/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4545132]

"Trust me, you dumb proles."

[Anonymous No.4545196]

"The Bolshevik system ultimately was based on authoritarian fear, for the New Aristocracy had no support of any class. Thus, exploitation and self-preservation became its prime goals."
- Makhnovchina, 1922

[Anonymous No.4545205]

>>4545196
For the [Bolsheviks] had no support of any class [CITATION NEEDED]

[Anonymous No.4545222]

So? He was right in the end.

This new wave of Leninism-hating coming from the left is kind of silly, given that in a few years of the time-honoured tradition of revolutionary terror he made more progress towards worker's welfare, women's rights and minoritie's rights than western liberals have made 50 years of representative democracy.

[Anonymous No.4545227]

So? He was right in the end.

This new wave of Leninism-hating coming from the left is kind of silly, given that in a few years of the time-honoured tradition of revolutionary terror he made more progress towards worker's welfare, women's rights and minoritie's rights than western liberals have made in 50 years of representative democracy.

p. cool/10 woud follow again

[Anonymous No.4545306]

>>4545205
Do you want me to give you the source of quote which explains the whole thing?

[Anonymous No.4545312]

>>4545227
But there is not global representative democracy. Lenin social program advanced more than American one did in say between 1917 and 1967, yes, but for example Finland, a representative democracy where Red lost the civil war had much better social program in 1967 than USSR after Lenin.

[Anonymous No.4545317]

>>4545205
https://libcom.org/library/chapter-04-fall-hetman-petliurism-bolshevism
From "Bolshevism and its class character".

[Anonymous No.4545532]

>>4545227
> The working class must emancipate itself
> it's the job of the intellectuals to do it for them!

Leninism/vanguardism is the cancer killing Marxism.

[Anonymous No.4545533]

>>4545205
Simon Pirani's workplace soviet studies in Moscow in late war communism.

[Anonymous No.4545535]

>>4545227
>[Bolsheviks were social democrats]
And you wonder why working class revolutionaries detest them? BIGGER CAGES LONGER CHAINS.

[Anonymous No.4545552]

>>4545535


hey, get a long enough chain and itle wrap around the world, whats the difference in the end?

[Anonymous No.4545562]

[Anonymous No.4545567]

>>4545552
The weight on your ankle and the weight on the world.

[Anonymous No.4545568]

>>4545532
If a working man's revolution is already laughably implausible in the enlightened, developed West, then how likely is it that the feudal peasantry of Russia, illiterate and deeply reactionary, would actually, say, read Marx and "emancipate themselves"?

[Anonymous No.4545574]

>>4545535
Working class revolutionaries detested them because the Left naturally prefers romantic failure to pragmatic success.

[Anonymous No.4545575]

>>4545568
> would actually, say, read Marx and "emancipate themselves"?

Yeah, because, you know, Marx wrote about a time where everyone would read Marx and then revolt.

Right...

"The end is near! Buy my books!" - Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.4545581]

>>4545567


we'll engineer ultralight super-alloy chains, that double as can openers.

[Anonymous No.4545595]

>>4545535
and please stop with the chain/cage metaphors

[Anonymous No.4545617]

People who listen to hegelians deserve to suffer.

[Anonymous No.4545641]

>>4545595
Why don't you work for a fucking living and tell me about metaphors?

[Anonymous No.4545702]

>implying Leninism is killing the left.
>implying it isn't this petty sectarian bullshit.

One divides into two, I guess.

[Anonymous No.4545733]

>>4545532
>Seriously thinking the Russian people didn't need help in liberating themselves
>Not understanding how fucked up Tsarist Russia was
>hur intellechuals is dum
>Everything has to go according to me pet theory, and it if doesn't it's terrible despite its results!

Explain why proletariat of the US and Europe haven't seized the means of production and instituted socialism?

[Anonymous No.4545735]

>>4545702
I've worked with many supposed "Leninists." When it came to substitutionalism, they had long broken with Lenin and instead favoured our class.

[Anonymous No.4545738]

>>4545562
>efficent

[Anonymous No.4545746]

>>4545702
Fucking this. I realize that the fact that left is an intellectual tradition and pursues the truth means having a lot of ideas in one tent but can we worry about finding the best idea among them when the right is demolished?
BTW, it's Maoism. :)

[Anonymous No.4545755]

>>4545746
Well, I was going to go get some dinner, but meeting another Maoist on the chan's is rare.

What do you think about a mass party? I mean, I think Leninism has legit criticisms, and I have found myself toying with the idea of a mass party.

[Anonymous No.4545757]

>>4545702
>Man, I wonder why the left is so dead?
>Those goddamn Leninists don't have correct ideology!

[Anonymous No.4545780]

>>4545733
>Explain why proletariat of the US and Europe haven't seized the means of production and instituted socialism?
This is a pretty big question. (Also you forgot to put 'yet' and the end of your sentence.)

Well, World War I for starters.
http://web.viu.ca/davies/H482.WWI/Mayer.domestic.causes.WWI.1967.htm

[Anonymous No.4545790]

>>4545755
I actually wouldn't call myself a Maoist, if only because I'm new to the scene, but I do have Maoist sympathies. The mass party is a good idea but it obviously needs to work in conjunction with the people in locale. However, it's difficult for the revolution to occur from the bottom to the top, so a mass party seems essential? Like I said I'm trying to learn about these things, so my thoughts aren't well formed on the matter.

[Anonymous No.4545818]

>>4545532
The workingmen will workingmen remain; they require their bosses and commanders, their directions and guidelines. All we must change is what they have at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.4545828]

>mfw Lenin owned a copy of the Birth of Tragedy.

>mfw Lenin wanted to emancipate through wars an struggle the proletariats and to cast down religion while presenting a new non-degenerate non-bourgois world.

>mfw he was the closest thing to the Ubermensch of the 20th century, shaping morality and politics as he dominated history.

>mfw he brilliantly failed.

[Anonymous No.4545840]

>>4545828
>using the word 'degenerate'
dropped
people who believe in degenerates are the privileged who have never fought for food
they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes

[Anonymous No.4545844]

>>4545828
He failed? There was a veritable new morality with none of the sentimental bourgeois lady bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4545853]

>>4545828
>failed

[Anonymous No.4545861]

Why is the Left so divided at the moment?

[5p3G4s45%2o4T4d No.4545885]

Shithead lost the election by a landslide to the Socialist Revolutionary Party, so he got butthurt and seized power by force. No wonder Fanny Kaplan tried to kill him.

State socialism ("state capitalist monopoly" in Lenin's words) doesn't work. It caused rampant starvation because peasent were resentful. Luxemburgism or Ricardian Socialism are the only ways to go about it. Hell, even Catolonian anarchism worked better than Leninism.

[5p3G4s45%2o4T4d No.4545890]

Shithead lost the election by a landslide to the Socialist Revolutionary Party, so he got butthurt and seized power by force. No wonder Fanny Kaplan tried to kill him.

State socialism ("state capitalist monopoly" in Lenin's words) doesn't work. It caused rampant starvation because peasent were resentful. Luxemburgism or Ricardian Socialism are the only ways to go about it. Hell, even Catolonian anarchism worked better than Leninism

[Anonymous No.4545894]

>>4545885
I was born a bitter old man who got his heart broken in Catalonia, 1936, and I haven't been right since...

[Anonymous No.4545933]

>>4545861
we're still getting used to the idea that theres' no Left without Marx and no Marxism without Lenin

[Anonymous No.4545959]

>>4545933
Tell me more about how my workplace is incapable of self-comprehension, yet that communism is made possible by an inteliigentsia with bourgeois ideology?

[Anonymous No.4545977]

>>4545840

>fighting for food
>ever

Your ancestors were clearly slaves. Why can't you just accept that?

[Anonymous No.4545983]

>>4545977
>never having had to struggle for your life
>believing that you will ever be able to dominate the lower classes
You can spout your fancy French words all you want, but you're always at the mercy of a gangbanger with a Hi-Point. What does that make your philosophy worth, in the end?

[Anonymous No.4545995]

>>4545983
Consider what revolutionaries with ideology did to the gangbangers with hipoints in the Battle of Algiers.

[Anonymous No.4545997]

>>4545983

>implying modern day nobility isn't either privately secured or armed to the teeth

the gates aren't just for show

[Anonymous No.4546001]

>>4545997
Is that yours? That is beautiful. I wish more Leftist were partial towards guns, but they espouse the same bullshit liberal anti-gun rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.4546009]

>>4545997
that's why the working men will be the face and the force of the next revolution.
>>4545995
not the point. the only truth that is worth knowing is the truth of poverty.

[Anonymous No.4546014]

>>4546009

>There is a slave-morality and there is a master-morality.

[Anonymous No.4546016]

>>4546001
>I wish more Leftist were partial towards guns
It's not a considered a political orientation issue anywhere but in the US.

[Anonymous No.4546017]

>>4545977
man I really liked that painting of him.

[Anonymous No.4546025]

>>4546001
>I wish more Leftist were partial towards guns

My experience with north-americans suggests anything left of liberal is 50/50 on the gun debate.

[Anonymous No.4546026]

>>4546016
>It's not a considered a political orientation issue anywhere but in the US
So most european Leftists are indifferent towards guns?

[Anonymous No.4546048]

>>4546026
Pretty much everyone from left to right frowns upon gun ownership in Western Europe.

You can still own them, the state just makes it a lot more harder to obtain them, mostly through bureaucracy/regulation/taxation.

[Anonymous No.4546071]

Small arms are not a political issue for revolutionaries. The real difficulty lies in obtaining artillery, MANPADs, and AT.

[Anonymous No.4546075]

>>4546071

don't forget plastic explosives

[Anonymous No.4546084]

>>4546075
They're not problematic to obtain, it is the copper discs.

[Anonymous No.4546109]

>mfw Leninists/Maoists/etc. dream about their pathetic Utopian revolution that will never happen just as ethno-nationalists/Fascists/etc. do
Enjoy never being Transcendental newfriends

[Anonymous No.4546142]

>>4546014
in the face of the most basic human existence- in the face of death, struggle, poverty, abject terror- no man still living has retained his master morality. what does this reveal about your morality? it is nothing but pretense and pretension. the only truth is that of the worker.

[Anonymous No.4546149]

>>4546142
> in the face of death, struggle, poverty, abject terror
>no man still living has retained his master morality.
Nietzsche pretty explicitly states that people in that condition frequently have a master morality and are frequently the best example of it, or something similar to that. I'll post the quote if I can find it and it'd be great if anyone else who had it could post it.

[Anonymous No.4546328]

>>4546142

You are clearly brainwashed

Only the finest example of the human species matter. Everything else is just the dirt and minerals that these lofty souls grow up out of, much as man grew up out of the material of the animal and plant world

[Anonymous No.4546346]

"Head like a fucking orange."

[Anonymous No.4547318]

>>4546109
> Leninists
> Maoists
> Utopianists
What? They were the most pragmatic of all revolutionaries.

[Anonymous No.4547342]

>>4545574

The true pure socialist supports every revolution except the ones that succeed.

[Anonymous No.4547392]

>>4545733
>seriously thinking the Russian people can deal with any form of liberation

Freedom isn't for those who can't acquire it.

[Anonymous No.4547394]

>>4545828
He succeeded.

[Anonymous No.4547412]

>>4545733
>Seriously thinking the Russian people didn't need help in liberating themselves
Ukrainians did it and Ukraine was even poorer and more backwards than Russia.

[Anonymous No.4547422]

Someone tell me how Lenin succeeded


Not a troll

[Anonymous No.4547429]

>>4547422
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

[Anonymous No.4547430]

>>4546109
how do i into transcendence?

[Anonymous No.4548891]

>>4545755
Is Maoism the patrician choice?

[Anonymous No.4548903]

>>4548891
The patrician choice is you rolling on your belly while I kick you to death for crimes against my class.

[Anonymous No.4548904]

>>4547422
"in our time" a pretty good bbc radio program that covers culture, history and philosophy had an episode on Lenin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00546pv

[Anonymous No.4548912]

>>4545317
>libcom.org

[Anonymous No.4548915]

>>4548903
No, seriously though, what's the appeal in Maoism?

[Anonymous No.4548924]

>>4548915
Maoism has a sheen of ultraism from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yan'an actually saw a position where workers control was operating alongside a Leninist Party. The emphasis on the mass rather than the centre in the party makes it appealing for Stalinist dissidents and lower rankers.

Basically, Maoism gives you in a stable form the politics of the 1930s without the necessity of constant blood purges. This appeals to the bureaucracy, and to the class _if_ constant industrial growth is forecast in plans.

Outside of soviet-style societies, Maoism offers a patina of revolutionary democracy over Leninism, which means that Leninists can avoid dealing with the issue of the class itself in favour of their bourgeois ideological project; while kinda agreeing that the mass of people can send "from" to the peak.

There are also some post-Maoisms that took "from the people" seriously enough that I'd call them post-Leninist. The appeal in these Maoisms is the same as in any class struggle proletarian movement for liberation: blood, sweat, tears, failure, and the only method possible for overthrowing the value form and wage labour.

[Anonymous No.4548931]

>>4548915
Making the peasantry a revolutionary political body, also further develops Imperialism in the Marxist-Leninist sense. Mao embraces the rural classes whereas Marx belittled them and Lenin feared them, that's the appeal of Maoism to revolutionary groups.

[Anonymous No.4548959]

>>4548931
Except that the places where a "turn to the peasantry" was most successful, such as Vietnam, were quite consciously a turn to the rural proletariat as the productive proletariat in that society. France had industrialised Vietnamese agriculture and that's why we saw far more advanced rural proletarian consciousness in Vietnam, on the whole, than in China.

Also Leninists need to reapply Lenin's analysis of the rural proletariat of the Ukraine to the Makhnovishchina before they can say that they've learnt about the countryside. This is an untaken path that needs to be explored for a full Leninist account of the countryside in the twentieth century.

[Anonymous No.4549068]

>>4546071
>implying you need those things anyway

[Anonymous No.4549072]

>>4549068
Yes, friend, you need those things. Would you like to talk about PLAF loss rates when facing US versus ARVN? Or their capacity to stand up at Hue without artillery support?

Political violence means far more than small arms, and small arms are the easiest solved portion of political violence.

[Anonymous No.4549158]

>>4548924
>>4548931
Thanks, y'all.

[Anonymous No.4549278]

Jew-enabling swine

[Anonymous No.4549472]

>>4546026
most european leftists don't give a fuck about guns and gun ownership, same with european right wingers. It's literally not an issue. They're probably both united in thinking USA is idiotic and generally quite a sick society where gun ownership/ school shootings are so commonplace.

[Anonymous No.4549489]

>>4548959
Are you familiar with Hinton's works on rural China's communes? I remember him describing the Chinese peasantry as being both highly conscious and industrial during the revolution. That's not correct, or the rural Viet were simply moreso than the Chinese?

[Anonymous No.4549500]

>>4549489
From what I understand about the vastness of China, Hinton would necessarily be talking about a geographically and culturally limited area. In contrast, the high density of Vietnamese agriculture combined with the years of proletarianisation (the fish tax in the 1930s effectively produced this) helped.

Remember that the Southern Revolution outpaced the VWP in the South, and the VWP in the South outpaced the VWP in the North.

[Anonymous No.4549641]

>>4548924
>which means that Leninists can avoid dealing with the issue of the class itself in favour of their bourgeois ideological project

what class would that be? It's something I've been thinking about lately. I don't find the Trotskyist labels like "nomenklatura" very helpful in this regard. But surely a specific group that tends toward bourgeois economic relations in 100% of its historical existence should be isolated and analyzed with deeper criticism than what the GPCR offered up....swapping out the cadres at the top sounds like a band-aid, not a cure, even if you did somehow swap out the cancer with Yan'an Maoist diehards. They'd eventually rot, too. I still believe in the Party as a useful tool for making revolution, but it's looking more and more like it should be discarded almost immediately afterward. It reminds me in a strange way of that quote Americans obsess over: He who would sacrifice liberty (proletarian political power) for safety (the stability of Leninist consolidation) deserves neither.

[Anonymous No.4549945]

>>4549641
I'm tempted by a Ðilasian new class hypothesis, I have strong reasons to believe from factory sociology from the soviet-style societies that non-value form social worth was being extracted as surplus human labour time.

_However_, it is clear that the elite stratum in these societies _primarily_ extracted wealth as the value form. We should therefore assign them the relational term "bourgeoisie."

I believe your analysis of "The" party is correct, but I believe that a series of parties in coalition may provide a sufficient basis for maintenance of proletarian power AND consolidation IF they uphold the principles of our workplace councils first and foremost; even above a party, union or organisation's temporary losses. This of course means no enemies to the left, and socialist legality.

[Anonymous No.4550276]

>you will never destroy useless decadent shit with your cultural revolution friends

[Anonymous No.4551675]

i agree

[Anonymous No.4551690]

>the failure of the soviet union justifies neoliberalism

why has everyone since 1970 believed this fallacy?

[Anonymous No.4551692]

>>4551675
With whom?

[Anonymous No.4551717]

>>4551690
because very good propaganda

[Anonymous No.4551719]

>>4551690
Those are typically the people who believe neoliberalism has increased trade and lead to more free and open markets.

[Anonymous No.4551724]

>>4551690
where's the fallacy

[Anonymous No.4551766]

>>4551690

No, the overwhelming success of free economies compared to socialist shitholes justifies liberalism.

[Anonymous No.4551777]

>>4551766
Where are these free economies? In any economies of any scale in the west, outside of a few city states, I see highly regulated and managed economies with power concentrated in a few highly connected corporate entities with the coordination and support of an ever increasing state.

[Anonymous No.4551782]

>>4551690
False consciousness.

[Anonymous No.4551795]

>>4551777
Of any scale in the world*

[Anonymous No.4551797]

>>4551777
>Where are these free economies?

Relatively free economies.

You might think corporatism and cronyism is a big deal in America and Europe - but trust me, it is nothing compared to South America and Russia.

[Anonymous No.4551800]

>>4551724
how do you get from one to the other?

[Anonymous No.4551829]

Which polity has produced the most striking examples of political propaganda and why is it the People's Republic of China?

[Anonymous No.4551838]

>>4551829
United States of America

[Anonymous No.4551908]

>>4551838
Their propaganda is large in volume but aesthetically and morally sub-par, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4551925]

>>4551838
Their propaganda is large in volume but aesthetically and morally sub-par, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4551955]

So, my thread about Marxism was just deleted for being off-topic, I assume. I wonder if our beloved janitor (was it you, Butterfly?) has ever met the communists from /pol/. Most of them are anti-Semites. /pol/ is not a board for discussing politics, it's a far-right echo chamber; if there is a board on 4chan for having intelligent discourse on Marxism, it's definitely /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4552147]

>>4551724
Forced binary / excluded middle

[Anonymous No.4552157]

>tfw you are incredibly critical of 20th century socialist regimes when talking to some people but defensive of them with others

I feel so two-faced.

[Anonymous No.4552784]

>>4551925
It's the most effective since it functions as a pyramid scheme. Take music videos for example. People rent fancy cars and whores before they can even afford them, make a music video, sell this lifestyle to voyeuristic viewers, acquire the lifestyle they want by acting like they already have it, inspiring more people to do the same et cetera.

[Anonymous No.4552904]

>>4551690
>he thinks neoliberalism is a thing
its just sound economic reasoning mixed with Keynesianism to justify the enrichment of the political class. Example:

I'll privatize X by selling it to my brother,

[Anonymous No.4553792]

>>4552157
I know that feel.

[Anonymous No.4553824]

>>4553792
>>4552157
It's a fine line. I'll defend the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China or Cuba, but I won't be edgy about it, or go full /pol/ (that is THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FORGED FIGURES ALL LIES).

[Anonymous No.4554000]

>>4552157
I do this with fascism as well. I can always see the trainwreck a-coming but I can't help myself.

[Anonymous No.4556289]

>>4545532
>>4545532
>>4545532
>>4545532
fucking this

[Anonymous No.4556294]

>>4545567
you just rekt >>4545552

[Anonymous No.4556331]

>>4545828
>mfw he brilliantly failed.

He was shot.

He was incredibly successful, the USSR under Lenin, despite having Gulags and shit, was the most progressive country in the world at the time, fucking homosexuals had equal rights, it's often referred to as the "revolutionary woodstock".

Lenin died which allowed Capitalist Roaders to quickly overtake the party who had very little vision aside from building their own wealth.

While it is debatable if Stalin was Socialist or a Capitalist, it is blatantly obvious that Stalin was a ultra-authoritarian conservative cunt, that rolled back most of the social reforms under Lenin like woman and homosexual rights, abortion rights and reinstated the fucking Orthodox Church.

Lenin and Mao were two visionaries that died before their time and are two of the most unfairly bashed people in all of world history. (I would argue that Mao is the most unfairly and propagandized person in all of history, not even wikipedia names any of the massive achievements made under his rule like the doubling of life expectancy or cutting the famine rate of China to a quarter of what it was under the Nationals in a mere 9 years)

[Anonymous No.4556348]

What are some reliable sources on reading about specifically Lenin, China and Vietnam?

Wikipedia pretty much just lists death counts from the Black Book of Communism and nothing else.

Seriously, look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

Ever seen anything so blatantly written by assmad South Vietnamese?

>Go to Lunar New Years event
>All the Vietnamese were flying South Vietnamese flags
>They sun the French and South Vietnamese national anthems
>MFW

[Anonymous No.4556373]

>>4556331
Chiang Kai-shek > Mao

[Anonymous No.4556380]

>>4550276
>Destroy temples that have been fleecing the public for hundreds of years and been pushing theocratic shit
>Western world
>WAAAH WAAAAH SO EVIL

>Find temple or ruins of ancient city thousands of years old
>Resources under it
>Capitalist: FUCKING BLOW UP THAT SHIT YEEEHAAAW
>Fragile Environmental ecosystem that holds thousands of endangered species
>Resources under it
>FUCKING BURN THAT SHIT DOWN AND MINE THE FUCK OUT IF IT, JUST BASH OR KILL THE PROTESTERS THAT GET IN THE WAY YEEEHAW!


Capitalists are the biggest hypocritical fucktards ever. Like violent confrontation doesn't happen after every single fucking revolution ever, or were the French and American Revolution entirely pacifist where everyone just started hugging and deciding that we should all democracy?

[Anonymous No.4556383]

>>4551925
American Propaganda is propaganda perfected.

You blast people 24/7 with it and they don't even know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiKMmrG1ZKU

[Anonymous No.4556386]

>>4556373
said no one ever except imperialists that were raking in millions from keeping Chinese down with Opium.

[Anonymous No.4556388]

>>4556383
>that superliminal propaganda
JOIN THE NAVY

[Anonymous No.4556392]

>>4556388
Or you know, how pretty much every American action movie or show portrays the military and CIA as perfect, ultra-morale freedom lovers who may have to do something they don't like, but they have to do it to protect freedom.

Or just show the US military as fucking awesome like Transformers, where the Decepticons are fucking killed by US Soldiers.

Have you ever seen a US secret agent series about Americans going around destroying democracies or funding death squads or selling Cocaine to poor black neighborhoods to get untraceable money so they can give weapons to the Iranians?

Edward Bernays perfected propaganda and Americans (along with everyone in the west) are blasted with it non-stop.

[Anonymous No.4556409]

>>4556392
There are plenty of films that are openly critical of the military and other shady arms of government--this is not perhaps the norm but they exist and many are popular

At what point does something stop being unnuanced entertainment and become propaganda?

[Anonymous No.4556412]

>>4556380
In the afternoon of August 5, 1966, some tenth-grade students at the Girls Middle School attached to Beijing Teachers University started beating the black gang, a group comprised of three vice-principals and two deans (there was no principal). Many students came to join in. The students splashed ink on the clothes of these five, forced them to wear high hats, hung boards with their names crossed out by red X's on their necks, forced them to kneel on the ground, hit them with nail-spiked clubs, scalded them with boiling water, and so on. After three hours of torture, the first vice-principal, Bian Zhongyun, lost consciousness and was put into a garbage cart. Two hours later she was sent to the hospital across the street. There, she was later found to have been dead for some time. Another vice-principal, Hu Zhitao , suffered bone fractures. The others were also severely injured. Bian Zhongyun, fifty years old, who had been working for this middle school for seventeen years, was the first educator to be beaten to death by students in Beijing during the Cultural Revolution.

etc

>when you have something like this happening on a statistically noticeable scale, there is a problem

[Anonymous No.4556416]

>>4556409
When the US military is involved in production.

Not only that, there is many, many other forms of propaganda out there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWoorJKA6pg

Enjoy this miniseries from Truthloader.

[Anonymous No.4556417]

>>4556412
That's only because the other fools in charge didn't understand that you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette and the great leap forward was alright.

[Anonymous No.4556426]

>>4556412
Again different from other Revolutions how?

All Revolutions pretty much involve mass violence. The fucking French Revolution was mass executions 24/7.

Horrible Histories does a guy little skit on it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otnADq4Y0-A

[Anonymous No.4556437]

>>4556426
but those were bourgeois revolutions, so that's acceptable in hindsight

[Anonymous No.4556495]

>>4556412
just a massive namefag

[Anonymous No.4557336]

>>4556331
>fucking homosexuals had equal rights

Did they really?

Every thread like this is a massive redpill for me, even though I've considered myself a leftist fro some time. The average neoliberal-indoctrinated, consumerist citizen is deluded as fuck.

[Anonymous No.4557364]

>>4545132

[Anonymous No.4557419]

>>4552784
> Thinking that actual American propaganda is just some superficial sale of vapid lifestyle
It goes much deeper.

[Anonymous No.4557431]

>>4556331
Mao didn't die soon enough.

[Anonymous No.4557437]

>>4556331
> Lenin
> Cool guy
> Thought that famines were a good thing in Russian Empire because they brought revolution closer and thus they shouldn't be intervened by leftists

[Anonymous No.4557440]

>>4556386
That's fun since CCP was funded by Opium sales (being the leading producer) for whole 30s and early 40s.

[Anonymous No.4557448]

>>4557431
> Economy as the prime mover of a nation
This thread is filled with people who believe that American propaganda is merely showing that CIA is a good organization.

No.

It's this.

[Anonymous No.4557459]

>>4557437
Are you implying he wasn't right in in his prediction, though? The worst slave-owner is the one who treats his slaves well and gives the system a veneer of justice, thus postponing reform and prolonging the suffering of countless others.

[Anonymous No.4557471]

>>4557448
My point is simply that Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms made an enormous positive impact, and he did much more to improve the country than Mao ever did in his later years.

[Anonymous No.4557936]

>>4557471
>enormous positive impact
>enormous impact
Try 1989 as a reaction to the destruction of workers rights and intellectuals rights in China.

[Anonymous No.4559107]

>capitalism will collapse by any minute, maybe now! or.. now! maybe, I wasn'- NOW! Let's just wait for the NOW!

[Anonymous No.4559384]

>>4557431
>What is mechanization

>Farm privatization

more like, we actually opened up and were able to purchase agricultural machinery over overseas.

[Anonymous No.4559569]

>>4559107
>th-th-this is how commies think ye?? hehehe, yeah, dum commies! My HS econ prof would be so proud of me!

[Anonymous No.4559574]

>>4557471
>tfw being a Communist who defends modern China

[Anonymous No.4559580]

>>4559384
But Maoist China already had the best, or at least top-grade, farm machinery in the world from the Soviet Union (also in use in the US at the time).

>>4557431
Pure propaganda. Smoke and mirrors.

[Anonymous No.4560159]

>>4559574
Almost as ironic as communists defending Lenin and Stalin and Mao.

[Anonymous No.4560181]

>>4560159
>suffering from an infantile disorder
>2014

[Anonymous No.4560184]

>>4557471

I don't know why I even bother engaging in these lowly discussions, but if anyone wants to have a better understanding of the achievements of Mao and Xiapong, try reading:

Meisner - The Xiaoping Era

[Anonymous No.4560189]

>>4560181
You do realise that Lenin lost that argument by publishing that tract?

[Anonymous No.4560217]

>>4559580
So facts are only facts when they agree with your world view? Also, why would you stick up for Mao? Beyond the typical human rights abuses common to most communist regimes, he also destroyed a lot of Chinese history and culture during the "Cultural Revolution". He was scum.

[Anonymous No.4560250]

>>4560217
Communists are scum. Mao was only implementing Marxist theory when he destroyed China's cultural heritage.

Also GDP is a retarded way to measure a nation's progress. The West's GDP has gone nowhere but up for 300 years and look at what dire fucking straits we are in. Way worse off than before the Masonic Revolution of 1789.

[Anonymous No.4560253]

>>4556331
>He was shot
no, he had a terrible series of strokes that would have eventually killed him. Stalin finished him off with poison to make sure he died.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/health/research/lenins-death-remains-a-mystery-for-doctors.html

>was the most progressive country in the world
but he also left a terrible legacy. he created the authoritarian state that stalin inherited like a huge corrupt bureaucracy, too many power centers etc.
>Capitalist Roaders
they werent so bad, bukharin and tomsky had their own visions of how to shape the soviet union. it has been said that bukharin would have grown the eco at the same rate as stalin, but stalins emphasis on heavy industry saved ussr in wwii
>Stalin was a ultra-authoritarian conservative
but also building off the framework that lenin ultimately left him.
>Mao
mao has an extremely muddled legacy. he was great for adapting communism to the chinese situation and then triumping over the japanese and the nationalists (although a lot of it was good timing). he started going a bit mad imo towards the end of the 50s. I think he geniunely thought he was doing good but he had many terrible ideas for china with terrible consequences. he should have died early or stepped out of the spotlight altogether

[Anonymous No.4560259]

>>4560250
So how do you measure a nations economic progress?

When I used to study history, I was taught that the best overall indication of a healthy economy is the size of its middle class.

Basically, less disparity in wealth, healthier economy. Stable unemployment rates were also a large factor (fewer boom/bust cycles). It was obviously more complex than that, but I'm not huge on economics.

[Anonymous No.4560263]

>>4556417
>10-15 million dead dead in famine following the great leap forward
nope. it was a political disaster for mao. he retreated from the spotlight until the cultural revolution.

[Anonymous No.4560279]

>>4560259
>When I used to study history, I was taught that the best overall indication of a healthy economy is the size of its middle class.

>When I used to study history I uncritically absorbed ideology from my teacher.

>I didn't study history.

Yes, it is pretty obvious.

[Anonymous No.4560285]

>>4560279
>When I used to study history I uncritically absorbed ideology from my teacher.
>Implying

Thats just the blanket method we used, asshat. I was asking for your particular alternative, not a shit flinging contest.

[Anonymous No.4560286]

>>4560259
>So how do you measure a nations economic progress?

It depends on your definition of "economic progress," for one.

For another, why would it even be necessary to measure economic growth? Is economic growth necessary in itself? Is it a good thing? Is it at all related to a nation's progress?

In what way can anyone outside of the small subset of self-interested elites who implemented it consider GDP useful for tracking anything at all when it relies on utter blithering idiocy like hedonic regression?

[Anonymous No.4560293]

>>4560286
And I note that, of course, GDP is a marvelous measurement tool for a certain value of "economic progress".

[Anonymous No.4560295]

>>4556426
But that history of the french revolution glosses over a lot (i know its comedy).
And what do you mean by mass violence? If you mean something akin to the frenzy of the cultural revolution, there was nothing like it. The worst excesses by the common people were the tuileries massacres, and the september massacres (both committed in paris with 1000 people killed in each event). The rest was committed by the (sept 92-july 94) revolutionary government. and most of those deaths came about in the suppression of counter revolutions (basically civil war) in the south and west of france. 40000 people were executed during the reign of terror, true, but maybe half were killed in paris and then the rest spread throughout the country. this was in a country of 28 million

>>4556437
There were different parts of the French revolution, the first part from 1789 to sept 1792, is called the liberal or (as marxists call it) the bourgeois revolution. nobody really died during that phase, but many died during the establishment of the republic after sept 1792 and the subsequent revolutionary period.

[Anonymous No.4560307]

>>4560250
>Way worse off than before the Masonic Revolution of 1789.
thats not true and you know it. consider all the tremendous amount of medical advances we've made. they literally knew nothing. and the same goes for health in general. everyone, even nobles, suffered from disease, malnutrition, terrible food and drinking water. then theres all this technology...Of course being better off materially isnt measure of quality of life, but i sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to live before 1789.

[Anonymous No.4560316]

>>4560307
Technological progress masks societal decay. Removing from the equation scientific advances made in the last 200 years, I can say with confidence that I'd much rather live in the France of 1788 than the France of 2013.

[Anonymous No.4560322]

>>4549472
Exactly, all the parties in the UK are in favour of gun control, from the most far right (UKIP) to the most far left (Greens). Please don't lump the rest of the world in with your need to murder each other.

[Anonymous No.4560326]

>>4557936
>intellectual rights
but mao hated intellectuals and technocrats because he thought they were stifling the collective will of the peasantry and the workers. the 100 flowers campaign in 1958 was a backlash as what he saw the the bureaucratization of the commie party. Then in the cultural revolution thousands of intellectuals were forced to work the countryside where many died. thousands also were forced to commit suicide.
>workers rights
these werent so good in maoist china either.

[Anonymous No.4560347]

>>4560316
How do you measure that societal decay?

[Anonymous No.4560355]

>>4560322
Yawn. Save us your faux moral superiority. I notice your #nogunz fanaticism didn't prevent Lee Rigby from being murdered by a shitskin with a knife in broad daylight, in the middle of a busy street. On the other hand, had he been openly carrying a gun, I get the feeling that Ahmed would have probably slunk back off to the ghetto and taken out his rage on another shitskin, probably a lowlife criminal like him. This is what happens in the US, after all, where most of the gun deaths, after suicide, are gangbangers and nigger drug dealers offing each other.

[Anonymous No.4560369]

>>4560347
It doesn't need to be "measured," nor could it be. It's apparent and can be described in terms of cultural outcomes and societal shifts.

[Anonymous No.4560376]

I'm a long time socialist who's recently become disenfranchised with the political movement, mainly due to the way the left in general has embraced identity politics.

[Anonymous No.4560381]

>>4560316
Then, you can always just move to some 3rd world country

[Anonymous No.4560388]

>>4560381
Sure, if you know of one inhabited by Europeans and following some form of traditional European government. As far I know they're all nigger-infested hellholes ruled by barbaric strongmen, though.

[Anonymous No.4560652]

>>4556373
g8 b8 m8 I r8 1/8 cause that was just awful

[Anonymous No.4560698]

>>4560376

Oh boy, does the left tell you to stop thinking for yourself?

The biggest weakness of the left is that it's fragmented and constantly infighting. I'm sure you can find a faction there that abhors identity politics.

[Anonymous No.4560705]

>>4560376
Who cares what you think? They don't need people like you anymore. They've imported enough non-whites, and seized enough power, that the white males they've always despised but been unable to do without can finally be tossed to the wayside. Enjoy watching your wife get raped by a pack of feral niggers and Mexicans.

[Anonymous No.4560802]

>>4560698
as opposed to those libertarians and nazis that get along fine.

[Anonymous No.4560828]

>>4560802
Real libertarians respect the fascists, at the very least--out of necessity if nothing else, seeing how utterly marginalized and fringe the Right is. If you mean the tolerated SJW libertarians, then yeah, you're right.

[Anonymous No.4561094]

I like where this thread is going.