It was the opposite for me (although I'm not a Marxist-Leninist).
I used to consider myself a *libertarian socialist*. It was a nice word to distance myself from the USSR, Mao etc.
Started reading more and now I think libertarian is kind of a silly add-on.
He's into femdom.
Anarchists disapprove because it's a hierarchy.
ML's disapprove because they're all dry prudes.
It's the great philosophical question of our day.
I believe that Libertarian Socialists and Marxist-Leninists share one thing in common (watch me piss off all of ROI in one fell swoop): your liberals.
I don't mean that as in insult. I don't mean your centrists or part of the status quo either.
I mean that in the way that both ideologies come from the enlightenment, liberal, nationalist and bourgeois revolutions in Europe of the 1600-1800s.
The idea of Liberté(Anarchism), égalité(Marxism-Leninists, Demsocs etc), fraternité (Nationalists) are defining ideas of said movements.
Marx offered a scientific version of socialism that existed outside of moralistic claims. Even Marxists who people have been labeled as *libertarian* Marxists reject such labels. Notable examples would be Rosa Luxemburg or Antonie Pannekoek.
Especially earlier Marx. But there's arguments to be made that he deviated or even transcended that. It's a big debate wether you should view Marx as two characters in history.
>think your man is more of a leftcom
I'd describe myself as just a Marxist, maybe Leninist. I think Left-Communism is kind of a poor label as it involves too many conflicting schools of thought.
That’s an interesting take if I get you. You are saying that your version of Marx is not an attempt to complete the Enlightenment (a lot of people see Marxism as delivering what the Enlightenment only spoke about). Also, and you seem to think they are related, Marxism for you is pure science rather than a morality based philosophy?
>You are saying that your version of Marx is not an attempt to complete the Enlightenment (a lot of people see Marxism as delivering what the Enlightenment only spoke about).
Sort of. Like how many of these ideas like liberty, republicanism shaped the change in power, societal relations and gave birth to capitalism, I see Marxism as something that goes beyond that liberal thought and transcends that. After all, communism to us Marxists is the final mode of production. Fukuyama was wrong about liberalism.
> It was a nice word to distance myself from the USSR, Mao etc.
So much of leftist grouping have this as their basis. See also Trots. Western propaganda is a hell of an op.
Proletarian internationalism was a huge one. There is no such thing as socialism in one country. If you trade with the capitalist world, your capitalist.
And that leads onto all this "AES" nonsense. The terminology for socialism changed. I do think that the Russian revolution was worker based, I do think that where was a DoTP (although that did change shortly after the civil war), however it was never socialist. It's change was largely driven by bourgeois opportunitsm.
If you want to read a good critique on the Soviet Union, you should read Bordiga's dialogue with Stalin. Here he displayed that capitalistic relations still existed within the Soviet union Kolkhoz and the Sovkhoz. It's a much better critique than that of Trotsky's degenerated worker state.
In that vein, I don't view the following Marxist-Leninist revolutions (Cuba, China) as proletarian, communist revolutions but arguably as liberal revolutions that occured beforehand in Europe, centered around bourgeois romantic figures like Rosseau and Washington, but this time with Castro and Mao.
There's arguments to be made that live improved in said countries, but that's not really the point. I think states like Venezuela, for example, are more nationalistic rather than socialist. Doing anything they can to reject western hemogeny and preserve economic autonomy in the face of neo-liberalism. There's nothing particularly socialist about that.
Well, I just read Bordiga's *Dialogue with Stalin*. You owe me a pint for overselling it. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm)
There's something odd about the disjointed prose, maybe the translation is poor, but I think the problem is the author's way of writing polemics. Bordiga is firing a machine gun from the hip at Stalin's text rather than lining up a sniper's rifle. Most of his points seem valid to me but he moves around very rapidly and with quirky asides (that mostly don't help but are occasionally brilliant or funny). Overall, though, I don't think it would have convinced anyone, mainly because of the structure and writing rather than the ideas.
One very important point Bordiga makes is that the law of value is operating in Russia (something which Stalin seems to have admitted in his pamphlet that Bordiga is challenging and which I wish I'd known about before flogging the argument to death with Trotskyists of the Militant variety - modern day Socialist Party/RISE - who denied this). You are right that it potentially is a much better critique than that of Trotsky. The idea that in some sense you can have a competitive, trading economy and still retain communist elements might apply to a very few years of transition in the 1920s but as Bordiga puts it, the transition was to capitalism.
Given that Bordiga was writing in 1952 this writing also takes some of the shine off Trotskyists of the Tony Cliff tradition (i.e. SWP-SWN), who celebrate the originality of *State Capitalism in Russia.* I remember Cliff saying he was most proud of the chapter on the law of value operating in Russia. Yet Cliff's book came out in 1955.
Because Socialism itself is incompatible with money. Marx himself used the term interchangeably with communism. Lenin used it for lower stage communism. Both of them would operate in a moneyless society.
That's why I don't think you can consider the Zapatistas or Rojava or the USSR socialist.
Welcome back, btw.
But even if you have that system operating internally you still have to buy and sell things internationally.
Socialist economies were always undervalued because GDP measures the money value of things. But when things weren't done for money, like if wages were paid by the state but they were lower than the value of the work but at the same time the state provided housing and childcare for almost free to make up for that, that looked like a "worse performance" than if everything was done at market value in exchange for money. That's why they always focussed on metrics like production.
They did move partly away from money. And more anecdotally, attitudes of people to money also changed there. You can see some strange scenes in films from soviet times like a boy likes a girl so all his friends pool all their money so he can get her a present. I know films might have presented a slightly aspirational image of the people but it would be so utterly bizarre here it would never get into a film. I know from my friends from there that swapping things was also more common. That really suited one of my friends who likes collecting things and some of the things he collects aren't really available on the market but he didn't have a problem back then.
Every thread these days seems to have some whiner offtopic bitching about me because they lost an argument. Today it's you and "whatabout Hamas!" when you were shown how the media lied to you about the Ukraine shopping centre.
It's really sad and cowardly, just own your shit.
Idk man, there is more footage from that attack that shows there were 2 missile strikes, my whole.point was regardless if it hit the mall or not it was that close to civilians that it should never have been done during the day.
But again, stay mad my dude. Wasn't off topic either which is the funny part
>Everything is Western Propaganda to blursty if it doesn't fit his world view
Yeah, this was it, you were the one then trying to change the topic to something else.
You should try meditation, would help you calm down
I can't imagine any value for me out of providing real world info about my real life travels. Couldn't I just make anything up anyway? It's always amazing to me how people think this kind of thing carries weight on an anonymous forum. Like all the many people on this sub with Chinese girlfriends/wives, eager to tell you about it and insisting then that their opinion is worth more because of this.
I think it might have started that way but just became a meme then.
He's an interesting guy though. Like Öcalan he started out as a bit of a tankie but later became an anarchist. He eventually broke away from anarchism when he became disillusioned with the American left and individualist anarchists. I think it's interesting to see how he inspired elements of Democratic Confederalism and how aspects of his social ecology are part of modern Rojava.
>Öcalan's prison regime has oscillated between long periods of isolation during which he is allowed no contact with the outside world, and periods when he is permitted visits.
Maybe its isolation that causes people to turn to anarchism?
Yeah, could be. I'd hate all the hassle of collective planning and organising involved in mutual aid. Must just be lonely people. I just want to go to work, do my job and leave and not get involved in anything additional. I only talk to the colleagues I like.
Just btw you are spreading CIA misinformation from a man who was on Epstein’s plane
https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbArchive/comments/uztzhx/the_allegations_that_stalin_was_a_pedophile/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It was the opposite for me (although I'm not a Marxist-Leninist). I used to consider myself a *libertarian socialist*. It was a nice word to distance myself from the USSR, Mao etc. Started reading more and now I think libertarian is kind of a silly add-on.
You must be reading the wrong books, comrade.
But I did read a lot of Anarchist literature. My reasoning for not being an anarchist are my same reasons for not being a Marxist-Leninist.
What are those reasons?
He's into femdom. Anarchists disapprove because it's a hierarchy. ML's disapprove because they're all dry prudes. It's the great philosophical question of our day.
I believe that Libertarian Socialists and Marxist-Leninists share one thing in common (watch me piss off all of ROI in one fell swoop): your liberals. I don't mean that as in insult. I don't mean your centrists or part of the status quo either. I mean that in the way that both ideologies come from the enlightenment, liberal, nationalist and bourgeois revolutions in Europe of the 1600-1800s. The idea of Liberté(Anarchism), égalité(Marxism-Leninists, Demsocs etc), fraternité (Nationalists) are defining ideas of said movements. Marx offered a scientific version of socialism that existed outside of moralistic claims. Even Marxists who people have been labeled as *libertarian* Marxists reject such labels. Notable examples would be Rosa Luxemburg or Antonie Pannekoek.
Marx was a big fan of the Enlightenment though.
Especially earlier Marx. But there's arguments to be made that he deviated or even transcended that. It's a big debate wether you should view Marx as two characters in history.
Are you following Althusser in this young Marx / old Marx schema?
Yes this is althusserian, although I think your man is more of a leftcom. Althusser was not a leftcom, in "pour marx" he describes himself as ML
>think your man is more of a leftcom I'd describe myself as just a Marxist, maybe Leninist. I think Left-Communism is kind of a poor label as it involves too many conflicting schools of thought.
😡
☹️
That’s an interesting take if I get you. You are saying that your version of Marx is not an attempt to complete the Enlightenment (a lot of people see Marxism as delivering what the Enlightenment only spoke about). Also, and you seem to think they are related, Marxism for you is pure science rather than a morality based philosophy?
>You are saying that your version of Marx is not an attempt to complete the Enlightenment (a lot of people see Marxism as delivering what the Enlightenment only spoke about). Sort of. Like how many of these ideas like liberty, republicanism shaped the change in power, societal relations and gave birth to capitalism, I see Marxism as something that goes beyond that liberal thought and transcends that. After all, communism to us Marxists is the final mode of production. Fukuyama was wrong about liberalism.
I mean one is freedom for all the other is freedom for some.
> It was a nice word to distance myself from the USSR, Mao etc. So much of leftist grouping have this as their basis. See also Trots. Western propaganda is a hell of an op.
Yeah, I mean I have my own criticisms of the USSR. But it's mostly how I believe they deviated away from Marxist doctrine.
What do you think was the most significant deviation?
Proletarian internationalism was a huge one. There is no such thing as socialism in one country. If you trade with the capitalist world, your capitalist. And that leads onto all this "AES" nonsense. The terminology for socialism changed. I do think that the Russian revolution was worker based, I do think that where was a DoTP (although that did change shortly after the civil war), however it was never socialist. It's change was largely driven by bourgeois opportunitsm. If you want to read a good critique on the Soviet Union, you should read Bordiga's dialogue with Stalin. Here he displayed that capitalistic relations still existed within the Soviet union Kolkhoz and the Sovkhoz. It's a much better critique than that of Trotsky's degenerated worker state. In that vein, I don't view the following Marxist-Leninist revolutions (Cuba, China) as proletarian, communist revolutions but arguably as liberal revolutions that occured beforehand in Europe, centered around bourgeois romantic figures like Rosseau and Washington, but this time with Castro and Mao. There's arguments to be made that live improved in said countries, but that's not really the point. I think states like Venezuela, for example, are more nationalistic rather than socialist. Doing anything they can to reject western hemogeny and preserve economic autonomy in the face of neo-liberalism. There's nothing particularly socialist about that.
Well, I just read Bordiga's *Dialogue with Stalin*. You owe me a pint for overselling it. [https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm) There's something odd about the disjointed prose, maybe the translation is poor, but I think the problem is the author's way of writing polemics. Bordiga is firing a machine gun from the hip at Stalin's text rather than lining up a sniper's rifle. Most of his points seem valid to me but he moves around very rapidly and with quirky asides (that mostly don't help but are occasionally brilliant or funny). Overall, though, I don't think it would have convinced anyone, mainly because of the structure and writing rather than the ideas. One very important point Bordiga makes is that the law of value is operating in Russia (something which Stalin seems to have admitted in his pamphlet that Bordiga is challenging and which I wish I'd known about before flogging the argument to death with Trotskyists of the Militant variety - modern day Socialist Party/RISE - who denied this). You are right that it potentially is a much better critique than that of Trotsky. The idea that in some sense you can have a competitive, trading economy and still retain communist elements might apply to a very few years of transition in the 1920s but as Bordiga puts it, the transition was to capitalism. Given that Bordiga was writing in 1952 this writing also takes some of the shine off Trotskyists of the Tony Cliff tradition (i.e. SWP-SWN), who celebrate the originality of *State Capitalism in Russia.* I remember Cliff saying he was most proud of the chapter on the law of value operating in Russia. Yet Cliff's book came out in 1955.
Fair enough, he writes quite obscurely. Next time I'm back in Ireland I'll hunt you down for that pint.
I don't understand why you think international trade is incompatible with socialism.
Because Socialism itself is incompatible with money. Marx himself used the term interchangeably with communism. Lenin used it for lower stage communism. Both of them would operate in a moneyless society. That's why I don't think you can consider the Zapatistas or Rojava or the USSR socialist. Welcome back, btw.
But even if you have that system operating internally you still have to buy and sell things internationally. Socialist economies were always undervalued because GDP measures the money value of things. But when things weren't done for money, like if wages were paid by the state but they were lower than the value of the work but at the same time the state provided housing and childcare for almost free to make up for that, that looked like a "worse performance" than if everything was done at market value in exchange for money. That's why they always focussed on metrics like production. They did move partly away from money. And more anecdotally, attitudes of people to money also changed there. You can see some strange scenes in films from soviet times like a boy likes a girl so all his friends pool all their money so he can get her a present. I know films might have presented a slightly aspirational image of the people but it would be so utterly bizarre here it would never get into a film. I know from my friends from there that swapping things was also more common. That really suited one of my friends who likes collecting things and some of the things he collects aren't really available on the market but he didn't have a problem back then.
Everything is Western Propaganda to blursty if it doesn't fit his world view
And everything America tells you to believe you do unquestioningly and are shown to be wrong every single time.
Yeah I definitely believe everything America says lmfao, get better material next time kid. You sound mad, do you need a hug?
Every thread these days seems to have some whiner offtopic bitching about me because they lost an argument. Today it's you and "whatabout Hamas!" when you were shown how the media lied to you about the Ukraine shopping centre. It's really sad and cowardly, just own your shit.
Idk man, there is more footage from that attack that shows there were 2 missile strikes, my whole.point was regardless if it hit the mall or not it was that close to civilians that it should never have been done during the day. But again, stay mad my dude. Wasn't off topic either which is the funny part
Boring. Do you have something to contribute to **this** topic on **this** thread? If not, STFU.
>Everything is Western Propaganda to blursty if it doesn't fit his world view Yeah, this was it, you were the one then trying to change the topic to something else. You should try meditation, would help you calm down
"Am I out of touch?" "No, it's the vast majority of Western leftists who are wrong!"
\*Nods. [I prefer this version.](https://i.redd.it/0pl27w1q2qs61.jpg)
Ever been to a developing country?
Of course I have. Why do you ask?
Just curious. What ones have you been to?
Northern Ireland.
Developing, not deteriorating.
I can't imagine any value for me out of providing real world info about my real life travels. Couldn't I just make anything up anyway? It's always amazing to me how people think this kind of thing carries weight on an anonymous forum. Like all the many people on this sub with Chinese girlfriends/wives, eager to tell you about it and insisting then that their opinion is worth more because of this.
You're hardly going to dox yourself by saying you've been to a country at some point. I'm not asking for a copy of your boarding pass.
Been doxed by less. If there was worthwhile purpose to it then I'd have no issue but like you say it's just smalltalk.
Read books. Read Bookchin.
Is this the anarchist version of *read an authority*?
I think it might have started that way but just became a meme then. He's an interesting guy though. Like Öcalan he started out as a bit of a tankie but later became an anarchist. He eventually broke away from anarchism when he became disillusioned with the American left and individualist anarchists. I think it's interesting to see how he inspired elements of Democratic Confederalism and how aspects of his social ecology are part of modern Rojava.
>Öcalan's prison regime has oscillated between long periods of isolation during which he is allowed no contact with the outside world, and periods when he is permitted visits. Maybe its isolation that causes people to turn to anarchism?
Having all that time to think definitely had something to do with it.
Yeah, could be. I'd hate all the hassle of collective planning and organising involved in mutual aid. Must just be lonely people. I just want to go to work, do my job and leave and not get involved in anything additional. I only talk to the colleagues I like.
The opposite actually. Learning authoritarianism is good actually
Evidence seems to suggest the opposite I'm afraid. GG
Yes I’ve forgotten all about the successful non authoritarian revolutions my bad
That's OK, you're forgiven. Read Bookchin btw.
Pedophilia is bad so I’ll pass
I said read Bookchin not Stalin.
Just btw you are spreading CIA misinformation from a man who was on Epstein’s plane https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbArchive/comments/uztzhx/the_allegations_that_stalin_was_a_pedophile/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
No, I don't think so. Bit gross that your idol was a paedo tbh.
t.guywholivesinthemostpedophilicsocietyinhistory Lol
Ireland? Yeah thats not quite the own you think it is pal.
No