You must log in or register to comment.
I prefer Anarchist figures personally :3
Those can be good! But you really should read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they have some great works. Funny enough, Mao took a lot of inspiration from Anarchism as well, even though he was still a Marxist-Leninist.
Im a fan of Marx and Engels, less of Lenin and Stalin (especially their views on the Vanguard), and not too big of a Mao fan.
What’s wrong with their views on the vanguard?
Im not personally a fan of the entire concept, I dont belive a vanguard is necessary and in many cases actively harmful. State socialism is very easily corrupted and imo the state should not own the means of production.
The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn’t need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
So, the question in my opinion isn’t if the vanguard is necessary, it’s if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarchists want a fully horizontalized and decentralized network of cells such as cooperatives or communes. The Marxist critique of the Anarchist model is that that doesn’t actually abolish classes, as it turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie interested in the success of their own unit more than the global economy.
What are your thoughts on that?
Oh yeah the leaders who caused untold destruction on their own people and started authoritarian regimes… Totally the same
Ah yes “they” caused untold destructions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
What do you mean when you say they “caused untold destruction?” Do you legitimately think Tsarist Russia was better for its people than the USSR, or that the Russian Federation is better for its people now than the USSR was? Do you think the colonized, nationalist China was better for its people than the PRC? Legitimately.
In both the USSR and PRC, life expectancies doubled, literacy rates over tripled, disparity shrank dramatically while rapidly improving the economy, and famines ended in countries where that was previously common. No, not perfect, but undeniably massive improvements, and it is Marxism-Leninism and those millions who adhered to it that accomplished those massive victories.
Removed by mod
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Trolling. Tanky scum.
Very silly people.
there’ll be more; this pill is too bitter to swallow thanks to the depth to which we’re indoctrinated.
For sure, kinda just wanted to see what the response to a pro-Marxism-Leninism meme would be. Seems split 50/50 so far.
Ended up as 2:1 from the tiny fraction of liberals who engaged.
Yes they did, and many people died from it, for some reason poeple don’t understand how horrible communism is
Maybe they visited england? No offense but it really radicalized me lmao
500 GORILLION 💀 NO 📱
Mortality rates in the USSR and PRC went so far down once Socialism was implemented that life expectancy doubled, and nearly doubled in the case of Cuba. Communism was horrible to the previous ruling class, but for the vast majority of people is marked by massive improvements in key metrics like literacy rates, housing rates, lower poverty rates, and life expectancy. These countries did not get worse with Socialism, they were hellish beforehand and it was the Communists that ceaselessly worked to fix their broken countries.
