left communists. it’s a good thing.

yep, if you're interested read
left communism an infantile disorder by Lenin

just overall idealistic ideologies which reject any living existence of socialism and get nothing done. Socialism must fit their Puritan characteristics for them to get their support

Leftcoms are armchair activists

i’ve found them to be the most pragmatic and active advocate’s for socialism.

I think marxist-leninism fails to reward workers the means of production. I’m generally against politburo’s as well.

Not exactly bc anarchists for example are also opposed to ML but they're not leftcoms

Leftcommunism is a reaction to Marxism-Leninism with their own particular critiques of ML ideology, it's not just anybody who isn't ML

puritan characteristics? I think most leftcom’s take issue with marxist-leninism because it has yet to succeed in fulfilling the necessary qualifiers of socialism.

That doesn't say much bc what other leftist movement has?

I think the Rojava socialist experiment went quite well until the US pulled their troops and were invaded by the turk’s.

i think this is a great point but no other ideology has made socialism work on such a grand scale, and for as long, and still staying intact despite horrible events happening internally/domestically (i think of the Chinese famine, and Stalin fighting the nazis)

This mfer said Rojava

I don’t think there’s many positive examples of socialism to point to and there’s a few reasons why:

• many “socialist” countries run with a very perverse interpretation of socialism. i am hesitant to even label them as such. (china, ussr, north korea, etc)

• US intervention. I’m sure we both understand this point.

• many socialist experiments are done in small regions with lackluster defenses.

yes. you disagree?

like I have nothing against other ideologies
I was anarchist for a while

but looking materially at history anarchism/ any other left ideology isn't winning in my book, they just aren't successful (successful may mean something different to you)

if some other ideology comes up and ppl get inspired by rojava, and they create a living socialist state which goes against all odds, and it proves to be stronger and it proves to fix all the qualms of MLism, hell yeah i (and everyone else here) will cease to be MLs

but this just isn't the case, therefore being an ML or MLM is probably the most material a***ysis for me and people who have the same definition of successful as me

it's always the example haha

What has marxist-leninism accomplished in the name of socialism? Help me understand your perspective.

rapidly industrialized semi-feudal countries of the ussr and china

survived multiple wars

abolished homelessness; free education; healthcare; abolished commodity production (this includes your job, so you are now guaranteed a job), all while being anti imperialist .. etc

many other examples. that's a success to me. what's a success to you?

USSR and China are just two countries. Many more to name

I just don’t see how any of this could be considered socialism. I think on paper, this all sounds great. I just don’t see how any of this fixes economic inequality. I also think the material conditions of these countries were still hell for most of the people living there. Maybe this is an uncharitable interpretation, but these countries just read as state capitalist to me.

I would consider a socialist experiment successful if the workers directly own the means of production. bare minimum.

Well every revolution has outside forces that come in its way. ML revolutions didn't just not have support from the US, but have had fullblown wars against the US. You have to take that into account, and ML revolutions have had the most longevity despite the opposition of all historically

Then there has literally never been a successful revolution that lasted longer than a week

If that's your standard sure, but it's not a critique against Marxism Leninism, because it applies to all socialist movements

I agree. a sudden revolution and change in management results in a vulnerable state. perhaps, it’s better to make reforms in the direction you want to go, push the system as much as possible, and revolt once you’ve exceeded to the threshold. That way, you have a better foundation to work with.

I don’t think any revolution is successful if the workers don’t own the means of production. what was the revolution for?