Is Marxism-Leninism growing on this website?

With the thread "Why do some people support Stalinism?" I've noticed it seems like MLism is going through a period of strength on Revleft. A few months ago with the whole ********** thing anti-Leninism was stronger than ever and there were only a handful of us posting anything, but now it seems like we're coming back and actually winning some of these ideological battles. We've also gotten some new users who support Marxism-Leninism.

I know it's not much, we're just an internet forum after all, but at least the message seems to be getting out there now.

I think it is growing in general... however it still has a long, long way to go before Marxism-Leninism is the true and strong force for proletarian emancipation that it should be.

Yes, but nothing near as what it could and maybe should be, looking at the terrible situation capitalism is now in. We have a long road to go, but we are slowly increasing.

You could say that this was a result of usefull and mindfull posting made by MLs, you could cleary see that over the years, the only way that stalinists were capable of constantly surviving sometimes pretty dishonest attacks, bannings (something that affects all tendencies no matter who they are; something that virtually killed revleft maoism) and overall the aggressive debating style of this site was through principled and well written posts by MLs. If you look carefully, it is kind of obvious, in a place where nobody seems to take you seriosly, your opinions are completely discredited and you are looked down upon as a ''stalin kiddie'', nothing better than to fully source and legitimise your views in a completely serious and mature way. Besides MLism was never capable to grow only through snide one-liners because one way or another it would enter in conflict with the biggest one-liners here.

I know that it is silly to base real life politics after internet politics, but I honestly think the lesson learned here is fully appliable anywhere, in spite of coming from the internet. That the only way to make Marxism-Leninism a real political force again is through scientific defense of its principles, as it is written in the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims."

Don't take this downturn in anti-Communist, anti-Leninist, and anti-Stalinist rhetoric fool you. We are still not growing on the site. There been a large number of members that have been banned or have given up the cause of posting on the site. In addition we have lost the neo-Stalinist and the Stalinist group. The neo-Stalinist group had a post similar to Ismail's "My notes and quotes I've collected" post, which is now lost.

I think the reason why you see a downturn though in trolling against our group, is because the very nature of trolling is a fad. Which goes in and out with the increase and decrease of acceptance of capitalism. When capitalism is more accepted you see a decrease in people looking for alternative and therefore a decrease in trolling by people against our group. However when capitalism breaks down and becomes more repulsive, more people begin looking for an alternative method which leads many to consider Stalinism an alternative. This is when the trolls being coming out to where the people are and begin delivering their "one-liners".

New members join this group all the time, and is no different than when we are seeing a upturn in anti-Leninism, or the corresponding downturn. The only true way that we can tell if anti-revisionism is on the rise is if we see more skilled debates in the Marxist-Leninist form.

I'm not trying to push the Marxist-Leninist forum too hard, but I really wish we had a place where the moderation team didn't hate us. I've seen admins openly express their dislike of Marxist-Leninists again and again. The deletion of groups is further proof of this. Hell, if I'm not mistaken Marxist-Leninists weren't even allowed on Revleft when it was first created.

Even the subreddit r/communism on reddit.com has a better atmosphere (They have a "Stalin Clause" which basically removes all sectarianism).

I am pushing the ML-forum.

¡JOIN JOIN JOIN!
http://marxistleninist.proboards.com/
http://marxistleninist.proboards.com/

Hell, if I'm not mistaken Marxist-Leninists weren't even allowed on Revleft when it was first created.

This is true and ironically it was like that when it was called (try not to laugh as hard as it is) 'Che Lives'... whether you agree with Guevara's views on certain issues it is ironic that an "Anti-Stalinist" site was named after a guy that used to salute a picture of the man!

This is true and ironically it was like that when it was called (try not to laugh as hard as it is) 'Che Lives'... whether you agree with Guevara's views on certain issues it is ironic that an "Anti-Stalinist" site was named after a guy that used to salute a picture of the man!

And who was sympathetic to the Chinese/Albanian line vis-Ã*-vis Khrushchev.

I'm not trying to push the Marxist-Leninist forum too hard, but I really wish we had a place where the moderation team didn't hate us. I've seen admins openly express their dislike of Marxist-Leninists again and again. The deletion of groups is further proof of this. Hell, if I'm not mistaken Marxist-Leninists weren't even allowed on Revleft when it was first created.

Even the subreddit r/communism on reddit.com has a better atmosphere (They have a "Stalin Clause" which basically removes all sectarianism).

you're not the first, to champion the idea of an anti-revisionist only form. Even the leader of this group when I came here championed this idea. He was banned later as are so many other people in this group. But the form that each strive to create failed in its goals. This happens time and time again we try to break a anti-revisionist only form and no one uses it. Hell I've even championed the idea of only posting in this forum, and not very little to no reaction from our group.

The problem seems to be more of that we are now a history club than a theoretical debate group. We can answer questions like why Lenin did that and why Stalin did this, but when we are asked deep theoretical questions by an average person we give no response.

I remember a time when someone posted on this form "what was the difference between internationalism and imperialism "(does anyone remember which post that was?), and even I was stumped by the question. Most the time we just quote other people's works and post them in this form is and was a database my attempts to turn us from a history club to a now or today relevant debate group has failed multiple times. But if anyone here is ever wishing to ask you work on some theories just PM me.

Hell, if I'm not mistaken Marxist-Leninists weren't even allowed on Revleft when it was first created.

This is true and ironically it was like that when it was called (try not to laugh as hard as it is) 'Che Lives'... whether you agree with Guevara's views on certain issues it is ironic that an "Anti-Stalinist" site was named after a guy that used to salute a picture of the man!

Oh man, that is simply hilarious!

you're not the first, to champion the idea of an anti-revisionist only form. Even the leader of this group when I came here championed this idea. He was banned later as are so many other people in this group. But the form that each strive to create failed in its goals. This happens time and time again we try to break a anti-revisionist only form and no one uses it. Hell I've even championed the idea of only posting in this forum, and not very little to no reaction from our group.

The problem seems to be more of that we are now a history club than a theoretical debate group. We can answer questions like why Lenin did that and why Stalin did this, but when we are asked deep theoretical questions by an average person we give no response.

I remember a time when someone posted on this form "what was the difference between internationalism and imperialism "(does anyone remember which post that was?), and even I was stumped by the question. Most the time we just quote other people's works and post them in this form is and was a database my attempts to turn us from a history club to a now or today relevant debate group has failed multiple times. But if anyone here is ever wishing to ask you work on some theories just PM me.

I always try to answer theoretical questions on this site. My strengths actually lie more in Marxist and Leninist theory, I have to admit I'm kind of ignorant in historical matters, I always just let Ismail and others deal with that.

Also, internationalism is merely an ideological movement to establish cooperation beyond national borders, whereas imperialism is the actual economic exploitation of one country by another, mostly through military means.

This is true and ironically it was like that when it was called (try not to laugh as hard as it is) 'Che Lives'... whether you agree with Guevara's views on certain issues it is ironic that an "Anti-Stalinist" site was named after a guy that used to salute a picture of the man!

That is bizarre and I did not know that. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, the Cuban revolution has been denounced by left-opportunists since its inception.

I am pushing the ML-forum.

¡JOIN JOIN JOIN!
http://marxistleninist.proboards.com/
http://marxistleninist.proboards.com/

I will take this opportunity to push our own forum.

http://towardsanewdawn.boards.net/

Due to various practical reasons, the people who run that forum cannot be online consistently. So we look forward to a huge, active, foreign membership. Join today, to study and uphold the struggle in India!

I will take this opportunity to push our own forum.

http://towardsanewdawn.boards.net/

Due to various practical reasons, the people who run that forum cannot be online consistently. So we look forward to a huge, active, foreign membership. Join today, to study and uphold the struggle in India!

To be fair, our forum is Marxist-Leninist, while yours is not.
At least, the last time I went on there someone asked if Stalin was left-wing or right-wing.

To be fair, our forum is Marxist-Leninist, while yours is not.

Your forum bans posters from other tendencies, which is one of its main drawbacks, despite its good theoretical level of discussions. I have gone through several posts in Revleft and found that your forum was a reaction to the banning of several MLs here, which explains the hostility towards other tendencies.

However, our forum is based on struggles taking place in several corners of the world and specifically in India. So we follow the same principles that would apply to the struggles as well. We allow leftists from all tendencies, and even open liberals and anarcho-capitalists to debate and defend their points. Basically, everyone other than direct apologists of imperialism are allowed as long as they don't troll or flame. We are more interested in winning over individuals from various ideological backgrounds than remaining a closed discussion forum for those who are already MLs.

Our forum is ML in the same sense that this one (Revleft) is liberal. Here everyone is allowed to post, but the dominant undertone; the one pushed by administrators etc. along with several other posters, is liberal. All of the administrators affiliate with tendencies that are closely associated with liberalism. Hence the hostility towards MLs. So this place is chiefly good for drawing potential communists to disguised liberalism. We apply the same techniques to push Marxism-Leninism in our forum.

While I don't deny the importance of a forum like yours, which is for discussions among MLs themselves, it is also worthwhile posting in our forum if you want to debate other tendencies without being targeted by trolls and admins who are anti-ML.

At least, the last time I went on there someone asked if Stalin was left-wing or right-wing.

That is perfectly okay. It is quite natural for someone brainwashed by capitalist propaganda to ask that question. And it is our duty to place our facts and arguments in front of them.

Your forum bans posters from other tendencies, which is one of its main drawbacks, despite its good theoretical level of discussions. I have gone through several posts in Revleft and found that your forum was a reaction to the banning of several MLs here, which explains the hostility towards other tendencies.

Just one thing, it isn't about hostility (though many M-Ls are as hostile to other tendencies as many other tendencies are to M-Ls) it is just specifically a spcifically M-L board in the same way that this group is specifically an M-L group.

Just one thing, it isn't about hostility (though many M-Ls are as hostile to other tendencies as many other tendencies are to M-Ls) it is just specifically a spcifically M-L board in the same way that this group is specifically an M-L group.

Okay, I understand your point, but it's an 'ML-only' group rather than just being ML.

I always try to answer theoretical questions on this site. My strengths actually lie more in Marxist and Leninist theory, I have to admit I'm kind of ignorant in historical matters, I always just let Ismail and others deal with that.

I pretty much do the same thing, and let the others who are more versed in the historical matters defend the anti-revisionist cause. Though some of my theories are best understood and explained through the context of history. So I cannot have one without the other.

But it is nice to have another anti-revisionist theorist here. I would like to know your thoughts on some of the theories I've come up with, when you have the time.

1. Dividend-based economy; instead of paying workers a hourly wage, fixed salary, or in commission, I would suggest that communist give a share of the state profits to the workers that produce them. In a sense the state would have no labor cost, but to compensate the labor they would get dividends from the shares they have in the state.

2. Singles conscripts; instead of conscripting people for a fixed number of years, I would only conscript single people. This would allow people who have a dislike of violence to leave the military by simply getting married. It would also mean that people would start taking care of their spouses, as loss of one would get you back into the military.

Also, internationalism is merely an ideological movement to establish cooperation beyond national borders, whereas imperialism is the actual economic exploitation of one country by another, mostly through military means.

I wish I had you back when I quest was originally posted. You would very much be a help to me in trying to answer that question. But you're missing the point of the problem. Internationalism can be used similar to "humanitarian aid", and we all know how the US uses "humanitarian aid" to justify its imperialism of other countries. Help either one of us pointed out that after Stalin's death his enemies used "internationalism" to replace the Soviet Union with the Soviet empire. Another, come up with all trying to counter the internationalism and imperialism connection is the logical fact that through imperialism you can actually get cooperation beyond national borders. For example the American Empire normally goes by the name NATO. And when the United states needs cooperation from its empire, it simply just calls on NATO. You can get cooperation of people very much like how you see with the old British Empire. Its armies at the time were made up of peoples of different countries usually employed in a mercenary like fashion. It could speak said that nations beyond its borders cooperated with Britain because it was an empire. I have been looking for theories and facts I could use to counter these two statements.

1. Dividend-based economy; instead of paying workers a hourly wage, fixed salary, or in commission, I would suggest that communist give a share of the state profits to the workers that produce them. In a sense the state would have no labor cost, but to compensate the labor they would get dividends from the shares they have in the state.

It sounds like a fine idea to me, but wouldn't it be this way be default since the proletarian state would absorb all resources into its operations? So you would always get a share of state profits since the state owns everything.

2. Singles conscripts; instead of conscripting people for a fixed number of years, I would only conscript single people. This would allow people who have a dislike of violence to leave the military by simply getting married. It would also mean that people would start taking care of their spouses, as loss of one would get you back into the military.

This would really depend on the situation. Conscription is a very grey area, I don't see anything wrong with things like this during relatively peaceful times but if it's a Russian Civil War situation where the very existence of socialism is under attack then we would want everyone at arms.

I wish I had you back when I quest was originally posted. You would very much be a help to me in trying to answer that question. But you're missing the point of the problem. Internationalism can be used similar to "humanitarian aid", and we all know how the US uses "humanitarian aid" to justify its imperialism of other countries.

Well yeah, I never said internationalism was strictly proletariat. The bourgeoisie can and does seek international relations as well. But this "humanitarian aid" stuff is always just a cover-up for some greater scheme. The US imperialists never give humanitarian aid out of benevolence.

Help eiter one of us pointed out that after Stalin's death his enemies used "internationalism" to replace the Soviet Union with the Soviet empire. Another, come up with all trying to counter the internationalism and imperialism connection is the logical fact that through imperialism you can actually get cooperation beyond national borders. For example the American Empire normally goes by the name NATO. And when the United states needs cooperation from its empire, it simply just calls on NATO. You can get cooperation of people very much like how you see with the old British Empire. Its armies at the time were made up of peoples of different countries usually employed in a mercenary like fashion. It could speak said that nations beyond its borders cooperated with Britain because it was an empire. I have been looking for theories and facts I could use to counter these two statements.

It is true that the Soviet Union used internationalism as an excuse for imperialism but that doesn't make internationalism intrinsically imperialist. Internationalism is simply any relation that extends beyond national borders.

It's funny, because at the time of this thread it did appear as if the ML presence was a bit more prominent. But these past couple of weeks there seems to be a influx of people calling themselves "libertarian marxists" and anarcho-communists

It's funny, because at the time of this thread it did appear as if the ML presence was a bit more prominent. But these past couple of weeks there seems to be a influx of people calling themselves "libertarian marxists" and anarcho-communists

Well sadly a lot of those new Marxist-Leninists I was talking about seem to have left. That Kamo gentleman hit hard when he first came but now he hasn't been online since September twenty-something. Koba Junior was another good one but he also vanished back in May.

Yeah, it seems to fluctuate between Marxism-Leninism growing, then falling, then more Marxist-Lenists arrive but aren't actually Marxist-Leninist and vanish, then hundreds of Anarchists file in.... eh. I doubt Marxism-Leninism will ever outnumber the other tenancies in terms of membership; however if you count all the M-Ls (even without the Maoists, not that I am saying they aren't M-Ls of course; they are) it still is the largest single tendency (the only bigger one is "Anarchism" but that is like putting your tendency as "Communism" really). But I am rambling.

The bourgeoisie can and does seek international relations as well. But this "humanitarian aid" stuff is always just a cover-up for some greater scheme.

Exactly. Just as reactionaries claiming to be Marxist-Leninists don't make Marxist-Leninists reactionaries (contrary to what some would have you believe) it isn't fair to claim "internationalists" are inherently reactionary. Every idea has an opportunist that wishes to exploit it for their own ends (think Krushchev et al).

Sorry for my leave of absence, but a study into human behavior unfortunately delayed my debate with you. But since you're up to it I will recommence our discourse.

It sounds like a fine idea to me, but wouldn't it be this way be default since the proletarian state would absorb all resources into its operations? So you would always get a share of state profits since the state owns everything.

Well in a Communist or proletarian state, the means of production would be owned by the state, as would all resources, this is ture. But how you would get your share change on how that system is implemented. For example under Stalin's system you only got a share if the place you work at overproduced what the government ordered it to produce. Otherwise you got a salary only.

My system is a little bit different. Instead of getting a share on the local level I expanded to the global level. Therefore you get a share of a factory that you don't even work. But those other factory workers get a share of what you produce even though they don't work at your factory. This may seem a lot at first but let me explain.

What I am doing is changing the relationship between people in a nation. Right now under the current system everyone at my workplace is a source of money and everything outside of it is a opponent. What I have done is change this to make everyone in my nation a resource.

Why would this system be better, will lets take a example. Right Now a doctor only see some on if he is payed, and only care about how many people he see, and not if he has cured their elements. But under my system the doctor get a share of state profits. This means that the doctor now has an incentive to take care of people, as anyone rendered unable to work would result in a reduction in everyone's paycheck. It also means that fellow factory workers would have a reason to take care of each other as any loss of any of them would result in a reduction to everyone's paycheck.

Tell me if I'm not conveying this idea correctly.

This would really depend on the situation. Conscription is a very grey area, I don't see anything wrong with things like this during relatively peaceful times but if it's a Russian Civil War situation where the very existence of socialism is under attack then we would want everyone at arms.

well in this case we're using conscript and to change the relationship between a married couple. Right now the only relationship between a married couple is how much their life insurance policies are. That is the only reason right now under the current system that two people stay together. Instead I plan to change the relationship from one where you're waiting for your spouse to die, to one where you want to prolong life of your spouse. As their death would result in them being reenlisted in the Army.

Well yeah, I never said internationalism was strictly proletariat. The bourgeoisie can and does seek international relations as well. But this "humanitarian aid" stuff is always just a cover-up for some greater scheme. The US imperialists never give humanitarian aid out of benevolence.

It is true that the Soviet Union used internationalism as an excuse for imperialism but that doesn't make internationalism intrinsically imperialist. Internationalism is simply any relation that extends beyond national borders.

My point now is that internationalism is as easy to miss use as "humanitarian aid" is. And basically asked if there is another type of foreign relation that we should have with people outside of a communist nation, that does not lead to imperialism.