/lit/ - Literature

>>15534077
Rojava ia generally what the non-tankie leftists use to defend their positions. 1930s Catalonia too.

>>15534077
What if i don't agree with having a single family ruling a country for years?

No, communism isn't a magic word with only one meaning. Marxists are notorious for their schisms over how to interpret Marx's plans for a communist society, and there are many Marxists or socialists sympathetic to Marx who happily integrate his analyses into forms of right wing socialism. Gramsci for example is beloved by right wing socialists.

>>15534077

>>15534106
What's a right-wing socialist and how is it possible?

>>15534077
Yes and no. It's almost impossible to avoid using some Marx in an accurate class analysis, but what you're talking about is more about the old school tankie/ML stuff. There's very few of those around anymore.

>>15534091
Marx was himself ironically anti-monarchy. I guess they leave that part out in Korean schools.

>>15534194
North Korea isn't Marxist anymore, they have Juche now.

>>15534123
Minimally, it's someone who wants to destroy, dismantle, or at least manage the depredations of unrestrained capitalism by establishing what they call socialism. But it's very common for them to accept Marx's or Marxian critiques of capitalism, especially Marxists like Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, often combining them with aligned critiques of "technology" and technocratic rationalization, rationalization masquerading as bourgeois or enlightenment values, bourgeois mediocrity and unwillingness to engage in true political praxis, and so on.

How open they are to a class-based conception of the conflict between socialism and capitalism also varies. Some are hostile to it and define socialism very loosely, as volksgemeinschaft with traditional social institutions, but many fundamentally accept Marx's class-based critiques, they just don't think that his full-blown Hegelian dialectic of history with class at the absolute centre is correct or necessary. This often leads them to be cool with national or nationalized forms of communism, which is where the meme ideology Nazbol comes from. National Bolshevists were a real thing. The left wing of the Nazi party was purged partly because it actually wanted to make socialist reforms, farther to the left than party leaders wanted.

It's easier to understand if you view hatred of capitalism (whatever you think capitalism ultimately is, like technocratic rationalism or the dialectic of enlightenment) and hatred of the bourgeoisie (for being servants and useful idiots of capitalism) as intertwined but fuzzy positions that are occupied by both left and right wingers for different reasons. Most modern right wing intellectuals were not simple "conservatives" or "reactionaries" in defence of the bourgeoisie. There's a reason the most interesting fascists call themselves the "third position."

You could read these in order if you want an actual introduction to right wing socialism:
https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck-the-man-and-his-thought/
>However, socialism itself was not limited to Marxism and in fact, “international socialism does not exist . . . socialism begins where Marxism ends.”[26] Moeller called for the recognition of the fact that “every people has its own socialism” and that a conservative “national socialism” of German origin existed which should be the foundation of the Third Empire.

>>15534194
Then why it happened some sort of no choice for all communist countries? Cuba had castro family, north korea has the kim jong un's family, venezuela is falling appart right in front of our eyes, urss is the only one that looked good but had stalin
Does modern communists agree with these? How? North korea is a goddamn oppressing shithole, it looks like a sex between dictature and monarchy but even worse

>>15534230
https://mises.org/library/critique-interventionism/html/p/252
>Sombart reproaches Marx not for his doctrine of class warfare, but for its politicalization and the final conclusion Marx draws from the doctrine: the inevitability of the proletarian victory.36In other words, Sombart does not say that the Marxian separation of classes does not exist, or that the properly understood interests of the various layers of population working in a division of labor do not conflict with each other, but are harmonious. But he says: Ethics must overcome the conflict of class interests. Besides the class principle “there are other social principles—namely those of idealistic nature.” But Marxism makes the class concept absolute.37Sombart apparently believes that man must submerge his class interests and give precedence to higher interests, to national interests. He reproaches the Marxists for not thinking in terms of fatherland, for conducting world policies, for advocating class warfare in domestic policies, and for remaining pacifistic and antinationalistic in foreign policies.

Marxists may not like this but the point is that they don't have a monopoly on the term socialist or even communist, much less a monopoly on criticism of capitalism. Right wing socialists make the same critiques, at the same level of sophistication, they are just willing to assert something other than waiting for the "scientific" dialectical process to happen. Gramsci reached the same position himself. It's also similar to some of Bakunin's critiques of Marx/Engels.

>>15534233
My main problem is that most of these countries were very militar related and that's simply not a world that i want to leave in

inb4 i'm not baiting, i'm just very uneducated in the subject and wanting opinions to educate myself at least a little
Because even tho i don't like the world we live in, i simpatize with communism ideas, etc, i despise the idea of living in a militar no choice world through violence
I just want a happy big earth family bros

>>15534280
The term often used for absolute dictatorships (whether right or left) is "totalitarian" but there are non-totalitarian socialists/communists

There are also a lot of totalitarian ones however, either because they think things are now too serious and we need a state of war against capitalism at least temporarily, or because they're just totalitarian fuckheads who think they will be party commissars in the revolution and get to keep banning people on reddit for wrongthink forever

Real socialism comes from a love of freedom and a hatred of oppression and is ultimately incompatible with totalitarianism, but that's my biased opinion.

>>15534077
You can try to live technically communistic life inside a commune ( all of the major ones failed on economic side and were short lived anyway, mainly because of corruption or erosion of leadership ), a monastery - but you tend to have an authoritarian rulership there on top of socialistic lifestyle.

But no man, no nation/state level shit like this.

Decentralization, liberalization, reasonable/pragmatic for all times state apparatus or structure can work.
Examples: Swtizerland and San Marino.

Shit like anarcho-socialism/communism like city of Kroonstad after Russian revolution or w/e place - is always swept away by other power nearby... and that's usually guaranteed because those events happen usually because of violent revolutions, which means there are angry and armed actors all around ready to risk shit.

>>15534280
>I just want a happy big earth family bros
Well I got bad news for you, there's a limited amount of resources which drives us to endless conflict.

>>15534350
that can be solved

>>15534350
I get the feeling that the amount of resources would be a lot less scarce if every banker was hung from a lamppost and his resources distributed amongst the general population.

>>15534077
Marx was a plant by Adam Weishaupt aka Frederick The Great, holy fuck how are you on this site and don't know this shit?