Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Was Lenin a Communist, Dumar?

Let's ask Marxists.org

Leon Trotsky: How Lenin Studied Marx (1936)

How Lenin Studied Marx

Leon Trotsky

The first and second volumes of Capital were Vladimir's basic manuals at Alakayevka and Samara for the third volume had not yet appeared at the time: Marx's rough draft was just being put in order by the aged Engels. Vladimir had studied Capital so well that each time he returned to it thereafter, he was able to discover new ideas in it.As early as the Samara period he had learned, as he used to say in later years, to "take counsel" with Marx.

Before the books of the master, impertinence and banter automatically departed from this altered spirit who was capable of the deepest gratitude. To follow the development of Marx's thought, to feel its irresistible power, to discover deductions from incidental phrases or remarks, to renew each time his conviction of the truth and profundity of Marx's sarcasm and to bow down with gratitude before this relentless genius - this became for Vladimir not only a necessity but a joy.Marx never had a more attentive reader or one in closer harmony with him, nor did Marx have a better, more perceptive and grateful disciple.

"With him Marxism was not a conviction, but a religion," wrote Vodosov. "In him one feels a degree of conviction that is incompatible with a genuine scientific approach."For a philistine no sociology merits the designation "scientific" except the one which leaves intact his right to keep on vacillating. To be sure, Oulianov, as Vodosovov himself testifies, "was deeply interested in all the objections raised against Marxism and reflected upon them"; but he did so "not for the sake of seeking out the truth," but simply to uncover in these objections some error "of whose existence he was already convinced in advance."
Click to expand...
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Endlessly refuting Dumar is hardly riled up. That is normal Hodj.

Now if Hodj went on a rant about how retarded Dumar is and then stated he was smarter than anyone on these entire forums, he might be approaching the bare minimum of Bakunin levels. If he then repeated the personal insults and grandiose claims of his own intelligence for 10 pages and 70 replies, we can call him Bakunindj
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Stalin Versus Marx

Socialism needs no state

Stalinism cannot show a single line in Lenin which would justify the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the state. Just the contrary. Lenin's little masterpiece State and Revolution categorically refutes this revisionism. The argument that a strong state is necessary because of the danger of intervention from without, is palpably false. If socialism really had been achieved in the Soviet Union, there could be no question of intervention on the part of the capitalist world. On the contrary, the capitalists would be powerless economically, militarily and politically in the face of a socialist society. This would be because socialism would achieve such an enormous development of the productive forces that America's vast productive facilities would seem puny by comparison.
Click to expand...
If this is true, Dumar, why did Catalonia fall to outside forces? Were they not the closest thing to true communism ever achieved? Why was their production not able to insulate them from outside threats. You and Mikhail have both said that CINO (communists in name only) are really capitalists. So how could Catalonia fall to CINO capitalists if it was the true Communist state and its production was supposed to insulate it from outside threats?

If this is true, Dumar, then why is America still around, but every major communist society in history is either in the ash heap, or literally the worst place on the planet to live?

Hmmmmm?

The attempts to centralize the state came as a result of the failure of the decentralized socialism that you envision. The terror comes trying to fix the problems your ideology creates.

If true socialism is a magic cure all that will create such a force of mass production so great that no capitalist country can overwhelm it, why did every attempt to make it work end up with production declining dramatically, leading to government seizure of industry and agriculture in an attempt to right the flagging ship?

Why can't you answer Khalid's question as to HOW you would prevent this same scenario from playing out again?
 
earthfell

earthfell

Lord Nagafen Raider
730
145
hodj_sl said:
Stalin Versus Marx



If this is true, Dumar, why did Catalonia fall to outside forces? Were they not the closest thing to true communism ever achieved? Why was their production not able to insulate them from outside threats. You and Mikhail have both said that CINO (communists in name only) are really capitalists. So how could Catalonia fall to CINO capitalists if it was the true Communist state and its production was supposed to insulate it from outside threats?

If this is true, Dumar, then why is America still around, but every major communist society in history is either in the ash heap, or literally the worst place on the planet to live?

Hmmmmm?

The attempts to centralize the state came as a result of the failure of the decentralized socialism that you envision. The terror comes trying to fix the problems your ideology creates.

If true socialism is a magic cure all that will create such a force of mass production so great that no capitalist country can overwhelm it, why did every attempt to make it work end up with production declining dramatically, leading to government seizure of industry and agriculture in an attempt to right the flagging ship?

Why can't you answer Khalid's question as to HOW you would prevent this same scenario from playing out again?
Click to expand...
Umm... my understanding is that Marx argued that all societies must become capitalist, because no other economic system would be able to harness the forces of production necessary to improve people's lives. Marx's problem with capitalism was that he thought it would lead to a state of total emiseration (capital would be accumulated completely at the top and you would have masses of poor, starving people without access to the capital required to survive under capitalism)--which for Marx was an irony because capitalism would create the conditions of its own destruction. Marx was thinking of ways to break that boom-bust cycle and argued for socialist revolution (?). The problem with the Soviets and Russian Marxists is that they felt Russia did not need to go through a capitalist stage (fyi Russia was seen as a backwater European ghetto because it was not industrialized and still existed as a quasi medieval feudal society) and could therefore skip capitalism completely and go straight for the socialist state.

It's really difficult to talk about "true socialism" when Marxists were constantly disagreeing with each other, and most of them never even understood what Marx was even talking about. Any kind of black and white thinking requires that you ignore just how contentious all this history actually was.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,178
172,406
khalid_sl said:
Endlessly refuting Dumar is hardly riled up. That is normal Hodj.

Now if Hodj went on a rant about how retarded Dumar is and then stated he was smarter than anyone on these entire forums, he might be approaching the bare minimum of Bakunin levels. If he then repeated the personal insults and grandiose claims of his own intelligence for 10 pages and 70 replies, we can call him Bakunindj
Click to expand...
Yeah, but look how is frenetically making 3 consecutive posts at a time. He is in nerd berserker mode, all frenzied.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
For marx, he thought Germany would be one of the first nation to have this, "socialist revolution." It did happen, but not successful whatsoever. Russia? lol what the fuck. 70-80% of population were still peasants. Even after WWII, which did a lot of peasant killing, Russia was still relatively peasant nation. I think they reached industrialized state in 1960s.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,178
172,406
Trollface_sl said:
For marx, he thought Germany would be one of the first nation to have this, "socialist revolution." It did happen, but not successful whatsoever. Russia? lol what the fuck. 70-80% of population were still peasants. Even after WWII, which did a lot of peasant killing, Russia was still relatively peasant nation. I think they reached industrialized state in 1960s.
Click to expand...
Russia was already industrialized by 1930s, its one of the major reasons why they won World War II
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
It's really difficult to talk about "true socialism" when Marxists were constantly disagreeing with each other, and most of them never even understood what Marx was even talking about.
Click to expand...
Is there a single person on this board who can make a cogent argument for socialism that doesn't boil down to "Well, no one really understands Marx's writings, so no one can really be Communist?"

If a philosophy is so esoteric as to be incomprehensible, why is it given any credence?

No, these people understood Marx just fine. Mao read Marx and Lenin constantly, cited them constantly, I've already cited Trotsky above saying Lenin basically had sex with Kapital on a nightly basis.

Bad, repetitive cop out argument is bad, repetitive and a cop out.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
We're just misunderstood
Click to expand...
rrr_img_47147.jpg
rrr_img_47148.jpg
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Araysar_sl said:
Russia was already industrialized by 1930s, its one of the major reasons why they won World War II
Click to expand...
I think when Marx spoke of industrialized state, I think he also spoke of state of man. And by state of man, I mean their occupation and their class representation.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,178
172,406
Bro,

Kentucky already has one of the highest heart attacks rates in the country, much like most of the South.

You cant afford to be so animated and excited. Its dangerous
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
hodj_sl said:
Was Lenin a Communist, Dumar?

Let's ask Marxists.org

Leon Trotsky: How Lenin Studied Marx (1936)

How Lenin Studied Marx

Leon Trotsky
Click to expand...
Since we've seemingly left Maoist policy behind in favor of trying to equate Stalinist policy with Marxian philosophy, it looks like we're exploring that now. One I fortunately know more about.

You have to be careful with your positions here if you care about being correct, because what you're now getting into (away from where we were), and as earthfell mentioned about history being contentious, is painting and labeling everything under one brush, even ridiculously somehow equating Marx to Hitler (huh - talk about tea party-isms). There's a reason the words Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism all exist.

The philosophy of Lenin is actually interesting to digest, and it is true, his writings show a good understanding of Marx. And it was he that instigated a revolution that Russia needed very badly at the time: the Bolvsheviks were right in revolutionizing into Red October as Russian society as it was in 1917 couldn't exist any longer.

The history of the USSR is one of political factions fighting each other for power, intrigue, assassinations, gulags, exiles, mass terrors, and all the rest. You have to remember, Lenin was all but done in the body politic from 1922, and later died in 24. He heavily criticized Stalin and attempted to dispose him of power, but Trotsky wouldn't go along with it:

Lenin vs Stalin_sl said:
Lenin worked to counter the disproportionate political influence of Joseph Stalin in the Communist Party and in the bureaucracy of the soviet government, partly because of abuses he had committed against the populace of Georgia, and partly because the autocratic Stalin had accumulated administrative power disproportionate to his office of General Secretary of the Communist Party. The counter-action against Stalin aligned with Lenin?s advocacy of the right of self-determination for the national and ethnic groups of the former Tsarist Empire, which was a key theoretic concept of Leninism.
Click to expand...
And further after Lenin died, Stalin did target Trotsky:

During the 1920s and the 1930s, Stalin fought and defeated the political influence of Leon Trotsky and of the Trotskyists in Russia, by means of slander, anti-Semitism, programmed censorship, expulsions, exile (internal and external), and imprisonment. The anti?Trotsky campaign culminated in the executions (official and unofficial) of the Moscow Trials (1936?38), which were part of the Great Purge of Old Bolsheviks (who had led the Revolution). Once established as ruler of the USSR, General Secretary Stalin re-titled the official Socialism in One Country doctrine as ?Marxism-Leninism?, to establish ideologic continuity with Leninism, whilst opponents continued calling it ?Stalinism?.
Click to expand...
For you to continually sit here and equate Marxian philosophy with Leninism, then further to equate both of them with the brutality exhibited under Stalinism - then still even further, I'm supposing you'll unite all of those with Maoism under the banner of 'all of it was communism' is pretty much the same stupidity and lack of caring about history that the tea party is so infamous for.

I suppose next you'll agree Obama is a communist because someone said he was.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
You're right, Marx and Hitler aren't equivalent. Hitler's book only cost about 10 million lives. Marx's cost over 150 million.

Derp.

We haven't left Maoist policy behind, by the way. We've continued to show that you will search for any intellectual loophole that allows you to deny that these philosophies are in any way related.

Which they are. They all came from the same font, they all sought the same end goal, they all ended in tragedy.

The history of the USSR is one of political factions fighting each other for power, intrigue, assassinations, gulags, exiles, mass terrors, and all the rest
Click to expand...
That's the history of EVERY major communist nation. That's the point. You idiots can't even stop fighting amongst yourselves long enough to realize you're gutting any credibility your movement has. You've done this from the French Revolution onwards. You ALWAYS end up turning on your own, the knives ALWAYS turn inwards before the end.

Once again you explicitly ignore that your ideological viewpoint, so unbending and unshakable, is the primary MOTIVATOR of these actions, and that is why they are INEVITABLE when people with your world view take power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.