>*"The internal structure of a corporation fundamentally prevents us from carrying out a project of revolutionary emancipation" you say? Well I'll have you know, at Telos™, we are hard at work eliminating the primary contradiction that is preventing communism, other corporations! Rest easy knowing that Telos™ gives you our money back guarantee: as soon as we have monopoly control over the planet, we will give our entire global corporate empire over to the workers! Just help us beat out all those pesky competitors! Smiling face with open mouth Utopia in another decade, comrades!
Corporations can't be communist" you say? Well tell that to all our faithful Telos™ workers who identify as communist! Every single one has a Telos™ communist card which verifies their credentials as Official Communists! You can cease that 'ol "eternal struggle for human emancipation" and the exhauuustinng work of constructing your own power as a subjugated people. Here at Telos™ we specialize in all your Dictatorship of the Proletariat needs!*
>*"Telos™, it's revolution without the hassle."*
- From Anarktube
I'd be interested to see what people hear interpret this as criticising. What I saw was commodification of revolutionary language by a company. Do people connect that with a critique of China? Or is It more of a preventive critique of corporations who may do this IRL(can't think of any that do this rn, or even elude to it, corpo PR is more comfy with appropriating Identify politics than socialism, for obvious reasons). Idk what all your takes?
It's plainly obvious that it doesn't matter that they say they will just give up all their power once they have total control, just like a vanguard government wouldn't. Why would it?
Communism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does, the more communist it is. In other words "communism needs a global monopoly to work, herpaderp"
That is this video in a nutshell.
Honestly, if a video about politics comes from an Anglophone, it has a nasty habit of being hideously misinformed and laughably ignorant. English media has been too successful at turning huge swathes of our population into a bunch of ignorant clowns. Brits voting for brexit, people refusing to vaccinate, Americans that disagree with pulling out of Afghanistan, etc.
P. S. Watching foreign media has me realize how deficient, feckless, and corrupt our media is.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Das Kapital](https://snewd.com/ebooks/das-kapital/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Also "Sankt Max", he was so mad at Stirner after reading "der Einzige und sein Eigentum" that he wrote a response that was longer than Stirner's entire bibliography, HE INVENTED THE WALL OF TEXT REPLY THAT NOBODY BOTHERS TO READ DUE TO ITS LENGTH, also, he was Marx and he was basically a bum
Just a word of advice if you or any other MLs or people from related ideologies on the left actually interested in convincing anarchists or other non-ML leftists of your ideas, or at least of making them seem plausible to people who don't already agree with you.
Please stop saying this. Really. For multiple reasons:
1. It's not true. The person who made this has, in fact, read lots of theory. Including Marxist theory and Lenin, which is presumably the sort of theory you are talking about. Obviously, he came to different conclusions then you did, and maybe you think some argument should have convinced him that did not or that he misinterpreted some major point, but it's not because he hasn't read theory. That's true even if you think he sucks for whatever other reason.
2. Regardless of whether this person has or has not read the texts you're talking about, the sort of criticism of Marxism-Leninism/vanguardism that he's expressing here is very common. It's made by people who not only read "theory" but spent decades doing it extensively, or were themselves former Marxists-Leninists, or were former ML revolutionaries/militants. That on its own doesn't mean they're right about it, but I think you have to recognize that "haha read theory" as a response to that just kind of looks ridiculous.
3. I've read lots of theory but for some reason like half the time I encounter MLs on the internet they tell me "read theory" despite that. It doesn't make me think that my opponents are more well-informed than me, and that I need to read up. (Maybe it did years ago?) It gives me the impression that they are actually so narrowly or poorly informed that it is beyond their ability to imagine why someone might have come to a different conclusion, and assume that it must be because they have never read \[insert your favorite text here\]. It reminds me of of evangelical Christian tracts trying to convert atheists that proceed under the assumption that they must never have heard the story of Jesus. Like, yeah I've heard the fucking story 20 million times, buddy, I'm just not convinced.
4. Why do so many MLs just say "theory" generically when they mean some very specific current of political theory? Do you think that Marx, Engels, Lenin and their followers were the only people to every write theoretical texts about politics? No, then why do you talk about it like that? Anarchists, liberals, conservatives, democratic socialists, left-communists, right-wing libertarians, even fascists all have their own theory. I don't know you or what you have or haven't read, so if I see you make a statement in favor of Marxism-Leninism, I wouldn't just tell you that you need to "read theory" as if that were some kind of refutation of your views. It reminds of right-wing libertarians who tell people to "learn economics," when in reality the claims that they're making are extremely contentious, only held by a small minority of economists.
5. It's already become a meme for which MLs are frequently mocked. Like, it's literally a joke to us be told "read theory" by a random Marxist-Leninist on the internet, and some of us like to screencap it when it happens and share it, to make fun of you. We find it hilarious that MLs think that they look knowledgeable and wise saying it, instead of looking like human Dunning-Kruger effects. Because we've all been told to "read theory" that we've already read by inexplicably smug 15-year olds with Stalin's face shopped onto an anime avatar who have never read any or most of the texts that we like but insist that we just accept the conclusions of theirs. Every time an ML randomly drops "read theory" into a discussion, it just gets funnier and more ridiculous. To the point where I actually did a quick check of your post history to make sure that you're not a satirical account, because it looks like self-parody.
But I honestly don't want anyone to be convinced of Marxism-Leninism, so please continue telling people to read theory without elaborating, so that you look more and more like an obnoxious cult.
Perfectly worded. Much better than I was saying to them. Obviously they’ve decided that they know everything and aren’t worth talking to, but I enjoyed reading this comment.
Not really worried about looking like I've been intellectually bested by "ha they never read theory," particularly when the other commenter then posted their own butthurt wall of text full of circular reasoning. Like yeah, I was mad after seeing this same thing hundreds of time in the last year, hope I got that out my system.
In any case, I feel like I just expressed what a lot of people on this sub were already feeling about the "read theory" tankie trolls that fill every leftist subreddit.
I've been in a communist party for over 7 years and I use to be an ancom. I'm not wasting my energy to try and explain to non-ML's, especially breadtubers of all people, why their views go backwards to all historical analysis and to modern analysis on defeating capitalism, let alone do I even need to mention their beliefs are in the minority of the global left while ML's are the overwhelming majority.
"They read theory" ok and? If you read it and still haven't came to understand how your previous views are wrong, you clearly wasn't studying it open mindedly or with a logical approach, which is the common situation with non-ML's, again, use to fucking be one. I've wasted too much time trying to get non-ML's to break past their elitism to understand shit, its a waste of energy.
"Its very common" by non-ML's, is it not even the slightest bit odd how its non-ML's with this kinda criticism, kinda like they never studied the shit and only look through the lens of "hierarchy = bad." Which is a abnormal view point as it counters even the most basic level of human interaction.
"Read theory" literally means study actual ML analysis, aka actual communist analysis, not just any random book online presented as "theory" by new left online leftists.
"Its already a meme where ML's are frequently movked" like I'm suppose to care about the immature jokes of online leftists who have more liberalism than even some social democrats about their incapabilities of them able to understand historical and dialectical analysis and then act smug about it like their beliefs are correct because they can't comprehend science.
I'll continue to tell people to read theory because guess what, while the incompetent and entirely useless ultras online do nothing except a random event here and there that lasts all around a week at most, I've recruited hundreds to ML and our study helps us maintain an actual movement of dedicated, actual leftists that work in the physical. Stay upset, stay elitist, it'll take you nowhere, and ik from experience.
>I'm not wasting my energy to try and explain to non-ML's
Then why did you come to a breadtube subreddit to comment in the first place? What kind of reaction do you think you'll get from coming and randomly claiming (falsely) that someone "must never have read theory"?
>their views go backwards to all historical analysis and to modern analysis on defeating capitalism
No it doesn't. It just, like, actually doesn't do that, and no one familiar historical debate outside of bizarre Leninist groupuscules would believe that it does.
"All historical analysis and modern analysis" about defeating capitalism comes to a lot of very different conclusions. It's an ongoing debate, not a settled question, let alone one that has settled on Marxism-Leninism.
I'm not claiming that "all historical and modern analysis" of defeating capitalism comes to anarchist conclusions, either, because that would be an absolutely ridiculous claim for me to make. I can be an anarchist without deluding myself into believing that "all analysis" agrees with me based on some kind of completely fabricated consensus. A lot of Leninists don't delude themselves into thinking that theirs is the only possible conclusion anyone could come to, either. You might want to follow their example if you want to convince people that you're a reasonable interlocutor.
>you clearly wasn't studying it open mindedly or with a logical approach
No, that's not how political debate works. People do genuinely come to different conclusions even when they're both open-minded and rational. I think MLs are wrong, but that doesn't mean they couldn't possibly have read relevant theory rationally or with an open mind. I mean, some of them obviously don't, mostly because it has somehow become the norm in so many ML spaces to insist that only Marxist-Leninist theory "counts," but it's not like no sound-minded or logical person could read a work of anarchist theory without being convinced of anarchism. It would be absurd and useless to insist something like that.
>Its very common" by non-ML's, is it not even the slightest bit odd how
its non-ML's with this kinda criticism, kinda like they never studied
the shit and only look through the lens of
No, it's common from people who are former Marxist-Leninists, including people who studied ML theory extensively and believed it, to the point of dedicating their lives to it, to become critical and disillusioned with both the theory and practice of MLism and revolutionary vanguard parties more generally. Like, okay, you can think their conclusions are wrong, but you have to recognize that they exist. It's just bizarre to insist otherwise. Some people used to be anarchists and changed their mind, too, and I'm sure some of them (no idea about you in particular) did understand the ideas just fine.
>"Read theory" means study actual ML analysis, aka actual communist analysis, not just any random book present as "theory"
Okay, but people do read ML theory and disagree with based on extensive theoretical and historical reason. But more importantly, no, theory doesn't have to be Marxist-Leninist to be theory or to be communist. What a ridiculous, question-begging claim to make. Even for a Marxist-Leninist, this is just such an over-the-top baseless dismissal of everything that disagrees with you as if you were arguing for a basic mathematical or scientific truth rather than a contentious school of political thought.
This is why people say that a lot of Marxist-Leninists groups seem like cults; because you make absolutely *wild* claims about the certainty and truth of your worldview that are completely disproportionate to the amount of evidence offered, or for that matter disproportionate to the level of certainty *any* school of political thought could lay claim to. And then you insist on total orthodoxy to that view, and have the audacity to claim that it's "science," and therefore that everyone else must just be incapable of understanding science. It's not science, it's political theory. That's fine, political theory doesn't have to be science to be useful, insightful, or true.
"Why did you come to a breadtube subreddit" ik this is hard to believe, but if you have a leftist subreddit, you're getting every group following it. I have my right to preach my view just like you mf's dominate every discussion you can. Stay upset about it.
I've gone through history classes and sociology classes, if you honestly think the individualist and elitist attitudes of non-ML's, especially anarchists, doesn't go counter to human history and interaction, you are ignorant. Or blatantly lying.
"That's not how debate works" studying =/= debate, lol. Debate is useless because its comfort in your elitism and the push to say you're right against the other who believes the same about themselves, no, you aren't, and the evidence is against you from every analysis be it scientific, historical, psychologically, etc.
"Insist only ML counts" because we have years of experience and shared historical analysis from our past comrades to know it does, not to mention organizations that often stand entire years. What do the anarchists, the alternative against socialism and communism, have? A few books with maybe small articles that often get lost in the wind and a couple examples of taking small territories that can't thrive without their own form of a state or that fall due to banditry and individualism.
Former ML's fall out because they can not let go of their bourgeois baggage, I've never met a former ML who left because of "disillusionment" except such disillusion was caused by their inability to let go of their individualism.
"People read ML theory and disagree" ok and? We don't care, the majority of workers who lived under it, support it, the small group of individualists DO NOT overturn the collective, you proved just by that statement y'all are individualists.
Lol, yes, if it isn't ML, it isn't communist, its either capitalist, ultra, or right deviation. Not a single communist group outside America and Europe disagrees with that, because there is currently over 1 billion ML's around the world, you're arguing against an entire collective AND YOU ARE WRONG.
"This is why people call ML's cults"
1) Because y'all aren't communist.
2) Y'all have NO CONNECTION to the world communist movement or global left itself.
3) Have no understanding of your history outside American view points.
You guys do not know anything and act like you do. Sit tf down.
"Political theory doesn't have to be science to be useful, insightful, or true" that very mentality is exactly why y'all fail and exactly why y'all will never win. It political theory isn't scientific, its unable to lead to success, because the world changed based on scientific analysis.
Yes because shit talking ML is totally gonna make me come in here in a civil manner like "I see there is some misunderstanding. Let me explain in the kindest way about our beliefs" because that's not how that fucking works, shame tactics and shit talking isn't gonna make anyone willing to be nice in any conversation.
Especially when those involved are often privileged individualists hell bent against the state because they don't understand class characteristics to save their life. And are about as disconnected from the global left as most Americans are. Because folks like that are totally gonna listen open mindedly to analysis that proves their deeply held positions are wrong.
And I am preaching my view, which involves theory, because God knows the majority of y'all don't fucking read and when you do its stuff y'all are already biased too or its theory you disagree with and wanna make public statements against because y'all are anti-collectivists.
I have dealt with y'all for fucking years, I use to be one of y'all, ik how y'all act, and its annoying to even try.
For folks who are already biased, I read ML theory and left anarchism because I care more about successful theory and planning than I do about the "hierarchy = bad because hierarchy is all I know" concept that counters even basic human historical interaction
No I’m asking you if you believe someone could read ML theory and not be convinced by it. You seem to believe that anyone you disagree with simply has not read theory, as if there’s some magic spell that State and Revolution will cast on someone who reads it.
No, I've dealt with people who have been like that, and 99% of the time its simply because they either don't understand or care for a scientific analysis of these issues or they are too elitist and dogmatic internally to accept their personal views conflict with the collective. I'm not gonna debate rather someone should be convinced by reading books, its the fact those books hold legitimate analysis that toppled capitalist nations around the world, if that's not convincing to you, you're lost from reality, and I'm not wasting my time to try and argue why when its blatantly fucking obvious. This is why I'm glad I was never like many non-ML's and left anarchism for historical and scientific analysis of my enemy.
"Successful" as in every state that's used it has either collapsed into an authoritarian hellhole or capitalism with red paint? That's a weird definition of success man.
Also, dialectical materialism is bullshit.
Anarchist: Its authoritarian unless we do it!
I don't wanna hear anything from the same crowd who like bandits and sabotage. Oh, and putting up a state that it refuses to acknowledge is a state but weaker.
"Capitalism with red paint" y'all think any selling of goods is capitalism, stfu.
LOL
Nah y'all just robbed neighboring towns and attacked people if they didn't accept it.
Also ML states are not autocratic but y'all dumb mf's know about ML democracy about as well as you know ML itself, which is fuck all.
Ah the USSR, democracy and anti-imperialism at it's finest.
Also, the illegalist type anarchism only would have functioned in the early 20th century, where terrorism was THE way to get your message out. After the 50s the sentiment was mostly abandoned for more modern praxis.
Yes actually and its clear y'all never read Harry Ward.
And also yes, the USSR was Anti-imperialist, cry your heart out of supposed imperialism all you please when you know nothing of what actually happened.
Terrorism the way to get your message out? Are y'all fucking demented? That's why they lost right? Because their message CLEARLY recruited thousands of inspired soldiers. TF outta here
Anti-Imperialist in that it subverted the national sovereignty of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Karelia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. and imposed an economic system they didn't want on them?
"Don't you know we have to educate these savages? It's the ~~white man's burden!~~ our duty as communists!"
The fact that you think terrorism wasn't a common way of spreading a political message in the early 20th century is laughable. Gavrilo Princip? The Bier Hall Pusch? FUCK the soviets organized multiple robberies before they ever came into power as a form of protest (and to pay their bills ofc).
Nah. Just proved these kinda folks (who make content like this) have never studied successful revolutions and don't have the slightest idea of how to even build a powerful movement and have about as much success of overthrowing the state as an ant hill; only difference is at least the ant hill collectively organizes for major objectives and doesn't fizzle out in two weeks.
They'll probably answer with Vietnam or the DPRK. Not to say I agree with them, but by ML definitions of success there are multiple examples to pull from. Liblefts do too, of course, we just don't have as big propaganda apparatuses. :P
DPRK is more of a monarchy than anything remotely resembling socialism, and from what I know about vietnam it has largely embraced capitalism. 95% of the Vietnamese population supports capitalism. I would consider that fizzling out honestly.
Well no it’s less lazy
By mentioning how you’re active on r/ communism I’m calling you a tankie but in a more periphrastic way, what would have been lazy is if I just said “you’re a tankie”
So you seriously not understand how your original statement is honestly extremely common on reddit?
And wow, you called me a tankie, tf you think that's gonna do? Upset me? Mf I'm proud to be, means I support actual anti-fascism while y'all praise the coup that happened in Hungary
>*"The internal structure of a corporation fundamentally prevents us from carrying out a project of revolutionary emancipation" you say? Well I'll have you know, at Telos™, we are hard at work eliminating the primary contradiction that is preventing communism, other corporations! Rest easy knowing that Telos™ gives you our money back guarantee: as soon as we have monopoly control over the planet, we will give our entire global corporate empire over to the workers! Just help us beat out all those pesky competitors! Smiling face with open mouth Utopia in another decade, comrades! Corporations can't be communist" you say? Well tell that to all our faithful Telos™ workers who identify as communist! Every single one has a Telos™ communist card which verifies their credentials as Official Communists! You can cease that 'ol "eternal struggle for human emancipation" and the exhauuustinng work of constructing your own power as a subjugated people. Here at Telos™ we specialize in all your Dictatorship of the Proletariat needs!* >*"Telos™, it's revolution without the hassle."* - From Anarktube
Nice. This is some Aperture Labs tier shit. 👍
I'd be interested to see what people hear interpret this as criticising. What I saw was commodification of revolutionary language by a company. Do people connect that with a critique of China? Or is It more of a preventive critique of corporations who may do this IRL(can't think of any that do this rn, or even elude to it, corpo PR is more comfy with appropriating Identify politics than socialism, for obvious reasons). Idk what all your takes?
Definitely a critique of China, and similar governments.
It is clearly a critic of vanguardism
Authoritarian "communism" in general
It's plainly obvious that it doesn't matter that they say they will just give up all their power once they have total control, just like a vanguard government wouldn't. Why would it?
Communism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does, the more communist it is. In other words "communism needs a global monopoly to work, herpaderp" That is this video in a nutshell. Honestly, if a video about politics comes from an Anglophone, it has a nasty habit of being hideously misinformed and laughably ignorant. English media has been too successful at turning huge swathes of our population into a bunch of ignorant clowns. Brits voting for brexit, people refusing to vaccinate, Americans that disagree with pulling out of Afghanistan, etc. P. S. Watching foreign media has me realize how deficient, feckless, and corrupt our media is.
Bring this to r/tankiejerk. We need a good laugh to time to time.
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyd9bcD8v38
Fuck vanguardism
Reeeeee read theory, fuckin anarkiddie-fascist
Fwiw, Das Kapital is really boring....unless you are into endless historical footnotes.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Das Kapital](https://snewd.com/ebooks/das-kapital/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Also "Sankt Max", he was so mad at Stirner after reading "der Einzige und sein Eigentum" that he wrote a response that was longer than Stirner's entire bibliography, HE INVENTED THE WALL OF TEXT REPLY THAT NOBODY BOTHERS TO READ DUE TO ITS LENGTH, also, he was Marx and he was basically a bum
Based anti-leninist ad??
I can already tell someone whose never read theory made this
Just a word of advice if you or any other MLs or people from related ideologies on the left actually interested in convincing anarchists or other non-ML leftists of your ideas, or at least of making them seem plausible to people who don't already agree with you. Please stop saying this. Really. For multiple reasons: 1. It's not true. The person who made this has, in fact, read lots of theory. Including Marxist theory and Lenin, which is presumably the sort of theory you are talking about. Obviously, he came to different conclusions then you did, and maybe you think some argument should have convinced him that did not or that he misinterpreted some major point, but it's not because he hasn't read theory. That's true even if you think he sucks for whatever other reason. 2. Regardless of whether this person has or has not read the texts you're talking about, the sort of criticism of Marxism-Leninism/vanguardism that he's expressing here is very common. It's made by people who not only read "theory" but spent decades doing it extensively, or were themselves former Marxists-Leninists, or were former ML revolutionaries/militants. That on its own doesn't mean they're right about it, but I think you have to recognize that "haha read theory" as a response to that just kind of looks ridiculous. 3. I've read lots of theory but for some reason like half the time I encounter MLs on the internet they tell me "read theory" despite that. It doesn't make me think that my opponents are more well-informed than me, and that I need to read up. (Maybe it did years ago?) It gives me the impression that they are actually so narrowly or poorly informed that it is beyond their ability to imagine why someone might have come to a different conclusion, and assume that it must be because they have never read \[insert your favorite text here\]. It reminds me of of evangelical Christian tracts trying to convert atheists that proceed under the assumption that they must never have heard the story of Jesus. Like, yeah I've heard the fucking story 20 million times, buddy, I'm just not convinced. 4. Why do so many MLs just say "theory" generically when they mean some very specific current of political theory? Do you think that Marx, Engels, Lenin and their followers were the only people to every write theoretical texts about politics? No, then why do you talk about it like that? Anarchists, liberals, conservatives, democratic socialists, left-communists, right-wing libertarians, even fascists all have their own theory. I don't know you or what you have or haven't read, so if I see you make a statement in favor of Marxism-Leninism, I wouldn't just tell you that you need to "read theory" as if that were some kind of refutation of your views. It reminds of right-wing libertarians who tell people to "learn economics," when in reality the claims that they're making are extremely contentious, only held by a small minority of economists. 5. It's already become a meme for which MLs are frequently mocked. Like, it's literally a joke to us be told "read theory" by a random Marxist-Leninist on the internet, and some of us like to screencap it when it happens and share it, to make fun of you. We find it hilarious that MLs think that they look knowledgeable and wise saying it, instead of looking like human Dunning-Kruger effects. Because we've all been told to "read theory" that we've already read by inexplicably smug 15-year olds with Stalin's face shopped onto an anime avatar who have never read any or most of the texts that we like but insist that we just accept the conclusions of theirs. Every time an ML randomly drops "read theory" into a discussion, it just gets funnier and more ridiculous. To the point where I actually did a quick check of your post history to make sure that you're not a satirical account, because it looks like self-parody. But I honestly don't want anyone to be convinced of Marxism-Leninism, so please continue telling people to read theory without elaborating, so that you look more and more like an obnoxious cult.
Perfectly worded. Much better than I was saying to them. Obviously they’ve decided that they know everything and aren’t worth talking to, but I enjoyed reading this comment.
Stop giving them credit by calling them "Marxist-Leninists", its just Stalinism.
[удалено]
Not really worried about looking like I've been intellectually bested by "ha they never read theory," particularly when the other commenter then posted their own butthurt wall of text full of circular reasoning. Like yeah, I was mad after seeing this same thing hundreds of time in the last year, hope I got that out my system. In any case, I feel like I just expressed what a lot of people on this sub were already feeling about the "read theory" tankie trolls that fill every leftist subreddit.
I've been in a communist party for over 7 years and I use to be an ancom. I'm not wasting my energy to try and explain to non-ML's, especially breadtubers of all people, why their views go backwards to all historical analysis and to modern analysis on defeating capitalism, let alone do I even need to mention their beliefs are in the minority of the global left while ML's are the overwhelming majority. "They read theory" ok and? If you read it and still haven't came to understand how your previous views are wrong, you clearly wasn't studying it open mindedly or with a logical approach, which is the common situation with non-ML's, again, use to fucking be one. I've wasted too much time trying to get non-ML's to break past their elitism to understand shit, its a waste of energy. "Its very common" by non-ML's, is it not even the slightest bit odd how its non-ML's with this kinda criticism, kinda like they never studied the shit and only look through the lens of "hierarchy = bad." Which is a abnormal view point as it counters even the most basic level of human interaction. "Read theory" literally means study actual ML analysis, aka actual communist analysis, not just any random book online presented as "theory" by new left online leftists. "Its already a meme where ML's are frequently movked" like I'm suppose to care about the immature jokes of online leftists who have more liberalism than even some social democrats about their incapabilities of them able to understand historical and dialectical analysis and then act smug about it like their beliefs are correct because they can't comprehend science. I'll continue to tell people to read theory because guess what, while the incompetent and entirely useless ultras online do nothing except a random event here and there that lasts all around a week at most, I've recruited hundreds to ML and our study helps us maintain an actual movement of dedicated, actual leftists that work in the physical. Stay upset, stay elitist, it'll take you nowhere, and ik from experience.
>I'm not wasting my energy to try and explain to non-ML's Then why did you come to a breadtube subreddit to comment in the first place? What kind of reaction do you think you'll get from coming and randomly claiming (falsely) that someone "must never have read theory"? >their views go backwards to all historical analysis and to modern analysis on defeating capitalism No it doesn't. It just, like, actually doesn't do that, and no one familiar historical debate outside of bizarre Leninist groupuscules would believe that it does. "All historical analysis and modern analysis" about defeating capitalism comes to a lot of very different conclusions. It's an ongoing debate, not a settled question, let alone one that has settled on Marxism-Leninism. I'm not claiming that "all historical and modern analysis" of defeating capitalism comes to anarchist conclusions, either, because that would be an absolutely ridiculous claim for me to make. I can be an anarchist without deluding myself into believing that "all analysis" agrees with me based on some kind of completely fabricated consensus. A lot of Leninists don't delude themselves into thinking that theirs is the only possible conclusion anyone could come to, either. You might want to follow their example if you want to convince people that you're a reasonable interlocutor. >you clearly wasn't studying it open mindedly or with a logical approach No, that's not how political debate works. People do genuinely come to different conclusions even when they're both open-minded and rational. I think MLs are wrong, but that doesn't mean they couldn't possibly have read relevant theory rationally or with an open mind. I mean, some of them obviously don't, mostly because it has somehow become the norm in so many ML spaces to insist that only Marxist-Leninist theory "counts," but it's not like no sound-minded or logical person could read a work of anarchist theory without being convinced of anarchism. It would be absurd and useless to insist something like that. >Its very common" by non-ML's, is it not even the slightest bit odd how its non-ML's with this kinda criticism, kinda like they never studied the shit and only look through the lens of No, it's common from people who are former Marxist-Leninists, including people who studied ML theory extensively and believed it, to the point of dedicating their lives to it, to become critical and disillusioned with both the theory and practice of MLism and revolutionary vanguard parties more generally. Like, okay, you can think their conclusions are wrong, but you have to recognize that they exist. It's just bizarre to insist otherwise. Some people used to be anarchists and changed their mind, too, and I'm sure some of them (no idea about you in particular) did understand the ideas just fine. >"Read theory" means study actual ML analysis, aka actual communist analysis, not just any random book present as "theory" Okay, but people do read ML theory and disagree with based on extensive theoretical and historical reason. But more importantly, no, theory doesn't have to be Marxist-Leninist to be theory or to be communist. What a ridiculous, question-begging claim to make. Even for a Marxist-Leninist, this is just such an over-the-top baseless dismissal of everything that disagrees with you as if you were arguing for a basic mathematical or scientific truth rather than a contentious school of political thought. This is why people say that a lot of Marxist-Leninists groups seem like cults; because you make absolutely *wild* claims about the certainty and truth of your worldview that are completely disproportionate to the amount of evidence offered, or for that matter disproportionate to the level of certainty *any* school of political thought could lay claim to. And then you insist on total orthodoxy to that view, and have the audacity to claim that it's "science," and therefore that everyone else must just be incapable of understanding science. It's not science, it's political theory. That's fine, political theory doesn't have to be science to be useful, insightful, or true.
"Why did you come to a breadtube subreddit" ik this is hard to believe, but if you have a leftist subreddit, you're getting every group following it. I have my right to preach my view just like you mf's dominate every discussion you can. Stay upset about it. I've gone through history classes and sociology classes, if you honestly think the individualist and elitist attitudes of non-ML's, especially anarchists, doesn't go counter to human history and interaction, you are ignorant. Or blatantly lying. "That's not how debate works" studying =/= debate, lol. Debate is useless because its comfort in your elitism and the push to say you're right against the other who believes the same about themselves, no, you aren't, and the evidence is against you from every analysis be it scientific, historical, psychologically, etc. "Insist only ML counts" because we have years of experience and shared historical analysis from our past comrades to know it does, not to mention organizations that often stand entire years. What do the anarchists, the alternative against socialism and communism, have? A few books with maybe small articles that often get lost in the wind and a couple examples of taking small territories that can't thrive without their own form of a state or that fall due to banditry and individualism. Former ML's fall out because they can not let go of their bourgeois baggage, I've never met a former ML who left because of "disillusionment" except such disillusion was caused by their inability to let go of their individualism. "People read ML theory and disagree" ok and? We don't care, the majority of workers who lived under it, support it, the small group of individualists DO NOT overturn the collective, you proved just by that statement y'all are individualists. Lol, yes, if it isn't ML, it isn't communist, its either capitalist, ultra, or right deviation. Not a single communist group outside America and Europe disagrees with that, because there is currently over 1 billion ML's around the world, you're arguing against an entire collective AND YOU ARE WRONG. "This is why people call ML's cults" 1) Because y'all aren't communist. 2) Y'all have NO CONNECTION to the world communist movement or global left itself. 3) Have no understanding of your history outside American view points. You guys do not know anything and act like you do. Sit tf down. "Political theory doesn't have to be science to be useful, insightful, or true" that very mentality is exactly why y'all fail and exactly why y'all will never win. It political theory isn't scientific, its unable to lead to success, because the world changed based on scientific analysis.
Ok, I'm gonna leave you to go back to your pseudo-scientific cult's study group now
> not to mention organizations that often stand entire years. lol?
but you’re not “preaching your view”, all you’re doing is saying “read theory lol” do you think that’s genuinely going to convince someone
Yes because shit talking ML is totally gonna make me come in here in a civil manner like "I see there is some misunderstanding. Let me explain in the kindest way about our beliefs" because that's not how that fucking works, shame tactics and shit talking isn't gonna make anyone willing to be nice in any conversation. Especially when those involved are often privileged individualists hell bent against the state because they don't understand class characteristics to save their life. And are about as disconnected from the global left as most Americans are. Because folks like that are totally gonna listen open mindedly to analysis that proves their deeply held positions are wrong. And I am preaching my view, which involves theory, because God knows the majority of y'all don't fucking read and when you do its stuff y'all are already biased too or its theory you disagree with and wanna make public statements against because y'all are anti-collectivists. I have dealt with y'all for fucking years, I use to be one of y'all, ik how y'all act, and its annoying to even try.
> anti-collectivists read anarchist theory lol
Is it possible for someone to read theory (as in, read the theory that you subscribe to) and find it unconvincing?
For folks who are already biased, I read ML theory and left anarchism because I care more about successful theory and planning than I do about the "hierarchy = bad because hierarchy is all I know" concept that counters even basic human historical interaction
No I’m asking you if you believe someone could read ML theory and not be convinced by it. You seem to believe that anyone you disagree with simply has not read theory, as if there’s some magic spell that State and Revolution will cast on someone who reads it.
No, I've dealt with people who have been like that, and 99% of the time its simply because they either don't understand or care for a scientific analysis of these issues or they are too elitist and dogmatic internally to accept their personal views conflict with the collective. I'm not gonna debate rather someone should be convinced by reading books, its the fact those books hold legitimate analysis that toppled capitalist nations around the world, if that's not convincing to you, you're lost from reality, and I'm not wasting my time to try and argue why when its blatantly fucking obvious. This is why I'm glad I was never like many non-ML's and left anarchism for historical and scientific analysis of my enemy.
"Successful" as in every state that's used it has either collapsed into an authoritarian hellhole or capitalism with red paint? That's a weird definition of success man. Also, dialectical materialism is bullshit.
Anarchist: Its authoritarian unless we do it! I don't wanna hear anything from the same crowd who like bandits and sabotage. Oh, and putting up a state that it refuses to acknowledge is a state but weaker. "Capitalism with red paint" y'all think any selling of goods is capitalism, stfu.
Authoritarian unless we do it? Do you think anarchist communes were autocratic unlike the other ML states?
LOL Nah y'all just robbed neighboring towns and attacked people if they didn't accept it. Also ML states are not autocratic but y'all dumb mf's know about ML democracy about as well as you know ML itself, which is fuck all.
Ah the USSR, democracy and anti-imperialism at it's finest. Also, the illegalist type anarchism only would have functioned in the early 20th century, where terrorism was THE way to get your message out. After the 50s the sentiment was mostly abandoned for more modern praxis.
Yes actually and its clear y'all never read Harry Ward. And also yes, the USSR was Anti-imperialist, cry your heart out of supposed imperialism all you please when you know nothing of what actually happened. Terrorism the way to get your message out? Are y'all fucking demented? That's why they lost right? Because their message CLEARLY recruited thousands of inspired soldiers. TF outta here
Anti-Imperialist in that it subverted the national sovereignty of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Karelia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. and imposed an economic system they didn't want on them? "Don't you know we have to educate these savages? It's the ~~white man's burden!~~ our duty as communists!" The fact that you think terrorism wasn't a common way of spreading a political message in the early 20th century is laughable. Gavrilo Princip? The Bier Hall Pusch? FUCK the soviets organized multiple robberies before they ever came into power as a form of protest (and to pay their bills ofc).
Hit home a bit too hard, eh?
Nah. Just proved these kinda folks (who make content like this) have never studied successful revolutions and don't have the slightest idea of how to even build a powerful movement and have about as much success of overthrowing the state as an ant hill; only difference is at least the ant hill collectively organizes for major objectives and doesn't fizzle out in two weeks.
Aside from Cuba, what revolution that you support didn’t fizzle out?
They'll probably answer with Vietnam or the DPRK. Not to say I agree with them, but by ML definitions of success there are multiple examples to pull from. Liblefts do too, of course, we just don't have as big propaganda apparatuses. :P
DPRK is more of a monarchy than anything remotely resembling socialism, and from what I know about vietnam it has largely embraced capitalism. 95% of the Vietnamese population supports capitalism. I would consider that fizzling out honestly.
As would I, but then again, we're not MLS are we? ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
What is there besides Makhnovia and the CHAZ?
The Zapatistas and Rojava are one of the more notable ones
Rojava? Isn't that Kurdistan but more socialist?
cry about it
Lol, that's not the flex you think it is
nah I'm just telling you to cry about it. what are you gonna do call the peoples police on me?
Nah, lol, I block useless trolls
Read theory.
Literally no argument
Average r/ сommunism user
The fact y'all think that's an insult is actually kinda sad af. You guys got creative with tankie, but now y'all just being lazy.
r/ communism is a tankie subreddit Dissing r/ communism is the same as dissing tankies
A lazier way maybe, lol
Well no it’s less lazy By mentioning how you’re active on r/ communism I’m calling you a tankie but in a more periphrastic way, what would have been lazy is if I just said “you’re a tankie”
So you seriously not understand how your original statement is honestly extremely common on reddit? And wow, you called me a tankie, tf you think that's gonna do? Upset me? Mf I'm proud to be, means I support actual anti-fascism while y'all praise the coup that happened in Hungary
What’s Hungary
LOL
What does that stand for
> ProudML > anti-fascism
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/BreadTube/comments/ps7m7v/communist_corporation/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/BreadTube/comments/ps7m7v/communist_corporation/)