Anonymous #1 1d

and i don’t like lenin because i don’t like authoritarianism in any form

11

Anonymous #1 1d

and Marx was a bigot

3

Anonymous #2 1d

How is that related

6

Anonymous #3 1d

Following a framework based on historical materialism, dialectics and scientific socialism (vs utopian socialism)

6

Anonymous OP 1d

Thinking…

3

Anonymous #1 1d

Breaking: man who lived in the 1800s was not woke

3

Anonymous OP 1d

Being gay does not in fact prevent someone from being a Marxist-Leninist. In Marxist-Leninist theory, political alignment is determined by one's class position and commitment to proletarian revolution rather than sexual orientation.

6

Anonymous #2 1d

Good job

1

Anonymous #4 1d

shit never thought of that, you mean his ideas might be in large part a product of his time and experiences

4

Anonymous #1 1d

Yes, that’s materialism!

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Yes that’s how socialization works

3

Anonymous #4 1d

Also materialism yeah

6

Anonymous #4 1d

i think my point went over both your heads

3

Anonymous OP 1d

Ohh okay! Thank you:)

6

Anonymous #1 1d

What’s your point

3

Anonymous OP 1d

Honestly that doesn’t sound too bad

8

Anonymous #1 1d

Well yeah I read that, I just disagree with your premise. Marx’s theories were largely only possible bc he happened to live in an area where the contradictions of capitalism were the most evident. And he synthesized german philosophy, English classical political economy and French (utopian) socialism. He lived right in the epicenter of all three of those movements and among all those thinkers to come to his conclusions. The contradictions of capitalism weren’t as nearly as evident elsewhere

1

Anonymous OP 1d

*europe*

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I’d recommend this short piece by Lenin

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Yes those countries are in Europe? That’s where capitalism first developed

1

Anonymous #1 1d

See you’re not gonna believe this but Marx is not the end-all be-all, people have advanced on his ideas since he was alive. I know you already shit on him but Lenin, for example, wrote about imperialism, a thing whose impacts weren’t fully apparent (though they were very much happening) during Marx’s time.

8

Anonymous #4 1d

i do believe it, that’s how schools of thought work

0

Anonymous #1 1d

i think that marxism in general attempts to present itself as a universal and comprehensive theory of society when it is far from that and that part of the reason communist projects fail so often is because they overlook all the other parts of history and society that have shaped the place they’re in

0

Anonymous #1 1d

and the fact that every time i have this conversation with someone who is a Marxist they assume i’m stupid and uneducated just cements that

0

Anonymous #6 1d

sure, you can makes everything work in new times, but we shouldn’t keep calling or relying on the writings and works of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or any other communist/extreme socialist from many years ago. We need to look at the people we have now, who have good ideas, and proper conversations about what is good about the past and what was about it. And, maybe not prop up men who did cause the death and suffering of a shit ton of people(not Marx, but you know who).

4

Anonymous #1 1d

It doesn’t present itself that way tho. Marx just developed various theories and frameworks almost 200 years ago that many theorists have expanded on since as society and material conditions evolve. Communism has failed bc of US intervention, not bc it doesn’t work. Eventually the contradictions in capitalism will lead to a collapse of the system in which socialism will be the next progression and improvement on society

1

Anonymous OP 1d

yeah see that is a universal and comprehensive framework you just presented to me

2

Anonymous #6 1d

Marxist Leninist movements are the only ones to bring about successful communist projects tho?

0

Anonymous #6 1d

The ppl who have good ideas now have all used Marxist Leninism as their framework to build upon

0

Anonymous #6 1d

Like, one thing to think about is how Lenin and his government handled disability. Does communism or extreme socialism in our experience, aka examples of the past, take into account disabled individuals, and how do we incorporate disabled individuals into a communist structure that relies on every citizen to contribute to society in some way, socialism helps take care of them, but in all systems like that, there are still issues, and how do address that?

6

Anonymous #1 1d

Framework not theory

0

Anonymous OP 1d

universal and comprehensive framework built upon a universal and comprehensive theory

1

Anonymous OP 1d

yeah, but let’s not act that’s all they are or what they consider themselves, nor that any person you agree with or anyone who’s ideas are similar to Marx or Lenin are truly inspired by them. That’s a bit Eurocentric and ignores a lot about modern world and many philosophers and economists and politicians experience and background.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

frameworks are operationalized theories

3

Anonymous OP 1d

Well, that’s no true. Mao, and to say Mao is Leninist isn’t wrong, but to say he succeed bc he was Leninist isn’t exactly true.

0

Anonymous #6 1d

Mao was a Marxist Leninist

4

Anonymous #6 1d

All it means is that they utilize the theories of scientific socialism, historical materialism and dialectics, and draw inspiration from the first successful implementation of those theories through a vanguard party. It doesn’t mean they worship the men like a god, that Marxist Leninism is at all dogmatic or that they never got anything wrong, holy shit lmao. They just utilize Marxism and Leninism 😭 those men just happened to develop those theories, it doesn’t mean they’re infallible

0

Anonymous #6 1d

Or that there hasn’t been many great theorists since them that adapted their theories according to the present material conditions

-1

Anonymous #6 1d

Also how was he idealistic when he literally contributed greatly to materialism and was materialist? That’s like the whole point of Marxism

3

Anonymous #6 1d

Yes ofc communism takes into consideration disability. Unlike capitalism that treats all of the working class like a cog in the machine and disposable

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Marxism is just Europe’s answer to christianity after the French revolution. It just evolved into Christianity 2, Secular Edition. They have their prosecuted prophet, their canon, their priests, their nobility (the party), and their apocalypse/heaven (the revolution and communism). It’s the same system in a different package, which is why the Russian empire didn’t change all that much when they swapped out the Tsar for the Premier.

0

Anonymous #8 1d

omg you’re so right

0

Anonymous #9 1d

I believe in heavy government involvement in necessary base industries like transportation, some forms of manufacturing, and some forms of agriculture. But markets have shown themselves to be efficient, particularly in industries not really suitable for government operation (like recreation or consumer goods). The question therefore is how to prevent a market economy from exploiting people. I believe this is through a social safety net, strong unions, regulation, and worker co-ops.

3

Anonymous #1 1d

translated: i’ve never read marx

5

Anonymous #6 1d

also someone who has never read Marx

6

Anonymous #9 1d

^ I feel the same way. Furthermore, I think giving the government total control over the markets is a temptation too great for any government to resist, which is why we need democracy. Total government control of wealth leads to the rationalization that “l’etat c’est moi” among its leaders. They represent the people, so surely they should get the largest share of the wealth… (1/2)

1

Anonymous #8 1d

This makes the impacts of European communism largely indistinguishable from European absolute monarchies in the 18th century - even down to a reputation for corruption and influence, and the political necessity of purges to kill politically undesirable ideological enemies (protestants, intellectuals, capitalists, and genuine leaders of the working class)

1

Anonymous #8 1d

the government (state) currently has total control over markets. tariffs and free trade agreements and imperialist intervention are all policies pursued by capitalists and their governments to exercise control over markets and capital

1

Anonymous #8 1d

y’all grossly misunderstand what a free market is. the free market refers to a market free of royal interference, from a mercantile time where trade was done internally to consolidate a country’s wealth and power. this is contrary to what capitalists want: the ability to trade freely and with whomever will pay the most for the commodities produced. this is why the liberal revolutions happened, to relegate the power of the clergy and monarchy beneath that of capital and to place the state

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

under the control of capitalists

1

Anonymous #8 1d

if the Soviet Union is indistinguishable from the Tsarist Empire that preceded it, then you’re either blind or intentionally obtuse lol

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

Saying that a free market refers solely to being “free from royal control” and assuming that the Enlightenment was a ploy of the evil capitalists to take power from the just and righteous nobility and clergy sounds more like a monarchist take than a Communist one

1

Anonymous #8 1d

and to pretend that capitalist governments do not engage in purges and repression greater than that of the absolutist monarchies that preceded them is absurd. you live in a surveillance state in a nation that has suppressed socialist, Black, indigenous, and all other movements that threaten white capitalism. we all gather around every two years to vote for one of two capitalist parties, yet somehow this society isn’t nearly as repressive or rife with corruption?

2

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

Nah. The systems produced the same outcomes because they’re the same system. The only difference is the ideology which was used to justify them. In the Russian Tsardom, the government relied on Boyars to keep power. A title of nobility was the signal of loyalty which justified a person’s place in society. It fell because the leaders badly mismanaged it. In the Soviet Union, the Premier relied on the Party. A party membership card was the signal of loyalty. And the same thing happened.

-1

Anonymous #8 1d

you just lack historical context, no one brought morality into this. the liberal revolutions which transitioned feudalism from capitalism were direct attacks on royal and clerical power as pursued by the bourgeoisie. even liberal historians recognize this… unless you’re saying that history developed in some alternative manner. do explain

0

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

to, not from*

0

Anonymous #8 1d

There were some minor differences, because there are differences between the two ideologies. Monasticism and the Russian Church was replaced by Russian science and state atheism.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 1d

i study sociology of course i read marx. people can have different opinions

4

Anonymous #1 1d

i especially remember reading this bit and, as a jewish person, not finding it particularly brilliant

4

Anonymous #1 1d

He was also super racist to the slavs.

5

Anonymous #8 23h

oop orangutan blocked me

5

Anonymous OP 21h

Again, to say he succeeded bc of that isn’t true.

1