[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / jenny / komica / polru / russian / vor / yuri ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: cd561cf3424f9c4⋯.jpg (917.41 KB, 1417x1860, 1417:1860, LaborDefender-Debs-Dec1926.jpg)

 No.5721

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

Post last edited at

 No.5722

Do you think the USSR would have achieved the same level of industrialization without Stalins collectivization and with a continuation of the NEP instead?

On /leftypol/ there is an excerpt from a book circulating right now claiming that Stalins collectivization didn't increase the agricultrual output at all compared to leaving the NEP in power which would have achieved the same minus the death toll. I sadly don't have the image right now but maybe another comrade can help me out


 No.5726

File: b9e42d48cc62829⋯.jpg (23.42 KB, 386x436, 193:218, Sergei Kirov.jpg)

>>5722

The best-known defense of collectivization and industrialization from an academic perspective is "From Farm to Factory" which can be found here: http://bookzz.org/book/2489343/3fc9a9

Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny, authors of "Socialism Betrayed," gave a good summary of why NEP ended when it did:

>In explaining why the Soviets abandoned the NEP, the historian E. H. Carr pointed to three grave problems. First, in 1922-23, the so-called "scissors" crisis occurred, in which wildly fluctuating grain prices led to food shortages, unemployment and the suffering of poor and middle peasants. Second, most Soviet leaders came to realize that the NEP condemned the Soviet Union to a long period of industrial backwardness, and this was a fearsome and intolerable prospect in the face of the growing threat from external enemies. Third, in 1927-28 falling agricultural prices caused peasants to hoard their produce creating starvation in the cities. For these reasons, reliance on the market and private incentives became untenable. Thus, real economic problems, as well as ideological preferences, compelled Soviet leaders to adopt new policies and to embrace public ownership and centralized planning. Under these circumstances, to call the Soviet move to state ownership and central planning "utopian" is preposterous. By making this move the Soviets industrialized quickly, defeated the Nazi invasion, and rebuilt quickly after the war.

>Moreover, they did so while steadily increasing the standard of living of Soviet workers. To imagine that the Soviets could have achieved the same results by continuing the problematic policies of the NEP constitutes wishful thinking in the extreme.


 No.5734

>>5721

who is z goi in dis pic OwO


 No.5735

File: 0119920c0dd8ac5⋯.jpg (15.23 KB, 286x350, 143:175, Eugene Debs.jpg)

>>5734

Eugene Debs. He belonged to the left-wing of the Socialist Party of America (precursor to the Communist Party) and was its candidate for President numerous times. He was imprisoned for opposing World War I and defended the October Revolution.

The CPUSA put out a biography of him in 1948: https://archive.org/details/GeneDebs


 No.5737

I'm pretty new to leftism in general. Can you recommend me some essential reading for Marxism-Leninism? I've heard it's not really necessary to read The Communist Manifesto, but what about Capital?


 No.5739

>>5737

Never mind, I found your reading list in that other thread.


 No.5740

File: 58ccb7b66199cdd⋯.jpg (497.94 KB, 800x577, 800:577, 1420575616666.jpg)

>>5737

It's still a good idea to read the Manifesto since it's such an important document and much of it remains as relevant as the day it was written.

To get a detailed understanding of how capitalism works, Capital is very important, but you can read other, introductory works on Marxist economics in the meantime, such as this: https://archive.org/details/PoliticalEconomyACondensedCourse

And, when you're looking for a more detailed overview: https://archive.org/details/PoliticalEconomyCapitalism


 No.5741

>>5721

Today I was in a lecture where it was said that

a) Lenin and Trotzky were 'bloodthirsty' and the Civil War was a period of Red Terror

b) The Gulag was a system of concentration camps

Can you help me refute these claims


 No.5744

File: 681cf2482e20a87⋯.jpg (77.62 KB, 736x562, 368:281, Dzerzhinsky and Lenin.jpg)

>>5741

"The total figures of executions, published in 1921, were as follows. In the first half of 1918 [before the Red Terror] they were 22, in the second half some 6,300, and for the three years 1918-20 (for all Russia) 12,733. When it is remembered that in Rostov alone about 25,000 workers were shot by the Whites upon occupying the city, not to speak of many other towns, the Red terror will fall into rather more just perspective."

(Rothstein, Andrew. A History of the U.S.S.R. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1951. p. 106.)

As for the gulags, "There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies. Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to [Soviet, hitherto classified] archive records." (Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, page 79.) Furthermore most of them, as Parenti notes, were outright criminals: rapists, murderers and the like.


 No.5755

>>5721

Hi, do you have some information about unemployment in the USSR? Did it even exist?

Also, as an additional question, if unemployment didn't exist, were people ever forced to work besides in Gulags?

Thank you in advance!


 No.5756

File: 04055200588450d⋯.jpg (45.18 KB, 401x520, 401:520, Soviet poster.jpg)

>>5755

Unemployment was widespread during the NEP period, but disappeared during socialist construction and didn't return until Perestroika. Socialist economies generally had 0% unemployment.

On how jobs were allocated and the degree of choice workers had, see pages 46-50 of the following: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying

Basically, if you studied for a higher education, you had to go into a certain line of work for a few years as compensation for the state educating you. After that you were free to do whatever.


 No.5851

Ismail, do you have any knowledge of Semyon Budyonny and his Konarmia? I understand that they were quite iconic in Soviet media. I'm interested in reading whatever you have on Budyonny himself, or on his cavalry and their actions.

Furthermore, do you have any books about the Soviet Union in Siberia/the East during the Civil War?


 No.5852

File: bcae899aab85963⋯.jpg (120.97 KB, 600x807, 200:269, commander-first-cavalry-se….jpg)

>>5851

I don't have any specific sources on Budyonny.

It seems generally agreed that the best bourgeois account of the Russian Civil War is W.H. Chamberlin's two-volume history:

* https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172837 (volume I)

* https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.178167 (volume II)

He soon became a stereotypical anti-communist, but that isn't reflected all that deeply in said work.

I'm not aware of anything specific about Siberia and the East (unless the Far Eastern Republic counts, and even then just stuff on its politics.) Here's three Soviet books you might find of interest in general though (they mention Siberia and the East, though not in great detail):

* https://archive.org/details/TheGreatOctoberSocialistRevolution

* https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism

* https://archive.org/details/ASafeguardOfPeace


 No.5853

Off topic comment but I would appreciate if you could optimize your pdfs to reduce file size because they're excruciatingly large, over 100 mb for most cases


 No.5854

A while ago someone posted on here about some Soviet politician or KGB agent or something who had an alternative reform plan for keeping the USSR alive past 1991, including a reversal of most market reforms, more party democracy, more power to the soviets etc and I can't find him. Do you know who I might be talking about?


 No.5855

File: 64503181a4b9c1d⋯.jpg (152.07 KB, 643x584, 643:584, Andropov.jpg)

>>5854

Yuri Andropov.

In the first year or so of Gorbachev becoming General Secretary there was the impression that he was going to continue Andropov's reforms. He didn't, he went in an entirely different direction.

Keeran and Kenny talk about Andropov and his reforms in their book "Socialism Betrayed": http://bookzz.org/book/1246151/ea7f45


 No.5856

>>5855

Thanks, lad.


 No.5857

What are your thoughts on religious revolutionaries such as Camilo Torres?

Another religious socialist, James Larkin, said there was no conflict in being a Catholic and a Marxist but I think that's false.


 No.5858

File: 6e144e86265f943⋯.jpg (32.12 KB, 393x470, 393:470, johnbrown.jpg)

>>5857

It is possible for religious people to hold progressive, revolutionary views. This includes Torres as well as (to use an American example) John Brown.

Lenin gave a good answer to the question of the relationship between Marxism and religion (including how Marxists should approach believers): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

To quote from it:

>It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the programme of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our programme and the religious convictions of the priest would in such circumstances be something that concerned him alone, his own private contradiction. . . We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it.


 No.5859

>>5721

Ismail senpai do you have a youtube channel. what do you think of lefty youtube.


 No.5860

File: 23d95f9bd0ddb68⋯.png (52.19 KB, 635x359, 635:359, Michael Parenti.png)

>>5859

I do but there's nothing leftist on it. I intend to review bad movies.

I don't really watch lefty YouTubers, although stuff like this is good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIqm075vC1A


 No.5866

I can't find the source request thread. Do you have anything on Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka ?


 No.5867

>>5866

This is what he posted last time

"The total figures of executions, published in 1921, were as follows. In the first half of 1918 [before the Red Terror] they were 22, in the second half some 6,300, and for the three years 1918-20 (for all Russia) 12,733. When it is remembered that in Rostov alone about 25,000 workers were shot by the Whites upon occupying the city, not to speak of many other towns, the Red terror will fall into rather more just perspective."

(Rothstein, Andrew. A History of the U.S.S.R. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1951. p. 106.)


 No.5869

>>5867

Ah, I was wondering if he had any scanned books about it?


 No.5870

File: 461f2881bbdb906⋯.jpg (63.38 KB, 500x346, 250:173, Lenin Sverdlov Dzerzhinsky.jpg)

>>5869

I haven't scanned anything relevant to the Cheka, although there's a rather badly formatted Soviet biography of him here: https://archive.org/details/FelixDzerzhinskyABiography


 No.5872

File: cc7f9c410bd850e⋯.jpg (63.83 KB, 560x747, 560:747, russia-cover-final.jpg)

>>5721

What do MLs think of current Russia? Do they consider it 'socialist' the same way they do China - in early stages of socialism? Should an ML be unopposed to Russia's attempts to undermine the USA?


 No.5873

File: 4ea142ec63b51ee⋯.jpg (319.38 KB, 600x404, 150:101, Vladimir Kryuchkov.jpg)

>>5872

>Do they consider it 'socialist' the same way they do China - in early stages of socialism?

No. Russia has an avowedly capitalist government, led by an anti-communist party. Modern-day Russia emerged as part of the counter-revolution against socialism in the USSR.

Putin said in a 1991 interview: "I must tell you that there was a time in my life when I was very interested in Marxism and Leninism, read a lot about it, found it interesting and often logical. But as I matured, the truth became more and more apparent to me, that all of that was no more then a beautiful but dangerous fairy tale, dangerous because an attempt of its implementation in our country caused a lot of harm. And I would like to talk about the tragedy, which we are experiencing today, the tragedy of disintegration of our state, which you cannot call anything else but tragedy. I think that the actors of October 1917 put a time bomb under the foundation of this building, the building of a unitary state called Russia. They broke our fatherland into separate princedoms [i.e. republics], which never existed of the map of the world. Gave them parliaments and governments, and now we have what we have. On the other hand they destroyed what glues, molds the people of civilized countries - market relationships. They destroyed the market, emerging capitalism."

When asked about these remarks in a 2002 interview, he replied, "I am ready to repeat every word." So it should be obvious that Putin is a bourgeois nationalist and an anti-communist.

>Should an ML be unopposed to Russia's attempts to undermine the USA?

The US is an imperialist country. Russia is not. This does not mean the Russian bourgeoisie conducts foreign policy out of the goodness of its heart, but acting as if Americans need to be on guard against Russia "undermining the USA" is silly. Russia has been the recipient of attempts at undermining and isolating it on the part of the US.

See: http://links.org.au/node/4629

Furthermore, Trump has been continuing the policy of his predecessors, such as the $110 billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia, support for NATO, support for the remilitarization of Japan, support for the destabilization of Venezuela, etc., hardly the activities of a secret Russian agent or whatever.

Post last edited at

 No.5874

File: 9dfb300aa72bdcc⋯.png (86.67 KB, 500x529, 500:529, tice-dildo-2-51-ice-dildo-….png)

>>5721

If there is only one party allowed in elections how would a socialist republic ensure that it does not become a dictatorship. also what ideology are you.


 No.5875

>>5874

also what do you think of paul cockshott and towards a new socialism.


 No.5876

File: b5214080d18ac48⋯.jpeg (38.62 KB, 649x369, 649:369, Podgorny Brezhnev Kosygin….JPEG)

>>5874

I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

I don't think whether one or more parties exists has much influence on whether a socialist state is led by a "dictatorial" figure or not. The DPRK has three parties, yet Kim Jong Un's role in the country is clearly unlike that of any other socialist state.

If you look at the history of all the socialist states, collective leadership has been the norm, overall. Where this didn't occur was either due to historical factors (e.g. boosting Stalin due to the need to promote unity and due to lack of experience in constructing socialism) or departures from Marxism-Leninism (e.g. Ceaușescu's nationalism, Mao's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.") In such cases it doesn't matter how many parties exist.

>>5875

I remember it being a decent read. There's a thread about it here: http://8ch.net/marx/res/5821.html


 No.5877

File: 8965cd93d932562⋯.jpg (86.23 KB, 800x533, 800:533, MBFLAG002.jpg)

>>5876

So are you trying to say that stalin was a dictator but the other soviet leaders were not, or are you referring to the temporary police state that lenin initiated before the soviet union was given the new stalin constitution. The point of multiple party elections being necessary for democracy (coupled with a constitution that promotes fair elections) is that a one party state would lead to show elections where only candidates supported by the ruling party are put on the ballot box. As for political parties in north korea it is clear that although they have three parties one party dominates the government and only certain candidates are allowed to be on the ballot box. Do Marxist-Leninists support multiple party elections.


 No.5878

File: 7e8b748f2cfb5f0⋯.jpg (384.69 KB, 1280x1802, 640:901, Local elections in GDR in ….jpg)

>>5877

>So are you trying to say that stalin was a dictator but the other soviet leaders were not

No, I am saying that a person becoming a "dictator" depends on historical factors or on departing from Marxism-Leninism.

Nobody would have called Stalin a "dictator" in the 1920s. But power began to concentrate in his hands in the 1930s, which was justified on the argument that the rise of fascism imperiled the USSR's security. Stalin enjoyed genuine popularity, but misused it. This did not effect the socialist nature of the USSR.

Khrushchev also increasingly concentrated power in his own hands, albeit not to the same extent, but still enough to alienate his colleagues from him. Nor could he justify this concentration of power, unlike Stalin. Collective leadership, which was emphasized after 1953 but inconsistently applied, was firmly established after Khrushchev's removal.

Dictatorship in the sense of "the temporary police state that lenin initiated" (Soviet Russia was not a police state) is simply the necessary period in which the proletarian dictatorship operates to smash the overthrown classes which are themselves trying to achieve counter-revolution by force.

>The point of multiple party elections being necessary for democracy (coupled with a constitution that promotes fair elections) is that a one party state would lead to show elections where only candidates supported by the ruling party are put on the ballot box.

If you had multi-party elections you could just as easily say that only those who meet the approval of these parties are put on the ballot box. Bourgeois democracies are not "more democratic" based on the number of parties that exist.

>Do Marxist-Leninists support multiple party elections.

If other parties have a reason to exist, yes. The Bolsheviks formed a coalition with the Left SRs after the October Revolution, and were willing to work with the Mensheviks, but the former party ended up staging armed revolts before the year 1918 ended, while the latter party had been against the establishment of soviet power from the beginning. So these parties, which ended up objectively assisting the counter-revolution, lost legitimacy among the people. Many of their members joined the Bolsheviks and thus the parties themselves disappeared. The Bolsheviks never instituted a law saying "there can be no other parties but the Bolsheviks."

Political parties represent the interests of definite classes. Under socialism there are no antagonistic classes (e.g. no capitalists against the workers, no feudal landowners against the peasantry), so there is little inherent logic for a multi-party system, unlike under capitalism where democracy exists mainly to allow the exploiters, who are in constant economic competition with each other, to peacefully solve disputes between them.

However, as you know, some socialist countries did/do have multi-party systems: China, the DPRK, Vietnam (until 1988), the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. The other parties in these countries tend to represent the interests of either religious believers, peasants, or the urban petty-bourgeoisie and sections of the intelligentsia.

Such parties recognized the leading role in the state and society of the vanguard party, and also recognized the need to help build and defend socialism. These were not "opposition parties." They worked with the vanguard to determine a single election platform on which candidates would stand in elections. In the GDR for example the unity of all the parties toward common objectives was symbolized by the National Front. Since socialist society is based on the abolition of exploitation, and thus no antagonistic classes remain, such cooperation between parties is possible.

Post last edited at

 No.5879

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

>>5878

>But power began to concentrate in his hands in the 1930s, which was justified on the argument that the rise of fascism imperiled the USSR's security. Stalin enjoyed genuine popularity, but misused it.

Explain it.


 No.5880

File: c7e57ee609f472c⋯.jpg (256.08 KB, 1024x657, 1024:657, Brezhnev.jpg)

>>5879

It took 13 years for a party congress to be called between 1939 and 1952 (they were supposed to meet every three years.) Obviously the Great Patriotic War intervened, but that still left five years afterward. In addition, meetings of the Central Committee became infrequent (only six were held in the last sixteen years of Stalin's life, even though it was supposed to meet every four months according to the 18th Congress.) Stalin conducted much of his work through informal groupings of associates rather than through the Politburo, thus making it difficult to ensure accountability.

This situation was rectified after 1953. For example, Soviet ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, wrote in his memoirs how Brezhnev had less power than US Presidents, since Brezhnev had to first convince his colleagues in the Politburo before undertaking virtually any action.

Post last edited at

 No.5881

File: 2d151aabac276ef⋯.jpg (106.09 KB, 900x675, 4:3, shutterstock_232149235-x90….jpg)

>>5880

What's the difference between between Stalin's theory on nationality and nationalism? I see self proclaimed MLs who are pro brown or black power, claim to hate racists and constantly call others racist, but talk crap about white people all the time. They claim this is not hypocritical. Does this tie into Stalin's National Question? Is this why MLs (at least what it seems like to me) are so prone to identity politics? Where do you personally stand on identity politics?


 No.5882

File: 71156d55c9fc8e9⋯.jpg (268.3 KB, 1502x1130, 751:565, ussr_nat_82.jpg)

>>5881

Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question" discusses what constitutes a nation, and is based on the writings of other Marxists at the time. It isn't really about nationalism per se.

To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

>Marxism-Leninism has illustrated the economic and social roots of nationalism and its class essence. Viewing nationalism in a concrete-historical fashion, it defines nationalism’s objective social role as a function of the historical stage of development of capitalism, the social role of the bourgeoisie and the nature of its ties with the popular masses, and the position of a particular nation in the world. During the period of the formation of nations in Western Europe and the USA, for example, nationalism, with democratic slogans, was the ideological standard of the rising bourgeoisie in the struggle against feudalism and national oppression. Under this standard the popular masses were summoned to the struggle against feudalism. Thus, during this period, nationalism was somewhat progressive.

>With the advent of fully developed capitalist relations and the development of capitalism into imperialism, the character of nationalism in Western Europe and the USA changed. Monopoly capital emerged as the bearer of the crudest and cruelest national and colonial oppression. Aggressive, militant nationalism became a weapon of imperialist and colonial politics, closely allying itself with racism (for example, Hitlerism, with its barbarous race theory). Under the conditions created by the existence of the two world systems, the imperialist bourgeoisie strives to impart to nationalism a strongly anticommunist and anti-Soviet tendency. Imperialism is banking on the revival of nationalist tendencies in the socialist countries.

>In the contemporary period nationalism has a different character in countries fighting for political and economic independence against imperialism. Nationalism in these countries expresses in a limited way the idea of national liberation and national independence and frequently serves as a standard for the national liberation movement. Under such circumstances nationalism reflects, to a certain degree, democratism and protest against the imperialist oppression of that part of the masses in which class consciousness has not yet been aroused. For considerable strata of the peasantry, nationalism is a rudimentary form of anti-imperialist consciousness. However, in addition to its progressive aspects, nationalism in the former colonial and dependent countries has reactionary features, which become stronger with the growth of narrow class tendencies in the policies of the bourgeoisie, with the unfolding of the struggle for social progress in liberated countries, and with the increasing right-wing orientation of certain petit bourgeois groups. . .

>This does not mean that nationalism in the former colonial and semicolonial world has already lost its progressive aspects and exhausted its anti-imperialist content, although the basic trend is in this direction. . . .

>Communists approach nationalism from principled positions and evaluate it in a concrete-historical manner from the point of view of world socialism and the revolutionary struggle of the peoples against imperialism. They mercilessly expose and wage a relentless struggle against imperialist chauvinism and the nationalism of oppressor nations. The relationship of Communists toward the nationalism of oppressed nations is guided by the concept of Lenin, which is developed in the Program of the CPSU: “The nationalism of an oppressed nation has an overall democratic content directed against oppression, and Communists support it as historically justified at a given stage. It is expressed in the striving of oppressed peoples for liberation from imperialist oppression, for national independence, and national rebirth. At the same time, there is another side to the nationalism of an oppressed nation, which expresses the ideology and interests of the reactionary, exploitative ruling elite”.

As for "identity politics," I'd need you to explain what is meant by that.

Post last edited at

 No.5883

>>5878

>If you had multi-party elections you could just as easily say that only those who meet the approval of these parties are put on the ballot box.

>Such parties recognized the leading role in the state and society of the vanguard party, and also recognized the need to help build and defend socialism. These were not "opposition parties." They worked with the vanguard party to determine a single election platform on which candidates would stand in elections. Since socialist society is based on the abolition of exploitation, and thus no antagonistic classes remain, such cooperation between parties is possible.

however in multi party elections people who are independent can also run, and even if parties subvert the election of members they disagree with like the infamous berniegate of the democratic party at least opposing viewpoints will get fairly represented. Since the proletariat are naturally the largest class even if old bourgeois parties continued to operate they could never take power if the vanguard does it's job right and successfully creates a socialist society that works in favor of the people, and when the older reactionary generations die so will there parties.

I am by no means saying most bourgeois states are democratic when foreign states and corporations bribe career politicians to working in their interest, especially in the united states where the system is set up to only support two similar parties, however having the state manage legal parties according to whether or not a party is necessary is a recipe for ideological domination and political corruption.


 No.5884

File: d0e9ddddb0536f2⋯.jpg (47.08 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault.jpg)

>>5882

Identity as opposed to class-based politics. And it being a more important or as important as class. The "progressive stack" that sees merit based on race and gender i.e. we don't want to hear what you have to say because you are both white and a male and that someone is a better person than you because they are a homosexual black woman. Basically affirmative action for being non-white and not being a male.

Vid related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4&


 No.5885

File: 0b8e98bc919c6a1⋯.jpg (42.59 KB, 613x771, 613:771, Cr7Sl-aWYAA3QHa.jpg)

>>5882

>As for "identity politics," I'd need you to explain what is meant by that.

not the guy you responded to but I would like to provide my own answer. Identity politics could best be defined as any political position based on racial/sexual/gendered collectivism as opposed to a position based matters of pure economics/policy/etc

Some easy examples would be

>california choosing to leave the usa because they find the US election system broken vs. southerners who want the south to rise again

>blacks demanding reparation money from whites who have nothing to do with slavery vs social welfare for the impoverished in general

>complaining that we need more female CEOs to make capitalism fair vs. the bourgeousie are inherent bad for the proletariat

It isn't just a liberal thing however the last example I gave could easily be a neonazi complaining about there being too many jews in power instead of whites.

I would personally extend idpol to ideologies that become like an identity such as nepotism in the so called skeptic community.


 No.5886

File: 92da8fcbddb5e77⋯.jpg (31.35 KB, 540x768, 45:64, Brezhnevvv.jpg)

>>5883

>however in multi party elections people who are independent can also run

That assumes there were no non-party candidates in socialist elections. Yet there were always such candidates in Soviet elections, for example. Even the DPRK has a few non-party deputies to its Supreme People's Assembly.

>Since the proletariat are naturally the largest class even if old bourgeois parties continued to operate they could never take power

This was the argument Kautsky used against Lenin, and it's silly. The bourgeois parties (i.e. parties which refuse to support the building and defense of socialism) must be repressed for the simple reason that, precisely because they lack popular support, they will seek to slander the socialist system, disrupt the political and economic life of the country, and seek out support from the imperialist countries to overthrow the proletarian government.

Again this is different from parties that recognize the socialist system and are willing to work for it. Such parties representing non-proletarian (but also non-antagonistic) sections of the population could continue to exist after the proletariat assumes state power.

>is a recipe for ideological domination and political corruption.

What do you mean by "ideological domination"? Liberalism, conservatism and the like are all part of the bourgeois ideology that necessarily dominates a capitalist country, as part of the superstructure of capitalism. Similarly proletarian ideology asserts its dominance under socialism.

I don't see how it promotes political corruption either. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has over 200 parties, quite a few of them represented in the legislature. This does not make that country more democratic or less corrupt.

>>5885

As Lenin pointed out, all sorts of demands have to be evaluated on the basis of whether they are in the interests of the working-class or not.

So for instance an independent California does not advance the cause of the proletariat. Californians are not a nation (let alone oppressed), so there is no basis to support it separating into its own country.

When you hear Black calls for reparations, it's important to remember that a major source of their impoverishment was the denial of land to them after slavery, when the northern bourgeoisie made a deal with the southern plantation owners to end Reconstruction. For Marxists "reparations" simply means giving Blacks the means to end their poverty, i.e. land and whatever subsidies (of which the capitalist state gives plenty to large-scale capitalist agriculture already) are required for Blacks to maintain that land until socialism will allow for the land question (and poverty in general) to be finally solved.

Obviously seeking women's liberation by getting more female CEOs is silly. There's not really a situation where struggling against sexism in the workplace won't have some effect on changes in policy at the top. The bourgeoisie presents itself as "fixing" the problem of sexism by co-opting females into its ranks. That's the case with everything, from Blacks to homosexuals. So all Marxists have to do is point out what tricks are being played and why capitalism cannot liberate women.

Post last edited at

 No.5887

>>5886

What is the ML perspective on Zionism? Do Jews have the right to a nation of their own? From what I've seen, MLs are very anti-Israel. Did they cross a line after creating a nation of their own to fight against oppression and antisemitism in other countries? If so, how?


 No.5888

File: 75285b020e66c38⋯.jpg (42.75 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 18444562_1433236770098846_….jpg)

>>5886

>So for instance an independent California does not advance the cause of the proletariat. Californians are not a nation (let alone oppressed), so there is no basis to support it separating into its own country.

I wasn't saying there was an inherent marxist basis for california to leave the union I was just trying to illustrate how it isn't idpol

>When you hear Black calls for "reparations," it's important to remember that a major source of their impoverishment was the denial of land to them after slavery, when the northern bourgeoisie made a deal with the southern plantation owners to end Reconstruction. For Marxists "reparations" should simply mean giving Blacks the economic means to end their poverty, i.e. land and whatever subsidies (of which the capitalist state gives plenty to large-scale capitalist agriculture already) are required for Blacks to maintain that land until socialism will allow for the land question (and poverty in general) to be finally solved.

But that is the point that i'm (poorly) trying to make what you are talking about is not reparations think about it like this; should they be given an oppurtunity out of poverty because they are black and blacks were once slave or because they are a member of the disenfranchised modern proletariat. When people who support reparations usually talk about it they usually mean despite the fact that there are many disenfranchised whites blacks of all positions in society from the blacks in ghettos to oprah winfrey deserve money on merit of having enslaved ancestors. It is essentially about special treatment not about equality for everyone.


 No.5889

File: cd230326301d6ed⋯.jpg (62.15 KB, 325x475, 13:19, birobidzhan-poster.jpg)

>>5887

Lenin pointed out that Jews aren't a nation. Zionism is a reactionary ideology that aims to convince Jewish workers to support "their own" bourgeoisie and to carry out the colonization of Palestine. The Zionists justified their displacement of Palestinians with the same logic as the European colonizers, claiming that the Arabs were "savages."

Zionists have opposed Marxism to the extent that Jabotinsky even offered troops to the counter-revolutionary Russian armies during the Civil War, which were carrying out massacres against Jews.

Coincidentally, someone I know just scanned a Soviet work on Zionism: https://archive.org/details/ZionismPastPresent

And here is a Marxist introduction to the subject: https://archive.org/details/ZionismItsRoleInWorldPolitics

The Soviets did give the Jews a unique opportunity to create a nation for themselves. It was known as Birobidzhan. It largely failed owing to the difficulties with the terrain, assimilation of Jews in the rest of the USSR (who saw no reason to protect themselves by emigrating to the Far East where Birobidzhan was situated), and the establishment of Israel.

>>5888

I understand, and I agree that "identity politics" in that sense is silly.

Post last edited at

 No.5890

Ismail, what are your thoughts on Brezhnev and Deng Xiaoping? I get the impression that you have a positive opinion on them, which is uncommon- even in ML spheres. Do you have any good material on them?


 No.5891

File: 5901e3b90da7b53⋯.jpg (93.41 KB, 600x340, 30:17, Brezhnev.jpg)

>>5890

I don't think it's uncommon. Maybe online, but lots of communist parties in the world hold the view that Brezhnev and Deng were communists. Whether they were "good" communists is another matter.

Brezhnev was not a particularly good leader, but he presided over the period in Soviet history that former citizens look most fondly upon in terms of how stable life was. The problem was that he stood in office for too long and held up necessary reforms that his successor, Yuri Andropov, tried to carry out but died before he had the chance to do much.

Nobody reads Brezhnev's works for the simple reason that they're not interesting. I did scan these two books that contain excerpts from his reports to the 25th and 26th CPSU Congresses though (I also have an equivalent book for the 24th Congress but haven't scanned it yet):

* https://archive.org/details/BuildingANewSociety25thCongressCPSU

* https://archive.org/details/PeacePlanAndProgress

So if you want to get an idea of what the CPSU was doing domestically and internationally in 1976 and 1981, feel free to check those out.

Deng is more controversial, and there's already a thread about that (http://8ch.net/marx/res/5714.html) including a guy whose latest post I haven't responded to yet due to being a bit busy.


 No.5893

File: 06b80bd101c5b8a⋯.gif (935.02 KB, 300x169, 300:169, 4d94c22a4d289a308dee993c30….gif)

>Should an ML be unopposed to Russia's attempts to undermine the USA?

This is nothing but a conspiracy theory promoted by salty Liberals and their new-found Neocon allies.


 No.5895

Do you know where I can find "The Politics of War" by Gabriel Kolko? I've listened to an interview and the book goes into detail on the DPRK/SK division and explains the atrocities committed against the Korean masses by the U.S.


 No.5896

File: d10bc67d4a591a5⋯.png (723.67 KB, 500x662, 250:331, Kim Il Sung.png)

>>5895

It isn't online, although here's a good read on the Korean War in terms of background and atrocities: http://b-ok.org/book/1104513/ef2efd


 No.5897

File: 6a8c600eeaac992⋯.jpg (114.27 KB, 500x725, 20:29, 6a8c600eeaac992fcaff1f912d….jpg)

You said earlier in this post >>5876 that the Cultural Revolution was a departure from Marxism-Leninism. Could you explain how? The way I see it, the Red Guards were authentical working class opposition to the developing parasitic bureaucracy (a development, which, if I'm not mistaken, is opposed by MLs). It is true that Mao later used them to further his own political goals, but reducing them to Mao's private thugs doesn't quite hold up if you look at, for example, the Shanghai Commune and its fate.

Also what is your stance on Maoism or MLM in general? From what I heard Stalin agreed with New Democracy being a feasible tactic in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries, so that would be another main point in line with "orthodox" Marxism-Leninism.


 No.5898

>>5882

>>This does not mean that nationalism in the former colonial and semicolonial world has already lost its progressive aspects and exhausted its anti-imperialist content, although the basic trend is in this direction. . . .

What year does that article date from?

Does this mean that the people claiming the right of nations for self-determination having lost its emancipatory function are right?

Sorry for doubleposting.


 No.5899

File: 77c2fcef8a41334⋯.jpg (41.53 KB, 500x386, 250:193, Mao and Liu Shaoqi.jpg)

>>5897

The Red Guards were very largely students, not workers. The fact that the whole machinery of the Party and state, as well as the trade unions and other public organizations were practically paralyzed by the Red Guards definitely isn't characteristic of a Marxist-Leninist approach to the question of combating bureaucracy.

Mao used "bureaucracy" as a way to get rid of those he perceived as rivals, as you yourself note. While the Cultural Revolution wasn't a complete and utter disaster in every single sphere of society, it very clearly set the country back and resulted in needless repression.

I've assembled a bunch of Soviet PDFs on Maoism and China here: https://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192636-1960s-80s-Soviet-works-on-Mao-Maoism-and-China-(PDFs)

>>5898

It's from the 1970s. It's in the context of colonial and dependent countries attaining national independence. While purely "national" slogans are progressive in such instances, as more and more countries achieved independence the national bourgeoisie and other conservative elements in these countries often continued to emphasize these slogans rather than class-based ones, as a way to avoid confronting the question of whether the country was going to break with imperialism (which logically required uniting with workers, peasants, and the petty-bourgeoisie against it) or whether it was going to forge a neo-colonial relationship with its former colonizers.

Post last edited at

 No.5927

Are there any texts on the topic of pay in socialism? I am close to finishing State and Revolution and Lenin seems to advocate for equal pay for workers as for state workers, something I can agree with, since, as he says, it prevents careerism. But he also seems to advocate for equal pay for all work, and this has me a bit confused.

How could socialism properly give incentive to furthering one's studies beyond the basic, considering that studying is often a monumental task that takes many years of your life, especially when it comes to things like medicine and scientific branches? There are people who like what they study, yes, but this doesn't seem like something immediately implementable unless one does educative reforms.


 No.5928

File: 31a69dbb19dcfd4⋯.jpg (84.93 KB, 910x833, 130:119, Sketch of Factory Workers ….jpg)

>>5927

>Are there any texts on the topic of pay in socialism?

I don't think I've specifically scanned a book on the subject, or if one is online, although there's this article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Wage+Differentiation

>How could socialism properly give incentive to furthering one's studies beyond the basic, considering that studying is often a monumental task that takes many years of your life, especially when it comes to things like medicine and scientific branches?

In the USSR and other socialist countries, jobs requiring a higher education paid more. Education was free and workers who wanted to study via night schools or correspondence courses or what have you were given time off from work while continuing to receive pay.

Post last edited at

 No.5956

Do you have a PDF of Bukharin's ABC of Communism? It's such a basic text and it is neither complete nor in a decent PDF version available on the internet.


 No.5957

File: 50b8ab468cb307a⋯.jpg (26.95 KB, 365x271, 365:271, Leninnnn.jpg)

>>5956

No.

I wouldn't call it a "basic text." It treated War Communism as a permanent policy and conflated it with socialism.

"Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism" works better as a basic text: http://b-ok.org/book/862537/add33c

Post last edited at

 No.5958

File: 04f1f15d34c0014⋯.jpg (689.49 KB, 1310x1300, 131:130, Marxism reading list.jpg)

>>5957

It is part of the series of Introductory Political Economy, so I've been looking for it since yesterday, guess I'm going to have to do with just Part One, even if it is as you say.

That book you recommend reminds me of Politzer's book, but more in depth. Will read it too. Thank you.


 No.5964

>>5721

Hey Ismail! I have a two questions I think would be interesting: Do you think there are any truly decent ML parties functioning today? Particularly in the US and the West in general, obviously there are quite a few in the Global South. Also, what do you believe to be the most feasible route to revolution in the US today? Entryism? Building dual power? Rebuild radical unions? Some kind of October Road model of armed insurrection? Or is it just completely fucked beyond repair over here?


 No.5965

File: 6b92d230dddac29⋯.jpg (107.76 KB, 842x550, 421:275, black-panthers.jpg)

>>5721

What're your general thoughts on the Black Panthers?


 No.5966

File: 49e5a8aabede972⋯.jpg (188.29 KB, 1000x612, 250:153, Huey Newton.jpg)

>>5964

In the US I'd say the FRSO, WWP and PSL all do good work. In Canada the Communist Party seems okay. I dunno about other countries.

Entryism is a Trot tactic, it has no place among MLs. I think it's important to work within existing unions, since that is where many workers are, as well as organizing the unorganized in places where the labor movement is next to nonexistent.

What the revolution will look like in the US is anyone's guess.

>>5965

In theoretical matters they tended to overrate the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat and certain leaders and chapters had problems with misogyny and whatnot, but on the whole the BPP was good.


 No.5968

File: 8149e400cea3691⋯.jpg (244.65 KB, 1469x1129, 1469:1129, Based Debs.jpg)

>>5735

>Eugene Debs

The closest we ever came to revolution besides the Panthers imo. What do you think the Socialist Party of America and the "sewer socialists" could have done differently to have been more successful in their time? Also, would you care to talk shit on the IWW? I know there was a big split between the Socialist Party and the IWW, but I actually don't know what motivated it in the first place.


 No.5971

File: f8747890aae6589⋯.jpg (29.21 KB, 243x293, 243:293, William Z Foster.jpg)

>>5968

>What do you think the Socialist Party of America and the "sewer socialists" could have done differently to have been more successful in their time?

Debs represented the left-wing of the Socialist Party and found himself at odds with the centrists and right-wingers who made up the leadership. The leaders allowed all sorts of petty-bourgeois elements into the party, allowing it to become increasingly influenced by "Christian socialism" and other non-Marxist trends. These same leaders also adopted opportunist positions on a host of other issues, from Blacks to trade unions to World War I.

>Also, would you care to talk shit on the IWW? I know there was a big split between the Socialist Party and the IWW, but I actually don't know what motivated it in the first place.

The IWW's chief problem was the problem of the American left-wing in general back then: disgusted at the lameness of the Socialist Party leaders, the only option many of them saw was to embrace syndicalism. Debs, Daniel De Leon, and "Big Bill" Haywood, despite the differences between them, all embraced syndicalist concepts to a greater or lesser extent and thus briefly came together in the IWW.

Foster's "History of the Communist Party of the United States" (which, despite its title, contains many pages on the American left before 1919) does a good job explaining the rise and fall of the Socialist Party and IWW: http://b-ok.org/book/988561/b4f382


 No.5979

File: 4159e87c3bb0369⋯.jpg (362.88 KB, 1414x1393, 202:199, 2c16ca95136c7db68a155162d9….jpg)

I see a lot of IWW stickers where I live. How are they today? Are they a good organization or just another bunch of ultra-left sectarians?


 No.5980

What was wrong with the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring that warranted forceful suppression?


 No.5981

File: d8df4fc1e99a52e⋯.jpg (69.77 KB, 630x479, 630:479, Gustav Husak.jpg)

>>5979

To my knowledge they more or less let anyone in, but remain anarchist-dominated (and anarchism has dominated the IWW since the 1920s.) I wouldn't call them "good," but they're not awful. Mostly just hindered by their own politics.

>>5980

The "Hungarian Revolution" was in essence an anti-communist revolt which involved executions of communists, the burning of Marxist works, and pogroms against Jews. The origins of the revolt were the errors in economic and cultural policies under Mátyás Rákosi, which were rectified with his removal. For a good read on the revolt, its origins and character see: https://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/the-truth-about-hungary.pdf

There were some among the Hungarian "revolutionaries" who spoke of "workers' control," but this was not fundamentally different from the Kronstadt mutineers who demanded "soviets without communists" or those at Tienanmen Square in 1989 who claimed to uphold Mao Zedong. The overall character of all these events was counter-revolutionary whatever individual "leftist" sentiments existed.

In the case of "Prague Spring," the Communist Party and state were in the hands of revisionists who, despite repeated warnings from the CPSU and other parties, did nothing to halt the spread of anti-communist sentiment in Czechoslovakia's media and society at large. To allow capitalism to be restored in that country would have represented a threat (both military and political) to socialism in neighboring countries.

See:

* https://archive.org/details/GusHallCzechoslovakia

* https://archive.org/details/ApthekerCzechoslovakia

* http://collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/AppearanceOfMajorFidelCastroAnalysingEventsInCzechoslovakia.pdf

Considering that Dubček later endorsed Sweden as his example of "socialism with a human face," his chief economist Ota Šik became an open supporter of capitalism well before 1989, and Gorbachev regarded Dubček's policies as inspiring his own, it should be fairly obvious that the intervention was necessary.

Post last edited at

 No.5982

Hey Ismail, which one of the USSR political economy textbooks is the best for someone who is new at economics like me?

I found a bunch of them and I'm not sure where to start. Leontiev's manual from the 1930s, another one published in 1954 (seems to be the most popular), the one from 1977 you posted on archive.org, etc


 No.5983

File: f8f4d1c0c4d87d8⋯.jpg (27.76 KB, 229x300, 229:300, Leontiev.jpg)

>>5982

>Leontiev's manual from the 1930s

https://archive.org/details/PoliticalEconomyACondensedCourse

It's by the same author (Leontiev) only it's written four decades later, so I'd hope by then he had honed his skills as an author of introductory works on political economy.

Plus I've had people tell me it's a good introduction.

So yeah, use that book I linked.


 No.5989

Why do non-ML leftists often attack the USSR and claim it was state capitalism or social democracy with tanks?


 No.5990

File: 055f4d9c6201d05⋯.jpg (72.15 KB, 425x424, 425:424, Brezhnevvvvvvvv.jpg)

>>5989

Most Trots would call it a "degenerated workers' state," but yes, there are many others who would refer to it in those terms. This is because they do not really challenge bourgeois attacks on the USSR, they just change the verbiage so that these same attacks magically become "leftist analysis" because "Stalinist" is used as an epithet instead of "Communist."

In addition, these same "leftists," unable to refute said attacks on actually existing socialism, try to distance themselves as much as possible from the USSR, China, Cuba, GDR, etc. in the hope this will attract more people to their sects. It's a lot easier to say "oh all that was actually a lie, our sect has all the answers" than to critically examine the history of socialism as applied to numerous countries and to learn from positive and negative experiences.

It was actually not all that uncommon for anti-communist authors to refer to the USSR and other socialist countries in the 1950s-60s as "state capitalism," back when they could not distort the economic progress of socialism.

The phrase "social democracy with tanks" (or "social democracy with a gun") is particularly amusing since it assumes that "normal" social democrats actually do away with the coercion of the capitalist state, when in reality social-democrats in power were reliable supporters of imperialism, endorsing the suppression of national liberation struggles in Algeria and elsewhere while protecting the capitalist system at home. They only sought to "reform" capitalism, not to do away with it. There was no capitalist class in the USSR, and its foreign policy was consistently opposed to imperialism.

Post last edited at

 No.5991

>>5990

trotsky himself never used the term "state capitalism", not even a genuine trot would use such a term. neither would any genuine trot say the ussr "didnt count" or some shit.

trotsky's criticism is simple and on point, stalin essentially murdered the ussr due to his lackey appointment in "secretarial" positions and character assassination/murder of political opponents. anyone who isn't willing to acknowledge this shouldnt be calling anyone a revisionist


 No.5992

File: 50d3db59fee2417⋯.jpg (14.73 KB, 320x320, 1:1, Mikoyan.jpg)

>>5991

>trotsky himself never used the term "state capitalism", not even a genuine trot would use such a term

It is true that Tony Cliff and other "state-capitalist" Trots diverge from Trotsky on this issue, but if "state-capitalism" is a silly term to describe the Soviet Union, the following from Trotsky ("The USSR in War," 1939) is utterly absurd:

>If this war provokes, as we firmly believe, a proletarian revolution, it must inevitably lead to the overthrow of the bureaucracy in the USSR and regeneration of Soviet democracy on a far higher economic and cultural basis than in 1918. In that case the question as to whether the Stalinist bureaucracy was a "class" or a growth on the workers’ state will be automatically solved. To every single person it will become clear that in the process of the development of the world revolution the Soviet bureaucracy was only an episodic relapse.

>If, however, it is conceded that the present war will provoke not revolution but a decline of the proletariat, then there remains another alternative: the further decay of monopoly capitalism, its further fusion with the state and the replacement of democracy wherever it still remained by a totalitarian regime. The inability of the proletariat to take into its hands the leadership of society could actually lead under these conditions to the growth of a new exploiting class from the Bonapartist fascist bureaucracy. This would be, according to all indications, a regime of decline, signalizing the eclipse of civilization.

>An analogous result might occur in the event that the proletariat of advanced capitalist countries, having conquered power, should prove incapable of holding it and surrender it, as in the USSR, to a privileged bureaucracy. Then we would be compelled to acknowledge that the reason for the bureaucratic relapse is rooted not in the backwardness of the country and not in the imperialist environment but in the congenital incapacity of the proletariat to become a ruling class. Then it would be necessary in retrospect to establish that in its fundamental traits the present USSR was the precursor of a new exploiting régime on an international scale.

>We have diverged very far from the terminological controversy over the nomenclature of the Soviet state. But let our critics not protest: only by taking the necessary historical perspective can one provide himself with a correct judgment upon such a question as the replacement of one social régime by another. The historic alternative, carried to the end, is as follows: either the Stalin régime is an abhorrent relapse in the process of transforming bourgeois society into a socialist society, or the Stalin régime is the first stage of a new exploiting society. If the second prognosis proves to be correct, then, of course, the bureaucracy will become a new exploiting class. However onerous the second perspective may be, if the world proletariat should actually prove incapable of fulfilling the mission placed upon it by the course of development, nothing else would remain except openly to recognize that the socialist program based on the internal contradictions of capitalist society, ended as a Utopia. It is self evident that a new “minimum” program would be required for the defense of the interests of the slaves of the totalitarian bureaucratic society.

In other words, by virtue of the USSR defeating Hitler without Trotskyists coming to power, its "bureaucracy" would become "a new exploiting class," Marxism will be discredited, and civilization would be doomed.

>stalin essentially murdered the ussr due to his lackey appointment in "secretarial" positions and character assassination/murder of political opponents.

To that I would quote from the June 30, 1956 resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU, "On Overcoming the Cult of the Individual and Its Consequences":

>Despite all the evil it did to the Party and the people, the cult of Stalin could not and did not change the nature of our social system. No cult of the individual could change the nature of the socialist state, which is based upon the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and the friendship of peoples, though this cult did do serious damage to the development of socialist democracy, to the development of the creative initiative of millions of people.

>To think that any individual, even so great a one as Stalin, could change our social and political system is to go completely against the facts, against Marxism and truth, to lapse into idealism. It would mean attributing to an individual such abnormal and supernatural forces as the ability to change the system of society, especially of a social system where the decisive force lies in the millions-strong masses of the working people.

Speaking about "lackey appointment" is just demagogy. Mikoyan, Zhdanov, Kirov, Shcherbakov, Molotov, Kaganovich, Malenkov, Ordzhonikidze, Rudzutak, and various other Bolsheviks would have had prominent roles in the 1920s-30s on account of their skills, with or without Stalin.

Post last edited at

 No.5993

>>5992

>In other words, by virtue of the USSR defeating Hitler without Trotskyists coming to power, its "bureaucracy" would become "a new exploiting class," Marxism will be discredited, and civilization would be doomed.

but that's exactly what happened. the ussr dissolved because opportunist petty-bourgeoisie scum managed to reach positions within the politburo.

Speaking about "lackey appointment" is just demagogy. Mikoyan, Zhdanov, Kirov, Shcherbakov, Molotov, Kaganovich, Malenkov, Ordzhonikidze, Rudzutak, and various other Bolsheviks would have had prominent roles in the 1920s-30s on account of their skills, with or without Stalin.

stalin is the one that murdered bolsheviks like kirov, and replaced with with scum like beria. The whole rallying point of the so called "left opposition" against the troika was the tendency of appointment of secretariat positions by the top, which came in stark contrast to how the party functioned in the past.

I know this conversation with tankies can go on forever, i'm only gonna say one thing. Stalin shouldn't have made the politburo an autocratic ruling apparatus, nor should he have started the secretarial appointment tradition that turned the party into the corrupt petty-bourgeoisie hub of opportunists that it became during the 80s.

I'm neither saying the ussr wasn't socialist, nor that Stalin himself wasn't a socialist. I'm saying that he was an autocrat, whose party policies eventually ruined the party. For me it is quiet ironic that no existing party today follows his policies or his party model of an autocratic politburo and secretarial appointments from above, yet no party condemns these policies either. All the people like kirov who he falsely murdered during the great purges should be politically rehabilitated, including trotsky.

A good example of this is the KKE. Since 91, it has accepted in it's self-criticism that the politics it followed after ww2 (varkiza etc) were wrong, and rehabilitated people like Velouchiotis politically. There is no reason that cannot happen with the Left Opposition members that got purged, and frankly the whole trot/m-l split is utter horseshit in 2017. There are revisionist leftists (truly revisionist), but anyone who knows marxism and history knows that the m-l/trot split is purely based on politics and not on theory itself.

My 2 cents at least


 No.5994

File: dd3ff36808db0b1⋯.jpg (81.84 KB, 1023x575, 1023:575, Grigory Romanov.jpg)

>>5993

>but that's exactly what happened. the ussr dissolved because opportunist petty-bourgeoisie scum managed to reach positions within the politburo.

First, there was most certainly no "growth of a new exploiting class from the Bonapartist fascist bureaucracy" nor anything else in Trotsky's inane analysis that I quoted. Rather than turn into "slaves of the totalitarian bureaucratic society," Soviet citizens enjoyed expanded rights and freedoms in the decades after Stalin's death.

Second, even before the October Revolution a Central Committee member. Rodion Malinovsky, was an agent of the Tsarist police. Lenin constantly complained of bureaucracy and abuse of authority by officials. All this had an objective basis. As Lenin pointed out, "It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."

>stalin is the one that murdered bolsheviks like kirov

Stalin did not order Kirov's assassination, though it was used as a pretext for mass repressions. To the Trotskyists, writing in their "Bulletin of the Opposition" in exile, Kirov had always been grouped with other "Stalinists," and had he lived he would have been continued to be denounced as such.

Beria engaged in criminal behavior and was executed for that after Stalin's death. Nobody liked him, not even "Stalinists" like Molotov and Kaganovich.

>The whole rallying point of the so called "left opposition" against the troika was the tendency of appointment of secretariat positions by the top

Which was demagoguery. Trotsky had proposed turning the trade unions into appendages of the state and of militarizing labor. Zinoviev held autocratic control over the Leningrad party organization.

>nor should he have started the secretarial appointment tradition that turned the party into the corrupt petty-bourgeoisie hub of opportunists that it became during the 80s.

For the record, Gorbachev was only able to do what he did by removing or otherwise sidelining "hardliners" like Grigory Romanov, Nikolai Tikhonov, Yegor Ligachev, etc., as well as taking advantage of the ill health and deaths of figures like Dimitri Ustinov and Andrei Gromyko.

Does this following Politburo transcript really sound like a bunch of "opportunists" to you? http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111231

Gorbachev and his associates ultimately had to struggle against the CPSU in order to get their way. As late as 1990-1991 rank-and-file discontent was manifested in various ways, but the Party had been literally bankrupted and made impotent by the changes enacted under Gorbachev.

>All the people like kirov who he falsely murdered during the great purges should be politically rehabilitated

Kirov was never condemned. He was always upheld as an outstanding Bolshevik. You also speak as if the mass rehabilitations of the 1950s-60s had never happened.


 No.5995

File: 9cc9cc94560664f⋯.gif (1.41 MB, 1600x1103, 1600:1103, 1935-10-17-tiflis-posledni….gif)

>>5994

Sorry but that:

>Stalin did not order Kirov's assassination, though it was used as a pretext for mass repressions.

>it was used as a pretext for mass repressions.

And that:

>Beria engaged in criminal behavior and was executed for that after Stalin's death. Nobody liked him, not even "Stalinists" like Molotov and Kaganovich.

It's absolutely wrong. Also I do support Beriya and his policies.

LONG LIVE BERIYA!

LONG LIVE STALIN!

LONG LIVE MOLOTOV!


 No.5996

>>5995

why do you support him? guy was a rapist with no grasp of marxism, hated by literally everyone. even stalin distrusted him. what little is known of his economic and foreign policies suggest he was to the right of khrushchev.


 No.5997

>>5994

It was under stalin that the politburo got the power it had during the 80s. before that, all decisions were voted upon democratically. Lenin himself would never be able to destroy the ussr like gorbachev was, the conditions for that were created solely by stalin and his reforms that granted insanely autocratic power to the general secretary and the politburo. Like I said, no m-l party today functions in a stalinistic autocratic way, yet all of them defend these policies.

And yes, Stalin did order yagoda to arrange kirov's assassination, orlov testified to this.


 No.5998

>>5996

All you say is absolutely wrong.


 No.5999

File: f935073faedcf28⋯.jpg (39.93 KB, 233x361, 233:361, Brezhnevvvvvvv.jpg)

>>5997

All major decisions were voted upon democratically in the Politburo, which later went to the Central Committee for confirmation. This was a practice that started with Lenin, and both bodies convened regularly after Stalin's death. Brezhnev had less power, for example, than a US President, due to the control exercised by his peers. See: >>5880

>no m-l party today functions in a stalinistic autocratic way, yet all of them defend these policies.

You somehow forgot the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the wide endorsement by fraternal parties of its assessment of Stalin and how inner-party democracy had been weakened under him. How is it any revelation that none of these parties wanted to repeat what was clearly regarded as an aberration?

>orlov testified to this.

"during the entire period of the 'Great Purges,' Orlov was an NKVD chief in Spain during the Civil War. He was in the Soviet Union only twice for brief visits a few days each, and his 'information' is based on corridor gossip he picked up among some of his NKVD friends during those brief visits. By his own admission, he knew little about what was happening in the Kremlin." (J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges, 1985, p. 212.)

Post last edited at

 No.6010

>>5721

Hey Ismail, I'm kind of new to 8chan, but I remember you being a pretty hardline Hoxhaist back in the days of Revleft. I'm kind of curious, what made you go from being an anti-revisionist to a more traditional Parenti-style ML? Sorry if this question is too personal and not a general question about history or politics.


 No.6014

File: 466db33507def0c⋯.jpg (104.04 KB, 471x640, 471:640, Brezhnev 1963.jpg)

>>6010

I'll quote what I wrote on RevLeft:

>I simply read up on the USSR, China, and other socialist countries from sources that weren't Enver Hoxha or Maoist polemics. Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Szymanski is particularly useful. In this way I was able to see that Albanian and Maoist "analyses" were generally full of distortions and played on the prejudices of newbie communists in the West.

Even before then though I was never entirely comfortable with arguing (as the Albanians and Chinese did) that Cuban troops in Angola were "mercenaries of Soviet social-imperialism" (despite not even informing the Soviets before sending troops) and functionally equivalent to Apartheid South Africa invading Angola to overthrow its anti-Apartheid government, or that the Afghan Mujahideen were anti-imperialists, or that Stalin and Hoxha did nothing wrong, etc.

Speaking of Parenti, I was just looking at a speech he made back in the day called "Anti-Sovietism in the Media," and an "anti-revisionist" YouTuber replied "it was too late to debunk anti-sovietism, cos revisionists in USSR 'communist' party had already destroyed Soviet Union. They had been doing it since the 60s."

Here was Parenti pointing out the anti-Soviet lies of the American press, which struggled against socialism and all the forces fighting against imperialism, and this "anti-revisionist" is just belittling the whole thing because the CPSU had become "revisionist."

Thing is, this was what I was doing as a "Hoxhaist" as well. I came to realize that I was basically pretending the USSR after 1956 didn't exist and conceding anti-communist arguments about the post-Stalin Soviet state by claiming that "revisionism" was to blame for any economic inefficiency, any instances of bureaucracy, or whatever. It's an infantile form of argument akin to ultra-leftists who claim the reason anything bad happened in the Soviet Union is because "Lenin abolished workers' democracy," or (in the case of Trots) because of "Stalinism." It's a substitute for real analysis.

It's how Maoists could praise Stalin only to argue (as many did in the mid-late 70s, following the Chinese) that NATO was an "objectively defensive" alliance against the mounting threat of Soviet "social-imperialism." It's how pro-Albanian parties could call for the overthrow of the FSLN in Nicaragua back in the 80s and end up supporting the right-wing opposition coalition in the 1990 election. An ultra-leftism that claims to uphold Stalin, Mao and/or Hoxha will still, eventually, end up serving the right and become a cloak for right-wing deviations.

Post last edited at

 No.6015

>>6014

This is pretty interesting, because I kind of had the same experience, only instead of Hoxha I was a Maoist and pretty much swallowed anything I read in old Renmin Ribao articles, and yeah, the second anti-imperialists start defending outright reactionary positions seems like the moment anti-imperialism looses it's meaning. But either way, since I dropped the polemical baggage of the past and started thinking more critically about history I think I've become far more logically consistent, I also feel like I'm not forced into so many bad faith arguments where I have to defend every individual act by Stalin and Mao as individuals, but rather can defend those Socialist Republics as flawed but ultimately positive Leftist projects that tried their hardest to create sustainable Socialism.


 No.6016

Hey Ismail! What are some of the best objective texts I can read about the history and economics of the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, and other Socialist Republics in general? I've been recommended Sheila Fitzpatrick, J. Arch Getty, and William Hinton. Who are some others?


 No.6017

File: 4b606e643b1afca⋯.jpg (7.94 KB, 190x190, 1:1, J Arch Getty.jpg)

>>6016

Those three authors are good, although Hinton wrote about China, not the USSR or Eastern Europe. Hinton's "Fanshen" and "Shenfan" are good to read and compare since the second is a sequel work.

Maurice Dobb's "Soviet Economic Development since 1917" is good: https://archive.org/details/DobbSovEconDev

Alex Nove's economic history of the USSR is also worth reading: http://b-ok.org/book/2039288/9b6902

R.W. Davies' "The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia" series of books is of great value.

I'm not aware of any good history of the USSR that goes from 1917 to 1991. Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution" is good for 1917-1930s though: http://b-ok.org/book/1225522/dcaa03

E.H. Carr's works are all informative.

While obviously not "objective," here's a Soviet history of the USSR covering 1917-1980: https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism

Post last edited at

 No.6018

File: 3771216ac4c8568⋯.png (576.22 KB, 670x588, 335:294, tXrvD0b.png)

>>6014

>Speaking of Parenti, I was just looking at a speech he made back in the day called "Anti-Sovietism in the Media," and an "anti-revisionist" YouTuber replied "it was too late to debunk anti-sovietism, cos revisionists in USSR 'communist' party had already destroyed Soviet Union. They had been doing it since the 60s."

>Here was Parenti pointing out the anti-Soviet lies of the American press, which struggled against socialism and all the forces fighting against imperialism, and this "anti-revisionist" is just belittling the whole thing because the CPSU had become "revisionist."

>Thing is, this was what I was doing as a "Hoxhaist" as well. I came to realize that I was basically pretending the USSR after 1956 didn't exist and conceding anti-communist arguments about the post-Stalin Soviet state by claiming that "revisionism" was to blame for any economic inefficiency, any instances of bureaucracy, or whatever. It's an infantile form of argument akin to ultra-leftists who claim the reason anything bad happened in the Soviet Union is because "Lenin abolished workers' democracy," or (in the case of Trots) because of "Stalinism." It's a substitute for real analysis.

>It's how Maoists could praise Stalin only to argue (as many did in the mid-late 70s, following the Chinese) that NATO was an "objectively defensive" alliance against the mounting threat of Soviet "social-imperialism." It's how pro-Albanian parties could call for the overthrow of the FSLN in Nicaragua back in the 80s and end up supporting the right-wing opposition coalition in the 1990 election. An ultra-leftism that claims to uphold Stalin, Mao and/or Hoxha will still, eventually, end up serving the right and become a cloak for right-wing deviations.

Word, specially this:

>Here was Parenti pointing out the anti-Soviet lies of the American press, which struggled against socialism and all the forces fighting against imperialism, and this "anti-revisionist" is just belittling the whole thing because the CPSU had become "revisionist."

>Thing is, this was what I was doing as a "Hoxhaist" as well. I came to realize that I was basically pretending the USSR after 1956 didn't exist and conceding anti-communist arguments about the post-Stalin Soviet state by claiming that "revisionism" was to blame for any economic inefficiency, any instances of bureaucracy, or whatever. It's an infantile form of argument akin to ultra-leftists who claim the reason anything bad happened in the Soviet Union is because "Lenin abolished workers' democracy," or (in the case of Trots) because of "Stalinism." It's a substitute for real analysis.

Congrats comrade, nice evolution. There's only one thing left: Hoxha is not Stalin and there is no need to use Hoxha to defend Stalin. Stalin can be defended by himself and leninism.


 No.6022

>>5990

Speaking of Cuba, how would you recommend

a) mounting a credible defense of socialism in the country

and

b) what are some criticisms we should acknowledge?

Book recommendations would be great too, and more contemporary information.


 No.6023

File: ee6d85cae080c77⋯.jpg (310.88 KB, 1300x860, 65:43, Cuba USSR stamp 1974.jpg)

>>6022

>mounting a credible defense of socialism in the country

Well, what evidence is there that a Cuban bourgeoisie exists, much less rules the country?

>what are some criticisms we should acknowledge?

As far as the socialist countries go, Cuba's record is practically spotless.

Here are three good reads:

* http://b-ok.org/book/1217861/37ceb9 (obviously not contemporary, but still a good read)

* http://b-ok.org/book/2596114/1eba23

* http://b-ok.org/book/695778/d40204

Also, two books on democracy in Cuba:

* http://b-ok.org/book/2482948/67174c

* http://b-ok.org/book/2548797/920457


 No.6024

>>6023

Thanks Ismail. The motivation for my post was a "discussion" on Twitter with a gusano who trotted out all the standard lines about lack of free speech, people escaping through shark infested water, family members having to use codewords on the telephone for fear of repression etc.

I'm more familiar with democracy there, I've read a bunch about it recently, but the books are much appreciated. Rather than defending Castro from the criticisms of other socialists (or "socialists"), my question is posed more with the intention of boning up on the bourgeois critiques.

I imagine I'll find plenty in the books you posted, so I thank you for them.


 No.6025

>>6023

Back to the Future looks particularly relevant to what I'm looking for.


 No.6026

File: c516d0f042a7bb5⋯.jpg (26.04 KB, 380x234, 190:117, Fidel-Castro-380.jpg)

>>6024

>people escaping

"The truth is that the average Cuban lives very well these days by Third World standards. He appears much happier than his counterparts living under regimes that the U.S. supports or imposed. He endorses his government's foreign and domestic policies much more enthusiastically than his counter-parts endorse the policies of their governments.

[. . . .]

Considering that throughout the Third World there are endless millions of people who at least think they would like to emigrate to the land of two-car families with a Sony in every bedroom, and that the U.S. now faces big immigration problems from the so-called 'free' nations of the Caribbean basin, the number of people wanting to leave Cuba today is not extraordinary. If you were to open a port in El Salvador and provide boats and U.S. visas, you would see a yacht race at least the equal of any flotilla that ever left a Cuban port."

(Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. New York: Congdon & Weed. 1984. p. 239, 253.)


 No.6054

File: 9a9c910778c4c6b⋯.jpg (200.13 KB, 709x1000, 709:1000, Based Parenti.jpg)

Hey Ismail! Rank your top five Michael Parenti books in descending order!


 No.6055

>>6054

Also, you're allowed to go over five, feel free to make it a top ten if necessary comrade.


 No.6059

File: 584a62f1e0a1835⋯.jpg (408.12 KB, 600x900, 2:3, Jesus was a Communist.jpg)

>>5721

Do you think America can ever be rid of fervent religious ideology? Do you think a Socialist movement as openly anti-clerical as the Bolsheviks or the Spanish Anarchists could be successful here in the States? Or do you think a tactic of using this religiosity to our advantage would work? Liberation Theology, like in South America, drawing the clear connections between Socialist ideas of collectivism and worker's control with Christian ideas of charity, humility, and equality?


 No.6063

File: fef62d9fdab76fc⋯.jpg (12.98 KB, 480x360, 4:3, PARENTIIIIIII.jpg)

>>6054

1. Blackshirts and Reds

2. Land of Idols

3. Inventing Reality

4. History as Mystery

5. Against Empire

I haven't read every book of his, but the others I've read can be divided into also good (To Kill a Nation, The Sword and the Dollar, Make-Believe Media) and not bad (The Terrorism Trap, Dirty Truths, America Besieged, God and His Demons)

I've just gotten started reading Democracy for the Few. I also own Power and the Powerless but haven't gotten far into it (it's written in a relatively dry and academic style compared to his other works.)

>>6059

>Do you think America can ever be rid of fervent religious ideology?

I don't see why not. Religion had a fervent hold on Britain, France, Germany, etc. in earlier periods of history. The Evangelical movement in the US was generally in decline until the 1970s, and it is once again in decline.

>Do you think a Socialist movement as openly anti-clerical as the Bolsheviks or the Spanish Anarchists could be successful here in the States?

As Lenin pointed out, Marxists do not seek a sectarian approach toward religious believers. See: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

As he points out, avoiding sectarianism does not mean incorporating metaphysics into Marxism; communist parties are perfectly willing to work with religious groups and individuals while remaining critical of religion.

The Spanish Communists condemned Anarchist attacks on churches and the indiscriminate killing of clergy merely for being clergy.

Post last edited at

 No.6098

File: 5fac272ed84d2b8⋯.jpg (38.68 KB, 339x499, 339:499, 512-kpb0lmL._SX337_BO1,204….jpg)

I'm planning on reading this, thoughts?


 No.6099

File: ac19f71f8b13f9f⋯.jpg (120.44 KB, 570x768, 95:128, Otto Kuusinen.jpg)


 No.6125

Ismail, what's the deal with vietnam? it's well known where and how the PRC went capitalist, but I have no idea what's going on in vietnam.


 No.6126

File: 5ae0cef7e58cb7e⋯.png (169.32 KB, 400x420, 20:21, Ho Chi Minh.png)

>>6125

I don't think the PRC is a capitalist country, nor Vietnam. But those who argue the latter went capitalist point to the "Đổi mới" reforms that started in the mid-80s.

For a Vietnamese explanation of the purpose of these reforms, see: http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/socialism-plus-markets-vietnam-s-chosen-path/


 No.6127

>>6126

how is the PRC not a capitalist country when there's private accumulation of capital? do explain


 No.6128

>>6126

they pretty much accept their economy isn't socialist. at least they aren't lying about it


 No.6130

>>6127

Ismail posted a defense of the PRC here http://8ch.net/marx/res/5714.html


 No.6131

>>6130

that's a very poor defense tbh, just the fact that there are capitalists with private ownership of capital worth millions and billions makes it capitalism. it is heavily regulated by the state, but capitalism nonetheless

ill try to find a very good critique of the CPC by the KKE that I read a while ago, don't remember if it was in english though.


 No.6190

File: 974f68c67a71257⋯.jpg (17.52 KB, 400x269, 400:269, 0524-15.jpg)

What're your thoughts on Zizek and Badiou?


 No.6191

File: 60c792eeccc51b7⋯.jpg (49.58 KB, 600x353, 600:353, Dauve.jpg)

Hey Ismail. I'm going to assume you're not to fond of Leftcommunism, but i was curious what Leftcom texts you've read, and what your thoughts on individual Leftcoms like Bordiga, Pannekoek, or Debord are. Also, have you read Dauvé's Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement?


 No.6192

>>6191

I didn't realize there was already a thread in the catalog about Leftcommunism. I am, however, still interested in your thoughts on Debord and if you've read Dauvé and your opinion on Communization Theory.


 No.6193

File: e6658464fc54b8b⋯.jpg (20.49 KB, 360x269, 360:269, beavis.jpg)

In capitalism there is a surplus extraction, called capitalist exploitation. But under Socialist State there is the same surplus extraction. In both of them, socialist and capitalist modes of production, there is surplus extraction and some kind of accumulation (capitalist accumulation/socialist accumulation).

So... what's the difference between capitalism and socialism then? You could say that workers in socialism work for themselves and all that surplus they create and Socialist State gets to himself, doing a surplus exctraction like under capitalism, has repercussions for the benefit of all workers. You could say that yeah bwoi in socialism there is surplus extraction and its managed by Socialist State having repercussions for the benefit of all workers. Also you could say they are working in the construction of socialism. But workers in capitalism against their interests are doing the same, they are working in the construction of capitalism in different ways with new ways of producing commodities and so on.


 No.6196

File: 3f0f4f5c7a4beae⋯.jpg (38.39 KB, 379x479, 379:479, Laura_Palmer,_the_Queen_Of….jpg)

Is Twin Peaks revolutionary or counterrevolutionary?


 No.6202

File: c63477171157445⋯.jpg (13.4 KB, 300x338, 150:169, lenin.jpg)

>>6190

I've never really read either. I've heard Žižek has some good philosophical points against postmodernists and the like, but is bogged down by having a subpar understanding of politics.

> but i was curious what Leftcom texts you've read, and what your thoughts on individual Leftcoms like Bordiga, Pannekoek, or Debord are. Also, have you read Dauvé's Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement?

I've read a bunch of Bordiga stuff. I thought it was silly, since he more or less argued that the USSR was capitalist because it traded with other countries. His stuff on Marxism as an "invariant doctrine" and "organic centralism" just sound like his justifications for founding a political cult à la Bob Avakian.

I tried reading a Debord work a few years back. I just remember seeing "falling rate of use value" and laughing at it, and how his "analysis" of the USSR was utterly unoriginal. Maybe he has some insights on film-making, but when it comes to Marxism I wasn't impressed.

I also read stuff by Herman Gorter, which was funny because his central argument was that the West is where the truly proletarian movements would arise, whereas the East was experiencing peasant revolutions to establish capitalism, with the Bolsheviks the unwitting agents of the peasant class against the proletariat. Besides being anti-Marxist in his view that the peasantry can somehow lead a revolution and establish state power in its own image, he died in 1927, on the eve of collectivization, and thus never got to see just how wrong his "peasants actually rule in the USSR and are building capitalism on the basis of their individual plots of land" was.

>if you've read Dauvé

I haven't.

>So... what's the difference between capitalism and socialism then?

Under capitalism the surplus is appropriated by the bourgeoisie, and production is for profit rather than use. Under socialism society appropriates the surplus and plans its use for the economic and cultural development of society, as well as necessary "deductions" (Marx's words), such as "that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc." and "funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."

>>6196

Alas, I wouldn't know.


 No.6203

>>6202

I think Gorter's analysis made a certain sense at the time, if Bukharin's Right Opposition had won out it might have been the case, more power to the Kulaks.


 No.6204

>>6202

>I haven't.

Would you care for some PDFs? I'd find your take on Dauvé very interesting. No pressure tho, I don't know how busy you are.


 No.6205

File: 8908ebdf7dea921⋯.jpg (43.09 KB, 511x796, 511:796, IT IS LENIN.jpg)

>>6203

>I think Gorter's analysis made a certain sense at the time, if Bukharin's Right Opposition had won out it might have been the case, more power to the Kulaks.

Even if Bukharin's line had won out, it wouldn't have meant the rule of capitalists (except through the overthrow of the government.) It would have meant that the Soviet economy would have been unable to withstand the Nazi invasion when it came, since industrial and agricultural development would have been greatly undermined.

Gorter claimed that the Bolsheviks "are following the peasants and that they have put the peasant capitalist revolution above the proletarian revolution" and that by the very logic of carrying out a revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks could only ever carry out a capitalist revolution headed by the peasants. He just flat-out didn't understand Soviet society and the relationship between the working-class and peasantry.

Plus, as I said, he was fixated on this idea that the West was good and the East totally sucked. He outright declared, "Awakening Asia is the new enemy of the world proletarian revolution."

>>6204

I wouldn't mind a shorter work, or a specific chapter of a longer work, but I'm always reading numerous books, and I'm currently GMing a game on my website (eregime.org) and working on a video to promote said website.

Post last edited at

 No.6206

File: 80f2e434149a1fa⋯.pdf (389.58 KB, Capitalism and Communism.pdf)

File: bf306d3fd04a6b1⋯.pdf (308 KB, Communisation.pdf)

>>6205

>I wouldn't mind a shorter work

Here you go. Two short texts, about 50 pages, you seem like a heavy reader so i'm sure that's alright.

>working on a video to promote said website

Very cool, I'm actually debating making an account over there.


 No.6207

File: dee1e9f1cdac1a9⋯.pdf (608.31 KB, When Insurrections Die.pdf)

>>6206

You might also find this interesting, it's a bit longer tho, so be warned, it'd be more of a commitment, it's about 80 pages. It's Dauvé's thesis on why he believes the USSR failed. It's an interesting read. Also, if you don't have any interest in reading the whole thing here's a podcast where some Marxists talk about it in depth. Also they have a pretty interesting conversation about Antifa.

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


 No.6208

>>6206

You should make one. There is an off-topic area for political discussion but only registered users can see it. It nly takes seconds to make an account anyhow.


 No.6210

>>6208

Thank you for extending the invitation, the site seems like fun tbh.


 No.6214

>>6202

>Under socialism society appropriates the surplus and plans its use for the economic and cultural development of society, as well as necessary "deductions" (Marx's words), such as "that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc." and "funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."

All of that exist under capitalism, isn't it?


 No.6217

>>6214

Marx in that same thing Ismail quoted from said "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges".

By "communist society" Marx means the lower stage of communism (=socialism).

The state in every epoch (slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism) builds roads, provides security, and other "public" functions. Planning an entire society's output for public use rather than private profit is only possible under socialism.


 No.6220

>>6202

>>6205

Gorter also said that the vanguard party approach wasn't the right one for western Europe because of the different circumstances.

From what I remember, Lenin himself justifies the tightly-knit cadre party as a necessity under the Russian circumstances of tsarist oppression in What is to Be Done?

When did the concept of a vanguard party of the Leninist type take its claim to universal applicability?


 No.6225

File: 377a42f903cd778⋯.jpg (27.52 KB, 310x398, 155:199, Lenin First Congress Comin….jpg)

>>6207

I'll glance at this particular Dauvé work (When Insurrections Die) in a few days and will write a reply in this thread.

>>6220

>From what I remember, Lenin himself justifies the tightly-knit cadre party as a necessity under the Russian circumstances of tsarist oppression in What is to Be Done?

He doesn't say that the vanguard is only a uniquely "Russian" phenomenon though. In that same work he writes, among other things:

>History has now confronted us with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks confronting the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.

>The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

I can't find anything in the text where he says his conception of the vanguard only holds true for Russia.

The whole idea that Lenin's theory of the party made sense for the East but not the West seems to be a sign of chauvinism on Gorter's part. This "East vs. West" argument was also used by revisionists (e.g. Eurocommunists) since it plays into their opportunism.

>When did the concept of a vanguard party of the Leninist type take its claim to universal applicability?

Among other things: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm

Post last edited at

 No.6244

>>6225

>in a few days and will write a reply in this thread.

Thank you comrade, I look forward to it. I should also point out I'm not a Leftcom and don't endorse the text, I just think it's an interesting read. For me Dauvé falls into the same category as thinkers like CLR James or Shulamith Firestone where I don't fully agree with them but I do find them very interesting and insightful.


 No.6270

File: 2fe7e79ccc31a47⋯.jpg (74.21 KB, 738x492, 3:2, FB_IMG_1499531505915.jpg)

Is there any truth to this meme?


 No.6272

File: f85a0417385e769⋯.jpg (14.59 KB, 300x180, 5:3, Leninnnnnnnnn.jpg)

>>6244

Okay, here's my probably underwhelming reply in regard to "When Insurrections Die": https://pastebin.com/fg5yuUjv

>>6270

I don't see how "Abolished democracy and election of officers" can't be blamed on objective conditions when the context was the Soviet Republic fighting for its life.

Soviets that opposed soviet power (such as those with Menshevik or SR majorities) were "shut down" for being counter-revolutionary. Again, this situation was during the Civil War where counter-revolutionaries tended to threaten workers and especially peasants with reprisals if they did not support anti-Bolshevik forces.

I don't see how one can justify factionalism, i.e. the putting of one's own faction above the interests of the party.

There was not a single piece of Soviet legislation that outlawed other parties. The Bolsheviks themselves coalitioned with the Left SRs after the revolution, until that party rebelled over Brest-Litovsk. What happened is simply: those parties that opposed soviet power discredited themselves through collaboration with the counter-revolution. Many of their members left to join the Bolsheviks. Thus the Mensheviks for example simply faded away around 1923.

One-man management ensured maximum accountability and discipline at enterprises. The manager was to be appointed by state institutions and to fulfill state directives, while the workers were to check on his performance and see whether or not he was complying with state tasks.

Without one-man management both accountability and discipline would have suffered as workers would feud over responsibilities for failures, etc.

There was no "militarization" of the workforce. Trotsky had proposed that, but was opposed by Lenin.

The Cheka was born of the Civil War and in particular the White Terror. Before the Cheka was established workers were reacting to the assassination of revolutionary officials by spontaneously seizing people on the streets and murdering them. The Cheka gave direction and defense against counter-revolution.

Again, objective conditions. Strikes during the NEP, for example, were generally accepted since they were mostly against Nepmen and other exploiting elements. Strikes during the Civil War, when Mensheviks and others sought to use them to overthrow the Soviet government and which clearly preyed on dissatisfaction of the material scarcities created by the imperialist blockade and counter-revolution, were not.


 No.6274

>>6272

>I don't see how one can justify factionalism, i.e. the putting of one's own faction above the interests of the party.

How do you determine the "interests of the party"? Aren't they just the interests of the majority faction?


 No.6275

File: 9a1f08e9909b975⋯.jpg (200.07 KB, 736x852, 184:213, Stalin and Krupskaya.jpg)

>>6274

There's a difference between disagreements between Party members and the existence of organized factions. Democratic centralism is based on free discussion on what should be done, followed by a united effort by everyone (both the majority and minority) once a decision has been reached. At subsequent meetings the decision can again be discussed and either upheld, changed or abandoned, but everyone must continue to carry it out while it is in place.

To give an example of factional activity, the Trotskyists in the 1920s would repeatedly oppose the majority, concede defeat, clandestinely work against the majority decision, have their activity exposed, proceed to apologize and recant, and then proceed to double-down on their factional activities. By 1927 the Trotskyists had an underground printing press, accepted the discipline of the leaders of their faction rather than of the Party, and organized demonstrations on the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution calling for the downfall of the line of the Central Committee of the CPSU(B).


 No.6282

>>6272

>Okay, here's my probably underwhelming reply in regard to "When Insurrections Die"

Thank you for the timely response! I did find your thoughts enlightening. I like Dauvé, but I think he's far too uncharitable when discussing Lenin and the USSR, he isn't as bad as some other ultralefts, but still, I figured you'd have good critiques given your extensive knowledge of history.


 No.6290

Hello Ismail, I couldn't find a proper answer on the internet so I came here asking you.

What can you tell me about Zhdanovscina?

In particular, while I understand why some pieces of literature and movies got censored, what was the issue with music, formalism, and was it really necessary to censor them? What was wrong with "The great friendship"?

Thank you


 No.6292

File: bd1ffab8fa14513⋯.jpg (146.05 KB, 1024x672, 32:21, andrei-zhdanov.jpg)

>>6290

There were excesses in that regard, but as the Wikipedia article notes, the decree that targeted "The Great Friendship" was rescinded two years after it was issued.

There's a Marxist analysis of music by a CPUSA member, "How Music Expresses Ideas," which someone I know will probably scan by the end of the year.

The whole motive of the "Zhdanovschina" was that during and after WWII numerous members of the intelligentsia had an inflated opinion of the West and its achievements while denigrating Russian, Ukrainian, etc. literature, art, and so on. It played into the hands of the capitalist countries which after the war went on a cultural offensive against socialism and hoped to have the Soviet intelligentsia serve as willing or unwitting agents of theirs among the population to glorify the "consumer society" of the West.

Post last edited at

 No.6309

Do you think it is okay for communists to do volunteering for human rights organizations?

They do condemn human rights violations of socialist countries, but they also attack capitalist countries when workers strike and they are beaten by police for instance. Some seem pretty ideological neutral and point all cases of human rights abuses.

Of course, most human right violations in socialist countries happen because of the dire conditions that they faced: embargoes, sabotage and the like. There is also the threat of counterrevolution. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point about human rights abuses in my opinion. People just have to consider that they didn't come out of nowhere or that the leadership suppressed people for fun.

What are your thoughts on this?


 No.6310

File: 75a9431be1a9497⋯.jpg (21.57 KB, 400x314, 200:157, World Peace Council.jpg)

>>6309

Bourgeois human rights organizations portray imperialist governments as a potential force for good, and this together with their conception of "human rights" leads them to support imperialism in practice, e.g. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/176/31407.html

I think this is a bit different from, say, bourgeois peace organizations during the Cold War, since even though these pretended the US and USSR were equally responsible for the arms race, their goal was still a positive one of getting the governments of the US, UK, etc. to negotiate with the socialist countries, whereas "human rights" was an excuse used precisely to refuse to negotiate with said countries. Thus even though they weren't the World Peace Council (which drew a distinction between peace-loving and warmongering countries), they could still fulfill an objectively progressive role so long as they weren't orienting their activities toward badgering the socialist countries.

I don't think it's a huge deal to join, say, the Latin America Bureau. But I couldn't support joining Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

Post last edited at

 No.6311

>>6310

Thanks for your view regarding this issue.

However, I do think that it is not the fault of human rights organizations that their reports of human rights violations are used as an excuse for sanctions and imperialism. The imperialists would use other excuses to intervene if Amnesty or Human Rights Watch didn't exist.

They also play a progressive role in the Israel/Palestine conflict, on refugees, on labor struggles. I think the good outweighs the bad. And if a communist joins an anti-imperialist party or organization and campaigns for human rights at the same time (even Amnesty or Human Rights Watch), then no net harm is being done, I think.


 No.6329

Marx said:

>Three points need to be considered in this chapter:

>1) Commodities as the product of capital, of capitalist production;

>2) Capitalist production is the production of surplus value;

>3) Finally, it is the production and reproduction of the whole relation through which this direct production process is characterised as specifically capitalist.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/

Why can't be said that USSR was capitalist?


 No.6330

File: 52798c2b72e7842⋯.jpg (149.66 KB, 660x860, 33:43, Marx.jpg)

>>6329

Because the existence of commodities does not automatically equal capitalism (commodities also existed under feudalism), and under socialism there is no appropriation of surplus value by an exploiting class.


 No.6331

>>6330

But there is production of surplus value. Marx didn't said anything on appropiation of surplues value on that point. I mean, where did Marx say that production of surplus value can exist under socialism but the difference is that while in capitalism is appropriated by capitalists, under socialism would be under Worker's state?


 No.6332

File: 47cb173452b8d62⋯.jpg (650.33 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Marx.jpg)

>>6331

>But there is production of surplus value.

No, under socialism there is the surplus product. See: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/surplus+product

>where did Marx say that production of surplus value can exist under socialism but the difference is that while in capitalism is appropriated by capitalists, under socialism would be under Worker's state?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

>These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

>There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

>Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

>Only now do we come to the "distribution" . . . that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.


 No.6333

>>6332

But that quote says nothing on appropriation of capitalists or Worker's state.


 No.6334

File: 2e581f3da35b708⋯.jpg (21.65 KB, 314x450, 157:225, MARXxxxxxxx.jpg)

>>6333

In the same work, before he made those remarks:

>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

He's talking about the "lower stage of communism," i.e. socialism. He's arguing against the claim that the worker under socialism receives the "undiminished proceeds of his labor." He points out that society deducts from the worker that which is necessary to improve society.

Under socialism there is no capitalist class, so he has no reason to talk about it in that particular chapter since he's dealing with society after the capitalist economy has been replaced.

Post last edited at

 No.6358

How do you respond to the criticisms made against you here:

>>>/leftypol/1894390

Also, is there a reason you don't post on /leftypol/? Surely your input would be appreciated on occasions.


 No.6359

File: 2e82a1567848541⋯.jpg (347.37 KB, 1000x704, 125:88, Brezhnev in Crimea.jpg)

>>6358

>How do you respond to the criticisms made against you here:

I'd simply let people see for themselves the debates I get into with "anti-revisionists" on this board, and judge whether that guy's criticisms of me are correct or not.

>Also, is there a reason you don't post on /leftypol/? Surely your input would be appreciated on occasions.

If anyone has any questions, they can just ask me here on /marx/. I don't see the need to post on /leftypol/ if /marx/ exists.


 No.6363

File: 189d05f0b7432f2⋯.jpg (28.18 KB, 325x470, 65:94, It is Andrei Zhdanov.jpg)

>>6292

>There's a Marxist analysis of music by a CPUSA member, "How Music Expresses Ideas," which someone I know will probably scan by the end of the year.

This has now been scanned: https://archive.org/details/HowMusicExpressesIdeas


 No.6364

Hey Ismail what's do you think about lysenkoism?


 No.6365

File: cbb98891a86ec44⋯.png (585.23 KB, 414x602, 207:301, KXvZ96u.png)

>>6364

http://web.archive.org/web/20030410044718/http://www.geocities.com:80/redcomrades/chap3.html

It is funny how 99% of people that says bullshit on USSR using Lysenko didn't read shit on the latter.


 No.6366

File: 41e4810b6afcbfe⋯.jpg (39.15 KB, 220x314, 110:157, Nikolai Vavilov.jpg)

>>6364

I recently wrote about him elsewhere.

>As far as Lysenko goes, he propounded his theories at a time when DNA hadn't been discovered yet. In the 1950s and 60s his views were increasingly criticized by Soviet scientists, and after 1965 were repudiated altogether with evidence that he falsified his data. Lysenko was never actually a member of the Communist Party and didn't conduct his research with the goal of "proving" Marxism in genetics. He portrayed himself as a patriot seeking the agricultural progress of the USSR as a country.

Although he's associated with the Stalin period, Khrushchev defended him and it wasn't until the latter's ouster that Soviet scientists could finally rid themselves of Lysenko.


 No.6367

>>6366

Was it true that 3000 scientist were imprisoned because they were against lysenko's research.


 No.6368

File: eebc9a2814053b5⋯.jpg (70.9 KB, 700x1027, 700:1027, Vavilovvv.jpg)

>>6367

From what I've read, around 3000 biologists were removed from their jobs, not 3000 imprisoned. Some definitely did suffer that fate though (e.g. Vavilov ended up dying in prison.)

Post last edited at

 No.6371

>>6368

so Lysenkoism was a brief mistake by the soviet union. What would you consider other mistakes that the soviet union committed in terms of central planning or in relation to the implementation of Marxist-Leninism?


 No.6372

File: 32ca688090a2ba8⋯.jpg (115.11 KB, 658x1000, 329:500, Komsomol is the shock brig….jpg)

>>6371

You'd probably have to give specific examples of what you'd consider potential mistakes.

The thing about Lysenko is, even in the 1930s and 40s his views were being criticized by biologists. The problem isn't one of mistaken views on biology (although that played a part in Lysenko getting as far as he did), but of Stalin and later Khrushchev arbitrarily annulling the objections of said biologists because Lysenko cheered on their specific causes (e.g. Lysenko was placed in charge of the "Great Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature," and later promoted Khrushchev's "Virgin Lands" campaign.)

Post last edited at

 No.6375

>>6372

I'm quite ignorante when it comes to how the Soviet Union actually ran. I have a couple questions, 1. How were resources allocated? 2. What role did the workers play in the government (did they get a true say in how their work conditions were)?

Also a couple of questions on china. I lived there for a couple years and it felt no different than any capitalist country however when I visited Cuba the way the country wasn't ran and organized was very different to the way capitalist countries are ran. 1. Would you not say that the existence of a capitalist class in china mean that it's not socialist 2.ive read your previous defense of china and you say china is preparing itself for a return to a More orthodox version of socialism. Has the Chinese government shown in it's policy choice preperations for such a return?

Finally a question about Cuba:

Do you believe the split in wealth between the populations earning CUC's from tourism and the population earning CUP's From government work or othe local industries hurts the efforts to abolish wealth inequality in Cuba?


 No.6377

File: 004d33e98d10f7c⋯.jpg (74.88 KB, 385x580, 77:116, Chen Yun.jpg)

>>6375

>1. How were resources allocated?

This might help: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/national+economic+planning

Someone I know is going to scan a pamphlet-sized work later this year simply titled "How the Soviet Economy Works" (which is an interview with Anastas Mikoyan.)

2. What role did the workers play in the government (did they get a true say in how their work conditions were)?

Workers had control in a variety of ways. As far as the "point of production" itself was concerned, the trade unions were the most important, and you can find a good read on them here: https://archive.org/details/USSRUSATradeUnionsCompared

>Would you not say that the existence of a capitalist class in china mean that it's not socialist

No, since the argument is that socialism is the dominant mode of production in China, with state industries in a leading role.

>2.ive read your previous defense of china and you say china is preparing itself for a return to a More orthodox version of socialism. Has the Chinese government shown in it's policy choice preperations for such a return?

The Chinese argue that their foremost goal is to develop the productive forces, only then can the further construction of socialism be talked about. The CPC aims to achieve a sufficient level of development by 2049.

>Do you believe the split in wealth between the populations earning CUC's from tourism and the population earning CUP's From government work or othe local industries hurts the efforts to abolish wealth inequality in Cuba?

Socialism is not about getting rid of wealth inequality. Disparities in wealth will continue to exist under socialism because the principle under it is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work."


 No.6378

>>6377

>No, since the argument is that socialism is the dominant mode of production in China

How? Isn't there M-C-M' capitalist cycle?


 No.6379

>>6377

Thank you Ismail


 No.6384

File: 52d5c1c3d0693c7⋯.jpg (111.95 KB, 480x720, 2:3, enver_hoxha_1968_60th_birt….jpg)

1. What do you think about Maoism?

2. Was Hoxha right on Third-Worldism?


 No.6386

File: 10be711a24c1c13⋯.jpg (33.29 KB, 550x427, 550:427, Mao 1934.jpg)

>>6379

There's capitalists in China, but that doesn't make capitalism the dominant mode of production.

To quote Al Szymanski: "The dominant relations of production, rather, are those relations whose basic logic structures the form and movement of the whole social formation. Thus, for example, the U.S. was a capitalist social formation in 1860 despite there being more slaves, freeholding farmers and artisans than there were industrial workers. The very existence of slavery in the U.S. was a product of industrial capitalism's need for raw materials, while the prevalence of freehold production was likewise conditioned by the rapidly growing food and raw material needs of the capitalist industries and their workers. It is likewise possible to have a socialist society in which the majority of the producing classes are not working in collectively owned and controlled enterprises, provided that the logic of such enterprises structures the rest of the economy."

The latter is the case in China today, e.g. http://www.workers.org/2013/06/13/marxism-and-the-social-character-of-china/

>>6384

I think it's a variant of Marxism-Leninism, although certain of its arguments are flawed (e.g. Mao's claim that a bourgeoisie emerges within the communist party, hence the necessity of a cultural revolution.)

>Was Hoxha right on Third-Worldism?

Yes. Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" was used to justify China allying with any government that opposed the USSR, whether it was Pinochet's Chile, Iran under the Shah, Mobutu, etc., and also coincided with absurd claims that NATO was a "defensive" alliance against "Social social-imperialism."

If you mean "third-worldism" in the sense of "MTW" types today (who claim that everyone living in the "first world" is an exploiter), those didn't exist back then, but I'm sure Hoxha would have criticized them as well (as would the Soviets and Chinese.)


 No.6387

File: 7dcfb52789d9c87⋯.jpg (54.58 KB, 368x500, 92:125, third.jpg)

>>6386

>Mao's claim that a bourgeoisie emerges within the communist party, hence the necessity of a cultural revolution

Interesting, if I'm not wrong you mean the Maoist Idea of Two-Line Struggle. That's an absolute mess.

>I think it's a variant of Marxism-Leninism

I have a problem with that. I am not quite sure about it. Maybe they have influences of Marxism but Marxism-Leninism...

I have another question:

Since I think in general terms you have had a very good evolution coming out of the Hoxhaist's pit, What would be the best of the theoretical development of the Albanian Marxist-Leninists? This question involves balance and to show the best of them and the worst.


 No.6388

File: c114509709d2fa8⋯.jpg (147.17 KB, 612x816, 3:4, Albania socialist realism ….jpg)

>>6387

>What would be the best of the theoretical development of the Albanian Marxist-Leninists? This question involves balance and to show the best of them and the worst.

Hoxha himself didn't contribute anything, but in the field of agriculture there was a rather unique experiment carried out:

"In 1971, however, a new form of agricultural cooperative was established as a means of faciliating the transformation of all cooperatives into state farms. . . The first 'higher-type agricultural cooperative' (HTC) was inaugurated in that year, and was given excluive access to one MTS, thereby creating an agricultural unit which was intermediate between the typical cooperative farm, which shares an MTS's equipment with other cooperatives, and the state farm, which owns its own machinery. Moreover, methods of payment to the members of HTCs were made to resemble those of state farms more closely than those of other cooperatives in that ninety percent of the planned salary is paid during the year, with the remaining ten percent being paid at the end, if the plan is fulfilled. . . each member of the cooperative is guaranteed a minimum wage. . .

In addition to the HTCs, it has been claimed that Albanian agriculture has also made two other unique contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory. Firstly, previously scattered, privately-owned livestock has been brought together into joint herds, and, secondly, the extinguishing of the personal plot, in the wake of the transition to complete state farming, has been explicitly adopted as an aim of policy. . . it is argued that personal plots are incompatible with social ownership, and that in any case the farmer can now buy products at prices in the cooperative shop which are lower than the cost of growing them on his plot." (Dawson, Planning in Eastern Europe, 1987, pp. 45-46.)


 No.6389

File: 836284e30011de6⋯.jpeg (43.29 KB, 640x546, 320:273, 1F5617F1-6E47-4C34-9EF5-5….jpeg)

What are your opinions on China's new imperialist ventures in Africa? Have they finally entered late capitalism?


 No.6390

File: a7bcc52afcd23ff⋯.jpg (22.71 KB, 300x399, 100:133, Xi Jinping.jpg)

>>6389

There is no such thing as "Chinese imperialism." China is a socialist state. Recently someone compiled a list of articles demonstrating this, including those on its foreign policy in Africa: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16iw83noTdWvDiECaITX83rGhP_lros8QdBTrNnCoe6c/edit


 No.6394


 No.6395

Hoxha at the 5th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania in 1966:

"Marxism-Leninism is not a monopoly of a privileged few who 'have the brains' to understand it. It is the scientific ideology of the working class and the working masses, and only when its ideas are grasped by the broad working masses does it cease to be something abstract and is turned into a great material force for the revolutionary transformation of the world. The historic task of our Party is to continually deepen the ideological and cultural revolution and carry it through to the end by relying on the masses of workers, peasants, soldiers, cadres and the intelligentsia and drawing them actively into creative revolutionary activity."

(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Volume IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 179-180.)

1. What means cultural revolution in Hoxha's words?

2. What could you say on Hoxha's "On the greatest revolutionization of the party and the whole life of the country" texts?

3. Is there any difference with Maoist Ideas? Which ones?

Thanks.


 No.6399

File: e5693a947ada439⋯.jpg (488.72 KB, 812x719, 812:719, Hoxha Albanian Works.jpg)

>>6395

>What means cultural revolution in Hoxha's words?

It referred to the "Ideological and Cultural Revolution" which Albania embarked on beginning in 1966. See: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/179683-Cultural-Revolution-in-the-PSR-Albania?p=2596922#post2596922

>What could you say on Hoxha's "On the greatest revolutionization of the party and the whole life of the country" texts?

They're just collections of speeches by Hoxha. I don't think they're anything special.

>Is there any difference with Maoist Ideas? Which ones?

Hoxha argued that China's Cultural Revolution was anti-Marxist. You can read his critique here: http://www.enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/imperialism-and-revolution/part2/III.pdf


 No.6401

Hey Ismail, if you had to bullet point marxism's main themes or ideas what's would they be

(Let's say maximum 12 points)


 No.6402

File: 49bc75782c7aa25⋯.jpg (22.69 KB, 405x521, 405:521, Leninnnnnnnnnnnnn.jpg)

>>6401

I'd honestly just cite Lenin's "The Three Sources and the Three Component Parts of Marxism" since it's short enough: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm


 No.6407

File: 4f161789a56d1ac⋯.png (29.21 KB, 557x605, 557:605, 4f161789a56d1ac5988fcbd30b….png)

>>6399

Thanks comrade.

Seems to me that "Albanian solution" to what happened in the USSR wasn't successful.


 No.6411

Hi, first off let me say I highly appreciate your efforts to patiently respond to so many questions. I've heard that you are a founding member of the American Party of Labor, is this true? What's the current status of the party? Are you still involved in it? Thanks!


 No.6412

File: f5744af68444717⋯.jpg (192.19 KB, 760x1112, 95:139, Lenin-poster.jpg)

>>6411

I've been busy as of late (which is why for example I haven't responded to the DPRK thread), but I always find time to answer questions.

The APL was largely founded by a bunch of "Hoxhaists" on RevLeft. I was one of its first members (or, more precisely, one of the first members of its youth branch) but played no role in formulating any of its documents. The most I did was contribute to articles in "The Red Phoenix" (APL's online news thing) criticizing Glenn Beck's "Revolutionary Holocaust" TV special.

I think I left it sometime in late 2010 since I felt I was unable to really contribute to it in the Leninist sense (i.e. not just writing articles on the Internet but in terms of actual organizing and going among the people.) It seems to be doing decently enough for a small leftist party, but I know little of its present activities, and as you might guess from reading stuff on here I'm no longer a "Hoxhaist."


 No.6413

>>6412

Thanks for your answer. What's your main criticism of the Hohxaist stance? My main problem with Hoxhaism is that it is simply too much of a fringe movement and due to its dogmatism not inclusive enough to gain traction in the polticial sphere. But when I read Lenins State and Revolution, I feel like Lenin would have been a Hohxaist today.


 No.6414

File: 8928cb34bbac9ef⋯.jpg (64.23 KB, 416x600, 52:75, lenin poster.jpg)

>>6413

I can't see Lenin attacking the USSR, or outlawing religion, or outlawing all attempts to obtain loans or foreign investments in his country, or numerous other things Hoxha did.


 No.6419

>>5721

Hey Ismail, I know you aren't an Anti-Revisionist anymore, but I was curious, from your perspective how did Hoxha become so popular over the past few years? It seems like almost every ML I see online is some type of "anti-revisionist", whether Hoxhaist or Maoist, and very few seem to defend the USSR or Khrushchev or Brezhnev, often claiming the USSR was Social Imperialist at this point. What would you attribute to this phenomenon? What contributed to the rise of anti-revisionism in online Leftist communities? Or am I wrong here? Are there actual tons of MLs online who defend the USSR and all Actually Existing Socialism, but I'm just looking in the wrong places?


 No.6420

File: 3dd1b2b325eb25d⋯.jpg (71.46 KB, 319x398, 319:398, mурзилка_10-1938.jpg)

>>6419

>Are there actual tons of MLs online who defend the USSR and all Actually Existing Socialism

All MLs do that. Also you do not need to be hoxhaist or maoist to criticize stuff. One thing is internal criticism ("self-criticism") and another is being an useful fool for anti-communists ("acting like a trot without claiming being one").

This could be a good read (Stalin is always a good read):

>Against Vulgarising the Slogan of Self-Criticism

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1928/06/26.htm

One must have personality and being with Stalin. Always. My own experience tells me two things:

1. Calling yourself a "red" doesn't turn you into one.

2. Almost 100% of the time that somebody says shit on Stalin is based in false info.


 No.6421

>>6420

>All MLs do that.

Not true, I've seen plenty of Maoists and Hoxhaists claim that the USSR was no longer Socialist after Stalin's death and the Khrushchev Thaw, that's kind of the whole point of being an anti-revisionist in the first place.


 No.6422

>>6421

That's true but Hoxhaists are irrelevant in real life. Maybe Maoists are a bit more relevant than them in Western Europe but the main point is that most of communist organizations defend the USSR.

I would say that most of those organizations are Brezhnevites in Hoxhaist terms. That's at least what I have experienced.


 No.6423

>>6422

>I would say that most of those organizations are Brezhnevites in Hoxhaist terms.

You may have a point here, Hoxhaism might be more of an internet phenomenon.


 No.6424

What would you do if you were in charge of /leftypol/?


 No.6425

>>6423

I know some comrades from Hoxhaist parties that are alive and with some of his militants in prison. But still they are irrelevant.

What do you think about that guy on Twitter calles Phil Greaves? I think he is 0k.


 No.6426

File: 8fd237e0dcdc02d⋯.jpg (76.57 KB, 615x861, 5:7, Brezhnevvvvvvvvv.jpg)

>>6424

I think "on the ground," most leftists in the US belong to parties that regard the USSR as socialist (namely the FRSO, WWP, and PSL), but there are also a bunch of Maoist groups of lesser importance. Ironically, for all its cultishness, Bob Avakian's RCPUSA is still probably the most "important" Maoist group in the US (which isn't saying much.)

Over the years there's been very few Soviet and pro-Soviet materials put online except for those published in the 1930s and 40s. By contrast, there's a plethora of Maoist, Hoxhaist, as well as Trotskyist and left-com books and articles. It's simply much easier to come across such works compared to those defending the USSR. This has been changing a bit over the past few years and myself and others upload books showing the other side (e.g. Szymanski's "Is the Red Flag Flying?")

>Are there actual tons of MLs online who defend the USSR and all Actually Existing Socialism, but I'm just looking in the wrong places?

Yeah, I know quite a few on Facebook who also carry out work in the real world.

I think one reason Maoism and Hoxhaism are popular online is because on one hand they led socialist countries, so the typical charge against Trotskyists and left-coms (that they do nothing but complain and oppose actually existing revolutionary movements) didn't quite apply to them, but on the other hand you get to create a fantasy world where China or Albania were paradises whereas the USSR, Cuba, GDR, DPRK, Yugoslavia, etc. were/are utterly ass.

There's a kind of dogmatic certainty that goes along with such a worldview, which doesn't require actually studying, just looking up old speeches and articles from Hoxha or Peking Review or whatever and going "okay our position on [insert event or country] is going to be based on what this polemic from 45 years ago said about it," even if that polemic didn't stand up to scrutiny 45 years ago, let alone today. That's how you end up with occasional Internet claims that "The Soviet social-imperialists had their Cuban puppet mercenaries invade Angola" or other blatantly untrue stuff that comes directly from what the Chinese or Albanian press were alleging back in 1975-76 (or pro-Chinese/Albanian parties were alleging shortly thereafter.)

There's also another reason, mentioned by Szymanski:

>The new left movement of the 1960’s grew up independently of the Marxist-Leninist tradition. Its roots were in the pacifist and social democratic tradition. It moved to Marxism-Leninism because of identification with the struggles of the Cubans, Vietnamese and Chinese (during their Cultural Revolution). The characteristics of these three revolutions did not seem to us to have anything in common with the image of Communism/Soviet Union that we had been conditioned to accept, and thus we became strongly predisposed to a Maoist type argument that the Soviet Union’s brand of “Communism” really was a capitalism of the Nazi type, i.e., what we had believed all along, while the “Communism” of China, Cuba and Vietnam was a qualitatively different phenomenon – people’s power, or the realization of the true; socialist ideas of equalitarianism, democracy and control of production by the common people. The Maoist alternative allowed formerly strongly anti-communist youth to easily make the transition to Marxism without having to question the fabricated stereotype of Soviet communism they had grown up with, while romanticizing Cuban, Vietnamese and Chinese Communism, portraying the two types as having nothing in common. . . Maoism in the advanced capitalist countries, as does Trotskyism, idealizes and romanticizes the revolutionary process and revolutionary societies, both fail to appreciate the twists and turns, compromises/strategic retreats, mistakes, and patience inherent in the revolutionary process in the real world.

Post last edited at

 No.6430

>>6425

>What do you think about that guy on Twitter calles Phil Greaves?

I think he's alright, but a bit too prone to paranoia and conspiracy theories, which I suppose isn't entirely unwarranted given the history of cointelpro, but still, he seems needlessly combative and hostile towards other Leftists, well beyond what I consider disciplined sectarianism.


 No.6432

>>6426

did you reply to the wrong post?


 No.6433

File: e7abf28c3f709db⋯.jpg (75.08 KB, 600x400, 3:2, Kosygin Brezhnev Podgorny.jpg)

>>6432

Yes I did.

To answer the question I was supposed to reply to, I wouldn't want control of /leftypol/. I am content with /marx/ because it is a board specifically for MLs and allows people to ask questions and receive answers.


 No.6449

Hi Ismail

I wanted to ask you how to dismiss claims that USSR, North Korea or any other socialist state was state capitalist. Everyone on the left shits on these countries with this accusation and I don't know what to say in response. Sources are gladly appreciated.


 No.6451

File: 2180c9ef988ac74⋯.jpg (19.14 KB, 260x346, 130:173, Red Flag Flying.jpg)

>>6449

* https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying (pretty much the go-to source debunking both Soviet "state-capitalism" and Soviet "social-imperialism"

* https://archive.org/details/TheMythOfCapitalismReborn (provides additional evidence against the "state-capitalist" thesis although the authors have their own idiosyncratic views on the Soviet economy)

In short, where was the bourgeoisie in these countries? What evidence is there that this bourgeoisie controlled state power? Why did the Soviet bourgeoisie destroy the very state it supposedly ruled over?


 No.6453

>>6451

I see, very much thanks.

The sources you cite are about Brezhnev-era USSR though, are they still relevant about the Stalin period? Also, I've also found this "document" by Bill Bland which argues otherwise, that starting by the 60s USSR became "capitalist"

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Do you think it is incorrect?

>In short, where was the bourgeoisie in these countries? What evidence is there that this bourgeoisie controlled state power? Why did the Soviet bourgeoisie destroy the very state it supposedly ruled over?

Well, I think you too commonly met this kind of argument, they would just say that the politicians were the new bourgeoise. But from there I could say that there is no evidence of them taking surplus value from the workers, nor that they had those "lavish lifestyles" given that income inequality was very limited in USSR.


 No.6457

File: c452bff8029da12⋯.jpg (82.14 KB, 900x620, 45:31, Brezhnev Muhammad Ali.jpg)

>>6453

>The sources you cite are about Brezhnev-era USSR though, are they still relevant about the Stalin period?

Yes. The point of those two books is to demonstrate that the Soviet economy remained fundamentally the same from the 1930s up to the "present day" (1979-1980) and that this economy clearly was not capitalist.

>Do you think it is incorrect?

Bland just quotes Soviet authors saying stuff out of context. He doesn't actually examine how the Soviet economy worked. In fact, you should read his book first, then read the two books I gave to show the blatant contrast (they all came out around the same time, too.)

>they would just say that the politicians were the new bourgeoise.

Yeah but that's asinine, as you note. State employees are not equivalent to a capitalist class. President Trump can't say "you're fired" to the CEO of a company. Szymanski (author of the first book) does a great job explaining why Soviet officials could not be capitalists.

Post last edited at

 No.6458

>>6457

>Soviet economy remained fundamentally the same from the 1930s up to the "present day" (1979-1980)

We could say that USSR remained "fundamentalmente the same" in a socialist sense, that is to say, remained socialist. But Soviet economy didn't remained fundamentally the same from the 1930s up to its end.


 No.6459

File: ab8ea20ee537fe4⋯.jpg (2.76 MB, 1595x1598, 1595:1598, 1976 CPSU Congress.jpg)

>>6458

>But Soviet economy didn't remained fundamentally the same from the 1930s up to its end.

If the Soviet economy was socialist in the 1930s and still socialist decades later then that's the definition of being fundamentally the same. Just like the American economy has changed a great deal since the 1920s, but it is still fundamentally the same (capitalist) economic system no matter how many reforms and modifications have occurred.


 No.6460

>>6459

>If the Soviet economy was socialist in the 1930s and still socialist decades later then that's the definition of being fundamentally the same.

No.

You know that you cheat by saying that by hiding drastic changes in the Soviet economy after Stalin, even after the nefarious Nikita (who, despite the Party's improved internal democracy as you say, was virtually removed from power Coupist attitudes). That's all you do by hiding behind the word "fundamentally".

One thing is that USSR as a whole remained socialist, and another that the Soviet economy remained "fundamentally the same from 1930 up to its end", and that's an absolute lie that yourself knows. "Fundamentally" means "In accordance with the principles and foundations of something", and you know there were drastic changes between different epochs in the direction of the national economy.

>Just like the American economy has changed a great deal since the 1920s, but it is still fundamentally the same (capitalist) economic system no matter how many reforms and modifications have occurred.

That's what I'm saying. In a general sense, in a general sense of what socialism is, USSR (politically, socially and economically) remained socialist. But as you note with USA, American economy didn't remained "fundamentally the same since 1920s to 2017". Nobody can say that.

If USA remained "fundamentally the same since 1920s to 2017" in a capitalist sense it's because:

1. It's a capitalist state.

2. There is a capitalist class which appropriates the surplus value.

3. There is a capitalist accumulation.

4. Capital isn't destroyed as the basic social relation of production of (American) society, so the law of value isn't destroyed.

If USSR remained socialist in a socialist sense it's because:

1. It was a socialist state.

2. There wasn't any capitalist class which was appropriating surplus value.

3. There wasn't any surplus value but surplus product.

4. There wasn't any capitalist accumulation.

5. There was a socialist accumulation.

6. Capital wasn't the basic social relation of production of Soviet society.

But after Stalin there were drastic changes, so the Soviet economy didn't remained ("fundamentally") the same since 1920s to 1991. Nobody can say that. So, USSR remained socialist in a socialist sense because:

>At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state.

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

But didn't remained ("fundamentally") the same since 1920s to 1991.


 No.6461

For example, something pretty basic and Leninist. We all know that one of the fundamental pillars of socialism is moral and material incentives. Well, somebody would say that's a "certain degree of capitalism" (here lays something very funny to me, that is I don't know why Hoxhaist don't call Stalin a capitalist). Stalin understood very well that we cannot eat from ideas, and that is why he created a system of motivations to compensate for the effort, and it is normal: if you work more and better, that must be compensated. And that system paid off right away, and by the way, that system was copied by some countries, like Japan. That system was destroyed by Nikita Khrushchev.

The system that Nikita destroyed basically consisted of the following: to comply and exceed the plan, they paid you more. For new ideas that worked they paid you more. To rationalize a technological process was paid more. To modernize a product was paid more. And not only that: two classes of individuals were paid more:

1) The individual who made the event,

2) the group of which it is part of this individual

The individual in question charged more than the collective, because he was the author or the maximum responsible. But the group also charged. That's why the group was motivated to help the individual in question. They all won, everyone was interested, everyone was happy. And that was "good capitalism" (it is not, but just saying if somebody thinks that moral and material incentives are monopoly of capitalism and capitalists), where the capital invested were effort and talent. Effort and talent must be compensated.

One that works poorly can not charge the same as one that works well. This is one thing that is outside the context of equality, equality must be for those who are equal (there is a post that I put here yesterday I think on "Marxism against leftism and egalitarianism").

Then was necessary to win the war and then to compete with the capitalist system, otherwise the capitalist system would win the socialist system. For instance, Lenin said:

>Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

>Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality, 1918

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

> In the last analysis, productivity of labour is the most important, the principal thing for the victory of the new social system. Capitalism created a productivity of labour unknown under serfdom. Capitalism can be utterly vanquished, and will be utterly vanquished by socialism creating a new and much higher productivity of labour. . . . Communism is the higher productivity of labour—compared with that existing under capitalism—of voluntary, class-conscious and united workers employing advanced techniques.

>Lenin, A Great Beginning, 1919

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/19.htm


 No.6462

The USSR after Stalin simply stopped being the same. The Stalin economy, which I support and defend as an efficient, productive and superior model, was destroyed. As I said, "Fundamentally" means "In accordance with the principles and foundations of something". There wasn't any accordance with the principles and foundations of Stalin economy.

Another extraordinary and fabulous plan of my Comrade Stalin was to consolidate and hegemonize the Soviet economy at a world level. In what sense? With the creation of a non-dollar common market. The monetary mass always has to correspond to the physical production, if not imbalances occur. Stalin knew this perfectly well. Stalin withdrew the country from the IMF, for which they had entered the postwar euphoria environment, and established the ruble in the gold standard. That is, it totally shielded the economy of the USSR from external interference.

All this plan of Stalin was aimed at isolating the capitalist field, of generating (after the end of the WW2 and significantly increasing the number of socialist states in the world) a siege to the capitalist camp, in the same way that, from the beginning of the 20th century, capitalist states did to USSR. That can only be possible if you have among many other things a strong currency capable of disputing the hegemony of other currencies, getting the real capacity to isolate and impose yourself. So establishing the ruble in gold standard and creating a non-dollar common market were key points to do it. All of that was destroyed by Nikita too. The idea of a "Soviet globalization" in the financial and economic sense was destroyed.

I could go on forever. First Perestroika was called Хрущёвщина (Khrushiovshina) and that is well-known. Nikita and his government were a complete disaster and did much damage to the Soviet economy.


 No.6463

File: ee24d4a6fb96524⋯.jpg (92.3 KB, 500x616, 125:154, Kosygin.jpg)

>>6460

The dictionary definition of "fundamental" is "of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts." Whatever changes occurred in the Soviet economy after Stalin, they were reforms or modifications of the system established in the 1930s. They did not abandon this system, they only made changes to it, whether good or bad.

And even then there were no "drastic changes" in the economy after Stalin's death. The most ambitious attempt, the relatively moderate "Kosygin-Liberman reforms" begun in 1965, were repealed in the early 70s.

An example of "drastic change" would be comparing the Chinese economy under Mao with the reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping, which clearly were more far-reaching than any Soviet reform proposals in the 1950s-70s. But even then one can speak of the Chinese economy being fundamentally the same, in the sense that socialism is still the dominant mode of production (as it was in the USSR.)


 No.6464

>>6463

>Whatever changes occurred in the Soviet economy after Stalin, they were reforms or modifications of the system established in the 1930s.

So you admit Soviet economy didn't remain "fundamentally" the same since 1920s to 1991.

>They did not abandon this system, they only made changes to it, whether good or bad.

Despite of the drastic changes, USSR as a whole remained socialist. That's true.

>And even then there were no "drastic changes" in the economy after Stalin's death.

There were as I showed nationally and internationally.

>The most ambitious attempt, the relatively moderate "Kosygin-Liberman reforms" begun in 1965, were repealed in the early 70s.

Wasn't the most ambitious attempt but also shows how economy after Stalin's death didn't remain the same.

You just simply cannot hide all the changes on Soviet economy after Stalin's death, that is to say, the destruction of stalinist economy (which I support), by saying "Soviet economy remained fundamentally the same since 1920s to its end", which is blantantly false.

>An example of "drastic change" would be comparing the Chinese economy under Mao with the reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping

Don't think so. Mao = Deng Xiaoping. Deng only followed Mao's path of bourgeois-democratic revolution, in which they have stopped. Maoism is Menshevism with steroids.


 No.6465

What is the difference between marxist-stalinism and maoism? I am really unsure about which to choose.


 No.6466

File: cddcbe6ea0bed0e⋯.png (88.07 KB, 335x221, 335:221, mao.png)

>>6465

>What is the difference between marxist-stalinism and maoism? I am really unsure about which to choose.

You mean Marxism-Leninism. Quite simple. Think how different Maoism is that they had to create another name other than Marxism-Leninism. I'll show the differences in a few steps.

The most brazen Maoists often say that of great importance is the contribution made to the common background of Marxist-Leninist theory by Mao in the field of military theory, politics, and philosophy, particularly applicable to the newly independent colonial and semi-feudal countries on which Lenin could hardly write. Thus, Maoism, to use the most fashionable expression, complements and complements Leninism, reinforces it and is not in contradiction with it.

This, obviously, has been one of the great lies of the Maoists. Lenin and Stalin wrote many texts on the revolution, its stages, its driving forces, its alliances in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Precisely Maoism is a synthesis of theories in contrast to all the theories and advice that the Comintern of Lenin and Stalin gave to the Chinese revisionists.

The Maoist fanaticism can lead to saying that Mao always maintained a critical position against the dogmatic and excessively rigid conceptions that had prevailed from a certain moment within the International Communist Movement under the influence of Stalin and the CPSU.

That's blantantly false too. Those who are not furious Maoists simply say that Maoism is Marxism-Leninism, as is the case of Ismail.

Let's show how Maoism really is.

1) The Menshevik theory of the productive forces versus the Bolshevik theory of the interrupted passage from one stage to another.

> The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight.

>Mao, On New Democracy, 1940

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

Lenin instead said:

>Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the “whole” of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (and to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute liberalism in its place. It means smuggling in a reactionary defence of the bourgeoisie against the socialist proletariat by means of quasi-scientific references to the progressive character of the bourgeoisie in comparison with medievalism.

>Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, 1918

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/subservience.htm

Seems clear that Maoists just stop in bourgeois-democratic revolution, what they call New Democracy.


 No.6468

>>6466

Woah your reply went way over my head. Can you dumb it down by about 5 grade levels? I read it a few times and still cant understand.

I think I understand that Maoism uses war to accomplish their goals, and maxism-leninism uses the goodwill of the people?


 No.6469

>>6465

2) The development of capitalism in backward countries versus the transition to socialism without a development of capitalism in backward countries.

>As regards the private sector of the economy, we shall not hamper it, indeed we shall promote and encourage it, so long as it does not transgress the legal limits set by our government. For the development of private enterprise is essential to the interests of the state and the people at the present stage. Needless to say, private enterprise is now preponderant and will inevitably continue to occupy a dominant position for a considerable time.

>Mao, Our economic policy, 1934

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_9.htm

This was not a slip of Mao Zedong, but his permanent thinking:

>Some people suspect that the Chinese Communists are opposed to the development of individual initiative, the growth of private capital and the protection of private property, but they are mistaken. It is foreign oppression and feudal oppression that cruelly fetter the development of the individual initiative of the Chinese people, hamper the growth of private capital and destroy the property of the people. It is the very task of the New Democracy we advocate to remove these fetters and stop this destruction, to guarantee that the people can freely develop their individuality within the framework of society and freely develop such private capitalist economy as will benefit and not "dominate the livelihood of the people", and to protect all appropriate forms of private property.

>Mao, To the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China, 1945

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm

What did Lenin say about the matter? Was it in keeping with the Menshevik theory that due to the productive forces capitalism had to be developed freely or that socialist construction was possible?

>The question was this: can we accept as correct the idea that the capitalist development of the economy is necessary for those backward peoples who are now liberating themselves and among whom now, following the war, progressive movements have developed? We have come to the conclusion that we have to deny it. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat organises systematic propaganda, and the Soviet Government come to its assistance with every means at its disposal, it is incorrect to assume that the capitalist stage of development is necessary for such peoples. We must not only build cadres and parties in all colonies and backward countries, we must not only immediately propagate peasants’ councils and try to make soviet organisations fit pre-capitalist conditions, but theoretically the Communist International must also declare and explain that with the help of the proletariat of the advanced countries the backward countries can arrive at soviet organisation and, through a series of stages, and even avoiding the capitalist system, can arrive at Communism.

>Lenin, Second Congress of the Communist International, 1920

>https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch04.htm

Stalin, in his brilliant analysis of the character of the revolution in China and its specific features, detailed that the weakness of the national bourgeoisie should make the hegemony of petty bourgeois elements easier for the proletariat, and on the other hand the existence of a country like the Soviet Union, could not but facilitate avoiding the capitalist stage of development:

>. . . the national big bourgeoisie in China is weak, weaker than the national bourgeoisie was in Russia in the period of 1905, which facilitates the hegemony of the proletariat and the leadership of the Chinese peasantry by the proletarian party;

>. . . the revolution in China will develop in circumstances that will make it possible to draw upon the experience and assistance of the victorious revolution in the Soviet Union.

>Stalin, The Prospects of the Revolution in China, 1926

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/26.htm


 No.6470

>>6465

3) The peaceful road to socialism versus revolutionary violence as an axiom for socialist revolution.

>The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods.

>Mao, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, 1957

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm

If we look at the original edition of this work, it is explained and recognized that this thought was not born in 1957, but before the seizure of power. Mao says that in the Yan'an period, in 1942, the slogan of "unity-criticism-unity" was launched as a principle to resolve the contradictions among the people, that they work on that formula.

What did Lenin say about this transit and how should it be according to historical materialism and the analysis of revolutionary experiences?

>it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this “alienation”.

>. . . The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution.

>. . . The state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, only the exploiting class, i.e., the bourgeoisie. The working people need the state only to suppress the resistance of the exploiters, and only the proletariat can direct this suppression, can carry it out. For the proletariat is the only class that is consistently revolutionary, the only class that can unite all the working and exploited people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie, in completely removing it.

>Lenin, The State and Revolution, 1917

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

What did Stalin think of the theories of peaceful integration of the exploiting classes in socialism?

>But Bukharin’s mistake is precisely that, according to him, kulaks and concessionaires, while being “to a certain extent” an alien body, nevertheless grow into socialism.

>Such is the nonsense to which Bukharin’s theory leads.

>Capitalists in town and country, kulaks and concessionaires, growing into socialism—such is the absurdity Bukharin has arrived at.

>No, comrades, that is not the kind of “socialism” we want. Let Bukharin keep it for himself.

>Until now, we Marxist-Leninists were of the opinion that between the capitalists of town and country, on the one hand, and the working class, on the other hand, there is an irreconcilable antagonism of interests. That is what the Marxist theory of the class struggle rests on. But now, according to Bukharin’s theory of the capitalists’ peaceful growth into socialism, all this is turned upside down, the irreconcilable antagonism of class interests between the exploiters and the exploited disappears, the exploiters grow into socialism.

>Stalin, The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.), 1929

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/04/22.htm


 No.6471

>>6465

4) The negation of the proletariat and the hegemony of the proletariat as a leading force at any stage.

>What is new-democratic constitutional government? It is the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes over the traitors and reactionaries. Someone once said, "If there is food, let everyone share it." I think this can serve to illustrate New Democracy. Just as everyone should share what food there is, so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class.

>Mao, New-Democratic Constitutional Government, 1940

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_32.htm

Lenin would call this renunciation of hegemony "the crudest form of reformism." The theses of the Russian Bolsheviks said:

>The proletariat stands at the head of the fighting forces of the revolution. It has already borne the greatest sacrifices in the cause of freedom and is now preparing for the decisive battle with the tsarist autocracy. The class-conscious representatives of the proletariat know that freedom will not rid the working people of poverty, oppression, and exploitation. The bourgeoisie, which now stands for the cause of freedom, will, on the morrow of the revolution, try to deprive the workers of as large a part of its conquests as possible and will show itself to be the implacable enemy of the socialist demands of the proletariat. But we do not fear a free, united, and strengthened bourgeoisie. We know that freedom will enable us to wage a broad and open mass struggle for socialism.

>Lenin, Report on the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, 1905

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/may/27.htm

Was this a thought attached only to Russia, or also to countries more backward than Russia?

>There is practically no industrial proletariat in these countries. Nevertheless, we have assumed, we must assume, the role of leader even there.

>Lenin, Report Of The Commission On The National and The Colonial Questions, 1920

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm


 No.6472

>>6468

I was writing. Another day if I want and have time will try to attack those Maoist myths against Stalin of his influence on Chinese Communists. In fact, Mao = tailorism.

>I think I understand that Maoism uses war to accomplish their goals, and maxism-leninism uses the goodwill of the people?

Maoism isn't Marxism-Leninism. That's all.


 No.6473

>>6472

So which ideology would you recommend to a marxist beginner?


 No.6474

>>6473

I do not understand your question. I do not think it makes any sense.


 No.6475

File: 654babacdff6dd1⋯.jpg (27.49 KB, 602x327, 602:327, Mao in Moscow 1957.jpg)

>>6464

>So you admit Soviet economy didn't remain "fundamentally" the same since 1920s to 1991.

I don't know how you get that from what I wrote. I explicitly said that the Soviet economy was fundamentally the same from the 1930s (when socialism was built) up until the Gorbachev period.

I never claimed the Soviet economy operated exactly the same throughout the 70+ years of its existence, which would be stupid. But the underlying socialist logic of the economy remained the same from the 1930s up to the late 80s. That is what is meant by "fundamentally."

Just like the US economy of the 1920s is very different from the US economy today, but it's still capitalism.

The Soviet economy of the 1960s-70s was still very largely based on institutions and planning principles established in the 1930s.

The only reason I can see for labeling the changes after 1953 "drastic" is to provide an excuse as to why the Soviet economy in subsequent decades experienced a growing number of problems, under the assumption that had Stalin-era policies persisted these problems would not have occurred.

This doesn't mean every change that occurred in the Soviet economy was necessarily good (e.g. there's the argument that the Soviets focused excessively on consumer goods production to the detriment of long-term growth), but the Stalin-era economy had mounting problems of its own by 1953.

As an aside, in regard to Mao,

>The development of capitalism in backward countries versus the transition to socialism without a development of capitalism in backward countries.

Mao's words, at least in 1945, were not at variance with the Soviet line on People's Democracy, especially back then, in which private enterprise would be built up while the "commanding heights" would remain under state ownership. That's why he says such private endeavors would be allowed "within the framework of society."

Mao didn't claim he was building capitalism in China, so the Lenin quote that gave isn't a refutation. It was precisely "through a series of stages" (in Lenin's words) that People's Democracy in China was to build socialism, first by utilizing state-capitalist measures.

There is a whole compilation of Lenin's writings on this subject: https://archive.org/details/OnStateCapitalismDuringTheTransitionToSocialism

Stalin himself argued in 1950 that China was only in "its first stage of development" as far as People's Democracy was concerned, in which there was a coalition between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie and "we cannot even talk about the building of Socialism" there: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/pdchina.htm

I do agree that Maoism has incorrect formulations, but I would still argue it is a variant of Marxism-Leninism.

>>6473

If you're new to Marxism-Leninism, you ought to check this out: http://b-ok.org/book/862537/add33c

Maoists claim that Mao created a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism. Whether that's true or not, it's still good to study ML first in order to assess Maoism.

For an introduction to Maoism, from a Maoist, see: http://bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/MLM-Intro/Marx2Mao.pdf

Post last edited at

 No.6476

>>6475

>I don't know how you get that from what I wrote.

You admit:

1. >they were reforms or modifications of the system established in the 1930s

So you admit that it's not from 1920s but from 1930s, and that there were changes which you call them, with other words, irrelevant reforms (which aren't irrelevant but changes). In a veiled way you admit that there were changes in the Soviet economy from 1920s to its end.

2. >The most ambitious attempt, the relatively moderate "Kosygin-Liberman reforms" begun in 1965, were repealed in the early 70s.

You admit there were changes of Soviet economy. It's a fact that during the whole existence of USSR there were changes on economic politics.

So, USSR remained socialist but Soviet economy didn't remain the same from 1920s to its end. There were changes and I only showed two very important which articulate fundamental aspects of the Soviet economy nationally and internationally:

1. How moral and material incentives and Soviet enterprises run.

2. How was the plan to siege capitalist camp through the creation of a non-dollar common market, also how Stalin withdrew the country from the IMF.

Both points and a lot more are part of the First Perestroika called Хрущёвщина, as I said. I consider both of them, 1) and 2), are really fundamental and sensitive parts of the Soviet national economy and its international, global reach. All of that destroyed by Nikita. So there were changes in the Soviet economy. That's all what I'm saying:

1. USSR was socialist.

2. Soviet economy went through different times marked by changes.

>I never claimed the Soviet economy operated exactly the same throughout the 70+ years of its existence.

You in fact do it by hiding behind the "fundamentally" word and saying that the most "most ambitious attempt. . .". As I showed, after Stalin's death changes operated in Soviet economy didn't were:

1. In accordance with the principles and foundations of Stalin's economy (using DRAE dictionary),

2. of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts of Stalin's economy (using your own definition).

>Just like the US economy of the 1920s is very different from the US economy today, but it's still capitalism.

I already explained that and has nothing to do with denying that there were fundamental changes in the Soviet economy after the death of Stalin.

>Mao's words, at least in 1945

What I showed is more than words of 1945. I showed the skeleton of Mao's thought and action, showing that those words weren't just a "mistake", "lapses" or "something very historically concrete".


 No.6477

>>6475

>Mao didn't claim he was building capitalism in China, so the Lenin quote that gave isn't a refutation.

Mao in fact claimed it and it's a consequence of its political line. Mao adheres explicitly to the Menshevik theory as I have shown. Mao says in his stageism framework:

> The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight.

>Mao, On New Democracy, 1940

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

This is in clear and clear contradiction with what Lenin says explicitly:

>Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the “whole” of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (and to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute liberalism in its place. It means smuggling in a reactionary defence of the bourgeoisie against the socialist proletariat by means of quasi-scientific references to the progressive character of the bourgeoisie in comparison with medievalism.

>Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, 1918

>https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/subservience.htm

Also is worth noting what I also said here >>6469:

>What did Lenin say about the matter? Was it in keeping with the Menshevik theory that due to the productive forces capitalism had to be developed freely or that socialist construction was possible?

>The question was this: can we accept as correct the idea that the capitalist development of the economy is necessary for those backward peoples who are now liberating themselves and among whom now, following the war, progressive movements have developed? We have come to the conclusion that we have to deny it. If the victorious revolutionary proletariat organises systematic propaganda, and the Soviet Government come to its assistance with every means at its disposal, it is incorrect to assume that the capitalist stage of development is necessary for such peoples. We must not only build cadres and parties in all colonies and backward countries, we must not only immediately propagate peasants’ councils and try to make soviet organisations fit pre-capitalist conditions, but theoretically the Communist International must also declare and explain that with the help of the proletariat of the advanced countries the backward countries can arrive at soviet organisation and, through a series of stages, and even avoiding the capitalist system, can arrive at Communism.

>Lenin, Second Congress of the Communist International, 1920

>https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch04.htm

Again explicitly says:

>. . . can we accept as correct the idea that the capitalist development of the economy is necessary for those backward peoples who are now liberating themselves and among whom now, following the war, progressive movements have developed? We have come to the conclusion that we have to deny it.

If you want to believe something else is already your business.


 No.6478

>>6475

>It was precisely "through a series of stages" (in Lenin's words) that People's Democracy in China was to build socialism, first by utilizing state-capitalist measures.

First, Lenin has nothing to do with stageism as I have shown.

Secondly, Lenin explicitly denies that it is necessary "to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second".

In third place, you are admitting by saying that Mao's New Democracy stage, that is to say, bourgeois-democratic revolution (first revolution that, in Lenin's words, "remains bourgeois") is accomplished "by utilizing state-capitalist measures". So Mao's policy was full Menshevism: first because of adhering to Menshevik theory of the productive forces (against Bolshevik theory of the interrupted passage from one stage to another) and, secondly, by adhering to the development of capitalism in backward countries (against the transition to socialism without a development of capitalism in backward countries).

You can be Maoist, it's fine, but do not try to make it "Marxism-Leninism" because it is clear that the cardinal points fail them.

>Stalin himself argued in 1950 that China was only in "its first stage of development"

I quoted it, yeah, and Mao didn't give a shit about what Lenin and Stalin said. That's the whole point of what I explained taking too much time.

>I do agree that Maoism has incorrect formulations, but I would still argue it is a variant of Marxism-Leninism.

Well, if after I have shown the basic skeleton of Marxism-Leninism and how Maoism is in clear contradiction with it you want to continue to defend that Maoism is Marxism-Leninism, it is your doing.


 No.6479

>>6475

>Maoists claim that Mao created a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism. Whether that's true or not

What would you say it is. Expose some own development.

My answer is clear: it is not.


 No.6489

As a marxist, I'm sure you're familiar with how societies run without money. How could a society function and exchange necessary goods without money? Also how could specifically a agrarian society function in regards to getting necessary goods and services without money?


 No.6492

Hey Ismail do you have any refutations of the "new class" criticism used against the soviet union.


 No.6493

File: 9986e9ab7075f4a⋯.jpg (95.78 KB, 990x773, 990:773, Engels.jpg)

I've been busy, so I apologize for the late reply.

>>6476

>So you admit that it's not from 1920s but from 1930s

Obviously, considering that the USSR did not have a socialist economy in the 1920s.

>which you call them, with other words, irrelevant reforms (which aren't irrelevant but changes).

I never called them irrelevant. I said they did not fundamentally change the Soviet economy from socialism to capitalism.

>1. How moral and material incentives and Soviet enterprises run.

How did changes in that regard fundamentally alter the Soviet economy?

>2. How was the plan to siege capitalist camp through the creation of a non-dollar common market, also how Stalin withdrew the country from the IMF.

The rouble remained non-convertible and the USSR remained outside the IMF throughout its entire existence, as far as I know.

>Mao in fact claimed it and it's a consequence of its political line.

No he didn't. He spoke of New Democracy, just as Lenin spoke of state-capitalism. These were specific policies of stages on the transition to socialism.

>Secondly, Lenin explicitly denies that it is necessary "to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second".

Yes, but he never said that stages ought to be skipped over. Neither did Mao. Your conception has more in common with Trotsky than Marxism-Leninism.

>What would you say it is.

Obviously it isn't.

>>6489

Under communism the law of value will cease to operate and the principle of distribution will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Engels speaks a bit about distribution here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm

>>6492

I just cite Szymnski's book: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying

It demonstrates both economically and sociologically that there was no distinct "new class" in the USSR.


 No.6495

File: 1e876b518a2c203⋯.jpg (182.87 KB, 1200x1737, 400:579, c9dab3b923c3acc1c1d8ce2010….jpg)

>>6493

Will answer only two thinfs because the rest remained pretty clear and didn't add anything new.

>No he didn't. He spoke of New Democracy, just as Lenin spoke of state-capitalism. These were specific policies of stages on the transition to socialism.

Again:

>The Chinese revolution cannot avoid taking the two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism. Moreover, the first step will need quite a long time and cannot be accomplished overnight.

>Mao, On New Democracy, 1940

>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

>... two steps, first of New Democracy and then of socialism.

>first of New Democracy

>AND THEN of socialism.

On stageist conception of the revolution that Mao had, I said:

First, Lenin has nothing to do with stageism as I have shown.

Secondly, Lenin explicitly denies that it is necessary "to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second".

In third place, you are admitting by saying that Mao's New Democracy stage, that is to say, bourgeois-democratic revolution (first revolution that, in Lenin's words, "remains bourgeois") is accomplished "by utilizing state-capitalist measures". So Mao's policy was full Menshevism: first because of adhering to Menshevik theory of the productive forces (against Bolshevik theory of the interrupted passage from one stage to another) and, secondly, by adhering to the development of capitalism in backward countries (against the transition to socialism without a development of capitalism in backward countries).

>Yes, but he never said that stages ought to be skipped over. Neither did Mao. Your conception has more in common with Trotsky than Marxism-Leninism.

Dude, you were the one trying to make Lenin a stageist in order to defend Mao's stageism, and now you call me trotskist. Trotskt, the top of stageism. Respect yourself.


 No.6502

Alright Ismail, now it's time for the real questions. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. Fuck, marry, or kill?


 No.6503

File: c045d51f3e4f6f1⋯.jpg (46.29 KB, 800x600, 4:3, I refuse to answer that qu….jpg)


 No.6528

Do you know any Marxist books/analyses on liberalism and its history?


 No.6530

>>6528

I am not Ismail, but he will probably link to this http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism


 No.6536

>>6530

Thanks


 No.6539

File: 3c481411b1edd10⋯.jpg (120.71 KB, 521x600, 521:600, Losurdo.jpg)

Besides what Dawaldo posted, I'll link to the following book by Losurdo: http://b-ok.org/book/1228307/f0714f


 No.6541

Are there any English books on the pioneer movements?


 No.6542

File: 2effe91bf1f15a1⋯.jpg (1.12 MB, 1600x1193, 1600:1193, Lenin at Komsomol conventi….jpg)

>>6541

I'm sure there are, but none are online to my knowledge.

Although not about the pioneer movement, there is a book that got scanned recently which discusses the Young Communist International (the youth wing of the Comintern) as well as the early years of the Komsomol: https://archive.org/details/YCLOrigins

There's also a book from 1933 that focuses many of its pages on the raising of children in the USSR: https://archive.org/details/RedVirtue

Post last edited at

 No.6566

File: 53b8018f3c00ba1⋯.jpg (24.29 KB, 405x405, 1:1, Roo the literal meme .jpg)

What are your thoughts on Jason Unruhe and Third Worldism?


 No.6568

File: 4578b7401396508⋯.jpg (158.94 KB, 615x330, 41:22, UK General Strike 1926.jpg)

>>6566

I've only seen a few of his videos. He seems mildly amusing.

I don't agree with "Third Worldism." I've always considered it the other side of accelerationism: workers do not automatically become revolutionary just because their living conditions are worse, and likewise they don't become counter-revolutionary just because imperialism seeks to buy them off with welfare policies and whatnot.


 No.6583

Hey Ismail, what's the difference between a United Front and a Popular Front? Also, why do MLs reject entryism as a tactic?


 No.6584

File: d07f0e4288c5b67⋯.jpg (35.88 KB, 348x362, 174:181, Georgi Dimitrov.jpg)

>>6583

United fronts are between workers' parties and organizations, e.g. between communists and social-democrats and between their trade unions. They usually have specifically working-class goals like coordinating strikes.

Popular fronts unite different classes and strata of society (namely workers, farmers/peasants, and the petty-bourgeoisie) in defense of democratic liberties, especially against fascism and imperialism.

>why do MLs reject entryism as a tactic?

As Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." In addition, entryism involves weakening a workers' party or organization via sowing discord and splitting it. Thus, American Trot James P. Cannon wrote, "Comrade Trotsky remarked, when we talked with him, about the total result of our entry into the Socialist Party and the pitiful state of the organization afterward. He said that alone would have justified the entry into the organization even if we hadn’t gained a single member."

It has nothing to do with Marx, Engels or Lenin who argued for communists to persuade non-communist workers of the correctness of scientific socialism by working with them in common struggles and by exposing any instances of opportunism and reformism on the part of their leaders.

Post last edited at

 No.6587

Comrades, can somebody give a summary on why the US supported decolonization and national struggles in the third world. And what decolonization meant in the backdrop of the cold war?

Bibliography is fine too.


 No.6589

What are people's thoughts on the Party for Socialism and Liberation? I'm thinking of becoming a member. They seem like a small but able group. Despite coming from the SWP they have cleansed themselves of the Trotskyite original sin, so to speak, and are now firmly ML.

On an unrelated note, doesn't it get tiresome and exhausting defending communism against garbage arguments and propaganda? I feel like I do this all the time and I'm getting exhausted by it. Sometimes I feel like the concept of truth itself is so abused by the capitalist class that it's impossible to know anything!


 No.6590

File: 53745ec3af0a073⋯.jpg (93.31 KB, 454x462, 227:231, Lumumba.jpg)

>>6587

>can somebody give a summary on why the US supported decolonization and national struggles in the third world.

It didn't. It "welcomed" independence when it was inevitable and took advantage of the fact that, with the exception of Liberia (an ostensibly independent country), the US had no colonial history on the continent.

>And what decolonization meant in the backdrop of the cold war?

The US and the former colonial powers (Britain, France, etc.) were afraid that the newly-independent countries would orient themselves towards the USSR and China, which gave material aid to numerous national liberation movements. That's why the US orchestrated the murder of Patrice Lumumba, welcomed the coup against Kwame Nkrumah, tacitly backed the South African invasion of Angola in 1975 and its continued occupation of Namibia, etc.

>>6589

Yeah the WWP and PSL have Trotskyist origins, but for all intents and purposes they're commies.

This is different from the US SWP itself, which apparently all but abandoned Permanent Revolution decades ago but still goes on about every socialist country but Cuba being "Stalinist" and how Trotsky had it right on just about everything.


 No.6593

>>5721

Are you one of those stupid people who believe in social democracy? Social democracy is fascism, becouse it works like fascism, ideas don't matter.


 No.6595

File: 2cdb014ad80b0ea⋯.jpg (85.6 KB, 500x449, 500:449, William Z Foster.jpg)

>>6593

No, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Why do you think I'm a social-democrat?


 No.6596

File: 9443b1b741a97d2⋯.jpg (31.15 KB, 585x508, 585:508, 001d09094ce10df2de9104.jpg)

people on /leftypol/ are saying you're a dengist now. is that true?


 No.6598

File: 39b2722a7e6a868⋯.jpg (103.22 KB, 687x574, 687:574, Mao Deng 1959.jpg)

>>6596

I think China is socialist and Deng was a Marxist. I also think the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, GDR, Albania, Yugoslavia, etc. were/are socialist.

I wouldn't call myself a "Dengist," just a Marxist-Leninist. Deng ended the ultra-leftism that characterized China's domestic politics during the Cultural Revolution, as the Soviets themselves pointed out. He still did bad stuff in foreign policy (supported the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam, supported the Mujahideen, etc.) but China under him also stopped claiming that the USSR was "social-imperialist" and "state-capitalist," which laid the foundations for a rapprochement between the two most powerful socialist states.

I'm not a "Hoxhaist" and haven't been one for a while.


 No.6648

Is there some sort of all encompassing Marxist-leninist manual that isn't the Fundamentals of ML one?


 No.6649

File: 342c9be67495f77⋯.jpg (62.49 KB, 234x592, 117:296, Short Course worker.jpg)

>>6648

From 1938-1953 the rough equivalent would have been the Short Course, which is both a history of the CPSU(B) as well as an explanation of Leninism (including a chapter on dialectics which Stalin wrote): https://archive.org/details/ShortCourseHistoryCPSUBolsheviks

It is far less all-encompassing compared to the Fundamentals book, but it was nonetheless treated as the "learn Leninism here" text for the CPSU and likeminded parties up until Stalin died.

The Short Course was criticized by Mikoyan at the 20th Party Congress, and it was decided that histories of the party and manuals of Marxism-Leninism would be separate (hence the History of the CPSU published in English in 1960 and the Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism published shortly thereafter.)


 No.6727

I'm new to Capital and I'm having a hard time understanding what abstract labour is and the difference between concrete and abstract labour. All I've got so far is that concrete labour creates use-value. I want to skip it but I feel like I'm going to miss out important stuff. Can you explain this to me?


 No.6728

File: 207c3f7e3b6f7ca⋯.jpg (11.61 KB, 229x300, 229:300, Lev Leontiev.jpg)

>>6727

From "Political Economy: A Condensed Course" by Leontiev: https://archive.org/details/PoliticalEconomyACondensedCourse

>Labour is just as diversified as the use-values it produces. Various kinds of labour differ from each other as regards their purpose, instruments, methods, objects and results. Every use-value embodies a specific kind of labour: coal embodies the labour of a miner, garments the labour of a tailor, steel the labour of a steel smelter.

>But when exchanged these different commodities are compared and equated. In equating the commodities their use-values are disregarded since they are incomparable. But disregarding the use-value of commodities the producers also disregard the differences between the concrete types of labour embodied in their production. Commodities are considered products of human labour in general. Therefore, the labour embodied in the commodity is considered homogeneous, an expenditure of human labour power in general, that is, abstract labour. As such, the expenditure of labour power of different producers does not differ qualitatively but quantitatively.

>It follows, therefore, that the labour of the commodity producer is, on the one hand, concrete labour creating use-values as such, and, on the other hand, the expenditure of labour in general, abstract labour, a share of the social labour, creating the value of the commodity as such.

>Thus, the dual nature of the commodity is the inevitable consequence of the dual nature of the labour embodied in it.

And here's a slightly more detailed explanation (from another book that you could consult while reading Capital): https://archive.org/stream/PoliticalEconomyCapitalism/Political%20Economy%20Capitalism#page/n34/mode/1up

Post last edited at

 No.6729

>>6728

Thanks dude, that makes it a lot more clear.


 No.6730

If Marx said that the system of wage labor had to be abolished, how is it possible that wages were maintained in the USSR?


 No.6733

File: f577eaef0e85f45⋯.jpg (105.23 KB, 800x955, 160:191, It is Marx.jpg)

>>6730

Marx considered labor-power being a commodity a distinguishing feature of capitalism. It was not a commodity under socialism.

Furthermore, as Marx noted in his critique of the Gotha programme, the worker under socialism "receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form."

And here's the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

>Wages under socialism are part of the national income, representing in monetary form the value of a necessary product manufactured by workers in the sphere of material production. Wages are distributed in a planned fashion by the state, in accordance with the quantity and quality of labor by workers, in order to satisfy their personal material and cultural needs. Wages are also used to pay for the labor of workers in the nonproduction sphere. Part of the value of the surplus product created in the sphere of material production serves as the source of wages. . . . In order to provide for the reproduction of the labor force, society defines the subsistence minimum of working people (considering the level of development of the productive forces, as well as available resources).


 No.6770

Thoughts on Stephen Kotkin? He has a new book on Stalin.


 No.6772

File: c5a105230060dcb⋯.jpg (199.97 KB, 1000x1010, 100:101, Sverdlov Lenin Stalin Dzer….jpg)

>>6770

On one hand, he's clearly an anti-communist and his books are meant to prove that Marxism is a fanatical, blood-stained ideology.

On the other hand, he takes Stalin seriously as a Marxist and criticizes many analyses made by bourgeois historians hitherto, although his desire to rock the boat results in him overreaching on some issues (e.g. arguing that Lenin's "Testament" is probably a forgery.)

Overall, you can learn a lot from the first volume of his Stalin biography, and I'm sure his second volume will good too.

He reminds me of Ian Grey, whose "Stalin: Man of History" was similarly anti-communist yet criticized other bourgeois and Trotskyist accounts of his life. The same can be said of Robert McNeal's "Stalin: Man and Ruler" which can be found here: http://b-ok.org/book/2670087/ce8254


 No.6778

Ismail, I'd like to know if you have a stance on Rojava. I havn't seen you posting about it before. Do you think the US support for it is too much of a major problem, or not?

Also, unrelated question. As a non-American, I don't know what to think about the CPUSA. They seem awfully liberal to me, endorsing Hillary Clinton, etc. - some say it's a honeypot.


 No.6779

File: b4414ff94849a92⋯.jpg (303.25 KB, 1181x1600, 1181:1600, Gus Hall runs for Presiden….jpg)

>>6778

Kurdish politics have always been very opportunistic. The Barzani clan, for instance, was at varying times perceived as pro-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Iranian (under the Shah and Ayatollah alike), pro-Turkish (against the PKK) and even pro-Saddam (against the PUK.)

As for Rojava specifically, I think that their reliance on the US is indeed very bad. The US wants to use the Kurds to weaken Syria and keep Iraq and Turkey in line.

As for the CPUSA, after 1988 they took the position that the most important task at hand was to prevent the "ultra-right" (which in practice meant the Republican Party) from gaining power. This led them to blatant collaboration with the Democratic Party, and reached absurd levels after Gus Hall died in 2000 and was replaced by Sam Webb.

The CPUSA's conception of the road to socialism is basically just advocating that the Democratic Party enacts regulations and hoping that, at some unspecified point in the future, Americans will choose to vote for a socialist society and look to the CPUSA for guidance on what that society will look like.

Their line is terrible, which is why in terms of activity and membership they're pretty insignificant compared to the Workers World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and other socialist groups.

And yes, every four years the CPUSA dutifully endorses whomever the Democratic candidate for President is, and has been doing so since 1988. They don't run their own candidates for any office since they consider this to be "sectarian."


 No.6780

>>6779

>And yes, every four years the CPUSA dutifully endorses whomever the Democratic candidate for President is, and has been doing so since 1988. They don't run their own candidates for any office since they consider this to be "sectarian."

Jesus Christ what a fucking joke. Who are these people in the CPUSA and why are they so pathetic?


 No.6783

File: 52ac94ccde8a556⋯.jpg (277.04 KB, 612x458, 306:229, Kim Jong Il in a rather da….jpg)

>>6780

A lot of people in the CPUSA have actually been involved in the communist movement for decades. I've talked to CPUSA members who visited the USSR and can discuss Marxism-Leninism with quite a bit of knowledge, only to state that there's no alternative but to support the Democrats against the "ultra-right."

Part of it is because the CPUSA was, after all, the "official" communist party. Its members feel they are continuing the work of John Reed, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Paul Robeson, etc., so it gives them an unwarranted pride that they are the true continuers of the Marxist-Leninist tradition in America.

But yes, the CPUSA is a pathetic remnant of what it once was. Even the bourgeois media treats it as a bizarre curiosity rather than a threat.


 No.6785

File: d31a95c8bdd6065⋯.jpg (46.87 KB, 765x795, 51:53, absolute fucking gulag.jpg)

>>6783

>A lot of people in the CPUSA have actually been involved in the communist movement for decades. I've talked to CPUSA members who visited the USSR and can discuss Marxism-Leninism with quite a bit of knowledge, only to state that there's no alternative but to support the Democrats against the "ultra-right."

That's pretty fascinating.


 No.6786

What made soviet attack Finland? I was told in school that was the reason we allied nazis, but now I'm suspecting we were nazis all the time.


 No.6787

File: 7bc4f9c3f750e93⋯.jpg (95.68 KB, 759x500, 759:500, Otto Kuusinen.jpg)

>>6786

As you probably know, there was a Civil War in Finland shortly after the October Revolution. The Reds were massacred under the command of Baron Mannerheim, a former Tsarist officer. The bourgeois Finnish state spent the subsequent two decades building up economic and military relations with Britain, France and Germany and serving as one of "cordon sanitaires" between the imperialist countries and the USSR.

By 1939 the Soviets knew that Hitler would inevitably declare war on them and wanted to be placed in the best possible position to withstand the invasion. This led to the acquisition of Bessarabia, the regaining of Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia from Poland (after the Nazis invaded that country and forced its government to flee), and the establishment of Soviet rule in the Baltic states (which had similar wars between Reds and Whites after the October Revolution.)

The Soviets knew that Finland was hostile to them, and so they called on the government to lease the port of Hangö as well as some other concessions in order to safeguard the security of Leningrad in the event of a Nazi invasion.

The Finnish negotiators found the Soviet requests reasonable, but the government refused to abide by them. So then the Soviets offered more favorable conditions, but once again the government said no. The Soviets then attacked Finland to secure the temporary concessions by force.

As Molotov put it after the Winter War ended,

>The Peace Treaty is based on recognition of the principle that Finland is an independent state, recognition of the independence of her home and foreign policy and, at the same time, the necessity to safeguarding the security of Leningrad and the northwestern frontiers of the Soviet Union.

>Thus, we have achieved the object we set ourselves, and we may express our complete satisfaction with the treaty with Finland.

The ostensible purpose of the Finnish government entering WWII on the side of the Nazis was to undo the aforementioned peace treaty "imposed" on Finland, but in fact the goal was to destroy the USSR and annex the Karelia region. President Ryti proclaimed Hitler a "leader of genius" and Karelians (who were ostensibly supposed to welcome the Finns as liberators) were treated as enemies.

There's a good account of the Winter War and what led up to it in a book I scanned a while back by a left-wing Labour MP: https://archive.org/details/MustTheWarSpread

Another book I can send in PDF format is titled "The Soviet Finnish Campaign, Military & Political." If you'd like it, feel free to make an account on my forum (eregime.org) and send me a private message with your email.

Coincidentally, I'm actually getting two books in the mail to scan that deal specifically with the Winter War and Finnish-Soviet relations.


 No.6838

>>5721

>taking pride in working

0/10


 No.6850

File: fe010a25677d8a6⋯.jpg (291.23 KB, 1056x746, 528:373, 15bd0afd27c076e3952e6771c4….jpg)

Do you know where I could find a Marxist (Or at least Left) critique of Post-colonialism?


 No.6851

File: e138feb9062b672⋯.jpg (109.77 KB, 520x464, 65:58, Fanon 1958.jpg)

>>6850

There's a Marxist critique of some of Fanon's views here: https://archive.org/details/NewTheoriesOfRevolution

That's all I got.


 No.6854

Inspired by >>>/leftypol/2247101, do you think some nations are inherently more reactionary in their psychological make up, such as nations that historically have been profiting from capitalism as oppressors? If yes, does this divide occur along economic lines (more "extractive" nations vs "exploited" nations) or along cultural mannerisms (patriarchy, hierarchy, formalism, submission to the upper class, etc. like in many Confuzian nations)?


 No.6855

File: 34a4ab60e62a33e⋯.jpg (50.87 KB, 400x581, 400:581, Thomas Paine.jpg)

>>6854

I don't agree. If we look at the American nation, for instance, we have among other things the Declaration of Independence, which inspired the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and anti-colonial movements the world over. During the 19th century workers across Europe admired America due to its absence of nobility and its bourgeois-democratic freedoms.

With that background it's a bit strange to claim that Americans are "inherently" reactionary.

The bourgeoisie distorts national histories for its own advantage, so that the United States is presented as an "exceptional" country where class struggle doesn't exist except when foreigners bring their strange doctrines with them, or distorting the bourgeois-democratic origins of the United States to portray its institutions in religious terms and thus justify aggression against the indigenous, Mexico, etc. via the "Manifest Destiny."


 No.6881

File: 3f1dc613614557b⋯.jpg (219.55 KB, 597x886, 597:886, Bloody Baron Mannerheim.jpg)

>>6787

>Coincidentally, I'm actually getting two books in the mail to scan that deal specifically with the Winter War and Finnish-Soviet relations.

I've now scanned these, and also the aforementioned "Soviet Finnish Campaign, Military & Political" is online too, so here you go:

* https://archive.org/details/RussiaFinlandBalticsCoates

* https://archive.org/details/WarPeaceFinland

* https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284501 (Soviet-Finnish Campaign)


 No.6883

>>6854

>do you think some nations are inherently more reactionary . . .

That's pure nationalism. There is no inherently "reactionary" or "progressive" nations, nationalities or nations with a State.


 No.6884

File: 8c68ab4c36585d3⋯.jpg (139.4 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 425db24efec59af0306e47408e….jpg)

>do you think some nations are inherently more reactionary in their psychological make up, such as nations that historically have been profiting from capitalism as oppressors?

I'm not Ismail obviously, but this smells of MIM-tier revisionism.


 No.6911

Ismail, do you have a copy of this Soviet textbook on political economy in pdf form?

https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm


 No.6912

File: 971de9c8828206e⋯.jpg (561.15 KB, 1024x1015, 1024:1015, Soviet trade union congres….jpg)

>>6911

Nay.

On a related note, there is a 1983 Soviet economics textbook I intend to obtain and scan over the next two or three months.

On a still less related note, I just scanned a Soviet book explaining the role of state-owned industry during the New Economic Policy: https://archive.org/details/USSRStateIndustryTransitionPeriod


 No.6920


 No.6930

File: 42e84a2b2c8be78⋯.pdf (8.2 MB, political_economy USSR 195….pdf)

>>6911

I do.


 No.6948

Do you have any ML critiques of anarchism or left communism?


 No.6949

File: a5a85c088edbae9⋯.jpg (39.95 KB, 324x499, 324:499, Book cover.jpg)

>>6948

You can find a collection of writings by Marx, Engels and Lenin against anarchism here: http://b-ok.org/book/2379950/e6843d

Also, here's a classic Marxist critique of Anarchism, focusing on its philosophical foundations but also discussing politics: https://books.google.com/books?id=tHZLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here's a critique of anarchist tendencies in the student-based New Left: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7trXEFcZimVM1kyckZlZnNQekE/view

Pages 323-333 of the following are a critique of Anarchist economic policies during the Spanish Civil War: https://archive.org/details/SpainTheUnfinishedRevolution

Left-communism was never a force in the workers' movement (unlike Anarchism), so it seems it was basically ignored, especially since many of their "analyses" are plagiarized from Trotskyists and Anarchists anyway. But if you have a specific left-com claim you'd like to see addressed, let me know.

Post last edited at

 No.6966

File: c6504e9123ee8ab⋯.jpg (8.52 KB, 300x168, 25:14, cuba.jpg)

Comrades, what's the labor situation actually like in Cuba? is there full employment in place, or planned at the very least?

Also

>There is no legislation covering the right to strike.

So what I take is that Cubans don't have the right to strike but have the right to present demands through the state owned union CTC. Isn't this technically against the freedom of workers? I have a hard time picturing the CTC siding with workers rather than the government.

http://www.cubaverdad.net/workers_paradise.htm

I know the source is biased but I couldn't find much information about this anywhere. Sources in Spanish welcome too.


 No.6969

File: c3bf9026a5fdd50⋯.jpg (337.7 KB, 1200x1637, 1200:1637, PCC.jpg)

>>6966

There's a book called "Workers in Cuba: Unions & Labor Relations" by Debra Evenson that I can send you. Go join my forum (eregime.org) and send me a private message with your email, and I'll send it, unless you'd prefer to post your email here (which I'll delete as soon as I see it in the interests of privacy.)

Trade unions under socialism have far more powers than their counterparts who have to face the unrelenting opposition of the capitalists. Strikes are not prohibited, but the "right" is indeed not recognized as there is no conflict between labor and capital.

One can look at Poland during the 1980s when the "independent" trade union, Solidarity, organized strikes for clearly political purposes (i.e. to demand "freedom" via the overthrow of socialism) with assistance from the CIA. That has nothing to do with settling grievances and everything to do with counter-revolution.


 No.6971

Was Marx's historiography on primitive communism correct?


 No.6975

File: 28325c50b6e64a9⋯.jpg (216.79 KB, 1200x540, 20:9, Marx.jpg)

>>6971

I haven't studied the subject, but what would you consider wrong about it?


 No.6976

>>6975

There wasn't much intent in the question, in all honesty


 No.7036

What do you think about J Sakai's book Settlers?


 No.7037

File: 5756f58aba267e6⋯.jpg (47.35 KB, 329x499, 329:499, Harry Haywood.jpg)

>>7036

I don't have a high opinion of it. Portraying American workers as exploiters is wrong, and his attacks on the communist movement in the US are even less justified (e.g. "lol McCarthyism wasn't that big a deal.")

The role of racism in impeding the working-class movement has to be understood, but Sakai's book doesn't help much.

His work has also influenced the "settler-colonial" thesis, which I've seen lots of communists adopt even though it results in a non-Marxist appraisal of events like the American Revolution and Civil War (that the forces fighting against Britain and later against slavery were "settlers" and therefore inherently reactionary.)

People have argued that Sakai's book is important in a historical sense, that it supposedly opened up debate on the role of "race" in the US left, but that seems unfounded. Harry Haywood's autobiography ("Black Bolshevik") and Philip S. Foner's "American Socialism and Black Americans: From the Age of Jackson to World War II" came out before Sakai's work and are more valuable.

I myself have been getting Marxist works on US history online, which can be found here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=202462.0


 No.7038

>>7037

Do you have any critiques of the specific claims that Sakai makes? As a white Marxist-Leninist in the US committed to the right of nations to self determination, I feel like the relationship that we have with indigenous people is a tough one to navigate.

What're your thoughts on the following articles? My opinions are as follows: decolonization is an important and often overlooked aspect of the right of nations to self-determination. During and after a revolution in the US, native groups would be given land, independence or broad autonomy (whatever they chose), reparations, and a place in a socialist congress similar to the house of nations in the USSR (i.e. deliberative and veto power on all legislative proposals). Removing whites from the entirety of the US would severely hinder the ability of the country to further the expansion of our productive capacities. Maybe that is too much of a eurocentric position.

https://onkwehonwerising.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/the-abcs-of-decolonization/

https://onkwehonwerising.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/indigenous-revengence-the-white-fear-of-savage-reprisal/


 No.7039

File: fbbbbe4c851fd1d⋯.jpg (126.87 KB, 500x479, 500:479, We are different but we ar….jpg)

>>7038

>Do you have any critiques of the specific claims that Sakai makes?

Give me an example and I'll critique it.

As for your opinions, they are fine. Soviet sources regularly noted how Russia's own industrial development was sacrificed to some extent for the benefit of those republics formerly exploited under Tsarism.

I'd imagine if there was a revolution in the US, the government would be similar to the USSR. Indigenous peoples would be able to exercise varying amounts of autonomy in line with their own conditions, as the Soviets did with what were called "the peoples of the North." If their existing land was insufficient to ensure economic and cultural development, they would be given additional land (as also occurred in the USSR.)

The idea of "decolonizing" the US in the sense of expelling all whites (which the author of those two articles says he isn't himself advocating) or otherwise extending indigenous rule to basically the entire territory of the US is nonsensical.

Many of the indigenous peoples in the US only number hundreds or at most thousands of people. Their struggle for land is real, but it does not encompass the entire territory of the US. It does encompass enough to secure economic development and cultural needs.

As an aside, I have two books on my desk to scan: "Peoples of the USSR" by Anna Louise Strong (1944) and "A Family of Peoples: The USSR After 50 Years" (1973.)


 No.7056

Why and how did Kautsky become a revisionist


 No.7061

File: e6448228f1f473f⋯.jpg (13.92 KB, 250x404, 125:202, Young Kautsky.jpg)

>>7056

It's a now-classic story: the Social-Democratic Party of Germany started off as the premier Marxist party in the world. It endured repression under Bismarck, organized workers into trade unions, and was sufficiently popular enough to start winning seats.

Things seemed to be going great, but in reality a bureaucratic, highly-paid strata was forming within the leadership of the SPD-linked trade unions, while SPD parliamentarians began exerting more and more influence over the party leadership rather than vice-versa. This turned the SPD's strategy toward merely winning more and more seats and obtaining a parliamentary majority.

The SPD thus began to treat revolution as some vague, distant goal. Opportunism increasingly characterized its actual practice, which is why Kautsky could simultaneously criticize Bernstein's revisionism while in other articles arguing that Marxists in the US ought to unite white workers against imported Asian labor and go on about the "Yellow Peril" in order to win votes.

As the chief theoretician of the SPD, Kautsky reflected its opportunist practices which until 1914 were shrouded by "Marxist" phraseology.

That is why he came to the defense of bourgeois democracy against the October Revolution's calls for soviet democracy. The SPD had turned into a reformist party willing to attack genuine revolutionaries (e.g. supporting the murders of Luxemburg and Liebknecht) on behalf of the bourgeoisie.


 No.7149

what are your thoughts on old money families like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, etc? and is there a book about them that isn't tinfoil tier trash?


 No.7154

Ismail, what do you think about Paul Cockshott and his theories about computerization and his critiques of the Soviet economy? Do you think his ideas about socialism are applicable in the near future?

Additonally, this is a recent interview with him where he goes in detail about these things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip4H54iKMfw&feature=youtu.be


 No.7159

File: 48bdc12bd966b71⋯.jpg (21.98 KB, 300x433, 300:433, Robber Barons.jpg)

>>7149

"The Robber Barons" by Matthew Josephson is a classic account of the Rockefellers, Morgans, and other "old money" families that emerged in late 19th century America.

As for my opinion, they're capitalists. I don't see any major difference between a capitalist whose business empire is divided up between various shareholders, and a capitalist whose business empire is divided up between shareholding relatives.

>>7154

It's been a while since I read his book. Computing technology nowadays should obviously make planning considerably easier, but I'm wary of it being portrayed as a panacea.

I remember back on RevLeft he made good posts defending the Soviet economy, not in the sense of "it was perfect" (obviously) but in the sense that ultra-leftists and "anti-revisionists" were both dumb in claiming it was "state-capitalist" or that economic problems arising in the 1970s and 80s were because Brezhnev wasn't revolutionary enough or whatever. Cockshott defended the Soviet economy as having been socialist.

Any specific critiques you have in mind?

Post last edited at

 No.7160

>>7149

For the Old Money families in general I'd read Lundberg:

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2145D4B68ABD5449EA7C7715B6B333E9

https://www.scribd.com/doc/123670846/Ferdinand-Lundberg-The-Rich-and-the-Super-Rich-A-Study-in-the-Power-of-Money-Today-1968

This following paper was prepared for the US congress in 184 concerning the family holdings of the Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller

God only knows how much capital they control directly or indirectly today. Mainstream estimates (which often aren't that reliable given rampant tax evasion) put the family at 10 billion but I think its plausible they have over a hundred billion dollars in trusts, real estate, foundations, holding companies etc. and maybe controlling influence over trillions of dollars in capital.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-global-tentacles-exposed-in-1959-by-the-soviet-union/5308763

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/Rockefeller.html


 No.7198

What's the marxist stance on Christmas? Did Marx, Engels, Lenin ever say anything about it?


 No.7199

File: 4f606f80cb8b786⋯.jpg (104.68 KB, 549x623, 549:623, Soviet answer to Christmas.jpg)

>>7198

They never wrote about the holiday itself. However, socialist states, following the lead of the USSR, moved the things we associate with Christmas (decorating trees, a Santa-esque figure, presents, sending cards, etc.) to New Year's Day and completely secularized the holiday.

December 25 was thus of purely religious significance and not celebrated by the state or society.


 No.7223

Besides Marx, what can I read to fully understand the LTV? I want to learn how to disprove all the common criticism of the LTV I see.


 No.7224


 No.7229

>>7224

Thanks, good stuff


 No.7252

What is your stance on the Iran situation


 No.7253

File: f54336fed202c1c⋯.jpg (270.95 KB, 707x1024, 707:1024, Tudeh.jpg)

>>7252

From what I understand it basically goes like this:

1. Rouhani hoped that the nuclear deal would lead to an improved economy via things like foreign investment. His neoliberal (by Iranian standards) policies certainly haven't succeeded, nor have expected investments been made.

2. Iran at the end of the day is a theocracy; many elementary democratic rights are opposed or otherwise frequently violated by the national-bourgeois government.

3. Taking advantage of unpopular unrest at Rouhani's policies, imperialism wants to overthrow the Islamic Republic because of the latter's role in supporting Syria, Hezbollah, and other forces in the region in conflict with the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

4. I obviously can't dictate to Iranian communists, but my position would be to condemn the government for its repressive domestic policies while also opposing the US-backed opposition. In other words, communists should build a coalition independent of imperialism.

That is the view of Tudeh: https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2018/01/iran-protests-statement-of-cc-of-tudeh.html


 No.7356

What are some books about Hitler/Nazis from a ML point of view?


 No.7358

File: a3d02b4e4c6b432⋯.jpg (31.44 KB, 213x296, 213:296, Ernst Thalmann.jpg)

>>7356

On labor conditions in Nazi Germany: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-ZThWZFN1bm1aeGc/view

A history of Germany written by KPD members in 1945: https://archive.org/details/TheLessonOfGermanyGuideHistory

While not ML (but still influenced by Marxism), Franz Neumann's "Behemoth" is worth reading as well, and can be found on libgen.io


 No.7364

What do you think of the Quebec Liberation Front?

Do you have any books on the subject?


 No.7365

How do you explain capitalist successes like Japan, South Korea and Singapore? Are they not a perfect example of how a poor country can arise to prosperity through capitalism? A detailed answer would be greatly appreciated.


 No.7366

File: 7e6b3359a6f135e⋯.jpg (105.31 KB, 633x487, 633:487, Deng Mao.jpg)

>>7364

On Quebec itself, it seems its inhabitants do constitute a separate nation from Anglo-Canadians. However, the FLQ, from what little I know, appears to be similar to the RAF and other left-wing groups that relied on terrorism and therefore lacked popular support and the means to overthrow capitalism.

I have no books on the subject.

>>7365

I know that in the cases of South Korea and Taiwan, the Communist example of giving land to those who till it (e.g. when the troops of the DPRK entered the South, they began distributing land to the landless) compelled the Americans to promote land reform in both countries to prevent unrest and promote economic growth.

All these countries also have had heavy investments from the US, and while I don't know about Taiwan, I do know that Japan and South Korea both had "paternalistic" governments that actively intervened to grow their economies via protectionist measures, consolidation, etc.

Singapore's case is different since, as far as I know, it is very largely geared toward trade rather than manufacturing, unlike the aforementioned countries, so protectionism and similar measures obviously wouldn't make much sense.

I don't see how the economic growth of these countries contradicts Marxism. Marx himself, in the Manifesto, points out among other things that,

>The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

There's nothing Marx or Lenin wrote that suggests every poor country would remain that way. But it is instructive that alongside Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore are Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia (among others), i.e. countries that clearly aren't considered prosperous by the standards of showpieces like Japan or Singapore.

Capitalism can't make the whole world prosperous, nor can it eliminate unemployment and the inherent tendency toward economic crises. It can make certain countries prosperous, at the cost of growing contradictions between these countries, the development of imperialism, and the consequent imperialist wars for a redivision of the world's markets.

Post last edited at

 No.7367

>>7366

I haven't read much on Marxist theory yet, but is the distinction between private and personal property defined?

I see a lot of comments hating on socialism due to it's "tyrannical" rule of not being able to own a house, a farm, belongings, etc etc.


 No.7368

File: 864fe45496f622f⋯.jpg (89.8 KB, 656x1000, 82:125, AL Strong biography.jpg)

>>7367

"The [Soviet] Constitution [of 1936] explicitly states what citizens are entitled to possess as private wealth. Income from work, savings, home and household furnishings, objects for personal use and comfort — such personal property may be both possessed and inherited (Article 10). Individual farmers and artisans may own small private farms or workshops 'based on their personal labor, provided there is no exploitation of the labor others' (Article 9). Members of collective farms may not only possess their dwelling-houses, but have for personal use garden plots of land, household livestock and small farm implements (Article 7). Thus private property in goods of consumption, or in small-scale means of production used by the individual, is protected by law." (Anna Louise Strong, The New Soviet Constitution, 1937, p. 68.)

There's a more detailed article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/personal+property

Post last edited at

 No.7373

I'm really interested in reading the full texts of the Soviet Five Years plans in English (French is doable too). Where might I find them?

I'm also interested to know if there are any similar plans being written by ambitious communists today; obviously the prescriptions will be widely different because of the wildly different needs of the world today.


 No.7375

File: 3f4943ac0b09166⋯.jpg (148.98 KB, 517x768, 517:768, Victory of FYP a blow to c….jpg)

>>7373

I don't think they're available in English beyond broad outlines.

There's also another problem. As an unabashedly anti-communist author puts it, "The first Five Year Plan contained 1747 pages; the second, 1262 pages; the third, only 238 pages; the fourth was published as a mere six pages in Pravda and the fifth in three and a half pages, containing nothing but propaganda slogans and fraudulent percentages." (Wolfe, An Ideology in Power, 1969, p. 339.)

Presumably the Sixth (1956-1960) and subsequent plans partially reversed this dearth of detailed information, but still, you're not getting the sort of detail the actual planning organizations had to work with.

Here's an example text that was published in English on the Second Five-Year Plan: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-VGhQWVRIdHFtZTg/view


 No.7382

>>5741

>The Gulag was a system of concentration camps

Basically true. They weren't extermination camps though, but still prison camps for anyone who dared to criticize the government and characterized by extremely harsh conditions.


 No.7383

>>7382

GULag was the entire prison system. Nothing else.


 No.7389

>>7383

The gulags were shut down during the 1950's. That was not the entire prison system.


 No.7391

>>7389

>That was not the entire prison system.

You all talking on GULag. GULag was the entire prison system, was a penitentiary organism.

>The gulags were shut down during the 1950's.

1) If it was shut down as you say, it doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking.

2) The fact is that GULag (not "gulags") wasn't shut down: changed the name.


 No.7403

File: 40347da35d5a711⋯.jpg (117.19 KB, 273x356, 273:356, sankara-face.jpg)

>>5721

Hi Ismail, first of all thanks for the enormous amount of input you've already given here. I'm pretty much just getting into the fundamentals of Marxism or even politics, but this board really is a goldmine and you contribute a lot to that.

Since I'm not only intested in Marxism but also in history, the 20th century is obviously one of my favorite subjects to jack off to. So I was wondering if you happen to know any good, objective and entertaining books on some of the following topics:

>Burkina Faso under Sankara

>Tito and Titoist Yugoslavia

>The Yugoslav wars of the 90s (I maybe want to read the Parenti book, how unbiased is that guy actually?)

>Lenin

>Colonization & decolonization of Africa

>Gaddafi's Libya

>The USSR invasion of Afghanistan

>Vietnam War

>Korea War & NK

>Cuba

>The CIA cucking Guatemala in the 50s

>The CIA cucking Iran in the 50s

>Chile under Allende and the CIA cucking him

>The fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the communist regimes

Or just any other history book that you find interesting, I trust your taste.

More explanatory introduction books to Marxism are also welcome - I'm aware of the lefty reading charts on /leftypol/ and /leftpol/, and want to read some stuff by Marx and Lenin soon, but just wondering what introductory works you'd recommend. More specifically looking for books that give a practical representation of how a communist society exactly works.


 No.7404

File: ab8e7a1767fa055⋯.png (664.14 KB, 667x480, 667:480, Kwame Nkrumah.png)

>>7403

Nothing on Burkina Faso.

On Yugoslavia, chapter 6 of the following book: https://archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland (on the Yugoslav economy's weaknesses)

On Tito himself, here's a good (albeit clearly supportive) bio: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.504804

I've read almost every book Parenti has put out, they're all basically good. One can dispute certain claims in his Yugoslavia book, but on the whole I consider it a good overview. Another, more modern work is David N. Gibb's "First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia." Both books are online.

Every time Lenin comes up, I always recommend this book for a bio of his life, theories, and the first few years of Soviet power: https://archive.org/details/lininandtherussi035179mbp

"The Scramble for Africa" by Pakenham seems to be the best introductory account in-re colonization. I can't think of a specific book on decolonization, but you should find this thread useful: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/194824-Soviet-and-other-works-on-Africa-(PDFs)

On Afghanistan: https://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/afghanistan (also a good read for the Soviet intervention and subsequent history is "Ghosts of Afghanistan: Hard Truths and Foreign Myths" by Jonathan Steele.)

I don't actually have any suggestions for the Vietnam War.

On the DPRK, "North Korea: Another Country" by Bruce Cummings is good, also deals in part with the Korean War (of which he wrote a whole book on the subject a few years back.) "Hidden History of the Korean War" by I.F. Stone is also good. All three books are online.

"Back From the Future: Cuba Under Castro" is considered a good bourgeois account. It is online, as are two good reads on how Cuban democracy functions: "People's Power: Cuba's Experience with Representative Government" and "Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion."

On Guatemala, last I heard the most authoritative read is "Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States" by Piero Gleijeses (who also wrote an excellent two-volume history of Cuba's support for African revolutionaries in the 1960s-80s, both of which are online.)

For Iran, William Blum has a chapter on it in his "Killing Hope" (which is online), which is based in part on a good account in "Endless Enemies" by Jonathan Kwitny (which, if you buy it, note to get the first hardcover printing, the courts actually forced his publisher to delete sections of the book on the US role in the coup against Mossadegh.)

"Allende's Chile: An inside View" by Edward Boorstein is considered a good read, and "Killing Hope" has a chapter on it as well.

Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds" (which is online) is a good account of the "fall of Communism" and its consequences. "There Is No Freedom Without Bread!" by Constantine Pleshakov is an interesting bourgeois account.

On the GDR specifically, check out "The Triumph of Evil" which can be found here: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/196195-Books-on-the-German-Democratic-Republic-(PDFs)

I'm actually going to get an introductory text on Marx's life and works in the mail to scan.

Two good intros to political economy (capitalist and socialist):

* https://archive.org/details/PoliticalEconomyACondensedCourse

* https://archive.org/details/NikitinFundamentalsPoliticalEcon

The "Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism" published in 1963 is a book that covers a huge range of topics, including some speculation as to what a communist society will look like (ultimately nobody really knows since Marx purposefully differentiated himself from his utopian socialist predecessors like Owen and Fourier who wrote extensive blueprints for the "ideal" societies they were going to construct.)

When I said above that a book was online, you can find said books on libgen.io

Post last edited at

 No.7406

>>7404

Awesome, thank you


 No.7408

>>5721

I want to refute the cliché "under communism, people won't have any incentive to work" argument but don't know how to. Surely there are other motivating factors than money, and I believe many people will still be inclined to work without getting a financial reward, but I also know more than enough others that I imagine wouldn't be willing to contribute anything productive to society whatsoever if it earned them nothing. Moreover, even people who are still motivated regardless might still work a smaller amount of hours than they would otherwise, and not long enough to keep the system sustained. How can communism ensure people are as motivated to work as they would be when paid, without physically forcing them?


 No.7416

File: 459baa58b64c197⋯.jpg (63.44 KB, 636x412, 159:103, Communism IRL.jpg)

>>7408

The issue here is the nature of work itself. As Marx wrote, communism entails an end to the "enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor," and in addition work becomes "not only a means of life but life's prime want."

Under capitalism, you produce merely so that you can obtain money so as not to starve. The product you make does not go to you nor so to the society around you; it goes to the capitalist, who may sell or discard it (whichever is more profitable at the moment.)

Under communism (i.e. what comes after socialism) society exists in such a way that one does not need to labor for long hours at tedious jobs; the productive forces will have become so advanced that your needs could easily be met.

Hence the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." People would have control over their environment and would be able to work on that which actually interests them, rather than having to work because otherwise they won't get paid and will die of starvation.

As Marx puts it, "in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

The "unwanted" work that's left would be exceedingly minor things like cleaning up after you eat or doing laundry. You do these things under capitalism even though you don't get paid for doing so. And if a chore takes too long individually, it can easily be socialized (e.g. communal laundromats.)


 No.7417

>>7416

All this is synthesized by Marx in a sentence he said in a text that I do not remember the name of: turning everything into a "single factory".


 No.7418

>>7416

I see; but even when the working of long tedious hours isn't needed anymore, it does seem that in this model sometimes there will be jobs that need to be done and there is no one available or willing to do them. For example, you'd need an active police force to deter criminals. It seems well imaginable that there has to be a minimum amount of officers at a specific place and specific time. I imagine this job can hardly become fully automated, or at least not as easily as some other jobs. Anyway let's say society is still at a point where actual living people are needed to do this. What if no one is willing to commit to risky jobs like this without getting extra pay/reward for it? How will certain necessary but somehow unpleasant positions not remain vacant?

Also, the idea of everybody doing what they want at the moment is attractive, but in some cases a high degree of specialisation seems necessary. Think of science, politics or medicine. Of course people in a communist society could still willingly specialize themselves in one field, but don't you think there would be less people who choose to do so when the general tendency is to do several jobs dependent on the moment? I don't know if it's a good thing that specialization doesn't get encouraged at all.

Finally, it simply seems unfair that someone who isn't even willing to work at all gets materially rewarded to exactly the same extent as a doctor who devotes his entire life to developing a revolutionary vaccination. Isn't the system extremely liable to people taking advantage of it in that way? Or would this not even be considered "taking advantage" or "unfair" in communism? That seems unlikely to me, because I think this is something that would be perceived as unfair by people in all times and ages no matter the system they live in, and it's hard to accurately predict changes in mentality anyway.


 No.7429

File: 0a106eab4f0143b⋯.jpg (95.38 KB, 800x535, 160:107, I dont know what this is b….jpg)

>>7418

>For example, you'd need an active police force to deter criminals.

Lenin wrote in his "The State and Revolution" that during the first phase (i.e. socialism) the conditions will be created for the abolition of crime:

>Accounting and control—that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens becomes employees and workers of a single countrywide state “syndicate”. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay; the accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations—which any literate person can perform—of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts.

>When the majority of the people begin independently and everywhere to keep such accounts and exercise such control over the capitalists (now converted into employees) and over the intellectual gentry who preserve their capitalist habits, this control will really become universal, general, and popular; and there will be no getting away from it, there will be "nowhere to go" . . . .

>For when all have learned to administer and actually to independently administer social production, independently keep accounts and exercise control over the parasites, the sons of the wealthy, the swindlers and other "guardians of capitalist traditions", the escape from this popular accounting and control will inevitably become so incredibly difficult, such a rare exception, and will probably be accompanied by such swift and severe punishment (for the armed workers are practical men and not sentimental intellectuals, and they scarcely allow anyone to trifle with them), that the necessity of observing the simple, fundamental rules of the community will very soon become a habit.

>Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state.

In regards to risky jobs, these would be "socialized" like any other, it wouldn't be the exclusive domain of one person who has to risk death every day. There wouldn't be "a janitor," for instance, janitorial work would be allocated in such a way as to ensure the lowest amount of time society has to spend doing such functions.

>but in some cases a high degree of specialisation seems necessary

And society would rationally plan for such things. Even under capitalism many teachers and other "intellectual" laborers are underpaid, but still do such work because they find it fulfilling. They want to do it. I'm sure future humanity will continue to field people who want to explore space or design robots or cure diseases or what have you.

Politicians won't exist under communism, since there's no state.

Communism exists in a society where there is no longer a scarcity of resources. This is where much of the complaint about "unfairness" arises, for the simple reason that the community needs to work hard to eat and produce basic goods. Under such conditions slackers are rightfully criticized for shirking their responsibilities.

Under communism there is no real need for someone to say "I don't want to work." That exists under capitalism because to so many people work seems like a waste of time (i.e. you're doing it only so you don't starve) or something that, if you work hard at, you'll still end up at the unemployment office before long due to economic forces outside your control.


 No.7430

>>7429

>the abolition of crime

Hmm... Surely there can be diminution of crime, but I'm more than sceptical that crime will ever be fully eradicated. It has existed in all societies the world has ever known and in all likelihood it always will. Bottom line is, there will always be greedy, unethical, unstable, mentally disturbed, perverse and violent people - there's not much any form of society could do about that. So I'd have to disagree that crime can ever be "abolished" alltogether. Another thing: even if it becomes a "habit" for the majority to act in an ethical way, you can't realistically expect that habit to stay the same for ages, if you see how drastically a culture can already evolve in 15-30 years.

Other than that, thank you for the satisfying explanation. I have a clearer understanding of some things now.

>filename

I actually know that image from this album cover (in case you like strange Ukrainian electro music) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiCkMN-bFFc


 No.7431

Hey Ismail, what can I read about the entire history of socialism and all its variants up until Marx?


 No.7433

File: 3a5075a4bb8d75b⋯.jpg (15.03 KB, 256x350, 128:175, Charles Fourier.jpg)

I'm sure individual criminal acts will still occur, but crime would be "abolished" to the extent it wouldn't be a societal concern. School shootings for instance would probably be unheard of, as would numerous other kinds of crimes.

When Marx wrote about communist society, he was wary of going into too much detail about what it'd look like for the simple reason that nobody knows. His goals were to (in Engels' words) discover "the law of development of human history. . . the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production. . . . [and] to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation."

Utopian socialists like Robert Owen and Charles Fourier devised elaborate blueprints as to how society ought to be, and at once set about creating ideal settlements whose goal was to convince the bourgeoisie and proletariat alike to put an end to capitalism by following the example of said settlements.

Marx pointed out that the workers could not "escape" capitalism. They had to seize control of industry and state power and create the material conditions for communism to exist. Settlements devoted to small-scale industry and agriculture were doomed by their inherent limitations and by the hostility of the capitalist state and enterprises they had to interact with.

Marx wrote that the productive forces of society give rise to fundamental changes in culture, science, laws, etc. You can't "enact" communism, it will come about through the development of society, not (as the utopians believed) in isolation from it.

>>7431

Kautsky oversaw an important four-volume history of socialism from antiquity through the medieval period back in the 1890s, but it isn't in English.

Here's one work, by (non-Marxist) socialist G.D.H. Cole, discussing the development of socialism from the French Revolution up to the 1850s: https://libcom.org/files/A%20History%20of%20Socialist%20Thought%20Volume%201.pdf

There's a 500-page bourgeois work ("The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin") which is useful but adopts an anti-socialist tone throughout and omits a number of significant figures (like Gerrard Winstanley): https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.1275

These are the only two books I'm aware of that attempt a general history of socialism, although there's no shortage of more specific analyses (to give a recent example, "Paradise Now: The Story of American Utopianism" which can be found on libgen.io)

I think "modern" socialism can be traced to Gracchus Babeuf and Saint-Simon, both of whom influenced Marx and Engels. Earlier than that you have political-religious movements like the peasant revolt led by Thomas Müntzer, and all sorts of purely religious groups like the Shakers, but at that point socialism pretty much just means "we should share everything in common since that's what God wants."

Post last edited at

 No.7434

File: 8b2835e8ac76a29⋯.jpg (29.61 KB, 216x300, 18:25, IMG_0122.JPG)

How repressive was the Soviet Union toward the arts. Was socialist realism really enforced as the only acceptable art form. Can you recommend any books on the subject.


 No.7435

File: 2071013c46ee1e6⋯.jpg (62.41 KB, 400x537, 400:537, HG Wells War of the Worlds….jpg)

>>7434

Socialist realism was the basis of any new art and literature in the USSR. If you wanted to get official recognition and assistance in order to paint or write, your output had to be consistent with it.

It was possible (especially after 1956) to make art that didn't conform to socialist realism, but it was unlikely to be shown in museums or exhibitions and the state wouldn't help you procure paint and whatnot.

I don't have a book to recommend you.


 No.7441

>>7433

>Kautsky oversaw an important four-volume history of socialism from antiquity through the medieval period back in the 1890s, but it isn't in English.

What's it called?


 No.7442


 No.7443

>>7442

Ismail also is not aware that a significant amount *was* translated covering Taborism, Thomas Muenzer and Anabaptists https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1897/europe/index.htm

There is still more untranslated than there is translated but there you go.


 No.7457

Are there any books on monarchy and aristocracy from a marxist point of view?


 No.7458

File: 4a2b9906c78cbbc⋯.png (418.49 KB, 756x404, 189:101, Souphanouvong.png)

>>7457

I can't think of any that specifically deal with monarchies/aristocracies rather than providing a Marxist analysis of a specific historical situation (e.g. Christopher Hill on the English Revolution, or Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.")


 No.7459

>>7458

Thanks though. Any marxist books on the middle ages?


 No.7460

File: 60d644069417e86⋯.jpg (65.23 KB, 532x452, 133:113, Mao and Puyi.jpg)

>>7459

I'm sure there are, but it isn't a subject I study. The earliest subject I've read about is the American colonial period.

As I said though, there are Marxist analyses of specific historical stuff, so for example here's a thread I made with Marxist histories of places like Macedonia and Poland which obviously went through feudalism: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/200191-Histories-of-countries-(PDFs)?p=2890479#post2890479


 No.7461

>>7460

He might be interested in A People's History of England https://archive.org/details/peopleshistoryof00


 No.7462

>>7460

>>7461

Tbh I'm just interested in Marxist historiography but I don't know much besides Hobsbawm


 No.7463

Ismail, do you have any good books or articles about arabic socialism?


 No.7464

File: 1bc753570d91697⋯.jpeg (39.59 KB, 602x298, 301:149, Brezhnev and Hafez al Ass….jpeg)

>>7463

No. If you have any questions about it though, feel free to ask.

I do have a biography I'd recommend on Hafez al-Assad though: http://b-ok.org/book/1190466/17bbca

("Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession" by Andrew Cockburn and "Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge" by Saïd Aburish are good reads for that guy, but they're not online.)

Post last edited at

 No.7465

Do you know of any good books on the Kulaks contributing to the USSR famine by hoarding their grain, killing livestock etc.?


 No.7466

>>7464

I appreciate it. I’m just looking for stuff to recommend to a friend who’s interested in the topic. Might recommend the Assad book in addition to Gaddafi’s Green Book. It’s rather idealist but an informative read about Libyan socialism and what the US destroyed in 2011.


 No.7467

File: 8735b8fdc90c9e6⋯.jpg (65.27 KB, 451x629, 451:629, Let Us Strike at the Kulak….jpg)

>>7465

https://archive.org/details/FraudFamineAndFascsim

>>7466

There are also books on Iraq and Libya by Geoff Simons that are useful introductions:

* http://b-ok.org/book/2675700/910e2e

* http://b-ok.org/book/2577582/e38e72


 No.7468

Ismail, do you know how big the American Party of Labor is in 2018, or have an estimate? What do you think about their platform? Do you think it's particular brand of Hoxhaism responds well with American workers?

I saw a couple of old RevLeft posts, and they all seemed pretty positive of it (dashing flag, didn't result from a split, clear, anti-revisionist stance, etc.)


 No.7469

File: 6544a9aaf95c7fc⋯.png (644.78 KB, 747x697, 747:697, APL logo.png)

>>7468

The APL's origins were on RevLeft. There was a group called the Hoxhaist Union that a bunch of persons set up (I had proposed the HU name.) At first we had a grandiose idea of making it a sort of pro-Hoxha International, with the American Party of Labor being its American affiliate. Then we realized that there already was such an international organization, the ICMLPO.

Not only that, but the HU was basically just APL members and a single person in Canada, so it wasn't much of an international. Thus the HU peacefully died. The APL itself was originally tiny and Internet-based, its First (or Founding) Congress in December 2008 consisted of substantially less than a dozen persons.

I was among the first to belong to the APL's youth group, and helped contribute to a bunch of articles refuting Glenn Beck's "Revolutionary Holocaust." Besides that though I didn't do much and I left in 2010 because I felt the APL had no future. Years later I abandoned "Hoxhaism" altogether.

Contrary to my expectations, the APL has grown a fair bit. It's still clearly smaller than the main ML orgs (FRSO, WWP, PSL) but has successfully managed to move off the Internet. I have no idea about how big it is membership-wise.

The APL appears to have moved away from a lot of its overtly "Hoxhaist" rhetoric in public. I think whatever success they obtain will have nothing to do with upholding Enver Hoxha.


 No.7475

>>7469

Thanks for your answer. I have another question: What do you think of the economic reforms most Marxist-Leninist countries underwent after Stalin? Particularly, I'm referring to reforms like the Kosgyn reforms or the NÖP in the GDR. Anti-revisionists say these reforms were market-orientated, and set the countries on the road to capitalism.

Here is my question: When I read about these reforms, they don't particularly mention markets but give enterprises more flexibility and independence, surplus would go into their own funds and then reinvested, etc. - but here is my problem: The law of value, according to Stalin, still exists in socialism, but doesn't regulate production. But if this is the case, and you basically let enterprises "off the chain" of central planning, and let them procure on their own, don't they automatically start producing in accordance with the law of value? Like, if there is no plan regulating them, they would automatically be ruled by the law of value, and basically a profit-motive. At least these are my own thoughts about it.


 No.7476

File: 4e800691c9c470b⋯.jpg (84.38 KB, 641x903, 641:903, Gleb Krzhizhanovsky.jpg)

>>7475

>Anti-revisionists say these reforms were market-orientated, and set the countries on the road to capitalism.

There is still a market under socialism, otherwise the law of value wouldn't exist at all. The issue, as you note, is whether the overall logic of the economy is socialist or not. It was in those countries (and the Kosygin reforms were repealed in the early 70s in any case.)

>But if this is the case, and you basically let enterprises "off the chain" of central planning, and let them procure on their own, don't they automatically start producing in accordance with the law of value?

No, because the enterprises had little control over what they actually produced or what happened to the product afterwards. The surplus mainly went into bonuses for managers and workers or to creating recreational facilities.

The purpose of the reforms was to make planning more efficient by giving enterprises incentives to produce stuff people actually wanted to buy. Planning agencies were good at measuring output in terms of quantity but not quality.

A good account of how the Soviet economy of the 1960s-70s worked (which also refutes the "state-capitalist" claims of Maoists and pro-Hoxha folks) is Szymanski's book: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying

Post last edited at

 No.7477

>>7476

>There is still a market under socialism

"Market" is a bit of a nebulous word, liberals like to equate "market" with "capitalism" because it's the nicer sounding term. Would you say that the fact that rationing is necessary, or that a difference between supply and demand exists, would automatically constitute a market?

>and the Kosygin reforms were repealed in the early 70s in any case

Yeah, I know this, and the NÖP was repealed by Honecker. I'm still interested whether or not those economies were socialist during the time when they were in place. It did raise productivity, but I always thought that they also created dissonance between the state plan and the independence of enterprises, giving rise to a specific kind of bureaucracy which was necessary to even this antagonism out.

>No, because the enterprises had little control over what they actually produced or what happened to the product afterwards. The surplus mainly went into bonuses for managers and workers or to creating recreational facilities.

So, there was no capitalist accumulation? There was no surplus value assessed to distribute amongst the stock-holders (in this case, the workers) to "compete" on a market? You talk about them having no influence over the product afterwards, but I always thought those reforms introduced a reduced quota, where only a fraction of the product was acquired by the state, and a firm was free to procure as they saw fit (including foreign trade) with the rest which would mean an allocation in accordance with the law of value.

>The purpose of the reforms was to make planning more efficient by giving enterprises incentives to produce stuff people actually wanted to buy. Planning agencies were good at measuring output in terms of quantity but not quality.

Well, they kinda achieved that, but what does this actually mean? The focus shifted from heavy industry to light industry, which means consumer goods. This surely satisfies needs (which obviously should be a supreme goal of socialism) but didn't it damage the functionality of the socialist state in the long term? I greatly approve of the projects to implement cybernetcis, heuristics and reduction of work time, but couldn't it be done within the framework of the old "Stalinist" economy? As far as I know, Albania and the DPRK didn't suffer from an economic downturn despite never implementing the reforms which were implemented in most of the Eastern Bloc, Albania's economy only stagnated once they went through with their total geopolitical isolation, and the DPRK stagnanted once they decided (or were forced to?) to implement the Songun policy, where most of the funds would go into the military. So, I don't see the reason to focus on consumer items on a short-term just to compete with the West concerning the variety of goods in a grocery store. As for the planning agencies, would it not have been better if the input of the enterprises would be considered without the "dislodgement" from the central planning?

>A good account of how the Soviet economy of the 1960s-70s worked (which also refutes the "state-capitalist" claims of Maoists and pro-Hoxha folks) is Szymanski's book

I admit I still have to read this.


 No.7478

File: 3a436aea3326e91⋯.jpg (53.33 KB, 250x324, 125:162, Valery Mezhlauk.jpg)

>>7477

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia has a good article on the subject (just scroll down a bit in this link to see it): https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/market

>I'm still interested whether or not those economies were socialist during the time when they were in place.

It would be pretty silly if a mode of production could be turned on or off with the ease of flipping a switch.

>So, there was no capitalist accumulation?

No. Money could not be turned into capital.

>There was no surplus value assessed to distribute amongst the stock-holders (in this case, the workers) to "compete" on a market?

Workers weren't stock-holders. The state owned the enterprise. If for whatever reason an enterprise had to be shut down, the state would allocate workers to another factory.

>and a firm was free to procure as they saw fit (including foreign trade) with the rest which would mean an allocation in accordance with the law of value.

Not foreign trade, since that would violate the state monopoly on foreign trade established by Lenin, and enterprises were not allowed to set their own prices on goods.

>The focus shifted from heavy industry to light industry

Heavy industry continued to obtain the bulk of investment funds. In fact, Khrushchev denounced Malenkov and his supporters in 1955 in the following terms: "these 'theoreticians'—if you will allow me to call them such—are trying to prove that at a certain stage of the construction of socialism, the development of heavy industry ceases to be the main task and that light industry then can and should outstrip all other branches of industry. These are totally wrong views, contradicting the law of Marxism-Leninism. They are nothing but a slandering of the party. They are a relapse into the right deviations, a relapse into the views hostile to Leninism, which in their time were preached by Rykov, Bukharin and their ilk."

Albania heavily relied on aid from other countries, first Yugoslavia, then the USSR, then China. This is what fueled its economic growth together with the socialist system. Once this aid was cut off, the economy suffered.

As for the DPRK, Kim Il Sung did actually encourage decentralization, e.g. encouraging local enterprises to rely as much as possible on local materials rather than planning authorities. The overall economy was still clearly "Stalinist" though.

It isn't that the Soviet economy under Stalin was utter ass, it's that it was built around a different kind of society from the one that emerged in the "modern" USSR of the 1950s-80s, when planning became more complex and the issue was less "how many new factories do we build" and more "how do we raise labor productivity in the existing factories."

Paul Cockshott was once asked what factors contributed to economic problems in the USSR, and he gave some examples:

>1. The exhaustion of oil and mineral reserves West of Urals forcing the development of energy and mineral reserves in Siberia which were much more costly in terms of labour than the old sources in Europe and the Caspian basin.

>2. The extreme demographic transition of the socialist countries associated with the high level of female education and participation in the workforce. This meant that from the 1970s on the available labour supply became very tight and many industries were up to 10% of workers short on key shifts.

>3, High levels of armaments expenditure in the final stages of the cold war diverted scientific and engineering talent out of the improvement of civilian industry.

>4. An unwillingness to close down existing first generation industrial plant an replace it with new greenfield sites since this would have involved dismissing workers from the old sites, redeploying workers from the old plants to the new sites when a basic feature of the workers state was that workers were protected against being fired.

>5. Failure to properly apply labour value costing which meant that labour saving techniques and fuel saving techniques would not appear to individual plants to be economically rational. Heavily subsidised domestic heating also encouraged a more profligate use of fuel.


 No.7495

Can I get an all-encompassing history book for China? I'm looking for something in the style of The Era of Socialism for USSR or Pickaxe and Rifle fof Albania, that covers it's whole communist history (or until Mao's death)


 No.7496

File: 01183b718f82140⋯.jpg (30.82 KB, 375x499, 375:499, book I scanned.jpg)

>>7495

I scanned just such a book not too long ago: https://archive.org/details/YearsOfTrialTurmoilTriumph

Even more recently I scanned a book covering the Chinese economy from 1949-1984: https://archive.org/details/ChinasSocialistEcon


 No.7498

>>5721

What are the main causes of Eastern Europe being so impoverished in comparison to the West? Asking because this is one of the major arguments anti-communists never fail to bring up. (Literature on this is also appreciated)


 No.7499

File: 47c3736441a1f0d⋯.jpg (45.65 KB, 343x499, 343:499, Blackshirts and Reds.jpg)

>>7498

Eastern Europe before WWII was already economically and culturally backward compared to Western Europe. Czechoslovakia had been the only "modern" country in the region. The rest had feudal holdovers (large landed nobilities and powerful monarchies, mass illiteracy, etc.)

Socialism made literacy universal, greatly improved access to health services, carried out land reforms that abolished feudalism, and significantly industrialized the Eastern European countries.

With the "collapse of communism" in 1989-1991, these countries suffered greatly from the ensuing capitalist restoration, Pages 100-120 of Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds" gives numerous examples of how the "free market" did harm: http://b-ok.org/book/981420/378c5d

You also had the unique case of Yugoslavia/Serbia, which was subjected to sanctions and NATO bombing that targeted its infrastructure and industry. As Parenti noted in another work of his ("To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia") the bombs intentionally struck state-owned enterprises while carefully avoiding damage to privately-owned businesses, a middle finger to Milošević for refusing to carry out the sort of mass privatizations that occurred elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Post last edited at

 No.7500

File: bc7aa03e7566705⋯.png (224.32 KB, 500x1055, 100:211, 19f30d3f.png)

>>7499

Comrade Ismail, I'm gonna ask you a non historical question for once.

How would you respond to eastern european people complaints? Seriously, all this stuff is nice and it goes beyond the anecdotal experience of a single individual, but it doesn't have the same power. When Eastern European people say that they'd rather have the current system, I don't feel really comfortable arguing with them with statistical reasons, It makes look like a nerd and a massive autist.

Also why do the achivment of these countries during the socialist era get ignored by these people?

One of the favorite talking points is always "more freedom of speech and more freedom of movment " while modern freedom of speech is higly overrated and not free at all, i'm pretty lacunous when it comes to the movment part. How traveling worked for these people?


 No.7501

File: eabeff4c77f13e3⋯.jpg (55.45 KB, 385x583, 35:53, Honecker.jpg)

>>7500

I point out that the actual inhabitants of these countries, rather than individual complaints, demonstrate widespread nostalgia for the former system.

The 1991 USSR referendum saw 77% of voters support retaining it.

Then you have stuff like this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html

>Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. "The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

>i'm pretty lacunous when it comes to the movment part. How traveling worked for these people?

Unless you lived in Albania, it wasn't difficult at all if you lived in an Eastern European country to travel to fellow Eastern European countries on vacation.

Even in regard to the most notorious example, the Berlin Wall, elderly people were allowed to visit their relatives in West Germany even in the 1960s. Regulations became more lax in the subsequent two decades as tensions over East/West Berlin lessened and West Germany agreed to recognize the existence of the GDR.

Check out the section "The Berlin Wall – Another Cold War Myth" here: https://williamblum.org/aer/read/133

On the subject of free speech, here's one example from Margrit and John Pittman, Sense and Nonsense About Berlin, 1962, pp. 36-37:

>We attended a forum of working and student youth in the university town of Jena. Present were officials of the GDR government, the city administration, the Socialist Unity Party, and the Free German Youth. The hall was packed to the rafters, which is the only place where we found seats. We had been informed that these forums are held at regular intervals all over the GDR. Their aim is to enlist the interest and participation of young Germans in efforts to solve the problems of local communities, cities, and the GDR as a whole. The youth are encouraged to raise any question that concerns them. No holds are barred. . .

>They spoke without restraint or self-consciousness. They vied for the chance to speak. They heckled one another as well as the speakers on the platform. If they didn't like a speech or a statement, they booed. If they liked it, they whistled and stamped their feet. The one point in which they differed from most American student audiences was this: they were amazingly well-informed on international and national affairs.

>Here are some of the questions they asked:

>"Why did we have to postpone the realization of our economic plan for overtaking West Germany from 1961 to 1965?"

>"Why did we make such a difficult plan in the first place?"

>"Why did our newspapers publicize the goals so much?"

>"Why did we cut out our airplane industry, and who was responsible for this mistake?"

>There were, of course, other questions to be expected from an assemblage of youth: "Why is Jena so dull for youth? Why does our radio plague us on Saturdays and Sundays with broadcasts about collective farms?"

At the end of the day, avowedly communist parties are still relevant in a number of countries, such as the KPRF in Russia, the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia in the Czech Republic, and the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova. There's also Die Linke in eastern Germany which, while not communist, contains many former supporters of the SED. All these parties have seats in their respective legislatures.


 No.7502

>>7499

>>7501

As always, thanks for your awesome insightful answers Ismail.

So were countries like Bulgaria, Albania and the former USSR actually less poor than nowadays during socialism? Would you happen to have some stats on the evolution of poverty, housing, etc. in the socialist world?


 No.7503

File: 0b0ab600b5f275a⋯.gif (51.04 KB, 355x479, 355:479, americanization1.gif)

>>7501

Thank you very much. You got some data specific to czechoslovakia? They talk a lot of trash about the socialist experience of the country. I know that out of all the other countries they were the most developed, but I just read somewhere people who claim that they were the 10th biggest economy in the world during the interwar period and that they would have been as developed as austria if the bolshevik didn't hold them back.

Also the same guy said that growth was shit during socialism, in 1960' they weren't able to hold up with the west. The economic boom after the 1989 was big and growth rate in Slovakia is still around +3% and that infrastructure such as highways were built thanks to Gorbachev reforms.

On another site I find an article complaining about shortages ecc. And they talked about the secret police being omnipresent to the point of intervening in case of noticeable sexually libertine attitude. Also they same guy said that Alcholism of today is on the same rate of pre fall.

You got data specific to czechoslovakia to disprove this stuff?


 No.7504

File: 67878be39342421⋯.jpg (59.77 KB, 600x340, 30:17, Yeltsin and Gorbachev.jpg)

>>7502

Capitalist restoration definitely screwed over a great many people. While living standards aren't as terrible as they were in the 1990s, people still notice things missing from the socialist era.

I'll quote from four sources.

Michel Chossudovsky (in his "The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order," p. 2):

>In Bulgaria, old age pensions had, by 1997, collapsed to two dollars a month. The World Bank conceded that 90 percent of Bulgarians are living below the World Bank defined poverty threshold of $4 a day.

Michael Parenti (in his "To Kill a Nation," pp. 195-197):

>By the end of the millennium, the average wage in Rumania had slipped to $80 a month while prices have climbed precipitously. About one-third of the population subsists on less than two dollars a day. According to the New York Times, a publication that usually promotes the glossy side of free-market neoliberalism, "At dawn in Bucharest, the capital, groups of children emerge from the sewers to beg just as they do in the capital of Angola."' Lifetime job security has vanished, unemployment is rampant, and the prison population is burgeoning. A November 1999 poll stunned the capitalist-restorationist Romanian government when it reported that 61 per cent felt that life had been better under the Communist government of Nicolae Ceausescu.

A 2007 Christian Science Monitor article:

>Millions of children in the formerly communist nations of Eastern Europe have been left behind as their countries made the transition from centralized economies to free-market capitalism. While in absolute numbers the number of poor children has fallen in recent years, advocates and researchers say that a new class of excluded children is emerging who suffer many of the same problems as children in the poorest countries of Africa – but receive far less attention.

>"We used to say that everybody was equally poor," says Arlinda Ymeraj, a social-policy officer with the UN Children's Fund in Albania. "Now, if you compare, there are big disparities. A few people have gotten very rich, but more have stayed poor or gotten poorer."

>The situation of Albania's children is among Europe's worst. Once one of the most isolated nations, the country remains one of the continent's poorest countries. . . .

>Ms. Ymeraj says that it is difficult to compare the situation of children today with that during communist times, but that life has deteriorated for the poorest in a number of concrete ways.

>The state no longer guarantees jobs, houses, or healthcare, as it did before. In rural areas, industry and state-farm collectives have collapsed, leaving people to fend for themselves, and many government services are no longer available. In rural areas, for example, 85 percent of secondary schools have shut their doors. . . .

>Jalldyz Ymeri, a young grandmother who lives near the Daljani family, says in communist days she would not have nearly lost her 3-year-old grandson Orgito – a spiky-haired boy with angelic eyes – whom races around the family's dirt yard as she watches. A few months earlier, the boy fell seriously ill, and Ymeri had to bribe a doctor to see him.

>"The medicines to cure him are very expensive," she says. "Sometimes we have to choose between food or medicine. Nobody will treat us if we don't pay."

>"For us it was much better in communist times," insists Ymeri's husband, Safet. "We were obliged to go to school. The government gave us housing. We like democracy, but this is not real democracy."

Stephen F. Cohen writing in 2001:

>Nearly a decade later Russia is affected by the worst economic depression in modern history, corruption so extensive that capital flight exceeds all foreign loans and investment, and a demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. The result has been massive human tragedy. Among other calamities, some 75 percent of Russians now live below the poverty line; 50-80 percent of school-age children are classified as having a physical or mental defect, and male life expectancy has plunged to less than sixty years.

>>7503

The only book I have about Czechoslovakia is this: https://archive.org/details/CzechoslovakiaBelieveItOrNot

Post last edited at

 No.7505

>>7504

Thanks! I'm amazed that you even delivered quotes specific to the countries I mentioned. How do we become as knowledgeable as you Ismail? (I know the answer probably is "read a fucking book")


 No.7506

File: 17100776fbeb7e5⋯.jpg (87.98 KB, 742x476, 53:34, lenin_reading.jpg)

>>7505

Yeah it's just "read stuff."

Feel free to ask for sources here: https://8ch.net/marx/res/6674.html


 No.7507

>>7506

Ah, good to know, it seems everyone is using this thread mostly for literature recs at this point.


 No.7515

I'm lost, Ismail. I adore Marxist and socialist ideology, but how can I engage in substantial praxis?

I was thinking of involving myself on hacktivism, thoughts on that area?


 No.7516

File: 8b7061d9d93e269⋯.jpg (34.38 KB, 570x713, 570:713, anarchist.jpg)

>>7515

As I wrote in another thread:

>There is nothing wrong with getting involved in community stuff. Wherever workers are, communists should be there working alongside them (e.g. on the shop floor and in trade unions) or at least for their benefit.

Look into getting involved in a nearby party (e.g. the FRSO, PSL or WWP) as well.

Hacktivism seems to have more in common with anarchist tactics, not something that builds up the working-class as an independent political force. It is also an easy way to end up in trouble with the law just to make a political point that few will grasp the significance of (let alone have the organizational strength to follow up on.)


 No.7517

>>7516

What about hackers that build up class consciousness, anti imperialist thought, etc.. through obtaining information like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak

This probably wasn't published with any leftist intent, but you get the point.


 No.7523

File: 6c690a7e5cdc048⋯.jpg (658.78 KB, 1106x1800, 553:900, Albert Parsons.jpg)

>>7517

The leak was embarrassing to the US government, but it's still no substitute for (as I said) "something that builds up the working-class as an independent political force," so I wouldn't encourage it.

Even without the leak it was easy to demonstrate the ruinous effects of the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq in both material and human terms, and to show that you cannot have a "humane" imperialism to begin with.

That brings us back to ye olde anarchist tactics: a thrown bomb or assassination might scare the government and capitalist class, but they'll regain their bearings soon enough and retaliate against the isolated anarchist individual or group, while using this as a pretext to target the rest of the left (as ended up occurring to the Haymarket martyrs, whose peaceful labor demonstration was denounced by the press as part of a plot to bomb and terrorize the whole city of Chicago, the press' lie made easier by the martyrs' own incendiary rhetoric and confused understanding of how revolution comes about.)

While hacktivism obviously isn't equivalent to killing people, I can't see the outcome being much different.

Post last edited at

 No.7525

do you have good texts on fascism? scanned some good books?


 No.7526

File: 701c4132a789d2c⋯.jpg (16.92 KB, 240x325, 48:65, Georgi Dimitrov.jpg)


 No.7530

File: a9d3fb5544645e4⋯.png (11.48 KB, 442x126, 221:63, socialism inefficiency.png)

So Ismail, I was debating with a guy about socialism in a facebook group (don't judge me please) and he brought up the "you're using a device made under capitalism" argument. Obviously I replied with something along the lines of Spartacus' sword being made under slavery which is not a reason why he can't revolt against it. Then he replied with pic related. How can this be debunked? Does he have any point at all that socialist economy is supposedly less efficient?


 No.7531

File: 4748db713a67010⋯.jpg (883.27 KB, 1500x931, 1500:931, Gosplan building 1981.jpg)

>>7530

A peasant plow would be a better example.

The whole argument of Marxism is that it is capitalism which creates the preconditions for socialism, first by creating the proletariat, second by concentrating the proletariat in large industries (which gradually take over/ruin small businesses, expanding the ranks of the proletarians in the process), and third by creating the technological means to plan an economy.

So your point still stands, human liberation is associated with mankind taking control over the instruments of production and utilizing them for its benefit, rather than that of an exploiting class.

As for the efficiency of socialism, see: https://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/


 No.7556

What do you think of Riazanov's biography of Marx and Engels? Why was he killed in the Yezovshchina?


 No.7557

File: 2075238e9d197cf⋯.jpg (15.58 KB, 274x400, 137:200, Ryazanov.jpg)

>>7556

Ryazanov was the acknowledged authority on the writings and life of Marx and Engels, but politically he was perceived as closer to Menshevism than Bolshevism. In 1931 he was accused of having clandestine ties with the Mensheviks abroad and was arrested. During the Great Purges this charge was upgraded to being involved in a Trotskyist-Rightist conspiracy, which is what got him shot.

He was cleared of the Trotskyist-Rightist charges in 1958, and the Menshevik charges in 1989.

This is how Molotov characterized him decades later:

>“The topsy-turvy library.” I didn’t hear this directly from Lenin, but I was told he said this. But what I really heard Lenin say was, “With this ulcer we’ll surely die!” Riazanov criticized everything constantly, but he was confused and always in a muddle. He was neither a Trotskyist nor a rightist, but with all his knowledge he was just muddleheaded. As far as I remember, he was exiled to Saratov much earlier than 1937. Lenin thought it was hardly worth punishing him, that we would likely live and die with that ulcer. In Saratov he used to say, “I would like to live to see how socialism is going to be made in one apartment, in one town, in one township.” He was mocking. He was an active fellow. He wrote a lot about Marx, and the first edition of the Marx-Engels works was published under his editorship.

From all available evidence he didn't deserve to be arrested, much less die, but it isn't surprising that he'd be targeted.

As for his biography, I heard it's alright.

Post last edited at

 No.7558

>>7557

>Trotskyist-Rightist conspiracy

That wasn't a conspiracy, was a fact.


 No.7560

File: dcb95041c7b33de⋯.jpg (40.75 KB, 317x475, 317:475, The Road to Terror.jpg)

>>7558

It would still be a conspiracy even if it was real, since it was literally alleged to be a conspiratorial alliance between the followers of Trotsky and those associated with the Right Opposition.

There's no evidence that Riazanov was involved in any such conspiracy, and the "evidence" of any such conspiracy even existing is practically nonexistent outside of the Moscow Trials.

As J. Arch Getty points out, when Trotsky did seek to form a bloc between his followers in the USSR and rightist groups in 1932, "the authorities smashed Trotsky's bloc before it got off the ground. In connection with their roundup of suspected participants in the Riutin group, nearly all the leaders of the new bloc were pulled in for questioning. Many of them were expelled from the party and sentenced to prison or exile." (The Road to Terror, pp. 62-63.)

Getty notes there is some evidence of "rank-and-file" Trotskyists, cut off from any actual contact with Trotsky himself, continuing to organize in the first half of the 1930s in certain regions, carrying out propaganda and setting up a clandestine newspaper, but nothing about any renewed left-right bloc let alone talk of assassinations, industrial sabotage, espionage on behalf of foreign states, contacts with Nazi and Japanese intelligence to sever parts of the USSR following a military coup, or any of the other stuff alleged at the Moscow Trials.

Everything we know about Trotskyism in the USSR during the 1930s suggests it was a despised and more or less irrelevant political force, as it continued to be right up to the demise of the USSR (and to this day Trotskyism is not popular among the left in Russia.)

Post last edited at

 No.7561

>>7560

>It would still be a conspiracy even if it was real, since it was literally alleged to be a conspiratorial alliance between the followers of Trotsky and those associated with the Right Opposition.

Okey, thought you were being ironic.

>Everything we know about Trotskyism in the USSR during the 1930s suggests it was a despised and more or less irrelevant political force, as it continued to be right up to the demise of the USSR (and to this day Trotskyism is not popular among the left in Russia.)

But then you are not. Wasn't irrelevant at all.

>There's no evidence that Riazanov was involved in any such conspiracy

There is and that's why he got what he deserved.

Bolsheviks (in which was Stalin) didn't need to kill nor to make disappear something irrelevant.


 No.7562

>>7560

>continuing to organize in the first half of the 1930s in certain regions, carrying out propaganda and setting up a clandestine newspaper, but nothing about any renewed left-right bloc let alone talk of assassinations, industrial sabotage, espionage on behalf of foreign states, contacts with Nazi and Japanese intelligence to sever parts of the USSR following a military coup, or any of the other stuff alleged at the Moscow Trials.

Precisely all of that you are denying is what actually were happening and with force, specially in border regions.


 No.7563

File: 3aa485a61ef67ec⋯.jpeg (48.88 KB, 475x685, 95:137, Ryazanov.jpeg)

>>7561

>There is and that's why he got what he deserved.

Give me a source, then.

>>7562

>Precisely all of that you are denying is what actually were happening and with force

Cite your source(s).


 No.7577

>>7561

>Bolsheviks (in which was Stalin) didn't need to kill nor to make disappear something irrelevant.

Do you think everyone who was purged by Stalin was "relevant"?

Also as Ismail said, give sources.


 No.7578

So Ismail, I'd like to know:

1) To what extent were rock and other modern music acts banned in 20th-century socialist countries? I know that they weren't banne

d alltogether (as the existence of some extremely rad Polish post-punk proves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8kpDuy8Lqo), but it still seems that the repression ran deeper than just bands with politically charged lyrics. I suppose some countries were stricter than others?

2) If rock acts got banned (without obvious reasons like anti-government lyrics), what was/were the main reason(s) for this? Was it really because they were perceived as a product of degenerate consumerist society?


 No.7579

Does a book on the history of anticommunism and anticommunist propaganda exist?


 No.7580

File: 13613d4e49e805a⋯.jpg (219.63 KB, 869x1280, 869:1280, The Anti Communist Impulse.jpg)

>>7579

I can't think of any comprehensive history of anti-communism, although there's certainly books that deal with anti-communism as an ideology (like "The Anti-Communist Impulse" by Michael Parenti) and popular examples of anti-communist hysteria (like "Red Scare" by Robert K. Murray.)

>>7578

Partially it was politics (e.g. "Back in the USSR" was seen as mocking the USSR), and partially it was suspicion about Soviet youth wanting to emulate the lifestyles of the American and British rich and famous.

>I suppose some countries were stricter than others?

Yes. I've actually addressed this elsewhere, so I'll copy-paste what I wrote:

-----

For what it's worth, many kinds of Western-style music were allowed in the USSR in the 1970s-80s even if artists weren't, e.g. you couldn't get Beatles records but you could hear their songs sung by an American communist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQDjKIp6R8&t=0m4s (Dean Reed was very popular in the GDR and USSR)

Here's an example of an Italian pop song which was popular in the USSR back then (the music video was filmed in Leningrad): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31Rqprl0dg

And of course there were original rock songs by actual Soviet artists, e.g.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCufFLvaxa8 (1980)

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsG8VNaDfDc (1983)

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II7mS8zww88 (1986)

In Eastern Europe (outside of Albania and Romania) the attitude toward music was still more permissive than in the USSR, like it's hard to listen to these songs and think "argh this is oppressive communist music":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbymQJhbxVg (a Hungarian singer singing in German for a GDR record label)

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpipcap1R40 (East German rock band)

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJsEjTsJATw (Czechoslovak country western music)

Pages 11-20 of the following work note access to Western music in Czechoslovakia, including the Beatles: https://archive.org/details/CzechoslovakiaBelieveItOrNot

Post last edited at

 No.7581

>>7580

>And of course there were original rock songs by actual Soviet artists

Soviet rock and there isn't Viktor Tsoy and many other really famous. 10/10


 No.7582

>>7580

Check out this experimental folk funk from the Estonia SSR.


 No.7583

What do you think of this article and a ML's response to it on twitter? Phil is abrasive and maybe too sectarian but I think his analysis in this case is generally correct: that most decolonial theory is idealist- philosophically, economically, and practically.

https://twitter.com/PhilGreaves01/status/972428915330420736


 No.7584


 No.7585

File: e7187aa717ac9ed⋯.jpg (51.35 KB, 501x675, 167:225, Gus Hall bio.jpg)

>>7583

Yeah I'm not a fan of "settler-colonial" analysis. The CPUSA, whatever else one may say of it, seemed to have an okay analysis of the Native American peoples as of 1979: https://archive.org/details/ResolutionOnThePathToNativeAmericanLiberationAdoptedAtThe22nd

>>7584

There's a site called radiooooo.com with all sorts of "hip" Soviet music in the 1970s-80s (you can even look up each republic.)


 No.7586

>>7585

Anything you care to expand on wrt the settlers analysis?


 No.7587

File: da61db8dc6ffa32⋯.jpg (658.47 KB, 821x1041, 821:1041, The_Liberator,_May_1919,_c….jpg)

>>7586

I read the actual book by J. Sakai a decade ago, I wasn't convinced by its arguments. If there's any specific point you'd like addressed, feel free.

My main issue, as a guy who is into history, is his treatment of... history, e.g. he writes of "the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs" as opposing Asian immigration, apparently oblivious to the fact that Debs was not actually a leader of the Socialist Party, but was in fact distrusted by its opportunist leadership and came out firmly against the scapegoating of immigrants: https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1910/immigration.htm

Which seems like a nitpick except I've actually had people claim Debs was a big ol' settler-colonial racist and "proving" this by citing Sakai's book.


 No.7590

I've noticed that you have a YouTube channel. Would you ever care to make videos about Marxism-Leninism on a regular basis?


 No.7591

Do you know where to find collected works of Kim Il Sung?


 No.7592

File: c4afec1c7a10e14⋯.jpg (355.34 KB, 930x517, 930:517, Kim Jong Il and his dad fi….jpg)

>>7590

I intend to use it to make fun of mostly obscure films from the 1970s-90s, although I'm preoccupied with other stuff (writing an article on Jim Jones and Jonestown for the website MLToday, writing an article on the American socialist movement in Marx's lifetime, making a game set in the world of 1919 for my eRegime website.)

>>7591

They aren't online. You can buy many books from the DPRK (including works from Kim Il Sung) here: http://www.north-korea-books.com/

Also note that the DPRK a few years back finished publishing a new edition of Kim's collected works that goes up to 100 volumes. They're in Korean, but apparently they do intend to translate them into English.


 No.7593

Hey Ismail, what are your thoughts on Maurice Cornforth? Would be worth to translate his works on another language? I mean, are them still useful?


 No.7594

File: 191d34ad3202169⋯.jpg (43.16 KB, 375x500, 3:4, book.jpg)

>>7593

Someone I know scanned the following two works of his:

* https://archive.org/details/MaterialismDialecticalMethod

* https://archive.org/details/CornforthTheoryOfKnowledge

Both seem to be fine introductions to their respective subjects.

I intend to obtain and scan his book on historical materialism in a few months.

Cornforth's last book, "Communism and Philosophy," is considered revisionist though (as he basically regarded dialectics as more harmful than helpful to Marxism.)


 No.7595

>>7594

>Cornforth's last book, "Communism and Philosophy," is considered revisionist though (as he basically regarded dialectics as more harmful than helpful to Marxism.)

It seems very revisionist.

What are your thoughts on "Science Versus Idealism"?


 No.7596

>>7595

>as he basically regarded dialectics as more harmful than helpful to Marxism

Any source?


 No.7597

File: b8257c1d03c26d2⋯.jpg (30.56 KB, 375x499, 375:499, Science Versus Idealism.jpg)

>>7595

I never read "Science Versus Idealism," although you can find it online here: https://archive.org/details/scienceversuside029522mbp

>>7596

As I said, it's basically the argument of Cornforth's last book (according to someone I know who read it years back.) The source is... the book itself.


 No.7609

Ismail, to what extent do you think Fidel Castro (and by extension other socialist leaders) has been personally responsible for the establishment of labor camps and for the lack of press freedom in Cuba? No matter how much capitalist propaganda the media spew, it does seem undeniable that it's not as acceptable to openly criticize the government there as in western countries. However I love all the stuff Castro did for his country, and maybe I'm just idealistic for thinking this, but I feel like the guy really didn't come across as a totalitarian despot who wanted to make all criticism mouth-dead. I watched the Azurescapegoat vid on democracy in Cuba, which convinced me to some extent that the country is democratic, but he didn't touch on issues like censorship, repression and labor camps whatsoever. I feel like it's unfair to not discuss this at all in a video about democracy, so I'd like to know your opinions on this.


 No.7610

File: c321cebb4ff31f7⋯.jpg (11.61 KB, 229x300, 229:300, fidel-castro.jpg)

>>7609

Castro always had a very "hands-on" approach as leader, personally intervening to correct what he regarded as errors or bureaucracy. I'm sure that something as important as media policy was carried out with his approval, ditto stuff related to crime and justice.

>it does seem undeniable that it's not as acceptable to openly criticize the government there as in western countries.

That is indeed undeniable, but there's a reason for that: those countries do not have to worry about foreign-backed efforts at overthrowing their governments. In both US history (as Al Szymanski demonstrated quite well in his book comparing US and USSR human rights: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion) and in the histories of other bourgeois countries, criticism of the government was sharply curtailed when it was felt that such criticism could actually have a harmful effect on said government.

Not to mention that in much of the third world, criticizing capitalist governments can easily get you killed for the reason that these governments are significantly more vulnerable to leftist movements compared to developed capitalist countries like the US, UK, etc.

As a note, here are two good reads on democracy in Cuba:

* http://b-ok.org/book/2482948/67174c

* http://b-ok.org/book/2548797/920457


 No.7612

What do you think of intersectionality theory? Crenshaw is a bourgeois legal scholar so I’m skeptical off the bat. It seems like the “contributions” that this theory offers are pedestrian, even a commonplace, compared to scientific socialism. One of the basic precepts of dialectical materialism is that phenomena are connected. Intersectionality stops here while dialectical materialism goes on to elaborate a very rich theory of knowledge, ontology, and ethics- including a program for liberation in fact and not in academe.


 No.7613

Very newbie question. If Marx thought capitalism would eventually lead to socialism, and that capitalism was good for advancing and creating the base for socialism. Why did Lenin and Mao implement socialism when their countries haven't even acquired advanced capitalism?

Or is that what "Marxist Leninism" is all about? Sorry. I've just started reading books.


 No.7614

File: 7e4ccb46ef12388⋯.png (787.49 KB, 734x620, 367:310, It is Lenin.png)

>>7612

Yeah I doubt intersectionality is sufficient to inform everyday struggles.

>>7613

Lenin pointed out that capitalism did exist in Russia, and while the workers obviously weren't a majority of the population they still developed working-class consciousness. Lenin argued that the workers were able to ally with the peasantry, who had a vested interest in land reform (i.e. breaking up the feudal estates and handing them over to peasants who either had no land or barely enough to get by.)

When Marx himself spoke of the prospect of proletarian revolution in Germany and France in the middle of the 19th century, these were places with mostly peasant populations. Marx and Engels also foresaw the possibility that the revolution would break out in Tsarist Russia, a land Lenin himself regarded as the "weakest link" of the imperialist countries because of its archaic political and economic system which wore itself out during WWI.

Check out pages 114-119 of the following work for more info: https://archive.org/details/InternationalWorkingClassAndCommunistMovementHistoricalRecord

Lenin did, however, constantly mention the difficult foundations on which Soviet Russia had to construct socialism, not only due to Russian backwardness but also due to years of imperialist war followed by years of civil war. That is why he promoted the New Economic Policy and state-capitalism (a term he used to mean the proletarian government making use of foreign and domestic capitalist investment to promote develop a "modern" economy) as a transitional means to rebuild the economy in preparation for the construction of socialism.


 No.7615

Ismail, what are your thoughts on Maurice Bishop? Why was he killed and replaced by a military junta, was the junta also Marxist-Leninist or did they want something else?


 No.7616

File: fd07ae392ec85e8⋯.jpg (76.55 KB, 590x381, 590:381, Ortega Castro Bishop.jpg)

>>7615

He seemed to be a k00l d00d.

He was overthrown in a personal dispute with an associate named Bernard Coard, who turned to ideology to justify getting rid of Bishop, claiming the latter was a phony Marxist-Leninist. The coup gave the US a pretext to invade Grenada to "rescue" Americans on the island (who were not actually in danger.)

Coard, like Nito Alves in Angola, solicited support from the Soviets in order to help take political power, whereas Bishop and Agostinho Neto were backed by Cuba.

Coard nowadays doesn't identify as a Marxist anymore and has been writing self-serving memoirs about why he did what he did.

In the third world a lot of basically personal disputes were amplified into ideological disputes, e.g. rival factions engaged in a shootout during a Politburo meeting of the Yemeni Socialist Party, there was constant feuding between the Khalq and Parcham factions of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, etc.

Even in the US, one reason for the Black Panther Party's demise was that Eldridge Cleaver accused Huey Newton of "revisionism" and "reformism," whereupon Cleaver set up a rival wing that operated abroad and called for guerrilla warfare in the US. While both men did have ideological differences between them, the origins of the split were more personal than political.

A few years later Cleaver found God and became a Republican.

Post last edited at

 No.7632

Socialist are supposed to be "pro gun" so why do socialist countries always end up having strong gun control?


 No.7633

File: 16c00ffe023f70b⋯.jpg (90.74 KB, 600x446, 300:223, Cuban Territorial Troops M….jpg)

>>7632

I've talked to plenty of European communists (including those from former socialist states), they see the whole Second Amendment debate in the US as bizarre and us Americans as silly. The idea of enshrining individual gun ownership as a constitutional right is alien to them. This applies to Europeans in general, no matter what their politics.

If leftist guerrillas want to obtain weapons in, say, the Middle East, they have no shortage of avenues to obtain them regardless of the laws. Even if they were able to legally purchase guns from gun shops, they generally aren't going to want to do that for obvious security reasons.

As for the socialist countries, it wasn't difficult at all to obtain a gun for a specific purpose, e.g. people carrying guns around in the first few years of Soviet rule was a common sight due to the circumstances of Civil War. But Red Guards and other forces patrolling places didn't have a "right" to own rifles, they simply possessed them as part of volunteering or being conscripted to defend the revolution.

In fact the "militarization of society" was used by anti-communists as a strike against socialism, e.g. schoolchildren in the GDR during the 80s would learn to throw dummy grenades as part of gym training. Similar stuff occurred in other socialist countries (e.g. Soviet sports clubs taught motorcyclists to throw grenades and shoot.)

You also have/had organizations like Cuba's Territorial Troops Militia and Yugoslavia's Territorial Defense forces.

Even in the DPRK, clearly the most "totalitarian" (so to speak) of the socialist countries, military service is required for practically every adult.

Hunting (and thus hunting rifles) was also pretty widespread in the socialist countries.

So it's simply a matter of foreign countries not viewing the Second Amendment the same way so many Americans do. Doesn't matter if they're capitalist or socialist.

Post last edited at

 No.7639

Well obviously you are going to use firearms if you are apart of the army. But normal civilians in these countries weren't allowed to use firearms for say, personal defense, right?

Also, I'm interested in your thoughts on guns on the USA. Is it too gun friendly? Would you change anything?


 No.7640

File: 0dc48af1b3c930a⋯.jpeg (313.76 KB, 1000x848, 125:106, Members of the Leningrad ….jpeg)

>>7639

>But normal civilians in these countries weren't allowed to use firearms for say, personal defense, right?

That is indeed the case as far as I know. As I said, outside the US the idea of having a constitutional right to individual gun ownership is pretty much alien no matter what your political views are.

But as I said, socialist countries heavily promoted civilian knowledge of how to use weaponry to defend their country. To give another example, the Earl of Glasglow speaking to Parliament in 1942:

>No country knows more about invasion than Soviet Russia, and I have it on the highest authority that since October 1, 1941, all factory workers in Russia have had a hundred hours' training in the use of rifles, machine-guns and hand grenades, and also, of course, in tactics. When the time comes all factory units go into action. They wear no uniform.

Obviously this is in the context of the Great Patriotic War, but you wouldn't expect a state that fears its own people to train all its workers in how to fight against an attacking army.

I think in the case of the US there are legitimate concerns among Blacks, Chicanos, and immigrant communities about police brutality and the armed force of the state, and that gun control could be used to the detriment of such peoples.

On the other hand you have completely separate issues like school shootings, which gun control advocates claim can easily be avoided (or made much more difficult) by simply adopting regulations that exist in other countries.

I don't think stronger background checks and restrictions on certain kinds of weapon modifications are bad ideas. As I said, leftist guerrillas in the Middle East don't wish they had a Second Amendment right to bear arms, because to them it's irrelevant. If they want arms to fight the government, they're not going to get them from legal channels.

Post last edited at

 No.7641

>>5744

But what of the dissidents? I distinctly remember reading that dissidents (and groups who in general would not co-operate with the party) were kept in harsher, more hostile conditions with more unreasonable working hours than common criminals.

Secondly, what resources do you have in regards to information about the Marxist regimes of African countries (especially the Derg)? I can find almost nothing on it.


 No.7642

File: bec4de1c5395648⋯.jpg (103.4 KB, 449x355, 449:355, It is Lenin and Dzerzhinsk….jpg)

>>7641

Dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Maria Spiridonova didn't merely refuse to co-operate with the party though. They sought the overthrow of the government.

As one author put it in-re Solzhenitsyn, "I've never felt that dissident was a particularly apt title for a man given a jail sentence for criticising orders and inciting disaffection in wartime (an offence for which he could have been shot in the British Army), spending most of it in a special prison with more than tolerable conditions, having his cancer cured along the way and being released before the end of his sentence—and then doing nothing but complain. That's no dissident, that's a whinger."

That being said, no doubt many people ended up imprisoned whose opposition to the Bolsheviks really wasn't substantial, but their arrest was deemed necessary by either the Civil War or by the growing threat of fascism in the 1930s.

On Africa, see: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/194824-Soviet-and-other-works-on-Africa-(PDFs)

I do have other works on the Derg, MPLA, etc. not shown in that link. If you want them, feel free to send me your email (either post it here or register on eregime.org and send me a private message there.)


 No.7645

What's the Marxist position on bourgeois law? Should you break it or should you obey it? Seems like a lot of MLs historically hate anarchist hooliganism but then again weren't some Bolsheviks bandits and bank robbers.


 No.7646

File: 988c493d1a347a5⋯.jpg (159.36 KB, 491x786, 491:786, Untitled.jpg)

>>7645

The bank robberies were a clandestine operation carried out by the Transcaucasian section of the Bolsheviks. The financing of the party didn't revolve around robbing banks, and Tsarist Russia was not a country where there were many legal means to acquire funds in the first place.

The Marxist position has been, whenever possible, to obey the laws of a country insofar as these do not infringe on basic democratic rights (e.g. freedom of press and assembly, the formation of trade unions and the ability of workers to strike.)

In an open dictatorship, such as fascist regimes, Marxists are obliged to illegally organize against the state, but they still do not fall into the anarchist abyss of seeking to overthrow such a regime via individual acts of terror.

The CPUSA in the 1940s-60s, when it was facing trials over the Smith Act and the McCarran Act, made clear that it did not advocate force and violence against the government. It would use all legal means at its disposal to advocate for socialism, so long as these were available. William Z. Foster and other American Marxists quoted Marx, Engels and Lenin to make the point that it is the bourgeoisie which initiates violence and crushes democratic liberties, and that it is only in this context that the workers are compelled to pursue violent counter-measures.

The CPUSA's position back then was echoed by communist parties in other countries where bourgeois democracy existed.

For more info on the subject of communists and violence in regard to the bourgeois state, see the following two works:

* http://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735061657742/viewer#page/1/mode/2up (chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7)

* https://archive.org/details/DareWeBeFree (chapter XI)


 No.7655

Do you have any sources where I can read on Communist Romania (all eras including Ceausescu)?

By the way, there's a Czech video game called "Chameleon" which has takes place in Hoxhaist Albania (With bunkers and propaganda of Enver definitely in attendance) and the Moldavian SSR. Actually pretty cool.


 No.7656

File: 88ae177f590c5d0⋯.jpg (114.76 KB, 851x1280, 851:1280, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej.jpg)

>>7655

>Do you have any sources where I can read on Communist Romania (all eras including Ceausescu)?

I have an English-language, 600-page Romanian history of Romania, published in the early 70s, but I can't put it on archive.org since the publishing house is an American academic one and still exists, so it'd probably get taken down for copyright.

Beyond that, the only thing I can think that's online of is this CPGB book covering the early Dej years: https://archive.org/details/RumanianSummer

If you have any questions about the country though, feel free to ask, since I do have various books that mention it as part of wider overviews of Eastern Europe.


 No.7666

File: 77e4b6c750f1715⋯.jpg (89.01 KB, 640x750, 64:75, sargon leftist.jpg)

>>5721

I'd unironically like to follow a debate between you and some right-winger/anticommunist like Sargon of Akkad. Would you ever consider doing this? Even if debating isn't your thing I believe you would do a better job at it than youtubers like Xexizy or Unruhe.


 No.7667

File: 87c1dce2c943c3e⋯.jpg (21.94 KB, 400x300, 4:3, Andropov.jpg)

>>7666

Most of the debates I get into would be better with text since they deal with history-related subjects, which necessitate quotations and citations.

I'm not against the idea of a YouTube debate, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. I'd actually prefer debating with someone on the left (e.g. Marxism-Leninism vs. Trotskyism, Anarchism, or Left-Communism.)

>>7655

>>7656

Speaking of Romania, someone I know just scanned this: https://archive.org/details/CeausescuBuilderModernRomania (basically propaganda praising Ceaușescu)

Post last edited at

 No.7668

Tell me about Nordic countries. Aren't they capitalist ideal? Low inequality, assumingly happy, no imperial ambitions or harm to other countries. Why force socialism when we can just do it like they do?


 No.7669

File: 2a6ed85a1a2043d⋯.jpg (104.85 KB, 1008x567, 16:9, Palme Castro.jpg)

>>7668

The relatively extensive social policies enacted in those countries originate in fears by the social-democratic parties that either these policies be enacted, or the workers' unrest would end up finding expression in the communist parties. With the end of the Cold War these social policies are being stripped away.

These countries are still capitalist, which means they still suffer from unemployment, inflation, and the inevitable "boom and bust" business cycle that leads to recessions and depressions. Political power is still in the hands of the capitalist class and their companies certainly do participate in the imperialist exploitation of the third world.

As for being "assumingly happy," no doubt many are happy with having a "better" capitalism compared to, say, the United States, but these societies are still riven with antagonisms, hence how folks like Breivik are able to emerge.

>Why force socialism

Socialism isn't "forced." Socialist revolutions emerge out of popular unrest. Revolutionary situations, as Lenin said, are independent of the will even of entire classes. They arise from crises in the capitalist system.

Social-democracy is incapable of overcoming these problems. Their solution is either to create a "reformed" capitalism (which is what exists in Scandinavia) or to adopt some illusionary course toward social ownership of the means of production (like Olof Palme promoting the idea of unions buying shares in industrial firms until capital supposedly no longer rules over labor, but the reverse.)


 No.7670

File: dbde8d477f39765⋯.jpg (102.83 KB, 628x523, 628:523, real socialism hours.jpg)

File: 189fc4aec2d737f⋯.jpg (102.14 KB, 861x1136, 861:1136, lenin.jpg)

There's been a recent increase in the amount of people on the internet (and even more recently on /leftypol/) who support modern China, claim that it's socialist and that you're a "bored foreigner" or some shit if you criticize it for revisionism and restoration of capitalism. Help me understand this phenomenon, Ismail. You know a fuckton about socialist theory and history but I've never understood your support for China.

People who claim to be ML's and defend China approach the question in mainly two ways.

1) People who claim China is a socialist state (meaning it's mode of production is socialist, not capitalist). This view is completely incompatible with the Marxist definitions of what capitalism and socialism are. China has everything Marxists associate capitalism, and the contradictions that follow: a bourgeoisie extracting surplus value from the work of the proletariat (exploitation, made possible by the private ownership of the means of production), markets, wage labour (commodified labour-power), commodity production, economic crises, billionaires (who because of their wealth have disproportionate influence over politics) and desperately poor people (extreme inequality), etc, etc.

It can also be argued, based on the Leninist conception of imperialism, that China is entering this stage of capitalism.

<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance.

I don't see how it's possible to argue that China is currently socialist without completely abandoning Marxism. (Arguing that China is socialist because the state runs some of the larger companies is not an argument based in a Marxist conception of anything.)

2) People who claim that while China isn't currently socialist, they're in a sort of NEP on steroids, with the goal of becoming the world's leading capitalist power and then implementing socialism. This is nothing but naively believing the bourgeoisie will implement socialism out of the kindness of their hearts (self emancipation of the working class what?). Being the worlds leading capitalist power comes with having the most powerful bourgeois class on the planet. Some of the worlds richest people are chinese. The CCP is full of billionaires, and Xi is immensely wealthy as well. This country is not a dictatorship of the proletariat like it could be argued (and which I would agree with) Russia still was during the NEP.

The point of class analysis is to know which groups in society tend to be our friends and which groups tend to be our enemies. To identify the people whose rational self-interest is in maintaining capitalism and class society, and the others who have nothing to lose but their chains. Marxists don't try to nicely ask the capitalists to implement socialism, because we know that socialism completely goes against the material class interests of the capitalists, because socialism would mean the end to their power, their privileged position in society, etc. Why then do these people, who call themselves Marxist-Leninists, expect the billionaires and hundred-millionaires in the CCP to implement socialism, against their own rational self interests? Because they still claim to be a communist party, have a red flag and totally promise to maybe implement socialism in 30 years? It's idealist, anti-Marxist nonsense.

>>7669

I was listening to a swedish podcast the other day and they mentioned that when Khrushchev and the gang visited Sweden, they were very impressed because Sweden had managed to "implement the dictatorship of the proletariat without anyone noticing" (the workers party being in power for 40+ years). Have you heard about this? Any truth to it or bullshit?

That's a great fucking picture btw. He might have been a filthy socdem but Palme still makes me a little bit proud to be swedish.


 No.7671

File: 3c01729f2f7f51b⋯.jpg (42.66 KB, 600x399, 200:133, Khrushchev pets a cow in M….jpg)

>>7670

>Arguing that China is socialist because the state runs some of the larger companies is not an argument based in a Marxist conception of anything.

It is perfectly consistent with Marxism. What matters is what the dominant mode of production is. The Chinese state clearly holds the "commanding heights" of the economy, and the state is able to dictate to capitalist firms rather than vice-versa. See: https://www.workers.org/2013/06/13/marxism-and-the-social-character-of-china/

That there are billionaires in the CPC does not prove they decide its policy. The CPC also has some clergy among its members, but that obviously doesn't mean the CPC is a theocratic party.

>Why then do these people, who call themselves Marxist-Leninists, expect the billionaires and hundred-millionaires in the CCP to implement socialism, against their own rational self interests?

Because otherwise they won't be able to function as capitalists. Just like Lenin pointed out that Western businesses would stand to make a whole lot of money if relations between the Soviets and capitalist countries were normalized.

It is in the self-interest of capitalists to accumulate capital. That is what the Chinese government allows them to do. This also allows the rapid development of China's economy and living standards without disrupting the leading role of the socialist sector.

>they were very impressed because Sweden had managed to "implement the dictatorship of the proletariat without anyone noticing" (the workers party being in power for 40+ years).

If Khrushchev and Co. did say that, it was no doubt flattery. The CPSU continued to characterize the Scandinavian countries as capitalist. Kim Jong Il similarly flattered his Russian hosts during one his visits by saying that communism evidently wasn't coming back.

There was actually a fair bit of ignorance by Soviet officials of conditions in the West though. Khrushchev was genuinely surprised at the high productivity of American agriculture.

As an example of the ignorance even pro-Gorby officials had towards the capitalist countries, here's an incident noted by the CPUSA's journalist in the USSR, Mike Davidow (in his Perestroika: It's Rise and Fall, 1993, pp. 39-40 based on his 1990-1991 diary entries):

>Perhaps few people in the USSR more idealized individual farms as the solution to the problems of Soviet agriculture, than Fedor Burlatsky, editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta and deputy to the USSR Supreme Soviet. It must thus have come as a surprise and embarrassment to him when, in an interview with the prominent U.S. economist and Nobel prize winner, Vasili V. Leontyev, he was told by the latter: "The chief producers are the huge corporations and not the individual farms. They are organized like factories with hired labor force and have a vast number of machines and land, high technology."

>Still surprised, Burlatsky asked: "They produce more than the farmers?"

>"Much more," replied Leontyev.

>"How much?" pressed Burlatsky.

>"Not more than 2 per cent of all agricultural products is produced by individual farmers," answered Leontyev.

>I cite this discussion because, surprisingly, there appears to be ignorance of the industrialization of agriculture that has long ago taken place in the U.S. Based on this ignorance, efforts have been made to undermine the collective farms and to convince the Soviet people that the real solution lies in moving back to the individual farm.

Pro-Gorby types similarly extolled the Scandinavian countries and said the USSR ought to emulate them and thus achieve wonderful living standards.

Post last edited at

 No.7672

File: 07033fbc7fba9c7⋯.jpg (6.71 KB, 255x159, 85:53, marx2maoeyes.jpg)

>>7671

>The Chinese state clearly holds the "commanding heights" of the economy, and the state is able to dictate to capitalist firms rather than vice-versa.

Alright so socialism = when the state has power and does things, got it. I posted that pic with the fake Lenin quote because I knew it would become relevant.

>That there are billionaires in the CPC...

There are not supposed to be billionaires in a socialist country. Billionaires and hundred-millionaires are not supposed to occupy the most important positions of power in a government that is supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat.

>That there are billionaires in the CPC does not prove they decide its policy.

People are praising Xi Jinping a lot lately because they claim he's struggling against the billionaires and capitalist interests within the CPC, but he himself and his family are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Socialism completely goes against the rational self interests of Xi Jinping and his family and friends. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Billionaires and a bourgeoisie exist in China and they also clearly occupy positions of power within the CPC and the state.

That "the Chinese state clearly holds the commanding heights of the economy" and therefore it's a DotP/socialism doesn't at all follow when the state itself is full of billionaires and the general secretary is worth hundreds of millions. It's not any different from claiming that an "ordinary" capitalist state is on the road to socialism because they nationalized some large companies or a bank or something. Nationalization and state control of some parts of the economy is not at all incompatible with capitalism.


 No.7673

File: 1681d8ce86b198e⋯.jpg (242.08 KB, 1000x641, 1000:641, Leninnnnnnnnnnnn.jpg)

>>7672

>There are not supposed to be billionaires in a socialist country.

There were actually millionaires in the USSR under Stalin: http://cominternist.blogspot.com/2010/06/soviet-millionaires.html

Socialism does not equate to egalitarian income distribution. Incomes actually became more equal under Khrushchev and his successors, to the detriment of productivity.

Furthermore, you know very well that you're strawmanning my argument on state ownership of the means of production. China's socialist sector came into being in the 1950s, it constitutes the dominant mode of production (just as slavery existed in the US before the Civil War and yet capitalism was still the dominant mode of production.)

Lenin himself noted in 1918 that there were five "socio-economic structures" operating in Soviet Russia at that time, from the most backward individual peasant farming to socialist industry. He concluded, "It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist."

When China "opened up" in the 1980s, its socialist sector ceded some ground to private initiative. This latter sector does not rule the Chinese economy, nor the state apparatus. Tienanmen in 1989 was its big attempt at doing so, and it failed.

>Socialism completely goes against the rational self interests of Xi Jinping and his family and friends.

To the Communist Party of China, socialism is bound up with a massive increase in the productive forces of their country and the raising of living standards. It doesn't entail what Marx contemptuously termed "barracks communism," which is what the Cultural Revolution led to.

The goal of socialism is not to make Xi Jinping (or any other Party official) have a diminished quality of life; it is to make the rest of society better off by gradually narrowing the sphere of what Marx called "bourgeois right," culminating in communism where distribution is wholly based on needs.

Post last edited at

 No.7693

What's a good book or resource on the history of the Comintern?


 No.7694

File: c34c6d5f97eaf13⋯.jpg (340.86 KB, 800x594, 400:297, Lenin at Second Comintern ….jpg)


 No.7695

Hey Ismail, do you know any ML/leftist books on World War I?


 No.7696

File: c38b789042c66bc⋯.jpg (183.04 KB, 1368x1026, 4:3, Russian women protest for ….jpg)

>>7695

There's a giant article on WWI in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/World+War+I+1914%e2%80%9318

That's all I can think of as far as actual histories of the war go.


 No.7716

I am relatively new to Marx/Engels. Exactly in which works do they actually talk about:

1. Socialist society

2. Communist society, specifically the stateless, moneyless communism people tell me about

Thanks in advance


 No.7717

P.D: 3. Also a period of transition between capitalism and socialism


 No.7718

File: de971b185854391⋯.jpg (148.83 KB, 500x438, 250:219, Marx_and_Engels.jpg)

>>7716

>>7717

To answer all three of your questions:

* https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

* https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ (Part III: Socialism)

Marx and Engels refrained from giving detailed blueprints of what socialism, let alone communism, would look like. This had been the mistake of utopian socialists like Owen and Fourier who thought up "ideal" communities in their heads and tried to apply them to real life irrespective of material conditions.

The main theoretical tasks Marx and Engels set themselves were to explain why communism is historically inevitable and what the strategy and tactics of the proletariat should be in regard to the bourgeoisie. Accordingly their writings on the nature of revolution are much more numerous: https://archive.org/details/MarxEngelsSocialistRevolution


 No.7727

Should I even bother posting discussion type threads here on /marx/? Every once in a while I make a thread on /leftypol/ that isn't a straight question about history or theory, but an attempt to start a discussion on some topic. Are those types of threads welcome here?


 No.7728

File: 1bec1c3948df357⋯.jpg (73.71 KB, 900x1300, 9:13, Lenin doll.jpg)

>>7727

Feel free.


 No.7735

What are your thoughts on the targeted strikes on Damascus? Were the US, France and UK justified in humanitarian intervention?


 No.7736

File: c5e2b2ab0b97fe0⋯.jpg (93.34 KB, 750x400, 15:8, Syrian communists.jpg)

>>7735

No, they weren't.

They have been trying to overthrow the Syrian government for the better part of a decade now, and "humanitarian" rationales have always been employed to justify imperialist aggression, whether in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, etc.

To quote from something I wrote a while back:

>We oppose imperialism not because a leader leads tens of thousands of citizens to chant "death 2 AmeriKKKa" or whatever every day, but because the goal of imperialism is to weaken and, if possible, overthrow any government which does not fully align with the interests of the international financial system. Thus Milošević was denounced for refusing to privatize his country at a speed and extent desired by the West. Noriega was denounced for having relatively cordial relations with Cuba and being insufficiently hostile to the Sandinistas. Assad, father and son alike, were still at odds with Israel, Turkey, and other imperialist allies in the Middle East. Saddam remained the principal supporter of the PLO.

>And we see what happened in each case. In Panama the US imposed a crippling embargo that forced the government to cut social services, and when that failed to overthrow Noriega the US responded by invading the country, bombing working-class neighborhoods because "Noriega loyalists" supposedly resided among the workers. Following the establishment of "democracy" the new government embraced neo-liberal "reforms" and was similarly guilty of the sort of drug trafficking involvement that had been used as a pretext to overthrow Noriega in the first place, only now it didn't matter because the new government was a reliable ally of imperialism.

>Yugoslavia likewise was the victim of sanctions that collapsed industrial production and health services, impoverishing the people as a way to either incite them to overthrow Milošević or get the latter to submit to further "reforms" for the imperialist countries. The subsequent NATO bombing of this country, that was scarcely able to put up any resistance, resulted in thousands of deaths. The bombs not only destroyed infrastructure, but specifically targeted state-owned enterprises while leaving those in private hands largely untouched.

>Iraq followed a reverse pattern: first bombs were dropped to destroy infrastructure (to such an extent a United Nations report declared that "Iraq has, for some time to come, been relegated to a pre-industrial age") and then sanctions were imposed. Within five years these led to the deaths of half a million children (not to mention many adults), which Secretary of State Albright said was "worth it" for the singular hope of forcing Saddam's downfall. Ordinary Iraqis constantly told Western journalists how they regarded the sanctions as incomprehensible. They strengthened Saddam insofar as an impoverished population was unable to organize against the government, and it seemed elementary common sense that Saddam and his associates weren't suffering, whereas the many millions of Iraqis were.

>This is because the goal of the imperialists wasn't to make Saddam "suffer," it was to cripple Iraq as a country, preventing it from exercising any regional influence and depressing the wages and living standards of the population in order to better prepare the way for international investors at a later date. . . .

>By opposing the efforts of the imperialists to destroy the economic life of any country that does not perfectly align with them, by opposing civil wars waged by reactionaries and financed by imperialism against governments that find themselves at odds with imperialist domination, we actually defend the thesis that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves." We build class consciousness by informing people as to the nature of imperialism here at home and its inseparable link to the capitalist system, while successful opposition to imperialism forces bourgeois-nationalist governments abroad to contend with the legitimate demands of their own working people, who will not have to call these demands off in the face of imperialist-imposed privations and deaths from starvation, disease and war.


 No.7737

How does dialectical materialism stand up to Kantian criticism? How can we posit the existence of an objectively knowable material reality without falling back into metaphysics?

Specifically looking for anything Marx & Engels might have written on this.


 No.7738

File: c7e452f9a8a73a3⋯.jpg (37.38 KB, 276x464, 69:116, Dialectical method.jpg)

>>7737

I'm not good at philosophical matters, but the main Marxist introduction to the subject of dialectics back in the day is this: https://archive.org/details/MaterialismDialecticalMethod

Lenin's book might also be of interest: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm


 No.7743

>>7737

Try to read Engels' "Anti-Dühring" and Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-criticism".

Then this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2251672?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Also you could define in a marxist way what means "Metaphysics".


 No.7746

File: e9a58ceb2b61672⋯.jpg (24.58 KB, 250x379, 250:379, yay.jpg)

>>7594

I have now scanned Cornforth's introduction to historical materialism: https://archive.org/details/HistoricalMaterialismCornforth


 No.7763

What Party is there to support as a ML in the USA?

I know that the PCUSA has pretty good relations to the PRC but they supported the Democrats in the elections so I get a kind of revisionist vibe from them.


 No.7764

I remember someone asking you about an early muslim bolshevik in the old thread, but I can't remember his name. I think he was from one of the -stans.


 No.7766

>>7764

Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev? He was correctly executed.


 No.7767

>>7766

No, that's not him.


 No.7768

File: af1d0613aad78c1⋯.jpg (108 KB, 350x563, 350:563, Anti communist propaganda ….jpg)

>>7763

FRSO, PSL and WWP all seem good.

>>7764

Alas, "early Muslim Bolshevik" is a bit vague. The Bolsheviks actively recruited from Muslims and proclaimed their solidarity with Islamic movements against colonialism, e.g. http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/the-muslim-east/the-muslim-east-texts/appeal-to-the-moslems-of-russia-and-the-east/

And to quote one work: "The Soviet government. . . presented a copy of the 'Holy Koran of Osman,' formerly in the State Public Library, to a Muslim congress meeting in Petrograd. Many historic and religious monuments confiscated by the Tsarist regime were returned to the Muslims of Central Asia, the Crimea, and the Caucasus. The Bashkir Karavan-Sarai Mosque in Orenburg and the Sumbeki Tower in Kazan were among the historic buildings restored to the Muslims as a dramatic propaganda gesture. . . . Russian Muslims even spread propaganda to the effect that the Soviet regime would be established on the principles of the Koran and the Shariat. Many ignorant Muslims compared Mohammed with Lenin and the Koran with the teachings of Bolshevism." (Ivar Spector, The Soviet Union and the Muslim World, 1959, p. 37.)

Post last edited at

 No.7769

>>7768

Do you know if the PSL is pro China?


 No.7770

File: 24173e78fa556b4⋯.jpg (216.01 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Xi Jinping.jpg)

>>7769

The FRSO, PSL and WWP are all pro-China in the sense of regarding it as a socialist country.

The CPUSA also recognizes China as a socialist country, but as you might imagine that's offset by its position of "we gotta vote for Democrats everywhere to defeat the ultra-right."

Post last edited at

 No.7772

>>7770

I see, thanks!

Maybe you can help me out:

Soo I know that Xi is Collectivizing private industries,Spreading Marxism in Schools,Universities and the party,Purging Corrupt Politicians but why is he fighting against Xiang Zemin and his clique? I need to add that iam not very educated on Xiang Zemin and Hu Jintao and their actions while in office. I know that Xiang Zemin furthered Privatisation and allowed Managers of Private industries to be members of the party.

Is he fighting him because of his Privatisations?


 No.7774

File: 5e2f090511f5eed⋯.jpg (586.03 KB, 1537x1024, 1537:1024, Hu Jiang Xi.jpg)

>>7772

I can't help you much with that.

>I need to add that iam not very educated on Xiang Zemin and Hu Jintao and their actions while in office.

From what I gather, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao put ideology on the backburner, in part because a lot of people didn't take Marxism seriously at a time when the country was still recovering from the scars of the Cultural Revolution and in part because the CPC wanted to prove it could achieve rapid economic growth, which is the main thing Deng emphasized in order to legitimize the CPC's vanguard role after it had been so badly shaken under the Cultural Revolution. Everyone, Communist and non-Communist alike, could get behind a program of "we need to promote economic growth and modernize the country."

China's economy and society are reaching a stage where simply focusing on developing the productive forces is no longer sufficient, and more complex issues are coming to the fore from ideology to the environment.

So it isn't that Jiang and Hu are phony Marxists or anything, it's just that they were basically just following Deng's command to develop the productive forces. That was the main thing. It's still the main thing under Xi, but he realizes that China has to grapple with other issues in the future, hence the struggle against corruption (which was somewhat similar to how Yuri Andropov realized the Soviet economy needed reforms and society needed to take Marxism more seriously, but then he died and instead the USSR got Gorby.)


 No.7775

Give me a quick rundown on Vietnam. How's it doing as a socialist state? Why doesn't seem like there's any tension with Vietnam for being a socialist state, is it cause of the war?


 No.7776

>>7775

Nvm. This was already a question in the thread.


 No.7777

File: 9a6185f5620b5f3⋯.jpg (12.96 KB, 242x306, 121:153, John McCain hugs his rescu….jpg)

>>7775

>Why doesn't seem like there's any tension with Vietnam for being a socialist state, is it cause of the war?

During the 1980s US relations toward Vietnam were hostile, with claims concocted that there were a whole bunch of American POWs still "trapped" in Vietnamese prisons. The CIA also helped arm Pol Pot in his battles with Vietnamese troops in Cambodia.

But with the demise of the USSR, Vietnam's market reforms, and withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia there were voices in American politics (John McCain prominent among them) advocating for normalizing ties for both economic reasons and for trying to convince Vietnam to serve as a US-backed counterweight to Chinese influence in the region. The US trade embargo was lifted in 1994 and diplomatic relations established a year later.

The US continues trying to get Vietnam on its side, sending it arms for that purpose.

Post last edited at

 No.7778

What do you think about the situation in Nepal? Is there are legitimate chance to implement a socialist system, now that the Maoists and the MLs have reconciled?

Also, what do you think about the CPI (M) and Kerala? I think they are doing to great job there, with the Naxalites not really going anywhere, do you think the CPI (M) can become attractive for the entirety of India?


 No.7781

>>7778

What is the CPI(M) doing in Kerala?


 No.7788

File: 31a1f84fe726460⋯.jpg (75.95 KB, 800x454, 400:227, Castro and Mengistu.jpg)

>>7778

>Is there are legitimate chance to implement a socialist system

No. Communists can certainly develop Nepal economically, promote literacy, etc., but any talk of building socialism is impracticable at the moment.

The best Nepal can hope for is a long period of "controlled" capitalist development under the leadership of the working-class.

The USSR was able to build socialism because it was a giant country richly endowed with raw materials and a significant (if not numerically large) working-class. The countries of Eastern Europe were able to build socialism with help from the USSR, same thing with Cuba, Vietnam and the DPRK (whereas China is similarly large enough to build socialism more or less using its own forces.)

But countries like Ethiopia, Cambodia, Nepal and Afghanistan can't really build socialism from the get-go. The Soviets envisioned that these states would embark on a "non-capitalist road of development" with help from the socialist countries, but that didn't pan out so well.

As for Kerala, I don't know enough to say. I have heard it has done many good things in that region for the past half century though.

Post last edited at

 No.7792

File: c34b7ddc1fb637c⋯.jpg (212.54 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, Kerala2006_(12) (1).JPG)

>>7781

The CPI(M) is the ruling party in Kerala. Kerala has achieved the highest human development on the entire Indian subcontinent, democratically managed welfare systems, strong worker movements and unions and is generally a pretty comfy place to live. They also have quite a booming economy known as the "Kerala Model".


 No.7794

Can you give me an explanation of Laos?

Is it Socialist?

What is the economy like?


 No.7795

Best biography of Vladimir Lenin?


 No.7796

>>7795

and Fidel Castro too, forgot to add.


 No.7797

File: d671c52ca3cb64c⋯.jpg (32.32 KB, 282x464, 141:232, Lenin and the Russian Revo….jpg)

>>7794

Laos, like Vietnam, describes itself as a "socialist-oriented market economy," i.e. it has not yet built socialism and is instead focusing on economic development as a precondition for it.

>>7795

https://archive.org/details/lininandtherussi035179mbp

>>7796

Tad Szulc's is good. There's also Fidel's autobiography: http://b-ok.xyz/book/1062200/d8e6c4


 No.7798

>>7797

are you on Leftypol btw?


 No.7799

>>7788

If you don't view commodity production (for foreign trade) as inherently capitalist, what keeps small countries from developing socialism? Is it only a question of capitalist embargo? China will still trade with them.


 No.7800

>>7798

like active on leftypol?


 No.7803

File: b8e38a79f4af7a6⋯.jpg (27.52 KB, 376x450, 188:225, Kim Jong Il.jpg)

>>7798

No. I don't post on there.

>>7799

As Marx wrote, "development of productive forces is an absolutely necessary practical premise, because without it privation, want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business [of capitalist society] would necessarily be restored."

In the DPRK, for example, when the USSR came to an end and famine hit the country, bribe-taking and black markets sprung up as everyday facts of life because the socialist economy, at its relatively low level of productive forces and with its agricultural sector in disarray due to lack of vital imports, could barely provide for the population.

I'd think that Nepal lacks the technical expertise and industry required for a planned economy, unless Nepal's economy were simply treated as a part of the economy of China or a socialist India.

If Nepal were to "build socialism" tomorrow (expropriate the small capitalist class, etc.) it would find itself utterly unprepared to replace it with a planned economy, both in terms of actual planning and in terms of satisfying the needs of the population.

Post last edited at

 No.7804

>>7803

What about China supporting them? Doesn't China hold up proletarian internationalism? Speaking of which, can you tell me about Cuban-Chinese trade relations?


 No.7806

your thoughts on deng xiaoping


 No.7808

File: 254f6bf9d80dd71⋯.jpg (18.48 KB, 410x333, 410:333, Deng Kim Il Sung.jpg)

>>7804

As I said, Chinese support won't magically make Nepal's economy ready for socialist transformation. It'll still need a period of economic development before building socialism.

Cuban-Chinese ties in general (diplomatic and economic) are good, as far as I know. Fidel Castro and his successors have explicitly defended China's economic system as socialism.

>>7806

In domestic affairs, Hua and Deng overcame the ultra-leftism of the Cultural Revolution, and the latter pointed out that China's main task to was to develop its productive forces. I think he will be regarded favorably for that by all subsequent generations of Chinese people.

In foreign affairs, he moved away from the overt anti-Sovietism and the Mao and Hua Guofeng years (e.g. after 1982 the Chinese stopped calling the USSR a capitalist country), although continued Chinese fears of Soviet "hegemonism" led them to still support the Mujahideen and Pol Pot against Soviet and Vietnamese troops.

Post last edited at

 No.7810

Is dengism a real ideology? I always think of it that Deng just analyzed Chinas economy and realised they need to develop their productive forces so they can build a stable socialist state. But is that really a ideology in its own?


 No.7811

File: ff7dcfb659f15dd⋯.jpg (68.37 KB, 570x528, 95:88, Deng and Kim Il Sung.jpg)

>>7810

To quote the Constitution of the CPC,

>The Communist Party of China takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development as its guide to action. . . .

>After the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Party Central Committee, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Deng Xiaoping as their chief representative, analyzed their experience, both positive and negative, gained since the founding of the People's Republic, emancipated their minds, sought truth from facts, shifted the focus of the work of the whole Party onto economic development and carried out reform and opening to the outside world, ushering in a new era of development in the cause of socialism, gradually formulating the line, principles and policies concerning the building of socialism with Chinese characteristics and expounding the basic questions concerning the building, consolidation and development of socialism in China, and thus creating Deng Xiaoping Theory. Deng Xiaoping Theory is the outcome of the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism with the practice of contemporary China and the features of the times, a continuation and development of Mao Zedong Thought under new historical conditions; it represents a new stage of development of Marxism in China, it is Marxism of contemporary China and it is the crystallized, collective wisdom of the Communist Party of China. It is guiding the socialist modernization of China from victory to victory.

The CPC doesn't treat Deng Xiaoping Theory the same way the DPRK treats Juche (or, for that matter, the CPC under Mao treated Mao Zedong Thought.) The very phrase "socialism with Chinese characteristics" implies that it is a path that the CPC is pursuing based on conditions in China, and Deng himself advised foreign leaders to study their own country's conditions rather than imitating the road followed by other socialist states.

So in the context of China it certainly functions as something distinct yet related to Mao Zedong Thought. In the context of foreign countries though it's just "apply socialism based on your own conditions and enact policies based on what works."


 No.7812

>>7811

But the socialist market economy and the Deng Xiaoping theory could apply to socialists Nations with under developed production forces, right?


 No.7813

File: b5abd8756f17e73⋯.jpg (82.39 KB, 1008x864, 7:6, Pinochet's helicopter tour….jpg)

How are you not a thief, liar, and if you force communism on others like is historically always done, a murderer?

Private property and voluntary contracts, with rule of law protecting these and other rights, are far superior to the communist/socialist/marx system(s). The communist utopia is a lie.


 No.7814

File: e8b693009191efb⋯.jpg (687.16 KB, 1466x2211, 1466:2211, Manifesto.jpg)

>>7812

It could.

>>7813

The working-class expropriates the expropriators. It is the capitalist class which, through the enclosures and other acts, created the proletariat via the ruination of the independent peasantry, artisans, shopowners, etc. The workers are taking that which belongs to them.

As for "lying," Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto that, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

Class struggle is inherent in societies divided into exploiters and exploited. Revolutions are not "forced" on anyone, but arise as the culmination of this struggle, whether in the form of the bourgeoisie overthrowing the feudal nobility and suppressing its resistance, or in the form of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and suppressing its resistance.

Private property is the legal means by which the capitalist class exploits the workers. The "rule of law" is that of the bourgeois state which criminalizes efforts by workers to organize against capitalism. Speaking of "voluntary contracts" between capitalists and workers is ridiculous when one side owns the means of production while the other is compelled to work for the capitalist or starve.

>The communist utopia is a lie.

The bourgeois utopia of "voluntary contracts" based on respect for "natural rights" is a lie to legitimize exploitation. Any talk of democracy and human nature goes right out the window when the capitalist system is threatened, hence your Pinochet helicopter meme.


 No.7815

File: d452f133c9d1c45⋯.jpg (47.75 KB, 400x400, 1:1, grr.jpg)

>The workers are taking that which belongs to them.

Lie. They are taking that which does NOT belong to them.

>The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims

Lie. They conceal it all the time.

>Revolutions are not "forced" on anyone

Lie. The number of people that have been murdered by your 'revolutions' in the past ~100 years shows just how much of a liar you are.

>compelled to work for the capitalist or starve.

Lie. They can work to feed themselves without contracting with anyone else if they choose. Unlike under communism, where you're compelled under penalty of death or imprisonment in a death/labor/re-education camp, after your property is stolen.

>The bourgeois utopia of "voluntary contracts"

It's not a utopia, liar. It's freedom and liberty, neither of which is easy or without risk.

>Any talk of democracy and human nature goes right out the window when the capitalist system is threatened, hence your Pinochet helicopter meme.

More lies. Communism is not democracy, and it's not just capitalism you threaten, it's our lives and the lives of our families, and our rights and property. It's defense against YOU, the AGGRESSOR, the historical MASS MURDERER.


 No.7816

File: c48960576af7669⋯.png (229.86 KB, 311x494, 311:494, State-and-Revolution.png)

>>7815

>Lie. They are taking that which does NOT belong to them.

By what "right" does the capitalist have to exploit labor?

>Lie. They conceal it all the time.

Give examples.

>The number of people that have been murdered by your 'revolutions' in the past ~100 years shows just how much of a liar you are.

First off, you evaded what I wrote. I pointed out that communists do not "force" revolutions; these arise out of class struggle. Naturally revolutions are violent events, whether bourgeois revolutions (e.g. the American War of Independence and American Civil War) or socialist revolutions.

But in both cases it is the overthrown classes who put up resistance, which is what leads to violence. To quote one bourgeois author:

"The Soviet regime, be it noted, was in no sense a 'totalitarian police state' during the first ten months of its existence. The Council of People's Commissars or Sovnarkom (in Russian abbreviation) became in late November of 1917 a coalition of Bolsheviks and Left SR's. Civil liberties were not suppressed. . . Djerzhinsky's policemen did little during the winter and spring of 1917-18, there being little organized opposition to the new order. Other political parties, including Kadets, Mensheviks, SR's, and even anarchists, monarchists, and reactionaries, were free to pursue their purposes. . . .

An elected legislature, the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, met frequently, debated freely on questions of public policy, and reached decisions by majority vote. . . Lenin. . . appealed naïvely to the owners and managers of Russian industry to cooperate with the new regime."

(Frederick L. Schuman, Government in the Soviet Union, 1967, p. 48, 50.)

The October Revolution itself was practically bloodless. It was the White armies, and the imperialist powers (the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan), which counter-attacked in order to restore bourgeois-landowner rule and recover lost foreign investments.

Not to mention it was the communists who fought against World War I, who sought to avert World War II, and who have opposed the other murderous wars waged by the imperialists.

>They can work to feed themselves without contracting with anyone else if they choose.

They can start a small business that will go bankrupt in a year or two. That's what is meant by "work to feed themselves."

>It's freedom and liberty, neither of which is easy or without risk.

As Lenin pointed out, "Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners."

>Communism is not democracy

The socialist revolution creates the conditions for a far greater democracy than exists under capitalism.

Again to quote Lenin, "Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the 'petty'—supposedly petty—details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for 'paupers'!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,—we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy."

Here is a good example of socialist democracy: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/5skve6/how_soviet_citizens_shaped_the_their_constitutions/


 No.7817

>>7816

>who sought to avert World War II

Do you mean the Bolsheviks or communists in general? If you mean Bolsheviks can you elaborate?


 No.7818

File: faca79bf9f85c87⋯.jpg (118.39 KB, 800x600, 4:3, judeo bolsheviks.jpg)

File: 5ba278eb69b6561⋯.jpg (155.87 KB, 720x960, 3:4, Memorial for the Victims o….jpg)

File: 3864b1bea1a263a⋯.jpg (16.36 KB, 280x294, 20:21, The KGB placed the bodies ….jpg)

File: 284768d57e43382⋯.jpg (95.43 KB, 500x390, 50:39, The killing fields, Phnom ….jpg)

File: 95ee28a3a2c86c9⋯.jpg (21.56 KB, 266x233, 266:233, Thousands of innocent peop….jpg)

>>7816

>By what "right"

Hypocrite. You have no right to impose communism on others.

All your feigning ignorance, your intellectual dishonesty, your moral equivalency and lies make it pointless and fruitless talking to you.

>muh utopia! it's just because we want a better economic system, that's all! every time it inevitably fails, it's other peoples' fault!

Oh no, they might go bankrupt in a year or two and not lose any necessary assets, then have to start over! Better than getting your property stolen and murdered, you no good liar.


 No.7819

File: a5022e8982e2c9a⋯.jpg (66.9 KB, 800x502, 400:251, projector.jpg)

>>7818

>All your feigning ignorance, your intellectual dishonesty, your moral equivalency and lies make it pointless and fruitless talking to you.


 No.7820

File: c124830a61e2d66⋯.mp4 (1.93 MB, 480x480, 1:1, Socialism over 100 years.mp4)

>>7819

That fact is that communism is not the government before it invades. They are the invaders against established governments, therefore they do not have the moral high ground.


 No.7821

>>7820

So anyone who fought against the Bolsheviks after they seized power were acting immorally?


 No.7822

File: d6abe6c03af781c⋯.jpg (51.45 KB, 255x300, 17:20, nothing absolute.jpg)

File: 376749b52784cc6⋯.jpg (27.96 KB, 506x348, 253:174, socialism-Thomas-Sowell.jpg)

>>7821

Seriously? Of course not.


 No.7823

>>7822

Elaborate please, because I just applied your logic.

>They are the invaders against established governments, therefore they do not have the moral high ground.


 No.7824

File: 0b3cd2cce87de07⋯.jpg (41.3 KB, 400x272, 25:17, communism in one image.jpg)

File: ab0171a0e8dc717⋯.jpg (51.58 KB, 850x400, 17:8, stalin on destroying ameri….jpg)

>>7823

There's more to it than just being established. The correct moral and ethical standards are paramount. Are they based on God and His standard of what's right, or Marx, Stalin or whomever is running the death camps at the current time?


 No.7825

>>7824

>There's more to it than just being established

That was obviously my point.

>Are they based on God and His standard of what's right, or Marx, Stalin or whomever is running the death camps at the current time?

Take Ismail's posts seriously and find out. He's a pretty smart guy.


 No.7826

File: 267e1558f7e66ed⋯.jpg (37.28 KB, 377x400, 377:400, commies.jpg)

>>7825

That was rhetorical. I already know the answer.


 No.7827

File: d809922cad559ad⋯.webm (3.25 MB, 1440x1080, 4:3, Opiate_of_the_masses.webm)

>>7826

I know you do.


 No.7828

File: fc0393932c57b0b⋯.webm (1.02 MB, 630x354, 105:59, tips fedora.webm)

>>7827

Well... bye.


 No.7829

File: ad1050352477de9⋯.jpg (32.02 KB, 329x500, 329:500, Collective security.jpg)

>>7817

>Do you mean the Bolsheviks or communists in general? If you mean Bolsheviks can you elaborate?

The Soviet Union promoted collective security, i.e. teaming up with the bourgeois democracies (UK, France, US) to stand up to the aggressive acts of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. For example, the Soviets proposed embargoing Italy for its invasion of Ethiopia, and proposed supporting the Spanish Republic against the fascist rebels and the copious German and Italian forces that came to their aid.

But the bourgeois democracies had other plans. They wanted to set the fascists against the communists and thus destroy the USSR while weakening Hitler. That was the real origin of "appeasement."

Here's a good academic work on the subject: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=E459C2DD19049D7B7883AC4EBE5165EE

>>7818

>Oh no, they might go bankrupt in a year or two and not lose any necessary assets, then have to start over!

It isn't a question of "might." Only about 20% of American businesses survive their first year.

>>7820

For such a supporter of "freedom and liberty" as yourself, you ought to know that appealing to the existence of "established governments" is asinine.

Does not the American Declaration of Independence say, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"?

Tsarist Russia had no democratic mandate. The bourgeois Provisional Government that succeeded it had no such mandate either. The Bolsheviks had the mandate of the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which enthusiastically backed the October Revolution. Had not the revolution occurred, Russia would have been thrown into a military dictatorship since the weak, vacillating, unpopular Provisional Government was incapable of leading the country much longer.

>>7824

That Stalin quote is a fabrication.

Also you show photos of victims of the Khmer Rouge, ignoring that it was socialist Vietnam which overthrew Pol Pot, and that it was the CIA which helped arm the KR's forces throughout the 1980s in the "battle against communism." Pol Pot himself said shortly before his death that it was "over for communism" and that his only wish was for Cambodia to remain friendly to the West.


 No.7830

>>7815

>They can work to feed themselves without contracting with anyone else if they choose.

>It's freedom and liberty, neither of which is easy or without risk.

holy fuck imagine being this naive

>>7818

>Hypocrite. You have no right to impose communism on others.

So I can steal something from you, but then if you decide to steal it back you're a "hypocrite"? You didn't answer the question. What gives the capitalist the right to exploit workers?

>Killing Fields pic

Perpetrated by pol pot AFAIK, not by a communist

>Solzhenitsyn

lmao might as well post goebbels quotes at this point

>All your feigning ignorance, your intellectual dishonesty, your moral equivalency and lies make it pointless and fruitless talking to you.

Projection much? Or wait, is this bait?

>>7824

>obviously fake stalin quote

ok nvm it's bait


 No.7834

Basic question. What's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism? I'm aware of neoliberalism, but what makes communism/socialism incompatible with the two?


 No.7837

File: 01ef77847cdbc3d⋯.jpg (406.91 KB, 680x1024, 85:128, Thomas Jefferson.jpg)

>>7834

"Modern" libertarianism, like the Libertarian Party in the US, is just a variety of liberalism.

Liberalism is an ideology that speaks of man's "natural rights," including the "right" to own property. Liberals hold that the foundations of freedom are rooted in such rights. Therefore it is an inherently idealist ideology at odds with the interests of the working-class.

The original draft of the American Declaration of Independence was actually supposed to stress the Founders were struggling for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." But Jefferson changed "property" to "happiness," which has a far wider and more significant meaning. Still, it does show that the Founders were struggling above all for an end to colonial restrictions on their property.

So in terms of US politics, the Democrats and Republicans (and Libertarians) would all count as supporters of liberalism philosophically.


 No.7859

What's a good "commentary/guide" as I read Capital Volume 1, Ismail?

I've heard David Harvey and kapitalism101 were good picks.


 No.7860

File: fcc56943d8b3bdb⋯.jpg (64.89 KB, 311x494, 311:494, Engels-on-Capital.jpg)

>>7859

They are, although both suck outside of specifically talking about Marx's economic views.

Engels wrote a synopsis: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/index.htm

Kautsky, in his pre-renegade period, also wrote a good account of Marx's analysis of capitalism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm


 No.7871

File: f2f84454b09069e⋯.jpg (1.37 MB, 1376x2000, 86:125, Родословное дерево совреме….jpg)

Was the right of people to self-determination proclaimed by the Soviet government a compromise like for example the NEP or is it one of the key parts of the ML theory? IIRC, Rosa Luxemburg and other German communists criticized it from the left, like „it's a give in to the bourgeois nationalists“.


 No.7872

File: 87533fd5b88236d⋯.jpg (119.9 KB, 705x621, 235:207, Leninnnnnnnnnn.jpg)

>>7871

It is indeed "one of the key parts of the ML theory," having been formulated over a decade prior to the October Revolution.

You can find a compilation of Lenin's writings on the subject here: https://archive.org/details/LeninNationalLiberationSocialEmancipation


 No.7876

Do you think that "identity politics" is the reason for the major problems the modern radical left faces? Also, what do you think about the idea that COINTELPRO and several secret services used to inject IdPol into socialist groups to neuter them and to submit them by using divide and conquer?

I'm talking specifically about leftist reddit. You have language policing there which reaches terminal proportions. Even saying stuff like "useful idiot" causes you to be banned. You'd also often encounter black supremacy and black nationalism like "kill all whites tbh" and similar shit. In my opinion this is cancer and a bourgeois tool.


 No.7881

File: 5a5d31565d37af2⋯.png (1.6 MB, 1592x1040, 199:130, huey-newton-boston-college.png)

>>7876

>Do you think that "identity politics" is the reason for the major problems the modern radical left faces?

I think it can be a divisive factor, although I don't think you can explain the present state of the left overall by it (it'd be like blaming Trump's election on Tumblr.)

The main problems with the American left are:

1. Since the 1950s communism has been a "dirty word" and the CPUSA was smashed as an effective political force by McCarthyism, followed by the deterioration of its political line into just tailing the Democratic Party in everything.

2. The New Left of the 1960s was student-based and inclined to oppose the socialist countries as well as propound theories that the working-class is inherently conservative, that it has been "bought off" by capitalism, that trade unions are reactionary because their leaderships were bureaucratic and right-wing, etc., all of which hindered organizing among workers.

3. "Fall of communism," 1989-1991. Obviously had a significant effect on the world in general.

4. From the 1970s up till today a lot of leftists are fixated on "unity" between their relatively small groups and other relatively small groups. Since such unity is based on mere desire to unite, it often involves unprincipled compromises and so you end up with a slightly less smaller group that lasts for a few years before imploding.

As for COINTELPRO, as far as I know the extent of utilizing "identity politics" was to set the Black Panthers against groups that denounced Marxism as "irrelevant" to Black people and wanted to forsake political struggle in favor of "rediscovering African heritage" and/or migrating to Africa.

Mostly though COINTELPRO's activities consisted of fomenting strife between different sections of the party by forging letters claiming that Huey Newton was a fake revolutionary or whatever.

>Even saying stuff like "useful idiot" causes you to be banned.

I actually don't like the phrase simply because it was used by Cold Warriors to delegitimize every single person involved in civil rights, the peace movement, and so on as unwitting dupes of international communism. I wouldn't ban or even warn someone for it though, and if the issue is that the word "idiot" is problematic then... that's just silly.

Phrases like "kill all whites tbh" in the context of an Internet message board only matter if, instead of being just a joke, it somewhat reflects the politics of the person posting it. Like if you think the history of the US is one of "settler-colonialists" who need to be expelled from all of North America or otherwise the entirety of US and Canadian land revert to indigenous control, then that's an erroneous political line that isn't upheld by either the FRSO, WWP, PSL, or... really any party or group I'm aware of. As far as I know not even Red Guards Austin (a Maoist group) holds that line.


 No.7883

>>7881

Brilliant.


 No.7884

>>7881

Agree on all points.


 No.7888

What made you abandon your Hoxhaite anti-revisionism from a couple of years ago?


 No.7889

File: fe729ac967af56c⋯.jpg (50.75 KB, 493x512, 493:512, Shehu Khrushchev Hoxha.jpg)

>>7888

I simply read up on the USSR, China, and other socialist countries from sources that weren't Enver Hoxha or Maoist polemics. "Is the Red Flag Flying?" by Albert Szymanski is particularly useful. In this way I was able to see that Albanian and Maoist "analyses" were generally full of distortions and played on the prejudices of newbie communists in the West.

To quote Szymanski writing elsewhere:

>The new left movement of the 1960’s grew up independently of the Marxist-Leninist tradition. Its roots were in the pacifist and social democratic tradition. It moved to Marxism-Leninism because of identification with the struggles of the Cubans, Vietnamese and Chinese (during their Cultural Revolution). The characteristics of these three revolutions did not seem to us to have anything in common with the image of Communism/Soviet Union that we had been conditioned to accept, and thus we became strongly predisposed to a Maoist type argument that the Soviet Union’s brand of “Communism” really was a capitalism of the Nazi type, i.e., what we had believed all along, while the “Communism” of China, Cuba and Vietnam was a qualitatively different phenomenon – people’s power, or the realization of the true; socialist ideas of equalitarianism, democracy and control of production by the common people. The Maoist alternative allowed formerly strongly anti-communist youth to easily make the transition to Marxism without having to question the fabricated stereotype of Soviet communism they had grown up with, while romanticizing Cuban, Vietnamese and Chinese Communism, portraying the two types as having nothing in common. At no point were the great majority of U.S. Marxists ever sympathetic to the Soviet Union, This appeal to petty bourgeois youth is identical to the appeal of Trotskyism, for Trotskyism too, offers the possibility of having your cake and eating it too. Maoism in the advanced capitalist countries, as does Trotskyism, idealizes and romanticizes the revolutionary process and revolutionary societies, both fail to appreciate the twists and turns, compromises/strategic retreats, mistakes, and patience inherent in the revolutionary process in the real world. Both thus tend to condemn processes and regimes which are unable to live up to unrealistic ideals, and both then tend to become objectively anti-revolutionary forces opposing rather than supporting progressive and revolutionary process which are doing the best they are able in a complex world. . . .

>The real lesson is that the world Marxist-Leninist movement can not fall into the Trotskyist error of idealization and romantization, and its corollary of bitter denunciation when reality can not meet the ideals, and that the world movement can not have a single Church and Pope which knows what everyone must do and to which we look to as the model. Peking can not replace Moscow, nor should Moscow be transformed from Rome to anti-Rome. The experience should have taught us the necessity to think for ourselves, to place the interests of no state above a revolutionary policy, to understand the need for revolutionary patience, and to appreciate the curves in the road to revolution and the necessity of supporting, but not tailing, all progressive struggles and socialist regimes.

No longer having to operate from the assumption that everything Enver Hoxha ever did was correct or "explainable" (e.g. religion had historically been used to divide Albanians, therefore I lamely argued it was "understandable" that Hoxha decided to close down every church and mosque and go so far as to outlaw the very act of private worship), I was able to recognize that, while certainly a socialist country, Albania was not the only one around during the 1960s-80s. I also recognized that many of Hoxha's policies were counterproductive (prohibiting the seeking of foreign credits and investment) and his analyses often utterly wrong (e.g. equating Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia to Hitler's aggression, or praising the Mujahideen as anti-imperialist bourgeois democrats.)

I also found that my practice wasn't much different from that of folks on the Internet who extol Bordiga or De Leon. You take refuge in the ideological certainty defending an obscure person gives you, and it allows you to mask your ignorance. I would seek out "correct" books on the USSR, i.e. ones published during the 1930s-50s and which were clearly supportive of the line of the CPSU under Stalin. As for the post-Stalin USSR, as I said I relied on Albanian and Maoist sources. I felt it wasn't worth reading much else about the Soviet Union after 1953 because why waste time reading about "revisionist" changes to the state, party, and economy beyond "anti-revisionist" texts which affirm that Khrushchev ruined everything?

So it was simply a process of getting rid of dogmatic thinking.

Post last edited at

 No.7890

>>7889

What was the problem with Hoxha closing down Churches and Mosques?


 No.7891

File: 4d10e8c6274d9af⋯.png (29.45 KB, 1849x103, 1849:103, religion under socialism.png)

File: e5c84722eaa7c05⋯.png (26.19 KB, 1399x138, 1399:138, religie marx.png)

>>7890

It's a move that unnecessarily robs people of their freedom to adhere to whatever religious or spiritual views they want. Even if you accept the "orthodox" marxist view of religion as the opium of the people (which I don't since it seems to be an overly one-sided explanation of a much more complex phenomenon), this would still imply that religious people should never be persecuted directly. Instead, it's the material conditions which should be changed.


 No.7892

File: 138019dfa5e2f5a⋯.jpg (1.61 MB, 1714x1306, 857:653, mao hoxha.jpg)

>>7890

Konstantin Chernenko, one of many leaders Hoxha denigrated as a "revisionist," summarized the Marxist-Leninist view toward religion: "To our Party, the struggle against religious prejudices has always been an ideological struggle of a scientific, materialist world view against an antiscientific, religious one. We are waging this struggle only by means of persuasion and education. The Communist Party has always held that all attempts to make believers give up their convictions by coercive measures are not only futile, but also harmful, that atheism can be spread, not through prohibiting religion, but by means of consistent persuasion, by drawing believers into an active social life. After all, you can't order a man to think scientifically." (Human Rights in Soviet Society. 1981. pp. 65-70.)

Marx, Engels and Lenin were clear in supporting freedom of religion and opposing the persecution of people merely for their religious beliefs. Two quotes should suffice:

Marx: "We know that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as Socialism grows, its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a great part."

Lenin: "Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. . . . Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church."

It wasn't a question of closing down certain churches or mosques whom barely anyone attended anymore. That was done in the USSR and other socialist countries with the spread of scientific education and with the consent of the local population.

Under Hoxha, every single religious building in the country was arbitrarily closed down, and all clergy were either obliged to give up their profession or be arrested. The very act of privately worshiping a deity was effectively made illegal, which only served to alienate the government from the people. Only Albania did this, no other socialist country (not even China during the Cultural Revolution) undertook such a sectarian policy.


 No.7893

>>7892

But it worked, didn't it? The alienating the government from the people part sounds like opportunism to me, just like Kautsky's fetish for bourgeois democracy.


 No.7894

File: 511e1caa5349f31⋯.jpg (13.35 KB, 350x443, 350:443, It is Hoxha.jpg)

>>7893

>But it worked, didn't it?

No, the total repression of religion was neither a popular policy nor did it ensure the removal of religion from society.

As Marx, Engels and Lenin pointed out, the way to combat religion is through persuasion and science. Outlawing personal belief is an ultra-left deviation.

>The alienating the government from the people part sounds like opportunism to me, just like Kautsky's fetish for bourgeois democracy.

The comparison is asinine. Lenin pointed out that Kautsky was going against the will of the Russian people by calling for the Constituent Assembly, which set itself against the authority of the Congress of Soviets and local soviets across Russia, which were infinitely more representative of the people than the bourgeois politicians who comprised much of the Assembly.

Freedom of religion has always been supported as a democratic demand by Marxists. It is enshrined in the constitutions of every socialist country (including Albania's until 1976.) To equate it with bourgeois democracy, i.e. a form of democracy specifically tailored to the interests of a class that obviously doesn't rule under socialism, is nonsensical.


 No.7895

>>7894

Lenin also argued against Kautsky that a proletarian democracy necessarily has to exclude the bourgeoisie from the voting franchise. Both Islam and Christianity advocate for private property and their priests definitely did, so this amounts to letting bourgeois propagandists roam free.


 No.7896

File: c3710b3f9126aae⋯.jpg (63.25 KB, 540x780, 9:13, 1982 congress of Christian….jpg)

>>7895

But there were also plenty of priests and imams who agreed not to mix religion with politics. In addition, a number of countries (such as the DPRK, GDR, Poland) actually have/had religiously-based parties and groups operating in alliance with the communists, promoting the construction of socialism and finding bridges between religious believers and Marxism.

It's also worth noting that the Albanian authorities already struggled against the reactionary clergy in the first few years after liberation. Fascist collaborators were sentenced. Just like during the 1920s and early 30s the USSR had to wage a campaign against clergymen seeking the restoration of Tsarism and the unjust privileges of the Orthodox Church. This is distinct from outlawing all clergy, shutting down all religious buildings, and penalizing private worship itself.

By the time of Albania's "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" (begun in 1966), the clergy represented no serious threat to socialist construction. But even if it did, the experience of the USSR and other socialist countries demonstrated that there was no need to outlaw religious worship in general.

Finally, Lenin argued that the exploiters and the strata close to them had to be excluded from voting due to their relative strength and influence in the Russia of 1918. That is why Lenin wrote in his exposé of Kautsky that "the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in general."

He adds that it would be mistaken "to guarantee in advance that the impending proletarian revolutions in Europe will all, or the majority of them, be necessarily accompanied by restriction of the franchise for the bourgeoisie. It may be so. After the war and the experience of the Russian revolution it probably will be so; but it is not absolutely necessary for the exercise of the dictatorship, it is not an indispensable characteristic of the logical concept 'dictatorship', it does not enter as an indispensable condition in the historical and class concept 'dictatorship'."

He later wrote that "the disfranchisement of a section of the citizens does not mean, as was the case in the majority of bourgeois-democratic republics, that a definite category of citizens are disfranchised for life. It applies only to the exploiters, to those who, in violation of the fundamental laws of the socialist Soviet Republic, persist in their efforts to cling to their exploiters’ status and to preserve capitalist relations. Consequently, in the Soviet Republic, on the one hand, as socialism grows daily stronger and the number of those who are objectively able to remain exploiters or preserve capitalist relations is reduced, the number of disfranchised persons will automatically diminish. Even now the disfranchised persons in Russia constitute barely two or three per cent of the population. On the other hand, in the very near future, the cessation of foreign invasion and the completion of the expropriation of the expropriators may, under certain circumstances, create a situation where the proletarian state will choose other methods of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and will introduce unrestricted universal suffrage."

That unrestricted universal suffrage was enacted in the 1936 Constitution, when there was no longer need to deny the franchise to former capitalists, priests, ex-policemen of the Tsarist regime, etc.

Post last edited at

 No.7897

>>5721

How do I help myself not be a brainlet? No books are in Greenlandic but I can read English and Danish (the latter being better of the two) but it took me a fucking month to slog through the Manifesto since my brain shuts down after 10 sentences in English and 20 in Danish. I want to read, but I find myself continuing to be a brainlet on lots of things and I don’t know how to train.


 No.7898

>>5721

And a question not related to my own self loathing.

Thoughts on Trotsky’s idea of “different revolution for different conditions” (which he applied to a potential revolution in the US should it occur)? He stated how a socialist revolution in the US would vastly differentiate from the Bolshevik revolution and likely have a different outcome of its revolution which would be favorable to it. While in that instance he referenced the United States, he considered it applicable to nearly all countries. Do you believe that what he said is true? That various forms of socialism would and perhaps should be applied to different regions of the world; and furthermore, do you agree with it? That Luxemburg’s ideas are better suited for Germany than the ideas of Lenin, Bordiga to Italy, some form of left anarchism to god knows where, etc?


 No.7901

>>7897

Marx was actually trying to write in the language of the working class, which means the working class of the 19th century. There is not only a langauge shift over the past 150, but also a shift in epistemology (a worker 2018 is looking at the world very differently). I recommend reading an abridged version of capital from modern times, I recently read Michael Heinrich's abridgement, but warning, it's ultraleft/leftcom so I disagree on some things on such topics as imperialism. But it's generally a solid introduction to Marx's Capital. Regarding the latter, while the first Chapter certainly is very dense in exhausting your attention quite quickly, it gets better after a few pages. Marx takes his time to explain his ideas more slowly and in-depth, and many things laid out in chapter one will be explained in detail later, so it gets easier.

I read Marx in German and I found it to be way more simple and down to earth than the English version - to give you an example, Verdinglichung is a pretty basic word in German, whereas "reification" sounds way more intellectual. I'd imagine this would apply to Danish as well, considering Danish and German are so similar.


 No.7902

>>7901

over the past 150 years*


 No.7904

File: 6dae427150f44d7⋯.jpg (42.04 KB, 640x360, 16:9, Lenin returns in April 191….jpg)

>>7898

>He stated how a socialist revolution in the US would vastly differentiate from the Bolshevik revolution. . . Do you believe that what he said is true?

Trotsky held that the socialist revolution would look different in different countries, but that it would proceed via the same path of the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the vanguard party.

Trotsky is simply repeating what Lenin wrote, and which Stalin agreed with. Marx and Engels themselves said that socialism would not be reached the same way everywhere. This is just a basic point made by Marxists, it isn't some unique discovery by Trotsky. You can hear the same argument made by Brezhnev and Mao, Tito and Hoxha, etc.

But these people (Trotsky included) didn't mean it in terms of "Luxemburg's ideas are fine for Germany" or "anarchism is fine for Spain" or whatever. Trotsky explicitly argued that the task of his followers in all countries was to set up "Bolshevik-Leninist" (i.e. Trotskyist) parties to lead the proletariat toward socialism. That's why he ended up breaking with folks like Bordiga.


 No.7913

File: cd48f471d43a997⋯.jpg (99.44 KB, 868x474, 434:237, cockshottnorks.jpg)

What are your opinions on North Korea? Is it socialist in any sense? Cockshott apparently thinks so but hasn't clarified why.


 No.7914

File: 7acd48c3ac9a5cc⋯.jpg (56.42 KB, 620x398, 310:199, korea-kim-jung-il_1736522i.jpg)

>>7913

Yes. The DPRK's economy has remained fundamentally the same since the 1950s, so I don't see why it wouldn't be socialist then but not now.


 No.7915

Why werw Dengs reforms necessary?

Why is China socialist?

Is China Imperialist? If no, why?

How is Xi Jinping furthering Socialism?

I 'am getting interested in China as a socialist nation and want to learn more about it!


 No.7917

File: b8b6fbcba2985f8⋯.pdf (115.59 KB, Ten-Great-Principles-of-th….pdf)

>>7914

Is this document falsified? Does North Korea not have an official codification of absolute leadership by one individual and hereditary succession?

How is any of this socialist let alone Marxist?


 No.7919

>>7917

Ismail said the following in the DPRK thread:

>According to Juche ideologists, "the Leader" originates from the people and derives his strength from them, and they from him/her. That obviously doesn't jibe with Divine Right which explicitly goes against popular sovereignty.

I don't think I agree with this either though, because the North Korean leader doesn't seem to be an actual representative of the people's will any more than a monarch. "The people" in this sense is just an abstract notion. If Ismail or anyone else can point me to some concrete way that the DPRK leadership has "represented" or "personified" the people's will I'll gladly reconsider my position.

I didn't know the official codification specified that the leadership is hereditary, that's quite a surprise if the document is real. But of course hereditary succession is how it has de facto been until now.


 No.7923

File: 18eb143ed64f557⋯.jpg (182.39 KB, 960x720, 4:3, Kim Il Sung at 14 organize….jpg)

>>7915

>Why werw Dengs reforms necessary?

Because the Chinese economy found itself damaged as a result of ten years of the Cultural Revolution, and Deng argued the best way to achieve rapid economic growth that would restore support to the CPC among the population as well as strengthen the socialist prospects of the country was to initiate far-ranging reforms.

>Why is China socialist?

Because socialism is the dominant mode of production. Capitalists are not the ruling class. What capitalistic activity does take place is subject to the restrictions imposed by the state which controls the major industries as well as banking, transport, etc.

China isn't imperialist. It does not meet Lenin's criteria of what an imperialist country is.

Xi Jinping is laying greater stress on Marxism-Leninism and the leading role of the CPC in public life and the affairs of enterprises both public and private.

>>7917

It doesn't seem the document is falsified; it's consistent with materials officially published by the DPRK.

You can criticize the role of "the Leader" as put forward by DPRK materials, but I don't think it suddenly turns a socialist country into a non-socialist country, any more than Tito being proclaimed President for life or Mao being exalted as the Great Helmsman and Lin Biao officially designated his successor by the 9th CPC Congress.

>>7919

You can criticize the DPRK's conception of leadership, but I still don't think it's equivalent to divine right. Basically, they argue that all movements require a great leader to lead them and for the masses to support that leader. The latter embodies the virtues of the movement. Kim Il Sung embodies the struggle for Korean independence and the construction of socialism, and his son and grandson have continued this path and therefore are continuing in the role of "the Leader" of the Korean people and the cause of socialism in Korea.


 No.7928

>>7923

>You can criticize the role of "the Leader" as put forward by DPRK materials, but I don't think it suddenly turns a socialist country into a non-socialist country

But what makes North Korea socialist? The simple fact that it has no discernible capitalist class?

Honest question - Do you think that a socio-political system can only be either capitalist or socialist?

With time I've found myself supporting the idea that there have been different kinds of non-capitalist societies that were nonetheless not socialist. It's not even hard to argue because the USSR is a classic example of a top-heavy socio-political system that failed precisely because the elites & bureaucracy were no longer accountable to ordinary workers and decided to put on suits and dismantle even the pretext of socialism. According to most ML's the USSR was genuinely socialist and advancing toward socialism until the revisionists took over. But for the revisionists to take power implies that there was a centralized apparatus above the working class.

Whether or not this makes me a Trotskyist I don't know. As long as it existed the USSR was definitely better than the alternative which has been gangster capitalism and a bourgeois semi-dictatorship. (But now even on the left there are those who claim Russia is a positive force since it's an anti-imperialist power!)

To make a long post longer, it seems like the more time passes the more Marxists seem happy to give lip-service to any regime that simply finds itself opposed to the United States or any other Western power. At some point it seems like Marxists forget what socialism even is.


 No.7929

File: