This incident and the molotov-ribbentrop pact must upset tankies. I love upsetting tankies, as much as I enjoy upsetting any other right-wing group.
I'm not an ML, but you don't have to agree with MLs to understand that they are fundamentally leftist and opposed to Capitalism.
"Leftism" isn't a synonym for "good," it's a broad, diverse range of ideologies supporting collective ownership and opposing hierarchy. This can be done well, this can be done poorly, and it is important to recognize both the good and the bad to learn and build, not to dismiss everything as "not true leftism" if it isn't what you personally want.
When someone supports fascist regimes and spouts fascist talking points they are what they are, no matter what they like to call themselves. The Nazis called themselves socialist, too.
That's not correct, though. MLs don't support fascist regimes.
MLs have a long history with deep theoretical frameworks, which is why just calling them fascists and right-wingers gets you exactly nowhere with them, and ignores their genuine Proletarian perspective.
Even this post, for example, has people correctly pointing out how the USSR kept the Nazi scientists on a tight leash, then deported them after they had sufficient intelligence, while the western states kept the Nazis and allowed them into important offices.
If you want to genuinely combat MLs, then you have to appeal to them from a materialist perspective, and showcase sound theoretical basis to defeat Capitalism and Imperialism globally.
If you just dismiss MLs as right-wingers, you genuinely showcase a lack of understanding of leftist history in general, and don't actually succeed in combating ML mindsets.
That's not correct, though. MLs don't support fascist regimes.
Well, some people who call themselves Marxist-Leninists do. Those are Tankies.
A rational ML person won't support fascism, but there are a lot of so-called ML adherents who yearn so greatly for the trappings of the USSR to the extent that they don't even care about its founding ideology; they care about putting a man into space, about strong nuclear arsenals, and about dismantling the corrupt West. Hence why so many Tankies fall in line behind the Putin regime for no reason other than that he is aesthetically "the glory days of Russia" and has made himself an enemy of the West, despite all of the fascism which fills the gaps.
I mostly agree, the issue is that the majority of what gets called support for Putin isn't support for Putin, but alignment against NATO. There are legitimate supporters of Putin among some few MLs, but what I personally have noticed more is anti-NATO statements being called pro-Putin, because Putin standa against NATO.
The opposite is also common, going against Putin can often get conflated with being pro-NATO.
I get that. I suppose in this case I just don't sympathize with the "enemy of my enemy" perspective because Putin and the neo-aristocratic oligarchs who surround him are still enemies of Marxist ideology.
If we just look at Lemmygrad's Prolewiki, they outline their stance on the Russian Federation and the Russo-Ukranian War. You can examine that as much as you want, they acknowledge that Putin is a bourgeois dictator, but also go off of Lenin's definition of Imperialism and find that the current RF doesn't fit it, due to their production. That doesn't mean they justify the RF's invasion, they outright call it out, but also try to understand the reasons the invasion happened in the first place.
They outright state that they support revolution within Russia against the Capitalist dictatorship, and showcase how the people are unhappy with the current system.
I may not agree with their overall analysis, but this is absolutely not the viewpoint of a right winger, which means they can be swayed.
That kind of dogmatism is not Marxist. Even Marxists can display reactionary tendencies.
Wow, that was the longest and most pretentious "nuh-uh" I've ever seen. You realize that we are specifically talking about people who support fascists, right? If you think you can rationally talk someone out of any belief, let alone one as irrational as fascism, then I'd love to see you try. It'd be funny.
I can do a better job than you.
Sadly there is mountains of evidence that you can't. Studies consistently show that trying to rationally argue someone out of a belief just makes them even more defensive of it.
Edit: Fixed hilarious typo. Ever fence. Heh.
Perhaps. However, giving up entirely and just calling MLs fascists is just going to get you called a lib. That's why I pointed out that MLism has a strong theoretical basis, ie one doesn't just happen into being an ML casually, they read theoretical texts and try to rationalize their beliefs.
If you can take advantage of what leads someone to believing something, you can show them alternatives.
For example, you can show them that currently, in America, Anarchists have more effective and tangible praxis than Marxist-Leninist parties have been, and according to ML belief, a mass movement is the only true way to upset the status quo, and as such they should consider supporting Anarchism. Baby steps, and all.
Heh. If you think I care what they call me you are sorely mistaken. If someone wants to ask real questions and learn something I'll be happy to answer them. If they just want to spout fascist talking points and side with fascists I'm going to call them fascist. Because they are fascist. There is no point in engaging with them beyond that. You will accomplish nothing.
My goal is for leftist reorganization of society. As such, it's important to align leftists together in a unified push against Capital. Incorrectly calling people who in their own views oppose all Imperialism and Capitalism fascists gets nothing done, when the basis of that belief is sound and just.
On a practical basis, calling MLs fascist right-wingers is worse than trying to honestly engage with them and redirect their methods, because the basis of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism is still correct.
MLs argue that socialism can't be used to mobilize an economy as a way of justifying the actions of Lenin, Stalin, etc. this is a fundamentally anti-socialist stance.
That's not really accurate to what MLs argue, they believe that you can't have Communism without having built it up via a Socialist state beforehand. They still strongly support worker ownership and oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, which is my point, because the foundational beliefs are good, they can be reasoned with.
The Proletariat in general can be reasoned with, that's the entire purpose of class consciousness. Reactionaries found in the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie proper are not capable of truly being reasoned with at a wide level, but fellow proletarians can be.
Socialist state
The thing that MLs consider a "socialist state" is capitalism where the state is a universal employer, which is decidedly not socialism.
They still strongly support worker ownership
Lenin destroyed the worker's councils, and I've met multiple MLs who consider co-ops to be a bourgeois institution in disguise.
oppose Imperialism
That's a common story, and also an outright lie. See: literally every time they defend Russian imperialism.
they can be reasoned with
Only if they're honest in their delusions, which most of them aren't.
Collective ownership of the Means of Production via a Worker state is in fact Socialism, and not Capitalism. If you eliminate the bourgeoisie, it is no longer Capitalism. It isn't Anarchism either, but it's still leftist in structure.
Lenin opposed the Worker councils and replaced them with a Union system. This is not the same as an outright replacement of a Socialist system for a Capitalist one, but a decentralized Socialist system for a more centralized Socialist system. This is still leftist, even if it's more centralized. You disagree with it on the basis of centralization, not on whether or not it's leftist.
As for Imperialism, Lemmygrad has a wiki where they go over why they don't believe the current Russian Federation meets Lenin's definition of Imperialism. I agree that it doesn't meet Lenin's definition, but I disagree with them that this justifies critically supporting Russia against NATO, which is Imperialist according to Lenin's definitions. This, however, is a take based on Lenin's analysis and a framework to oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, and can be argued against based on effectiveness, unlike fascists that enjoy Imperialism being Imperialism like the GOP.
I'd say they are in fact honest, and can be reasoned with. If you attempt to understand their views, you can more effectively take down some of their worse takes, like on Russia.
I disagree that a worker state is a thing that can exist at the scale envisioned by MLs. The defining feature of capitalism is the prevalence of the employer-employee relationship, which the USSR preserved; the state employed the workers who were alienated from their labor and had little say in the operations of their workplace. That's not socialism.
That's a more grounded take, but not one that can be argued against a right winger. Ultimately, there is an undeniable difference between the USSR and Capitalism: the Workers made up the state, and as such directed the Means of Production, rather than a bourgeois class. This makes it Socialist, even if you disagree with its effectiveness at realizing the ideals of leftism.
That's what I'm getting at, you believe that Anarchism (presumably) or some other more decentralized form of Socialism is the best way at achieving the ideals of leftism, but you're conflating that with anything less than that not being Socialist at all. That's an incorrect analysis, in my opinion.
Thank you. Socialism, Anarchism and Marxist-Leninism manifest differently based on the cultural and material needs of the population. Normies thinking every leftist is trying to recreate Soviet Union, Cuba or Maoist China doesn’t have the slightest understanding of what Marxism actually is and how it applies to present conditions.
This incident and the molotov-ribbentrop pact must upset tankies. I love upsetting tankies, as much as I enjoy upsetting any other right-wing group.
I'm not an ML, but you don't have to agree with MLs to understand that they are fundamentally leftist and opposed to Capitalism.
"Leftism" isn't a synonym for "good," it's a broad, diverse range of ideologies supporting collective ownership and opposing hierarchy. This can be done well, this can be done poorly, and it is important to recognize both the good and the bad to learn and build, not to dismiss everything as "not true leftism" if it isn't what you personally want.
When someone supports fascist regimes and spouts fascist talking points they are what they are, no matter what they like to call themselves. The Nazis called themselves socialist, too.
That's not correct, though. MLs don't support fascist regimes.
MLs have a long history with deep theoretical frameworks, which is why just calling them fascists and right-wingers gets you exactly nowhere with them, and ignores their genuine Proletarian perspective.
Even this post, for example, has people correctly pointing out how the USSR kept the Nazi scientists on a tight leash, then deported them after they had sufficient intelligence, while the western states kept the Nazis and allowed them into important offices.
If you want to genuinely combat MLs, then you have to appeal to them from a materialist perspective, and showcase sound theoretical basis to defeat Capitalism and Imperialism globally.
If you just dismiss MLs as right-wingers, you genuinely showcase a lack of understanding of leftist history in general, and don't actually succeed in combating ML mindsets.
Well, some people who call themselves Marxist-Leninists do. Those are Tankies.
A rational ML person won't support fascism, but there are a lot of so-called ML adherents who yearn so greatly for the trappings of the USSR to the extent that they don't even care about its founding ideology; they care about putting a man into space, about strong nuclear arsenals, and about dismantling the corrupt West. Hence why so many Tankies fall in line behind the Putin regime for no reason other than that he is aesthetically "the glory days of Russia" and has made himself an enemy of the West, despite all of the fascism which fills the gaps.
I mostly agree, the issue is that the majority of what gets called support for Putin isn't support for Putin, but alignment against NATO. There are legitimate supporters of Putin among some few MLs, but what I personally have noticed more is anti-NATO statements being called pro-Putin, because Putin standa against NATO.
The opposite is also common, going against Putin can often get conflated with being pro-NATO.
I get that. I suppose in this case I just don't sympathize with the "enemy of my enemy" perspective because Putin and the neo-aristocratic oligarchs who surround him are still enemies of Marxist ideology.
If we just look at Lemmygrad's Prolewiki, they outline their stance on the Russian Federation and the Russo-Ukranian War. You can examine that as much as you want, they acknowledge that Putin is a bourgeois dictator, but also go off of Lenin's definition of Imperialism and find that the current RF doesn't fit it, due to their production. That doesn't mean they justify the RF's invasion, they outright call it out, but also try to understand the reasons the invasion happened in the first place.
They outright state that they support revolution within Russia against the Capitalist dictatorship, and showcase how the people are unhappy with the current system.
I may not agree with their overall analysis, but this is absolutely not the viewpoint of a right winger, which means they can be swayed.
That kind of dogmatism is not Marxist. Even Marxists can display reactionary tendencies.
Wow, that was the longest and most pretentious "nuh-uh" I've ever seen. You realize that we are specifically talking about people who support fascists, right? If you think you can rationally talk someone out of any belief, let alone one as irrational as fascism, then I'd love to see you try. It'd be funny.
I can do a better job than you.
Sadly there is mountains of evidence that you can't. Studies consistently show that trying to rationally argue someone out of a belief just makes them even more defensive of it.
Edit: Fixed hilarious typo. Ever fence. Heh.
Perhaps. However, giving up entirely and just calling MLs fascists is just going to get you called a lib. That's why I pointed out that MLism has a strong theoretical basis, ie one doesn't just happen into being an ML casually, they read theoretical texts and try to rationalize their beliefs.
If you can take advantage of what leads someone to believing something, you can show them alternatives.
For example, you can show them that currently, in America, Anarchists have more effective and tangible praxis than Marxist-Leninist parties have been, and according to ML belief, a mass movement is the only true way to upset the status quo, and as such they should consider supporting Anarchism. Baby steps, and all.
Heh. If you think I care what they call me you are sorely mistaken. If someone wants to ask real questions and learn something I'll be happy to answer them. If they just want to spout fascist talking points and side with fascists I'm going to call them fascist. Because they are fascist. There is no point in engaging with them beyond that. You will accomplish nothing.
My goal is for leftist reorganization of society. As such, it's important to align leftists together in a unified push against Capital. Incorrectly calling people who in their own views oppose all Imperialism and Capitalism fascists gets nothing done, when the basis of that belief is sound and just.
On a practical basis, calling MLs fascist right-wingers is worse than trying to honestly engage with them and redirect their methods, because the basis of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism is still correct.
MLs argue that socialism can't be used to mobilize an economy as a way of justifying the actions of Lenin, Stalin, etc. this is a fundamentally anti-socialist stance.
That's not really accurate to what MLs argue, they believe that you can't have Communism without having built it up via a Socialist state beforehand. They still strongly support worker ownership and oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, which is my point, because the foundational beliefs are good, they can be reasoned with.
The Proletariat in general can be reasoned with, that's the entire purpose of class consciousness. Reactionaries found in the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie proper are not capable of truly being reasoned with at a wide level, but fellow proletarians can be.
The thing that MLs consider a "socialist state" is capitalism where the state is a universal employer, which is decidedly not socialism.
Lenin destroyed the worker's councils, and I've met multiple MLs who consider co-ops to be a bourgeois institution in disguise.
That's a common story, and also an outright lie. See: literally every time they defend Russian imperialism.
Only if they're honest in their delusions, which most of them aren't.
Collective ownership of the Means of Production via a Worker state is in fact Socialism, and not Capitalism. If you eliminate the bourgeoisie, it is no longer Capitalism. It isn't Anarchism either, but it's still leftist in structure.
Lenin opposed the Worker councils and replaced them with a Union system. This is not the same as an outright replacement of a Socialist system for a Capitalist one, but a decentralized Socialist system for a more centralized Socialist system. This is still leftist, even if it's more centralized. You disagree with it on the basis of centralization, not on whether or not it's leftist.
As for Imperialism, Lemmygrad has a wiki where they go over why they don't believe the current Russian Federation meets Lenin's definition of Imperialism. I agree that it doesn't meet Lenin's definition, but I disagree with them that this justifies critically supporting Russia against NATO, which is Imperialist according to Lenin's definitions. This, however, is a take based on Lenin's analysis and a framework to oppose Imperialism and Capitalism, and can be argued against based on effectiveness, unlike fascists that enjoy Imperialism being Imperialism like the GOP.
I'd say they are in fact honest, and can be reasoned with. If you attempt to understand their views, you can more effectively take down some of their worse takes, like on Russia.
I disagree that a worker state is a thing that can exist at the scale envisioned by MLs. The defining feature of capitalism is the prevalence of the employer-employee relationship, which the USSR preserved; the state employed the workers who were alienated from their labor and had little say in the operations of their workplace. That's not socialism.
That's a more grounded take, but not one that can be argued against a right winger. Ultimately, there is an undeniable difference between the USSR and Capitalism: the Workers made up the state, and as such directed the Means of Production, rather than a bourgeois class. This makes it Socialist, even if you disagree with its effectiveness at realizing the ideals of leftism.
That's what I'm getting at, you believe that Anarchism (presumably) or some other more decentralized form of Socialism is the best way at achieving the ideals of leftism, but you're conflating that with anything less than that not being Socialist at all. That's an incorrect analysis, in my opinion.
Thank you. Socialism, Anarchism and Marxist-Leninism manifest differently based on the cultural and material needs of the population. Normies thinking every leftist is trying to recreate Soviet Union, Cuba or Maoist China doesn’t have the slightest understanding of what Marxism actually is and how it applies to present conditions.