Marxist Leninist Thread

[PapaLenin]

Listen, Marxism Leninism is the only way towards communism and the state is needed to educate the workers and change our culture and society to be more worker oriented. Ask me anything you want and I will answer. I want anarchists to come at me.

 

[Darth Herobrine]

Listen, Marxism Leninism is the only way towards communism and the state is needed to educate the workers and change our culture and society to be more worker oriented. Ask me anything you want and I will answer. I want anarchists to come at me.

 

[Strigix]

Listen, Marxism Leninism is the only way towards communism and the state is needed to educate the workers and change our culture and society to be more worker oriented. Ask me anything you want and I will answer. I want anarchists to come at me.

 

[Jackie]

honestly the focus on 'workers' is a red herring. We need to instead be concerned with how people are taken care of in the inevitable post-labor society.

 

[CloakandDagger]

honestly the focus on 'workers' is a red herring. We need to instead be concerned with how people are taken care of in the inevitable post-labor society.

A Leninist state wouldn't have any particular difficulty with such a scenario, it would easily be able to assign work and goods as needed, and then some.

 

[Darth Herobrine]

A Leninist state wouldn't have any particular difficulty with such a scenario, it would easily be able to assign work and goods as needed, and then some.

Capitalist ideology.

 

[CloakandDagger]

Capitalist ideology.

If by bureaucracy you mean whatever the goals of the government are, then yes, you'd have tons of resources devoted to industrialization, space programs, science, military, and similar as needed. It would be a lot better than a 'post-labor' society where people produce nothing and the nation gets outcompeted and destroyed by another country where people do work.

 

[richardson]

You rather miss the point. We're at the point where human labor is rapidly becoming entirely unnecessary, Cloak. As in: Humans Need Not Apply. Post-labor, because human labor has been rendered inefficient and automation is doing everything. A point where other nations still using human capital/labor are crushed under-tread because they simply cannot compete with labor at the cost of the kilowatt hour.

 

[Darth Herobrine]

If by bureaucracy you mean whatever the goals of the government are, then yes, you'd have tons of resources devoted to industrialization, space programs, science, military, and similar as needed. It would be a lot better than a 'post-labor' society where people produce nothing and the nation gets outcompeted and destroyed by another country where people do work.

 

[CloakandDagger]

I look at the Soviet Union and I see a dirt poor nation that was uplifted into Superpower status.

If China and India and Africa had went Leninist the world would be far richer and better off than today.

You rather miss the point. We're at the point where human labor is rapidly becoming entirely unnecessary, Cloak. As in: Humans Need Not Apply. Post-labor, because human labor has been rendered inefficient and automation is doing everything. A point where other nations still using human capital/labor are crushed under-tread because they simply cannot compete with labor at the cost of the kilowatt hour.

If humans can only do 1% of the jobs as previously, train everyone for that 1% and have them work.

If humans can't do anything, mass produce robots until you've dismantled the solar system and begun starlifting, then colonize the galaxy.

 

[Darth Herobrine]

I look at the Soviet Union and I see a dirt poor nation that was uplifted into Superpower status.

If China and India and Africa had went Leninist the world would be far richer and better off than today.

broke its own economy

 

[CloakandDagger]

broke its own economy

The USSR had a vastly higher GDP per capita than Africa, India, China, and the Russian Empire, I don't know what you're talking about.

The USSR was killed by political corruption, not by economic collapse.

 

[Darth Herobrine]

The USSR had a vastly higher GDP per capita than Africa, India, China, and the Russian Empire, I don't know what you're talking about.

The USSR was killed by political corruption, not by economic collapse.

 

[Nyvis]

[No message]

 

[Strigix]

Structurally, the vanguard party consolidated political and economic power into itself, which created a position where the vanguard party essentially became an elite class with authority over the rest of society. The vanguard becoming corrupt was inevitable, due to how that consolidated dictatorial power allowed the party to do whatever it wanted with no consequences to itself.

Ultimately, creating an elite class of leaders will always result in those leaders taking control of society and abusing it for their own ends. In order to create a truly egalitarian society, we can't use another state structure as a stepping stone- we would need to move directly towards the egalitarian society, instead.

 

[Axiomatic]

Isn't it kinda weird to consider Marxism Leninism to be Stalinism when Lenin's last writing was pretty much HOLY SHIT YOU GUYS, WHATEVER YOU DO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T PUT STALIN IN CHARG-urk

 

[Darth Herobrine]

Isn't it kinda weird to consider Marxism Leninism to be Stalinism when Lenin's last writing was pretty much HOLY SHIT YOU GUYS, WHATEVER YOU DO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T PUT STALIN IN CHARG-urk

Yeah, we can blame that on ol' Joe and his propaganda.

 

[Strigix]

Isn't it kinda weird to consider Marxism Leninism to be Stalinism when Lenin's last writing was pretty much HOLY SHIT YOU GUYS, WHATEVER YOU DO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T PUT STALIN IN CHARG-urk

Well you see, the reason for that is because, after Lenin's death, Stalin was the one to codify the ideology he referred to as 'Marxism-Leninism'. It wasn't actually the creation of Lenin- it was the creation of Stalin, who was using Lenin's name for his own purposes.

Of course, that's not to say that Lenin was a nice guy by any means. He was still the precursor to a lot of the fucked up shit that Stalin got up to.

 

[Comrade Sophia]

The USSR had a vastly higher GDP per capita than Africa, India, China, and the Russian Empire, I don't know what you're talking about.

The USSR was killed by political corruption, not by economic collapse.

That's absolutely untrue, the economic stagnation of the USSR due to all resources being devoted to maximizing their own military-industrial system rather than letting the workers enjoy the fruits of their labor is a very well-studied subject.

 

[Axiomatic]

That's absolutely untrue, the economic stagnation of the USSR due to all resources being devoted to maximizing their own military-industrial system rather than letting the workers enjoy the fruits of their labor is a very well-studied subject.

I can't say the USSR was perfectly managed or anything like that but maybe there were legit reasons for the USSR to feel threatened by some sort of external enemy? Like some sort of massively rich and powerful country that loved using military force to install puppet dictators or something.

 

[Nyvis]

I can't say the USSR was perfectly managed or anything like that but maybe there were legit reasons for the USSR to feel threatened by some sort of external enemy? Like some sort of massively rich and powerful country that loved using military force to install puppet dictators or something.

Two words: atomic bombs.

The only reason the soviets needed a conventional military past WW2 was to be able to keep a lid on the Warsaw pact.

The "perfectly legit reason" is red painted imperialism, not self defense.

Though the USSR had a lot more issues than just its military budget of course.

 

[Comrade Sophia]

Two words: atomic bombs.

The only reason the soviets needed a conventional military past WW2 was to be able to keep a lid on the Warsaw pact.

The "perfectly legit reason" is red painted imperialism, not self defense.

Though the USSR had a lot more issues than just its military budget of course.

I can actually see the argument that the USSR needed other states in the same sphere so as to not be totally isolated... but then said desire also resulted in them killing literally every other alternative parties in favor or their puppet Marxist-Leninist parties, which just made them chafe all the more under Soviet authority and probably could've been achieved otherwise if the Soviets didn't have a history of stabbing literally everyone else not under their control in the back at the first opportunity.

 

[Nyvis]

I can actually see the argument that the USSR needed other states in the same sphere so as to not be totally isolated... but then said desire also resulted in them killing literally every other alternative parties in favor or their puppet Marxist-Leninist parties, which just made them chafe all the more under Soviet authority and probably could've been achieved otherwise if the Soviets didn't have a history of stabbing literally everyone else not under their control in the back at the first opportunity.

Yeah just post WW2, maybe they needed a bit of force to hold it together. But when the first stirring of opposition appeared and some of them weren't entirely capitalist? They could easily have embraced those who wouldn't side with the west and worked with them to isolate the ones who would. But that would have required a drastically different geopolitical approach.