#Marxism leninism

[katya-1917]

Is he ever wrong? Banger after banger, this fuckin' revolutionary. I never get sick of him, man.

Once again Lenin was right. About almost everything but especially this

[phobic-human]

"Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism."

-Vladimir Lenin

[juegosintiperojuegocontigo]

[read-marx-and-lenin]

There is no magic "abolish the state" button, which is why I'm an anarchist, as "when the state has socialismed enough it will just magically poof away in a cloud of smoke" is the leninist position.

That is not the Leninist position, the Leninist position is and always has been that the state cannot disappear until the material conditions for its disappearance are achieved. The withering away of the state, first outlined by Engels, is not a magic process but one that proceeds from the abolition of class and the dissolution of the bourgeoisie.

How are you going to get rid of the bourgeoisie without a state? Are you going to simply ask them nicely to leave you alone? If you are organized and if your organization is suppressing the bourgeoisie as a class, then you have created a state, you have created an authoritarian imposition on the free organization of some section of the people. If you are not doing any of this, then the bourgeoisie who you have left unmolested will invariably come to dominate you once more.

Anarchists have always played word games to get around these simple facts. There are the practical anarchists who will admit to some amount of authority, but always with the caveat that theirs is *just* authority, *necessary* authority, and that is is the *unjust* authority that they condemn. Just authority is not the State, because the State is unjust, and so if they see an authority as just then it cannot be the State. Fair enough, you can call things by whatever names you like, but if you put these ideas in practice you basically end up with Leninism. You want to create dual power? You want to abolish the bourgeois state and replace it with a democratic organ of the working class? Well so did Lenin, and now you know why the Mensheviks accused him of anarchism.

Then there are the quite impractical capital-A Anarchists, who are adamant that anarchy means anarchy and that even voluntary hierarchy and submission to democratic authority is impermissible. Whether pacifistic or militaristic, they are generally unremarkable and ineffective at their goals because they eschew most effective forms of organization as ideologically impure. Even the most advanced anarchists, the CNT in Spain and the Maknovists in Russia, were plagued by economic confusion and disorganization. Their lack of discipline led to their downfall.

If you want to read more, here are some pertinent links:

[lemon-etiquette]

[stillnaomi]

why do marxists insist on using old language? why say proletariat instead of working class?

marxism is a technical field. we need to use precise language to convey exactly what we mean. saying proletariat communicates a person's relationship to the economy: they have to work for someone else for a wage in order to live. saying that someone is working class only conveys that they work for a living. what if they own the business too? do you think that they might have a different world outlook to somebody who lives off their own wage alone?

it's important for us to make these distinctions, and learning all the jargon is thankfully very doable

[mpaglamas]

“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

Mao Tse-Tung

[nameinconcept-blog]

"The blizzards are whirling, but neither Hutsul wooden cottages, nor evergreen fir-trees are afraid of colds"

From the book "Буковина" published by "Art". 1989

[sudensk-the-stallionist]

i've been reading another view of stalin recently and even if i already had found out about a good amount of the contents of it through other means the things ludo martens tells you are absolutely baffling, like, unironically groundbreaking. i remember reading khruschev lied by furr and him saying how he can't just disprove the entire "stalin stigma" in one book (and he's right, it would be a gigantic task) but martens is able to shred light into SO MUCH of it. like i SWEAR after reading how the kulaks killed like almost 70 million animals in livestock to sabotage collectivization, and then how the ukrainian fascists all talked about how they were involved in burning crops and doing sabotage left and right in the 30s (the same fascists who later joined hitler and committed the most horrible pogroms), or how the bukharinists, the trotskyites and the military bonapartists had absolutely no issue in just collaborating with nazis, with japanese imperial officers, or how almost every single source for famous holodomor books are literal nazi collaborators using photographs from the tsarist times and from the 1922 famine (WHICH WAS CAUSED BY FOREIGNER INTERVENTION) to prove the "evils" of the USSR, it all just fucking made me want to scream on liberals going on and on about how "ukraine was a rebellious republic... stalin wanted to kill them all and he succeeded" or that "dekulakization was almost as bad as the holocaust". also like mate i don't require everyone to have intricate knowledge about stalin's period on names and dates but some of these people go on alledging stuff while they can't even, like, name who zinoviev was. or who bandera was. jesus christ

[troythecatfish]

The chart does not capture the astonishing fact that these accomplishments were achieved under brutal sanctions imposed by the world’s superpower. Viva la revolución.

They also have ad-free TV ✌️📺 (you don’t need commercials with Socialism).

[katchwreck]

“Women are the roots of the Earth and the heartbeat of the Revolution.”

March 8th, International Working Women's Day.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 2023

[thespectrehauntingfodlan]

New pride flag just dropped

[phobic-human]

“Marxism as a revolutionary theoretical weapon depends on the manner in which it is understood on the one hand and its correct application to a particular circumstance or particular stage on the other. The essence of Marxism is the method that it represents in viewing and analyzing things and in determining the direction of their motion. Consequently, the revolutionary understanding of Marxism is the understanding of it as a working guide and not as a fixed, rigid, doctrine. Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung, and before them Marx and Engels, have recorded on more than one occasion the need for the Marxist view as a working guide and not as a rigid doctrine.”

- ‘Strategy for the Liberation of Palestine’, PFLP

[dre759]

Democracy in the USSR could have been more advanced in 1985 than it actually was, but that is no reason to identify “lack of democracy” as the main cause of the end of the Soviet Union. Many observers have little understanding of the actual features of socialist democracy. If the word “democracy” means the empowerment of working people, then the Soviet Union had democratic features that surpassed any capitalist society. The Soviet state had a greater percentage of workers involved in the Party and government than was the case with parties and governments in capitalist countries. The extent of income equality, the extent of free education, health care and other social services, guarantees of employment, the early retirement age, the lack of inflation, the subsidies for housing, food, and other basics, and so forth, made it obvious that this was a society run in the interests of working people. The epic efforts to build socialist industry and agriculture and defend the country during World War II could not have occurred without active popular participation. Thirty-five million people were involved in the soviets. Soviet trade unions had powers over such things as production goals, dismissals, and their own schools and vacation resorts that few, if any, trade unions in capitalist countries could claim. Unless there is enormous pressure from below, capitalist states never challenge corporate property. Advocates of the superiority of Western democracy ignore class exploitation, focus on process not substance, and give credit for capitalist democracy to capital, not its real defender and promoter, the modern working class. They compare capitalist democracy's achievements to its past, but, asymmetrically, compare socialist democracy's achievements to an imagined ideal.

-Socialism Betrayed: Behind The Collapse Of The Soviet Union by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny, page.235

(Link to the PDF included in the hyperlink)

[catsonja]

We will abolish the USA Under Transgender Communism 🏳️‍⚧️☭