Why Socialists are getting more liberal?

[Futurist State of Flassau]

What's the point of "standing up against Capitalism" if you don't account for regional levels?

We're talking about riling up workers around all areas of the country to rise up as a mass revolution against capitalism when it fails to solve an economic crisis. Socialism will have a mass revolution that paves way for success, or it will not have it all and be engulfed with a failed local revolution. That's how the self-proclaimed "socialists" of CNT-FAI and Makhnovshchina failed. They did not fight against the bourgeoisie of the entire nation.

So basically if the Economy is fine and Poverty is low nobody should revolt? That'll be great because i don't want like a million people dying.

[Pogravska]

Why not look at this more closely... why did smart, academic, zealous Marxists, abandon this particular political ideology?

Marxism-Leninism answers this question of Western Marxism abandoning socialism with the following.

Beginning from 1955 the social-democratic parties in Western Europe like the English Labour Party, the social-democratic parties in France, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Western Germany and in the Scandinavian countries, have changed their programs or have been engaged in elaborating new programmatic procedures. What characterizes these programs and new programmatic procedures? They are characterized by the eclectic blending of the old opportunist theories with the "modern" bourgeois theories, by their permanent renunciation of the principles and ideals of socialism, by their open support for the capitalist order of exploitation and by their frenzied opposition to communism.

If the former reformists avowed, even in words alone, that the establishment of socialism was their ultimate goal, present-day social-democrats have openly rejected this end. They preach that they are in favor of the socalled "democratic socialism", which has nothing in common with true scientific socialism. It is its negation, its replacement with certain bourgeois liberal reforms which do not tamper in any way with the basis of capitalist society. What kind of socialism is that when most of the social-democratic programs have discarded an elementary demand of socialism to abolish private property of the means of production?

It is not "inferior" as you imply. It is the degeneracy in the West by liberal revisionists of the "New Left" academia that turned against the working class and the revolutionary fervor. Why are workers right-wing? Because the liberal left does not care about the proletariat. Blame the New Left academia for fuelling the reactionary views of the proletariat in the West.

[Adamede]

Sadly, the West abandoned Marxism-Leninism in favor of social democratic revisionism.

Why not look at this more closely... why did smart, academic, zealous Marxists, abandon this particular political ideology?

What is it that caused the field to just decline: hint it’s inferior to other systems.

Becuase of the totalitarian governments which killed a shit ton of people.

[Futurist State of Flassau]

Why not look at this more closely... why did smart, academic, zealous Marxists, abandon this particular political ideology?

Marxism-Leninism answers this question of Western Marxism abandoning socialism with the following.

Beginning from 1955 the social-democratic parties in Western Europe like the English Labour Party, the social-democratic parties in France, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Western Germany and in the Scandinavian countries, have changed their programs or have been engaged in elaborating new programmatic procedures. What characterizes these programs and new programmatic procedures? They are characterized by the eclectic blending of the old opportunist theories with the "modern" bourgeois theories, by their permanent renunciation of the principles and ideals of socialism, by their open support for the capitalist order of exploitation and by their frenzied opposition to communism.

If the former reformists avowed, even in words alone, that the establishment of socialism was their ultimate goal, present-day social-democrats have openly rejected this end. They preach that they are in favor of the socalled "democratic socialism", which has nothing in common with true scientific socialism. It is its negation, its replacement with certain bourgeois liberal reforms which do not tamper in any way with the basis of capitalist society. What kind of socialism is that when most of the social-democratic programs have discarded an elementary demand of socialism to abolish private property of the means of production?

It is not "inferior" as you imply. It is the degeneracy in the West by liberal revisionists of the "New Left" academia that turned against the working class and the revolutionary fervor. Why are workers right-wing? Because the liberal left does not care about the proletariat. Blame the New Left academia for fuelling the reactionary views of the proletariat in the West.

For you quoted an Anti-Revisionism book against a Revisionist, why?

[Lower Nubia]

Why not look at this more closely... why did smart, academic, zealous Marxists, abandon this particular political ideology?

Marxism-Leninism answers this question of Western Marxism abandoning socialism with the following.

Beginning from 1955 the social-democratic parties in Western Europe like the English Labour Party, the social-democratic parties in France, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Western Germany and in the Scandinavian countries, have changed their programs or have been engaged in elaborating new programmatic procedures. What characterizes these programs and new programmatic procedures? They are characterized by the eclectic blending of the old opportunist theories with the "modern" bourgeois theories, by their permanent renunciation of the principles and ideals of socialism, by their open support for the capitalist order of exploitation and by their frenzied opposition to communism.

If the former reformists avowed, even in words alone, that the establishment of socialism was their ultimate goal, present-day social-democrats have openly rejected this end. They preach that they are in favor of the socalled "democratic socialism", which has nothing in common with true scientific socialism. It is its negation, its replacement with certain bourgeois liberal reforms which do not tamper in any way with the basis of capitalist society. What kind of socialism is that when most of the social-democratic programs have discarded an elementary demand of socialism to abolish private property of the means of production?

It is not "inferior" as you imply. It is the degeneracy in the West by liberal revisionists of the "New Left" academia that turned against the working class and the revolutionary fervor. Why are workers right-wing? Because the liberal left does not care about the proletariat. Blame the New Left academia for fuelling the reactionary views of the proletariat in the West.

Bruh if you can only say their wrong because of degeneracy than you're not a political science, you're just a cult.

[Pogravska]

So basically if the Economy is fine and Poverty is low nobody should revolt?

The main problem with a revolt is that under a prospering economy and low poverty, it is impossible. People are genuinely happy. African nations often have overthrows because they're undeveloped because of European colonialism which made them very unstable. Try to overthrow the United States now and not a lot of people will join your revolution. When hard times come and when people grieve over the loss of the golden age, revolutionary consciousness builds as capitalism degenerates the economy slowly.

[Pogravska]

Bruh if you can only say their wrong because of degeneracy than you're not a political science, you're just a cult.

Call MLs "cultists" but they have a point. Workers don't support leftist parties today because of their commitment to class collaboration rather than class struggle. As I remember, one said about how peaceful nations have bourgeoisie elites develop this fake strand of socialism that embraces bourgeois class collaboration and liberalism and rejects the class struggle in favor of utopian harmony under the bourgeois dystopia.

[Adamede]

Why not look at this more closely... why did smart, academic, zealous Marxists, abandon this particular political ideology?

Marxism-Leninism answers this question of Western Marxism abandoning socialism with the following.

Beginning from 1955 the social-democratic parties in Western Europe like the English Labour Party, the social-democratic parties in France, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Western Germany and in the Scandinavian countries, have changed their programs or have been engaged in elaborating new programmatic procedures. What characterizes these programs and new programmatic procedures? They are characterized by the eclectic blending of the old opportunist theories with the "modern" bourgeois theories, by their permanent renunciation of the principles and ideals of socialism, by their open support for the capitalist order of exploitation and by their frenzied opposition to communism.

If the former reformists avowed, even in words alone, that the establishment of socialism was their ultimate goal, present-day social-democrats have openly rejected this end. They preach that they are in favor of the socalled "democratic socialism", which has nothing in common with true scientific socialism. It is its negation, its replacement with certain bourgeois liberal reforms which do not tamper in any way with the basis of capitalist society. What kind of socialism is that when most of the social-democratic programs have discarded an elementary demand of socialism to abolish private property of the means of production?

It is not "inferior" as you imply. It is the degeneracy in the West by liberal revisionists of the "New Left" academia that turned against the working class and the revolutionary fervor. Why are workers right-wing? Because the liberal left does not care about the proletariat. Blame the New Left academia for fuelling the reactionary views of the proletariat in the West.

How exactly does concentrating pwoer in the hands of party leadership help the working class ?

[Futurist State of Flassau]

So basically if the Economy is fine and Poverty is low nobody should revolt?

The main problem with a revolt is that under a prospering economy and low poverty, it is impossible. People are genuinely happy. African nations often have overthrows because they're undeveloped because of European colonialism which made them very unstable. Try to overthrow the United States now and not a lot of people will join your revolution. When hard times come and when people grieve over the loss of the golden age, revolutionary consciousness builds as capitalism degenerates the economy slowly.

Capitalism have two routes, under Nationalism and Anti-progressivism, it will become Post-capitalism, under Globalism and Progressivism/Revisionism, it will balance out, see Germany post-rebuilding.

[Futurist State of Flassau]

Marxism-Leninism answers this question of Western Marxism abandoning socialism with the following.



It is not "inferior" as you imply. It is the degeneracy in the West by liberal revisionists of the "New Left" academia that turned against the working class and the revolutionary fervor. Why are workers right-wing? Because the liberal left does not care about the proletariat. Blame the New Left academia for fuelling the reactionary views of the proletariat in the West.

How exactly does concentrating pwoer in the hands of party leadership help the working class ?

Basically in MLs' Thought its just "Helping them decide and not make them Anarchist because all kinds of Anarchism and Libertarianism is bad"

[Lower Nubia]

Bruh if you can only say their wrong because of degeneracy than you're not a political science, you're just a cult.

Call MLs "cultists" but they have a point. Workers don't support leftist parties today because of their commitment to class collaboration rather than class struggle. As I remember, one said about how peaceful nations have bourgeoisie elites develop this fake strand of socialism that embraces bourgeois class collaboration and liberalism and rejects the class struggle in favor of utopian harmony under the bourgeois dystopia.

We're not talking about parties here, we're talking about academics who study this and the mechanisms of this political ideology.

Academics and scholars do not abandon an idea if it competes effectively with other ideologies in tackling questions within and beyond that ideology.

So when I tell you, Marxism was left behind, that should set off alarm bells to followers, that perhaps this ideology isn't actually capable of providing a system for the modern day.

[Pogravska]

How exactly does concentrating pwoer in the hands of party leadership help the working class ?

This first comes from Lenin who came up with the Vanguard party thing. In theory, party leadership consists of the most revolutionary proletarians who educate the masses on the class struggle and help them arm against bourgeois tyranny. Obviously you cannot just have illiterate peasants control nations, we need a vanguard party which is what Lenin was looking for.

Then you have crazed anarchists like Bakunin saying that it would turn workers into "theorists" instead of revolutionaries.

[Pogravska]

Academics and scholars do not abandon an idea if it competes effectively with other ideologies in tackling questions within and beyond that ideology.

So when I tell you, Marxism was left behind, that should set off alarm bells to followers, that perhaps this ideology isn't actually capable of providing a system for the modern day.

I beg to differ cause how does the Western academia retain Marxism-Leninism? The West Academia has always been opposed to it because of Red Scare as well as US liberalism. There is no way that the Western academia retains the idea. The answer is that they abandoned it in favor of bourgeois liberalism in the US and Western countries and that is final.

[Pogravska]

Capitalism have two routes, under Nationalism and Anti-progressivism, it will become Post-capitalism, under Globalism and Progressivism/Revisionism, it will balance out, see Germany post-rebuilding.

You're literally proposing a neoliberal route of capitalism through "globalism". I don't want Klaus Schwab, IMF, and the World Bank to determine the culture of nations. There is nothing inherently socialist about it.

[Cyptopir]

There isn't one. This is a false ask.

By Marxist definition, a socialist state is a state whose workers have overthrown the bourgeois government and are currently the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is something we have seen with Lenin's USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, Mao's China, etc. Unfortunately, we saw some socialist states degrade into bureaucracies while Yugoslavia risked itself with IMF loans over "market socialism" which could have easily been turned into an automated AI-planned economy with the help of Emerik Blum, a Jewish engineer who founded Energoinvest and made domestic Yugoslav computers at the time. Same thing for Soviet OGAS instead of decentralization.

A socialist state is the lower stage of communism. There has been no communist states as none achieved the higher stage.

None of those were dictatorships of the proletariat. Especially not China or Yugoslavia.
Lenin's USSR was the closest we've gotten, but even that is a far stretch.

[Adamede]

How exactly does concentrating pwoer in the hands of party leadership help the working class ?

This first comes from Lenin who came up with the Vanguard party thing. In theory, party leadership consists of the most revolutionary proletarians who educate the masses on the class struggle and help them arm against bourgeois tyranny. Obviously you cannot just have illiterate peasants control nations, we need a vanguard party which is what Lenin was looking for.

Then you have crazed anarchists like Bakunin saying that it would turn workers into "theorists" instead of revolutionaries.

And yet through history we see that’s not the case in Marxists Leninist states.

You’re not actually answering the question, you’re justifying why the working class shouldn’t have power. You’re basically saying they need to be ruled over rather than liberated.

[Pogravska]

Lenin's USSR was the closest we've gotten, but even that is a far stretch.

Vlad the Lenin scores the goal again! /s

[Pogravska]

You’re not actually answering the question, you’re justifying why the working class shouldn’t have power. You’re basically saying they need to be ruled over rather than liberated.

So proletarians learning basic education is "totalitarianism" to you? Are you seriously telling me that teaching workers basic education as well as Marxist theory is "totalitarian"?

[Futurist State of Flassau]

Academics and scholars do not abandon an idea if it competes effectively with other ideologies in tackling questions within and beyond that ideology.

So when I tell you, Marxism was left behind, that should set off alarm bells to followers, that perhaps this ideology isn't actually capable of providing a system for the modern day.

I beg to differ cause how does the Western academia retain Marxism-Leninism? The West Academia has always been opposed to it because of Red Scare as well as US liberalism. There is no way that the Western academia retains the idea. The answer is that they abandoned it in favor of bourgeois liberalism in the US and Western countries and that is final.

India wasn't "Red Scared", why did they go with Liberalism?

[Lower Nubia]

Academics and scholars do not abandon an idea if it competes effectively with other ideologies in tackling questions within and beyond that ideology.

So when I tell you, Marxism was left behind, that should set off alarm bells to followers, that perhaps this ideology isn't actually capable of providing a system for the modern day.

I beg to differ cause how does the Western academia retain Marxism-Leninism? The West Academia has always been opposed to it because of Red Scare as well as US liberalism. There is no way that the Western academia retains the idea.

No, this is the opposite, academia was often very receptive to Marxism in the early to mid 20th century.

This was discussed in the link I made. You're anti-western bias is showing as you casually dismiss the west as degenerate because it's brightest minds and most fervent Marxists eventually threw out the ideology for something better.

You also talk of retention like "faith", i.e. if they jsut believed harder, they'd have seen the light. An idea like Marxism, claiming to be science, should have pretty concrete principals to understand and follow - you don't lose the ability to "retain the idea" as if it's clouded from this specific group of people's mind, that's ridiculous.

The answer is that they abandoned it in favor of bourgeois liberalism in the US and Western countries and that is final.

Why? What for?

[Adamede]

You’re not actually answering the question, you’re justifying why the working class shouldn’t have power. You’re basically saying they need to be ruled over rather than liberated.

So proletarians learning basic education is "totalitarianism" to you? Are you seriously telling me that teaching workers basic education as well as Marxist theory is "totalitarian"?

Concentrating all the power in the hands of a small elite while throwing dissenters in prison camps in the wilderness if not just killing them outright while suppressing the rights of the working class is totalitarianism yes.

[Pogravska]

No, this is the opposite, academia was often very receptive to Marxism in the early to mid 20th century.

This was discussed in the link I made. You're anti-western bias is showing as you casually dismiss the west as degenerate because it's brightest minds and most fervent Marxists eventually threw out the ideology for something better.

You also talk of retention like "faith", i.e. if they jsut believed harder, they'd have seen the light. An idea like Marxism, claiming to be science, should have pretty concrete principals to understand and follow - you don't lose the ability to "retain the idea" as if it's clouded from this specific group of people's mind, that's ridiculous.

The answer is that they abandoned it in favor of bourgeois liberalism in the US and Western countries and that is final.

Why? What for?

Duh. They abandoned it because "dictatorship of proletariat is bad", "there is nothing to learn from reactionary tankies", and "Marxism-Leninism is outdated". They so fervently worked to make Marxism-Leninism outdated as if we cannot adapt in the 21st century. Here we are, trying to adapt without socialism in Europe and we still refuse to back away from Marxism-Leninism because it truly was a success to carry such a mass revolution to frighten the rich that they never ever underestimate the might of the proletariat.

This may be "anti-western bias" but in general, if you look at Western nations and their social democrat parties, what do they really harbor of such socialism? Nothing. There is no socialism in the West. It's all lies made up by liberal bourgeois "New Left" with the intent to fool workers into thinking that socialism in the West happened when it never did because of capitalism and anti-communism it still has. The social democratic EU is literally anti-communist so those right-wingers better also knock it off with the "communist EU" rhetoric.

[Futurist State of Flassau]

No, this is the opposite, academia was often very receptive to Marxism in the early to mid 20th century.

This was discussed in the link I made. You're anti-western bias is showing as you casually dismiss the west as degenerate because it's brightest minds and most fervent Marxists eventually threw out the ideology for something better.

You also talk of retention like "faith", i.e. if they jsut believed harder, they'd have seen the light. An idea like Marxism, claiming to be science, should have pretty concrete principals to understand and follow - you don't lose the ability to "retain the idea" as if it's clouded from this specific group of people's mind, that's ridiculous.



Why? What for?

Duh. They abandoned it because "dictatorship of proletariat is bad", "there is nothing to learn from reactionary tankies", and "Marxism-Leninism is outdated". They so fervently worked to make Marxism-Leninism outdated as if we cannot adapt in the 21st century. Here we are, trying to adapt without socialism in Europe and we still refuse to back away from Marxism-Leninism because it truly was a success to carry such a mass revolution to frighten the rich that they never ever underestimate the might of the proletariat.

This may be "anti-western bias" but in general, if you look at Western nations and their social democrat parties, what do they really harbor of such socialism? Nothing. There is no socialism in the West. It's all lies made up by liberal bourgeois "New Left" with the intent to fool workers into thinking that socialism in the West happened when it never did because of capitalism and anti-communism it still has. The social democratic EU is literally anti-communist so those right-wingers better also knock it off with the "communist EU" rhetoric.

We did adapt, and that was literally revisionism, adapting = revisioning.

[Pogravska]

Concentrating all the power in the hands of a small elite while throwing dissenters in prison camps in the wilderness if not just killing them outright while surpassing the rights of the working class is totalitarianism yes.

"Educating workers amounts to oppression by the state" - Mikhail Bakunin /s

At this point it is obvious. The fact that Marxism-Leninism is demonized for being somewhat more materialist than the idealist utopian demagogy of liberalism and a minority of anarchists is so sad to look at. Can't even make friends easily when everyone is just commodified into this slowly but surely real late stage capitalism.

[Futurist State of Flassau]

Concentrating all the power in the hands of a small elite while throwing dissenters in prison camps in the wilderness if not just killing them outright while surpassing the rights of the working class is totalitarianism yes.

"Educating workers amounts to oppression by the state" - Mikhail Bakunin /s

At this point it is obvious. The fact that Marxism-Leninism is demonized for being somewhat more materialist than the idealist utopian demagogy of liberalism and a minority of anarchists is so sad to look at. Can't even make friends easily when everyone is just commodified into this slowly but surely real late stage capitalism.

I do not see any authoritarianism around in Scandinavia, but i do in Socialism, your point?