How are there still Marxists-Leninists in modern day and age? I mean, at least the other Marxists can use the "NEVER BEEN TRIED" copout, but how do M-Ls cope with the fact the implementation of their ideas ended up being a complete failure?
The Soviet Union managed to carry out one of the greatest and fastest increases in human standard of living in history via crash industrialization. Not everything the USSR ever did was bad.
Yes, in the CURRENT YEAR, since in the CURRENT YEAR they can easily see that Marxism-Leninism has been tried several times and it ended up being shit everywhere.
It also took a lot longer, the USSR would've probably not survived Barbarossa without Stalin's breakneck speed industrialization. While the famines were the result of criminal incompetence from the commies, the Soviet Union by the 60s had a similar standard of living to the west (not exactly so, it still lagged behind somewhat) whereas it had started from an agrarian basis where people didn't live much better off than under feudalism.
>How are there still Marxists-Leninists in modern day and age?
Well 25 years ago the Soviet Union still existed.
>but how do M-Ls cope with the fact the implementation of their ideas ended up being a complete failure?
Well most of the Maoists I know follow class praxis rather than Mao Zedong Thought. This appears to be the case in Nepal, India and the Phillippines.
The US had famines, but the histories and makes no sense to compare them, especially since the US didn't have to live under constant threat of foreign invasion and complete destruction by every global power (and not modern powers) after its founding.
If the last HDI report that includes the Soviet Union is to be believed, even after the perestroika economic collapse, the Soviets only really lagged behind the west in GDP per capita.
Mass famines due to incompetence and mass murders due to malice are usually defining characteristics of "Complete failure".
But hey, so long as you're comfy, just keep your head buried in the sand. Try not to inhale.
The War of 1812 was the last major war by a foreign invader, after which the US wars play the role of invader (not including civil war which is irrelevant). And again, they never had to face multiple world powers at once with modern planes and warships like the communists did. Then of course there's that bomb later on.
>USSR collapsed because the US had atomic bombs
Is that what you're saying? Because something doesn't add up then.
Moreover, the specific nature of atomic warfare was what prevented an actual war, everyone wanted to avoid MAD.
Talking to most Americunts about this is pointless. Not just about the commits, but war in general. Americans have never had their cities reduced to rubble by bombs, or watched the majority of their children die defending from an invasion. The pains of the industrial revolution are also far off. Americans judge strife by how long a queue is, they are by and far a group of coddled children.
the USSR felt a need to maintain parity with the United States specifically to ensure that MAD would still be a thing. The problem was that this led to highly excessive allocation of resources to the military, which is the main reason why the Brezhnev-era stagnation happened, rather than just "lol planned economies can't make bread".
>6,000 Cherokee dead due to harsh conditions on a forced exodues is in any way shape or form comparable to millions of people being shipped by trains to gulags for their planned extermination
The Soviet famines had many factors of causation, mostly because of poor weather and the massive human toll of the war, but also because of the blunder of Lysenkoism and unpreparedness, which aren't matters of incompetence so much as a promising idea that didn't pay off and unavoidable circumstances. And no there was no intentionally caused famines. How many times we have to have this conversation?
historians have been having the conversation about the 1930s soviet famine for literal decades, its probably never going to end so long as the debate remains so politicized, with one side wanting to claim the other as Just As Bad If Not Worse Than Hitler, with the other claiming We Didn't Do Anything Wrong.
Feudal monarchies did no longer exist, other than perhaps some remote crap kingdoms somewhere in Asia. Russia and the Transleithanian half of Hungary abolished serfdom in the mid 1800s and they were among the last ones to do so, this "SERFDOM STILL EXISTED DURING NICHOLAS II." meme is just that, a meme, created by communists and stretching the definition of serfdom so thin you'd be basically forced to believe that paying taxes was a form of serfdom.
Which goes against the idea that it's a 'compete failure' given that nukes generally aren't a necessary product unless you're in a retarded.
Was the USSR brutal? Yes. Was it horrible on human rights? Yes. Did it massively industrialize and extremely large country at an extremely high rate? Yes.
Lysenkoism and collectivization are incompetence. The Holodomor was malice.
>b-but the H-Holodomor was caused by the Ukrainians starving to death, not the Soviets killing them
Eliminating all food sources in a region and then blockading it off so no food can get in is a planned famine
>b-but look at this article from the Soviet Ministry of Propaganda that says the filthy subhuman Ukrainians were killing their own cattle
Stalin a good boy din do nuffin
Not only were they necessary, the invention of nukes and stockpiling them was one of the greatest achievements of 20th century, since it quite literally prevented an outbreak of WW3 more than once, and the US managed to stockpile them without tanking their entire economy along the way like the Soviets did. I mean honestly, if you're not even able to maintain defense of your country without going bankrupt then yes you are a complete failure.
I know the late Russian Empire wasn't feudal, it could be probably best described as a transitionary state between feudalism and capitalism, since there was a minor development of the latter in the larger urban centers. The observation I was smugly making is that a lot of people in 4chan will fall over themselves to defend feudalism as the most righteous social order and deny any of its atrocities, while simultaneously becoming all about liberal human rights when it comes down to gommunism.
>to millions of people being shipped by trains to gulags for their planned extermination
Bit of hyperbole?
Firstly, the post-archival figures are remarkably low.
Secondly, only those sentenced without right to correspondence were planned to be executed in GuLag, as an emergency war measure (disgustingly carried out).
People sentenced with right to correspondence were planned to be worked, grossly inefficiently. But not in nearly the same sense that the German state planned the work-to-death of slavs.
And care to give me the moral standpoint which we can all agree on from which to make that comparative judgement? (This is bait, doing so would be >>>/pol/itical).
>At least social mobility exists in feudal monarchies
More so than in capitalism.
The USSR could produce nukes without collapsing, their military industrial complex was lean, efficient, high quality and well remunerated.
Their consumer good sector was fucking shite, and always had been since 1917, and was unsolveable due to proletarian resistance. (Haraszti, M on why fordism was different in the East).
>Lysenkoism and collectivization are incompetence.
>The Holodomor was malice.
The 32-33 Famine stretched far beyond the Ukraine.
>Eliminating all food sources in a region and then blockading it off so no food can get in is a planned famine
That's not what happened. It's on record that Stalin personally requested extra aid be sent to the Ukraine.
>Stalin a good boy din do nuffin
No one said that.
>he thinks everything he doesn't like qualifies as serfdom
As for industrialization which is so often parroted on here, the late imperial Russia industrialized at a faster rate than the USSR. In fact the period between the revolution and Stalin's 30s slowed down the industrialization rate to almost nothing.
Monarchists themselves are a minority on 4chan and feudal monarchists are almost non-existent. Not for moral reasons but simply because it was outdated with the rise of capitalism. You're beating a strawman.
It's worth noting that the majority of gulag deaths happened during the time the USSR was fighting World War II, at which point the entire nation was on total war footing and the economy was directed entirely towards winning the war rather than ensuring the living standard of the population.
It's easy to be a "success" when you're the only country in the world that came out of the war suffering exactly no infrastructure damage but a minimal loss of soldiers (late entry in the war being the biggest reason), expanded your territorial sphere of influence to Imperial standards, and thus controlled the global economy.
yeah they're probably a tiny minority, they're just really fucking loud when they show up and post a lot, at least in the threads i've seen them, but it could always be the work of 1 or 2 lunatics, given the ability to just samefag forever.
>The Holodomor was malice.
The Holodomor is a post WWII Ukraine nationalist propaganda tool.
The Soviet famine of 1932-1933 was not intentional, but was grossly aggravated by changes to the rural transport, merchant and productive system. These changes were deliberate.
When the Politbureau became aware of the famine, they instantly sent sufficient famine aid to the region. (Post archival research from minutes).
In the Ukraine to my knowledge, and probably in the other affected republics, this failed to reach the affected villages, and was eaten by urban citizens. Urban Ukrainians literally starved their neighbours. Much as the Soviet Union literally starved rural ukrainians by having destroyed the networks used to survive famine without providing alternate suitable networks.
This is a vast distance from the hysteric national mythology of the holodomor.
The central element of the holodomor is Ukraine exceptionalism, and the denial that non Ukrainian Soviet citizens starved in 1932-1933
Brezhnev was a drooling fucking retard, even Khrushchev, despite his fuck-ups in agriculture, was more concerned with trying to advance the well-being of the people than LOL LET'S TRY TO BE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ENTIRE WEST.
Germany was buttfucked into oblivion in not only one but two wars, stripped of all of their colonial posessions, infrastructure left in ruins, their industrial patents literally stolen by the Americans, country itself partitioned into two vassal shitholes and somehow still managed to come back and become an economic superpower. The western part, that is.
Yeah, but even besides that, the gross defense expenditure of the US was more than what the Soviet invested in, but ended up being only a fraction of their budget. Probably because they didn't have an economy built on pure lunacy.
literally the only reason ukraine was affected so much is its status as the historical agricultural heartland of the soviet/russian state. the famine also affected southern russia heavily since it was also an important agricultural region, but none of the holodomor propagandists seem to even acknowledge this, since it makes it clearer there was no intention to Literally Murder Ukrainians For Being Ukrainian.
Also, what kind of government stops carrying out a genocide deliberately?
>he thinks everything he doesn't like qualifies as serfdom
Wasn't even implied mate. Serfdom may not have existed but it's a fact that the Serfs in large continued as such. It's not like the Tsars you're so fond of for no reason did anything to actually lift them out of their caste.
>the late imperial Russia industrialized at a faster rate than the USSR
Kek, nice phrasing
>At one point in the early 80s literally 40% of their budget went to defense alone. That's idiotic.
It certainly is, but their ruling class was much leaner than in the west, a much higher volume of surplus value went into fixed capital investment. Problematically in department I, not II.
I still find it hard that despite the complete ossification of proletarian and party democracy that those confined without the right to correspondence were murdered in 1941, and, also, that people like Radek were murdered on orders when serving a sentence (tenner I think?).
Gulag was horrifically inefficient in terms of value form.
It's an objective fact. Russia underwent land and agricultural reforms, Transsiberian railroad got built, factories were popping up everywhere, infrastructure was being built, everything was experiencing modernization and the difference between 1900 and 1917 alone was fucking massive. Then the commies arrived to fuck shit up and industrialization pretty much halted until Stalin.
>puppet states and Potemkin villages
Something the USSR was an expert in. Somehow the West German economic strength survived the call war so not sure how does the Potemkin village accusation stand.
>The Winter War wasn't to my knowledge a problem of equipment
It was. Read up on it. Hordes of underequipped, undertrained Soviet peasants were sent to a war against a tiny country and the casualty count was in hundreds of thousands.
>Also, what kind of government stops carrying out a genocide deliberately?
What kind of government ships sufficient famine relief into the affected areas rail heads, while trying to accomplish a genocide by starvation in order to export grain?
The mythical Soviet Union in the fantasy land of white reactionary and fascist Ukraine nationalists funded by the CIA through the Radio America / Radio Free Europe programme.
That was the point I was getting at, if the USSR were so intent on destroying the Ukrainians, they would've actually finished the job, I can't name a single government in history that decides "this is too much genocide" and just stops, usually genocides end because the victims manage to fight back, the government collapses, or because there's nobody left to kill.
Of course the USSR was great at building Potemkin villages, they literally had tiny bits of seemingly developed zones they paraded gullible western cafeteria intellectuals around (G.B. Shaw being one of those) trying to convince them the USSR was a socialist paradise. North Korea does it even today.
The Ural-Siberian method and the scissor crises pretty much indicate that the policy was deliberate and designed to transform the class complexion of the countryside by proletarianisation and if not then by enslaving the peasantry to the nomenklatura through Kolkoz managers and Machine Tractor Station party members.
In contrast to Kolkoz members who suffered periods of recurrent famine until the 1950s, Sovkoz employees didn't starve.
Last time I checked the international genocide definition included "destroying their way of life" in ethno cultural terms. Intentionality isn't a particularly critical element, as long as the victim is perceived ethnically.
To be honest, the ideals of Marxist were meant to be embodied in Communism and the USSR, but in reality it was far from it.
Communism actually works quite well in small communities that fully believe in the cause (not forced to) and there isn't a totalitarian dictatorship. The whole idea of Marxist is that everyone is meant to be equal. When it was put "in practice" this was far from the case. Also there was very little motivational systems for workers in initial communism, + tones of trade embargoes etc.
>TLDR: Communism was badly implemented and quickly lost base with its core values
I think that's kind of the point, marxist ideas work only on a voluntary basis. Now apply that to a country:
>revolution overthrows the ruling class
>yay! now the people can finally embrace socialism!
>wait, what do you mean they DON'T WANT to live in socialism?
>shit shit shit, we need to convince them somehow
And this is where coercion comes into play. It's not a bug, it's a feature and thus every (Marxist) socialist revolution will inevitably lead into a totalitarian tyranny.
>I'm going to play that game where I talk about the Marxian definition of communism rather than communism as an ideological branch of socialism.
Except if you're being a cheeky bastard and taking this route you're still wrong, since China is both a major state and ideologically communist. So which way do you prefer being wrong?
Marx's theories focused on class vs class.
Lenins theories emphasized country vs country.
Just as there are rulers and ruled within any given society, there are core ruling states, and periphery ruled states. Basically.
Seriousluy OP, Marx related fields are the most accurate social/political insights out there.
Just because you know how something works, doesn't mean you can survive it, or even change it for the better.
>Start off with a large majority of your population living like Medieval peasants
>Get invaded by your neighbors which kills millions and ruins your economy
>Throw in a civil war that rampages across the entire country right afterwards for good measure
>As soon as you get a handle on that, have more or less every major power in the world trying to undermine your government
>Get invaded by that same neighbor again, with even more death and destruction this time
>Still manage to give most of your population a half-decent living compared to what they had before you came
>The guys across the ocean who were already prospering by the start of the 20th century and haven't had a war in their country for a hundred years say you suck because you're not as rich as them
not him and my source would be in a language you dont understand but it wasnt unthinkable to invite western intellectuals and show them how "socialism is superior"
the one relation i know was a subversion operation
article in english the story is real
>Soviet Union was communist because they had a Red Flag and a communist party.
>China has a Red Flag and a communist party, not communist, doesn't count because doesn't conform to muh abstract ideal.
Neither of them were communist because they had wage labour, value form circulation, and a substitutionalist party using bourgeois parliamentary modes rather than an organic body of intellectuals within the class within the organs of factory self-rule.
>Throw in a civil war that rampages across the entire country right afterwards for good measure
Yeah that was the direct result of the commie revolution, how convenient to leave that out.
>muh Holodohoax BTFO
>Politburo confirmed trying to do its best
>le Stalin is Satan meme BTFO
>muh materialism is bad BTFO
>muh industrialization is evil BTFO
>muh gulags BTFO
>muh USA stronk BTFO
>Burgers removed everywhere
>asspained shitposters complaining it's all Putin
>anarchobabbies complaining the USSR wasnt socialist as usual
>will provably get BTFO in turn
Fuck I love /his/ stay based
Alexander Solzhenitsyn would like a word with you.
>prosecutors being executed for trumped up crimes
>investigators who consider you guilty before they even begin and are more like interrogators
>torture practices and the use of special cells
Into the trash it goes
>this socialist society is so inhumane
>instead what we need is a new Great Russian Empire to destroy the Bolshevist Jews with the same methods they used against us
>only then can we restore the Church to its rightful place and become the greatest power on earth, run of course by ultranationalist intellectuals who contribute jackshit to society like myself
If anyone deserved to be in a gulag, it was him
>humanism is good so long as it's used against commies, it shouldn't actually exist though lol people should just morally embrace muh Tsar and muh intellectuals
>pls Gib Nobel
Best part is how there's now more Americans incarcerated over petty BS than were ever in the gulag (which was always mostly petty criminals and POWs anyway :^)
>wow this system is inhumane and backward
>better restore feudalism and live in the dark ages
>Oh and use the same methods I hate because it's only bad when commies do it
Except it's shit propaganda and feels>realz pandering for the Western and samizdat audience
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations :^)
Solzhenitsyn stripped the aura of respectability from the Vor and showed him to be a lowlife thug. Until then, most people thought the Thieves were honest rogues who lived by stealing and had a code of honor. In fact, this was never the case and mythology perpetuated it for long enough to make it seem true. Thieves in prison were as thuggish as the name implies, even more so than it would. It was one of the ways the Soviet prison administration would enforce order, through their "socially friendly elements" in the GULAG.
I don't think he ever said anything about feudalism and dark ages, anon. His yearning for removing the Bolshevik Jews from the government however was a great moral imperative and he was a genuinely good person.
>Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations
I wonder why do marxists think that Wealth of Nations is some sort of capitalist Bible when all the modern market guys laugh at Smith for being a retard?
Actually this was an intentional strategy by the US was out spend the USSR and watch them spend them selves into oblivion but of course the US could spend more with how rich we were after ww2 but the USSR is gone and for some reason reversing our insane defense budget is completely off the table
Huge military makes you respected, it was true in the ancient world and it's just as true nowadays.
I mean look at modern Russia, without nukes, huge military and oil they'd be literally an Ukraine-tier shithole, but those three things manage to keep them semi-relevant on the global stage.
Our defense budget is huge to maintain oil. Without oil, we lose our spot as a super power. The military is bloated and wasteful, but entirely necessary (at least as far as keeping America an oil gobbling super power monstrosity is concerned).
Marxist-lenninists are just another form of control freak, very similar to the emotions driving all the 'activism[s]'.
Also, I'm a real Marxist, I made this video very late at night, and I've also lost some weight since then... but yeah... I shouldn't do this, but anyway:
Influential in monetarists how? Monetarists used mathematical models (rejected by austrians) similar to old neokeynesian models, with a few changes in how variables behave (rejected by austrians). Epistemologically, to friedman "the only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience" while to austrians "The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience". In prescriptive policies, monetarists argued for a constant increase of the monetary base, which would make austrians shiver.
>Influential in monetarists how?
Read Free to Choose from Friedman. Also, Hayek didn't reject mathematics or at least not to the insane extent Rothbard and Mises do. Honestly, I don't think Hayek should be included among Austrians after all, he's the Michael Altman of the Austrian movement.
I have one match for "hayek" in the entire book. But i should probably read the book before making a judgement. In any case, i don't doubt the philosophical influence hayek may have had in friedman, but i don't see anything austrian in monetarist theory itself.
>How are there still Marxists-Leninists in modern day and age?
How wouldn't there be? Grimdark immersive media for teenagers is doing great across the board. Marxism-Leninism has good atmosphere, decent factions and endless lore going for it.
You do realise that it is the anarchists and autonomists who are defending the tankies and soviet union—defending it for what it actually was, from condemnations of it for what it wasn't.
The NEP reintroduced value form maximisation into the wage labour factories: it reduced the proletarian nature of the Soviet factory to a wage labour, ie a working class relationship.
The NEP reintroduced a market in agricultural products. With the burdens of serf-loan and landlordism removed, peasants basically had their tax load reduced by 75%. And peasants chose to not work with this extra time.
You're thinking of the 5 year plans mate.
In this thread, I don't see even one bolchevik nor a coat rack.
I like this quote:
>Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value.
Once sentence completely destroying LTOV.
That doesn't address the quote at all. Even Marx himself proposes a list of exceptions of things that obviously have a pricetag on them but are unrelated to labor, he just conveniently says they're not commodities. In other words he retcons the ever loving fuck out of his theory just to half assedly prevent it from falling apart.
It does actually, it is really amusing to watch them. The other nice thing is to continue politely talking with an austrian until they make the inevitable appeal to external reality to verify/falsify claims.
Right, but even if Ukraine could produce the food to feed the entire country (which is still difficult), there's a massive transportation problem. I'm not saying the geography was the only factor, but the Great Plains aren't the only food-producing region in the US, and they make up a much larger percentage of the land (excluding Alaska).
>Communism actually works quite well in small communities that fully believe in the cause
and literally every time someone tried a large scale communist community it ended up bad and with totalitarism becose its impossible to keep it "working" without that and even with that there is still people beliveing a communist world can be achived.
Because Lenin was never given the time to lead The USSR in peacetime, we can never know how it might have turned out, if he'd lived.
Lenin is an inspiration because he swept aside the prior order, and tried to do something NEW.
He wasn't a coward in fear of change, he was a man of action, who knew that the mighty could only be brought to account at the tip of a bayonet.
I'm not a Marxist, but when the west collapses (and it will, perhaps in our lifetimes), I know the first thing on my agenda will be punishing those who held power and influence, for the failure of their order.
So, the rich, and the politically influential.
Then don't try and scale it up, duh.
Let the little socialist societies live equitably, and don't try to over-centralize into a state body.
The main problem with this lifestyle is aggression from external forces being harder to deter without a powerful central state, but a strong militia-culture, and a sense of fanatical independance would prevent such a group of polities from being absorbed readily.
In fact, if you tried to set up a socialist enclave in modern Europe, (there are already communes that operate on socialist principals the world over) with enough people, the government would not be able to stop you, especially if you simply categorically refused as a group to acknowledge the authority of government agents in your territory.
In this way, you force them to either leave you alone, or use force, which will turn popular opinion against them, and give legitimacy to armed insurrection.
No, the sign of a weak man is that the objects of his hate persist.
You are confused by narrative ideas about how the world "should" work.
If men do evil without punishment, then they will do evil for all time.
The mark of the coward is that he allows evil to be done in his sight.
This has nothing to do with inevitability, it has to do with centralized powers usurping responsibilities and taking credit (and blame) for things could've been done just as well on a private scale
It's not "convenient", it's pretty evident that the price of a good that can be re-produced will have a price that is related to production cost while the price of a good that can't will be determined in some other way. Even in neoclassical economics the supply curve is determined by production costs in one case and by preferences in the other.
>I'm not an Austrian m8
Only internet austrians are retarded enough to think production isn't relevant in price determination, so if you think that "price is defined by demand and scarcity" you pretty much are.
>there are people IN THIS FUCKING THREAD who actually think the Bolsheviks took power from the Czar and ended the Russian Empire
So fucking triggered right now
not him, but potemkin villages are a well known phenomenon... Ironically enough, when I read anglo-owned newspapers based in east asia from 1900-1920, they accused the japs of doing the same exact thing. John Dewey the philosopher also mentioned this in an article I happened to read.
When you add in Barbarossa, a third of the remaining population disappeared too.
It's weird that the wehraboos rant about 'muh 60 gorillian' but then ALSO claim that the Soviets used human wave tactics, when their population was apparently smaller than Germany alones?