[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / ausneets / fast / htg / imouto / mde / vore ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

The Alacrity daemon is having syncing issues. If any threads 404, try posting on them using mod.php to restore them.
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.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

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: 645f0785c0e77d7⋯.png (1.15 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 645f0785c0e77d7ed4a0032913….png)


I don't buy le genocide meme so I fully encourage you to drop all your thick commie redpills on my gaping roadie asshole


What are you looking for, more specifically?



Arguments for collectivization, mostly. Also shit that overal disproves the Red Army was going around eating all the food n shit in Ukraine.


File: e4ccc1271fde55e⋯.jpg (28.94 KB, 480x480, 1:1, didnt u forget to ask uncl….jpg)


>Arguments for collectivization, mostly.

I assume you mean arguments in favour of socialism/communism/collective ownership of the means of production generally (and not specific policy of the USSR in the 20th century)? I remember the article Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein being a pretty good introduction to socialism, back when I was a liberal.

Here it is: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

>Also shit that overal disproves the Red Army was going around eating all the food n shit in Ukraine.

I'm not an expert at Soviet history so I'll leave this question for Ismail or someone else.



No mang I mean Soviet collectivization of agriculture. The kolkhoz system. Whether it caused the famine or not, the role of the kulaks, how they started speculating with the NEP, etc.


File: 9626003f22334d1⋯.png (2.95 MB, 1504x1000, 188:125, Collectivization poster.png)


For arguments in favor of collectivization:

* https://archive.org/details/DobbSovEconDev (Soviet Economic Development since 1917)

* https://archive.org/details/SovietPeasantryOutlineHistory (a Soviet account)

* http://b-ok.org/book/2606184/eda7a0 (Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution)

As for stuff debunking the "USSR intentionally created a famine" narrative:

* https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/vv.html

* http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrow...yYXlA&user=&pw

* https://archive.org/details/FraudFamineAndFascsim (Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard)

* http://b-ok.org/book/1159294/b3f33f (The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933)

Robert Conquest, Orlando Figes, Terry Martin, Michael Ellman and Hiroaki Kuromiya are among the many mainstream historians of the USSR who argue the famine was unintended, so it's not some fringe "Stalinist" view.

File: 65bb63bc9295be0⋯.jpg (43.74 KB, 550x367, 550:367, U142P5029T2D534056F28DT201….jpg)


Do any of you think China is still a socialist country?? Or at least an state capitalist dictatorship of the proletariat?

Do you believe the Chinese are going back sometime to a socialist planned economy withouth burgeoise, generalized commodity production and private porperty?


It’s not a socialist country, no. It’s incredibly unlikely that China will ever return to socialism without another revolution or some major shit going down.



Fuck no, not since the late 70's.

File: e8157b698dd5056⋯.jpeg (897.52 KB, 2020x1350, 202:135, 2742249C-50B4-4B19-9D9D-1….jpeg)


Maybe this has been discussed here before, but what about adding the option of posting with a flag, similar to /leftypol/ (before they fucked it up)? Good idea or no? I assume the intention is for this to remain a primarily ML board, so maybe we wouldn’t need a Bookchin flag or anything, but for example an ordinary ML flag, a Maoist flag, a Hoxhaist flag, etc? Alternatively (or additionally) the flags of former and currently existing socialist states like Cuba, DPRK, Yugoslavia, etc.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 98ffcd5e0dbb104⋯.png (207.47 KB, 1200x600, 2:1, Variant of Soviet flag.png)


If other people want it, I could do so.




Since this board is for Marxism-Leninism, I don't think it is necessary. Flags are only useful when different tendencies share a single board. Maybe when /marx/ grows, which it hopefully might.



You can still associate different flags with different tendencies: Soviet Union (generic ML), North Korea (Juche), Mao's head (Maoist), Albania (Hoxhaist)


it's unnecessary. I barely look at flags can end up being divisive and tend to ignore the substance of the conversation. This happened a lot on leftypol



*and can end up

File: 2c9eac9984ad0a0⋯.jpg (76.78 KB, 500x622, 250:311, usa ball 05.jpg)


Hello, I'm from /leftypol/.

I was wondering what you /marx/ists think of Rojava. I know that there are ML, Maoist, and Hoxhaist groups from other countries fighting alongside them, but I also know that some Marxists, both in Syria and abroad, support Assad's government and believe that Rojava is just a US puppet state. What do you lads think?

Pic unrelated

8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm definitely not an expert on Syrian politics, but to me they're clearly better than many other groups in the region, with their support for democracy, women's liberation, socialism, etc. On the other hand their cooperation with the US is suspect. I'm pretty in the midde on this question. I think the "tankie" position (100% support for Assad) is pretty ridiculous but I'm not gonna pretend like they're not, at the moment, being used for US imperialist interests, like some anarchists do.



IF that is correct why does Russia arms and supports Rojava and why are Kurd's are allied to Assad :)?



I sympathize with them in their desire for self-determination and wish them well in any attempts to build socialism, but they need to to seriously re-evaluate their decision to collaborate with the US. I don't think even the most ardent supporter of Rojava will deny that the only reason for the US to assist Rojava is to further their own interests in the region, and building socialism in an independent or semi-autonomous Kurdish nation is certainly not in the interests of the US. Once the more pressing threats to American hegemony in the region have been eliminated (Assad/Russia and the Islamists) the US will without question turn on them and dismantle any gains that have been made. Allowing the US military a foothold in their own territory obviously would only make this easier. The meme response to this is to point out that the Soviets received military aid from the Western Allies during WWII, with the British and Americans both operating military forces out of Soviet territory as well, therefore "the Soviets must have been imperialist puppets too!" but the difference in situation is pretty glaring and the situations aren't terribly comparable.


The PKK is fighting in a guerilla war against a NATO member state right now. Fucking moronic western leftists think that the US state security apparatus is omnipotent even though it is filled with the more incompetent morons every year.

The US is literally losing a war against one of their former "puppets"

File: 27c6b45dd512c6f⋯.png (413.2 KB, 2505x1440, 167:96, 2020electoralmap.png)


There's an HTML game out on the internet called POWER - a multiplayer american political simulation game, and it needs your help. If you all think that the current Republican regime is bad, wait until you get a load of the Republicans in power in this game. To give you a taste, the leader has changed the national name from USA to The Greater American Reich. You heard that right. Reich.

That leads to the heart of the issue: There is legitimately no feasible opposition to these fascists from the left. They have all been factionalized into small tribes which are a shell of the former power that was the Democratic Party. The competent minds went one direction, the resources went another, and those that were devoted simply left.

Which brings me to my proposal: Join the game. The way I see it, you have two options for opposing the fascist regime in the game:

1) The Democratic People's Union (DPU): A small but growing group of players that carry the competence required to contest the right wing. They have dedicated themselves to an IWW-esque model of direct democracy and direct action to run the party, and have dedicated themselves to the ideal of an Industrial Democracy where all the workers share in the wealth and all have an equal say. Their weakness is that, while they are growing, they need more. They need more members, they need more resources, they need more support.

Discord Link: https://discord.gg/fAvK3W5

2) The Democratic Party (DNC): The old-guard of the Democrats is all but lost. This party has long-since lost its way on the path to neoliberalism and has found itself very malleable to the will of whomever is in charge. This has left them weak and helpless to fend off the GOP, as the last band of competent players either left them for the DPU or betrayed them and chose an unholy alliance with the fascists. Their strength, however, is that their resources are all but limitless in the system. If you can ascend to the top quickly, you could find yourself at the helm of a mighty power.

Discord Link: https://discord.gg/3UpFd

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Former Senator from the NDA here before it was reformed into the Demorats

So the Nazi larpers took over even more, huh?

I quit because I was tired of endless fucking meme bills in the senate from GOPfags



You should join Ismail's forum http://eregime.org/index.php

Him and his friends run lots of political-themed games.



You should not because he has paranoid schizophrenia



No he does not. He does not even ban people unless they do blatant fuckery (like last year he made someone an admin to create a domain for the forum and that someone was a Trump supporter who deleted literally 95 per cent of the users).

Just look at /marx/, he lets open nazis and ancaps post here unless they spam the forum.

He is the most relaxed admin I know.



wew, a diagnosis over the internet

how trustworthy

Isma may be a revisionist, but he's the most chill admin I've ever met

File: d45f561a3bfbe1a⋯.jpg (732.9 KB, 1065x1280, 213:256, 5245543562452523523452345.jpg)


First off, sorry for sliding the board. But honestly what's your stance on all that drama on /leftypol/ since yesterday? A few minutes ago I got banned for arguing that Russia isn't an imperialist actor in Syria. There is currently a war going on between the mods which consists of a side that bans people for euphemizing US imperialism, and another side that bans people on sight who are critical towards the YPG.

All because some Anarchists, Leftcoms and YPG posters made endless threads about the BO saying that you shouldn't openly support imperialism. I'm tending to side with the BO on this - he didn't actually say that you can't support Rojava but that you should recongize that imperialism exists, and that it is a problem, which should be common sense for a leftist board. I feel like the quality of /leftypol/ has been going down a lot recently, with an extremly vocal anti-ML front and this kinda feels like the final nail in the coffin. I've seen posters being absolutely ignorant to even accept that there are marxist definitions of imperialism out there that make sense, and that there is theory out there interlodging anti-imperialism with class struggle (which kinda is inseperable anyway). I've been trying to summarize people about Maos dialectic of contradictions, and the responses I got were unisono "not gonna bother, red fascism, dumb and proud". I'm kinda done with this board, Leftcoms ruined it, creating an extremly narrow-minded consensus.

24 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.





/leftypol/ Board Owner here, if these really are the reasons you were banned, it's definitely against the rules to ban you for that. I've PMed the volunteer who banned the Catalonia thread. If you can show me the ban message for the DPRK flag then I can investigate that too.



Apparently I'm still banned for the Catalonia thread.



The ban log is totally broken right now, sadly.



I keep getting banned for evasion but I haven't been banned in the first place. I already appealed.


Months later, and it's still complete shit. I think they're trying to push people to their shitty website, but since they have like 10 people there, they're shitting up /leftypol/ to make people want to leave.

File: 2e53dd05da318d4⋯.jpg (111.6 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, p01gnds6.jpg)


I'm looking for that PDF that dismantled Popper's falsifiability connected on Marxism.

Anybody has it?


File: 0d8cdc1bd224faf⋯.jpg (139.09 KB, 300x439, 300:439, Cornforth.jpg)

There's a book-length work by Maurice Cornforth (the CPGB's leading authority on philosophy during the 1930s-70s) arguing against Popper: http://b-ok.org/book/2341203/4411ec

Here's the PDF you're probably looking for though: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= ("Popper’s Double Standard of Scientificity

in Criticizing Marxism" by Hristos Verikukis)

File: ce16d2946e67a51⋯.jpg (160.35 KB, 960x542, 480:271, 295346_603723926308157_175….jpg)


Let's talk about North Korea. Does it qualify as a socialist state? Most of the criticisms which have been leveled at North Korea say that their extensive personality cult arround their leaders is monarchistic and quasi-religious, and that they have scrapped Marxism-Leninism from their constitution. Both criticisms are legitimate in my opinion, but they are also irrelevant when it comes to a marxist analysis of wether or not North Korea is socialist. Juche and the extensive leader worship might be revisionist, but is it really an economic form of revisionism, of the likes we have seen in Russia and China? I don't think so. The break with Marxism-Leninism is mostly in name, made as a political decision after the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, and the DPRK, being located next to its giant neighbour China, had to give up playing both sides after the Soviet-Sino-Split - however, they still uphold socialism as their economic and political system.

I guess my approach is the following: Can the Juche idea be considered the specific expression of a socialist construction tailored to the conditions the North Korean people find themselves in? The limitation of civil liberties and leader worship can not only be culturally explained due to the strong roots of the Korean strain of Confucianism within Korean society, but also first and foremost by the fact the capitalist world wages an unprecendeted form of economic terrorism and information war against the small country. Facing the entire capitalist world without blinking, it is almost inevitable that they become hermeneutic and isolated. It is also worth noting that contrary to western information, the DPRK is almost entirely self-sustainable, and the influence of China regarding North Koreas survival is often overstated, as trade with China makes up less than 5% of the annual GDP of the DPRK.

I'd like to share a link to this think tank that is very informative and in-depth regarding North Korea. Since it's American, it can't really be accused of being biased towards North Kora.


There also have been misconceptions in claiming that the DPRK entertains a social castPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

31 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1027e95a5f9a4db⋯.jpg (137.75 KB, 571x807, 571:807, 1929058_469235263264606_78….jpg)

File: cfd7afae1a4283b⋯.jpg (97.66 KB, 580x773, 580:773, Red-Army-font-b-Officers-b….jpg)


>Marx explained that it was potentially possible for the Britain and Holland of his day to achieve socialism via parliament.

Engels said so on parliament paths as very reduced, being quoted by Lenin indeed in The State and Revolution. But that has nothing to do with what you are trying to say.

>Stalin helped draw up the _The British Road to Socialism_ in 1951

I know and also has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. I also have to say that you never expose your position and hide behind quotes, being able to do pirouettes later.

The 1951 publication of The British Road to Socialism, which preached that socialism could be established in England through "parliamentary democracy", marked the open transition of the Communist Party of Great Britain, its transition from Marxism-Leninism to liquidationism. We just have to see the results and don't try to make again like with Black Nation because, again, Stalin has nothing to do with that.

The British Road to Socialism was enunciated for the first time by the executive committee of the CPGB in 1951, with an amendment approved at the XXII Congress of 1952. This was how the liquidationist line was manifested in 1947:

>"... it is possible to see how the people will move towards Socialism without further revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat.”


Instead of that content in The British Road to Socialism written in 1947, the programme of the British Communist Party adopted in 1935 stated:

>"... the building of a mass Communist Party within an all-inclusive united working class front is the sole path to the advance of the working class Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 68c53b0bacecfb9⋯.png (1.95 MB, 506x675, 506:675, stalin2.png)


>I challenge you to find a single example of any Soviet document written in the course of 1956-1986 that advocated "cessation of class struggle, of ideological and political struggle" or of "'"peaceful coexistence' between the working class and capitalists."

>The inevitable struggle between the two systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas...

>The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states with differing socio-economic and political systems does not mean just an absence of war, a temporary state of unstable ceasefire. It presupposes the maintenance between these states of friendly economic and political relations, it envisages the establishment and development of various forms of peaceful international co-operation.

>N. S. Khrushchov, “Answers to the Questions of the Austrian Professor Hans Thirring”, Pravda, Jan. 3, 1962.

I also can cite examples of how this line affected Soviet publications that I have in my house of the Brezhnev era. One can see how Lenin's quotations are mutilated so long as the distortion of the most elementary theses of Marxism-Leninism is justified.

>For instance, the document "Tasks at the Present Stage of the Struggle Against Imperialism and United Action of the Communist and Workers' Parties and All Anti-Imperialist Forces" adopted by the 1969 International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties states that, "The attempts of imperialism to overcome its internal contradictions by building up international tension and creating hotbeds of war are hampered by the policy of peaceful coexistence. This policy does not imply either the preservation of the socio-political status quo or a weakening of the ideological struggle."

1. What Lenin and Stalin said on peaceful coexistence has nothing to do with that, as I have shown.

2. Because of that, cannot be believed the words you quote because by distorting everything what Lenin and Stalin said about peaceful coexistence, is debased in Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: a3f366d13be309b⋯.jpg (465.91 KB, 736x1071, 736:1071, tumblr_nsmuobz0T81uatbobo1….jpg)


>The Soviet leadership had already declared the KKE incapable of winning power. Tito in this regard was no more "counter-revolutionary" than Stalin.

Come on dude. To criticize with greater knowledge a hoxhaist positioning should not lead you to the other extreme, to the most extreme revisionist degeneration. I have never been to use the word revisionist. I do not consider myself an 'anti-revisionist'. But it is that in this case defines very well a whole trajectory, at least the one that I have been able to observe.

>actual Trotskyists condemned it

Condemning one thing (that must be demonstrated) doesn't mean condemning all Khrushchev's speech. All Trotskyists endorsed the speech and continue to do so today. It is only necessary to attend some assembly of any communist party.

>and others linked to Trotsky.

It is more than that: Trotskiy wasn't ever rehabilitated during the whole USSR existence. Trotskiy and what he represents was clear for all Soviet citizenship.


File: 2c28fb93cc477ef⋯.jpg (72.26 KB, 768x576, 4:3, 294566d15e8e5f2e7f472dbe09….jpg)

Copying this from /leftypol/ where it has been ignored:

Unlike the USSR or many other Marxist-Leninist states, the DPRK actually did away with the "one man management" of workplaces. It is often argued, that without grassroots control by workers or the party, it was easier for revisionists like Krushchev to destroy worker autonomy by increasing the liberties of the managers: In the end, this led to the restoration of the profit motive and the neutering of workers power. The DPRK chose a different path: 1961 the "one man management" was abolished, and the Taean Work System introduced, which is still operating today. This makes the DPRK the only existing country in the world with a genuine, fully established workplace democracy.

So, how does it work? First off, there is the democratic part. A workplace committee, elected by the workers in the enterprise, consists of 25 - 35 members, which are made up by common workers, engineers, scientists, managers and representatives of worker organizations (trade unions or women's organizations, for example). This standing committee then elects an executive committee, since arround 30 people are too many to efficiently run the place day-to-day, which consists of five people. Both the committee and the executive committee are supposed to strengthen the cooperation between workers, which also means: Coordination of the respective enterprise with the economic plan, unions, party functionaries and local councils to make economic planning sustainably democratic. Pay is set by the unions of the entire industry. In general, the administration of the enterprise has two columns, a practical one and an ideological one. While engineers, worker representatives or deputies of the respective departments oversee production, supply and worker services, party representatives and union members provide the ideological basis (political education, motivation, study groups for workers, special rewards for qualitative work and so on). The percentage of common workers in the committee is set to be 60% at least. That means, the common worker has the absolute majority should there be a disagreement.

These committees are not just elected. They are charged with reciprocal elaboration of problems open discussion with the entirety of the stuff Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

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


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?



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


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


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)


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


yes, proletarian revolution



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.


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


>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



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)


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


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

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


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.


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


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

Polpotism it's the only way >:-)



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


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


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)


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.


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)


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?


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.


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


>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.


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


>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."


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


>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)


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)


How about a critic of stirner


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


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


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




Any choice quotes?

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / ausneets / fast / htg / imouto / mde / vore ]