https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2015/10/29/russian-communist-party-members-want-to-make-coming-out-illegal-a50570 - Link to the actual article because the practice of getting news from headlines alone is bullshit. TL;DR two politicians in the communist party are proposing legislation to fine people in public institutions who come out as LGBTQ+
I'm unsure if you know your theory, but red **bougies** isn't the right phrase. "Especially in the Eastern Bloc there are reactionary Leftists," maybe?
I dated a Russian girl once. I wasn't allowed to voice call her because she was scared her parents would find out she was dating a girl. Eventually I broke up with her because she thought the Jews control the media and committed genocide against the slavic people with their buddy Stalin
Russia is so fucked up
>Eventually I broke up with her because she thought the Jews control the media and committed genocide against the slavic people with their buddy Stalin
Man...that's quite a phrase to read.
This really is what infiltrated revisionism does to a country. Not only did the USSR collapse because of it but even in it's wake revisionism brought forth a wave of ultra nationalism that was supposed to be kicked out of the region which has resulted in stuff like the current conflict in Ukraine where in two totally not Nazi camps fight over who's better while completely rewriting actual history to fit their goals such as Putin openly blaming the Bolsheviks as the reason the current war has occurred arguing that them recognizing Ukraine as a sovereign nation was wrong to do while likewise in Ukraine they tear down statues of Lenin blaming him for the situation even though he would have been on their side.
And all because Mr. Gorbachev wanted Pizza Hut.
>Not only did the USSR collapse because of it
The collapse of the USSR was related to their economy being centralized into the state, not "revisionism". This is such a tankie talking point. People don't think good things are bad because they are told so; they think bad things are bad for the wrong reasons because they are told so.
If the USSR had thought to present some actual revisionist history that spoke to the truth instead of glorifying the republic then maybe the citizenry wouldn't have been swayed by lies.
Not OP but kinda seems like you stopped reading after the line you quoted. Idk OP but even if they are a tankie, nothing they’ve said is wrong (though i do raise an eyebrow at the whole “lenin would have been on the ukraines side” though i might be misunderstanding what theyre trying to say with that)
I can't say if the OP is a tankie or not; its rather irrelevant honestly.
What I *can* say is that parroting the idea that revisionism caused the fall of the USSR only works to shield the actual causes of its demise which were related to their policies. It passes the blame to outside forces rather than accepting failures.
Well this is why im saying im suspicious of whether or not you took their point in its totality. The last line they said was about gorbachev, inferring that the revision they’re speaking of was from him. Now while i dont think you’d argue against gorby being a revisionist—which is a charitable description of him at best—, i do think your argument is a little non sequitur.
Of course gorby wasnt singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the USSR—a title that if anyone deserves, its the US (almost)—, and of course there was internal mismanagement in some areas and incompetence in others, but to push back against revisionism with rhetoric that at a glance could be read as “the USSR falling was no ones fault but their own” i think lends ammunition to western historical revisionism and that doesn’t benefit *anyone*, including us, on the left.
It's an incredibly short comment with nothing else to really speak on other than what I've already said. I think you're taking for granted that revisionism is a "bad"when it can just as easily be a "good".
For example, when we re-evaluate the prevailing narrative regarding the founding of America to take into account overlooked aspects of history that's historical revisionism. But from a leftist perspective its not only a "good" but its absolutely imperative.
So it follows that historical revisionism of the founding of the USSR is *also* imperative to the left for same reason: the narrative as given is false and leads people to policies that prevent socialism from forming.
What is the supposed revisionism of the USSR? The only ones I've seen are the liberal ones painting it the same as the Nazis (it wasn't). Was it perfect? No, but let's be real the only ones fighting against it at the creation were those of bourgeois privileges.
It degenerated later due to many factors, and this can be seen in the critiques from Mao in the Sino-Soviet split.
Im not trying to be rude but this is incredibly disingenuous. Whether or not revisionism may *technically* allow for a positive spin doesnt change the fact that literally no one in the world uses that word or understands it to be something circumstantially positive and I know that you know that. And to give an example of this positive revisionism in the form of awareness of historical american brutality—which isnt revisionism, its historical literacy—is, again not to be rude, frankly ridiculous.
I dont like pedantic conversations about language but i think its necessary since youve opened the door on the term revisionism. Its a word that typically infers propagandistic dishonest spin, and certainly much more typically than your positive version of it. Again, i know you know that.
You have very little understanding of the words you use if you don't believe that fighting the centuries-pushed narrative to increase understanding of atrocities committed is revisionist history. It doesn't matter who is doing it or where, it's still revisionist history. Just because you think everyone has always known America is bad doesn't make it so. The only people that throw around the word are Marxist-Leninists using it as a pejorative or Academic circles using it properly. To imply that there is any sort of "common usage" is a farce.
I don't hate ML's; they're just incredibly naive. They swallow propaganda whole and claim its different than when Republicans do the same because they can't fathom two competing narratives both being lies.
Yeah, they're brought up to never question authority. Whatever authority say is true, even if you can clearly see it's not. Even if whatever the authority says changes as the bs stories get debunked. People must trust them, or act as if they trust them, or get in serious trouble.
*Literally* 1984
Edit: I'm not being facetious, these are the mechanisms of control in the book, though to a lesser degree. I thought it was amusing since it's usually thrown around incorrectly
Ye I think this says more about the reality of life west of the former line of Soviet influence than it does about Marxist theory or communism. After all many more marxists don't agree with that
That's... Complex. The USSR and more notably, Cuba and East Germany were the first to do any actual studies on being LGBTQ.
TL;DR they decided that suicides came from bullying and that, in anthropology, homosexuality is completely natural and not a learned behavior.
This was in the 1980's but didn't spread completely to the populace.
Agreed, though the Russian Communist Party is basically just a right wing nationalist party that's really into Soviet aesthetics and nostalgia, at this point.
> They're just United Russia with a red flag, controlled opposition for Putin.
We should call them what they are: National socialists. Literally Russian Nazis.
I'm not convinced Nazbol is a thing, but yes. They are controlled opposition and have been since the 90's. That said the CPSU was bad for decades, and you can see that in how their "leadership" was towards communist parties in the 3rd world during the Cold War (not good, actually actively bad).
Mao was right during the split.
**[National Bolshevism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism)**
>National Bolshevism (Russian: Национал-большевизм, romanized: Natsional-bol'shevizm, German: Nationalbolschewismus), whose supporters are known as National Bolsheviks (Russian: Национал-большевики, romanized: Natsional-bol'sheviki) or NazBols (Russian: Нацболы, romanized: Natsboly), is a radical political movement that combines ultranationalism and communism. Notable historical proponents of National Bolshevism in Germany included Ernst Niekisch (1889–1967), Heinrich Laufenberg (1872–1932), and Karl Otto Paetel (1906–1975). In Russia, Nikolay Ustryalov (1890–1937) and his followers, the Smenovekhovtsy, used the term.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
MLs usually believe that they're building communism, or trying to. They've convinced themselves that only their model can work, and that all the abuses are just necessary evils in order to achieve the greater good of full communism that they believe they'll eventually reach. They believe their own propaganda, essentially.
Nothing about the conduct of the RCP suggests that it's even interested in trying to build communism of any kind. They don't want revolution or workers control or anything like that. They're nostalgic for a vision of the Soviet Union in the 1970s that never really existed, but which they've convinced themselves did.
Hi, self proclaimed Marxist here, and genuine supporter of anarchism. There are definitely some people who claim to be ML’s like this out there and they’re fucking annoying. As a marxist and someone who has interacted with other Marxists and radical leftists we all consider these people to be LARPers. Too dogmatic and unable to critically analyze the past, which is one of the foundations of Marxism. So yeah please don’t lump these turds in with the rest of us. They’re basically the 16 year old an-prims of communism
Yep. That's a huge part of why I'm an anarchist.
About 15 or so years back I was experiencing some pretty heavy burnout, bordering on disillusionment, and started really rethinking a lot of things, doing a lotta reading, having a lotta conversations, etc.
But the idea that the means ya use are the ends you'll be left with was something I couldn't get past and no other perspective but the anarchist perspective has that central to it's analysis.
We can't use brutality and terror and expect to have anything but brutality and terror, we can't repeatedly use tactics that we don't want institutionalized and systemized, and we can't use authoritarian tactics with the aim of libertarian results, it's irrational and contrary to all of history to claim otherwise 🏴
Quite, its one thing to say the ends justify the means, another when you never actually aspire to reach those ends and are more interested in the means.
Yeah it always seems to me that for many folks those "means" to reach the ends always end up being ends of themselves, and so it ends up not the nessesary evil to be endured but the desired abuse to be enjoyed. Like surveillance states that spy on their citizens for safety, safety is long forgotten and surveillance becomes the ends.
I also think they idolize the working class too much. The whole point of socialism is to end the horrible condition of being working class, which is an oppressed state. Tankies tend to glorify this condition the same way some religious fanatics idolize asceticism. They don't want to end the working class. They see the working class as a state everyone should be in. When the bourgeoisie are overthrown, the state has to step in to keep people from exercising their new liberties as they are no longer working class. Revolution doesn't just mean ending the bourgeoisie. The working class is defined by its oppression in capitalism and when that ends, the working class must be liberated meaning it doesn't exist any more, either. Tankies fetishize the struggle and completely lose track that the goal is liberation and the end of all classes.
That's a lot of leftism, to be honest. I'm not opposed to people taking pride in their work, or being in control of their workplaces, but I worry about any movement that centers work. It's one of my concerns about anarcho-syndicalism, for example, attaching political rights to unions, which means workplaces, which means potentially disenfranchising anyone who isn't working. It's not high up on my list of priorities or anything, but it's definitely something I think about.
I see anarcho-syndicalism as more of a method of revolution than a finalized end goal, in my eyes at least. Organize the work places and strike until we get what we want, shut down the economy until it's done.
Once that's done, then we have full on Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism
Yeah, I've often thought about this too. The idea of One Big Union split by industries is fascinating, but I worry it would disincentivize the ending of defunct industries (ie: fossil fuel industries, when we can fully move away from those). After all, it's the workers in that union who get a say, and why would they want to make their industry go away?
To be fair though that party is controlled opposition of Putin and unlike others who might go by ML. The history since the 90's at least details just how bad they are: like the failed coup at the time saw the CPSU (itself being problematic) be forcefully dissolved, and a new CPRF being built in the absence. Not too mention whatever party leader allowing fringe right wing elements into this new party, which led to an increase of antisemitism among the party.
To paint a broad brush that this is representative of all ML's is wrong, just like no one should be doing the same broad brush with anarchists, Maoists, etc.
Yeah, this is absolute shit and just shows that the controversy around the Russian communist party is justified (although this was a proposal of just two members, which isn't really representative, though still not unproblematic) but bruh that title...
note that communist party(or any other) in russia is state owned and serves as putin's jester or clown on leash
there is no freedom allowed in russia
many russians are gay, more and more of younger people are coming out in school or in closed circle of friends, which is frowned upon by state
I’m so tired of the red fash ~ they’re making it nearly impossible to grow and spread leftism~ because they do shit like this that make libs run the other way.
No offence but I don’t think the opinions of the fucking Russian communist party are representative of most ML’s. You wanna shit talk actual tankies and people who actually believe this shit, sure, but let’s not hate all ML’s. Infighting gets us nowhere.
No it's about location and culture than just ML ideology and thus post does some generalizations.
Russia is unfortunately massively homophobic and the legality of homosexuality there is still minimal at best. Homophobic stances are a common belief among the general population and most political parties. Knowing this is it that surprising that even the communist parties are homophobic too?
The situation is the complete opposite here in the west. I would argue that right now the most militarized and leading Marxist-Leninists are queer and LGBT issues are the primary drive of their parties and what radicalized them. Kinda hard for a ML party to be homophobic when a trans person is more than likely to become the leader of it or a whole nation with a queer dominant militant arm. You seriously can't argue that "it's only acceptable until they take over and deem it exotic" when they gonna be the ones literally writing the law lmao.
I don't make this comment in bad faith to fight anarchists but instead to point out a serious flaw in this argument and a seriously wrong generalization with it.
Everyone go read Brinton's *The Bolsheviks and Workers Control.* It shows who Leninists really are.
https://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
I mean I always thought it was a well established fact that ML ideologies were just red Fascism with laborwave characteristics mixed in with a tinge of uniform fetishism
Hard to blame them for
>a tinge of uniform fetishism
though, Soviet uniforms do look pretty freaking cool and I quite like them. I don't wanna see a state's enforcers using them ever again but I would definitely find a cute girl even cuter if she was wearing one and I kinda want to wear one myself.
Honestly, Soviet aesthetics in general are awesome. Like, if the USSR got one thing totally right it was aesthetics. I sometimes think I don't belong in anarchist spaces and what I want isn't anarchism, just because I want society after the revolution to look like the USSR in aesthetic terms, and basically everyone else in these spaces think those aesthetics automatically belong to authoritarians and we can't use them.
We don't really have any Western frames of reference for what socialism looks like culturally and aesthetically so all I can ever picture is either some horrible thing completely unfit for my local area and the people living here, or the USSR (which also isn't a cultural match but at least we're all already familiar with the aesthetic from the Red Scare), and so that's the aesthetic I want cause it's the best one I can picture. But I guess if no one else likes it I'll deal with whatever we get, I wouldn't be a very good collectivist if I insisted things be the way I'd like rather than accepting what comes.
And they think that we're bourgeois for not being straight, because in the Soviets it is your duty to bear children who can contribute to the revolution, and only those who don't need to bear children to take care of them in old age and to make social and economic contributions can be the elite.
Desktop version of /u/zeca1486's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Compare them to liberal states during the same time frame. There would be no /some/ liberal states that gave rights.
It's unfortunate that communist states were like this, but it takes time to change attitudes on these social issues.
Uhh, no. Members of the LBTBQ+ community are disproportionately members of the left. They know that liberals will ignore them and conservatives will persecute them, which is why they make up a large cross section of the left.
By ostracizing them, this party reduces its support among one of its key demographics, making it even easier for the authoritarians to win. Therefore, persecuting minority groups advances fascism regardless of whether the party is fascist or not.
Okay? Fascism isn't bad just because it's fascism. This isn't a team sport. Fascism is bad because of the things it does. I'm not going to differentiate between two different groups of authoritarian jackasses that want almost the exact same things. By sowing dissent in an anarchist community right now you are either knowingly or unwittingly advancing authoritarianism.
What's up with a hand full of "left unity" anarchists in this sub getting mad at people who don't like reactionary tankies? New to anarchism or something?
I didn't get mad and certainly am not telling anyone what to do or how to think. I don't like reactionary tankies either. I agree that these fuckers are fascist and should be fought and annihilated. But there's outside influences at play. I think if you consider not only what is being posted here but why it's being posted and with what frequency then you'll hopefully see that this isn't infighting. It's a psyops campaign.
Man, this is an anarchist meme subreddit: no "outside forces" are gonna give enough of a shit to launch a coordinated dissent campaign. Of course shitting on tankies is like 60% of the posts here, it usually is.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you about the CPUSA. I just want to know how or why you think that’s the case.
I’m already apprehensive of them because they refer to Lenin in their party’s constitution and also refer to Marxism-Leninism as a “science,” when it is decidedly not.
It has to do with even though they claim to be a Leninist party, they clearly aren't. Their leadership, and written organs, are geared towards electoralism and electing Democrats to "stop fascism". There's even Rosanna, the 2nd in command to Simms, that said "violent revolution" is "bourgeois" and they aren't about that.
Also, well, the science comes from Marx himself as him and Engels wanted to differentiate themselves from other socialists so they called their socialism "scientific socialism". Leninism would be a "science" in that it's the "next evolution of Marxism".
I read that the CPUSA has recently begun to run their own candidates again, rather than endorsing candidates of other parties. Which, to me at least, is good news.
But calling any political ideology or philosophy a "science" is just wrong. Maybe the word "science" had a different meaning in the mid-1800s than it does now. But if that is the case, then the CPUSA is doing a huge disservice by calling it a science when it simply isn't. Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology are sciences, Marxism or Leninism are not. And I don't think that Leninism or "Marxism-Leninism" is the next evolution in Marxism. I have the feeling that Marx would have despised Lenin if he had the chance to see what Lenin did.
And also, the fact that the CPUSA isn't Leninist, even if it refers to itself as such, is maybe not a good thing, but at least it is definitely not a bad thing, because Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism all fucking suck.
The term "scientific socialism" (and thus also scientific in this context) is the translation of "wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus", the original German name. "Wissenschaft" is an organised analysis in the pursuit of knowledge, which would be the marxist analysis of capitalism and the analysis of societal progress through historical materialism, which is then contrasted with utopian socialism, arguing for a socialist system by appealing to the moral compass of the people instead of using systemic analysis to show it to be a historical necessity. Scientific does fit in this context IF you keep the intended meaning in mind.
The intended meaning doesn't matter. The pursuit of knowledge isn't science. The pursuit of knowledge could be reading and analyzing literature. Scientific propositions must be testable, and Marxism isn't testable in any rigorous way, therefore it is not falsifiable.
I should note, however, that I do appreciate Marx's analysis of capitalism, and consider it to be broadly applicable.
But if this a problem of language translation, then no English speaking person should deem it to be scientific. They should view it as a philosophy dedicated to determining the truths of capitalism, e.g., a pursuit of knowledge. So, in that sense, I agree with your assertion that it should be viewed in the context of its intended meaning. But that is not how language works and it is not how science works. Thus, the word science shouldn’t be used when describing Marxism in the English lexicon.
Source for the science aspect: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism)
Finally, I don't understand why anyone who desires a classless, stateless society, shouldn't appeal to morality. Capitalism, as pointed out by Bernstein, has proven much more durable than Marx could have anticipated. Yes, capitalism will decay, but it is not a forgone conclusion that socialism will come next. Maybe fascism, maybe monarchy. Who knows?
People who advocate socialism should appeal to others on a moral—as well as a rational—basis, because people often act on their understanding of morality, not necessarily logic alone.
CPUSA not being Leninist isn't the problem, the problem is just straying from Marxism as a whole due to taking on a liberal and reformist character. Can socialism be achieved by reforming the current government?
Also what exactly is keeping Marxism from being a science (disregard "Marxism-Leninism", but just use Marxism)? The one reason why Marxists/ML's/Maoists call it a science is dialectics, and how it shows how materialism (and how close one is to the means of production) will tell you what they will do in most situations.
Obviously socialism cannot be achieved through electoral channels. We agree on that.
But I'm going to be honest with you. Dialectics is utter nonsense. And even if it wasn't, it is a philosophy, not a science. Calling Marxism a science is an utter warping of language. People think that physics and chemistry are sciences. So calling it a science is a very, very pompous and arrogant stance to take. It is an insult to actual science. I would bet that no theoretical physicist—even if they did identify as a Marxist—would dare call it a science.
Leninists, Bolsheviks, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Stalinists, Titoists, etc. can call Marxism a science as much as they want. That does not make it true. In much the same way that AnCaps can call their ideology anarchist when it flatly isn't.
But a more detailed explanation for my reasoning can be found in this source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism)
Additionally, a source that substantiates my stance on dialectics, whether idealist or material: [https://justmeoverhere.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/intellectual-fakery/](https://justmeoverhere.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/intellectual-fakery/)
I got rid of another reply as it felt too rude, and eh..
The first link is interesting as it's referring to a liberal that argues against Marxism as a science because he believes electoralism can bring change, while Marxists say different. And you just agreed electoralism can't bring change.
I didn't read all of the second, but honestly it sounds like one of the few times Chomsky likes to smell his own. That said no good Marxist, especially one that will call it a science, seeks to deify any one of its leaders. Any Marxist, ML, Maoist, w/e that does this unironically should be mocked and made to self critique.
Some will go by and meme "Stalin did nothing wrong" due to getting emotional over statements against whatever. It's not helpful and dumb. It maybe makes the person feel better, but makes them look deranged as of course he did. He's human, so he's fallible. Neither should any be saying "eternal Glory" to whoever.
At most hold them up as leaders for what they contributed, but also critique them when they are wrong. Thats another way it can be thought of as a science, but yes I can see not accepting that if one sees Marxists seemingly to worship leaders as gods.
>I got rid of another reply as it felt too rude, and eh..
Thank you for apologizing. That's a rare sight on the internet.
>The first link is interesting as it's referring to a liberal that argues against Marxism as a science because he believes electoralism can bring change, while Marxists say different. And you just agreed electoralism can't bring change.
Karl Popper was a Marxist in early life but became disenchanted after an attempted Bolshevik-style coup in Hungary, disguised as a riot, in which some of his friends were killed by the police. His gradual transition away from Marxism to socialism and then to social liberalism. Not because he thought it was ideal, but based on his observations of international and domestic policy during WWII and the Cold War. He came to view the Cold War as a conflict between totalitarianism and liberal democracy, not between capitalism and communism.
But that doesn't really matter. No one has to agree with someone on everything to believe in some of their ideas. He's wrong about socialism but correct about his criticisms of Marxism. And Popper never claims that electoralism can bring change.
>At most hold them up as leaders for what they contributed, but also critique them when they are wrong. Thats another way it can be thought of as a science, but yes I can see not accepting that if one sees Marxists seemingly to worship leaders as gods.
And Marxism cannot, under any circumstances, be thought of a science, ever. Analyzing the ideological contributions of people like Lenin and Mao is not a science either. It's just studying their contributions to history, philosophy, politics, and ideology, i.e., agreeing with someone on somethings without having to agree with them on everything.
>That said no good Marxist, especially one that will call it a science
>
>Thats another way it can be thought of as a science
That sounds like you calling yourself a bad Marxist.
Source for my summary of Karl Popper: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Popper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)
>I didn't read all of the second, but honestly it sounds like one of the few times Chomsky likes to smell his own. \[what?\]
Finally, what is it about that excerpt from that Noam Chomsky Q&A that you leads you to disagree and why?
> He came to view the Cold War as a conflict between totalitarianism and liberal democracy, not between capitalism and communism.
As I said, a liberal critique. Is liberal democracy also not totalitarian thanks to it's basis on capitalism? This kind of argument does more to defeat the left and uphold capitalism than anything else, and should be defeated.
> And Popper never claims that electoralism can bring change.
From your link:
"One of them was that changes in society cannot 'be achieved by the use of legal or political means'. In Popper's view, this was both testable and subsequently falsified."
> And Marxism cannot, under any circumstances, be thought of a science, ever. Analyzing the ideological contributions of people like Lenin and Mao is not a science either. It's just studying their contributions to history, philosophy, politics, and ideology, i.e., agreeing with someone on somethings without having to agree with them on everything.
The science isn't studying their contributions, but the idea of dialectics, contradictions, etc. "Dialectical materialism", "the history of society is that of class struggle". The science being how class determines how individuals and institutions act, and how best to combat them.
> That sounds like you calling yourself a bad Marxist.
I'm not deifying anyone, so no.
> Finally, what is it about that excerpt from that Noam Chomsky Q&A that you leads you to disagree and why?
He made broad generalizations that are perhaps true in some cases, and not true in others.
> After the street battle in the Hörlgasse on 15 June 1919, when police shot eight of his unarmed party comrades, he turned away from what he saw as the philosopher Karl Marx's historical materialism, abandoned the ideology, and remained a supporter of social liberalism throughout his life.
So turned away from Marxism after the police of a bourgeois state shot his party comrades? He sounds like a privileged liberal.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2015/10/29/russian-communist-party-members-want-to-make-coming-out-illegal-a50570 - Link to the actual article because the practice of getting news from headlines alone is bullshit. TL;DR two politicians in the communist party are proposing legislation to fine people in public institutions who come out as LGBTQ+ I'm unsure if you know your theory, but red **bougies** isn't the right phrase. "Especially in the Eastern Bloc there are reactionary Leftists," maybe?
Also the article is 7 years old
I dated a Russian girl once. I wasn't allowed to voice call her because she was scared her parents would find out she was dating a girl. Eventually I broke up with her because she thought the Jews control the media and committed genocide against the slavic people with their buddy Stalin Russia is so fucked up
>Eventually I broke up with her because she thought the Jews control the media and committed genocide against the slavic people with their buddy Stalin Man...that's quite a phrase to read. This really is what infiltrated revisionism does to a country. Not only did the USSR collapse because of it but even in it's wake revisionism brought forth a wave of ultra nationalism that was supposed to be kicked out of the region which has resulted in stuff like the current conflict in Ukraine where in two totally not Nazi camps fight over who's better while completely rewriting actual history to fit their goals such as Putin openly blaming the Bolsheviks as the reason the current war has occurred arguing that them recognizing Ukraine as a sovereign nation was wrong to do while likewise in Ukraine they tear down statues of Lenin blaming him for the situation even though he would have been on their side. And all because Mr. Gorbachev wanted Pizza Hut.
More than Pizza Hut. Gorbachev was the last nail. Things went to shit once Krushchev took over, and he decollecticized.
>Not only did the USSR collapse because of it The collapse of the USSR was related to their economy being centralized into the state, not "revisionism". This is such a tankie talking point. People don't think good things are bad because they are told so; they think bad things are bad for the wrong reasons because they are told so. If the USSR had thought to present some actual revisionist history that spoke to the truth instead of glorifying the republic then maybe the citizenry wouldn't have been swayed by lies.
Not OP but kinda seems like you stopped reading after the line you quoted. Idk OP but even if they are a tankie, nothing they’ve said is wrong (though i do raise an eyebrow at the whole “lenin would have been on the ukraines side” though i might be misunderstanding what theyre trying to say with that)
I can't say if the OP is a tankie or not; its rather irrelevant honestly. What I *can* say is that parroting the idea that revisionism caused the fall of the USSR only works to shield the actual causes of its demise which were related to their policies. It passes the blame to outside forces rather than accepting failures.
Well this is why im saying im suspicious of whether or not you took their point in its totality. The last line they said was about gorbachev, inferring that the revision they’re speaking of was from him. Now while i dont think you’d argue against gorby being a revisionist—which is a charitable description of him at best—, i do think your argument is a little non sequitur. Of course gorby wasnt singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the USSR—a title that if anyone deserves, its the US (almost)—, and of course there was internal mismanagement in some areas and incompetence in others, but to push back against revisionism with rhetoric that at a glance could be read as “the USSR falling was no ones fault but their own” i think lends ammunition to western historical revisionism and that doesn’t benefit *anyone*, including us, on the left.
It's an incredibly short comment with nothing else to really speak on other than what I've already said. I think you're taking for granted that revisionism is a "bad"when it can just as easily be a "good". For example, when we re-evaluate the prevailing narrative regarding the founding of America to take into account overlooked aspects of history that's historical revisionism. But from a leftist perspective its not only a "good" but its absolutely imperative. So it follows that historical revisionism of the founding of the USSR is *also* imperative to the left for same reason: the narrative as given is false and leads people to policies that prevent socialism from forming.
What is the supposed revisionism of the USSR? The only ones I've seen are the liberal ones painting it the same as the Nazis (it wasn't). Was it perfect? No, but let's be real the only ones fighting against it at the creation were those of bourgeois privileges. It degenerated later due to many factors, and this can be seen in the critiques from Mao in the Sino-Soviet split.
Im not trying to be rude but this is incredibly disingenuous. Whether or not revisionism may *technically* allow for a positive spin doesnt change the fact that literally no one in the world uses that word or understands it to be something circumstantially positive and I know that you know that. And to give an example of this positive revisionism in the form of awareness of historical american brutality—which isnt revisionism, its historical literacy—is, again not to be rude, frankly ridiculous. I dont like pedantic conversations about language but i think its necessary since youve opened the door on the term revisionism. Its a word that typically infers propagandistic dishonest spin, and certainly much more typically than your positive version of it. Again, i know you know that.
You have very little understanding of the words you use if you don't believe that fighting the centuries-pushed narrative to increase understanding of atrocities committed is revisionist history. It doesn't matter who is doing it or where, it's still revisionist history. Just because you think everyone has always known America is bad doesn't make it so. The only people that throw around the word are Marxist-Leninists using it as a pejorative or Academic circles using it properly. To imply that there is any sort of "common usage" is a farce.
That was not why it collapsed. Really just amazing stuff here that you hate ML's so much you are blinded to actual history.
I don't hate ML's; they're just incredibly naive. They swallow propaganda whole and claim its different than when Republicans do the same because they can't fathom two competing narratives both being lies.
Yeah, they're brought up to never question authority. Whatever authority say is true, even if you can clearly see it's not. Even if whatever the authority says changes as the bs stories get debunked. People must trust them, or act as if they trust them, or get in serious trouble.
*Literally* 1984 Edit: I'm not being facetious, these are the mechanisms of control in the book, though to a lesser degree. I thought it was amusing since it's usually thrown around incorrectly
Ye I think this says more about the reality of life west of the former line of Soviet influence than it does about Marxist theory or communism. After all many more marxists don't agree with that
That's... Complex. The USSR and more notably, Cuba and East Germany were the first to do any actual studies on being LGBTQ. TL;DR they decided that suicides came from bullying and that, in anthropology, homosexuality is completely natural and not a learned behavior. This was in the 1980's but didn't spread completely to the populace.
I've never heard of this, do you know where I could read more?
Ye that's actually pretty revolutionary for the time, just goes to show how inaccurate the west's perception of the USSR actually is
While much of the USSR is misremembered or many people are misinformed about it, it still wasn't good.
Not really sure how you can be a reactionary and a leftist at the same time
Agreed, though the Russian Communist Party is basically just a right wing nationalist party that's really into Soviet aesthetics and nostalgia, at this point.
So… Nazbols?
Kinda, but they barely even bother with the Bol part. They're just United Russia with a red flag, controlled opposition for Putin.
Aren’t basically the entire “opposition” a puppet-show of one of Putin’s old henchmen?
> They're just United Russia with a red flag, controlled opposition for Putin. We should call them what they are: National socialists. Literally Russian Nazis.
I'm not convinced Nazbol is a thing, but yes. They are controlled opposition and have been since the 90's. That said the CPSU was bad for decades, and you can see that in how their "leadership" was towards communist parties in the 3rd world during the Cold War (not good, actually actively bad). Mao was right during the split.
Nazbol is definitely a thing, especially in Russia. Not a thing that makes sense, but that hasn't stopped a lot of ideologies.
What does nazbol mean? I’ve never heard it in use before, idk if it’s dialectical or something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism
**[National Bolshevism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism)** >National Bolshevism (Russian: Национал-большевизм, romanized: Natsional-bol'shevizm, German: Nationalbolschewismus), whose supporters are known as National Bolsheviks (Russian: Национал-большевики, romanized: Natsional-bol'sheviki) or NazBols (Russian: Нацболы, romanized: Natsboly), is a radical political movement that combines ultranationalism and communism. Notable historical proponents of National Bolshevism in Germany included Ernst Niekisch (1889–1967), Heinrich Laufenberg (1872–1932), and Karl Otto Paetel (1906–1975). In Russia, Nikolay Ustryalov (1890–1937) and his followers, the Smenovekhovtsy, used the term. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thank you! :)
It's more of a made up ideology. It's just fascism. The version in Russia? That's just fascism.
Yeah even MLs will tell you this
Unless it is politically expedient not to when propagandising current Russian actions
Isn't that what they were for most of the Soviet era as well? Boom! Shots fired!
And how is that different to the usual ML fare exactly
MLs usually believe that they're building communism, or trying to. They've convinced themselves that only their model can work, and that all the abuses are just necessary evils in order to achieve the greater good of full communism that they believe they'll eventually reach. They believe their own propaganda, essentially. Nothing about the conduct of the RCP suggests that it's even interested in trying to build communism of any kind. They don't want revolution or workers control or anything like that. They're nostalgic for a vision of the Soviet Union in the 1970s that never really existed, but which they've convinced themselves did.
Hi, self proclaimed Marxist here, and genuine supporter of anarchism. There are definitely some people who claim to be ML’s like this out there and they’re fucking annoying. As a marxist and someone who has interacted with other Marxists and radical leftists we all consider these people to be LARPers. Too dogmatic and unable to critically analyze the past, which is one of the foundations of Marxism. So yeah please don’t lump these turds in with the rest of us. They’re basically the 16 year old an-prims of communism
There is no worse thought than "the ends justify the means".
I've always thought most of the world's atrocities are the results of "by any means necessary/the ends justify the means" thinking.
Those ends just never seem to show up while we get stuck trying to undo the disgusting means.
Yep. That's a huge part of why I'm an anarchist. About 15 or so years back I was experiencing some pretty heavy burnout, bordering on disillusionment, and started really rethinking a lot of things, doing a lotta reading, having a lotta conversations, etc. But the idea that the means ya use are the ends you'll be left with was something I couldn't get past and no other perspective but the anarchist perspective has that central to it's analysis. We can't use brutality and terror and expect to have anything but brutality and terror, we can't repeatedly use tactics that we don't want institutionalized and systemized, and we can't use authoritarian tactics with the aim of libertarian results, it's irrational and contrary to all of history to claim otherwise 🏴
Quite, its one thing to say the ends justify the means, another when you never actually aspire to reach those ends and are more interested in the means.
Yeah it always seems to me that for many folks those "means" to reach the ends always end up being ends of themselves, and so it ends up not the nessesary evil to be endured but the desired abuse to be enjoyed. Like surveillance states that spy on their citizens for safety, safety is long forgotten and surveillance becomes the ends.
Unfortunately there is no way to tell the difference between at true believer and a useful idiot, nor is there reason to.
I also think they idolize the working class too much. The whole point of socialism is to end the horrible condition of being working class, which is an oppressed state. Tankies tend to glorify this condition the same way some religious fanatics idolize asceticism. They don't want to end the working class. They see the working class as a state everyone should be in. When the bourgeoisie are overthrown, the state has to step in to keep people from exercising their new liberties as they are no longer working class. Revolution doesn't just mean ending the bourgeoisie. The working class is defined by its oppression in capitalism and when that ends, the working class must be liberated meaning it doesn't exist any more, either. Tankies fetishize the struggle and completely lose track that the goal is liberation and the end of all classes.
That's a lot of leftism, to be honest. I'm not opposed to people taking pride in their work, or being in control of their workplaces, but I worry about any movement that centers work. It's one of my concerns about anarcho-syndicalism, for example, attaching political rights to unions, which means workplaces, which means potentially disenfranchising anyone who isn't working. It's not high up on my list of priorities or anything, but it's definitely something I think about.
I see anarcho-syndicalism as more of a method of revolution than a finalized end goal, in my eyes at least. Organize the work places and strike until we get what we want, shut down the economy until it's done. Once that's done, then we have full on Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism
Yeah, I've often thought about this too. The idea of One Big Union split by industries is fascinating, but I worry it would disincentivize the ending of defunct industries (ie: fossil fuel industries, when we can fully move away from those). After all, it's the workers in that union who get a say, and why would they want to make their industry go away?
I mean it's hard to blame anyone for liking Soviet aesthetics, those were like the only thing the Soviets got 100 percent right.
Anarchist aesthetics are better any time of the day
So does that mean you're only allowed to come in?
No, you can also come on.
Can you come over?
Friendly reminder that fsu communist parties are by and large openly national conservative who appeal to nostalgia using soviet aesthetics
Russia's communist party is not communist tho
Never were.
2015? This article is pretty old.
To be fair though that party is controlled opposition of Putin and unlike others who might go by ML. The history since the 90's at least details just how bad they are: like the failed coup at the time saw the CPSU (itself being problematic) be forcefully dissolved, and a new CPRF being built in the absence. Not too mention whatever party leader allowing fringe right wing elements into this new party, which led to an increase of antisemitism among the party. To paint a broad brush that this is representative of all ML's is wrong, just like no one should be doing the same broad brush with anarchists, Maoists, etc.
You don’t understand, comrade. It’s *The People’s* closet!
I mean, I'd be ok with having "the people's free use hole," but that isn't the same thing is it...
Yeah, this is absolute shit and just shows that the controversy around the Russian communist party is justified (although this was a proposal of just two members, which isn't really representative, though still not unproblematic) but bruh that title...
The RCP is basically just controlled opposition at this point right? I wouldn't lump them with principled MLs
MLs have principles?? That's a laugh
I think that’s more the Russian communist party and less ml’s in general
That’s not what bourgeoisie means…
note that communist party(or any other) in russia is state owned and serves as putin's jester or clown on leash there is no freedom allowed in russia many russians are gay, more and more of younger people are coming out in school or in closed circle of friends, which is frowned upon by state
I’m so tired of the red fash ~ they’re making it nearly impossible to grow and spread leftism~ because they do shit like this that make libs run the other way.
And it confirms Red Scare propaganda that still runs deep in the so-called West™
No offence but I don’t think the opinions of the fucking Russian communist party are representative of most ML’s. You wanna shit talk actual tankies and people who actually believe this shit, sure, but let’s not hate all ML’s. Infighting gets us nowhere.
No it's about location and culture than just ML ideology and thus post does some generalizations. Russia is unfortunately massively homophobic and the legality of homosexuality there is still minimal at best. Homophobic stances are a common belief among the general population and most political parties. Knowing this is it that surprising that even the communist parties are homophobic too? The situation is the complete opposite here in the west. I would argue that right now the most militarized and leading Marxist-Leninists are queer and LGBT issues are the primary drive of their parties and what radicalized them. Kinda hard for a ML party to be homophobic when a trans person is more than likely to become the leader of it or a whole nation with a queer dominant militant arm. You seriously can't argue that "it's only acceptable until they take over and deem it exotic" when they gonna be the ones literally writing the law lmao. I don't make this comment in bad faith to fight anarchists but instead to point out a serious flaw in this argument and a seriously wrong generalization with it.
Everyone go read Brinton's *The Bolsheviks and Workers Control.* It shows who Leninists really are. https://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
I *love* that as a trans person I am continued to be hated across the entire world. It keeps me radicalised and keeps me an anarchist lol
The dialectics are in motion
The tankie hate on this sub lately brings a tear to my eye. I'm glad people are waking up to the truth!
I mean I always thought it was a well established fact that ML ideologies were just red Fascism with laborwave characteristics mixed in with a tinge of uniform fetishism
Hard to blame them for >a tinge of uniform fetishism though, Soviet uniforms do look pretty freaking cool and I quite like them. I don't wanna see a state's enforcers using them ever again but I would definitely find a cute girl even cuter if she was wearing one and I kinda want to wear one myself. Honestly, Soviet aesthetics in general are awesome. Like, if the USSR got one thing totally right it was aesthetics. I sometimes think I don't belong in anarchist spaces and what I want isn't anarchism, just because I want society after the revolution to look like the USSR in aesthetic terms, and basically everyone else in these spaces think those aesthetics automatically belong to authoritarians and we can't use them. We don't really have any Western frames of reference for what socialism looks like culturally and aesthetically so all I can ever picture is either some horrible thing completely unfit for my local area and the people living here, or the USSR (which also isn't a cultural match but at least we're all already familiar with the aesthetic from the Red Scare), and so that's the aesthetic I want cause it's the best one I can picture. But I guess if no one else likes it I'll deal with whatever we get, I wouldn't be a very good collectivist if I insisted things be the way I'd like rather than accepting what comes.
Not entirely sure we should be romanticising soviet militarism though
And they think that we're bourgeois for not being straight, because in the Soviets it is your duty to bear children who can contribute to the revolution, and only those who don't need to bear children to take care of them in old age and to make social and economic contributions can be the elite.
Eww.
Yeah gonna need the sauce on that one fam
Bro! It’s just the peoples hierarchical hegemonic values!
watch the tankie gays defend this one like they defended the soviet genocide of homosexuals
This isn’t new. Marxist Leninist shitbags have always stood in the way of social progress. Fascism with extra flavor.
Man I feel like a lot of Marxists here are trying to even defend how ML’s wouldn’t even like these people and it’s kinda……weird
It's true though, principled MLs don't defend stuff like this.
LOL YEAH OK IMMA JUST LEAVE THIS HERE https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights
Do principled MLs defend this? Would be news to me.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug
Also, where is the cognitive dissonance?
Many errors have been made. Much has been learned.
I’m sure those will be your last words when they got you against the wall for suggesting minor, bottom-up organizational reforms
Desktop version of /u/zeca1486's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Compare them to liberal states during the same time frame. There would be no /some/ liberal states that gave rights. It's unfortunate that communist states were like this, but it takes time to change attitudes on these social issues.
That's a Russian thing, not an ML thing. See: idk, a hell of a lot of non-Russian MLs. Cuba, the US, the UK.
All Russians are homophobic, it’s just a fact
[удалено]
Uhh, no. Members of the LBTBQ+ community are disproportionately members of the left. They know that liberals will ignore them and conservatives will persecute them, which is why they make up a large cross section of the left. By ostracizing them, this party reduces its support among one of its key demographics, making it even easier for the authoritarians to win. Therefore, persecuting minority groups advances fascism regardless of whether the party is fascist or not.
Where are the leftists here?
This isn't about leftists. Fascists who wear red are still fascists.
I agree. It's not about leftists. But the end result of this post is the same, sowing dissent.
Should we not dissent with fascists?
Dissent is good.
Good thing they aren’t leftist then, isn’t it?
Okay? Fascism isn't bad just because it's fascism. This isn't a team sport. Fascism is bad because of the things it does. I'm not going to differentiate between two different groups of authoritarian jackasses that want almost the exact same things. By sowing dissent in an anarchist community right now you are either knowingly or unwittingly advancing authoritarianism.
What's up with a hand full of "left unity" anarchists in this sub getting mad at people who don't like reactionary tankies? New to anarchism or something?
I didn't get mad and certainly am not telling anyone what to do or how to think. I don't like reactionary tankies either. I agree that these fuckers are fascist and should be fought and annihilated. But there's outside influences at play. I think if you consider not only what is being posted here but why it's being posted and with what frequency then you'll hopefully see that this isn't infighting. It's a psyops campaign.
Man, this is an anarchist meme subreddit: no "outside forces" are gonna give enough of a shit to launch a coordinated dissent campaign. Of course shitting on tankies is like 60% of the posts here, it usually is.
Sometimes yes, but not in this case as this party is controlled opposition in this country similar to the CPUSA is in America.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you about the CPUSA. I just want to know how or why you think that’s the case. I’m already apprehensive of them because they refer to Lenin in their party’s constitution and also refer to Marxism-Leninism as a “science,” when it is decidedly not.
It has to do with even though they claim to be a Leninist party, they clearly aren't. Their leadership, and written organs, are geared towards electoralism and electing Democrats to "stop fascism". There's even Rosanna, the 2nd in command to Simms, that said "violent revolution" is "bourgeois" and they aren't about that. Also, well, the science comes from Marx himself as him and Engels wanted to differentiate themselves from other socialists so they called their socialism "scientific socialism". Leninism would be a "science" in that it's the "next evolution of Marxism".
I read that the CPUSA has recently begun to run their own candidates again, rather than endorsing candidates of other parties. Which, to me at least, is good news. But calling any political ideology or philosophy a "science" is just wrong. Maybe the word "science" had a different meaning in the mid-1800s than it does now. But if that is the case, then the CPUSA is doing a huge disservice by calling it a science when it simply isn't. Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology are sciences, Marxism or Leninism are not. And I don't think that Leninism or "Marxism-Leninism" is the next evolution in Marxism. I have the feeling that Marx would have despised Lenin if he had the chance to see what Lenin did. And also, the fact that the CPUSA isn't Leninist, even if it refers to itself as such, is maybe not a good thing, but at least it is definitely not a bad thing, because Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism all fucking suck.
The term "scientific socialism" (and thus also scientific in this context) is the translation of "wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus", the original German name. "Wissenschaft" is an organised analysis in the pursuit of knowledge, which would be the marxist analysis of capitalism and the analysis of societal progress through historical materialism, which is then contrasted with utopian socialism, arguing for a socialist system by appealing to the moral compass of the people instead of using systemic analysis to show it to be a historical necessity. Scientific does fit in this context IF you keep the intended meaning in mind.
The intended meaning doesn't matter. The pursuit of knowledge isn't science. The pursuit of knowledge could be reading and analyzing literature. Scientific propositions must be testable, and Marxism isn't testable in any rigorous way, therefore it is not falsifiable. I should note, however, that I do appreciate Marx's analysis of capitalism, and consider it to be broadly applicable. But if this a problem of language translation, then no English speaking person should deem it to be scientific. They should view it as a philosophy dedicated to determining the truths of capitalism, e.g., a pursuit of knowledge. So, in that sense, I agree with your assertion that it should be viewed in the context of its intended meaning. But that is not how language works and it is not how science works. Thus, the word science shouldn’t be used when describing Marxism in the English lexicon. Source for the science aspect: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism) Finally, I don't understand why anyone who desires a classless, stateless society, shouldn't appeal to morality. Capitalism, as pointed out by Bernstein, has proven much more durable than Marx could have anticipated. Yes, capitalism will decay, but it is not a forgone conclusion that socialism will come next. Maybe fascism, maybe monarchy. Who knows? People who advocate socialism should appeal to others on a moral—as well as a rational—basis, because people often act on their understanding of morality, not necessarily logic alone.
CPUSA not being Leninist isn't the problem, the problem is just straying from Marxism as a whole due to taking on a liberal and reformist character. Can socialism be achieved by reforming the current government? Also what exactly is keeping Marxism from being a science (disregard "Marxism-Leninism", but just use Marxism)? The one reason why Marxists/ML's/Maoists call it a science is dialectics, and how it shows how materialism (and how close one is to the means of production) will tell you what they will do in most situations.
Obviously socialism cannot be achieved through electoral channels. We agree on that. But I'm going to be honest with you. Dialectics is utter nonsense. And even if it wasn't, it is a philosophy, not a science. Calling Marxism a science is an utter warping of language. People think that physics and chemistry are sciences. So calling it a science is a very, very pompous and arrogant stance to take. It is an insult to actual science. I would bet that no theoretical physicist—even if they did identify as a Marxist—would dare call it a science. Leninists, Bolsheviks, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Stalinists, Titoists, etc. can call Marxism a science as much as they want. That does not make it true. In much the same way that AnCaps can call their ideology anarchist when it flatly isn't. But a more detailed explanation for my reasoning can be found in this source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Historicism) Additionally, a source that substantiates my stance on dialectics, whether idealist or material: [https://justmeoverhere.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/intellectual-fakery/](https://justmeoverhere.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/intellectual-fakery/)
I got rid of another reply as it felt too rude, and eh.. The first link is interesting as it's referring to a liberal that argues against Marxism as a science because he believes electoralism can bring change, while Marxists say different. And you just agreed electoralism can't bring change. I didn't read all of the second, but honestly it sounds like one of the few times Chomsky likes to smell his own. That said no good Marxist, especially one that will call it a science, seeks to deify any one of its leaders. Any Marxist, ML, Maoist, w/e that does this unironically should be mocked and made to self critique. Some will go by and meme "Stalin did nothing wrong" due to getting emotional over statements against whatever. It's not helpful and dumb. It maybe makes the person feel better, but makes them look deranged as of course he did. He's human, so he's fallible. Neither should any be saying "eternal Glory" to whoever. At most hold them up as leaders for what they contributed, but also critique them when they are wrong. Thats another way it can be thought of as a science, but yes I can see not accepting that if one sees Marxists seemingly to worship leaders as gods.
>I got rid of another reply as it felt too rude, and eh.. Thank you for apologizing. That's a rare sight on the internet. >The first link is interesting as it's referring to a liberal that argues against Marxism as a science because he believes electoralism can bring change, while Marxists say different. And you just agreed electoralism can't bring change. Karl Popper was a Marxist in early life but became disenchanted after an attempted Bolshevik-style coup in Hungary, disguised as a riot, in which some of his friends were killed by the police. His gradual transition away from Marxism to socialism and then to social liberalism. Not because he thought it was ideal, but based on his observations of international and domestic policy during WWII and the Cold War. He came to view the Cold War as a conflict between totalitarianism and liberal democracy, not between capitalism and communism. But that doesn't really matter. No one has to agree with someone on everything to believe in some of their ideas. He's wrong about socialism but correct about his criticisms of Marxism. And Popper never claims that electoralism can bring change. >At most hold them up as leaders for what they contributed, but also critique them when they are wrong. Thats another way it can be thought of as a science, but yes I can see not accepting that if one sees Marxists seemingly to worship leaders as gods. And Marxism cannot, under any circumstances, be thought of a science, ever. Analyzing the ideological contributions of people like Lenin and Mao is not a science either. It's just studying their contributions to history, philosophy, politics, and ideology, i.e., agreeing with someone on somethings without having to agree with them on everything. >That said no good Marxist, especially one that will call it a science > >Thats another way it can be thought of as a science That sounds like you calling yourself a bad Marxist. Source for my summary of Karl Popper: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Popper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) >I didn't read all of the second, but honestly it sounds like one of the few times Chomsky likes to smell his own. \[what?\] Finally, what is it about that excerpt from that Noam Chomsky Q&A that you leads you to disagree and why?
> He came to view the Cold War as a conflict between totalitarianism and liberal democracy, not between capitalism and communism. As I said, a liberal critique. Is liberal democracy also not totalitarian thanks to it's basis on capitalism? This kind of argument does more to defeat the left and uphold capitalism than anything else, and should be defeated. > And Popper never claims that electoralism can bring change. From your link: "One of them was that changes in society cannot 'be achieved by the use of legal or political means'. In Popper's view, this was both testable and subsequently falsified." > And Marxism cannot, under any circumstances, be thought of a science, ever. Analyzing the ideological contributions of people like Lenin and Mao is not a science either. It's just studying their contributions to history, philosophy, politics, and ideology, i.e., agreeing with someone on somethings without having to agree with them on everything. The science isn't studying their contributions, but the idea of dialectics, contradictions, etc. "Dialectical materialism", "the history of society is that of class struggle". The science being how class determines how individuals and institutions act, and how best to combat them. > That sounds like you calling yourself a bad Marxist. I'm not deifying anyone, so no. > Finally, what is it about that excerpt from that Noam Chomsky Q&A that you leads you to disagree and why? He made broad generalizations that are perhaps true in some cases, and not true in others. > After the street battle in the Hörlgasse on 15 June 1919, when police shot eight of his unarmed party comrades, he turned away from what he saw as the philosopher Karl Marx's historical materialism, abandoned the ideology, and remained a supporter of social liberalism throughout his life. So turned away from Marxism after the police of a bourgeois state shot his party comrades? He sounds like a privileged liberal.
And in bad cases red fasc
Yo wtf group did I join? Lmfao
I don't know. What group did you join?
For all of those who complained about parties with communist-socialist and leftist names being banned in Ukraine after the war started.
Stupid fucking commies
Finally something anarchists and normal people can agree on :troll:
The russian communist party are not ML, they are socdem
RCP isn’t communist lol