Great I was wrong, you are not a Marxist-Leninist.
I accept Lenin’s contributions to Marxism, so labels don’t really matter.
No, a Marxist-Leninist is not the same thing as a Marxist. A Marxist is critical of capitalism. They don’t say anything specific other than a socialist society is good. Which I generally agree with. A Marxist-Leninist goes into detail on top of that witch results in Fascist outcomes.
Incorrect. Marxism is categorized by critique of Capitalism, an adherence to Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and advocacy for the establishment of a Socialist Worker-government via Revolutionary Methods. This came from Marx, not Lenin. Marx was a fascist according to you, even if you try to white-wash him.
This whole “Marxist-Leninist are Marxists” thing is a fascist talking point. Of course fascists are going to co-opt the word “Marxist”, especially when it gets popular, it’s happened before and it will happen again. What is important is the outcomes of the ideology not the names.
No, it’s a Marxist talking-point. Explain exactly where we jump from Marxism to fascism with respect to what Lenin added, like his analysis of Imperialism.
I Agree. Glad you are pro-democracy. I don’t think you are a fascist or a tankie anymore.
Great, then Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and the USSR were not fascist, glad you could come around to sense, instead of relying on Zionist fascists for your information.
Sorry, trusted voice to text too much. You guessed the correct interpretation. I agree with your answer.
Marxist-Leninists want a worker-government surrounding worker Soviets, or whole-process People’s Democracy. They do not want “authoritarianism.” Please read Marx, and Lenin. You can see where Lenin drew from, Lenin was a Marxist.
Please, just go through Eco’s points, you’ve been restating the same talking points espoused by Zionist fascists without engaging with Eco’s well-establisbed criterion.
Ok, if labels don’t matter, then why are you mad about me calling you a fascist? What can we possibly gain from this conversation at all? Also, I have changed my mind. This is totally Marxist-Leninist behavior, you’re a tankie and tankies are fascists.
It’s pretty clear that I meant the label of “Marxist” vs “Marxist-Leninist” doesn’t matter too much, the overwhelming majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin was an important Marxist. I am in no way a fascist, I want a democratic Worker-State.
As for the second bit, where you again repeat “Marxist-Leninists are fascists” without ever explaining why, despite this being several comments deep of you recommending Zionist articles, what’s the point? Are you ever going to answer a single question, or are you going to just throw Zionist talking points?
In a mocking voice: “I am not a Marxist-Leninist I’m just a Marxist who loves to throat Lenin’s sausage.” Common man.
Nice, you’re homophobic because I said I “accept Lenin’s contributions to Marxism.” Not only do you recommend Zionists, you are also homophobic. The mask really did peal off of you, huh?
Would you mind explaining where Lenin diverges from Marxism to Fascism? Have you actually read any of Lenin?
Yeah, I would mind. It would be a waste of my time because you don’t care. It really doesn’t matter what I say. Because you’ll just use your own personal definition for things instead of the commonly accepted definitions like you did with the Marxist-Leninist bit. We would literally need to agree on a dictionary before we could even begin a somewhat productive conversation.
Again what would I gain? You’re asking me to play a game of chess with you, but you and I both know the moment it looks bad for you. You’re going to flip the board and poop on the table. So why would I play at all?
As for the homophobic stuff. I’m a straight guy and I would happily throat Marx’s sausage. So there I canceled out the homophobia.
Yeah, I would mind. It would be a waste of my time because you don’t care. It really doesn’t matter what I say. Because you’ll just use your own personal definition for things instead of the commonly accepted definitions like you did with the Marxist-Leninist bit.
No, I specifically asked you to use Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism with the 14 points. That is the commonly accepted list of factors for fascism. Also entirely unaware of what you mean by the “Marxist-Leninist bit.” The overwhelming majority of Marxists also accept Lenin’s contributions to it, adding “-Leninist” is usually to distance from Maoists, MAGA Communists, and Pat-Socs, not to ensure Lenin’s ideas are added.
We would literally need to agree on a dictionary before we could even begin a somewhat productive conversation.
Eco’s 14 points, and Marx, Engels, and Lenin’s own words. Simple.
Again what would I gain? You’re asking me to play a game of chess with you, but you and I both know the moment it looks bad for you. You’re going to flip the board and poop on the table. So why would I play at all?
We don’t “both know that,” I have asked you to explain which of Eco’s 14 points applied to the USSR, Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism. You haven’t done that, so we can’t know. You would gain a productive conversation, I suppose, and I believe you would grow from it, but that’s neither here nor there at this point, because you can’t do what I have asked about a dozen times at this point.
As for the homophobic stuff. I’m a straight guy and I would happily throat Marx’s sausage. So there I canceled out the homophobia.
Still homophobic, and you still haven’t taken back the support for Zionists, makes me think you’re okay with Zionism as well.
As for the Marx bit, Marx would agree with Lenin’s contributions, such as Lenin’s analysis of how Capitalism takes on an international, Imperialist character. Marx himself reached a bit upon it, but Capitalism had not yet advanced enough in Marx’s time for him to observe it, merely predict it.
As it stands, I will personally be happy if you can either answer which of Eco’s 14 points apply to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and/or the USSR.
I would also accept you specifically pointing to where Lenin diverged from Leftism to fascism in his analysis of Marxism and expansion upon it.
Both tasks should be easy for you if you’re correct, but I have a feeling you’ve been dodging because you know you’re wrong, and can’t admit to it.
Why would I care about the personal happiness of a fascist? My dude, you want me dead. Nice touch on reporting my post.
Edit: on the 0.0001 percent chance your serious. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Marxist leninism that I linked you to and look at the general criticism section.
Why would I care about the personal happiness of a fascist? My dude, you want me dead. Nice touch on reporting my post.
Why would I want you dead? I’m not a fascist, I’m a Marxist. I only wish death upon Nazis and fascists, supporters of genocide, and the like, and haven’t expressed hostility towards you. You did link a post with Zionist ties, so that’s at least approval of the opinions of fascists.
Plus, I reported homophobia, if you aren’t homophobic there’s nothing to report.
Edit: on the 0.0001 percent chance your serious. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Marxist leninism that I linked you to and look at the general criticism section.
None of it had anything to do with fascism. Funnily enough, it did reference low unemployment rates, cheap goods, universal healthcare, and free education. Central Planning, Atheism, Political Repression of the Bourgeoisie, and collectivization are all straight from Marx. Which bits specifically marked where Lenin diverged from Marx?
Or, reference Eco’s 14 points, and tell me which apply.
Which bits specifically marked where Lenin diverged from Marx?
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn’t diverge from Marx?
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn’t very Democratic. He put a lot of people in concentration camps. Seems like a very fascist thing to do. Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian. Why would you stand this guy?
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn’t diverge from Marx?
Accepting his works as additions to Marxism, and expansions on them, does not mean he “diverted” from Marx. Again, his analysis of Imperialism, for example, was massive for Marxism, and was a continuation of Marx’s original writings.
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn’t very Democratic.
One of Lenin’s contributions to Revolutionary Theory is the practice of Democratic Centralism, along with Soviet Democracy. Lenin expanded Democratic rights for the Proletariat.
He put a lot of people in concentration camps.
Bourgeoisie, fascist collaboraters like the White Army, and people attempting to overthrow the new government were jailed, along with regular criminals. Anarchist Catalonia even had forced labor camps, revolution is messy. Calling prisons “concentration camps” is sensationalism.
Seems like a very fascist thing to do.
Marx, Engels, and the actually existing Anarchist societies would be considered fascist by your criteria.
Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian.
Maybe to non-Marxists, but in the field of Marxism he advanced knowledge of Capitalism along international lines via Imperialism, advanced revolutionary theory, and applied theory to practice, creating the first Socialist State. You may wish to read Engels’ On Authority, Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and Engels were also called authoritarian in their time, and defended themselves against such claims.
Why would you stand this guy?
I haven’t met him in person, doubt you have either. If you mean “stan,” then no, I don’t “stan” Lenin, he’s a dead guy from 100 years ago. Marxists must continue to adopt what has worked and shed what has not worked, matching Theory to Practice. Much of the USSR did work, like free healthcare and education, and they were fairly efficient with central planning despite calculating by hand, before computers. They also faced problems internal and external, and those should also be learned from. They were not, by any definition, fascist.
I accept Lenin’s contributions to Marxism, so labels don’t really matter.
Incorrect. Marxism is categorized by critique of Capitalism, an adherence to Dialectical and Historical Materialism, and advocacy for the establishment of a Socialist Worker-government via Revolutionary Methods. This came from Marx, not Lenin. Marx was a fascist according to you, even if you try to white-wash him.
No, it’s a Marxist talking-point. Explain exactly where we jump from Marxism to fascism with respect to what Lenin added, like his analysis of Imperialism.
Great, then Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and the USSR were not fascist, glad you could come around to sense, instead of relying on Zionist fascists for your information.
Marxist-Leninists want a worker-government surrounding worker Soviets, or whole-process People’s Democracy. They do not want “authoritarianism.” Please read Marx, and Lenin. You can see where Lenin drew from, Lenin was a Marxist.
Please, just go through Eco’s points, you’ve been restating the same talking points espoused by Zionist fascists without engaging with Eco’s well-establisbed criterion.
Removed by mod
No, I have been entirely consistent.
It’s pretty clear that I meant the label of “Marxist” vs “Marxist-Leninist” doesn’t matter too much, the overwhelming majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin was an important Marxist. I am in no way a fascist, I want a democratic Worker-State.
As for the second bit, where you again repeat “Marxist-Leninists are fascists” without ever explaining why, despite this being several comments deep of you recommending Zionist articles, what’s the point? Are you ever going to answer a single question, or are you going to just throw Zionist talking points?
Nice, you’re homophobic because I said I “accept Lenin’s contributions to Marxism.” Not only do you recommend Zionists, you are also homophobic. The mask really did peal off of you, huh?
Would you mind explaining where Lenin diverges from Marxism to Fascism? Have you actually read any of Lenin?
Yeah, I would mind. It would be a waste of my time because you don’t care. It really doesn’t matter what I say. Because you’ll just use your own personal definition for things instead of the commonly accepted definitions like you did with the Marxist-Leninist bit. We would literally need to agree on a dictionary before we could even begin a somewhat productive conversation.
Again what would I gain? You’re asking me to play a game of chess with you, but you and I both know the moment it looks bad for you. You’re going to flip the board and poop on the table. So why would I play at all?
As for the homophobic stuff. I’m a straight guy and I would happily throat Marx’s sausage. So there I canceled out the homophobia.
No, I specifically asked you to use Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism with the 14 points. That is the commonly accepted list of factors for fascism. Also entirely unaware of what you mean by the “Marxist-Leninist bit.” The overwhelming majority of Marxists also accept Lenin’s contributions to it, adding “-Leninist” is usually to distance from Maoists, MAGA Communists, and Pat-Socs, not to ensure Lenin’s ideas are added.
Eco’s 14 points, and Marx, Engels, and Lenin’s own words. Simple.
We don’t “both know that,” I have asked you to explain which of Eco’s 14 points applied to the USSR, Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism. You haven’t done that, so we can’t know. You would gain a productive conversation, I suppose, and I believe you would grow from it, but that’s neither here nor there at this point, because you can’t do what I have asked about a dozen times at this point.
Still homophobic, and you still haven’t taken back the support for Zionists, makes me think you’re okay with Zionism as well.
As for the Marx bit, Marx would agree with Lenin’s contributions, such as Lenin’s analysis of how Capitalism takes on an international, Imperialist character. Marx himself reached a bit upon it, but Capitalism had not yet advanced enough in Marx’s time for him to observe it, merely predict it.
As it stands, I will personally be happy if you can either answer which of Eco’s 14 points apply to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and/or the USSR.
I would also accept you specifically pointing to where Lenin diverged from Leftism to fascism in his analysis of Marxism and expansion upon it.
Both tasks should be easy for you if you’re correct, but I have a feeling you’ve been dodging because you know you’re wrong, and can’t admit to it.
Why would I care about the personal happiness of a fascist? My dude, you want me dead. Nice touch on reporting my post.
Edit: on the 0.0001 percent chance your serious. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Marxist leninism that I linked you to and look at the general criticism section.
Why would I want you dead? I’m not a fascist, I’m a Marxist. I only wish death upon Nazis and fascists, supporters of genocide, and the like, and haven’t expressed hostility towards you. You did link a post with Zionist ties, so that’s at least approval of the opinions of fascists.
Plus, I reported homophobia, if you aren’t homophobic there’s nothing to report.
None of it had anything to do with fascism. Funnily enough, it did reference low unemployment rates, cheap goods, universal healthcare, and free education. Central Planning, Atheism, Political Repression of the Bourgeoisie, and collectivization are all straight from Marx. Which bits specifically marked where Lenin diverged from Marx?
Or, reference Eco’s 14 points, and tell me which apply.
You tell me? Why are you so excited about Lenin if he didn’t diverge from Marx?
Last time I checked, Lenin wasn’t very Democratic. He put a lot of people in concentration camps. Seems like a very fascist thing to do. Seems like all he did was talk a big game and become an authoritarian. Why would you stand this guy?
Accepting his works as additions to Marxism, and expansions on them, does not mean he “diverted” from Marx. Again, his analysis of Imperialism, for example, was massive for Marxism, and was a continuation of Marx’s original writings.
One of Lenin’s contributions to Revolutionary Theory is the practice of Democratic Centralism, along with Soviet Democracy. Lenin expanded Democratic rights for the Proletariat.
Bourgeoisie, fascist collaboraters like the White Army, and people attempting to overthrow the new government were jailed, along with regular criminals. Anarchist Catalonia even had forced labor camps, revolution is messy. Calling prisons “concentration camps” is sensationalism.
Marx, Engels, and the actually existing Anarchist societies would be considered fascist by your criteria.
Maybe to non-Marxists, but in the field of Marxism he advanced knowledge of Capitalism along international lines via Imperialism, advanced revolutionary theory, and applied theory to practice, creating the first Socialist State. You may wish to read Engels’ On Authority, Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx and Engels were also called authoritarian in their time, and defended themselves against such claims.
I haven’t met him in person, doubt you have either. If you mean “stan,” then no, I don’t “stan” Lenin, he’s a dead guy from 100 years ago. Marxists must continue to adopt what has worked and shed what has not worked, matching Theory to Practice. Much of the USSR did work, like free healthcare and education, and they were fairly efficient with central planning despite calculating by hand, before computers. They also faced problems internal and external, and those should also be learned from. They were not, by any definition, fascist.