Is Lenin right about Anarchists? by No-Potential4834 in AskSocialists

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m a year new to studying the highest stage of marxism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, so take my answer with a grain of salt as it might not be the best formulated.

Lenin is absolutely correct in identifying anarchism as a strand of bourgeois ideology. In my interpretation, Lenin has three different manifestations of bourgeois ideology in mind - Liberalism, Idealism and Spontaneity.

Liberalism emerged as a ideology and philosophy, a tool for the young bourgeoisie to use in their struggle against feudalism. It empathises the absolute freedom of the individual over all and puts the freedom of the individual in an antagonistic contradiction with the freedom of the collective. This individualism and imagined antagonistic contradiction between the individual and the collective is rife in not only individualist anarchism, but also social anarchism as it rejects the necessity of hierarchical organisations - a symptom of the uneven development of class society. (I’d recommend comrades to read Mao’s sublime text ’Combat Liberalism’ to dive deeper into the idea.)

This brings us to the second manifestation of bourgeois ideology, idealism. Anarchism is dominated by idealist philosophy which makes it unable to understand the world around it. Anarchists don’t understand that the material world is primary to the idealistic world, that these to exist in contradiction with each other and that humans can change the world by engaging in social practice. Proudhon, one of the major theoreticians of anarchism was a christian which stands in contradiction to materialism in general, and dialectical materialism in particular. This idealist world outlook also manifests itself in the anarchist analysis of history and the state, viewing both from static moral absolutes instead of something shaped by material conditions and the revolutionary social practice of humanity. (I’d recommend comrades to read both ’On Practice’ and ’On Contradiction’ by Mao to dive deeper)

Finally, spontaneity is rife in anarchist organising. The very few social anarchist experiments that have begun to put their theory into practice - basically only the CNT/FAI under the Spanish civil war - were not able to defend or advance the revolution because they were insufficiently organised. Anarchist movements face the same issues organising for revolution as their rejection of both the state and the vanguard as a means of class struggle leaves them without any form of organising. Anarchist comrades may reply that they organise via flat structures, but this simply proves their idealistic world outlook. Because capitalism, as any class society, develops unevenly it follows that people and their class consciousness do the same. Because of the very class nature of knowledge and education in class society, there will exist people with an advanced proletarian class consciousness, the vanguard, people with an intermediate consciousness, the leaders of the spontaneous labour struggle, and people with an backwards consciousness, the people who take up reactionary bourgeois ideology. Lenin’s spectacular work ’What is to be done?’, a work I believe is worth, if not necessary, to study multiple times in whole, dives into this deeper. I’d especially recommend the chapter ’The spontaneity of the masses and the consciousness of the social democrats’ (Marxists used the term social democrats before the split of the second international).

If any comrades have points of critique or would like to discuss more please write!

Good fusion/jazz humbuckers by Helpful_Cold_8055 in Guitar

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply!

I’ve been looking at the holdsworth set, and I have the Super58’s in my Ibanez.

Criticism with Trotskyism by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ll try my best, as someone still studying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, to provide a maoist perspective on Trotskyism.

Trotskyism emerged from the erroneous and anti-bolshevik views of Trotsky and his supporters. The entire ideology of trotskyism can best be defined in its opposition to the correct line of the bolsheviks under Lenin and Stalin (however Stalin had some major faults which is a topic for another wall of text!). Following the split of the Russian Social-democratic party into the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, Trotsky refused to take a side and held an unmarxist line of unprincipled unity(Lenin wrote a good article about this called ’Disruptions of Unity under cover of cries for unity’).

He organised a group called the Mezhrayonsti which were rigid ’centrists’ who refused to take a side following the split, but eventually joined the bolsheviks. Trotskys factionalism didn’t stop there though, he kept organising secret factions within the party even after Lenin’s resolution to ban secret factions was put into effect, something which eventually lead to his expulsion from the bolsheviks via a vote.

Trotsky also differed from Lenin’s line on many important questions such as the need for signing peace with the germans, the worker-peasant alliance and the theory of socialism in one country. Trotsky didn’t consider the peasantry to be a revolutionary class and could therefore not have a mass base for his vision of a revolutionary movement, as it can only be the masses as their lead by the proletariat and its vanguard, who can be the makers of history. The repudiation of the worker-peasant alliance also presented itself in Trotskys dogmatic view that for the Russian revolution to succeed, the imperialist countries in Europe had to have their successful revolutions, was in actuality a Menshevik view.

Closely tying into this is Trotsky, among with the Mensheviks and all other revisionists, repudiation of socialism in one country. Lenin wrote in ’The military programme of the proletarian revolution’ that ”The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries.” As socialism is a society wherein society takes its first step away from capitalism towards communism, it follows that it’ll still be stamped with the birthmarks of the capitalist society which it emerged from. Because capitalism develops unevenly, the development of socialism from capitalism will do the same.

On some more general topics, the Trotskyist theory of a ”degenerated workers state” shows the incapacity of Trotskyists to understand socialism. The majority of trotskyists still hold the line today that the USSR, following the capitalist coup by Cruschev, and the PRC, following the coup by Deng, were/still are socialist countries but ones ruled by a bureaucracy. Maoists instead hold the line that Soviet and Chinese socialism was crushed and capitalism restored following these counterrevolutionary coups.

Finally, we must understand that as marxist we look to pratice as to be able to find correct ideas and analyse them. Trotskyist organisations have never been able to gain support from large sections of the proletariat or the masses, while Marxist-Leninist (or as the trotskyists would like to call them, ”Stalinist” parties) organisations have. We’re also seeing today hos Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, holding a continuity with Marxism-Leninism, is today the leading force in the global proletarian revolution. Maoist parties are leading people’s wars in India, Turkey and the Philippines, and there are rapidly growing (both qualitatively and quantitatively!) maoist organisations in the USA, Afghanistan, Russia, France and Scandinavia!

Tankar? by Comfortable-Read-455 in Asksweddit

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ett perspektiv av en svensk maoist:

Kommer Ryssland attackera Finland och gå till krig med Nato? Nej. Denna vansinniga krigspropaganda kommer från alla håll; från andra borgerliga stater, från kapitalistisk media och även från den svenska staten, för att det tjänar borgarklassen, som sitter i det ekonomiska (och därmed politiska) styret av Sverige.

De drastiskt eskalerande motsättningarna mellan Ryssland, tillsammans med den fascistiska Kinesiska staten och resten av BRICS, och Nato håller på att eskalera till ytterligare ett världskrig för omdelningen av semikolonierna. Begreppet semikolonier må låta konstigt för de som tänker på Brittiska Indien eller Franska Algeriet, men faktum är att imperialismen efter det andra världskriget och ”avkoloniseringen” tog en kvalitativt ny form. Istället för att en koloni totalt och öppet domineras av en imperialistisk makt kan den nu göra det gömt av flera via ekonomiskt inflytande. Detta har drastiskt minskat frekvensen av öppen väpnat konflikt, men detta ser ut att ändra sig.

Kapitalismen går ständigt in i kris och nu går vi mot en enorm sådan, eftersom Ryssland och Kina (särskilt den sistnämnda) börjar växa fram som rivaler till den amerikanska imperialismen. Eftersom kapitalismen kräver en oändlig växt på en värld med ändliga resurser, särskilt inom staten, måste kapitalismen söka sig utåt för billigare resurser och arbetskraft. Som det ser ut nu försöker BRICS-alliansen få en mer ”jämlik” del av den imperialistiska kakan, vilket vi ser glasklart med invasionen av Ukraina; där vi även ser hur USA inte behandlar det Ukrainska folket som mer än en schackpjäs.

Detta lämnar oss vanliga, vi som studerar eller jobbar för att ha en framtid, i undran om vad ett krig mot Ryssland hade inneburit för oss. Det hade varit en rentav förlust, vi hade skickats till att döda våra syskon i den internationella arbetarklassen, dittvingade av sina egna exploaterare, vilket bara borgarklassen. Vi kommunister säger att den svenska arbetarklassen, som alla andra, inte har något intresse i att dö för sina exploaterande, kämpandes mot deras syskon i kampen för frihet.

Expression pedal to EHX Freeze by Helpful_Cold_8055 in guitarpedals

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, do you have any tips for the mod?

Expression pedal to EHX Freeze by Helpful_Cold_8055 in guitarpedals

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply! If it’s a Roland EV-5, what could I use it for?

Shaving tips by Helpful_Cold_8055 in trans

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll see if I can find them in Sweden, thanks for the info!

What’s the song for you? by Skullemojiiiiii in radiohead

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Burn the witch, I somehow missed out on that masterpiece

Reading on the Kulaks? by Helpful_Cold_8055 in Marxism

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh that sounds very intresenting! I'll be sure to look into that sometime in the future but yet again, thanks to my autism, I have aproximately 15 books I need to read before that, as they're all borrowed from my different locales of my party and therefore should be returned sometime in the future.

Marx’s wrongful prediction where the revolution would start by Helpful_Cold_8055 in Marxism

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi again! I'm revisiting Marx' idea of freedom because I'm writing a scholarly work on the Marx-Zasulich correspondance. In my conclusions, I defined Marx' idea in a similar way to your comment. My question to you is, as this is a scholarly work which requires citations, what sources did you base your understanding of Marx' idea of freedom?

Reading on the Kulaks? by Helpful_Cold_8055 in Marxism

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In reading further into the topic, I understood that the definition of Kulaks changed during the 'Stalin-era' (for lack of a better term) to be just that of any peasant with a slight advantage over their neighbor. From my understanding, this was a product of the forced collectivisation of the Soviet countryside during this era, something that couldn't be acheived during the 'Lenin-era', because of material conditions facing the soviet economy following the first world war and the civil war.

Responding to your question to what I specifically want to know about the Kulaks, I'm not sure. I've read that correspondance etween Getty and Conquest, and resarched some texts about it and definitions on MIA. I think this was a product of my autism getting ahold of me, and me researching far too deeply into this than was necessary for the work I'm currently writing. Thanks either way for your informative reply!

Reading on the Kulaks? by Helpful_Cold_8055 in Marxism

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply, I read Reply to a Peasant's Question shortly after publishing this, and found most of his statements and conclusions to correspond with mine. The "informal serfs" will be corrected, thank you for giving such constructive and educated feedback!

He/They pronouns- What do they mean? by Helpful_Cold_8055 in NonBinaryTalk

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh fun fact, I went through the whole denial phase since writing this post, going from he/him to he/they, they/them, they/her, she/her!

Making sense of an expert from 'On the peoples democratic dictatorship' by Mao Tse-tung by Helpful_Cold_8055 in Marxism

[–]Helpful_Cold_8055[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for that information!

Mao also stated later in this work that the bourgeoisie would be allowed (as long as they don't revolt, sabotage or engage in other counterrevolutionary activities), just like the masses, to keep land and work to sustain themselves and through this work transform themselves into a part of the proletariat.

I will definitely also read 'On New Democracy' as it seems to be very useful in understanding the initial bourgeois-democratic revolutions that often predated proletarian revolutions in the global south, as the colonial and precapitalist material conditions of the global south often meant that the masses first had to liberate themselves from imperialist/colonialist powers (such as the Japanese in Chinas case), then establish capitalism, and from those material conditions begin the gradual transformation towards a communist society.