/lit/ - Literature

>>6927888

Of course, for the revolution to spread East instead of West was a disaster. :^)

Once again you revert to the most facile either/or definitions of capitalism. You've gone out of the way not to say "totalitarian". The experience of the 20th century is nothing for you but easily opt-out of with an easy escape hatch, then it's smooth, palatable bourg historiography.

Stalin conceded too much to the economic, though this was not to say his economic preoccupation was not productive. You have presented me with your dilettante collection and there is not one work by Stalin concerning wither the economic or the ideological struggle. No investigation, no opinion.

Stalinism can mean anything from Charu Mazumdar to Bernie Sanders.

>the most violent and screaming for revolution more.
You cannot conceive of taking up the political struggle and so concede it to liberalism and doom your own practice to tail-ism. Your limits are proscribed by the threat of adventurism as if the possibility of discipline and correctly handling legal and illegal work does not exist for Marxists as both a precedent and reality.

Confound your pigeonholed, hobbled, and infinitely limited practice. I bet you go to college every day to get your brain filled with bourgeois ideology like a creampie. Your communism is like your socialism, a numinous and foggy paradise that was foreclosed prematurely and never a real movement. Away with you.