Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

  • Anarchism

    Votes: 37 16.4%
  • Marxism

    Votes: 19 8.4%
  • Marxism-Leninism

    Votes: 11 4.9%
  • Left Communism

    Votes: 7 3.1%
  • Democratic Socialism

    Votes: 84 37.3%
  • Social Democracy

    Votes: 54 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 5.8%

  • Total voters
    225
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,072
I'm not really sure on what a Marxist-leninist is tbh

Like how is that different than just being a supporter of Lenin's ideas
Lenin perceived of himself as a Marxist trying to work out a revolutionary program. The specific "official" ideology of Marxism-Leninism was introduced after his death and used by Stalin as a means to enforce what was acceptable and what was not.

Lenin was internationalist, anti-Russian chauvinist, and wanted the dismantling of the state to spread world revolution. To that end he turned the party into a weapon and used it to seize power from the provisional government, then went about transforming the workers' councils (the Soviets) into the organizational structure of the revolution. The particularities of the revolution, civil war, and subsequent collapse forced the Bolsheviks to turn to a one-party state and state capitalism out of desperation. That said, this does not absolve Lenin of his faults (tendency towards power consolidation, unnecessary brutality at times like when he ordered a bunch of prostitutes to be killed). But it was largely a theory of how to win power + ad hoc maneuvers to keep the revolution going.

Marxism-Leninism consolidated this into a massive bureaucracy, subverting all the democratic elements (like the Soviets and democratic centralism) and turning them into predetermined guarantors of party power. The transitional state became the established state, the workers lost control to the nomenklatura, and international proletarian revolution was set aside and replaced with socialism in one country. It also presents itself as being "pragmatic", which really just means you can do anything under ML so long as you can link it to a Marx or Lenin quote, which is how Stalin's planned economy and Xi Jinping's blatant authoritarian capitalism can both be called Marxist-Leninist - because it's less about theory and more about adherence to the party, which promises that it's very slowly inching along towards communism.

The seeds of Marxism-Leninism are certainly there in Lenin's thoughts, just like they also led to Trotsky's theories. So it's unfair to say that ML is a total aberration. But it's an outgrowth, and some would say a bastardization.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,072
Ok so MLs are actually more aligned with Mao/Stalin? That's confusing
Well, ML was the official ideology of the USSR and is still the official ideology of the PRC (adapted in Mao's day as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and in the present day as Socialism with Chinese Characteristics + Xi Jinping Thought), so yes...and no. There are/were USSR-allied MLs who claimed Mao was a loon who was leading a peasant rebellion rather than a ML revolution, and Maoists who claimed that Khrushchev was a counterrevolutionary who ruined the USSR. Khrushchev and the rest of the post-Stalin gang still called themselves MLs despite ML as an ideology having been formalized under Stalin, who they anathematized, and some MLs today are strictly Stalinists while others think the USSR was socialist all the way through Gorbachev albeit in a "degraded" form. And then you've got the split between the Maoists, Maoist-Third Worldists, and Dengists/Xi...ists?

But mostly yes. All Stalinists and Maoists claim to be MLs. Not all MLs agree on who was a proper ML.
 

louisacommie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,090
New Jersey
The thing about these ideologies when us American leftist discuss and identify ourselves is that the circumstances of Russia and China that led to those adopted ideologies wouldn't be relevant to a post revolution America since A. We are already industrialised and in late capitalism

And B. We wouldn't have to worry about interference from imperial United States since the United states has already been defeated in what ever means it is eventually is

There might be interference from other western powers but none are as powerful as the United States
Or as powerful as they were back in 1917

And in the event that the conditions were ripe for the United States to transition to socialism I highly doubt say the United kingdom would be doing so hot


I call myself the communist ideology I think sounds coolest at the time
 

Psychoward

Member
Nov 7, 2017
21,761
If you want to consolidate power in the early USSR, are you going to reject the two guys viewed as its ideological founders or act like you're their biggest fan?
Well ofc he did the latter, that doesn't mean that people in 2019 should see his version of the USSR as something Marx or even Lenin would support.
 

Masquerader

Member
Nov 4, 2017
928
I'm a demsoc because at my core I'm still a spineless liberal who wants gradual change.
I suppose I'm a Demsoc too, but I wouldn't say it's spineless. I want and will accept nothing less than the change of society as a whole to a more left-leaning place. I simply believe we can and will be able to do so by winning over the people without needless bloodshed. Nothing inherently spineless about that.

Of course however, if someone's not in a democracy, then I'm not gonna blame them for not quite being Demsocs. :p
 

Eylos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,054
bolsonaro got scared with chile protests, there's nothing happening, but he fears if something happens like there in the future in brazil, so he wants to give license to kill to the army and police during GLO (its a situation when you call the army, to preserve "law and order"), i'm not exaggerating.
 

DrSlek

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,492
bolsonaro got scared with chile protests, there's nothing happening, but he fears if something happens like there in the future in brazil, so he wants to give license to kill to the army and police during GLO (its a situation when you call the army, to preserve "law and order"), i'm not exaggerating.
Scared of Lula, you think?
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,828
Scotland
bolsonaro got scared with chile protests, there's nothing happening, but he fears if something happens like there in the future in brazil, so he wants to give license to kill to the army and police during GLO (its a situation when you call the army, to preserve "law and order"), i'm not exaggerating.
I'm really starting to think he won't go even if he loses the next election.
 

louisacommie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,090
New Jersey
The biggest argument agianst incrementalism is that it has been43 years since the first of the modern era neo liberal dems took power
20 years of incrementalist rule spread thought out 40 years

Shouldn't we already be at the end goals of incrementalism

What does it need 60 years?
80 years?

100?l
Liberal baby boomers aren't beniniffting from the end goal of incrementalism

Gen xers probs won't at this pace

Incremantisom agianst climate change is ofcourse a joke
 

Xiaomi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,973
The biggest argument agianst incrementalism is that it has been43 years since the first of the modern era neo liberal dems took power
20 years of incrementalist rule spread thought out 40 years

Shouldn't we already be at the end goals of incrementalism

What does it need 60 years?
80 years?

100?
I think most people are just legit bad at estimating or understanding time past a couple of years. They assume that important decisions can be quickly reversed if things go wrong, and that a generational scale for "change" is acceptable. Every so often the rich come along and say, hey give us more money/stop supporting those unions/support our tax breaks for just a little while and we'll give you soooo much awesome stuff. Then, when ordinary folks approve their demands, but then realize it's not working out, the rich pull one of these:



And people fall for it every single time. And while they spend decades trying to get back what was taken, the rich don't mind of course, because they'll just start up the same routine again.
 
Dec 28, 2017
437
us intelligence search for potential red flags in gaming world. Let's make a thread about anarchy and socialism, what could go wrong?

Ps. I was born in communism and I can share some thoughts, I mean hard core communism. In the end we kill the tyrant.
 

DrSlek

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,492
The CIA being a Socialist program is an interesting take.

Technically I guess it is one? One that eliminates the merest whif of Socialism anywhere in the developing world.
 

thepotatoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,453
Denver
I would imagine most who would fall on the right panels probably don't give a shit about the protests or the protesters as long as it doesn't negatively affect the markets.
Ironically, I saw more finance people angry at the right wing Bolivian coup because a Morales controlled Bolivia is better for the world economy than a civil war wrecked Bolivia. They were more critical of it than most of the mainstream press who just copy whatever the US military says.

With HK, they're 100% on the side of the protestors because finance wants to keep HK as the middle man between the west and the chinese market.