if I am then other people who glance at /marx/ can say so.

"Communism" (socialism) seemed to work quite well under Stalin. And in Albania under Enver Hoxha. And countries which were building socialism before the revisionists took power also registered great advances in social and economic progress (Poland, Romania, etc.)

>>2978

>even Zizek says this is a myth

Žižek is a shitty "Marxist" who praised Titoism, worked with self-proclaimed liberal democrats in Yugoslavia, and has a philosophy which is more obscurantist than materialist.

>The guy who built 700,000 pointless bunkers when the country could barely feed itself?

Albania became self-sufficient in grain during the same time it was building said bunkers, which were not "pointless" if you take into account the country's precarious geopolitical situation and the defense doctrine it relied on, which was based on arming the whole people.

>Anywhere that had a stable government during that time did so

The capitalist countries that achieved such development did so on the basis of an infusion of American "aid," the carrying out of some degree of land reform under the pressure of communist-led revolts (as in Taiwan and South Korea), etc., and even then in terms of what sort of society was created, there's an obvious difference between Albania and the rest of the world at that time.

>I supposed to failed to use this comparison because of China's 'revisionism'?

Let's try a different comparison. To quote one author, "the standard of living of the lowest-paid stratum of the Albanian working people is now [1988] higher than that of the lowest-paid stratum of the British working class. But, of course, comparison with other countries with a long history of developed industry, are not really relevant to the Albanian workers. For them, the relevant question is: has the standard of living improved and will it continue to improve?" (Perspectives on Albania, 1992, p. 135.)