The part where Marxism-Lenninism is a dogshit trash version of “communism” that still asks for a ruling party, making it demonstrably self-defeating from the standpoint of actually attaining communism.
Unless everyone goes communist at once(unlikely), you’ll have communists trying out stuff in one place and there’ll be some other people or outsiders who dislike it and attack it.
Wouldn’t it need leadership then to counter the attacks?
And first people need to implement socialism before communism too, right?
Through a natural push towards the adult version of anarchy. I don’t think all of the ideas wrestled with in Marxism-Leninism are wrong or off base, I just think it’s assinine to call something that still has demonstrably separated and elevated rulers “communism” or particularly great.
Just like a lot of outright socialists don’t necessarily like to be directly mixed in with democratic socialists, I think the communists who do not make a distinction for the very much not communist parts of Marxism-Leninism are only serving a gross lack of nuance and doing a disservice to a huge part of the goals of communism.
Anarchism isn’t communism, though, it’s its own thing. Administration is not against communism. Further, I have no idea what you mean by “a natural push,” the basis of communism is in large-scale industry and not in small communalism. I also don’t know what you mean by “the very much not communist parts of Marxism-Leninism,” you don’t define this nor elaborate on where you’re getting your ideas about communism from. The fact that socialist states have had administrators does not make them “rulers,” nor does it imply they form a distinct class.
Most if not all achievements of communism can be attributed to Marxism-Leninism and the ideologies that evolved from it (e.g. Maoism). Marxism-Leninism lifted millions of people out of poverty and brought literacy as well as the wonders of the modern world to people who were destined to be poor uneducated slaves of capital.
Yea, because a ruling class that’s pushing a lot of development still exists. Along with capitalists pushing investment around. Two things communism doesn’t want around.
I’m not against communism. I’m just against claiming Marxism-Leninism is a demonstrably good version of it.
The proletariat as the ruling class is the basis of socialism. The existence of capitalists within the confines of socialism is a contradiction that must be worked out, not evidence to the lack of socialism. Russia is no longer socialist, so I’m not sure why you bring it up, it’s an excellent example of why capitalism is worse.
If you’re opposed to the only major implementation of socialism in real life, then that’s the reality of your stance.
No? The working class having a formalized organization isn’t self-defeating in any capacity for attaining communism. The party isn’t distinct from the working classes, but an organized section of that class that derives any power it has directly from the broader class.
Where are you getting your understandings of communism from?
Wow. It takes a lot of arrogance to spout off unsubstantiated bullshit, ignore all direct questions and requests for clarification, and then tell the coherent interlocutors they are simply ignorant which is clearly projection.
There’s many more I could link. Simply stating something doesn’t make it true, you aren’t a wizard and your words aren’t magic. Instead, you have to actually do the due dilligance and measure up theory to reality.
The part where Marxism-Lenninism is a dogshit trash version of “communism” that still asks for a ruling party, making it demonstrably self-defeating from the standpoint of actually attaining communism.
How would you reach communism then?
Unless everyone goes communist at once(unlikely), you’ll have communists trying out stuff in one place and there’ll be some other people or outsiders who dislike it and attack it.
Wouldn’t it need leadership then to counter the attacks?
And first people need to implement socialism before communism too, right?
Through a natural push towards the adult version of anarchy. I don’t think all of the ideas wrestled with in Marxism-Leninism are wrong or off base, I just think it’s assinine to call something that still has demonstrably separated and elevated rulers “communism” or particularly great.
Just like a lot of outright socialists don’t necessarily like to be directly mixed in with democratic socialists, I think the communists who do not make a distinction for the very much not communist parts of Marxism-Leninism are only serving a gross lack of nuance and doing a disservice to a huge part of the goals of communism.
I hope you grow to a point where you can look back on this comment and appreciate what a word salad it is.
Anarchism isn’t communism, though, it’s its own thing. Administration is not against communism. Further, I have no idea what you mean by “a natural push,” the basis of communism is in large-scale industry and not in small communalism. I also don’t know what you mean by “the very much not communist parts of Marxism-Leninism,” you don’t define this nor elaborate on where you’re getting your ideas about communism from. The fact that socialist states have had administrators does not make them “rulers,” nor does it imply they form a distinct class.
Most if not all achievements of communism can be attributed to Marxism-Leninism and the ideologies that evolved from it (e.g. Maoism). Marxism-Leninism lifted millions of people out of poverty and brought literacy as well as the wonders of the modern world to people who were destined to be poor uneducated slaves of capital.
Yea, because a ruling class that’s pushing a lot of development still exists. Along with capitalists pushing investment around. Two things communism doesn’t want around.
I’m not against communism. I’m just against claiming Marxism-Leninism is a demonstrably good version of it.
The proletariat as the ruling class is the basis of socialism. The existence of capitalists within the confines of socialism is a contradiction that must be worked out, not evidence to the lack of socialism. Russia is no longer socialist, so I’m not sure why you bring it up, it’s an excellent example of why capitalism is worse.
If you’re opposed to the only major implementation of socialism in real life, then that’s the reality of your stance.
No? The working class having a formalized organization isn’t self-defeating in any capacity for attaining communism. The party isn’t distinct from the working classes, but an organized section of that class that derives any power it has directly from the broader class.
Where are you getting your understandings of communism from?
That is absolutely not how it functions in reality.
Wow. It takes a lot of arrogance to spout off unsubstantiated bullshit, ignore all direct questions and requests for clarification, and then tell the coherent interlocutors they are simply ignorant which is clearly projection.
It absolutely is, though. For further reading:
There’s many more I could link. Simply stating something doesn’t make it true, you aren’t a wizard and your words aren’t magic. Instead, you have to actually do the due dilligance and measure up theory to reality.