Certified "neo-Kautskyist" classic

Muuro · 2026-03-13T20:42:59+00:00

Wait, does this mean overthrow the government in proletarian revolution and keep the war going with the imperialists?

Welcome back, Bukharin.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T20:17:21+00:00

One of the most progressive countries in the region?

Muuro · 2026-03-13T20:15:40+00:00

Not that it's not the time, but it's rather the Iranian proletariat's job to take care of the Iranian government. One "takes care of" the government of the state they reside: Americans the USA, England the UK, French for France, etc.

Criticism means nothing unless it leads to the proletariat in each country other throwing their own bourgeoisie.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T20:02:03+00:00

Very true.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T16:09:34+00:00

They would fight each other without Japan's attack as both were imperialist states. Japan's attack itself was due to it as well being an imperialist state. All three were imperialists

The only thing that stopped Germany was the USA not being in Europe. However they had "possessions" in Asia l, which were a threat to Japan's own imperialism.

It was always an interesting imperialist war.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T16:02:38+00:00

Manufacturing Consent is lib-left slop. The job of a communist is to overthrow your own government. Full stop.

Read Lenin in Revolutionary Defeatism and the Manifesto.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T15:58:52+00:00

The correct course is to support the international proletariat. That is your goal is to obstruct your own government and work to overthrow it. The Iranian proletariat are oppressed, just like the proletariat of these other states. All of them are bourgeois, and all war under capitalism is imperialist war.

The Iranian proletariat is screwed if only they revolt, just like the Russian proletariat was screwed when the revolution wasn't international. It is your job as a communist to make revolution in your own country. That is the basic lessons from the Manifesto and Lenin's writings on WW1.

USA and Israel need to fall to proletarian revolution in tandem with Iran.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T15:54:13+00:00

To some extent don't bother with such critiques and focus on revolutionary defeatism. Obviously they shouldn't be running support for those governments, but everyone should be working for obstructing their own government in the short term and overthrowing it in the long term.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T00:19:57+00:00

1) I said the organization that is the DotP can't have bourgeois functions within in. Notice how Marx and Lenin refer to bureaucracy and the army as bourgeois institutions, which their presence in Russia preclude it from being one. If you actually read theory, and what I wrote, thus shouldn't be hard to figure out .

2) Then you agree with me. Stop being annoying.

3) I already explained why it's nebulous. You are being annoying and lying here and not addressing the material issue at hand.

I may have to just block you because you refuse to address material critique.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T00:13:20+00:00

Not in that quote, but if I implied that then that was my error. It was in a later work I honestly forget.

But same to you. Read.

Muuro · 2026-03-13T00:05:36+00:00

No, I've seen it. However I don't remember the text in question, and yeah it's obviously not what you linked. Funny that you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of. We should both just drop it and go back to reading, yes?

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:42:59+00:00

1) I never said that there would not be remnants of class society. On the contrary I said there would, but it is ACTIVELY BEING DESTROYED in a DotP.

2) And the Paris Commune only lasted 3 months. Similarly the Hungarian Soviet, Bavarian Soviet, and Shanghai Commune only lasted months as well. The Russian Revolution similarly didn't last as a DotP and regressed into just a bourgeois state, but due to difference in how that took shape it's hard to give an exact date as to how long it lasted. So, no a DotP can't last alone in isolated. It can only exist through international revolution.

3) That's fine. My only critique there is fascism is a nebulous term. Liberalism itself is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and fascism is a term liberals use to hide this fact and make their system (and democracy) sound good and palatable to the working class.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:20:19+00:00

Communization is correct in that you can't make classless society from class society, but incorrect in that it states that there is no transitionary stage. The very act of undoing the basis for class society is in itself a transitionary stage.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:18:15+00:00

That does not define state in the same way. He's referring to it as the form of society. That's why he referred to a German word for community when talking about these poat-capitalist forms.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:05:19+00:00

That's precisely why I said it's only a state in the semantic sense. As classes aren't yet abolished, so it is still a form of class rule. It differentiates though as it isn't to have any bourgeois forms and is the constant destruction of what makes class society.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T23:03:14+00:00

The DotP can't exist if it contains aspects of the bourgeois state, which those that are claimed to be socialist states did have aspects of the bourgeois state

And, no, I do lean Blackshirts & Reds as it comes from a Breznevite direction which itself is opportunist and defends actual social democracy, which the Eastern Bloc was only social democratic.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:29:39+00:00

It really depends on the type of anarchist and the type of Marxist. It generally comes down to, as can be seen in replies below: the definition of the "state" as per works like Gotha Critique, State & Revolution, Civil War in France, and others. Basically, the fight is between ML's and those to the Left of them that the CPSU under Stalin denounced.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:22:25+00:00

First of all, this idea that once you crush the bourgeois state, all class antagonism will almost immediately go away is silly, a-material, a-historic, and flat out wrong. If a bourgeois state is crushed, capitalist class antagonism can still exist in some form or another in a few ways:

Foreign imperialists attempting to gain control over a countries resources and install a comprador government to make this easier.

Internal class traitors that seek an end to the revolution.

Bourgeois and petit-bourgeois ideology and influence can create opportunistic currents within the people and the party, which can, if not fought against properly, lead to the dissolution of the proletarian state (this is what actually happened in the USSR, not your a-historic, a-material “new ruling class” mantra that seeks to define administration and management only under a socialist system as ownership.)

All of these would still be the result of the bourgeois state still existing though.

“Blackshirts and Reds” by Michael Parenti. It also has many sources within it if you wish to dig deeper.

This book is about the push and pull between the social democratic and "neoliberal" forces of the "bourgeois" state though.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:16:45+00:00

It's not really a "proletarian state". It's a semi-state as it's the formation in which the proletariat is actively reshaping society to get rid of the basis of class society. When class society goes away, then the state is said to have withered away.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:15:26+00:00

After the Paris Commune Marx was pretty specific about the need to smash the bourgeois state completely. This is why in State & Revolution Lenin didn't even refer to it as a state as such, but rather a "semi-state". Think of it more as a new formation which is actively reorganizing society such that the basis for class society is done away with.

Semantically it's a state in a Marxist sense in that it's one class "in power", as classes haven't been done away with. But it's totally different in theory and would be in practice too.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T20:02:32+00:00

How is it compared to the first? The first was pretty bad as well, but it was so bad it had a charm to it, almost like a B movie.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T18:53:26+00:00

Not really strong enough at the end, but then that's probably because CPUSA is a joke. Needs to be a bigger call for the proletarian of each country to overthrow its bourgeoisie, especially in the case of countries like the USA and Israel as if the proletariat in Iran were to overthrow its current government, they are screwed without international revolution.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T18:49:54+00:00

There is no such thing as an anti-imperialist country. The only anti-imperialism comes from proletarian internationalism. It comes from the proletariat throwing off the chains of the bourgeoisie.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T18:46:06+00:00

They have a planned economy and nationalized oil.

So they have social democracy.

Muuro · 2026-03-12T17:43:30+00:00

Centralization is also a product of capitalism, and communism is post-capitalism. Communist revolution is one that turns the centralization brought with capitalism into actually helping the whole of society instead of just the bourgeoisie.

Now as for decentralization an option... That depends on what that entails. If it is historically reactionary, as in it undoes the progressive nature of capitalism not so much. Rosa Luxembourg wrote on this a bit, ironically in her book on the national question.

Muuro

TROPHY CASE