Stalin did nothing wrong, the kulaks deserved it, Stalin is daddy. Only the dirty bourgeoisie capitalists disapprove of stalin, but they support the dirty kulaks so they get the bullet too.


Are you baiting, or do you want a legitimate discussion about Stalinism?


im joking lol, kinda. idk i don’t like communism at all but if I had to choose a path ig it’d be stalinism. I’m just bored w/ america rn and want something different, and with a lotta people trying to jump on the socialist/communist bandwagon there’s no harm in trying to personally benefit from it lol.


I say jump on the anarcho-capitalist bandwagon. It seems like more fun.


True true, but like to me that seems like an oxymoron, because if you need corporations to run everything, than they’d have to work together to make sure they can get a profit, because, for example, the market would need roads to get their products to consumers. Also I don’t see how dispute resolution can be solved by the market, in stalinism there’s a strong state so. Yeah. I disapprove of anarchy in general also lol.


Anarchism disagrees with Stalinism and Leninism on the basis of the necessity of a vanguard party to manage working-class affairs as anarchists trust workers to be able to manage themselves.This is yet another reason why “Anarcho”-capitalism is an oxymoron,as well as the obvious fact that capitalism is a top-down,vertically-managed hierarchical form of organization whilst anarchism tends to favor horizontal,directly democratic organization.


Yeah and that’s pretty dumb though. Like I understand why people may want communal ownership of the means of production (though i disagree with it really) but a hierarchy is essentially inevitable unless you have like a group of 20 people. Someone is gonna see themselves as better and/or the people won’t be able to come to a decision on stuff. People also seem to think that anarchy is progressive, which is stupid to me. While there may be more progressive people, what happens when a bunch of traditionalists (or progressives) form a voluntary organization and start ridding people they disapprove of. “but wait, other people can just form another group and fight back.” Then we’d just have groups fighting each-other, forming coalitions, and yaddah yaddah. Anarchism will always lead to a state, and a state will always have to be revamped in order to be effective for the times.


Contrary to liberal,social conservative,fascist and Marxist dogma,there is a distinction between social relationships which form naturally and hierarchies who are both violently and normatively enforced by The State and economic authorities.Did you know many of the earliest societies and religious communities had anarchist structures?,_California,_California


If we are to begin at the starting point of agreeing with communism in principle, I’m sure the Kulaks did, largely, ‘deserve it’. They were land owners who fought against collectivisation because of their own greed and sense that they deserved to own large amounts of land which they could never look after properly by themselves. They also hoarded food when there was starvation in the country.
The Kulaks used the working peasants to make themselves more wealthy at the working peasants expense. And THEN, when it came to the point where these working peasants were in need of food, the Kulaks broke the law and turned their back on them.


Communism itself is a horrible idea; it disregards the inevitability of markets in society and basic human instincts (not necessarily that all humans are greedy, but rather no matter what a substantial portion of humans will be greedy). Socialism, at least in terms of the democratic workplace, is sustainable so long as it recognizes the inevitability of markets and seeks to reform them rather than undertake the futile task of eliminating them.

Even within communism tho, Leninism and Stalinism are definitely the worst, pretty much only challenged by the Fascist-ML-NazBol hybrid that is North Korea’s Juche policy (and by extension similar systems like Hoxhaism) and of course Pol Pot’s primitivist “”“communism”""

With that said, I don’t think that Marx should be taken as the end-all-be-all that many socialists do view him as. He had valid points, but sticking to his doctrine without altering it to adapt to new realizations or changes is just stupid. Ideologies are already unpragmatic, but Orthodox Marxism is antithetical to any form of reason, logic, or empiricism


opens several books, some from marx himself, others various famous marxist intellectuals and with a deep breath begins to state several quotes

(if anyone wants actual quotes ill give yous plenty lol)


Clarification please.