The Communist BlocBoard

Neo japanese state wrote:

snip

My thoughts would get me suppressed so I'll abstain :)

They obviously don't know what they are talking about at all and they should actually read Marx. They can't claim that they are deeply into marxism when they don't know the barest of essentials of it.

Neo japanese state wrote:

snip

Um for one, I am very confused by your friend, they claim to be deep into marxism yet echo right-wing talking points about communism. Also, socialism is literally a transitory phase to communism, I have no idea how your friend can read Marx and just ignore that. Your friend is not a "credible socialist".

Neo japanese state wrote:

-snip

Bruh either you are lying about him being Marxist or neither of you get what Marxism is. Marx literally stated that Socialism was the stage between Capitalism and Communism to reach Communism. Socialism was also know as "Lower Communism" for some time. Lenin basically called himself and the Bolsheviks "Communist" instead of Socialist to distinguish themself from Socialdemocrats (Mensheviki) who also called themself Socialist (despite allying with right-wingers to keep the capitalist system alive) So yeah, my thoughts are: Actually read Marx's works or educate yourself about his theory otherwise, before you call yourself a Marxist.

Episte wrote:

and any credible communist would tell you that Stalinism isn't real communism.

bruh moment (just to expand on this - "stalinism" is anti-communist propaganda and not a real thing.)

And pleaaase snip long posts y'all

Neo japanese state wrote:

snip

Yeah what others said, but also there are many communists in TCB. Here's a poll page=poll/p=165927

Neo japanese state wrote:

I was talking to one of my friends (who bare in mind is also someone deeply into marxism and is an avid socialist with some sectarian views on other leftists, mainly communists {especially Marxist-Leninists}) and I told him about the conversations of this region.

Friend: "Why do you hang out in a region called The Communist Bloc?"

Me: "There not all communists. There are mostly socialists, anarchists, and syndicalists with some Marxists-Leninists and communists but it's all good."

Friend: "Dude, every credible socialist will tell you that communism is just socialism with authoritarianism, dictatorships, and social conservatism."

Any thoughts?

I think your friend has a fundamental misunderstanding of what many of those terms mean.

None of the ideologies you mentioned are mutually exclusive with communism, except perhaps socialism in that they are strictly two different economic systems. The relation between them is that in Marxist theory, socialism is the precursor stage to communism.

Neo japanese state wrote:

I was talking to one of my friends (who bare in mind is also someone deeply into marxism and is an avid socialist with some sectarian views on other leftists, mainly communists {especially Marxist-Leninists}) and I told him about the conversations of this region.

Friend: "Why do you hang out in a region called The Communist Bloc?"

Me: "There not all communists. There are mostly socialists, anarchists, and syndicalists with some Marxists-Leninists and communists but it's all good."

Friend: "Dude, every credible socialist will tell you that communism is just socialism with authoritarianism, dictatorships, and social conservatism."

Any thoughts?

Your friend is an ultra who can't see through their rose-&-black tinted glasses. They clearly have no clue about any significant modern day ML or MLM movements, which are highly progressive and place PoC and trans people in leadership roles.
Obviously not every Marxist is pure, just as every anarchist is not. But those who are not do not represent the majority of either group.

Hey comrades, unless you're splitting the quote up please remember to snip long quotes

Episte wrote:

I'd argue that the term Stalinism could be a useful term to describe the sort of thing that happened in the Soviet Union and Communist China, where a power hungry leader uses "communism" as a means to the end of becoming a dictator. It just isn't a valid leftist philosophy.

This is literally Cold War anti-communist propaganda (and before too), which is quite ironic considering your original post. No, Stalin or Mao weren't power hungry demons that used "communism" to become dictators. Read up.

Episte wrote:

It doesn't matter what their personal philosophies were if they behaved in an authoritarian manner. I can't imagine an argument that could possibly justify their actions.

Any actual socialist is going to use "authoritarian measures" in the western liberal meaning of that word. It's a meaningless buzzword used to be sectarian against M-L comrades.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify what "actions" of theirs do you mean that would made them so-called dictators.

Episte wrote:

I'd argue that the term Stalinism could be a useful term to describe the sort of thing that happened in the Soviet Union and Communist China, where a power hungry leader uses "communism" as a means to the end of becoming a dictator. It just isn't a valid leftist philosophy.

"Stalinism" isn't a term and cant ever be applied to the real world in any way because it never happened. None of this power hungry stuff ever happened, history has been bent around preserving the ruling order, the only way out of this is to read up and use logical reasoning to breakdown their claim. Archival evidence discredits any dictatorship, so if you want facts you're going to have to find them...

Since you talked about "Stalinism," a great start about the period would be
The Great Conspiracy Against Russia by Albert E. Kahn and Michael Sayers
And to find the root of all these would be
Khrushchev Lied by Grover Furr

Episte wrote:

Ok I know there are capitalists who would consider the redistribution of capital to be "authoritarian" but you know that's not what I mean. I'm not some neoliberal who came here to start arguments with leftists.

I'm not telling you you are anyone, but you have clear capitalist-propaganda-induced misconceptions about historical AES that we try to help you unlearn. Believe me, a lot of leftists have those.

Episte wrote:



It doesn't matter what their personal philosophies were if they behaved in an authoritarian manner. I can't imagine an argument that could possibly justify their actions.

I'd like to quote Engels there about the whole "authoritarianism" stuff:

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists."

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

He presents several other examples of why the whole "anti-authoritarian" talk is more or less meaningless chatter in the source I listed above. I advice y'all to check it out.

Episte wrote:

Ok I know there are capitalists who would consider the redistribution of capital to be "authoritarian" but you know that's not what I mean. I'm not some neoliberal who came here to start arguments with leftists.

https://youtu.be/Okz2YMW1AwY

Neo japanese state wrote:

I was talking to one of my friends (who bare in mind is also someone deeply into marxism and is an avid socialist with some sectarian views on other leftists, mainly communists {especially Marxist-Leninists}) and I told him about the conversations of this region.

Friend: "Why do you hang out in a region called The Communist Bloc?"

Me: "There not all communists. There are mostly socialists, anarchists, and syndicalists with some Marxists-Leninists and communists but it's all good."

Friend: "Dude, every credible socialist will tell you that communism is just socialism with authoritarianism, dictatorships, and social conservatism."

Any thoughts?

This is...so wrong? First off, socialism is a stage of development just like communism is. The only difference being that there is not money, state, or repressive entity. No special body of armed workers needed to repress the capitalists and imperialists cus such a thing would be gone by the time a world revolution completes. the USSR was not communist, nor was any "communist country" ever. They were all socialist, and they even said so in their constitutions and doctrines. Hell the Soviet Union's name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

1) authoritarianism and dictatorships depend on to whom you speak. An anarchist would reject such notions in favor of something completely unhierarchal and decentralized. As an ML i would ask, yes these things exist but for whom? Under socialism (not communism) you have a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the opposite of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is what we live in now, and it's the state that protects private property above human life and uses police and armies to do it. The Dictatorship of the proletariat is the armed workers unifying to crush the capitalists, and using their armed power to keep them from resurging, all the while having a state that is truly a democratic state. One where politicians are not above the people, but rather literally work for them much like a mailperson does, and is an employee to all of society and recallable at any time (all socialist states have this, including the USSR and Cuba and the DPRK).

2) The social conservativism is false. Communism doesn't mandate social conservativism. Rather, marxism took root in the most oppressed societies: colonized and imperialist ones. Such nations often had struct social conservativism enforced on them by their former capitalist master, such as Spain in the Philippines, Cuba, and Latin America (largely because this was the most efficient way to ensure heterosexual relationships arose and more workers/children would be born). Communists who arose in those nations were socially conservative because they were raised in such an environment, and thus included this aspect of their upbringing in their marxist analysis. As the communist countries progressed however, they became less so. Cuba now has it constitutionally illegal to descriminate on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, or gender identity. They teach the gender spectrum and the kinsye scale in all state schools, and they ue government media to promote gay rights ads. Furthermore, in East Germany, there were state run gay bars and night clubs. The GDR even legalized gay rights and marriage a whole year before the West Germans did!

We have a Hoxiaist in TCB? Who?

Well sorry for bothering you

Episte wrote:

Well sorry for bothering you

Just remember, comrade - "Complacency is the enemy of study. We cannot really learn anything until we rid ourselves of complacency. Our attitude towards ourselves should be "to be insatiable in learning" and towards others "to be tireless in teaching"."
-Mao Zedong, "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 210.

Episte wrote:

Well sorry for bothering you

Not bothering. You have to understand that it is any leftists responsibility to train their minds and also the minds of those around them. Additionally alot of leftists come from a world view that was wholly created by nations that have vested interests in suppressing leftist movements.

Additionally alot of people in this message board live in countries that have suffered the wrath of the CIA and now have to defend legitimate leftist ideology from rhetoric that was crafted by the CIA and imperialist agents.

I apologize if their vigor appeared hostile, but it was...justifiable

Neo japanese state wrote:

I was talking to one of my friends (who bare in mind is also someone deeply into marxism and is an avid socialist with some sectarian views on other leftists, mainly communists {especially Marxist-Leninists}) and I told him about the conversations of this region.

Friend: "Why do you hang out in a region called The Communist Bloc?"

Me: "There not all communists. There are mostly socialists, anarchists, and syndicalists with some Marxists-Leninists and communists but it's all good."

Friend: "Dude, every credible socialist will tell you that communism is just socialism with authoritarianism, dictatorships, and social conservatism."

Any thoughts?

Your friend is either not a leftist, or very confused with basic definitions and ought to open up their dictionary instead of spouting nonsense. Communism is stateless and classless, how can it be authoritarian in nature if there is no state? Furthermore, the goal of all socialists is communism, as socialism is the means by which communism can be achieved.