/lit/ - Literature

Too powerful

>>21029435
He also invented Ukraine thus contributing to inflation rn. This is ultimately his fault I can't make rent on time.

>>21029435
left or right, all agree that lenin was based.

>>21029580
it's your fault for being in a position of insecurity where you even have to think about affording rent

>>21029595
>left or right, all agree that lenin was based
Not true

>>21029435
He was 5'5 LMAO

>>21029598
i've only seen lolberts seethe at him, and i think even they respect his genius

>>21029435
Every living anarchist today refutes him on point one.
Stalin refutes him on point two.
This third point is muddled. What the hell are you talking about? I think you just refuted it.

>>21029580
He's a fool on many of his decisions, but Bandara is shit loads more responsible for the nazi than Lenin.
Ultimately the fuel crisis is an inevitable one of course. Lights out in your lifetime.

>>21029599
Dubs of truth. Short kings BTFO

>>21029603
What did his "genius" consist in?

>>21029632
winning

>>21029599
the eternal chud

>>21029634
retard

>>21029639

>>21029599
/thread

>>21029604
1. Let me count all the successful anarchist revolutions
2. Leninism isn't Stalinism
3. Identity Politics is ultimately subjective idealism. You could try reading

>>21029670
>Muh guy had a whole country… dedicated to ending state-capitalism
Didn’t work
Stalinism replaced Leninism. Can you count?
>subjective idealism
Yeah. Okay. And?

>>21029632
Refuting everything. I voted for trump twice and consider Lenin to be the GOAT in political philosophy. His ideas are perfectly compatible. He wasn't an idealistic moron that made appeals to hypocrisy.

>>21029732
What does this even mean?

You are a fucking retarded icon worshipping pagan bitch.
>anarchists
>opportunists (think grifters)
>proto-identity politics (see the national question and materialism and empirio-criticism)
Characteristic reptilianisms.
>yet there are no threads on him...
Maybe you should go back to lizardchan and make them dumbass

>>21029727
yawn Stalin proves Marx and Lenin's ideas correct 100x over

>>21029861
>opportunists (think grifters)
>>21029861
>Stalin proves Lenin'

>>21029435
Too powerful

From a commie point of view they should despise Lenin since he facilitated/ appeased the nationalism and created the nomeklatura that ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union.

Why do socialism and only get modest renumberation when we can sell everything in the country for it's scrap metal value and become oligarchs?

Bad foresight. If he were that smart he would have seen how the structure of the Soviet union he designed would lead to the obvious end of it.

>>21030003
No revolution is gonna get away with it with McGruff the haut bourgeois dog

>>21029435
He was a Jewish mass murdering terrorist who's actions dis-credited communism forever.

>>21029435
Hitler completely BTFO communist idealogy to the point he solved the whole class warfare bullshit while also manintaining religion and private property. They had no arguement against Hitler beyond just lying about him because they were in too deep with their retarded idealogy while being bank rolled by Satanic new york bankers.

Communism is the most hypocritical bullshit ever thought of because it cannot exist without grifting off the capitalist system, its literally like cancer taking over the host body slowly thats already sick from leprosy.

>>21029435
Lenin was reduced to impotent seething at the writings of Rosa Luxemberg of all people, he is overrated

>>21029435

>>21029580
That territory has always been referred to with a distinct name, whether that be Ruthenia or Malorossiya, and always had distinct interests from Muscovy that sometimes but not always overlap (Khmelnitsky siding with it against the Poles, Mazepa siding against it when it was making moves to reduce Zaporizhian autonomy)
The first unambiguously Ukrainian national movement in the modern sense was in the 19th century and there were two Ukrainian states with very close borders to the current ones (including some parts that are part of modern Russia like Kuban, so it hasn’t only gained territory) before the territory was incorporated into the union, I don’t know how this meme is still going
>>21030019
Allowing distinct national identities within the union only became an issue after the contrast of Stalin forcibly Russifying them caused resentment that never faded. For Ukraine specifically I’m not even talking about the famine, which wasn’t a planned genocide, just the closing of Ukrainian language schools and other facilities, deportations and influx of Russians in the Donbass following the famine

>>21029435
Empiro-criticism has fuck all to do with identity politics

>>21030019
soviet union stopped being socialist a few years after his death

>>21030032
Back to the fucking hole you came from Ukrofaggot

>>21029435
You CANNOT refute Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

>>21029819
>trump voter
>likes lenin
you're talking to a jew, Anon, don't expect to understand the pilpul

>>21032086
There is no contradiction between voting for trump and being a Marxist Leninist. It's in my self interest to vote for trump, just as it's in my self interest to take the means of production. I went through a very bourgeois area where homes cost 1m, and all I see are Biden signs.

>>21032112
it's not in your interest to vote. you could've also walked through a very petty bourgeois rural area where farms cost 2m and you'd have seen a lot of Trump signs

>>21030939
What is this?

>>21029435
4chan is a platform for fascistic idiotic rightoids that support imperialism and opression.

Go on leftypolorg.

>>21032545
Guessing the remains of the biological weapons experiments in Nanking after the Soviets liberated it from Japan. I’ve seen other horrors from that.
This is the kind of thing the US is heavily invested in in Ukraine and Georgia, not to forget Wuhan

He was refuted by history.

>>21030047
Did he solve class warfare or did he just replace class warfare with race warfare?

>>21029670
Identity politics is ultimately subjective idealism.
So what?

>the recognition of the right of the nations oppressed by tsarism to free secession from Russia is absolutely obligatory for Social-Democracy in the interests of its democratic and socialist tasks.

>Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession—such parties would be committing treachery to socialism.

>Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede.

>The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed.

>No democrat, let alone a socialist, will venture to deny the complete legitimacy of the Ukraine’s demands. And no democrat can deny the Ukraine’s right to freely secede from Russia. Only unqualified recognition of this right makes it possible to advocate a free union of the Ukrainians and the Great Russians, a voluntary association of the two peoples in one state. Only unqualified recognition of this right can actually break completely and irrevocably with the accursed tsarist past, when everything was done to bring about a mutual estrangement of the two peoples so close to each other in language, territory, character and history. Accursed tsarism made the Great Russians executioners of the Ukrainian people, and fomented in them a hatred for those who even forbade Ukrainian children to speak and study in their native tongue.

>>21029435
>proto-identity politics
Quote plz

>>21032681
Not really

>>21032681
he's being confirmed by history right now with capitalism showing again that it will never be peaceful and will never be able to consistently feed people
>>21032725
>The gist of this programme is that every citizen registers as belonging to a particular nation, and every nation constitutes a legal entity with the right to impose compulsory taxation on its members, with national parliaments (Diets) and national secretaries of state (ministers).
>Such an idea, applied to the national question, resembles Proudhon’s idea, as applied to capitalism. Not abolishing capitalism and its basis—commodity production—but purging that basis of abuses, of excrescences, and so forth; not abolishing exchange and exchange value, but, on the contrary, making it “constitutional”, universal, absolute, “fair”, and free of fluctuations, crises and abuses—such was Proudhon’s idea.
>Just as Proudhon was petty-bourgeois, and his theory converted exchange and commodity production into an absolute category and exalted them as the acme of perfection, so is the theory and programme of “cultural-national autonomy” petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nationalism into an absolute category, exalts it as the acme of perfection, and purges it of violence, injustice, etc....
>On the boards of joint-stock companies we find capitalists of different nations sitting together in complete harmony. At the factories workers of different nations work side by side. In any really serious and profound political issue sides are taken according to classes, not nations. With drawing school education and the like from state control and placing it under the control of the nations is in effect an attempt to separate from economics, which unites the nations, the most highly, so to speak, ideological sphere of social life, the sphere in which “pure” national culture or the national cultivation of clericalism and chauvinism has the freest play.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/4.htm

>>21032791
>In any really serious and profound political issue sides are taken according to classes, not nations.
Exactly, this is why the Social Democrats refused to vote war credits to Wilhelm II's government and WW1 never happened

>>21032797
no, they didn't refuse, and this precisely because they acted according to the class interest of the petty bourgeois layers they represented
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/vii.htm
>Opportunism means sacrificing the fundamental interests of the masses to the temporary interests of an insignificant minority of the workers or, in other words, an alliance between a section of the workers and the bourgeoisie, directed against the mass of the proletariat. The war has made such an alliance particularly conspicuous and inescapable. Opportunism was engendered in the course of decades by the special features in the period of the development of capitalism, when the comparatively peaceful and cultured life of a stratum of privileged workingmen “bourgeoisified” them, gave them crumbs from the table of their national capitalists, and isolated them from the suffering, misery and revolutionary temper of the impoverished and ruined masses.... To defend and strengthen their privileged position as a petty-bourgeois “upper stratum” or aristocracy (and bureaucracy) of the working class—such is the natural wartime continuation of petty bourgeois opportunist hopes and the corresponding tactics, such is the economic foundation of present-day social imperialism.

>>21032825
>the entire SDP, the greatest and most explicitly communist vanguard party in history, run by proteges and even family members of marx and engels, did the opposite of what marx predicted it would do and exactly what bernstein predicted it would do
>THIS PROVES MARX RIGHT AND REVISIONISTS WRONG
t. rosa / t. irrelevant KPD

>>21030047
> Judaism is the most hypocritical bullshit ever thought of because it cannot exist without grifting off the Aryan system, its literally like cancer taking over the host body slowly thats already sick from niggers.
FTFY

>>21032791
>capitalism showing again that it will never be peaceful and will never be able to consistently feed people

I don’t want to feed niggers. A planet of niggers ruled by a Jewish slave master class should be nuked with zero survivors. What is wrong with you? You don’t even have to be hatefully racist. Niggers = regression to rape dirt. Nobody other than a Jew wants this not even niggers

>>21032926
There is a strange poetry to this post

>>21029599
Oh no no no....and look at that hairline. Why are they always so sexually frustrated?

>>21032926
You are diseased

>>21032545
translates to body of rosa luxembourg found in the city canal of Berlin.

>>21032791
Utopianism is a fantasy. People will never be peaceful nor will everyone be well-fed. Stalin's Soviet Russia failed in these regards even earlier than so-called Capitalism did.

>>21032958
You know he’s right though.

>>21033030
Utopian is fiction , but people can be well fed. Of course the counterrevolutionary government failed to do anything but industrialize. That’s all it set out to do.

>>21033032
No, I know he’s diseased and should be put down to feed the plants. You too?

>>21033042
In a general sense, but not an absolute sense. Believing all people on earth can ever be well-fed is precisely utopian.

>>21032834
>explicitly communist
>acts in bourgeois national interest shared by pb layers instead of the interest of international proletariat
pick one
>>21032926
and yet you're only able to continue your existence because your mom is feeding a mental nigger in her basement
>>21033030
Stalin's Russia was capitalist so it checks out

But how would you address the Spenglerian critique that says the entire Marxist program is just capitalism from below?

>>21033076
why would anybody need to address some "Spenglerian critique". who the fuck cares lmao

>>21033069
Okay. Make your case for how Stalin's Russia was in reality capitalist, and then explain why every Communist state opens up to Capitalism in the end.

>>21033082
Because it's a sound critique. Marxism does appear as just capitalism set upon itself from below.

>>21032791
>>21032825
>he's being confirmed by history right now
But he's not? The classical refutations of Marx by Weber, Nietzsche, Sombart and Bawerk. I'm not sure why you keep spamming irrelevant quotes? Lenin's complete capitulation to NEP, Stalin's retreat to socialism in one country with markets, and the dissolution of the USSR - along with the liberalization of China, North Korea, and Cuba have discredited your beliefs. Socialism, as a theory, simply does not work. The USSR maintained commodity production, private capital ownership (this is explicitly stated in the 1936 Stalinist Constitution) along with plethora of evidence of the mercantile nature of the Soviet economy.

>>21033083
Stalin admits the capitalist nature of the Soviet Union in the Economic Problems of Socialism in 1953 by admitting the law of value operates in the USSR and that the economy is guided by profit. The law of value, as Marx states in Capital I, only exists in countries with generalized commodity production which he considered a trait of capitalism. There's also fact the Soviet maintained wage labor - which can not exist under socialism, according to Marx, because socialism is the abolition of capital ownership by individual proprietorship that gives rise to a class of wage laborers. Marx made it explicitly clear wages (C-M-C) can not exist socialism because it is the abolition of the proletariat as a class.

>>21033083
To continue, every socialist experiment fails because national planning can not be done on a national scale since no nation can be truly self sufficient without hurting the domestic quality of life. On top of that, economic planning fails on its own merits - as pointed out by Weber. Under socialism, because of the need for planning to eliminate the anarchy of the market that causes recessions, there is no price system. Without a price system, producers do not have the information to actually figure out the needs of the population, These leads to chronic shortages of necessary commodities such as food, homes, cars et cetera, and without the mercantile nature of the economy - there's no incentive of process for innovation. Therefore, a country will stagnate economically as demand for a higher quality of life rises. This leads to political instability which can and will cause collapse, or in North Korea's case - a more, and more, unlivable, totalitarian government.

>>21033068
With natural systems restored we can indeed eat well enough. With natural systems restored we can fight off climate change.
We can only have natural systems if we stop the unnatural systems of state-capitalism and it’s centralized whirlpool of death.

It’s achievable, this shade of utopian is perhaps too dappled for you, but I’ll take it.

Marx says the law of value and wage labor exists countries that are capitalist in Capital Volume I
>"Apart from these contradictions, a direct exchange of money, i.e., of realized labour, with living
labour would either do away with the law of value which only begins to develop itself freely on
the basis of capitalist production, or do away with capitalist production itself, which rests directly
on wage-labour."
Stalin, The Economic Problems of Socialism 1953, says
>"It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists, and operates in our country, under the socialist system. Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist."
He also says wage labor exists in the USSR
>"It is likewise necessary that housing conditions should be radically improved, and that real wages and salaries should be at least doubled."
Stalin's own statements would indicate the capitalist mode of production existed in the USSR. Therefore, you can argue, using Marx's own definition of capitalism, USSR did not achieve socialism. Nor did Marx say socialism would be achievable in a single country. He explitically says the opposite, contradicting the theory of "socialism in one country."
>" Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?"
>"No... It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range. "
There's also statements made by Stalin in the Agrarian Question, an article he wrote in 1906 that stipulated that commodity production could not exist under socialism.
>"Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. Introducing socialism means abolishing commodity production, abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its foundations and socialising all the means of production. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will come on to the market any day, and the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. That is exactly why it is said that the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois socialism."
So again, using Stalin's own words, and just ignoring all the physical you can find Soviet newspapers of corporations operating in the USSR like Pepsi and Ford... there isn't a good argument for the USSR being socialist according Marx's own theories.

>>21033083
it was capitalist politically because its foreign policy at every step aimed at establishing Russian state power internationally with the use and to the detriment of workers movements in other countries as well as the International, rather than using the Russian state to further the international revolutionary proletarian movement.
it was capitalist economically because its agricultural production was based on private co-operative enterprises and family plots that both produced for the market, and the policy of the state which owned industry was the accumulation of capital in that industry on the backs of proletarians who performed wage labour to receive money that they used to buy the commodities produced in the agricultural sector. the purpose of this accumulation was the state asserting itself in capitalist competition with the West.
the only communist states that opened up to capitalism were those where the proletariat lost power as a part of the defeat of the 1917-1927 revolution, or the USSR which, ruined after the civil war and lacking of access to developed Western productive forces, had no way of skipping over capitalism.
>>21033086
no, Marxism and capitalism aren't even the same category of things, so equating them is incoherent in the first place
>>21033109
>Lenin's complete capitulation to NEP, Stalin's retreat to socialism in one country with markets, and the dissolution of the USSR - along with the liberalization of China, North Korea, and Cuba have discredited your beliefs
no, they're all easily explained by Marxism. rather than discrediting it, they confirm that Marxism can explain what happens in the world
>The USSR maintained commodity production, private capital ownership (this is explicitly stated in the 1936 Stalinist Constitution) along with plethora of evidence of the mercantile nature of the Soviet economy.
true
>>21033134
>Without a price system, producers do not have the information to actually figure out the needs of the population
why not?
>and without the mercantile nature of the economy - there's no incentive of process for innovation
sure there is. innovation lets people do more useful and interesting things with less effort. not to mention that the process of innovating is interesting and rewarding in itself
>or in North Korea's case - a more, and more, unlivable, totalitarian government.
North Korea's economy is mercantile though. https://www.nknews.org/2022/04/how-women-run-the-small-business-world-inside-north-korea/ etc

>>21029435
He also singlehandedly destroyed Russia

>>21033204
I did not describe marxism and capitalism as in the same category and you failed to answer the question, which tells me you actually agree but won't admit it.

Basically, for socialism to exist, the law of value, the individual ownership of capital that gives rise to generalized commodity production, therefore wage labor i.g. proletarians, has to be abolished in entirely. You have plan the economy on an international scale - in a way that eliminates petite bourgeois ownership of capital, and plan capital for needs of human community instead of exchange i.g. capital accumulation.

>>21033204
>no, they're all easily explained by Marxism.
Absolutely not. NEP was a retreat to capitalism. It can only be explained through failures of economic planning as Weber pointed out.
>why not?
Because, as Marx says, to eliminate the crises of capitalism, the anarchy of the market, in which petite-bourgeois producers accumulate commodities at expense of immiseration of the proletariat. Instead of production being planned to meet human needs, production is unplanned, is done in a way to suit the needs of the bourgeois instead of the proletariat. In Marx's theory, proletarians, because of the mercantile, unplanned nature of the economy, work longer and harder than they need to to create enormous wealth a small class of property owners who rights are protect by capitalist state at their expense of their livelihood.
>sure there is. innovation
This isn't, considering because there is no mechanism for competition under socialism. Co-operation, due to planning, replaces the competitive nature of capitalism that drives innovation in the first place.
>North Korea's economy is mercantile
The majority of North Korea's economy is planned, and that's why its totalitarian. Its the legacy of Stalinist planning that puts national security at the expense of its citizens. That isn't going to go away even as North Korea's economy slowly liberalizes. Economic liberalization, at certain point, will de-couple from political changes, which pretty much refutes Marx's historical materialism thesis. Culture will not necessarily be changed by economic liberalization if its been ingrained for so long.

I'm pretty right-wing but I admire Lenin deeply, because he actually backed up his bullshit and changed the course of history. It's easy to be a bloodless academic, writing and tweeting about your cute little ideas and theories. It's a lot harder to actually wade into the course of events and try to change things.

Lenin tried, and he didn't just try. He succeeded. He's one of the Great Men of History, all the way up there with Caesar and Napoleon.

>>21033282
He didn't succeed? He failed. His goal was world socialism. Piłsudski's bravery stopped him dead in his tracks, and prevented the final victory of socialism forever. Lenin, and his successors retreated to capitalism in one country. With the collapse of the USSR, Lenin has no legacy, and his dreams of a one world government is over. There's no reason to admire a failure like him; especially when his terrible ideas ruined a powerful empire with totalitarianism and permanently stunned the growth of Eastern Europe. He, along with Stalin, are the responsible for modern Russia's problems. Putin is wrong a lot of things, but it he is right - Lenin ruined everything.
If you're going to worship people, you should worship Christ, Epaminondas, Cato - those were great men because their ideas made the world a better place. Unlike Lenin.

>>21033109
>liberalization of North Korea
You're being retarded on purpose?

>>21033315
>Lenin has no legacy
There are whole ass countries, one a superpower, that call themselves marxist-leninists anon

>>21033340
Piłsudski, Bandera, Mannerheim and Ebert are great men. There was nothing great about Lenin - which is empire and legacy is the ashes under his casket in Moscow.

>>21033323
Are you retarded? Well you are a leftist. North Korea abandoned communism, and is constantly privatizing their economy with SEZs. Its a complete shit hole that prevents people from escaping like East Germany. The remaining socialist countries are shit holes compared to their capitalist counterparts in Western Europe.

>>21030047
Based

>>21033323
>He doesn't know DPRK has been liberalizing for over a decade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_economic_reform
Lmao, communists are so stupid. You don't know anything about the world, do you? How are you people so fucking stupid? You don't even know basic shit about the places you support.

>>21033353
Cope is unbecoming anon

>>21033382
The USSR is gone. There's nothing to cope about. You lost. Poland, Germany, and Ukraine are independent countries. The only people coping are communists since they still have to pay rent and be wage slaves.

>>21032687
No he did not. You are a retarded jew truster. It wasn’t even about race you lying jew. It was about a homeland for the Germanic peoples outside the influence of Jewish and banking Globohomoists. Hitler is demonized because of how great his idea is for ALL peoples. He didn’t even hates Jews as much as he wanted the degenerate narcissists out of his country.

>>21032926
This is true, only a Jew or Jewish mind slave could disagree.

>>21033382
China liberalized, moved away towards collectivization under Mao to stock markets and private party.
Cuba is liberalizing, allow fag marriage and private property.
Vietnam, same as China. while being a US ally.
North Korea removed communism from their Constitution, and is slowly liberalizing their economy. Kim Jung has signaled he wants to join the World Bank.
The Warsaw Pact completely collapsed. The USSR completely collapsed. The revolutions of 1989 succeed. NATO is the most powerful military alliance in the world.
Chile rejected a socialist constitution last month overwhelmingly.
The world is still capitalist. Socialists have no political capital, and will live under system they can never change.
Taiwan is still a country.
Lenin lost. Stalin lost. Capitalism won. You will never own the means of production. You will die under capitalism.

>>21033362
>>21033372
Ohh, so you are just retarded enough to think all forms of capitalism are liberal by nature, got it. It's funny how idiots who pretend to think they're btfoing communism always, ALWAYS don't even know what capitalism even is.

>>21033402
anon you rattled off some literally who generals and politicians that no one outside of a few discord larp servers know about and you still feel like what you're doing isn't a cope?

>>21030032
he says this while posting stepan bandera

kill yourself

>>21033426
>>21029435
There's nothing more to say. You're just completely delusional. The Soviet Union, China all failed at abolishing capitalism and most socialist countries no longer exist. Capital ownership, wage labor, markets - all the metrics of capitalist production will regime supreme until the day you die. It doesn't matter how many arguments you have on /lit/ - you're not going to change the reality on the ground. Keep being retarded. Ultimately, nobody cares what you believe, and you will never have any political power. Ever.

>>21033426
>He's so historically illiterate he doesn't know who Piłsudski and Mannerheim are
>He thinks Pilsudki and Mannerheim are literal whos
Holy shit, communists really are uneducated and low IQ. I really hope your trolling or you're brain-damaged.

>>21033282
lenin is world-historical but definitely a monomanic psychopath as well, he's in the hitler tier of ambivalently powerful idealist who would kill a billion people because he knows he's right

>>21033426
>i need to convince them i'm not clueless in this conversation
>i know. i'll show a basic lack of awareness of relevant major historical figures
good move

>A communist who doesn't know who Cato, Piłsudski and Mannheim and thinks they are literal whos
I'm never shocked at how stupid the average leftypol tranny is. I ask a fascist who these people are - they know them everything about them. These the same trannies trying to convince you they understand history and economics when they don't grasp basic fucking European history.

>>21029435
He was a jew. So fuck him.

>>21029632
Murder of all opposition?

>>21029595
get baited faggot

>>21033426
Xi is literally being couped as we speak
LMAO
https://nitter.poast.org/wanjunxie/status/1573120530131075080?s=20

>>21029435
What books should I read from him?

>>21033615

>>21033259
>Absolutely not. NEP was a retreat to capitalism. It can only be explained through failures of economic planning
no, it's easily explained by the level of productive forces of an isolated, backwards Russia ruined by two wars. it's very clear from what Marx wrote that an economy of small peasants is below the level of a proper capitalist economy, and that it's a proper capitalist economy that creates the technical conditions for socialist production. that little is enough to understand why an isolated Russia was doomed to develop capitalist production at the time.
>Because, as Marx says,
this had nothing to do with what I asked about. again, why wouldn't the producers have the information to figure out their own needs without a price system?
>The majority of North Korea's economy is planned
planned for the Chinese market

>>21033615
State and Revolution
Left-Wing Communism
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
join an organization and read What is to be Done after those

>>21033086
>Marxism does appear as just capitalism set upon itself from below.

other than that, mrs lincoln, how did you like the play

>>21033615
Nothing, because he was a fucking idiot and the people recommending him are just pseuds.

>>21033803
>no, it's easily explained by the level of productive forces of an isolated,
No? Its easily explained economic planning fails. Productive forces had nothing do with it as Marx himself said communism possible in Russia through the Russian communal network of mirs in the Manifesto. The Manifesto literally says we have productive forces for communism now. You clearly don't read Marx.
>this had nothing to do with what I asked about. again,
Because you won't have information to know what people need or what needs to be produced. This is basic economics.
>planned for the Chinese market
Xi himself explicitly says they will never return to a planned economy. You should stop with the uneducated takes. You come off as stupid.

>>21033848

>join an organization

Marxist-Leninist organisations are even more of a LARP than Fascist groups.

>no, it's easily explained by the level of productive forces of an isolated...
Yeah, this how you know someone hasn't read Marx. Lets what read Marx said about Russia in the Manifesto:
>"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."
Again, Marx already thought communism possible in Russia the moment he wrote the Manifesto. He literally did finish Capital IV because he spent his time investigating this. The idea of using the Russian mir, communes, was popular with the rural socialist parties such as Socialist Revolutionaries - who Lenin betrayed with his coup.
MLs need to stop being retarded, and stop acting like they understand Marxism. You really don't understand Marx or his beliefs. Even basic socialist history.

The whole productive forces thesis has nothing do with Marx, and is Dengist non-sense. Mao Zedong, as much as an idiot as he was, showed that common ownership was even possible in conditions worse than the Soviet Union with the Peoples' Communes and collectives. The problem with Russia was its revisionist leadership coupled with their inability to see the stupidity of their ideas. They should have just continued NEP and used Meiji's model of development. Instead, they went with Stalin's retardation and ruining any legitimacy communism had after the revolution.

Typically speaking, Maoists have a better grasp of communist theory, and history than MLs who just larpers and opportunists, but they're still kinda dumb and crazy.

>>21033485
t. never EVER read marx
>>21033489
>>21033512
irrelevant therefore don't care
>>21033580
ok johnson

>>21029435
>This man singlehandedly destroyed every argument from
How? That's easy, he just killed all of them, and they became unable to make arguments due to being dead.

There are two communism implementations, German implementation and British implementation.
German implementation:
>words words words words words words words words words words and this is why prophet Marx is infallible and communism is universal truth
British implementation:
>Marx is infallible
>Communism is universal truth
>Hey you, did you just doubted word of holy prophet Marx?
>Oops, looks like your head fell off
>Oops, your whole family ended up in slave labor camp
>What an unfortunate incident
>Anyway, Marx is infallible...

As you know, communism cannot function as stable system on German implementation. Every single instance of communism known to history was using British one. You cannot bullshit even most retarded man alive forever.

>>21033529
He was not a jew.
In biological sense, he was quite a homunculus. Quarter Russian, quarter Siberian gook, half swede, with possibility of minor admixture from who knows what else. Even if he had some jewish blood, its amount was insignificant.
In cultural sense, he was raised almost exclusively by family of his mother, and influence of father on him was insignificant. And therefore, he was nothing else, but right proper swede.

>>21034078
>who the fuck is FDR?
>Uhh you don't know who FDR is..?
>irrelevant. the USSR defeated the united states in ww3
smartest discord tranny

>>21034145
>coping with irrelevancy

>>21029435
Some science minded people ought to conduct a study about how healthy and good it is for your brain to read Lenin. Also it should be the real Lenin where he's roasting suckers and not some placebo Lenin texts that don't do anything.

Also no trolling like slipping in some Bernie Sanders articles but with the name crossed out for "Lenin" hastily scribbled in to confuse the kiddos into thinking imperialism is good.

>>21034411
That Pynchon?

>>21034418
No it's Pavel Peretz, a Russian satirist YouTuber. Also the straw hut is a recreation of a hut on the original site where it stood and where Lenin hid out in during a brief period after the February Revolution when the provisional government ordered his arrest. That's where he wrote "State and Revolution."

Real book facts.

https://youtu.be/q3H0rJey4bQ

>>21034015
>Marxist-Leninist organisations are even more of a LARP than Fascist groups.
I think the real thing is to just be normal but have an annual LARP day where you gather together in a park while wearing your favorite historical costumes and point at each other going "YOU are going to the gulag! And YOU are going to the gulag, too!" It's like the Lord of Misrule thing that the Catholics used to do in the Middle Ages where they'd run around the castle in costumes and declare a random guy to be the Pope for the day.

>>21029435
>Every living anarchist today refutes him on point one.
I was actually going to ignore the thing on Anarchism but you literally just made me rethink it and admit that yeah, okay Lenin was right about Anarchists too.

Like really nigger, "Anarchists" today are the shock troops of gigantic totalitarian states. They come out and riot in highly curated areas until the powers that be get what they want, then poof, they vanish.

"every living anarchist today" is proof that the entire ideology has been buckbroken SO hard that they don't even know what revolutionary behavior is anymore.

>>21033409
If you can point to any reading proving any of it, that would be good.

>>21034474
>Like really nigger, "Anarchists" today are the shock troops of gigantic totalitarian states. They come out and riot in highly curated areas until the powers that be get what they want, then poof, they vanish.
"Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook." -- Lenin

Among other things he noticed:

+ Produces nothing but platitudes against exploitation without understanding the causes.
+ Negation of the unifying and organizing power of the authority.
+ Product of despair, the psychology of the unsettled intellectual or vagabond.
+ Failure to understand class struggle.
+ Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society and the role of organization and education of workers.
+ No doctrine, revolutionary teaching or theory leading to the fragmentation of the working-class movement, leading to complete fiascos, and subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

I think he was right.

I think the main thing nowadays is the level of organization anarchists are comfortable with (not much) means that they don't lead anything, and in the main act as a parasite on other movements. I was reading a long article about the Ukrainian left for example during Maidan and right after, and it went into how the left in that country split over it, with the anarchist-minded types going in with it, but playing a relatively minor role of basically just showing up and joining in while the actual, organized and effective forces (that also turned that into something more organized afterwards) were far-right nationalist groups (the real shock troops in this situation) who were smashing Lenin statues and burning trade unionists alive as the communists were mounting desperate defenses in some of the eastern cities before fleeing to Russia or Donbass. Pretty bad situation.

>>21033315
Ruined a powerful empire HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bitch emperial russia was a backwards feudal country full of peasant slaves. Russians have to think god for what he did. Imagine in 1920 you are an illiterate hungry peasant and 40 years later you are living in a world power full industrialized eating better than the average american and sending men to space. Its crazy to see that every communist country just explodes its quality of life in a few decades meanwhile theres centenary backwards capitalist countries that will never improve

Seriously? You gonna let this trotskyist retard badmouth stalin and be silent? Tsc tsc tsc

>>21034552
>Imagine in 1920 you are an illiterate hungry peasant and 40 years later you are living in a world power full industrialized eating better than the average american and sending men to space.
Pretty much and it's hard for people living now to imagine the transition from ass-backwards feudalism to an atomic-powered society when all of that stuff was brand new and with ordinary working people being treated as the heroes who get medals too for once. I think Putin is a reactionary in some ways but there's a reason why Lenin's tomb is still on Red Square even if some of the people around him might want to get rid of it. There are a lot of people in Russia who would flip out and it'd be a problem. The attempts starting in the 90s to shock the country backwards runs up against the problem that the revolution irreversibly propelled it forward.

Also an interesting book by a historian who is revising the history of Barbarossa in 1941. It was a complete shitshow of course with Soviet divisions getting lost and running out of gas and getting destroyed but it complicates the German side the story too, since it was also a shitshow, and it turned out that the Communist Party was actually quite popular (gee really) in many places the Germans were overrunning, so people were burning their villages and heading east, denying the Germans propaganda victories (troops marching into a burning village doesn't exactly make for good visuals), and the fact was that Soviet communism proved a better vehicle at mobilizing the population for a long-term war than national socialism was for Germany.

>>21034411
>Some science minded people ought to conduct a study about how healthy and good it is for your brain to read Lenin. Also it should be the real Lenin where he's roasting suckers and not some placebo Lenin texts that don't do anything.
The most based thing I've read on here

>>21034015
If you read Lenin and join a Stalinist ML group you are doing it wrong

>>21034130
you need some dialectics son

>>21034856
Thanks. You know another thing Lenin said is to never play with insurrection. But once you go for it, you've gotta go all the way and see it through to the end because your enemy will have no mercy. That was another thing that distinguished his approach from the anarchists. Lenin and his guys were cool as cucumbers until they were ready.

There's another Pavel Peretz video where he's in a group of communists who ransack a petty-bourgeois hipster bar somewhere in Russia and put everyone against the wall. Thing is, he's eventually betrayed by the attractive woman with the Gorky shirt who he falls in love with while preparing to execute her. Which is probably a warning to beware teacherous petit-bourgeois dilettantes who use communist icons as a fashionable thing. Also probably the reality of irreconcilable class struggle. Or maybe that his group of three ultra-leftists who were pulling out the guns and putting the hipsters up against the wall were engaging in some petty-bourgeois adventurism of their own.

https://youtu.be/F5F5Q9FbNt8

>If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.
>Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.

>>21030047
The reason why we still see traces of Nazism/Fascism is precisely because they were never truly refuted ideologically, they were only destroyed by force in a war.

>>21030047
Then why did he lose?

>>21033978
>No? Its easily explained economic planning fails.
no, you can't magically create the technical basis for socialist production with planning. the reason was not failed planning but the fact that Russia hadn't undergone capitalism and was an economy dominated by tiny peasant plots that barely produced any surplus product.

>as Marx himself said communism possible in Russia through the Russian communal network of mirs in the Manifesto
this is what he actually said there:
>If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian REVOLUTION IN THE WEST, so that both COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as THE STARTING POINT for a communist development.
so communist production not "possible through the mirs", but they could've been a STARTING POINT for its development ON THE CONDITION that the revolution in the West would complement it (BY PROVIDING DEVELOPED PRODUCTIVE FORCES)
read your sources properly next time before bringing them up, because when you don't, you come off as illiterate

>The Manifesto literally says we have productive forces for communism now.
in Western Europe combined, not in Russia. besides, there's a difference in the level necessary when you're the most advanced group of countries at a given point and the revolution vs when you're lagging behind like Russia was and you're isolated, because revolutionary war also means armed struggle with the bourgeois reaction from all over the world, and that requires capacities to match.

>Because you won't have information to know what people need or what needs to be produced.
I asked "why wouldn't they have the information" and your answer is "because they won't have the information". lmao
>This is basic economics.
I agree, economics is indeed built of tautologies

>Xi himself explicitly says they will never return to a planned economy
you can't even follow the conversation. I was talking about North Korea, which is mercantile not just because it has non-state business, but also because it has state businesses producing commodities to serve as cheap inputs for Chinese capital

>>21034047
>The whole productive forces thesis has nothing do with Marx
Marx:
>No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

>Mao Zedong showed that common ownership was even possible in conditions worse than the Soviet Union with the Peoples' Communes and collectives
nobody said it wasn't. common ownership is possible even in primitive communism

>>21035384
when you're the most advanced group of countries at a given point and the revolution is spreading broadly*

>>21029435
Sectarianism is anti praxis. Build with your fellow workers.

There are no great men or ideas in this civilization. Everything goes wrong. Nothing is heroic.

>>21034552
>Imagine in 1920 you are an illiterate hungry peasant and 40 years later you are living in an unmarked mass-grave because you didn't want to give all your food to some terrorist and they shelled you with chemical weapons

>>21029435
This man singlehandedly destroyed socialism by introducing NEP after realizing that economy cannot be rebuilt by the state and needs private enterprise

>>21029435
>This man singlehandedly destroyed Russia like a good jew.
Look at Russia today compare it to pre revolution
>Depressing shithole
Check
>Country filled with alchoholics and drug addicts and aids
check
>Still 40 years behind the west in everything from industry to basic infrastructure.
Check.
Its laughable that subhuman commies actually worship this kike who died of an std he caught after fucking a whore like a common incel. One more thing, u will never be a real woman faggots.

>>21034454
>they'd run around the castle in costumes and declare a random guy to be the Pope for the day.
I am now envisioning a Monty Pythonesque scene where a mob ambushes some hapless stranger who just wandered in.
Menacing Mob: Congratulations! You are now our very own pope Marx the First.
Most direct decedent of Diogenes: Nooo! I don't wanna be a pope!
Menacing Mob: Yes you do. GET BACK HERE! GET HIM!
Etc...

>>21035903
executing the only thing possible in given circumstances is a weird definition of "singlehandedly", but I guess this doesn't bother great man theorists, since this is the same error they repeat constantly

>>21035971
>the only thing possible to repair economy after a civil war is private enterprise and not state intervention
>this is not a proof that socialism is poorly functioning system
Ok.

>>21035991
there was abundant state intervention. the NEP itself was a state policy. and state activity within capitalist economy doesn't prove or disprove anything with regards to the functioning of a socialist economy

>>21033219
based

>>21035384
>no, you can't magically create the technical basis for socialist production
But this is completely wrong. Marx was explicitly clear communism was possible in Russia. He says this multiple times with his letters with Vera Zasulich
>"Either the rural commune, freed of exorbitant tax demands, payment to the nobility and arbitrary administration, is capable of developing in a socialist direction, that is, gradually organising its production and distribution on a collectivist basis. In that case, the revolutionary socialist must devote all his strength to the liberation and development of the commune."
Again, you continue to prove you've never Read Marx or understand his theories. You are completely illiterate. He says the communes are primeval - they don't require development. They never really did. You are a fucking moron and you should stop. He doesn't say the revolution in the West needs to be successful for Russia's communist development. HE SAYS, retard, that it would complement it if it did. Complement means it would nice if it did, but the means of communism had already existed in Russia according Marx's own analysis.
Again, stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You're Dengist retard. North Korea and China's communist revolutions failed - their mercantile nature proves that. National planning does not work, and nor did the primitive communal arrangements have much success as many rural communes failed just as much as Owenite experiments in Western Europe. Planning leads to shortages due to a lack of information for producers, and communes decrease productivity because they no incentives for production besides weak moral ones - which is largely the most productive communes in West were always Christian and never atheist.

>>21036006
It does? NEP was the ultimate proof that a socialist economy is impossible. Socialism is a planned economy. NEP was the introduction of capitalism, the market of anarchy, in the Soviet Union. Its admittance that capitalism creates wealth and socialism doesn't.

Did Marx, Lenin, or any other Communists comment on how inflation causes de-industrialization?

>>21035384
>I asked "why wouldn't they have the information" and your answer is "because they won't have the information". lmao
Yeah, you're proving you're retarded. The problem is producers without price signals - not don't have the information to know what's produced. I'm starting think you're illiterate - why you think USSR had constant food shortages? Because factory managers would produce tanks instead of bread. There was no way for markets to figure out the demands and needs of the population since the Soviet government decided what people could have through rationing and state planning. Again, you are a stupid person. You probably are the stupidest Marxist I've talked to in a while. Did you come here recently?

>>21037755
Communists don't believe in supply and demand so they don't have a theory for inflation. Marx explicitly rejected the law supply and demand as bourgeois apologia.

>>21035384
You have to special ed. In the Soviet Union, because of planning, entrepreneurship was limited to what the stay allocated for production through their national plan. In a normal, capitalist economy - farmers can sell oranges in a store. In the Soviet Union, Farmers wouldn't be allowed to do that. State farms, ruled by party bureaucrats, would produce food based on their expectations of demand. There was no way for normal people to develop ways to solve problems societal failed without persecution by the government. Famously, retard, cybernetic planning in the USSR failed for the very same reasons. National planning rejected competition, and innovation, as it made the party fear a possible usurpation of their power. Why do you think China bans Paul Cockshott's bocks, dummy? Its always been the case.

>>21037749
>Marx was explicitly clear communism was possible in Russia.
"on the condition that the revolution in the West would complement [the Russian Revolution]", as Marx and Engels clarified in the preface to the Manifesto a year after Marx's letter to Zasulich
>You are completely illiterate.
you're the one explicitly ignoring what Marx wrote in the text you brought up yourself

>He says the communes are primeval - they don't require development.
they need productive forces developed by capitalism in the West
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-2.htm
>If Russia were isolated in the world, it would have to develop on its own account the economic conquests which Western Europe only acquired through a long series of evolutions from its primitive communities to the present situation. There would then be no doubt whatsoever, at least in my mind, that Russia’s communities are fated to perish with the development of Russian society.
calling me illiterate is an IMAX level projection on your part, when every source you bring up explicitly contradicts what you're saying

>He doesn't say the revolution in the West needs to be successful for Russia's communist development. HE SAYS, retard, that it would complement it if it did.
no, he literally says that "the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point of communist development" "***IF*** the Russian Rev. becomes the signal for a proletarian rev. in the West". I don't know how low on the IQ scale do you have to descend to have problems with comprehending the most basic if-then conditional

>but the means of communism had already existed in Russia according Marx's own analysis.
then why did he write:
>If Russia were isolated in the world, it would have to develop on its own account the economic conquests which Western Europe only acquired through a long series of evolutions from its primitive communities
? why would it have to develop them, killing Russia’s communities in the process, if it already had them? read the texts you referred to in full before you reply again.

>You're Dengist retard.
I'm not a Dengist you moron
>North Korea and China's communist revolutions failed
North Korea never had one, and China's failed in 1927, if you could even say it properly took place

>>21037754
>NEP was the ultimate proof that a socialist economy is impossible.
it was proof that it was impossible to leap to socialist economy from a practically precapitalist economy, isolated and ruined by almost a decade of war. but nobody who's not borderline braindead needs a proof to know that.
>Its admittance that capitalism creates wealth and socialism doesn't.
no, it's admittance that capitalism, not socialism, develops productive forces from a precapitalist basis. which is 101 of Marxism

>>21037775
>don't have the information to know what's produced
why not?
>why you think USSR had constant food shortages
because their agriculture was stuck in a primitive form, because the government's main concern was staying on the good side of the peasants on whose support the regime rested
>Because factory managers would produce tanks instead of bread. There was no way for markets to figure out the demands and needs of the population
this is kindergarten level logic. the problem wasn't that nobody realized that they should produce more food. the problem was that the parceled state of agriculture and the shortage of capital for mechanization prevented the production of enough food to facilitate accumulation on a pace required to catch up and compete with the West
>>21037785
>Communists don't believe in supply and demand so they don't have a theory for inflation. Marx explicitly rejected the law supply and demand as bourgeois apologia.
nice fanfic retard
Marx "explicitly rejecting law of supply and demand":
>By what is the price of a commodity determined? By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
Marxists "not having a theory of inflation":
https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/kommunistisches-programm-inflation-or-capitals-flight-forward/

>>21037802
>In the Soviet Union, because of planning, entrepreneurship was limited to what the stay allocated for production through their national plan
No it wasn't, agricultural enterprises and private plots notoriously produced whatever brought them the highest profit on the kolkhoz market.
>In a normal, capitalist economy - farmers can sell oranges in a store. In the Soviet Union, Farmers wouldn't be allowed to do that.
lmao
>The kolknoz market is in essence a free market to which agricultural producers bring food products for sale to individual private customers at prices determined by local supply and demand conditions
https://doi.org/10.1080/09668135608410028
now fuck off to do basic research instead making a laughing stock out of yourself and wasting my time

>>21037755
the development of the world market and all that it entails (improved communication, transport, etc.) is what causes "de-industrialization", i.e. shifting industrial production from one place to another where labour is sufficiently cheaper

>>21038090
Communism lost, buddy. Your futile attempts at argumentation change nothing. You green-text spam every time you lose the argument. Get better at this.

>>21038090
>>21038074
This tranny just spams all the time. You BTFO'd here all the time too. Nobody cares what you think, faggot. You're not getting anymore replies. You've already been owned here multiple people go. Back to Discord, tranny.

>>21038074
>on the condition that the revolution in the West would complement [the Russian Revolution]"
Incorrect, Engels had already stipulated in the 1840s that communism was practiced in Engel by the utopian Owenite communes. And Marx is explicitly saying the Russian communes are example of communism. You're just wrong, and you're just doubling down instead of ceding this point because you're embarrassed to admit you're wrong. But this all irrelevant. Pretty much every communist revolution of the last 100 years have failed. Your theories clearly have no empirical backing. I'm not sure you bother gish-galloping - it doesn't work. Your arguments are ridiculous, and it tiresome to talk to a retard, like yourself, for months while shooting down every argument you make. You are just autistic. You literally spend more time on /lit/ arguing with people about communism instead getting a job, a life, or actually pursuing communism as a political reality. You are a pathetic pseud and larper. I would not be surprised if kiwifarms had a thread on you.

>>21038446
Yea the greentext tranny ruins every thread he's in

>>21038074
Communism had already existed in Russia prior to the Russian Revolution -as Marx indicates with Vera Zasulich - the Russian Obshchina was an example of communism - communal ownership of property. The idea communism wasn't possible in Russia do to "productive forces" is not true if communism already existed in Russia in feudal conditions. You are pretty dumb, and I don't even think you've read the letters. Stop being illiterate. Communism failed in Russia because it clear such arrangements were not more productive than taylorist methods of Western capitalism that Lenin explicitly adopted after abandoning worker ownership and banning the Workers' Opposition. Again, he further concedes the failure of communism by continuing NEP, Its even more ridiculous - a retard like you would have believe that even at least the 1960s, 1970s the USSR did not have ability to transition into communism even though it had existed in feudal Russia prior to that - you fucking idiot. Jesus Christ, you are stupidest Marxist on /lit/.

>>21038113
Not just that. The social circumstances of being have to allow it.

Manufacturing capital shifted to a semi-imperial former great power with a ready made hyper disciplined class willing to accept hyperfordism at the same moment western unions stopped fighting.

So it is not just the maturity in forces of production but productive relations.

>>21038467
He's a complete fucking idiot and spamming. I guarantee he's from /r/leftcommunism or ChapoTrapHouse. Biggest faggot.

>>21038090
>>21038074
>Lenin adopts NEP
>USSR industrializes recovers from World War II decades later
>Is a world superpower
>But still can't not transition into communism even though feudal peasants could do it
The productive forces are argument is just pushing the goalposts, and your "not real communism!" arguments are no true scotsman fallacies. You keep using the fallacies, and you wonder why you constantly get shot down here.

>>21038074
>>21038090
You don't even realize how ridiculous your argument is. You don't have any empirical criteria that could prove what amount of productive forces could make communism possible. It makes your arguments completely un-falsifiable - complete non-sense. You don't even defend this argument - you gish-gallop to the next point every time you're corned on this. NEP just Lenin admitting communism was not a feasible program for improving the lives of Soviet citizens, and his successors, like Stalin, caused a famine trying to communize the country side only to retard to private ownership. This happened pretty every where the communists tried to collectivize property. Your ideas have been tried, and have failed every single time. Communism doesn't work. Never will.

>>21038113
But the moving production is capital-intensive production. It seems obvious that inflation will drive up operating costs and send producers where low labor costs can make up for it.

>>21029435
Yeah but even he had to admit the capitalists had a point.

>>21038090
>Marx "explicitly rejecting law of supply and demand":
Nice, this is another thing I've noticed with you. You don't actually read what you're posting. Marx is not saying the law of supply and demand is a fact of life. He is arguing it is a unique phenomena to capitalism, the anarchy of the market, and that this what causes wasteful production. The problem with Marx's argument here, retard, he purposing that such problems could away with scientific and planned production. That's ridiculous. You can not get rid of the fluctuation of commodities by just replacing the price system - goods are still limited by scarcity. There will still be fluctuations in quantities of commodities, which prices represent, as a factor of discrete information. You lack critical thinking skills, and only post quotes without analyzing what they mean in practice.

>>21038594
Hence he was a counterrevolutionary and a bourgeois traitor. Hence it wasn't ever communism.

Really can't believe its been 7 years. For 7 years twitter left communists have been spamming that shitty Bordigist wordpress libgcro whatever by literal whos on Russia. And the Marxist trannies are still at it. You're still retarded. Nobody gives a shit about Bordiga's analyse of the USSR. In fact, no one gives a shit in general about what happened either because its gone, and people have moved on to more relevant problems. Your autistic, pseudo-intellectual debates on the nature of USSR is of no value.

For future reference - if you don't know what's going on. The guy who's spamming the green text every time there a Marxism thread is a Bordigist from twitter and /r/leftcommunism. They've been doing this sperglord shit for years. Bordigsts are essentially dogmatic followers of Lenin, and their interpretation of Lenin is religious. Their arguments are not based on facts. Bordiga would accuse his opponents of being falsifiers, modernizers etc because they weren't as autistic as him when came towards communism. The guy was just insane. He was a Marxist who supported Mussolini because he thought he would bring about the revolutionary conditions for communism. He was known for his intransigence - his inability to compromise; which is why he fell out of favor and his current group of followers are nothing more than a racket of cultists who populate the internet.

To realize how crazy Bordiga was - his theory of in-variance stipulated that the Communist Manifesto of 1848 was immutable, and that no revisions of Marx past 1848 matter. To him, Marxism was a complete ideology by the time of his death. Because of this, he developed his anti-democratic streak - rejecting any variance or concessions to create coalitions with like minded people. To him communism would be the rejection of democracy since communism was Marxism or nothing. Some how, the party would organically develop around the communist program - just cultish non-sense. Funny enough, he would still use democratic centralism to make party decisions while rejecting democracy in his writings. Ignoring the inconsistency here - Bordiga's party has split dozens of times because every Bordigist retard has their own special snowflake interpretation of Marx and him. You have autism and slap-fights between left communists over pedantry too which becomes hilarious because they're all lolcows.

>>21038614
>>21038810
>>21038840
>>21038916
stop longposting

To make things clear, the left-communist green text spamming tranny has to constantly argue the USSR was not socialist, did not attempt communism because he uses the theory of invariance to cultishly argue that Marxism can not be falsified. He's never going to acknowledge he's wrong because his beliefs are mere faith, and he refuses to counter the evidence against him. He's just going post-rationalize the failures of the USSR, and the philosophical contradictions of Marx's law of value (Böhm-Bawerk), historical materialism (Weber and Sombart), and the empirical refutations of Marx's theory of immiseration and TPRF by pretty every mainstream economic journal from Oxford to Harvard. You can be a pseud, quote spamming tranny on /lit/, but in the real world, your claims and your arguments do not hold up to any academic or intellectual scrutiny.
I know you're going post again, spam again with non-sense, I don't care. I'm not going waste time with a moron who probably only got into left-communism because you read Bordiga on wikiepedia and some fucking brain-dead posts by DrMarx or RedTrannyTerror. Your combative style of argumentation, your faggotry, is not going to make up for inability to make sound arguments. It might impress your tranny friends on Discord and twitter - but no else outside of your online echo-chambers gives a fuck about left-communism or you.

all i know is that i would enjoy killing bolshies in minecraft lol

>>21038953
stop schlongposting or YWNBAW

>>21038953
Ppl need to be aware of this tranny and his tactics. Might as well make long posts, and let the retard respond like he always does so we can just auto sage or kill the thread. If he wants to make so that no one can discuss Marx on /lit/ - fine by me.

Bro Marx can't be wrong! So what if he never worked a day in his life, and lived off his wife's aristocratic background and mooched off Engels while blowing his money in the stock market. So what if he was never trained in economics or held government off? So what if he had no real world experience with managing economic policy? So what if wrote an article called the "Russian Loan" where he denounced Jews as tyrants. So what if he regularly called people niggers, and defended US annexing Mexican territory because he thought spics were lazy. Just trust him bro. He can't be wrong. Trust the Programme bro. One more try bro. Please bro. One more revolution bro. It will work this time bro. Trust me bro. Please.

>>21039026
I mostly disagree with Marx, but your post is just a giant ad-hominem.

>>21032112
You are a complete imbecille holy shit.

>>21038457
>Incorrect, Engels had already stipulated in the 1840s that communism was practiced in Engel by the utopian Owenite communes.
there's difference between an experiment encompassing 2500 people and a country of 120 000 000 people. though I'm not sure if you understand numbers above 10
>And Marx is explicitly saying the Russian communes are example of communism
primitive communism. he said they can form the BASIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS modern communism ON THE CONDITION OF access to modern productive forces that correspond to that communism. Marx:
>can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?
he explicitly distinguishes between the obshchina as a PRIMEVAL FORM of common ownership, and the HIGHER FORM of [modern] communist common ownership

>Your theories clearly have no empirical backing.
they do, they effortlessly explain every single thing you brought up so far
>>21038473
>the Russian Obshchina was an example of communism
primitive communism. Marx:
>can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?
he explicitly distinguishes between the obshchina as a PRIMEVAL FORM of common ownership, and the HIGHER FORM of [modern] communist common ownership
>Stop being illiterate.
yes, stop being illiterate. read the above quote 10, or 100 times, whatever your retard brain needs to comprehend it
>he further concedes the failure of communism by continuing NEP
that's not a failure of communism, that's a success of Marxism in understanding correctly what the premises for communist production are, and the simple fact of them not obtaining in Russia at the time
>even though it had existed in feudal Russia prior to that
there's a difference between primitive communism and modern communism. this is why Marx distinguishes between them in what I quoted above, and elsewhere
>>21038529
>>21038810
>>21038840
>>21038916
>>21038965
>>21038991
didn't read. you need to get yourself some help bro
>>21038614
>Marx is not saying the law of supply and demand is a fact of life. He
is arguing it is a unique phenomena to capitalism
not just capitalism, but any markets. for the record, you said he didn't believe in supply and demand, and now you've conceded that he did
>There will still be fluctuations in quantities of commodities
there will always be fluctuations in quantities of products, and there always will be some waste. nobody argues otherwise. you're attacking some random strawman to distract from the fact that you were lying about Marx not believing in supply and demand as well as about Marxists not having a theory of inflation

>>21029604
>Bandara
*Banderas

>>21029595
>left or right, all agree that lenin was based.
nazis are so weird. they'll try to be original by praising people like Stalin or Lenin for actually fucking them in the ass and superficially regurgitate "anti-capitalist" ideas while simultaneously holding on to the theory with an iron grip that Jews are dominating them through sheer cleverness and unfair genius but they won't admire them for it.
Then you have genuine retards like Striker who tries to paint Hitler as this totally cool third worldist saviour of the indian people lol

I'd have them all in zoos

>>21038529
>You don't have any empirical criteria that could prove what amount of productive forces could make communism possible.
because this depends heavily on the particular situation and things like how much extra capacity must be redirected for waging the revolutionary war.
the relevant fact that suffices here is that Russia in the year 1900 had the industrial level of the UK in the year 1800 (sic) (see pic), and that Russia's wheat yields in 1909 were only 70% of UK's wheat yields in 1850 (sic) (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/long-term-wheat-yields-in-europe).). you don't need any explicit criteria to work out that socialism in one isolated country under siege was in such circumstances a ridiculous proposition.
>NEP just Lenin admitting communism was not a feasible program for improving the lives of Soviet citizens
it was a feasible program, but this program necessarily included revolutions in Western Europe, which were defeated with armed force, and not because of any economic infeasibility. what wasn't feasible economically was socialism in one country, which I agree with, that being my entire point in the first place.
>his successors, like Stalin, caused a famine trying to communize the country side only
he was attempting to improve agricultural productivity by overcoming the parcelization and concentrating production, repeating the process that happened in other capitalist states. this only further proves my point by showing that those agricultural productive forces were inadequate even for the capitalism Stalin was building, let alone for socialism.
>This happened pretty every where the communists tried to collectivize property.
*everywhere the bourgeois state tried to compensate for shortage of modern means of production with state force
yes

>>21040484
>everywhere the bourgeois state tried to compensate for shortage of modern means of production with state force
no, because they were revolting and declaring war on the regime so the regime put them down. There's no grand narrative of historical materialism. War is decisive in history and communism is a delusional pipe-dream.

>>21040501
>because they were revolting and declaring war on the regime so the regime put them down
this doesn't contradict anything I've said or historical materialism. forcible agricultural reform requires control over the countryside, which in turn requires the elimination of rebellious layers in one way or another

>>21040564
Which in turn is driven by ideology and not matetial conditions. And workers will never be able to control their property just as capitalists don't actually control theirs but managers. Same will go for workers and it will essentially just be liberal democracy all over again.

>>21035073
>You know another thing Lenin said is to never play with insurrection. But once you go for it, you've gotta go all the way and see it through to the end because your enemy will have no mercy.
I pointed this out to trump supporters online and they laughed my off, they get what they deserve

>>21035378
>they were only destroyed by force in a war
>that they started

the german military had wet dreams of becoming europe's new superpower since napoleon, and they continually got put back in their place only to blame their failures on jews. if you want to try again, it's pretty clear from history how it will probably turn out

>>21040588
no, it was driven by objective necessities of capitalist development, namely that accumulation in industry is premised on increased agricultural productivity, not by ideology
>And workers will never be able to control their property just as capitalists don't actually control theirs but managers.
managers control it only in the sense of supervising it in view of ensuring continuous production of profit for the capitalist class, so you can play semantic with this however much you want, but the relevant kind of control, i.e. subjection of the means of production to use according to their class interest, is clearly with the capitalist class, to which the managers are only servants (even if well reimbursed for the trouble).
and the control will pass to the workers once the purpose in controlling the means of production stops being production of profit and starts being the destruction of capitalist economy.

How do Marxists address the fact that the potential synthesis between industrial capitalism and the state has been replaced with the potential synthesis between financial capitalism and the state?

>>21042304
By getting jobs in academic thinktanks funded by financiers and administered by the state and creating an oppressive elitist consensus about how we should ONLY go about resisting capitalism as if it's permanently 1875 and NEVER do anything except have debates how how Marx would theoretically peacefully organize labor for another 500 years, while trannies infiltrate everything and the world becomes literal hell

>>21042331
I really don't think it's actual Marxists in academia or academic think tanks. I work in academia. As far as I can tell, these people are liberals who like Marxist philosophy and pay lip service to the "working class".

>>21042304
there's no "potential synthesis" between X capitalism and the state, but only the actual subjugation of the state to capital as a whole, including both financial capital and industrial capital. that fact is addressed as follows:
>If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I say that the next attempt of the French revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is essential for every real people's revolution on the Continent.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_12.htm

>>21042370
Maybe synthesis is the wrong word, but I'm pretty sure several Marxists identified exactly what I mean in Fascist corporatism and before they privatized, Nazism.

>>21042632
as I said, it's all just molding the state to more perfectly suit the needs of capital. instead of an independent workers' movement that could cause trouble for capital you have official unions "incorporated" into the state and "co-determination", there's a curtailment of the freedom of individual capitalists so that they have less room to act to the detriment of national capital taken as a whole, and so on. most of those fascistic elements have been broadly absorbed into all the democracies following their supposed victory over fascism.
but it wasn't really anything esentially new over what Engels already expressed when he wrote that
>the modern state, again, is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital
even the aspect of explicitly integrating workers was already predicted when he wrote that
>the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie

>>21042900
Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me though because the reason for my question is that you're not dealing with individual capitalists and mill owners anymore. Capitalism is now asset manager. What's the Marxist program when it's not captains of industry and small business owners acting but private equity funds and central banks?

>>21033315
>Piłsudski's bravery stopped him dead in his tracks, and

more like stalin retardness stopped Lenin and Trotsky conquering Poland

>>21042352
good that you put the "working class" in scare quotes because there quite literally is no such thing as a proletariat today.

>>21041225
No It was driven by human psychology and not magical ghosts in the machine or spirits in materials. There is no such thing as "capitalism"
workers will never control the "means of production" and it will never produce anything "for their class interests" you are just speaking in buzzwords and vapid historicism. The state has always been and it will never go away

>>21042352
that's all marxists. Marxism is just crypto-liberalism but their idea of "human liberty" is slightly different because they think working and hierarchy is evil/unjust.

>>21043083
I think most Marxist are just Marxists because they see capitalism, whether industrial or financial, as exploitative of workers. Watching wages divorce from productivity, rents rise, and the cost of living rise while profits increase and inflated assets make the wealthy wealthier, it's hard to disagree with them.

>>21043109
it's pretty easy because historical materialism is bunk and they need a fine line of ignorance to prevent them from just becoming basic biological determinists. Economics is not a science anyway and most people who complain are dead-weight.

>>21043160
>historical materialism is bunk
lol

>>21043174
Social relations precede "material conditions". psychology and ideology(superstructure) is more important than material conditions. Marx confused his feet for his head.

>>21043187
yeah you're incurable

>>21043205
nah, you're just slow.

>>21043213
I'm not the one ignoring evolution

>>21043223
neither am I

>>21040484
>because this depends heavily on the particular situation
You said a load of nothing. Again, you're proving my point. You can't empirically determine how many productive forces is necessary for communism. Again, like every revisionist - you put the primacy of productive force ahead of social change away from the law of value. Its just brain-dead economism.
>it was a feasible program,
It wasn't. It was proof that Soviets were a cluster fuck of idiots who didn't understand economics or had sound social theories. NEP was the tactic admital of the failure of communistic planning in the USSR, and the reality that the Soviet elite had no interest in communism. Lenin's explitict of adoption of talyorism, calling the US postal service an example of socialism, and saying "communism is the electrification of the community" show the Soviets were not interesting in communism but basic bourgeois industrialization. Again, you are just rationalizing failure and not correcting errors in theory.

>>21043187
This was the point of the Maoist Critique of Soviet Economics, and why Mao Zedong had a better understanding of Marxism than Marxist-Leninists. Online MLs don't read Mao so they keep emphasizing the productive forces theory because they essentially are complacent supporters of the status quo. Marxism is class struggle, it is the complete change of the political superstructure. Its the replacement of economic anarchy with co-operative planning. It is the abolition of private property for communal ownership. It is complete suppression of bourgeois values of selfishness, accumulation, commodity fetishism for conscious social management by the people as a whole. Mao got this right with the Peoples' Commune and Militias, the Cultural Revolution, the Iron rice bowl program - the elimination of class differences in production and social participation with mass line and self-criticism. Its not supporting red no matter who, and being some degenerate political opportunists like the majority of "communists" in this thread.

>>21043264
Sounds like Gramscianism and fascism

>>21043272
Maoism was praised a form of fascism funny enough. The difference would be fascists are more focused on race - where Maoism does have any forms of Chauvinism. That makes them different in practice because Mao believed people could be reformed, and did not exclude people based on genetic differences his communist project.

>>21043264
there is no "economic anarchy" though. That's marxist drivel and communal ownership is a meme, managers will still rule you and decide everything for you. You can not escape the state and this obsession with liberation only serves to turn communists miserable like their liberal counterparts
>inb4 NOT LIB-
yeah, whatever. But Mao definitely had something the soviets (and more there's no reason to just compare them to soviets and not americans or germans, where all conforming to the same natural order) did not have; spiritual fervor.

>>21043287
>there is no "economic anarchy" though.
There is - the law of value can only exist if economic anarchy exists. The law of value stipulates that production's primary concern in capitalist societies is the accumulation of commodities instead of rational, scientific planning according to need. Businesses like Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft produce an abundance of cars, computers, products that most people will never use because production is done according to the value of law - to make a profit. This isn't the case in a socialistic economy because planning is done to fulfill human needs primarily. People would be guaranteed a quota of goods to ensure that everyone has what they would need. There would be no Bezos with a yacht while people are living tents around the latest Amazon warehouse. Those are the social contradicts are the result of the unplanned, chaotic nature of the market that doesn't care about human beings, but cares about commodification of their desires and labor. A socialist society would plan everything that so every human being has a job, a house, and the ability raise a family. That can not happen unless the proletariat participates in class struggle against their enemies be it war or in the realm of ideas. Philosophical struggle is just as important as physical struggle.

Its a deliberate choice of policy for homelessness, its a deliberate choice of policy for people to not have jobs, and to be uninsured without healthcare. And this is the result of living a society that has a political superstructure that more interested in being based off the capital accumulation and not social production.

>>21043312
it's not anarchy because it's actually rigidly structured with laws like everything else, and none of that matters in a society with certain ideologies and ethics which are the two primary things that actually dictate what shall be produced. And there really is no group anymore that can fit into these categories:
1. is the vast majority
2. whom society depends on
3. is in dire need
4. has nothing to lose in a revolution
maybe we'll see a return of guilds, chartered or not.

>>21039942
Completely wrong, again, he doesn't say the German revolution was required. He said only a Russian Revolution was required.
>"At the same time as the commune is bled dry and tortured, its land rendered barren and poor, the literary lackeys of the “new pillars of society” ironically depict the wounds inflicted on it as so many symptoms of its spontaneous decrepitude. They allege that it is dying a natural death and they would be doing a good job by shortening its agony. As far as this is concerned, it is no longer a matter of solving a problem; it is simply a matter of beating an enemy. To save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution is needed. For that matter, the government and the “new pillars of society” are doing their best to prepare the masses for just such a disaster. If revolution comes at the opportune moment, if it concentrates all its forces so as to allow the rural commune full scope, the latter will soon develop as an element of regeneration in Russian society and an element of superiority over the countries enslaved by the capitalist system."
Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. You are just illiterate.

>>21043339
It is anarchy because the nature is unplanned, and solely for capital accumulation. Planned production takes in accord of the needs of everyone. The anarchy of the market, which we have now, is the competition of merchants for more and more wealth without taking in consideration of the needs of society as a whole. Capitalism can only produce wealth, but doesn't have a good way of allocating resources efficiently to meet the needs of the population. This causes business cycles, recessions, war et cetera because you perpetuate antagonisms of difference classes by not satisfying everyone's material needs adequately .

>>21043355
most people's material needs are covered and would be doubly so if people decided living with their parents for a long time is ok. people would find reasons to fight for ideology with like-minded spirits. The only imperative is the ultimate domination of one spirit over all others. These words have negative connotations but none of this is inherently evil I think

Capitalism is the anarchy of the market. Producers can produce whatever they want without the consideration of societal consequences. It just has to make money. You don't have to care about climate change, pollution, homelessness, crime - you just have to serve the law of value - produce commodities for selfish reasons. Socialism is the negation of that - you would not be able to produce whatever you want. Its also ideological - there is no plurality in thought. Bourgeois ideas can not exist in a socialist order because they have consequence of leading the restoration of the capitalist order. Just as the capitalists suppressed feudal slavery; communists would do the same.
>>21043371
>most people's material needs are covered
Most people live on less than 2 dollars a day. Its only in Western countries where people are "well off" and only applies to a small proportion of the petite-bourgeois. In places like China, India, South America, and Africa, where most of the population lives, the majority of people live in utter poverty at the expense of first world.

>>21029435
He was a materialist, and thus retarded.

>>21035381
>fought almost the entire world
>lost
ok retard.

>>21043384
Producers experience consequences all the time lol. It may actually be a goal to transcend that state so a creative person can fully express their will. "Capitalists" didn't suppress feudal slavery because serfs weren't slaves, thus is more vapid historicism and people can definitely have different ideologies even in fantastical utopias so long as the ideology does not reinforce itself through force and classical reasoning. Determinism is retarded.
Most people have their needs covered by the fact that these people go on living even though they could seriously better their lot in life. There is no proletariat and the advent of technology requires more and more specialization. Honestly, this whole trite about muh emancipation is tiring slave morality and belies the fact that marxism has always been about ethics like everything else.

>>21043576
So long as the ruling* ideology.
You will always be a servant and that's fine. We live in an uninterrupted state of naturr which is that social relation between master and servant.

>>21043576
try reading

>>21043642
Try reading somebody who isn't a libertarian/obsessed with muh reeel freedum.

>>21043655
ok read Hegel then

>>21043667
Not freedom-sceptic enough.

>>21043697
shh here is a paraphrase of freedom from Hegel/Marx's philosophy, which isn't to be confused with bourgeois freedom. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from laws, it means understanding them to make them work for us.

>>21043576
>Producers experience consequences all the time lol.
The proletariat faces harsher consequences from their fuck ups since they live solely from their labor. Producers are petite bourgeois, and can live off their wealth while proletarians live pay check to paycheck. Proletarians produce the majority of the value of the bourgeois, but receive the least of their benefits.

>>21043014
>is that you're not dealing with individual capitalists and mill owners anymore
what Marx wrote applied to capital in itself, not just to its selected manifestations. he illustrated it with the particular form it took in England in his time, but there's a distinction between the illustrative examples and the scope of the explanation itself.
>What's the Marxist program when it's not captains of industry and small business owners acting but private equity funds and central banks?
organization of the proletariat into class, and hence into political party, seizing state power, destroying capitalist economy
>>21043073
do you have arguments or are you just posting for cope
>>21043083
>they think working and hierarchy is evil/unjust
any quotes from Marx to substantiate your fanfic?
>>21043237
>You said a load of nothing.
I demonstrated that, on the whole, Russia was at the economic level of early 1800s Britain at most, which settles the question whether there was a possibility of modern communist production there without any external help and under siege by more advanced adversaries
>you put the primacy of productive force ahead of social change away from the law of value
I'm simply stating that there's a precondition for doing away with the law of value in the level of productive forces. you can't just wish away the law of value when there's no technical basis for socialized production. by insisting on that, you're just doing an impression of the caricature from The German Ideology:
>Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water.

>like every revisionist
revisionist of what? of Marxism? here's Marx:
>This sum of productive forces, capital funds and social forms of intercourse, which every individual and generation finds in existence as something given, is the real basis of what the philosophers have conceived as “substance” and “essence of man,” and what they have deified and attacked; [...]” THESE CONDITIONS OF LIFE, which different generations find in existence, DECIDE ALSO WHETHER OR NOT THE periodically recurring REVOLUTIONARY CONVULSION WILL BE STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERTHROW THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE EXISTING SYSTEM.

>NEP was the tactic admital of the failure of communistic planning in the USSR
no, it was an admittal that Russia was in no position to leap to communist production on its own due to its productive capacities at the time, additionally destroyed by the civil war. they only recovered to pre-war levels just before 1930 (see pic). and the "pre-war levels" for Russia still meant only the beginning of capitalist development, of developing the means apt for socialized labour

>>21043342
so your argument now hinges on the fact that he didn't mention the necessity of revolution in the West at every occasion because he failed to consider he'll be read by autistic children who don't understand the concept of persistence in time and consequently believe that the author retracts what he wrote as soon he writes another paragraph without restating it
in the event you overcome your severe autism and ascend back to your previous level of merely severe illiteracy, I'll make an illiterate friendly version of the words Marx and Engels have explicitly decided to publish in the preface to the Russian edition of The Manifesto
>If
>-the Russian Revolution
>--becomes the signal
>---for a proletarian revolution in the West [...]
>[then]
>-the present Russian common ownership of land
>--may serve as
>---the starting point
>----for a communist development

lol is that you, account deleter?

>>21029632
Politics clearly.

It's hard to name a single revolutionary that's more accomplished than Lenin. The man clearly knew how to ride the tiger.

>>21045357
>It's hard to name a single revolutionary that's more accomplished than Lenin.
The American founding fathers.

>>21043385
You have allowed yourself to turn off your brain and not engage with his work because of a buzzword that you do not understand and doesn’t even apply to Lenin. You are retarded.

>>21029435
lenin is completely refuted by how ugly all his supporters are. it's cope for failfucks

>>21046093
I guess they're pretty good. But I mean their revolution was a fucking mess and they had to coup themselves at least twice. Which is nicely airbrushed out of the nice story they tell Americans today of course.

>>21046699
Seethe

>>21046093
nah, the american founding fathers weren't essential to the revolution, like Lenin and Trotsky were. Without them it would've been a bourgeois revolution which probably would've failed.

>>21046699
All communists are cute

>>21043384

How would state economic planners possess the information and the tools required to avoid any of those problems? And how would there ever be any innovation in a system where the design, development and production of goods lies in the hands of bureaucrats? I've worked in a government bureaucracy, and they're the last people I'd want in charge of anything.

>>21047600
read State and Revolution

>>21043384
You are convinced that socialism can actually alleviate all of those things? Keep in mind that socialism as an ethic is one thing and socialism as a political-economic program is another.

>>21047714
Existing industrial capacity utilization hovers around 70% for no other reason than it isn't profitable to use all of that capacity (capitalism drives for unlimited production but ignores its limited market).

If the working class runs society for its needs using money to guide where production should be increased just with existing production global output could be increased by 50%. I mean we probably wouldn't want to do that and most of the problems today are with distribution like with housing but it gives you an idea of how capitalism can't play a progressive role any longer.

>>21047658
Okay.

>>21046112
>hur dur you just don't understand it

The absolute cope.

>>21048122
There are valid critiques of capitalism that are often ignored by those on my side of the political aisle.
1. Capitalism commodifies that which should not be a commodity (nothing is free from its reach).
2. Capitalism is based upon constant expansive growth, which long term is unsustainable.

I'm sure there are others as well. The issue is not that capitalism is a perfect system that should be preserved at all costs. The issue is that there is no valid alternative system that provides an optimum outcome while respecting the generalized dignity of the human. Socialism and communism breed mediocrity, and have been proven time and time again to simply be at odds with human nature. All of the philosophizing about their theoretical effectiveness is rubbish in the face of these facts. But even worse is the fact that the so called better systems require intense and sustained tyranny to implement them, which comes after a prolonged and bloody struggle of revolution. I've read Nechayev's catechism.

Ultimately neither capitalism no socialism should hold a dominant place inside the power structures of a society - they are economic policies, both of which reduce the human to a mere economic unit for their own purposes. Both of them worship false gods, in the case of capitalism, the god of material success and wealth, and in the case of socialism (and it's bedfellows) the god of the theoretical man.

>>21048122
>If the working class runs society for its needs
Another issue. Who is the working class? Do you draw the line at blue collar workers? The dogma you're repeating comes from a time when nobility still existed, just around the time of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia. There are noveau riche in the west, there are self made entrepreneurs who are millionaires but put in sweaty work and a dozen hours a day. Who's the working class in the modern day?
Even more confounding is the belief that the working class will engage in a single coordinated effort - class may indeed be a useful division, but it's not solitary - there are various religions, ethnicities, and cultures now inside my country, to the extent that a working class Indian immigrant would have no desire to join with the working class white trucker in order to seize the means of production etc.
The idea that the working class could ever run society is myopic - there will always be a ruler that rises to the top of the pile. People crave it to the degree that even in the so called democracies, there are figurehead leaders elected to comfort the masses, and real leaders behind the scenes as well. Lastly, I've been to a sporting event. You don't want the working classes in charge of the entire society, it's a short trip to chaotic disaster.

>>21047600
>How would state economic planners possess the information and the tools required to avoid any of those problems?
they would collect the information by measuring and asking. they would have the tools because they would be organs of society that has everything on the planet in its disposition, along with the history of scientific achievements of the entire species
>how would there ever be any innovation in a system where the design, development and production of goods lies in the hands of bureaucrats?
there wouldn't be, because nothing would lie in the hands of bureaucrats. but if you're asking about communist society, then the answer is: innovation lets people do more useful and interesting things with less effort. not to mention that the process of innovating is interesting and rewarding in itself. when dividing his labour between different task, Crusoe will naturally allot some of it to coming up with tools and constructions that would make his life easier, and so naturally will a communist society
>I've worked in a government bureaucracy, and
you worked for the capitalist state and for some reason you're mislead to believe that this has any relevance to a communist society. if anything, it has negative relevance, i.e. it shows you how it *won't* look

>>21040475
Well let's unpack this.
>they'll try to be original by praising people like Stalin or Lenin
First of all, fuck all commies. However, you being a proper political extremist are unable to see nuance in anything, unlike many on the right. As a Fascist I admire Lenin for what he did to cripple unjust systems in place, even if I would have preferred a different outcome (non-Czar rulers like Kolchak for instance). Mussolini and Lenin were close allies who traveled in the same circles at one point, and Mussolini really didn't stray all that far from the old Socialist doctrine when he created Fascism: it was really just a socialism that believed culture, nation and family are institutions worth preserving. Marxism wished (and wishes) to eradicate all three.
Also, Stalin was vastly, vastly preferable to Trotsky, because he preserved Russia as a nation and much of its culture as well (despite selling off most of it for hard cash - Stalin was just a robber after all, but sometimes a knuckledragger psychopath does less damage than a clever psychopath).
National Socialism is Fascism that more plainly describes its premise: socialism in one nation. Rather similar to the communism in one nation that Stalin promoted with his imperialism. Fascists and National Socialists both had socialist underpinnings and both nationalized vital industries and rearranged economies and societies according to guilds, precisely to break the power of international finance.
Marxists just cannot believe there is more than one form of anti-capitalism and assume all non-Marxism is fake. This is why tankies really hate nazis, not because Fascism, with all its borders and regulations and blocking of international finance and nationalizing main industries is supposedly HYPERCAPITALISM (ridiculous on the face of it): it's because Fascism is a workable form of socialism.
>while simultaneously holding on to the theory with an iron grip that Jews are dominating them through sheer cleverness and unfair genius but they won't admire them for it
Do you admire the guys on wall street who dominate regular people? Why not?

>>21033416
Are you living in the year 1999? Did you just read Francis Fukuyams's "The End of History".

This is an incredibly dated take lacking any and all foresight. Obviously, fucking obviously, global capitalism is in a weak position, a borderline crisis. You see this in the far right parties coming to power in Europe, and int how far left young Americans tend to be, and the coming environmental and energy crises, and the looming automation, and much, much more.

>>21049300
>Obviously, fucking obviously, global capitalism is in a weak position, a borderline crisis
he's shut in in his basement with his upper middle class parents delivering him food to the door. he won't notice any crisis until the provider starts cutting off electricity

>>21049300
>You see this in the far right parties coming to power in Europe
This just means the Neoliberals are in a crisis, not capitalism itself. However capitalism loves Neoliberals, and like an evolutionary process capitalism will always select for a Neoliberal bias. The more powerful capitalism is, the more Neoliberal capitalist societies become.
If illiberal political forces will come to power in the near future and fix the problems caused by economic, social and cultural liberalism, they would be smart to curtail capitalism and international finance. And then you could argue that "capitalism is in a crisis" - but really, it's just capitalism under new - and better - management.

>>21048122
Didn't answer the question

>>21029580
>This is ultimately his fault I can't make rent on time.
Correct. Which makes Lenin even more based.
>dabbing on opportunistic scum even 100 years after his death

>>21047554
>essential to the revolution

This is just splitting hairs. The American revolution was successful after the deaths of the founding fathers. Lenin's revolution failed when he died and then the nation he founded collapsed within a few generations.

>>21049336
>This just means the Neoliberals are in a crisis
neoliberals are politicians for the times when capitalism functions relatively smoothly, at least in certain areas. right-wingers are politicians for the times when things are getting out of hand and a strong hand is needed that might sometimes infringe on the tolerant liberal ideals in order to safeguard the liberal reality. that's why neoliberals being in crisis implies capitalism being in crisis.
>The more powerful capitalism is, the more Neoliberal capitalist societies become
and the less neoliberal capitalist societies become, the more {what} capitalism is?
>but really, it's just capitalism under new - and better - management.
"better" = better suited for the kinds of crisis situations that might require direct state violence over indirect economic violence

>>21049580
It's not a crisis because capitalism is a river. You can curtail a river and regulate it by creating a dam or you can let it run rampant and even flood it.
The river is never in a crisis, its just changing states.

No one in this thread read Lenin and it shows. Seriously embarrassing, both from /lit/ and /leftypol/.

>>21049607
the river is in crisis when it can overflow and turn into a lake. then it's no longer a river. it can also dry out. rivers aren't eternal and neither is capitalism

>>21029634
How's that worldwide socialist revolution coming along

>>21049786
Where should one start with Lenin?

>>21049300
These far-right parties and politicians winning in Europe and America are not actually far-right. They just want tighter controls on immigration. We're all stuck between anti-white liberalism and pro-white liberalism regardless.

>>21049943
Here >>21032716
so that you know to liberate Ukraine like an upstanding Leninist

>>21049336
Which illiberal forces exactly? Liberalism is the mainstream consensus in every Western country. In fact, one might even say that liberalism IS the default Western manner of thinking. Sure, it might run the gamut from left-liberalism to right-liberalism, but it's all still liberalism. The number of people who subscribe to illiberal politics is so small that they may as well not exist from a political point of view and will probably never be popular.

>>21049943
Marx

>>21049962
Rather true. There's no 'non-liberal' thought of consequence in the west as we're all polluted by it from birth. It's a well known but ill considered fact that t's exceedingly difficult to ever think outside of the paradigms that you are born into.

>>21049962
Victor Orban, known Liberal

>>21046093
Lenin was a nobody before 1917 and became one of the most powerful men the year after, then he faced global resistance against his revolution and won, his skills were on another level.

>>21050393
What about Orban screams "illiberal" or "force"?

>>21050296
It's possible to get beyond liberalism. We got into liberalism from something that preceded, so of course, it's possible. But where do you actually see that today? Nowhere. My sense is that we'll only get beyond liberalism after going through true chaos or liberal autocracy.

>>21050526
He wasn't exactly "a nobody". He was involved in literary and political circles, and I think he was a judicial clerk or similar. You need to go to an Ivy League law school to get a job like that today in America.

>>21050598
are you serious or just meming

>>21029599
Kropotkin and Makhno were shorter.

>>21050707
You have to go back.

>>21050707
I'm serious. Please answer the question.

>>21050758
He runs a one party state by fumbling with electoral laws, controls the media, has effectively abolished the separation of powers etc. similar tactics with those of Putin, another self-identified opponent of liberalism. He also upholds "illiberal democracy" is a legitimate concept, as if democracy meant anything without the presence of opposition.

>>21050886
>as if democracy meant anything without the presence of opposition.
You should read Schmitt's Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, the liberal principle is not coterminous with the democratic principle

>>21029435
he was a communist which means he was a fucking retard
L

>>21050888
I don't think Schmitt-adjacent style arguments work here. The main error with these sort of views is that they conceive of a people as an internally unified group, and so democracy turns out to consist in the governing body expressing the common interest of the people. But if we reject the notion of the common interest by appealing to the diverse goals that individuals (and groups) are found to have, we can say that the reality behind the idyllic picture of universal agreement is the suppression of dissidents by special interests. And accordingly our theory of democracy will emphasize the inevitability of conflict in any society, and will aim not at securing "the common good" but striking a compromise between rival conceptions of the good.

Marxfags and their ilk cannot be considered human

>>21050886
He calls it illiberal democracy. I call it liberal autocracy, or liberal soft autocracy. Just because he runs his regime to concentrate power in a single power, that doesn't necessarily mean, in my mind anyway, that he escapes liberal political thought. Some people would argue that liberalism and democracy go hand in hand and thus it can't be a liberal autocracy, but then it can't be an illiberal democracy either.

>>21050889
He almost certainly never believed a single word in whole communist doctrine. He was unhinged psycho and likely also believer into various retarded freemason shit, but he was in whole communism business simply for power and wealth. Initially he didn't even believe that he will stay in power, there were things in his letters like him being extremely surprised bolsheviks held for 100 days, or admitting willingness to grab as much wealth as he can and run for Sweden if anything goes wrong.

>>21051099
No brainlet, Lenin was a true believer and had a fanatical attachment to Marxism. He was the brains behind the October Revolution and the most charismatic of his peers.

>>21051099
>admitting willingness to grab as much wealth as he can and run for Sweden if anything goes wrong.
show this one

>>21033416
It’s funny that you mention Cuba because Cuba is a living refutation of liberalism. It’s everything that modern socialists could ever want. It’s a one-party state that opposes liberal democracy, it is very socially liberal and egalitarian, and it upholds planned economics and state ownership. The Cuban model has sublated liberalism. It works. And if it wasn’t for American sanctions then Cuba would be even more prosperous. It proves that liberalism is redundant and that the liberal-minded masses could thrive with a socialist state.

>>21052062
this is nonsense. Cuba has private property and they jerk off to elections like all other lib states. it's a republic, the state form corresponding to the liberal ideology.

>>21052193
You think it's liberalism that has sublated socialism but it's the opposite. It has been demonstrated that a society can be socially liberal without a liberal democracy. Regardless if Cuba allows some degree of private ownership and is a republic, it is a one-party Marxist-Leninist state just like China. They are not liberal and do not have a capitalist economy. Cuba is even closer to what leftists want compared to China anyways since it is not as nationalistic or culturally conservative. Cuba allowing shit like fake elections and gay marriage doesn't mean liberalism is somehow winning there, leftists have always LARPed as democratic anyways. Oh and btw the spread of the LGBT has yet to internally destroy any country like conservatives say it will, now all the socialist countries will start legalizing it to success.

>its an anon railing against liberalism episode
We get it, go make some thread devoted to monarchies.

>>21029634
First Prize for Ice-pick murder

>>21029634
/thread

>>21052289
>it is a one-party Marxist-Leninist state just like China
"a one-party Marxist-Leninist state" is just a name for a type of popular republic that on top of nationalism uses fake communism to justify the subjugation of its citizens. it's still liberal
>They are not liberal and do not have a capitalist economy
they are and they do. China being a police state and not measuring to liberal ideals when it's not useful doesn't mean it's not liberal
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/07.htm
> The liberals approach the language question in the same way as they approach all political questions—like hypocritical hucksters, holding out one hand (openly) to democracy and the other (behind their backs) to the serf-owners and police. We are against privileges, shout the liberals, and under cover they haggle with the serf-owners for first one, then another, privilege.
real liberalism means spewing liberal ideals when it's useful and hypocritically trampling on them when they stand in the way of the real purpose of liberalism: the accumulation of capital

>Cuba is even closer to what leftists want compared to China
maybe, but what leftists want is just a capitalist welfare state aligned against USA
>Cuba allowing shit like fake elections and gay marriage doesn't mean liberalism is somehow winning there
but it sanctioning private property, having class distinctions masked behind equality under law, pretending to be the realization of the will of a nation, etc., does

>>21052289
>>21053476
>what leftists want is just a capitalist welfare state aligned against USA
I forgot the most important part: it has to have some red on its flag

>>21053476
>It wasn't real communism
This is such a stupid argument. Ah yes, nobody even attempted communism - it all failed because they were all counter-revolutionaries and frauds. Its never because their ideas don't work; its because "evil people" made it fail.l Your arguments are just delusional. Communist countries don't collapse 30+ times, and its due to "sabotage" - its because your ideas of economic planning are unworkable and cause poverty as opposed to letting the market do its magic. Its really that simple.

>>21044668
>I'm simply stating that there's a precondition for doing away with the law of value in the level of productive forces
There really isn't and there wasn't in the Soviet Union considering the USSR was wealthier after the war, and could have done it then. This is the same stupid argument used by China today. Communism is possible today - it is a question of political will. It doesn't happen because its not politically viable and it would not offer a better form of economic management. You need to stop being retarded, and stop posting irrelevant quotes from texts you only skim.
>no, it was an admittal that Russia
Again, wrong. It was the admit that communism doesn't work. They tried war communism, it caused a famine. Only under NEP did the USSR see significant growth. Your own logic is just flabbergastingly stupid - according to you they didn't have the ability to transition to communism in the 60s? Its clear to anyone with common sense communism unworkable if even a super power like the Soviet Union couldn't make it work after having decades to do so. You're just stupid, and no one buys such a stupid argument.

>muh productive forces
Its a non-argument - its basically just shifting the goal post because you want to rationalize the failure of centralized planning. You are just making a fallacious argument of Unfalsifiability.Its ridiculously retarded. You really should just stop posting about communism on /lit/. You just make your position look worse the more you post.

>>21054080
>Let the market do it's magic
If we just "let the market do it's magic" we would've had multiple great depressions just in the last 40 years. There's really no such tangible thing as "the market" it's the conglomerated will of people's spending power, and there's nothing magical about greed

>>21054080
>Ah yes, nobody even attempted communism
I never said this
>Its never because their ideas don't work
where did that happen?
>its because "evil people" made it fail
never said that either. how about you start quoting me instead of making shit up
>Communist countries don't collapse 30+ times
which ones?
>and its due to "sabotage"
where have I said this?
>its because your ideas of economic planning are unworkable and cause poverty
where have "my ideas of economic planning" caused poverty?
>>21054099
>there wasn't in the Soviet Union considering the USSR was wealthier after the war, and could have done it then
it couldn't because the USSR wasn't even ruled by communists then, but by people aiming to build up Russian capitalism so that it can compete with the Western part of it. this has no relation to the situation in 1920, which was the opposite
>This is the same stupid argument used by China today.
the argument as used by China is stupid because China already has developed capitalist productive forces (contrary to 1921 Russia), not because having access to developed capitalist productive forces is not a technical precondition for socialism.
>It doesn't happen because its not politically viable
no shit. China is ruled by capital and for capital, so clearly it's not "politically viable" for to abolish capital there
>and stop posting irrelevant quotes from texts you only skim.
name one and show me how it's not relevant to what you claimed
>They tried war communism, it caused a famine. Only under NEP did the USSR see significant growth.
all this says is:
1. they used a typical strong-handed war policy to secure food procurement for the cities during the civil war, which wasn't enough to magically prevent all famine, considering just how destructive the war has been
2. following the civil war there has been economic growth, and the appropriate economic form for growth, given productive forces that are at an early capitalist level, is capitalism
now, neither of those obviously true claims proves anything about actual communism, yet you bring them up as if they did
>according to you they didn't have the ability to transition to communism in the 60s?
why?
>Its clear to anyone with common sense communism unworkable if even a super power like the Soviet Union couldn't make it work after having decades to do so
it didn't even try to make it work, because it was ruled for capital. you might as well argue that communism is unworkable because the USA couldn't make it work all this time despite being the top world power
>no one buys such a stupid argument
amen brother

>>21035919
>Lenin is to blame for Yeltsins capitalism
I mean, if you stretch it, but come on.
>who died of an std
He was assasinated you retard (by a jew, btw). The wound never healed and paralyzed him.

>>21054187
>No arguments
>WHY?
>WHY?
I don't answer questions.
>it couldn't because the USSR wasn't even ruled by communists
Got any arguments besides "wasn't real communism" - you've been saying the same shit over and over again. Its boring, and it shows you don't have much to say. You're not even trying to make arguments anymore, but to waste even more time by drawing things out.

>>21038965
why do you guys assume everyone you hate is a tranny? you only delegitimize everything you say by doing that. even i have been called a tranny when I couldn't be prouder of my dick.

>>21054165
It has been established the Great Depression was prolonged by FDR's policies, and the Federal Reverse contracting the money supply. Its amazing how leftists make it so easy to make themselves look stupid. You don't even know basic stuff.

>>21054187
>It wasn't real communism, even they tried it!
>those aren't real communists!
These are just not arguments
see
>>21054099
>>21054113
Get better arguments

>>21054187
>China is stupid because China already has developed capitalist productive forces (contrary to 1921 Russia), not because having access to developed capitalist productive forces is not a technical precondition for socialism.
But this argument is stupid because Marx had already acknowledged Russia only needed a political revolution , not productive forces, to do communism. He already said the basis of communism existed in Russia through communal system in the Manifesto and his letters with Zarulich. You've already been proven 100% wrong as Marx's statements disagree with your analysis.
China doesn't transition into communism because they know its not a feasible policy - they had already made the attempt do so in 1960s, and it caused a massive famine, and tons of deaths. So they abandoned it. Again, the empirical evidence, every case study of communism, has been an utter failure. Only when it was reversed did deaths decline and living conditions improved in Eastern Europe and China. So again, I've said before countless times, you have no evidence for communism working as an economic system, and your arguments are completely fallacious because they rely on a metric of a lack of falsification. Its constantly pushing the goal post, historical revisionism to do no true scotsman fallacies, and post-rationalizing your failures. You really suck arguing and you're really boring and uneducated dude.

>>21054187
>where have "my ideas of economic planning" caused poverty?
Every Marrxist-Leninist state that collapsed in the last 30-40 years, and the ones that exist moved away from it for liberalization. Communism is centralized economic planning, by the state, according to a rational plan. That type of planning was tried in every Marxist-Leninist country and it caused poverty. You had chronic famines, food shortages, lack of consumer goods and innovation - people had constantly ration food and basic necessities like gasoline because of how terrible Marxist policies were. Your ideas failed and killed millions of people. Its why some places in Europe being a communist is a crime. And people like you do those atrocities again - implement those failed ideas again, and kill even more innocent people

>>21029599
>it's real
Commie bros...we got too cocky...

>>21029599
>tfw you realize everything from the Holodomor to the war in Ukraine today is just a manifestation of manlet rage from subhuman short slavs
makes you think

>>21054504
>Got any arguments besides "wasn't real communism"
I do and I'll use them as soon as you make an argument that's refuted by them. alternatively, you're free to tell me how it *was* communism
>You're not even trying to make arguments anymore
what am I supposed to be making arguments for? I already debunked everything
>>21054505
sexual fixation

>>21054517
>These are just not arguments
>see
>>21054099
>>21054113
the first one I already debunked, and the second one is very ironic to bring up as an example of "better arguments", since it itself doesn't make any but only says "this is fallacious and retarded"

>>21054536
>But this argument is stupid because Marx had already acknowledged Russia only needed a political revolution , not productive forces, to do communism
no he hasn't. see >>21044678
>If
>-the Russian Revolution
>--becomes the signal
>---for a proletarian revolution in the West [...]
>[then]
>-the present Russian common ownership of land
>--may serve as
>---the starting point
>----for a communist development
so he said that it requires a political revolution in Russia AND a communist revolution in the West. this is the formulation that he and Engels have decided to put in the preface to the Russian edition of the Manifesto
>He already said the basis of communism existed in Russia through communal system in the Manifesto
the social basis, not the technical basis
>China doesn't transition into communism because they know its not a feasible policy
China doesn't transition into communism for the same reason USA doesn't. "transition into communism" simply doesn't exist as potential a policy for a bourgeois state, because it's contrary to its primary purpose, namely ensuring the continued exploitation of workers and accumulation of capital.
>they had already made the attempt do so in 1960s
they haven't. an attempt at boosting agricultural productivity for the purposes of enabling capital accumulation in industry using state power doesn't constitute an attempt at communism, but an attempt at facilitating capitalist development in particular circumstances.
>every case study of communism, has been an utter failure
yet you haven't been able to name a single one
>Only when it was reversed did deaths decline and living conditions improved in Eastern Europe and China
they improved having as its starting point the capital accumulated and conditions created by what you call "failed communism". you don't get to claim one while rejecting the other.
>you have no evidence for communism working as an economic system
clearly, since there wasn't a communist society yet
>and your arguments are completely fallacious because they rely on a metric of a lack of falsification
falsification is not a scientific criterion. something that's correct can't be falsified
>Its constantly pushing the goal post, historical revisionism to do no true scotsman fallacies, and post-rationalizing your failures
nice fallacy bingo. let me know when you have actual arguments

>>21054536
>He already said the basis of communism existed in Russia through communal system in the Manifesto and his letters with Zarulich. You've already been proven 100% wrong as Marx's statements disagree with your analysis.
he opined that his original take, which was the complete opposite, may have been too hasty.

>"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society"

from the 18th Brumaire. funny how you're a liar but you're calling people liars

>it couldn't because the USSR wasn't even ruled by communists then
Historical materialism magically doesn't apply when its convenient, huh. You people are never consistent. Its always evil men who ruin your plans, but trust me bros, historical materialism is a valid theory. You can't even be fucking consistent. When you lose the argument on productive forces, you immediately abandon historical materialism and argue great man theory. Lmao. Holy fuck you're bad at this.

>>21054505
Have you ever met MLs? Half of them are trannies, it's not a meme.

>>21054589
Again,
>">"Either the rural commune, freed of exorbitant tax demands, payment to the nobility and arbitrary administration, is capable of developing in a socialist direction, that is, gradually organising its production and distribution on a collectivist basis. In that case, the revolutionary socialist must devote all his strength to the liberation and development of the commune."
Marx said only political revolution was necessary in Russia and the economic basis of communism existed there. You've already lost this argument. You don't have to keep making it over and over again. Its not going to change the reality of what Marx wrote. Sorry. Learn how to read.
>China doesn't transition into communism for the same reason USA doesn't. "transition into communism" simply doesn't exist as potential a policy for a bourgeois state
Because there's reason for it happen, and because its impossible and unnecessary task - as the historical evidence as shown. Which isn't in your favor. Anytime communism was attempted, you had famines, mass death, economic stagnation etc. Your ideas simply do not work and never will work. Its really that simple. Marx had a hypothesis, it was tested in the trials of history, and it completely failed. So we can discard him and his followers.

>>21054589
>pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?
This part of the quote didn't read - he says a HIGHER FORM of communism. Not that communism did not exist in Russia, retard. Marx, in the Critique of The Gotha Programme, made it clear there's phases of communism. A first and second. Russia's communes were of the first, and only required a political revolution. There was no need for a high level of productive forces, as the Russian commune demonstrated, for communism to be possible in Russia. The reason why communism failed in Russia because that mode of living was not feasible at all. Most people do not want share shit on communes, retard. This is why the holodomor happened - when Stalin tried to force Ukrainians to live on communes. It caused cause. Communism was not popular with masses, and nor was the economic planning feasible to bring it to a higher level. And even well into the 1960s, where they could done that, they didn't even bother because productive forces never matter, retard. That's the point. Communists have had the productive forces for communism for centuries - they don't simply do it because its not good policy, and would solve any problems people. People like you are too fucking stupid understand economic policy. Communism isn't to solve hunger, exploitation, stop people from dying or improve productivity - its of no benefit to anyone. So no one is going to ever do it unless they're retarded or desperate like yourself.

>>21054590
Of course you can't read, we're talking about Russia, not France, retard. You don't know the difference between those too countries? You accuse people of not reading when you think the 18th of Brumaire is about Russia. Holy fuck, you get stupider you post.

>>21054613
>He said the economic basis of communism existed in russia.
He said the opposite. Why are you still lying

>simplicity of the [Asiatic] productive organism ... supplies the key to the riddle of the unchangeability of Asiatic societies, which is in such striking contrast with the constant dissolution and refounding of Asiatic states, and the never-ceasing changes of dynasty. The structure of the fundamental economic elements of society remains untouched by the storms which blow up in the cloudy regions of politics

>>21054604
I wasn't talking about just MLs. In general, you guys characterize everyone as trans whenever they make a point outside of the usually right wing stuff on here. Besides, who cares if someone is trans? It doesn't dictate how they are or what they believe.

>>21054662
You argue like a poltard and you're full of shit like them too. Lying ass

>>21054676
>He thinks 18th of Brumaire is about Russia
>Can't even read his post saying the opposite
Wow, you are just dumb as shit.
>>21054668
And that quote has nothing to do with what we're discussing.... now you're just random shit now because you don't have anything to say.

Lmao, the left com tranny thinks FRANCE is Russia. Maybe he's a bot? He just spams quotes, and he can't understand or read them. He doesn't know what 18th of Br is talking about, and he's trying that as a source of discussion about Russia. Wow. Massive pseud.

Which Marxists wrote about technology? If none, that seems a major oversight for historical materialists.

>>21054560
>Every Marrxist-Leninist state that collapsed in the last 30-40 years, and the ones that exist moved away from it for liberalization
Marxist-Leninist states are capitalist
>Communism is centralized economic planning, by the state, according to a rational plan
not by the state
>That type of planning was tried in every Marxist-Leninist country and it caused poverty
no, for example food production in USSR or Poland at the height of their supposed "communism" was mostly in private hands. the average wage worker in the city spent well over half of his salary to buy privately produced food on the market. such was the centralized planning.
the inability of the USSR to command their economy as well as the private nature of their food production was openly admitted by Stalin himself:
>But at present we are unable to command with the help of prices. And also the income from the sales in the collective farm market goes to the collective farm peasantry.
https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/5convers.htm
>because of how terrible Marxist policies were
retards be talking about some mythical "Marxist policies" but can't name event a single one and then successfully demonstrate its connection to Marxism

>>21054591
>Historical materialism magically doesn't apply when its convenient
why wouldn't it apply? how does a capitalist state existing contradict historical materialism? it would've contradicted historical materialism if Russia were able to build socialism in one country with its 1920 technical basis, but it wasn't.
>Its always evil men who ruin your plans
where have I ever said that? it was the material conditions and class circumstances of Russia in the 1920s, as well as the international balance of class forces that led to such development of Russia, not some evil men.
>When you lose the argument on productive forces, you immediately abandon historical materialism and argue great man theory
how does what I said constitute me abandoning my argument? it's perfectly in line with it. I said that socialism in one country was impossible, and that's not only not inconsistent, but it in fact materialistically explains why later Russia has shedded the communist government and adopted one adequate to its only possible path of development given the defeat of the international revolution, namely the capitalist path.
just use your brain for five seconds instead of having a knee-jerk reaction and making a moron out of yourself
>>21054590
what's supposed to be the relation between individual small-holding have and communal land ownership?

>>21054613
>Marx said only political revolution was necessary in Russia and the economic basis of communism existed there.
he doesn't say that in your quote. he only says that the commune could develop in socialist direction, which he expands on in the preface to the Manifesto, saying that indeed such development is possible, BUT ONLY ON THE CONDITION OF THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION IN THE WEST.
also he says explicitly that, far from the economic basis already existing there, the commune must appropriate the capitalist achievements, i.e. modern forces of production:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-1.htm
>Precisely because it is contemporaneous with capitalist production, the rural commune may appropriate all its positive achievements without undergoing its [terrible] frightful vicissitudes.
>>21054640
>Marx, in the Critique of The Gotha Programme, made it clear there's phases of communism. A first and second. Russia's communes were of the first, and only required a political revolution.
just stop embarrassing itself with this fan fiction. the phases refer to modern communism, whereas Russian communes were primitive communism, or primeval forms of land ownership. confusing the two is just straight ridiculous.
common land ownership was the original economic form of humanity. if you think Marx believed modern communism was technically possible 8000 years ago, then how do you explain all his talk about capitalism creating the necessary technical basis for it?
>There was no need for a high level of productive forces, as the Russian commune demonstrated, for communism to be possible in Russia
again the basic confusion between primitive and modern communism. primeval communism can constitute the social basis for modern communism, but only provided with the technical means for modern communism developed by capitalism.
>>21054730
Karl Marx

>>21054732
>what's supposed to be the relation between individual small-holding have and communal land ownership?
I don't think marx lived long enough to figure out what his conclusion was. But his experience during the rise of Louis the 18th was indicative of the fact that the peasantry could be easily satiated by small concessions of conservative governments, since the petit bourgeoisie had a tendency to exploit and villainize the peasantry, with the intention of cutting them out of the democratic process. Trump managed to do the same in the modern era, because liberals were too afraid of true left wing populist platforms, as they always are

>>21054783
>But his experience during the rise of Louis the 18th was indicative of the fact that the peasantry could be easily satiated by small concessions of conservative governments
sure, but that's only after communes are disbanded and they become actual peasant private proprietors, or if the communes are transformed into co-operative capitalist enterprises. it doesn't apply to them when they still exist

>>21053481
Literally yes, that’s all that they really want. They want a society defined by Netflix and fast food obesity but with a lot of welfare and anti-American propaganda. That’s all.

>>21054812
The concept of obshchina is more or less completely foreign to a westerner, so comparisons will unfortunately be largely imagined unless there are accounts from someone who's lived in both modes. It also feels like an outdated question anyways, as some aspects of Marxist tend to be

>>21054740
>Karl Marx
Where did he write about technology?

>>21054536
>Marx had already acknowledged Russia only needed a political revolution , not productive forces, to do communism.
Have you considered that Marx was wrong

>>21054869
it's relevant to explaining history, which means it will never be outdated. it might be irrelevant for the present, but I didn't see anybody say otherwise
>>21054879
in Capital, in Grundrisse