What would good comrade Lenin do
Why do people think the five heads are some Game of Throne characters with "preferred" "successors"
Trots are especially into these succession games. Always weird monarchist-like (sex) cults where there's a king and he appoints his successor. No semblance of democratic centralism whatsoever.
Being a Kautskyist in the Year of Our Lord 2024 is something that could only happen from being terminally online
If someone unironically calls themselves a Kautskyist there is a high chance they have a humiliation kink.
Goddamn, a significant amount of commies in the country where I live consider themselves some absurd combination of "Post-Trotsky Kautskyists" and I haven't a damn clue how it's unironic. It's mistaking ideological positions for methods and analysis. Pisses me off
He doesn't even have the good skills of Trotsky
He doesn't deserve the pickaxe, but rather deserves getting mocked for the rest of his life for being a Marxist Philistine instead of a Marxist Leninist...
Tbf, Kautsky is best known for being dunked on by Lenin. So you got your wish granted.
this is unfair, during his time kautsky was the most popular and well known marxist. that didn't change until after the october revolution
That’s in his time, REEE was referring to now. Plus what use is being popular if your legacy is one of humiliation and being comically wrong on some very significant points that you staked your claim on?
what about what he staked his claims on would be particularly damaging because I feel like in a post-soviet collapse world his writings and beliefs would resonate quite well with people who are anti-soviet union and its legacy along with the derrived countries and ideologies like china and trotskyism but also find themselves thoroughly revolutionary unlike social democrats and pro-organization unlike anarchists
His main claim was the Lenin and the Bolsheviks had turned the Soviet Union into a “dictatorship” by “prematurely” executing the October Revolution in 1917. He claimed that this set back world socialism by decades, would ruin the Soviet Union, and was completely unaligned with the ideals of Marx, Engles, and himself. Hence why Lenin dunked on him with one of the hardest diss tracks in several essays pulling his points apart at the seams.
He further rejected the notion of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, was apathetic to the power wielded by labour unions, and was essentially an idealist anarchist in practice. This is absurd, as how do you reach a communist world, without one of its key and major steps? The world has yet to see a Kaustky based approach because it is all but impossible.
Also who cares about “anti-Soviet Union” chuds? Is that really the audience you want to pander to?
He was disliked and rejected by Luxembourg, Lenin (obviously), Stalin, Trotsky even, Mao, and many more. Guess which side was right in the end?
I am not trying to pander to any sort of audience only talking about the attractiveness of kautsky and his beliefs to people today and giving my theory why. I’m also not very convinced by your line of reasoning because all you’ve said besides appealing to a number of historical figures not agreeing with him is saying he didn’t believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat which is confusing because he wrote an entire pamphlet called “the dictatorship of the proletariat” explaining how he believed in it and believed what russia was doing was not the dictatorship of the proletariat. especially weird since you included rosa luxembourg who famously considered russia to be a police state not adhering to the dictatorship of the proletariat
Kautskys pamphlet is literal dog water. He tried to essentially create his own definition for the “Dictatorship” that was rejected by every contemporary socialist. This is basic socialist knowledge. Have you read any criticism of him, or have you only read his theory? You chose a comical figure to stake your own claim on. The majority of his works are a joke.
What? Rosa Luxembourg died in 1919. She was talking about the Russian Empire. Are you serious?
I’m sorry, but you are both extremely unread and it painfully shows, or you are arguing in bad faith. I hate saying it but sometimes it’s required….. read theory. And not a single disgraced figureheads.
the russian empire did not exist in 1919… is your history that poor?
and here is a quote from rosa luxembourg on the russian revolution
The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky, oppose dictatorship to democracy. “Dictatorship or democracy” is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of “democracy,” that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.
as you can read for yourself she did not consider bolshevik russia to be a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship following the bourgeois model of a handful of people. now I ask again can you actually put out an argument instead of pointing to “rejection by every contemporary socialist” and calling him names please? no need to follow such a childish argumentation style
Yeah, it’s so weird how the Russian “Republic” was all just the same ministers from the Russian empire. Headed by generals and politicians that were core members of the Russian empire. It’s so weird how the White forces wanted to restore the Tsar too…. Weird…. It was almost like the name change was a lie to try and placate the people…
Also oh my god, the Soviet Union was not an official state in 1919. Nice cherry picking of quotes too; completely unsourced and without context. She was referring to how she disagreed with the exact model of the Bolshevik power structure, not the Soviet Union because it didn’t exist moron.
Also even in your own cherry picked quote. Did you notice how she derided Kautsky for being essentially a bourgeoisie shill? She calls him an electoralist and unsocialist for wanting to push for participation in bourgeoisie “democracy”. Even your own quote proves my point. Zero reading comprehension.
You are 100% arguing in bad faith or you are trolling with how oblivious you are. Kautsky is a joke, and I hope you like following the words of a man that have never been put into use, and is regarded as a joke by his contemporaries.
I’m sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about, and you are about as dense as a brick. Have a good one.
even if that were true and the russian republic was literally the exact same as the russian empire the october revolution happened in 1917... cmon dude you're talking out of your ass here
Are you high? The Russian civil war ended in 1923. Have you ever opened a history book? Are you a child? I’m sorry, you are either 10 years old or one of the densest people I have ever spoken to.
right now I think I know the problem. you don't know the history of the russian civil war. it only took the bolsheviks about a week to take over most of the largest population centers and by russian new year they controlled the majority of russia and were implementing their policy on the country. please just watch this youtube video so you have a general idea of the timeline of events https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLDz5QIjQb0
I’m Belarusian you moron 😂😂😂 my family fought in the civil war.
Educate me harder on my own history, cmon, it’s fun! I’m sure you’re an expert, right?
Your source is a fucking MS paint YouTube video? My god, you really are the a genius. I’m not even going to argue this anymore. You are actually 10 years old or an imbecile.
Keep moving the goalposts! Maybe you’ll come out on top!
What a waste of time.
you being belarusian just makes this so much more sader for me that you don't know your own history. I have to wonder for whose government the red army was fighting for for in the civil war after trotsky established it on the 28th of january 1918 and how they're getting guns and ammunition and food if the bolsheviks were not in charge of russia. or wtf you think Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика means which was established on the 7th of november 1917
That’s your problem. You’re a genuine idiot who thinks that they’re a genius and that other people are “sad” for what, not being the intellectual titan you are?
Have a good one mate, I’m not replying anymore. You’re a very sad individual. Read a book you fucking moron. Jesus Christ you are insufferable with how out of touch and stupid you are. Usually liberals are this bad, but you might as well be one with how you’re a Kautsky fanboy.
See you around. Also fuck you for implying I don’t know my own history. Insufferable asshole.
https://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnst1918.htm
literally just read this and tell me if the date at the top is before or after 1919
its okay to admit you're wrong. sorry if hist.msu.ru is not a good enough citation for you. I dunno if moscow state university is an authoritative enough source or if I need to go back to youtube videos
send as many clown emojis as you want dude. you know I know that you know you were wrong and whether or not you slept through history class in belarus or whatever country you were raised in has nothing to do with the simple fact rosa died after the russian soviet federative socialist republic was established and the bolsheviks were in control of the country. its such a dumb hill to die on
🤡😂
Wittle baby temper tantrum because they have about the same level of intelligence as a rock. Aww, gonna cry some more? I’m laughing at you. You’re a joke. I’m not going to bother spending time interacting with you because you are really that goddamn stupid.
Wahhh wahhh wahhh 😂
I get it. you're immature and are unable to concede a point. you really should reflect back on the fact I literally haven't called you a single name while you've been calling me unread, dense, high, a child, an imbecile, insufferably stupid, insufferably an asshole, along with other things.
You don’t get to take the moral high road here. You have been gaudy, pretentious, and insufferable. I stand by everything I’ve said.
I’m not going to reflect on anything because you have been worse then a liberal with how poorly you have approached this conversation. How much did you shift the goal posts?
Anyway 🤡
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
The Deprogram sub when Hakim quotes Deng Xiaoping (they still don't get that the podcast is 75% ML)
Here's Lenin's response to the faux-Marxist liberal Kautsky: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/oct/10.htm
Still just as relevant today as when it was written, still just as potent in slapping down the same idealist nonsense that left-liberals continue to repeat ad nauseam, channeling Kautsky without even knowing it.
Some excerpts from the piece:
Kautsky assures his reader-in a perfectly serious and extremely “learned” tone-that what Marx meant by “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” was not a “form of governing” that precludes democracy, but a state, namely, “a state of rule”. And the rule of the proletariat, as the majority of the population, is possible with the strictest observance of democracy [...]
Incredible, but there we are! That is exactly the way Kautsky argues and he angrily accuses the Bolsheviks of violating “democracy” in their Constitution and throughout their policy; and he takes every opportunity to energetically preach “the democratic instead of the dictatorial method”.
This is a complete desertion to the opportunists [...], who have declared more frankly and honestly that they do not accept Marx’s doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the ground that it runs counter to democracy.
[...]
It is a complete renunciation of the proletarian revolution, which is replaced by the liberal theory of “winning a majority” and “utilising democracy"! Kautsky the renegade has completely forgotten, distorted and thrown overboard everything Marx and Engels taught for forty years, from 1852 to 1891, demonstrating the need for the proletariat to “smash” the bourgeois state machine.
[...]
Kautsky has renounced Marxism by forgetting that every state is a machine for the suppression of one class by another, and that the most democratic bourgeois republic is a machine for the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian state, which is a machine for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, is not a “form of governing”, but a state of a different type. Suppression is necessary because the bourgeoisie will always furiously resist being expropriated.
[...]
Bourgeois democracy, which is invaluable in educating the proletariat and training it for the struggle, is always narrow, hypocritical, spurious and false; it always remains democracy for the rich and a swindle for the poor.
Proletarian democracy suppresses the exploiters, the bourgeoisie—and is therefore not hypocritical, does not promise them freedom and democracy—and gives the working people genuine democracy.
[...]
Kautsky has thrown overboard the “class struggle” as applied to democracy! Kautsky has become a downright renegade and a lackey of the bourgeoisie.
[...]
Kautsky has to admit that the Soviet form of organisation is of world-wide, and not only of Russian significance [...] But, imitating the wisdom of the Mensheviks, who have happily sided with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat, Kautsky “deduces” that the Soviets are all right as “battle organisations”, but not as “state organisations”.
Marvellous! Form up in Soviets, you proletarians and poor peasants! But, for God’s sake, don’t you dare win! Don’t even think of winning! The moment you win and vanquish the bourgeoisie, that will be the end of you; for you must not be “state” organisations in a proletarian state. In fact, as soon as you have won you must break up!
[...]
Well, isn’t this man Kautsky a real revolutionary? He is heart and soul for revolution ... provided there is no serious struggle threatening annihilation! He has completely “overcome” the old errors of old Engels, who so enthusiastically lauded the educational value of violent revolutions. Like the “serious” historian he is, he has completely renounced the delusions of those who said that civil war steels the exploited and teaches them to build a new society without exploiters.
[...]
Europe’s greatest misfortune and danger is that it has no revolutionary party. It has parties of traitors like the Scheidemanns, Renaudels, Hendersons, Webbs and Co., and of servile souls like Kautsky. But it has no revolutionary party.
Preaching to the choir here, but man it really seems like all these "I'm a different kind of socialist/communist" boutique tendencies with like 3 adherents are a kind of outflow of the western progressive's desire to have good beliefs in the face of obvious capitalist evil colliding with a lifetime of anticommunist propaganda that makes them shirk the label unless it has a million little qualifiers tacked on. Like they want to triangulate a position that will get them the cool rebel clout but that also doesnt have the historical baggage that would impede them from moving into PMC circles. They want to vive Cube but still shit on le CCP. They want it all in one bag, but they don't want the bag to be heavy. They want diet, zero sugar communism.
Well no, that's giving them too much credit. They want to be lauded as cool sexy revolutionaries while still enjoying the treats of imperialism.
the western progressive’s desire to have good beliefs in the face of obvious capitalist evil colliding with a lifetime of anticommunist propaganda that makes them shirk the label unless it has a million little qualifiers tacked on
this was so well put and extremely accurate. it wasn't that long ago that I was reading marx and absorbing myself in history but still battling with this removedling little propaganda bug in my brain telling me that it's somehow inherently wrong. i wanted to talk about it with people without having to be on the backfoot defending legitimate tragedies as well as propaganda. it took me awhile to realize that's the exact position capital wants to keep communism in.
They want diet, zero sugar communism.
should be writing opinion pieces or articles or something, you have a good way with words
Thanks a bunch comrade, I would kind of like to get into writing
Yeah that's what I felt before... Cuz the mainstream media kept shatting on the AES I liked...
What is with that place? Are they ML, or just a bunch of edgy western leftists? Or both?
There's some ML there, but for most regulars dialectical materialism and understanding of imperialism is sorely lacking and shallow. They also often have centrist and proreligious threads there.
Tbf Hakim and yugo are religious so I don't find the pro religious threads to be surprising
It is surprising in the place claiming to be marxist, i don't mean the usual discussion about tactical relations to religion but massive apologia.
Which again isn't weird considering that this is very much the position of two of the hosts. I am not saying I necessarily agree with it but it makes complete sense for the subreddit to be like this.
the CPC has allowed muslims to be members during large parts of china's history and most members don't consider themselves athiests in different polls that have been taken. other countries like afghanistan allowed people to be religious in their parties and theres video proof of many of them praying at mosques and such. its not as outlandish as you'd be lead to believe
That is not correct, party statute demands atheism from their members. I suppose they might allow muslims to join as long as they would at least pretend, but i doubt they would allow things like open participation. Or they might look the other way at such violations, CPC was pretty full of corruption at times and i wouldn't be surprised it still happens.
About Afghanistan, maybe, but it did not helped them in a long run.
And again, you make the same assumption as deprogram crowd, to confuse principles with tactics. It's not outlandish, it's "just" a mistake and a revision.
While China is very lenient on religion and the freedom of religion is enjoyed as long as it's free from imperial influences, it doesn't allow CPC members to be adherents to religions officially though they are lax at times at upholding this.
You may be thinking of North Korea which has a long history of Christians in its government since it's inception.
I mean it's generally pretty good. You're just always going to occasionally see some stupid comment posted, just because that's how reddit is.
If you list an incredibly specific thing instead of a currently-active political party, you're not a serious leftist and are in fact an online larper.
Kautkysim is somewhat still a thing just as bersteinism and even lassalism, just not separate. It was Lasalle that put the cornerstone of today socialdemocracy, Bernstein bastardised marxism to the point of being outwardly similar but opposite in actual idea, and Kautsky propelled that to the socialimperialism.
But it isn't being called Lassalism-Bernsteinism-Kautskyism, it's just being called "socialdemocracy". Most succdems just don't know nor care about their origins. This one is a rare one that do know at least something.
No, Kautskyism is opportunism, part of socialdemocracy, not an ultra tendency. Same with christian socialism.
