/edu/ - Education

Drop .pdf foar book discussions

>>13218
That's a good idea comrade. Here's also a marxist.org link to it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/pdf/lenin-cw-vol-14.pdf

>>13217 (me)
Reading In lieu of a preface (I don't remember if my edition had this) and guess I was just mistaken about Lenin's writing in this book. Like this is a 🔥🔥 reply fr.

Oh this part is about Nikolay Valentinov. The broom lifting guy from one of Lenin's parables distributed in leftist spaces (good grief we really are like a religion) when comrades try to pick up weight-lifting and other sports out of false consciousness embedded by false desires pushed by advertisements everywhere and as a red counter-culture to fascism (counter-culture??? more like "we've painted the whey red and called it the "The Blood of the Bourgeoisie" that'll be 159.99 + shipping.)

>>13220
lol the book is fire yea
he'll call things gemmy, he'll invoke allah
tbh tho by the second half of the book… you've heard most of his arguments. It's because this isn't a philosophical treatise, it's a refutation of a handful of other works, which he continues to dissect with the same logic.

overall yeah materialism is dull, not because it's bad but legitimately philosophy department professional cretins like to muddy things to give themselves work and prestige, things are more simple than that. Or at least, the difficulty starts when we actually investigate the world rather than our relationship or stance towards the world.

its about dialectics and how everyone who isn't dialectical, especially positivists, are solipsistic idealists

>Does Lenin argue badly or is materialism a very dull philosophy and we like making shit up (see the post-1968. French Left).
Lenin is funny, but the arguments aren't great; the purpose of the essay is mainly polemic. If anything, the essay's greater sin is its overemphasis of materialism at the expense of dialectic, leading many Marxist-Leninists toward a vulgar materialism more grotesque than empirio-criticism ever was.

That outside and independent of our head there exists a real world of things which we sensuously perceive, of objects and phenomena which we see, touch, hear and smell, and which are linked together into a certain enormous whole (into the real world) – does this really need special proof? Doesn’t every sensible man who is in a sober state think exactly that? Doesn’t he understand that his individual ‘I’ with its consciousness was not only born at some point, but that sooner or later it will disappear, while the earth and the sun, the cities and villages, the children and grandchildren living under the sun will remain, although they too, in their own time, will give way to other suns and stars, to other people or beings who resemble people?

Could it really be that A. Bogdanov didn’t understand this? Could it be that this was not understood by the professor of physics, Ernst Mach, whose name is immortalised in the units of velocity now known to every pilot of a jet-liner? If such is the case, then Lenin’s entire polemic with the Machists can indeed be shown to have been an empty waste of time and energy.[…]

The philosophy of dialectical materialism, materialist dialectics, the logic of the development of the entire Marxist world outlook, the logic of cognition by virtue of which Capital had been written, and finally the strategy based on Capital of the political struggle of the revolutionary movement of the international working class – that is what this revisionism was directed against. So the discussion was not at all about abstract ‘epistemological research’, but about that ‘aspect of the matter’ upon which, in essence, depended all the remaining ‘aspects’ of the Marxist world view, the direction and paths of development of all its remaining component parts. And such an ‘aspect of the matter’ is called, in competent philosophical language, the essence of the matter. […]

Lenin had no doubts that the Machist diversion in the rear lines of revolutionary Marxism was the direct continuation of the attack on materialist dialectics begun earlier by E. Bernstein. This is shown in his note to the article ‘Marxism and Revisionism’, which concludes the section of this article devoted especially to philosophy. This section is worth reproducing in its entirety:

In the realm of philosophy revisionism tailed after bourgeois professorial ‘science’. The professors went ‘back to Kant’ – revisionism dragged itself along after the neo-Kantians, the professors repeated for the thousandth time the banalities they had been told by the priests against philosophical materialism, and, with condescending smiles, the revisionists muttered (copying the latest handbook word for word) that materialism had long since been ‘refuted’; the professors turned their backs on Hegel as a ‘dead dog’, and, while they themselves preached idealism, albeit a thousand times more petty and banal than Hegelian idealism, they scornfully shrugged their shoulders when it came to dialectics – and the revisionists crawled after them into the swamp of the philosophical vulgarisation of science, exchanging ‘cunning’ (and revolutionary) dialectics for ‘simple’ (and tranquil) ‘evolution’ …

It isn’t necessary to talk about the actual class significance of such ‘corrections’ of Marx – the matter is quite clear by itself. We would simply note that Plekhanov was the only Marxist in the international SocialDemocracy who, from the standpoint of consistent dialectical materialism, made a criticism of those unbelievable banalities which were repeated at length here by the revisionists. It is all the more necessary to stress this firmly because nowadays, profoundly mistaken attempts are being made to bring forward the old and reactionary philosophical rubbish under the flag of criticising Plekhanov’s tactical opportunism. […]

>Lenin’s book could very well have been given a slightly different title: Materialism and Idealism. And not only in general, but with the addition: In Our Time. Where is the clearcut dividing line between them, that line where every man must make a choice? What is philosophical idealism and what is philosophical materialism? How do you recognise what you are dealing with, which of these two points of departure is determining the direction of all your thought, regardless of the subject of your reflection: major things or minor, the fate of the earth or the fate of one’s country, the problems of genes or quarks, quantum mechanics or the foundations of mathematics, the mysterious origins of personality or the mysterious origins of life on earth?

>Here, then, is the question: take your thought, your consciousness of the world, and the world itself, the complex and intricate world which only appears to be simple, the world which you see around you, in which you live, act and carry out your work – whether you write treatises on philosophy or physics, sculpt statues out of stone, or produce steel in a blast furnace – what is the relationship between them?

>Here there is a parting of the ways, and the difference lies in whether you choose the right path or the left, for there is no middle here; the middle path contains within itself the very same divergences, only they branch out within it in ever more minute and discrete proportions. In philosophy the ‘party of the golden mean’ is the ‘party of the brainless’, who try to unite materialism with idealism in an eclectic way, by means of smoothing out the basic contradictions, and by means of muddling the most general (abstract, ‘cellule’) and clear concepts.

>These concepts are matter and consciousness (psyche, the ideal, spirit, soul, will, etc. etc.). ‘Consciousness’ – let us take this term as Lenin did – is the most general concept which can only be defined by clearly contrasting it with the most general concept of ‘matter’, moreover as something secondary, produced and derived. Dialectics consists in not being able to define matter as such; it can only be defined through its opposite, and only if one of the opposites is fixed as primary, and the other arises from it.

>The difference and opposition of materialism and idealism is thus very simple, which, on the part of the idealists of various shades, serves as the basis for reproaches directed at materialism, such as ‘primitivism’, ‘grade-school sophistication’, ‘non-heuristic nature’, ‘banality’, ‘being self-evident’, etc. (Such a reproach was directed at Lenin as soon as his book was published: ‘In general, even if one acknowledges as correct the materialist propositions of Mr Ilyin about the existence of an external world and its cognoscibility in our sensations, then these propositions can nevertheless not be called Marxist, since the most inveterate representative of the bourgeoisie hasn’t the least doubts about them,’ wrote M. Bulgakov in his review of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.)

>Lenin’s position isn’t formulated here very precisely. It doesn’t consist in the simple acknowledgment of ‘the existence of an external world and its cognoscibility in our sensations’, but in something else: for materialism, matter – the objective reality given to us in sensation, is the basis of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), at the same time as for idealism of any type, the basis of epistemology is consciousness, under one or another of its pseudonyms (be it the ‘psychical’, ‘conscious’ or ‘unconscious’, be it the ‘system of forms of collectively-organised experience’ or ‘objective spirit’, the individual or collective psyche, individual or social consciousness).

>The question about the relationship of matter to consciousness is complicated by the fact that social consciousness (‘collectively-organised’, ‘harmonised’ experience, cleansed of contradiction) from the very beginning precedes individual consciousness as something already given, and existing before, outside, and independent of individual consciousness. just as matter does. And even more than that. This social consciousness – of course, in its individualised form, in the form of the consciousness of one’s closest teachers, and after that, of the entire circle of people who appear in the field of vision of a person, forms his consciousness to a much greater degree than the ‘material world’.

>But social consciousness (Bogdanov and Lunacharsky take precisely this as the ‘immediately given’, as a premise not subject to further analysis and as the foundation of their theory of knowledge), according to Marx, is not ‘primary’, but secondary, derived from social being, i.e. the system of material and economic relations between people.

>It is also not true that the world is cognised in our sensations. In sensations the external world is only given to us, just as it is given to a dog. It is cognised not in sensations, but in the activity of thought, the science of which is after all, according to Lenin, the theory of knowledge of contemporary materialism.

>Logic as the philosophical theory of cognition is defined by Lenin, following after Marx and Engels, as the science of those universal laws (necessary, independent both of man’s will and consciousness), to which the development of the entire aggregate knowledge of mankind is objectively subordinated. These laws are understood as the objective laws of development of the material world, of both the natural and socio-historical world, of objective reality in general. They are reflected in the consciousness of mankind and verified by thousands of years of human practice. Therefore logic as a science borders on and tends to coincide with development theory, but not in its readily given form. Logic, however, according to Bogdanov (Berman, Mach and others) is the collection of ‘devices’, ‘means’, ‘methods’ and ‘rules’, to which the thinking of each individual is consciously subordinated, while being fully self-aware. At its base (at the base of its theoretical conception) lie all those old principles of formal logic which are taught in school – the law of identity, the denial of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle[…]

>-Reflections on Lenin’s book: “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positivism.pdf

>>13223
>the difficulty starts when we actually investigate the world rather than our relationship or stance towards the world
these two are inseparable

>>13224
I have gained so much respect for Lenin

Yeah, it's terrible, just like Dialectics of Nature. There's a reason Engels never finished it.
For a detailed takedown read
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/

>>13231
shoo, shoo

>>13231
>Anton Pannekoek
>Dutch
Honourary anglo
>Pannekoek was best known for his writing on workers' councils.
Muh workers councils
Marxs critique of Paris Commune was they were dicking around with democracy instead of militarising and marching on Versailles
>He regarded these as a new form of organisation capable of overcoming the limitations of the old institutions of the labour movement, the trade unions and social democratic parties. Basing his theory on what he regarded as the practical lessons of the 1917 Russian Revolution, Pannekoek argued that the workers' revolution and the transition from capitalism to communism had to be achieved by the workers themselves, democratically organised in workers' councils.[26]
Lol
>Pannekoek was a sharp critic of anarchism, social democracy, and Vladimir Lenin and Leninism. During the early years of the Russian revolution, Pannekoek gave critical support to the Bolsheviks, a position shared by fellow council communist Herman Gorter. >He expressed misgivings about the authoritarian tendencies of Leninism,
Muh authoritarianism
>fearing for the socialist character of the Russian Revolution unless it should find a rectifying support in a proletarian revolution in the West.
Another West is Best trotskyite that cant even conceive of socialism if its not on a billboard in New York or printed in the Washington Post

>His later analysis of the failure of the Russian revolution was that after Lenin and the Bolsheviks came to power, they crippled the soviets. Instead of workers' councils, the Bolsheviks had instituted the rule of their party, which in Pannekoek's view is what led to the institution of the Bolsheviks as a new ruling class.[27]
Yup very marxist view on class.
Engels
<Peoples state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseum by anarchists, although Marxs ati-Proudhon piece and after it declare outright that, with the introduction of socialist order of society the State will dissolve the state and disappear. Since the state is merely a transitional institution of which is use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down ones enemies by forcw, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free peoples state; so long as the proletariat make use of that State, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be a question of freedom, the State as such ceases to exist

>He put his views forward in his 1938 book Lenin als Philosoph, originally published in German under the pseudonym J. Harper. It was translated into English in 1948 as Lenin as philosopher - a critical examination of the philosophical basis of Leninism.

This 💩 demands Proletarian Dictatorship be weakened.
This is all the more funny that he wrote this in 1938 when Soviet Union had suffered years of Trot terrorism and half the world world was at war or subjugated under Italian/German or Japanese fascists and Czechoslovakia had just been carved up at Munich by Nazis and the men of Munich

>>13233
You know, i am reading his wiki page and maybe it's just wiki being wiki, but i see nothing about what he actually did, except writing books and being a university professor. Like, he wrote books on "council communism", how much workers councils he helped establish? What was the result of his theoretical work? Seems like he was just some ivory tower academic, to disgusted by actual working class to actually work with them and help them organize.

>>13233
>>13234
In all that time you spent on wikipedia you could've just read the pamphlet and see if you agree with it or not based on the content and not the person who wrote it.

>>13235
Theory is validated by practice. What was the validation of his "council communism"?

Seems like it's just liberalism with a red coat of paint.

>>13236
in revolutionary time, soviets or worker councils spring up naturally or so the argument goes. it appeared in basically all socialist revolutions and the argument goes that it's the organic way of organisation for workers. suprisingly grounded by evidence i would say.

>>13237
That is an absolute bullshit. Organic my ass. Only someone who never studied the history could believe that crap.

It's basically the "we don't need to do anything, just let the workers organically organize themself" cope by people who never done any actual organizing.

Like i said, "some ivory tower academic, to disgusted by actual working class to actually work with them and help them organize"

>>13236
Just fucking read uyghur

>>13237
Kronstadt was also a workers council (setup by a white guardist) which attempted to overthrow the nascent socialist state

I dont care about reading some retard left comm when left communism was btfo'd in Lenins "An infantile disorder" 100+ years ago

Since Lenin there have been no real new ideas
Everything is just recycled Proudhonism, Duhring'ism, trotskyism, Keynsianism, Bakuninism(of which Anton belongs) etc

>>13217
Lenin is certainly not a Messiah but an ordinary man. I would myself check his condition during the writing of the book because he was no stranger to Siberia.

>>13239
I have a backlog of actually useful things ot read, thank you.

>>13236
>Theory is validated by practice.
Now apply that lesson to the Soviet Union. Stalinists (who aren't "capitalist roader" Dengists) tend to "grapple" with that fact by spinning a grand conspiracy theory of history, whether blaming Trotsky/Trotskyists, Krushchev, Gorbachev, etc., without ever questioning the fundamentals of their theory and practice (at least "under Lenin and Stalin"). The "solution" to defeat the supposed conspiracies is often similar to the right-wing's "solution" to mass shootings: "more Good Guys to stop the Bad Guys," which also demonstrates the basic problem of the theoretical framework.

>>13243
How about you actually study the USSR history from primary sources, not from memes?
>muh stalinists
sigh
>The "solution" to defeat the supposed conspiracies is often similar to the right-wing's "solution" to mass shootings:
Well, good thing that no ML i know actually holds such opinion.

>>13244
>How about you actually study the USSR history
Does the USSR exist today? Yes or no.
>sigh
It's more accurate than "Marxism-Leninism," given that at least some Stalinists will dismiss both to justify Stalin, and it parallels "Trotskyism." I'll use "Marxism-Leninism" somewhat interchangeably, but it's less accurate.
>Well, good thing that no ML i know actually holds such opinion.
I argued with a few different people here some months ago who maintained exactly that position, which is why I mentioned it.

>>13245
Did USSR existed for 70+ years? Yes or no.
Did Pannekoek created something even close to this scale? Yes or no.
I thought so.
>I argued with a few different people here some months ago who maintained exactly that position, which is why I mentioned it.
Given that you seem pretty retarded, i think you may have missed them actually not being MLs instead of ziggers or something or you completely missed the point of the argument.

>>13246
Did German Empire "existed" for 50+ years? Yes or no.
Did Pannekoek "created" something even close to this scale? Yes or no.
I thought so.
Intellectually destroyed

>>13233
"Muh X" is a racist Stormfront meme, post disregarded

>>13246
>Did USSR existed for 70+ years? Yes or no.
Capitalism has lasted much longer, and so has the United States. If length of time is the guide to what works, it would make more sense to support American capitalism. Even if you leave aside the USSR, communism itself would be an example of how practice isn't necessarily the guide. Marxism isn't pragmatism.
>Did Pannekoek created something even close to this scale?
If I create a building that stands for "70+ years" then falls apart, killing and injuring many of those inside of it, and someone points out how a critic demonstrated the architecture would be faulty, would you object and say "well, the critic who said the building wouldn't work didn't build anything"? Knowing where not to go and what not to do doesn't necessarily imply knowledge of where to go or what to do. This knowledge of what doesn't work is knowledge all the same, however. It's ad hominem anyway: you're not addressing the argument but attacking the person in question.
>Given that you seem pretty retarded, i think you may have missed them actually not being MLs instead of ziggers or something or you completely missed the point of the argument.
lol, and maybe all the Stalinists here are FBI plants who are trying to make Marxism-Leninism look bad.

>>13249
The building falling isn't proof of faulty architecture. Maybe the building was supposed to be temporary or maybe the building needs a certain kind of maintenance that was neglected. When your car breaks down because you didn't change the oil its not fault of the engineer who designed the engine.

>>13229
gemmy
>>13230
inshallah

>>13233
>Marxs critique of Paris Commune was they were dicking around with democracy instead of militarising and marching on Versailles
in 1848 Engels took up arms and served as August Willich's aid de camp while marx said he was too busy writing…

>>13249
>Capitalism has lasted much longer, and so has the United States. If length of time is the guide to what works, it would make more sense to support American capitalism

America got lucky because they got a huge amount of land almost for free when other European colonial powers abandoned the continent, and indigenous Americans were too decimated by disease and too overpowered by the technology differential to defend the frontier from the encroachment of "manifest destiny." Furthermore, America got a head start on primitive accumulation with slave labor, prison labor, and indentured servitude. Finally, the USSR is a huge land mass that is sparsely populated outside of the major metropolises and shares uneasy borders with many other nations. While the US has only mexico to the South, Canada to the North, and the atlantic ocean on either side. Also America got help from France when they won their independence from Britain, while the young soviet government had to deal with the end of WW1, leftover debt, hyperinflation, and starvation from the Tsarist regime, the consequences of Brest-Litovsk, a civil war against the white army, and an imperialist coalition of 10 allied nations invading at once, and also the Kronstadt rebellion and various SR revolts. Then they only had 20 years to rapidly industrialize before Hitler invaded.

Not only are you comparing the easy conditions of the early USA to the difficult conditions of the early USSR, but you are forgetting that it took hundreds of years for Capitalism to finally supplant feudalism. From the earliest attempts at constitutional monarchies and liberal republics, and the emergence of modern banking and accounting practices, and the rise of port cities, and the discovery of the new world, and the establishment of colonies, and the English civil wars, and the French revolution, and the enclosure of common lands, proletarianization of the peasantry, the dominance of wage labor over subsistence labor, all the way up to the industrial revolution, the emergence of Capitalism was not an overnight thing. It took hundreds of years for what we call Capitalism to finally finish hatching from its shell. You saw signs of it emerging for centuries, but it didn't really finish replacing feudalism until the 19th century. So why would socialism become successful overnight? The old ruling class is going to hold onto their power or whatever vestiges of it remain for as long as they can.

>>13253
america also never suffered from invasion or any real threat of invasion. The country could literal sit back and wait for its enemies to destroy each other, before intervening.

>>13250
>The building falling isn't proof of faulty architecture
It generally would be.
>Maybe the building was supposed to be temporary
Do you think this applies in the analogy?
>or maybe the building needs a certain kind of maintenance that was neglected.
Then that would still be a failure. It may be a "necessary failure," in that nothing can be done to lessen this problem, yet it's a failure to the extent it requires actions that cannot be consistently or easily performed. If the building requires both a high level of experience and specialized knowledge and expensive or uncommon tools to maintain (or if it can easily be compromised by others), I wouldn't consider this a successful design, whether in architecture or any other context. If there truly seems to be no alternative, then it would be better to look at what I'm wanting to accomplish and try starting over completely.
>When your car breaks down because you didn't change the oil its not fault of the engineer who designed the engine.
Almost any time a user is required to learn what's going on within something you've made to make it work (or keep it working) can't be called a design success. It could be the current best option, but there's no particular virtue in it and, to the extent you haven't thought of an alternative or minimized this sort of work, you're always partially to blame.


>>13253
>America got lucky
I agree with most of what you're saying, but my argument was that "what works in practice" can't be used as a criterion alone without simply valorizing whatever exists as the most rational way of doing things (taking up a position attributed wrongly to Hegel), and that the USSR and communism could be evaluated in terms of the same "pragmatic" position and found to be "disproven in practice."

>>13255
>If the building requires both a high level of experience and specialized knowledge and expensive or uncommon tools to maintain
You don't have to add these qualifiers. Everything has to be maintained or it falls apart its not about how things are designed. If you think you know some fundamental flaw with the USSR then tell us what it is instead of saying that its failure is proof of it.

> "disproven in practice."
it hasn't been thats the issue. its existence, however temporary, is already proof of its success.

>>13249
>Capitalism has lasted much longer
First capitalism projects lasted WAY less than that.
>someone points out how a critic demonstrated the architecture would be faulty, would you object
If that someone isn't an architect, never built anything than yes i would. Said "building" had to endure shitload of external problem, so blaming it on "architecture" would be kinda stupid and reductionist. Especially, again, if that is coming from a guy who never built anything in his life. How the fuck would he know anything about the topic? Especially since he never studied actual "blueprints" and only some porky propaganda.
>lol, and maybe all the Stalinists here are FBI plants who are trying to make Marxism-Leninism look bad.
Are those "stalinist" in the room with us right now?

Eat shit, leftcom.

>>13256
>If you think you know some fundamental flaw with the USSR then tell us what it is instead of saying that its failure is proof of it.
That is pretty much the gist of their argument. Fall of the USSR supposedly provided "proof" for every bit of criticism of USSR, socialism, marxism etc. Even if this criticism is contradictory to each other. It proves anticommunist, fascist, leftcoms, trots, libs and so on correct at the same time. It proves everything and nothing at the same time, lol.

It's a pseud argument basically.

>>13256
>Everything has to be maintained or it falls apart its not about how things are designed
Not everything requires the same level of skill, knowledge, or luck to maintain. That is tied to design. Hopefully this doesn't require examples.
>If you think you know some fundamental flaw with the USSR then tell us what it is instead of saying that its failure is proof of it.
I don't have to. I'm just using the criterion you were defending of "theory is validated by practice," with the implication that council communism (as well as Pannekoek's views overall) is invalidated "by practice." If you were consistent, you would judge the USSR in the same way. Given that capitalism outlasted the USSR, you'd be forced to say that practice has validated capitalism, supposing you followed the logic of your untenable and one-sided position.

While it is possible to defend the USSR, it isn't possible to defend it based on an understanding of the relationship between theory and practice that makes Marxism into pragmatism.
>its existence, however temporary, is already proof of its success
In the same sense that children born with harlequin ichthyosis can be considered "successful births." That something has existed isn't proof of its success; it isn't even proof that the same thing can exist in the future.


>>13258
>It's a pseud argument basically.
I like how the "intellectuals" of this board can make these pronouncements about what others are arguing without understanding what's being argued.

>>13259
>While it is possible to defend the USSR, it isn't possible to defend it based on an understanding of the relationship between theory and practice that makes Marxism into pragmatism.

The relationship between theory and practice in Marxism-Leninism does not make Marxism into pragmatism.

I'm not that anon but we are back to you just asserting things that are not found in ML and its not a grand conspiracy to say that the USSR was overthrown from forces outside it, its just a regular conspiracy and happens to be true. There are also other successful ML states that share the same theory and practice that still exist. Feudalism lasted longer than capitalism.

>I don't have to.
you do if you want to defend statements like

>>13243
>which also demonstrates the basic problem of the theoretical framework.

What is the basic problem of the theoretical framework?

>>13259
>I like how the "intellectuals" of this board can make these pronouncements about what others are arguing without understanding what's being argued.
Every anticommunist, trot, leftcom, "libertarian" "socialist", succdem and whatever claims that fall of USSR proves theur criticism of it. Given that most of those claim contradict each other, they can't be all right. They can be all wrong though. You have to actually make an argument, and preferably better argument than "muh authority, party is the new upper class". Or not and then get used to being laughed at.

>>13259
>That something has existed isn't proof of its success; it isn't even proof that the same thing can exist in the future.
It is a better evidence of success than when you have absolutely nothing to show for all your theories. You are just going straight into denial of history. You gonna use Popper's "criticism" next?

Butthurt leftcom is butthurt.

>>13217
That is what happens when politicians try to be philosophers.

>>13260
>The relationship between theory and practice in Marxism-Leninism does not make Marxism into pragmatism.
Are you defending "theory is validated by practice" in the same way as the other person? If not, you're conflating whatever you happen to believe about "the relationship between theory and practice in Marxism-Leninism" with what they're arguing.
>its not a grand conspiracy to say that the USSR was overthrown from forces outside it
I was told by the other person that no such people exist to his knowledge, but I'm glad we know now.
>What is the basic problem of the theoretical framework?
That it can't offer anything more than an idealist historical description; whenever it approaches problems like this, usually in the form of Great Man Theories (whether the cast of Great Men are good or evil).


>>13261
>Every anticommunist, trot, leftcom, "libertarian" "socialist", succdem and whatever claims that fall of USSR proves theur criticism of it
The point I'm making is that criticism can be correct, even if there's no practical result for the critic's views overall. It's irrelevant to this argument that there are other views.


>>13262
>It is a better evidence of success
No, it's a demonstration of failure by the criterion. You're arguing against a phantom "left-com" position, when the contrast was with American capitalism. Isn't American capitalism more practically successful (and pragmatically validated) than Soviet socialism? And isn't communism less "valid" in this sense than capitalism?
>You are just going straight into denial of history.
lol, isn't that more your territory? Point out where I denied history.

>>13264
>That it can't offer anything more than an idealist historical description; whenever it approaches problems like this, usually in the form of Great Man Theories (whether the cast of Great Men are good or evil).



Why are you reducing the war between communism and capitalist imperialism to individuals? The USSR failed because imperialism had more resources. Marxist critique of capitalism isn't a moral condemnation of individual capitalists.

>>13231
read the intro + chapters 2 6 7 8 and the argument so far is that state and rev is a corruption of marx because lenin assumed matter was primary in existence and went a little too hard in asserting it instead of saying that its primary to human experience because he was mad at the church.

pancakes has a good understanding of dialectics so this is jump in logic is confusing. hes basically accusing lenin and also stalin and mao of using marxism to carry out bourgeois revolution for national socialism/state capitalism.

he doesn't actually disagree with lenin philosophically with regards to dialectics at all he is just using a misunderstanding or translation error to inflate his disagreement with the third international to not press the socialism now button in developed countries where communists aren't even in control because he doesn't like socialism in one country in a formerly backwards undeveloped colony.

hes just saying that dialectics means that socialism is when you have finished changing societies consciousness by changing the relation to production so state capitalism isn't true communism. its kind of petty to be attacking lenin over a trivial difference in terminology because the soviets decided to say they had reached communism for propaganda a decade after he died. wikipedia editor kind of energy

and thats like two lines after criticizing the third international for being undialectical for trying to universally apply their conditions to countries in different stages of development

>>13264
>The point I'm making is that criticism can be correct, even if there's no practical result for the critic's views overall. It's irrelevant to this argument that there are other views.

Only by the law of big numbers. If you take a enough shot without learning how to shoot and while blindfolded theoretically you can hit your target. Partically, this "criticism" is worthless. Just like your arguments.

>No, it's a demonstration of failure by the criterion.
No it isn't. USSR has gone farthest along the abolishing commodity production and it's the ebst experiment of socialism so far. Just like French Revolution is not a "demostration of failure" of capitalism, USSR is not a demonstration of failure of socialism or marxism-leninism. Only a complete idiot would claim that. Slave revolts happened for centuries before slave societies fell, first capitalist project fell ot the reaction and reinstallment of monarchy, same with socialism, only the first socialist project was a lot more successfull than first capitalist or feudal projects.

>And isn't communism less "valid" in this sense than capitalism?
It's pretty clear you have no idea what historical materialism is and how to use it in your analysis.

>lol, isn't that more your territory? Point out where I denied history.
You deny the success of the socialist project. According to you and your ilk it's a failure because it did not produce complete communism on the whole planet right away and it did not do thing just as some irrelevant ivory tower academics wanted to. Truth is, everyone with half a brain can see that the Lenin's theoretical and practical approach accomplished incredible things and leftcoms are left on the side of the road of historyand no one even knows who they are without opening a wiki page, except maybe few academics just as irrelevant as the one we discuss.

Cry me a river, leftcom or whatever you call yourself.

>>13231
DO YOU LIKE PANCAKES
YEAH WE LIKE PANCAKES

>>13243
Stalin was 2-3 more purges from achieving communism.

>>13270
That's true though. Did you watch FinBol's video on the topic? Stalin was setting the stage for the Aufheben of the State and full democratization/communization.

>>13249
Capitalism only began to come into being after Wars of The Roses (and then, only in England).
Even if we are utmost generous to porkies and state "capitalism started in 1648" then the first Socialist State started in 1917 lasting 70 years is a phenomenal achievement lasting 1/5 the time

It is even more impressive that Russian capitalism only really existed 1870-1917 then from 1991-current
Russia has been socialist longer than it has ever been capitalist.
Only a Marxist-Leninist state can stand on this achievement, something you dismiss blithely as "did German empire exist for 50+ years"
>If I create a building that stands for "70+ years" then falls apart, killing and injuring many of those inside of it, and someone points out how a critic demonstrated the architecture would be faulty, would you object and say "well, the critic who said the building wouldn't work didn't build anything"?
Your critiques are worthless and a wholesale rejection of Leninism. For instance you don't acknowledge that after socialism is built, the class struggle intensifies. So you say little about saboteurs trying to dynamite the building and instead blame the buildings eventual collapse on the architects
>The dying classes are resisting, not because they have become stronger than we are, but because socialism is growing faster than they are, and they are becoming weaker than we are. And precisely because they are becoming weaker, they feel that their last days are approaching and are compelled to resist with all the forces and all the means in their power. Such is the mechanics of the intensification of the class struggle and of the resistance of the capitalists at the present moment of history.
J V Stalin,

Nor do you say anything about capitalist encirclement.
<Capitalist encirclement-it is not an empty phrase, it is a very real and unpleasant phenomenon. Capitalist encirclement-it means that there is one country, the Soviet Union, which has established at home a Socialist order, and that there are, besides, many countries, bourgeois countries, which continue to carry on the capitalist form of life and which encircle the Soviet Union, waiting for the opportunity to attack it, to crush it, or, in any case-to undermine its might and to weaken it.

< Is it not clear that for as long as we have capitalist encirclement, we shall have wreckers, spies, diversionists, and killers sent to our rear by agents of foreign states?
Stalin, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1937/03/03.htm


Whilst Marxist-Leninists have deeply thorough analysis of the class struggle under socialism and capitalist encirclement (see books) the primary reason for Soviet collapse was the US-Saudi's manipulating oil prices in the 1970s which led to stagnation in Soviet economy as well as the geopolitical moves like funding and arming jihadis in Afghanistan to "give soviets their Vietnam"

<In four months, Saudi extraction rose from two million to 10 million barrels a day, and prices plummeted from $32 a barrel to $10. For the USSR’s economy - already accustomed to exorbitant incomes from its oil, this was a death blow. in 1986 alone, the USSR lost more than $20 billion (approximately 7.5% of the USSR’s annual income), and it already had a budget deficit.

<But Saudi Arabia’s economy was also punished because of the low prices! Why did they do it? Allen’s opinion is that Casey offered the sheiks financial reparations in exchange for the move; this opinion is backed up by the fact that in 1986, 80% of Saudi oil was sold through Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron – all American companies.

<The Soviet Union plunged into recession following the 1985-1986 oil crisis. It was enough for the already unhealthy, command-style Soviet economy to crumble. In 1986, USSR’s external loans were about $30 billion; by 1989 they had reached $50 billion.

<The oil crisis significantly helped the US win the Cold War against the USSR: the economic recession led Mikhail Gorbachev to make hugely unpopular political decisions. An attempt to reform the governmental system (known as Perestroika) was largely hopeless due to the lack of funds.
https://www.rbth.com/history/331825-saudi-arabia-oil-crisis-ussr-collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

So you ignore class struggle under socialism, capitalist encirclement and genuine conspiracies to destroy Soviet Union and instead insist "if only Soviets had added another layer of bureaucracy this could have prevented the US-Saudi manipulation of oil and the US funding and arming jihadis in Afghanistan"

And for all that what have Left comms got to show?

>>13271
I was not making joke.

>>13272
>the primary reason for Soviet collapse was the US-Saudi's manipulating oil prices in the 1970s which led to stagnation in Soviet economy
I'd say the primary reason was class struggle within the party which the revisionists had been mostly winning. The economic consequences of the oil prices just gave the revisionists enough political capital to push the restoration of market forces (and inevitably capitalism). If it hadn't been oil in the 1970s it would have been something else in the coming decades. At best, without an ideological renewal of anti-revisionists, the USSR would have just ended up with their own version of Dengism. The only reason the party completely disintegrated was because Gorbachev was an over-confident fool who tried to destroy the party and lacked the will to deal with Yeltsin when he was outflanked on the right.

>>13273
Nah, one of the primary reason was WWII. Firstly, they had to heavily militarize their economy, meaning that civilian needs (like clothes, utensils and so on) had to be fulfilled by a lot fo small private enterprises (often individual artisans), this was a step back from what they had achieved in 30s in terms of decommodification of the production. Second, they had to streamline the command structure with party directly controlling most things in the country, which again pushed back their achievments in terms of democracy in the 30s and made possible the coup be Khruschev later on. Third, their vanguard was destroyed - by the '41 the party had around 2.5 mil members and 1.3 mil candidates, totaling 3.8 mil people, among the military losses there are more than 4 mil communists, meaning that war took lives of significant chunk of party members and candidates to the party (i.e. they replaced party memeber and died after that on the battlefield), according to some estimation 70-80% of the party before war died. It also destroyed many communists who were not member of the party but were helping building it, namely some intelligentsia, like writers, catoonists (iirc like half of the soyuzmulfilm went to war and most of them never came back), artists and so on. Also on the territories that fell into nazi hand people who were sympathetic to soviet government were persecuted which again provided negative selection for communist and communist sympathizers. And yet at the end fo the war communist party had like 3.9 mil members, swelling from people applying to it on the wave of patriotism, so by the end fo the war most of the party consisted of good intentioned, patriotic but completely uneducate in terms of marxism people who also were trained to strictly follow the orders of their superiors (most of them were former soldiers). You can see how that allowed the second reason to be used by Khruschev without recieving pushback from the party. The communist vanguard was all but destroyed and though soviet peopletried to rebel against Khruschev (Novocherkassk was only one of the many cases of open rebellion), they weren't organized, so they failed.

The third reason was somewhat preventable by making different ideological and organization choices before and during the war, the first two weren't. I will not say that it was impossible for soviets to survive, but the deck was heavily stacked against them. And still they had achieved a lot, despite all of that and provided a lot of actual data for marxists to learn from, so dismissal of that historical experience on the ground "Lenin was wrong, so USSR was doomed from the start" is just laughable.

>>13273
Besides, making USSR somewhat dependant on the oil prices was a Khruschev blunder and it was already a fallback to market way of managing economy.

>>13272
>The USSR successfully abolished commodity production, but the reason why it failed is because capitalists conspired to lower the price of oil on the international commodity market.
This is funny to see people like you go through such lengths to dismiss any criticism of the USSR.
It's almost like /pol/yps who claim "the white man is the strongest, might is right" then "NOOOO THE JEWS AND THE CHINESE ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST US" in the same breath. If the Jew supposedly put the white man down, it logically follows that the white man isn't the strongest.
Same thing with liberals when they say there is no better way to allocate resources than the free market, then proceed to give trillions of tax-payer money to save the private sector from immediate collapse every 15 years or so.

Listen, the USSR failed, it doesn't exist anymore.
The USSR was certainly a progressive actor for socialism in the 20th-century history, especially when Lenin was alive, and it was also a crucial actor in the victory over Nazis during WWII under Stalin, it was epic, but ultimately the Politburo of the CPSU is no more.
Under Brezhnev the USSR became a corrupt gerontocracy who ultimately gave way to the shock therapy of the 1990s. Something wrong happened on the way, and I don't think you can reduce the problem to "bad man bad".

If you really took the "ruthless criticism of all that exists" maxim seriously, you would take into account the criticisms of principled Marxists who were there when the USSR was kicking, alive and well.
Pannekoek wasn't the only one, Boris Souvarine for example was an important member of the Comintern who founded the Communist Party of France, yet heavily criticized Stalin and to a lesser extent Lenin. Does that mean he was a CIA fascist wrecker? The CIA didn't exist in the 1920s, so no.
What about Victor Serge? Or Alexander Bogdanov? Guy Debord? Or all the people who were outraged when Khrushchev sent the tanks in Hungary and resigned from their national communist parties thereafter? Were all of them fascist wreckers on the CIA payroll? When I hear the likes of Phil Greaves saying this kind of shit, it only seems like cope to me, sorry.


>And for all that what have Left comms got to show?
"Leftcoms" as you call them, are still influential on contemporary theory, simply because they pointed out the limits of the USSR from a socialist perspective at a time when the policy was to clap at every word of the Great Leaders.
That doesn't mean they were right about everything, it's just that they can help to explain in part why the traditional labor movement of the 19th and 20th century fucking died worldwide in the 1970s/80s, more than "muh oil".

More importantly, I will do the Zizek trick on you: what have MLs got to show, right now, in the present material conditions? Xi's China, where workers routinely go on strike, and have no independent unions from the state? Don't make me laugh.

I have participated to a lot of protests, and every time it's like this: I see trade unionists and socdems/demsocs organizing big official events, I see anarchists sabotaging stuff and doing radical agitprop, I see antifas and Trots doing the usual stuff, I see more or less apolitical but pissed off people starting to develop class-consciousness, I see all kinds of people who are more or less normal and relatable.
Anti-revisionist MLs who wrote a grandiose statement to give their critical support to Putin (instead of denouncing the war as an inter-imperialist conflict like any sensible anarchist or socdem/demsoc would do)? They are 50 at most in a sea of tens of thousands.
I can't bitch about them too much, because they come to every protest — just like the followers of the official communist party who often bring up reactionary points and is unpopular as a result — but to paraphrase Noel Gallagher bitching about his brother:
>They are like men with forks, in a world of soup.

You will tell me:
>B-but ML is more popular in the 3rd world, you fucking PMC.
And alright, this is true, but where is the fucking revolution in Bangladesh? What is the fucking vanguard doing, except having a pacifist parade on May Day?
Not saying ML parties aren't doing a good job at protecting workers locally from the abuse they withstand at the hands of multinational corporations, but most independent leftist labor unions also do this, ML or not.

My issue with MLs like you is that, like nationalists, you love to take credit for things of the past you haven't done yourselves. You aren't a badass NKVD officer fighting against the Whites in Kronstadt, you are just a fucking nerd shitposting on a red carpet weaving forum.

Is it so hard to understand that proclaiming "Stalin did nothing wrong" in 2023 is deeply unappealing to most comrades IRL when Stalin purged most of his old comrades?
I don't want to get purged by your little sect, like Stalin purged the German revolutionaries who fled from Nazi Germany, my goal isn't to reenact the conflicts of the past, but to move forward, at a time when capitalism is obviously in deep crisis. Read Phil A. Neel ffs.

>>13276
>Pannekoek wasn't the only one, Boris Souvarine for example was an important member of the Comintern who founded the Communist Party of France, yet heavily criticized Stalin and to a lesser extent Lenin. Does that mean he was a CIA fascist wrecker? The CIA didn't exist in the 1920s, so no.
>What about Victor Serge? Or Alexander Bogdanov? Guy Debord? Or all the people who were outraged when Khrushchev sent the tanks in Hungary and resigned from their national communist parties thereafter? Were all of them fascist wreckers on the CIA payroll? When I hear the likes of Phil Greaves saying this kind of shit, it only seems like cope to me, sorry.
NTA, but eurocommunists are just as bad if not worse than directly paid opposition. Also, the vast majority of old bolsheviks that died during Stalin did so from natural causes, and even more survived. You can look this up from even wikipedia.

>>13277
Uygha, Eurocommunists are fucking dead, and they are dead for a fucking reason, because bureaucrats like Enrico Berlinguer of the PCI started advocating for austerity in 1977 (source: https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/italian-left-after-keynesianism/).
This is the same thing Fabien Roussel is doing with his reactionary rhetorics in France, "the PCF is a party of tough hard-working workers but don't forget to be a good obedient wagie, don't disrespect the cops and listen to us respectable people in suits", shit that is only attractive to boomers, and the electoral strategy of the PCF was a complete failure compared to Mélenchon's coalition, because it's unappealing to any normal leftist worker or student.

It's like /leftypol/ is perpetually stuck into historical trivia from the past couple of centuries, but you don't realize nobody gives a shit about Eurocommunists. I've never heard anyone advocating Eurocommunism, they are completely irrelevant, they are ghosts of the past.

>the vast majority of old bolsheviks that died during Stalin did so from natural causes, and even more survived.
Fuck off wannabe bureaucrat, I won't go into your fucking basement. Stalin murdered several German exiles who fought during the 1919 German Revolution because he was more paranoid than a schizo and abused his power. That's enough for me. Why should I give a fuck about simping for a Big Guy who died long ago? How is Stalinist apologia developing the real movement presently unfolding?

>>13276
Funny how you went from "here is gotcha about your authoritarian Lenin" to "nooooo, ussr ded, lenin ded, stalin ded, they don't matter anymore" in a matter fo a several posts. I guess they only matter whne you want to post your anticommunist gotchas, but not when you are getting btfod by people who actually know history.
>Is it so hard to understand that proclaiming "Stalin did nothing wrong" in 2023 is deeply unappealing to most comrades IRL when Stalin purged most of his old comrades?
Lol, is it so hard to understand that when you simply repeat cold war propaganda about "stalin kill old bolsheviks" and shit under the guise of "criticism from fellow communist" people who actually read something besides memes about history of USSR either not gonna take it seriously or be pissed at you?
> I don't want to get purged by your little sect
Then don't sabotage existing socialist project from within i guess, assuming we actually get one.

And yes Stalin did wrong, it's just your "criticism" has nothing to do with it, since it's nothing but old anticommunist propaganda.

>>13278
>It's like /leftypol/ is perpetually stuck into historical trivia from the past couple of centuries
It's as if marxism is a historical science. Hmmm. So you are asking us not to learn from history or rather learn from your version of events that we are not allowed to criticise or debunk. Stop throwing a hissy fit and read a fucking book.

>>13279
>Funny how you went from "here is gotcha about your authoritarian Lenin" to "nooooo, ussr ded, lenin ded, stalin ded, they don't matter anymore" in a matter fo a several posts
I don't understand your point, please explain in a clearer language.
>Lol, is it so hard to understand that when you simply repeat cold war propaganda about "stalin kill old bolsheviks" and shit under the guise of "criticism from fellow communist" people who actually read something besides memes about history of USSR either not gonna take it seriously or be pissed at you?
You are just coping by being smug, it's not terribly impressive, especially on an imageboard.
>assuming we actually get one [socialist project].
Absolute state of MLs.
I think I will give my money to an union who actually does shit IRL, or to the anarchists who are in contact with lawyers for the benefit of protesters who get caught by the cops.

>>13280
You still didn't answer the crucial question:
>what have MLs got to show, right now, in the present material conditions?
Rants about Eurocommunism, when it doesn't exist anymore? Wake up grandpa, Brezhnev and Andropov died 40 years ago, the PCI is dead, the youth doesn't give a shit about Eurocommunist dinosaurs. Mentioning Eurocommunism reflexively when I never talked about Eurocommunism postively or negatively in the first place is going to acheive what exactly?

>>13281
>i don't understand
>you are coping
>absolute state
Not an argument.

>>13281
>Rants about Eurocommunism
You do understand that there are more than one guy here, shitbrain? That was a different anon.

>>13282
>>13283
Denial as usual, here goes the "ruthless criticism", never change guys, your micro-vanguard already have the absolute right ideas thanks to the magic of dialectics, it's just the masses who are ignorant, one day they shall see the light, let's hope so.

>>13278
>because he was more paranoid than a schizo and abused his power.
he was justified in his paranoia because the US was using fascist militias to sabotage the ussr with terror attacks from 1945-1953

>>13276
>If you really took the "ruthless criticism of all that exists" maxim seriously, you would take into account the criticisms of principled Marxists who were there when the USSR was kicking, alive and well.
except they weren't principled Marxists and weren't actually critiquing the USSR. this is going to be the fourth time i ask you to summarize what the fundamental problem with the theoretical foundation of marxism-leninism. maybe this time you will give us that "ruthless criticism" instead of rewriting history to fit your narrative.

>>13285
>his is going to be the fourth time i ask you to summarize what the fundamental problem with the theoretical foundation of marxism-leninism.
Stalin's big spoon theory. He used this theory to eat all ukranian grain.

>>13285
>summarize what the fundamental problem with the theoretical foundation of marxism-leninism
I'd like to know what's anon's perspective on this too.

>>13278
My bad, I meant in general communist movement in western europe after WW1. But they're not dead, our biggest "communist" party is continuing their tradition of denouncing nonexistent eastern block countries, bitching about the current thing and generally doing nothing of value to this day. Literally what you described, and adding to insult also branding themselves as democratic socialists. For someone claiming to be actively involved, it is weird that you haven't seen atleast a thousand different eurocommunist parties in your time.
>Stalin murdered several German exiles who fought during the 1919 German Revolution because he was more paranoid than a schizo and abused his power. That's enough for me.
Low standards, some german revolutionaries getting executed under Stalin ≠ old bolsheviks got purged. Why would he personally go and have them murdered anyway? Because, idk, schizophrenia that surely couldn't have been helped by anyone else in charge?
>Why should I give a fuck about simping for a Big Guy who died long ago? How is Stalinist apologia developing the real movement presently unfolding?
Well, it's much easier to make someone a communist if you convince them that one of the most well known communists in history wasn't a mass murderer and/or incompetent retard. Nazis do this, liberals do this, and they even have to hide and twist stuff to make it seem so. Communists just have to tell the truth. Case in point some social democrat I saw giving out leaflets was mocked for "being like Stalin", would have had a much easier time if people knew better. Also, there is no reason to spread made up stories if it's just history that doesn't even really matter right.

>>13284
Yes, the great moment is history when the masses were fully informed and armed with an unbiased view of history due to unfiltered access to knowledge via several, reliable methods. Brought a tear to my eye when a teenager came to me once and repeated in clear words how many spoonfulls of Ukrainians Stalin ate, before committing a revolution due to his materialist and critical view of the world bestowed upon him by logic.

>>13285
>he was justified in his paranoia because the US was using fascist militias to sabotage the ussr with terror attacks from 1945-1953
The usual excuse: fascists were everywhere so we had to purge everyone.
In Hungary, Czechia and Poland, all the workers were fascists, so we had to purge them. It's on the same level as "Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite so he had to go".
Alright, what do you have to show for it, now?

>except they weren't principled Marxists
<implying Boris Souvarine, who founded the PCF in opposition to the socdems of his time, wasn't a principled Marxist
<implying Victor Serge, who abandoned anarchism to join the Bolsheviks right at the early stages of the Russian revolution, wasn't a principled Marxist
<implying Alexander Bodganov, who was a close friend of Lenin, wasn't a principled Marxist
How am I supposed to take you seriously? Don't bother replying to this post, because I probably won't. I'm sure the Doritos you are eating in front of your computer are more Marxist than Marx, whatever floats your boat.
>and weren't actually critiquing the USSR.
Sure, they were all liberals on the CIA payroll when the CIA didn't even exist, right. Don't forget to take your meds.

>this is going to be the fourth time i ask you to summarize what the fundamental problem with the theoretical foundation of marxism-leninism. maybe this time you will give us that "ruthless criticism" instead of rewriting history to fit your narrative.
Guess what, this is an anonymous imageboard, and I never claimed I discovered the absolute "fundamental problem with the theoretical foundation of marxism-leninism", nor was I asked to formulate it, I'm not the only anon who is critical of ML. But why should I give a single fuck about what you are asking when you can't obviously argue in good faith?
There are many interesting things to be found in old-school ML theory, but again, I will reiterate my question for the third time
>what have MLs got to show, right now, in the present material conditions?
Why should I give money to your fucking sect? It's not that complicated. Why should I care about your correct line when you only bring 50, 100 people at most during massive protests?
Anyway, keep being smug and keep wondering why the working-class doesn't give a shit about your dialectical opinions in your little mental sandbox, nobody cares.

>>13289
>muh Ukrainians, muh Holdomor, muh grain
Just go outside of your room once in your life.

>>13290


This broadcast examines international fascism as a reaction to the founding of the former Soviet Union and the growth of socialist movements in other countries and how this development led to World War II. The program focuses on the critical support American industrialists and financiers gave to Hitler’s Germany and how this affected allied military policy during the war, as well as the incorporation of the Third Reich’s intelligence forces into the CIA at the conflict’s conclusion.

Program highlights include: Herbert Hoover’s diversion of aid requisitioned by Congress to Polish and Baltic armies fighting against the U.S.S.R. in the early 1920’s; the growth of ᴉuᴉlossnW’s “corporate state” (as he termed his fascist system of government); the Hearst newspaper chain’s glowing portrayal of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy prior to the outbreak of World War II; the American Legion’s awarding of an honorary membership to ᴉuᴉlossnW in 1935; the Curtis-Wright Company’s deliberate betrayal of dive-bombing (a closely-guarded U.S. Navy technique) to the Axis powers; Alger Hiss’ role as special counsel to the Nye-Vandenburg committee (investigating American corporations’ aid to the Axis powers); the Allies’ re-storation of fascist infrastructure in French North Africa and Italy following “liberation;” the British political betrayal of and military attacks upon the anti-fascist partisans in Greece before the end of the war; the formation of guerilla groups established by the Nazis during the war’s closing days in order to fight against the Soviet Union; the adoption of the Nazi guerrilla groups by the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies; the fierce warfare conducted by the fascist guerillas (under Western sponsorship) in Poland and the former Soviet Union until 1953; the incorporation of the Nazi Eastern Front intelligence organization into the CIA (under the stewardship of its wartime head, General Reinhard Gehlen); the Third Reich genesis of many of the “catch-phrases” of the Cold War, including “Better Dead than Red” and “Iron Curtain.”

Picking up where part one left off, this program begins with an examination of the role of SS veterans in the formation of the Green Berets. Formed initially under the auspices of the CIA, the Green Berets grew under the CIA stewardship of SS Brigadier General Franz Alfred Six, SS Colonel Emil Augsburg (like Six, a veteran of Hitler’s “Final Solution” to the “Jewish Problem”) and Michael Achmeteli, a White Russian and Nazi collaborator who worked closely with the SS and was viewed as an expert on the former Soviet Union. The Green Berets were formed against the background of the guerilla warfare that raged in Eastern Europe and the former U.S.S.R. for years after the formal conclusion of World War II. (See AFA‑1 for more details.)

The program then highlights the deliberate sabotaging of the de-Nazification of Germany after the war. Derailed by political and economic forces sympathetic to fascism, many of which had enthusiastically supported Hitler and ᴉuᴉlossnW before the war, this failure resulted in the return to power of the same industrialists and financiers who had supported Hitler. Even more importantly, Nazis and Nazi collaborators were put right back in positions of political power in Germany, where they pursued a policy of restoring Germany’s “lost territories,” including parts of Poland, the Czech Republic and the former Soviet Union.

The program also focuses on: the Nazi antecedents of Interpol (the international police organization); the role of Herbert Hoover in helping to foil de-Nazification of German industry at the end of World War II; the Nazi sympathies of Whittaker Chambers (the principal accuser of Alger Hiss); Senator Joe McCarthy’s persecution of American P.O.W.‘s who survived a Nazi massacre at the Battle of the Bulge; Joe McCarthy’s prominent, pro-Nazi political backers; the role of Richard Nixon in blocking a congressional move to breakup of I.G. Farben (the Nazi chemical giant); Nixon’s sponsorship of prominent Romanian war criminal Nicolai Malaxa’s residence in the United States and Nixon’s invitation to Valerian (nee Viorel) Trifa, another Romanian Iron Guard butcher, to give the opening prayer before the U.S. Senate in 1955.

>>13290
>>what have MLs got to show, right now, in the present material conditions?
for starters: China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos

>Guess what, this is an anonymous imageboard, and I never claimed I discovered the absolute "fundamental problem with the theoretical foundation of marxism-leninism", nor was I asked to formulate it, I'm not the only anon who is critical of ML.

This thread is about Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism which is a book about the philosophical basis of Marxism-Leninism. The quote train you are riding is a discussion of left-communist philosophical critiques of the USSR on the philosophy of Marxism and disagreements about the implementation of dialectical materialism in practice. If Boris Souvarine, Victor Serge, or Alexander Bodganov have some kind of insight into problems with the philosophical foundation of dialectical materialism that is something I would find interesting and think its important for everyone to know.

>>13292
>Ctrl+F "1956"
<0 results
>Ctrl+F "Budapest"
<0 results
>Ctrl+F "Prague"
<0 results
Please don't make me waste my time with shit unrelated to what I said.
Using ChatGPT to generate a wall of text is low-effort when people like >>13288 actually bring interesting points, you aren't doing yourself any favors.

>>13288
>For someone claiming to be actively involved, it is weird that you haven't seen atleast a thousand different eurocommunist parties in your time.
Eurocommunism, as I understand it, is that part of history in the 1970s-80s when official communist parties in Europe said "we want to have a different stance than the Eastern Bloc", which is alright by me, and then they became complete socdems.
Yes, it was a mistake to advocate for austerity as a communist, it wasn't going to work when regular socdems already do the job fine.

>Why would he personally go and have them murdered anyway?
The criticism of Stalin is ultimately a criticism of bureaucracy at large. I don't want to trust a potential bureaucratic apparatus that might purge me sooner or latter because I have contrarian opinions, simple as that.

>It's much easier to make someone a communist if you convince them that one of the most well known communists in history wasn't a mass murderer and/or incompetent retard.
It's a very good point to make, and this is why I try not be to be too harsh on the USSR with people outside of our little clique. Right, Stalin and Lenin did some mistakes, but at least the Nazis didn't win and Western social democracy could prosper with the Soviet threat, etc.
Soviets under Lenin invented the science of ecology (before Stalin purged them later, once again). I know many of your pro-ML arguments, and I repeat them to people who have a strong prejudice towards the USSR, because I'm a contrarian and there is a part of truth in them.
However, when I'm talking with educated socialists, I'm sorry, but once again, the USSR is no more, stop coping, you have to self-crit instead of clinging to the ghosts of the past — which is more or less excusable depending where you live, but certainly not in my country.

>Communists just have to tell the truth.
That's why I brought uncomfortable subjects on the dinner's table.

>Case in point some social democrat I saw giving out leaflets was mocked for "being like Stalin", would have had a much easier time if people knew better.
I agree, it's fucking ridiculous when liberals come up with such arguments. Don't worry, they make you look good in the long run, for myself included.

>Also, there is no reason to spread made up stories if it's just history that doesn't even really matter right.
How what I said was a "made-up story"? Can you actually deboonk the accusations of Hermann Remmele, Tobias Akselrod, Heinz Neumann, Leo Flieg, Max Levien and other exiled German revolutionaries getting purged in the late 1930s by the Soviets under Stalin, Mister Grover Furr, or is this just hot air?

>>13293
>for starters: China
Nice, a Marxist-Leninist country where workers routinely go on strike. Truly, Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics is the only answer to the challenges of our times, the workers and leftcoms are just too dumb to get it.
>This thread is about Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism which is a book about the philosophical basis of Marxism-Leninism.
Exactly, and I strayed too far from the subject, sorry, have a good day.

>>13294
>Please don't make me waste my time with shit unrelated to what I said.
You keep reducing the attack on the soviet union from imperialist forces to a conspiracy theory or personal moral failing instead of being an objective condition that they were forced to deal with. If you have to come up with the strawman that people actually believe everyone they don't like is a fascist then you don't really have an argument.

> I don't want to trust a potential bureaucratic apparatus that might purge me sooner or latter because I have contrarian opinions, simple as that.
Its not really a big deal if you aren't actively fighting for the overthrow of a socialist government. Purge just means they kick you out of the party so you can't shit up the meetings. You aren't going to be locked up or executed if you aren't committing treason.

>Truly, Marxism-Leninism with Chinese characteristics is the only answer
Why do you keep promoting these absolutes? Socialism with Chinese Characteristics works in China. Socialism with X characteristics will be different in X because X has different material conditions. China explicitly says that they don't promote their politics because each country has to find out what works for themselves, and that the best people to know how to do that are the ones with lived experience in that country. Notice how Cuba doesn't do SWCC? If you want to define what those characteristics will be then go win a revolution and test your ideas against reality, that is how you prove it.

>>13295
You little bugger, I have a political event to attend tomorrow and it's fucking late, alright, I hope you will be outside when shit hits the fan where you live.

>You keep reducing the attack on the soviet union from imperialist forces to a conspiracy theory or personal moral failing instead of being an objective condition that they were forced to deal with.
For the 4th time, with a different wording:
<Explain to me why are MLs superior to other leftoid sectarian tendencies, when other tendencies gather more people IRL?
<Why should I give money to ML orgs when they are a minority at the protests I go to?
What is so great about "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism"? Why was Pannekoek wrong?
I'm not the one who started the:
>how much workers councils [Pannekoek] helped establish? What was the result of his theoretical work?
and
>for all that what have Left comms got to show?
line of argumentation.
For the 3rd time, from my lived experience over the years, people like you are a minority IRL, and not the kind of minority seen as bright and insightful in the movement.

>If you have to come up with the strawman that people actually believe everyone they don't like is a fascist then you don't really have an argument.
Uygha, I have argued about this shit with Phil Greaves I mean Leninhat many times over the years. You are nothing but another copium addict to me.

>You aren't going to be locked up or executed if you aren't committing treason.
Explain to me how the exiled German revolutionaries Lenin was previously rooting so much for committed treason? They were trying to coup Stalin or something? If so, why?

>Socialism with X characteristics will be different in X because X has different material conditions.
Yes, that was my whole point since the beginning. Barely anyone gives a shit about ML where I live because MLs ended up being cringe, whenever they were pro-Khrushchev or pro-Mao.
It's not the case in every country, but it's worth considering before getting on your high horse and boasting about the absolute historical superiority of your ideology.

>If you want to define what those characteristics will be then go win a revolution and test your ideas against reality, that is how you prove it.
I'm absolutely certain barely class-conscious people in my country are currently doing more than your ideal nerd organization only existing in the realm of ideas, so just sit back, watch the news, and take notes.
Alternatively, read Phil A. Neel.

>>13296
><Explain to me why are MLs superior to other leftoid sectarian tendencies, when other tendencies gather more people IRL?
They don't ML, and MLM which are both based in dialectical materialism, are the main communist tendencies world wide. ML is small in the west exclusively due to capitalist propaganda.

><Why should I give money to ML orgs when they are a minority at the protests I go to?
I don't think you necessarily should. Even anarchist or socdems might be the best option depending on your local parties.

>What is so great about "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism"?
The explanation of dialectics and positivism, and how non-dialectical thought necessarily leads to idealism. All the polemics are just fluff provided to give examples, ironically the same as Pannekoeks pamphlet.

>Why was Pannekoek wrong?
He is only wrong about claiming that Lenin was a "Middle-Class Materialist". He is claiming that Lenin is a vulgar materialist or physical reductionist because he doesn't like his use of the word matter or his insistence on its primacy in the dialectic, but he doesn't disagree with his method at all. He thinks that Lenin's insistence on the primacy of matter is fundamentally tied to the implementation of state capitalism over immediate abolition of commodity production and is the source of corruption in the USSR. I don't really see an argument to support this or how one follows from the other.

He is actually correct about dialectics and that you have to abolish commodity production to change the consciousness of people to achieve communism, but he is incorrect that abolishing commodity production immediately in a country that is underdeveloped and lacks industry to defend itself from military invasion by imperialist powers is reasonable or possible.

He could also be correct that in advanced industrial countries it could be possible to immediately abolish commodity production, but we don't know because his party and other parties like it did not take power in advanced industrial countries.

If it is the case that the USSR took a leading role in the international and prevented other countries from carrying out revolution, then that is a mistake in policy, not a mistake in philosophical outlook.

>Yes, that was my whole point since the beginning.
Then we agree.
> Barely anyone gives a shit about ML
Knowledge being determined by social relations is the core of dialectical and historical materialism, which is the base of ML theory.

>Wherein then, do middle-class materialism and Historical Materialism stand opposed to one another?

>Both agree insofar as they are materialist philosophies, that is, both recognise the primacy of the experienced material world; both recognise that spiritual phenomena, sensation, consciousness, ideas, are derived from the former. They are opposite in that middle-class materialism bases itself upon natural science, whereas Historical Materialism is primarily the science of society. Bourgeois scientists observe man only as an object of nature, the highest of the animals, determined by natural Laws. For an explanation of man’s life and action, they have only general biological Laws, and in a wider sense, the laws of chemistry, physics, and mechanics. With these means little can be accomplished in the way of understanding social phenomena and ideas. Historical Materialism, on the other hand, lays bare the specific evolutionary laws of human society and shows the interconnection between ideas and society.

>The axiom of materialism that the spiritual is determined by the material world, has therefore entirely different meanings for the two doctrines. For middle-class materialism it means that ideas are products of the brain, are to be explained out of the structure and the changes of the brain substance, finally out of the dynamics of the atoms of the brain. For Historical Materialism, it means that the ideas of man are determined by his social conditions; society is his environment which acts upon him through his sense organs. This postulates an entirely different kind of problem, a different approach, a different line of thought, hence, also a different theory of knowledge.

>For middle class materialism the problem of the meaning of knowledge is a question of the relationship of spiritual phenomena to the physico-chemical-biological phenomena of the brain matter. For Historical Materialism it is a question of the relationship of our thoughts to the phenomena which we experience as the external world. Now man’s position in society is not simply that of an observing being: he is a dynamic force which reacts upon his environment and changes it. Society is nature transformed through labour. To the scientist, nature is the objectively given reality which he observes, which acts on him through the medium of his senses. To him the external world is the active and dynamic element, whilst the mind is the receptive element. Thus it is emphasised that the mind is only a reflection, an image of the external world, as Engels expressed it when he pointed out the contradiction between the materialist and idealist philosophies. But the science of the scientist is only part of the whole of human activity, only a means to a greater end. It is the preceding, passive part of his activity which is followed by the active part; the technical elaboration, the production, the transformation of the world by man.

>Man is in the first place an active being. In the Labour process he utilises his organs and aptitudes in order to constantly build and remake his environment. In this procedure he not only invented the artificial organs we call tools, but also trained his physical and mental aptitudes so that they might react effectively to his natural environment as instruments in the preservation of life. His main organ is the brain whose function, thinking, is as good a physical activity as any other. The most important product of brain activity, of the efficient action of the mind upon the world is science, which stands as a mental tool next to the material tools and, itself a productive power, constitutes the basis of technology and so an essential part of the productive apparatus.

>Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htm

Thats all good and correct and agrees with Lenin. If I were being bad faith I could call him an idealist for using the word "spiritual" but I understand thats a product of his time and culture and not an appeal to the real existence of a mystical category. I could also accuse him of being an idealist for saying "From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena. "
but I understand that "the substance of natural phenomena" is the same thing that Lenin means by matter, and that Lenin isn't referring to atoms and assuming their existence from mere appearance, just as Pannekoe isn't saying that matter is mere "products which creative mental activity forms".

>>13297
Thank you anon for your detailed answer. I have nothing to add or be all polemical about right now. Cheers.

>>13294
>Soviets under Lenin invented the science of ecology (before Stalin purged them later, once again)
KEK. This is outright schizo.
>I try not be to be too harsh on the USSR with people outside of our little clique
<Repeats almost every known anticommunist argument about USSR there is
What did he mean by that?

>>13296
>I have a political event to attend tomorrow and it's fucking late
Stop pretending you are anything but a little troll.

>>13276
Anticommunis spiel. You manage to hit all the anticommunist talking points like "muh german comrades" who were actual trots (outlawed in Soviet Union in early 1930s) who were collaborating with nazis
http://www.idcommunism.com/2021/10/stalin-did-not-deport-german-communists.html?m=1

Elsewhere you hit on Hungary 1956 which was an Operation Gladio fascist coup attempt in socialist bloc with mi6 arming and training the Horthyites

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi6-trained-rebels-to-fight-soviets-in-hungarian-revolt-1359599.html