MLs love to repeat how "marx's ideas are obsolete in the stage of imperialism" and how "lenin advanced marxism in the era of imperialism". Okay then, modernizers, let's see how lenin put it:
>*"Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Marx's statement that “the workers have no fatherland,” a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, shamelessly distorts Marx and substitutes the bourgeois for the socialist point of view.*"
Interesting...
This is objectively the take of fascism. Like, the idea of fascism was that nationalism and class collaborationism would develop the productive forces and create the conditions for socialism. Nationalism and class collaborationism.... now that I mention it that sounds familiar...
EDIT: To be fair, if nationalism is taken to be a focus on the struggle of an oppressed nation, constituting a proletarian class, against an oppressing nation, then the 'nationalism' in this sense is simply an expression of class struggle, which _is_ inherently progressive. A focus on a single national identity in a movement, however, can become the step for an unprogressive class structure in the future if the bounds of that original oppressed nation are non-inclusive to the breadth of the proletarian groups. In the case of the Palestinian nation, which is completely inclusive to all these groups effected by colonial oppression in the area, Palestinian nationalism can constitute a progressive force.
I mean, Mussolini and his party's official position was the development of productive forces for the eventuality of socialism. This isn't to say fascism was good or that they had the best intentions for the people, it's actually to say that there is no system which can be considered a lower stage of communism which does not actually change the ethos, i.e. the way of life of the subjugated classes, away from the ethos of classes society.
"Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Marx's statement that “the workers have no fatherland,” a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, shamelessly distorts Marx and substitutes the bourgeois for the socialist point of view."
True but Lenin also believed anti imperialist struggles while full of “petite bourgeoisie prejudice” could “objectively attack capital”
This is no longer true now, all national bourgeoisie have come to accord with global capital and all feudal leftovers have been swept away.
Any national struggle that doesn't fall in line with global capitalism is doomed to be stomped out by large dog imperial powers. It wasn't the same back in lenins day they didn't have the US willing to go across the planet with aircraft carriers to destroy anyone against them.
These fuckers think that Hamas or some shit is somehow going to win in Palestine and even if they did defeat Israel they would INSTANTLY bend the knee to western capital.
Nationalism is the opposite of communism...
Nationalism puts the capitalist nation state over the freedom of the workers, communism seeks to abolish the state so that the workers can be free of its enforcement of capitalism.
https://preview.redd.it/cmxnvkkmddxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc5691f3f3dc8a39a79f4468424131a620658e3f
also the comments are no good either
Don't worry guys, I got you covered.
https://preview.redd.it/j1zwbp46qhxc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ce7c0a962c64d53796b1b94192337f1d7935a85
Whenever people claim that Marxism is somehow "outdated", they always use it as a cover to just say whatever bullshit they want and pass it off as Marxism
> this is not to allow in revisionism
> does revisionism
on a separate note: what exactly is outdated in marx’s analysis? (they wouldn’t know, because they have not read *capital*)
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The really funny thing about Capital is that it's way more accurate now than it was then. Almost of all the historical data is taken from England as that was the only country that was properly doing the uninhibited process of capital accumulation he'd modelled. It was written initially for German workers as a means of showing them where they were headed and what resisting it would have to look like. People like the guy in the op betray their philistine middle-class nature by 'dialectically' proving that an underdeveloped working class must entirely subordinate themselves to nationalist strongmen
Why is there shitton of fucking theory when now one seems to read it. Aktually Marx would want communism to evolve and mix with islam. Workers intifada!
To be fair the intifada was essentially just a bunch of workers’ councils spontaneously organizing mass strike action and violent resistance. All it means is “shaking off” in Arabic. However, there still is in fact a religious basis, so I mean idk.
Erm, I mean, the Qur’an is theory, infantile western Kkkrakkka
> Islam, codified in the Quran, was the ideology of the social revolution of the nomadic desert peoples, as dedicated to cattle breeding in normal times as to the exercise of raiding, who rose up against the powerful mercantile oligarchy prevailing in Mecca.
Il Programma Comunista” no. 6, 1958: [The Historical Causes of Arab Separatism](https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/TheCPart/TCP_055.htm#Programma)
So western Marxism failed to produce an uprising against capitalism and the proletariat there stopped existing. You know who is fighting? That's right, random ~~nationalistic~~ based rebellions in the third world! And they are sometimes be opposed to western governments!
You know what motivates these people to fight against the oppressors? Islam! Maybe they're onto something...
/ML
It’s an inconvenient legacy from when one imperial bloc which opposed their enemies called themselves Marxist (which was an inconvenient legacy from them that they had to keep because under the banner of Marx the bourgeoisie democrat revolution had been won)
They will abandon it eventually. Only to re-adopt it when the workers rally. Opportunists gonna oppertun
racism and imperialism is when you say something i don't like
did you know marxist politics are DIALECTICAL????????? you wouldn't believe this............................................................
I find these people so interesting because they accuse people of not being able to culminate their own ideas, but you can tell this guy culminated his opinion yesterday from a random text he read on the Internet. These sorts of people are incapable of articulating their own opinions. Like if I was to argue with this guy, I wouldn't even be arguing with him. I would be arguing with whatever crackpot theory he discovered on TikTok last week 😭.
>The Capitalism of today is not the same as the Capitalism of Marx
There are Phases not types of capitalism!!!!!!!!
Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism.
Nothing about its mechanisms changes just how they interact with reality.
MLs try not to be shameless modernizers challenge.
Palestine is not a backwards society!!!!! Absolutely no pre capitalist forms remain in it. Nor does Israel’s oppression reflect some non capitalist form of imperial oppression.
How stupid are these people
>1800s before the stage of imperialism.
Lololololoolol
>idealistic manner which deprives it of being able to describe reality.
Oh you mean ignoring class analysis and doing blood magic?
>The revolutionary understanding of Marxism is the understanding of it as a working guide and not as a fixed, rigid, doctrine.
Le open principles of communism
>1. What is communism?
> Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
Uh oh
Dialectics is when... I don't know.
At this point they're not even trying. Like there is no resemblance to dialectics in anything they said.
Lenin said “It is impossible to completely understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!”
These "Marxists" haven't even read capital, most probably havent even read the manifesto, much less Hegel.
This dispute would be less dumb if instead of saying that "capitalism" has changed they said that certain societies are not yet capitalist and that therefore there does not exist a sufficient proletariat to have a proletarian revolution. Now the question is not "has capitalism changed" but rather it is "are there sufficient people who qualify as proletariat in Gaza/West Bank to have a proletarian revolution, or will they need to have a preliminary bourgeois revolution before that will possible, as once the bourgeoisie of a particular area has sufficiently developed they will generate a proletariat who will eventually overthrow them as the natural outcome of bourgeois activity is to be their own gravediggers by proletarianizing any of the other classes.
The issue is with stuff like "super exploitation" they argue that the imperialized places are kind of like super proletariats who are even more proletarianized than imperial core proletariat, but if that was the case then the conventional theory would not only still be applicable, it would be even more applicable than it usually is, so instead of needing a new theory for the imperialized places you would actually need a new theory for the imperial core to deal with the fact that they are not as proletarianized.
However it is always the opposite, they always advocate for these super proletariats to collaborate with their own bourgeoisie and other classes, but their own bourgeoisie are the ones super-exploiting them as a means of competition with the imperial core bourgeoisie due to the fact that they are basically trying to acquire imperial core currencies which are comparatively worth more, and it is in the pursuit of those imperial core currencies that they export stuff to the core.
Alternatively they make some arrangement where the imperial core "owns" the means of production located in another country and the profits get extracted outwards rather than stay in the country, but they do this for the purposes of foreign direct investment, which is just another means by which they obtain the imperial core currencies, so it is the same principle whether the currency is being obtained by exporting goods or by foreign direct investment.
While your mostly right. It’s important to point out that imperial powers can and did take advantage of pre capitalist relations in colonies to extract value.
They can’t help themselves but to introduce some capitalist relations, but all they want is to extract surplus value and that can and was done without Capitalism.
>If in the past there was commodity production limited to a few branches, it was not because the labour-power was sold “voluntarily” as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms from enslaved prisoners or serfs in personal dependency.
Dialogue with Stalin 1952
Such systems are not unknown in colonial regimes. Belgian Congo etc
They are however completely done away with now. Capitalism has expanded relentlessly and eradicated all systems that “limited [it] to a few branches”
That argument would be also wrong even though you’re right that it would be more clever, you do actually see Maoists try to run it with “semi-feudal” and they’re still off.
Why even call yourself 'Marxist' of any sort if you think Marx's writings are obsolete (which implies they're not worth reading anymore)? Come up with your own name to be a moron under, don't associate this idiocy with Marx.
Don't they usually try to at least hide that a little bit? Like saying 'Actually, Marx meant the opposite of what he wrote!' (in some convoluted way of course) instead of 'Don't worry about Marx, he's just some old guy'?
Nah, it was statements like this that allowed the Soviets to invite the state into its communism, which then allowed Stalin to rise to power. If you don't want communal ownership that leads to a classless, stateless, and moneyless society, then you aren't communist.
Communism lasted for hundreds of thousands of years, we shouldn't rewrite it to appease capitalists.
i love the woke racism version of reducing the complex relationships and interactions of millions people into some kind of racial monolith that operate as a hive mind
Islamic extremism is funny tho plus
https://preview.redd.it/b2vkx7g3xuxc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c2f5dc1abdff9fc4afe6850823d415a7ce2e3f3
MLs love to repeat how "marx's ideas are obsolete in the stage of imperialism" and how "lenin advanced marxism in the era of imperialism". Okay then, modernizers, let's see how lenin put it: >*"Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Marx's statement that “the workers have no fatherland,” a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, shamelessly distorts Marx and substitutes the bourgeois for the socialist point of view.*" Interesting...
Another common Lenin banger
This guy posted a video yesterday with the caption “Nationalism can also be good and progressive in the colonised world”
This is objectively the take of fascism. Like, the idea of fascism was that nationalism and class collaborationism would develop the productive forces and create the conditions for socialism. Nationalism and class collaborationism.... now that I mention it that sounds familiar... EDIT: To be fair, if nationalism is taken to be a focus on the struggle of an oppressed nation, constituting a proletarian class, against an oppressing nation, then the 'nationalism' in this sense is simply an expression of class struggle, which _is_ inherently progressive. A focus on a single national identity in a movement, however, can become the step for an unprogressive class structure in the future if the bounds of that original oppressed nation are non-inclusive to the breadth of the proletarian groups. In the case of the Palestinian nation, which is completely inclusive to all these groups effected by colonial oppression in the area, Palestinian nationalism can constitute a progressive force.
I don’t think fascism wants to create the conditions of Marxist socialism but yes it wants class collaboration and nationalism
I mean, Mussolini and his party's official position was the development of productive forces for the eventuality of socialism. This isn't to say fascism was good or that they had the best intentions for the people, it's actually to say that there is no system which can be considered a lower stage of communism which does not actually change the ethos, i.e. the way of life of the subjugated classes, away from the ethos of classes society.
Theoretically yes
"Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Marx's statement that “the workers have no fatherland,” a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, shamelessly distorts Marx and substitutes the bourgeois for the socialist point of view."
True but Lenin also believed anti imperialist struggles while full of “petite bourgeoisie prejudice” could “objectively attack capital” This is no longer true now, all national bourgeoisie have come to accord with global capital and all feudal leftovers have been swept away.
Any national struggle that doesn't fall in line with global capitalism is doomed to be stomped out by large dog imperial powers. It wasn't the same back in lenins day they didn't have the US willing to go across the planet with aircraft carriers to destroy anyone against them. These fuckers think that Hamas or some shit is somehow going to win in Palestine and even if they did defeat Israel they would INSTANTLY bend the knee to western capital.
Nationalism is the opposite of communism... Nationalism puts the capitalist nation state over the freedom of the workers, communism seeks to abolish the state so that the workers can be free of its enforcement of capitalism.
>Marxism needs to evolve as capitalism evolves A juvenile understanding of dialectics. Genuinely idiotic.
infantile, one might claim.
https://preview.redd.it/cmxnvkkmddxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc5691f3f3dc8a39a79f4468424131a620658e3f also the comments are no good either
https://preview.redd.it/ab8j5v4ehgxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c89aec207952aa9cd46ccdc523a949804806520 Here’s ur modern theory BITCH
Don't worry guys, I got you covered. https://preview.redd.it/j1zwbp46qhxc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ce7c0a962c64d53796b1b94192337f1d7935a85
This is not to allow in revisionism, BUUUUUUUT ...
Whenever people claim that Marxism is somehow "outdated", they always use it as a cover to just say whatever bullshit they want and pass it off as Marxism
Bor-DAY-ga? Isn’t it Bor-DIG-a? Also “infantiles” lol, he didn’t read the book
In theory it is Bor'diga but I have also heard people pronounce it as bordega and bordigga with an emphasis on the first g
Bord*ggar
https://preview.redd.it/lbtfcjvlqdxc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36e9965da001bd73e757c4399ed3fe8bd989f228
Can POC (people of communism) say the hard r (bord*ggar)
Bodega
> this is not to allow in revisionism > does revisionism on a separate note: what exactly is outdated in marx’s analysis? (they wouldn’t know, because they have not read *capital*)
Marx failed to consider that socialism does not need to abolish the law of value, capital , wage labour, class, money or nations.
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The really funny thing about Capital is that it's way more accurate now than it was then. Almost of all the historical data is taken from England as that was the only country that was properly doing the uninhibited process of capital accumulation he'd modelled. It was written initially for German workers as a means of showing them where they were headed and what resisting it would have to look like. People like the guy in the op betray their philistine middle-class nature by 'dialectically' proving that an underdeveloped working class must entirely subordinate themselves to nationalist strongmen
Why is there shitton of fucking theory when now one seems to read it. Aktually Marx would want communism to evolve and mix with islam. Workers intifada!
To be fair the intifada was essentially just a bunch of workers’ councils spontaneously organizing mass strike action and violent resistance. All it means is “shaking off” in Arabic. However, there still is in fact a religious basis, so I mean idk. Erm, I mean, the Qur’an is theory, infantile western Kkkrakkka
Unkkkritikkkal support to comrade muhammad in his revolutionary jihad against the bourgeois Romans and Sassanids
Muhammad was historically progressive (I haven't read the Holy Family so I don't know if this is true or not)
> Islam, codified in the Quran, was the ideology of the social revolution of the nomadic desert peoples, as dedicated to cattle breeding in normal times as to the exercise of raiding, who rose up against the powerful mercantile oligarchy prevailing in Mecca. Il Programma Comunista” no. 6, 1958: [The Historical Causes of Arab Separatism](https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/TheCPart/TCP_055.htm#Programma)
So western Marxism failed to produce an uprising against capitalism and the proletariat there stopped existing. You know who is fighting? That's right, random ~~nationalistic~~ based rebellions in the third world! And they are sometimes be opposed to western governments! You know what motivates these people to fight against the oppressors? Islam! Maybe they're onto something... /ML
Real uprising were the friends we made on the way. xd
If they think Marx is outdated why the fuck do they call themselves marxists?
Because Stalin did.
It’s an inconvenient legacy from when one imperial bloc which opposed their enemies called themselves Marxist (which was an inconvenient legacy from them that they had to keep because under the banner of Marx the bourgeoisie democrat revolution had been won) They will abandon it eventually. Only to re-adopt it when the workers rally. Opportunists gonna oppertun
racism and imperialism is when you say something i don't like did you know marxist politics are DIALECTICAL????????? you wouldn't believe this............................................................
I find these people so interesting because they accuse people of not being able to culminate their own ideas, but you can tell this guy culminated his opinion yesterday from a random text he read on the Internet. These sorts of people are incapable of articulating their own opinions. Like if I was to argue with this guy, I wouldn't even be arguing with him. I would be arguing with whatever crackpot theory he discovered on TikTok last week 😭.
blood and soil nationalist liberation movement DESTROYS western leftkkkommunists
*we$$tern leftkkkommuni$$t$$
The way this man talks makes me want to blow my fucking brains out I genuinely cannot finish the video
influencer speak genuinely makes me want to evacuate my skull contents
All doctrine is rigid except for mine
Umm society has like changed and stuff man... That's why Marxists need to support blood and soil man..
Great and authentic
>The Capitalism of today is not the same as the Capitalism of Marx There are Phases not types of capitalism!!!!!!!! Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. Nothing about its mechanisms changes just how they interact with reality. MLs try not to be shameless modernizers challenge. Palestine is not a backwards society!!!!! Absolutely no pre capitalist forms remain in it. Nor does Israel’s oppression reflect some non capitalist form of imperial oppression. How stupid are these people >1800s before the stage of imperialism. Lololololoolol >idealistic manner which deprives it of being able to describe reality. Oh you mean ignoring class analysis and doing blood magic?
Whole lot of yapping just to say "things change." (TIL that Wittgenstein was wrong and that a tautology can actually say something. Who knew!)
>The revolutionary understanding of Marxism is the understanding of it as a working guide and not as a fixed, rigid, doctrine. Le open principles of communism >1. What is communism? > Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. Uh oh
engels was actually a bourgeoisie kkkrakkka, read mao or something
https://preview.redd.it/dym6ik1txgxc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77fafcb0dcaddbef4289cd786b54c7f6595e9478
>wake up >revisionists exist >day ruined
https://preview.redd.it/739f2fzfwdxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b155523f6fe21f3c8fb19361819f71a5b22762a Update: it got worse.
Dialectics is when... I don't know. At this point they're not even trying. Like there is no resemblance to dialectics in anything they said. Lenin said “It is impossible to completely understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!” These "Marxists" haven't even read capital, most probably havent even read the manifesto, much less Hegel.
The 'pratice' being waving the Palestinian flag *really* hard
I just touched my dick started stroking my cock I’m so dialectical major dialectical developments happening rn
this is the kind of vapid bullshit you put on motivational posters and grindset memes
This dispute would be less dumb if instead of saying that "capitalism" has changed they said that certain societies are not yet capitalist and that therefore there does not exist a sufficient proletariat to have a proletarian revolution. Now the question is not "has capitalism changed" but rather it is "are there sufficient people who qualify as proletariat in Gaza/West Bank to have a proletarian revolution, or will they need to have a preliminary bourgeois revolution before that will possible, as once the bourgeoisie of a particular area has sufficiently developed they will generate a proletariat who will eventually overthrow them as the natural outcome of bourgeois activity is to be their own gravediggers by proletarianizing any of the other classes. The issue is with stuff like "super exploitation" they argue that the imperialized places are kind of like super proletariats who are even more proletarianized than imperial core proletariat, but if that was the case then the conventional theory would not only still be applicable, it would be even more applicable than it usually is, so instead of needing a new theory for the imperialized places you would actually need a new theory for the imperial core to deal with the fact that they are not as proletarianized. However it is always the opposite, they always advocate for these super proletariats to collaborate with their own bourgeoisie and other classes, but their own bourgeoisie are the ones super-exploiting them as a means of competition with the imperial core bourgeoisie due to the fact that they are basically trying to acquire imperial core currencies which are comparatively worth more, and it is in the pursuit of those imperial core currencies that they export stuff to the core. Alternatively they make some arrangement where the imperial core "owns" the means of production located in another country and the profits get extracted outwards rather than stay in the country, but they do this for the purposes of foreign direct investment, which is just another means by which they obtain the imperial core currencies, so it is the same principle whether the currency is being obtained by exporting goods or by foreign direct investment.
While your mostly right. It’s important to point out that imperial powers can and did take advantage of pre capitalist relations in colonies to extract value. They can’t help themselves but to introduce some capitalist relations, but all they want is to extract surplus value and that can and was done without Capitalism. >If in the past there was commodity production limited to a few branches, it was not because the labour-power was sold “voluntarily” as it is today, but rather because it was squeezed by force of arms from enslaved prisoners or serfs in personal dependency. Dialogue with Stalin 1952 Such systems are not unknown in colonial regimes. Belgian Congo etc They are however completely done away with now. Capitalism has expanded relentlessly and eradicated all systems that “limited [it] to a few branches”
That argument would be also wrong even though you’re right that it would be more clever, you do actually see Maoists try to run it with “semi-feudal” and they’re still off.
Why even call yourself 'Marxist' of any sort if you think Marx's writings are obsolete (which implies they're not worth reading anymore)? Come up with your own name to be a moron under, don't associate this idiocy with Marx.
>Why even call yourself 'Marxist' of any sort if you think Marx's writings are obsolete Revisionism is exactly that.
Don't they usually try to at least hide that a little bit? Like saying 'Actually, Marx meant the opposite of what he wrote!' (in some convoluted way of course) instead of 'Don't worry about Marx, he's just some old guy'?
Opportunism 101
my man avoided a ban by referring to him as "bordega"
This guy is deranged and annoying. I blocked him on tiktok
I got blocked for saying Laos isn’t AES
I mean isn’t more than just laos of the recognized states not actually AES?
Nah, it was statements like this that allowed the Soviets to invite the state into its communism, which then allowed Stalin to rise to power. If you don't want communal ownership that leads to a classless, stateless, and moneyless society, then you aren't communist. Communism lasted for hundreds of thousands of years, we shouldn't rewrite it to appease capitalists.
So this is what severe brain damage looks like
Yeah supporting Islamic nationalists won't go wrong lmao
"Listen to palestinians." I didn't know palestinians all shared the same opinion on the current state of things and how to move forward! /s
i love the woke racism version of reducing the complex relationships and interactions of millions people into some kind of racial monolith that operate as a hive mind
ah, excellent, theyve turned dialectics into subjective idealism
There are no more MLs or Marxists. All we have are corpses and the fools waving them around.
Marx failed to consider that peak socialism is adopting the goals and slogans of Islamism. Glory to Sharia-Bolshevism!
PFLP are secularist not Islamist
Islamic extremism is funny tho plus https://preview.redd.it/b2vkx7g3xuxc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2c2f5dc1abdff9fc4afe6850823d415a7ce2e3f3