• Compass Inspector@invariant-marxism.red
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A tankie with a Stalin avatar asks “what’s communism?” You can’t even make this up.

            I’ll let Marx tell you:

            “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

            -Manifesto of the Communist Party

            Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.

            -Critique of the Gotha Programme

            • Stalins_Spoon@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is obvious, what does your ‘variant’ of Marxism do differently than Marxism-Leninism, and has it come close to establishing a DOTP that can fending off imperialist attacks against it?

              • Compass Inspector@invariant-marxism.red
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your questions betray a terrible confusion. There was never a DotP “established” by Marxism-Leninism. There was no such thing as “Marxism-Leninism” when the Bolsheviks siezed power from the provisional government in October. By the time “Marxism-Leninism” was created by Stalin, there was no longer a DotP in Russia as the world revolution had degenerated and capitulated to class collaborationist opportunism. “Marxism-Leninism” is the result of and the excuse for that opportunism and from its inception took the role of the ideology of the nationalist foreign policy of the capitalist Soviet State divorced from the historical communist programme.

                Why do you think Stalin need to jail, kill, or exile all the old guard?

                • Stalins_Spoon@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  ‘Marxism Leninism’ was created by Lenin a deviation of Marxism suited to the conditions for the newly founded USSR, and it set forth by Stalin. Just because Stalin stimulated economic growth through a mixed economy doesn’t make him a ‘traitor’ or a ‘capitalist’, as it helped develop the industries the USSR needed to fend off the fascist threat during WW2, as the Chinese and Vietnamese are doing today. Also, what was so ‘nationalist’ about the USSR’s foreign policy? It promoted local languages and cultures in all the Soviet republics, and just because Russian was the lingua franca, that doesn’t mean that Stalin was ‘Russifying’ the many republics. Lastly the USSR started collectivization of farms and nationalization of the many industries (Increasing the quality of life dramatically) during his time along with an alliance with independent politicians (Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans), as for the Red Guard, some of them were opportunists or traitors (Like Trotsky, Yezhov, or Bukharin)

                  • Compass Inspector@invariant-marxism.red
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re certainly correct that “Marxism-Leninism” is a deviation from Marxism. I find that a welcome concession, because Stalin would certainly have never admitted that. The cynic in me says that you simply slipped, but I hold on to a glimmer of hope that it’s a realization that will lead toward your cult deprogramming one day. I’m not holding my breath though.

                    Lenin, however, didn’t create Marxism-Leninism, and never said anything that deviated from Marx. I dare you to find anything in his writings that contradicts Marx or claims to “update” Marx.

                    Lenin applied Marxism to Russia’s conditions- a backward, pre-capitalist agrarian country, and wrote about his challenges and experiences. He did not change the historical content of the communist programme.

                    Your term “mixed economy” is not a Marxist term, it is a bourgeois one. Marx never used such a term. A “mixed economy” is a capitalist welfare economy.

                    Additionally, the move towards this “mixed-economy” you refer to, and the move closer and closer to capitalism signified a retreat, not a step towards socialism. Lenin says this in multiple speeches and reports.

                    Read Lenin’s Report On The New Economic Policy.

                    The statements made in this report towards the further and further retreat towards capitalism stand it stark contrast to the positive portrayal of the policies painted by later “communist” leaders. “Marxism-Leninism” paints the actions taken by the soviet government at the time as strategic, deliberate steps towards socialism, when it was in fact, the opposite.

                    In addition Lenin never once suggested that socialism could be built in absence of the successes of the revolutions in Europe (the key Marxist-Leninist content of “socialism in one country”), the international revolution. Again, I dare you to find anything in Lenin’s writings to suggest that he thought such a thing.

                    Marxism, Lenin’s programme, and the content of “Marxism-Leninism” are not reconcilable.

                    Just because Stalin stimulated economic growth through a mixed economy doesn’t make him a ‘traitor’ or a ‘capitalist’, as it helped develop the industries the USSR needed to fend off the fascist threat during WW2, as the Chinese and Vietnamese are doing today. Also, what was so ‘nationalist’ about the USSR’s foreign policy? It promoted local languages and cultures in all the Soviet republics, and just because Russian was the lingua franca, that doesn’t mean that Stalin was ‘Russifying’ the many republics. Lastly the USSR started collectivization of farms and nationalization of the many industries (Increasing the quality of life dramatically) during his time along with an alliance with independent politicians (Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans),

                    These words could have come from any Bernstein enjoyer. Nationalization of industries and the implementation of a welfare state does not signify any step towards socialism. By the time this was all happening the Soviet governing body had betrayed and lost all connection with the international working class movements. The collectivization of farms signified a capitalist primitive accumulation.

                    as for the Red Guard, some of them were opportunists or traitors (Like Trotsky, Yezhov, or Bukharin)

                    Many of the people targeted were Lenin’s old friends and associates. Many were heroes of the civil war. These were people who were heavily involved in the revolution- people who risked everything to bring about revolution in Russia. You’re saying that you honestly believe that Lenin died and that caused hundreds of thousands of them all to transform into anti-communist traitors? That’s easier to believe for you then the simple fact that Stalin was actually the opportunist and traitor, and needed to purge threats to his power? If you believe that, then I might as well be arguing with a cultist.