|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
| Level 145 Comments: Faptastic |
OfflineSend mail to arisaka Block arisaka Invite arisaka to be your friend flag avatar
It's you and I vs. everybody.
It's us vs. the squares.
You're my Bernadine Dorhn.
It's us vs. the squares.
You're my Bernadine Dorhn.
latest user's comments
|#29200 - and so he did||05/15/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#29199 - *advocating **** my life I need sleep.||05/15/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29198 - Also, "to each according to his contribution" is pre…||05/15/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29197 - The difference between Anarchists and Communists is not actual… [+] (17 new replies)||05/15/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
#29210 - oxan (05/15/2013) [-]
It's sectarian nonsense. As is arguing about Lenin.
The fact is that the state is necessary to be seized, and the dictatorship of the proletariat to replace that of the bourgeoisie. In what form the dictatorship of the proletariat takes is irrelevant, really, in what we're discussing. The point is you can't simply have achieved the world revolution, and immediately abolish the state and enter communism.
But again, this is sectarian nonsense.
#29239 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]
And one thing I find extra hilarious is how the greatest spontaneous self-organization of workers was crushed by the soviet union. They pop up everywhere every now and then, which is the right way to go. Occupy factories, towns, points of trade and commerce. Bring the economy down.
Arm yourselves when tanks show up. You think a Vanguard can do any of that? A vanguard is tyranny. In revolution, create the type of society you want to live in while you are fighting. Military discipline will only breed boring, robotic wage slaves.
#29279 - oxan (05/16/2013) [-]
"While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake."
Like I said in the other post, I feel you're criticising Stalin more so than Lenin.
As for vanguardism, I've been looking more into Rosa Luxemburg's writings, so I'd prefer not to comment just yet.
#29237 - arisaka (05/15/2013) [-]
That's kind of a cop-out, man.
Bolshevism doesn't work. It reproduces the capitalist mode of production and gets caught in a vicious circle.
Sure, the state must be 'seized' but it is also radically transformed. It is not the same state that existed before hand. You reorganize it into a democratized, decentralized collective.
And, like I said, the dictatorship is a minor part of Marx's work and there is only attention to it because of the Soviets, which does NOT give it any merit whatsoever. Everything that happened to the soviet union is exactly why their methodology & socialism in one country and completely and utterly useless.
#29278 - oxan (05/16/2013) [-]
These are more criticisms to be directed towards Stalin, not Lenin.
Indeed, Lenin spoke of the alien nature of the state apparatus the Bolsheviks merely took over:
"Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?
There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."
As he said, the government was busy with military engagements, and the economic repercussions of said engagements. Saying that, there were indications that Lenin was preparing to ease up on the authoritarian measures dictated necessary by counterrevolutionaries.
Further is the claim that Bolshevism doesn't work. I feel that's a little bit of a cop-out. Lenin, believing that socialism in one country doesn't work, introduced the NEP (partly because war communism wasn't intended to last forever, and Russia wasn't industrialised and therefore hadn't achieved mature capitalism, etc) due to the failure of socialist revolution in Germany and other states. And since socialism in one country was something Stalin originally thought of as rubbish, it's difficult to say that socialism in one country really was Bolshevism.
#29307 - arisaka (05/16/2013) [-]
NEC = state capitalism, which is precisely why Bolshevism is quite silly. It is the complete negation of economic determinism.
Bolshevism is inherently authoritarian. Democratic centralism is a joke.
The party took what happened in 1905 and ruined it. They were opportunists, which Lenin sharply critiqued. Kind of funny how he contradicts himself.
#29419 - arisaka (05/17/2013) [-]
State capitalism needs to be overthrown.
The thing is both the bureaucracy and the capitalists of the 'west' used spectacular means to perpetuate their ideologies. Both were just different manifests of capitalism which needed to be destroyed. Lenin's ideology was a warped adaptation of Marxism which betrayed several key concepts.
#29460 - oxan (05/18/2013) [-]
Nonsense, arisaka. Indeed, there were measures taken that weren't desirable, but they were necessary, considering war and foreign intervention. But it was far as oligarchy, and was definitely a young workers' state, albeit with a bureaucratic twist, which Lenin highlighted to avoid anything stupid being done (like disbanding trade unions as Trotsky wanted).
#29523 - arisaka (05/18/2013) [-]
That's a red herring. There were many other ways things could have worked out.
And it was obvious Russia wasn't ready for socialism but that prick went through with it anyways, with his warped idealism. There's a little something called 'economic determinism'. He violated basic Marxist theory.
You know why he needed a vanguard party? Because the proletariat hadn't been developed enough. (also he thought they were stupid. fuck him).
You know why the proletariat wasn't developed? Because most of the population were still peasants.
You know why most of the population were part of the peasant class? Because there weren't many factories.
You know why there weren't many factories? Because capitalism hadn't centralized people into urban environments in mass numbers yet.
Lenin was basically one of those kids who makes up all these stupid house rules when you play Sorry (best canadian game).
|#29196 - Hippies also didn't kill millions of people, so there's that. …||05/15/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#29195 - >implying no more than like 3 months ago this place was a r…||05/15/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#50 - Also our economy functions on the perpetual purchasing of prod…||05/14/2013 on Brilliant!||0|
|#29083 - Lenin for me is more about finding the faults. I'd re…||05/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#29077 - I read Lenin for kicks. The only time I ever bought a…||05/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29075 - Yeah, it really baffles me. I think these people just…||05/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29066 - Yes. Do I remember it? No :c||05/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29065 - A red flag is the international sign of socialism, so I don't …||05/12/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29014 - >exactly Handing power over to the Bolsheviks was …||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29010 - Not all of them!||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29007 - German revolutionaries. People were making deals and the like …||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#29005 - The revolution failed because the Germans "failed to hand…||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#28990 - The german revolution was an extension of the Bolshevik one. K… [+] (2 new replies)||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#28988 - Okay, sure, for aesthetics. But having a flag produce… [+] (2 new replies)||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#28983 - Stupid stalinist ******** . No flags nece… [+] (4 new replies)||05/11/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||+3|
#28984 - oxan (05/11/2013) [-]
Flags are an important rallying point, though. Whether or not the hammer and sickle is outdated is another thing.
Plus, flags are just cool to look at. Like the Turkish flag. Such a brilliant flag. And the French. One of the few tricolours I like, and only in that order and with vertical stripes.
#28988 - arisaka (05/11/2013) [-]
Okay, sure, for aesthetics.
But having a flag produces ideology. It creates a reproducible image. An image that can be recuperated, and allow participants to be abstracted and generalized. Weaponized ideology has a body count.
It really weakens the movement. Also, I think wearing your politics (that means displaying flags) is silly. People will abstract you and you have successfully objectified yourself.
|#28934 - Assad. He's got thousands of pounds of it stockpiled. …||05/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#65 - well now what the **** are they going to name the…||05/08/2013 on The new Xbox is called...||0|
|#31 - so we're stealing from reddit now inb4 we've always s… [+] (2 new replies)||05/07/2013 on dog||-6|
|#28812 - save your energy for the good fights, man.||05/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#28806 - why do you even bother with ******** whose openin… [+] (2 new replies)||05/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#28796 - I'm about as left as they come. I don't even like calling myse…||05/07/2013 on Politics - politics news,...||0|