More explanation

Can someone elaborate MORE on this group's stance on fighting against liberalism?

This probably is subjective, but to which point does it start to be ''too much anti-liberalism''? I mean, when are things getting too authoritatian?

Supposedly, food, healthcare and housing is above freedom, but how far are they from each other as basic needs.

I heard people say that there must be care for there to be no confusion between this and rightists, but where is the line that divides?

Maybe this is a lack of progressivism on my part. But it's like the Marxist-Leninists are a group of friends of which I am part of, and they're that edge group that smokes, does some vandalism, but when they decide to rob a bank I go like, ''hey I'm not cool with that''.

I think you get my point.

And can someone tell me where does Cuba, Guevara and Castro fit into all this? Maybe this is offtopic, but it's because I still don't know if Cuba is or not socialist and you know the rest.

This probably is subjective, but to which point does it start to be ''too much anti-liberalism''? I mean, when are things getting too authoritatian?

So if we, i.e. Communists, are too cruel to the Bourgeoise and the landowners shoul we stop? Besides you already know that Revolution is the most authoritarian thing you can participate in so being 'too Anti-liberal' is nearly as "authoritarian" but then how can one be 'authoritarian' on this?

Supposedly, food, healthcare and housing is above freedom...

Yes food for the masses and housing for the masses is more important then 'freedom' of the land owners, enemies of the revolution, Counter-revolutionaries, Reactionaries and all others freedom. The Proletariat imposes its will apon the once expoliting classes and places itself as the one who controls the means of production.

And can someone tell me where does Cuba, Guevara and Castro fit into all this?

Some would believe if you dont take a historical materialist view on the situation of cuba you are showing some forms of liberalism in your politics.

Wait wait wait, to whom are we being authoritarian here?

Aren't we talking about being not very democratic towards the people?

Because I have no problems with the bourgeoisie being treated undemocratically. The should learn how the people suffered because of them.

But I thought we were talking about lack of democracy towards all the people.

Wait wait wait, to whom are we being authoritarian here?

Uh, how can you be authoritarian on a internet site? the only 'real' authoritarian you can do as if your a mod and since a majority of this site isnt mods how could we be authoritarian? Besides I doubt critizing someone for their liberal policies is authoritarian.

Aren't we talking about being not very democratic towards the people?

and 'the people' is whom? Proletariat? Peasants? petti-Bourgeosis?

Liberals tend to spout of non-sense like 'pure democracy' and 'bad things are bad.' They extend a soft hand to reactionaries. They ignore counter-revolutionary elements. The reasons we hate them are a great definition of what they are.

No, you can't be too hard on them.

Uh, how can you be authoritarian on a internet site? the only 'real' authoritarian you can do as if your a mod and since a majority of this site isnt mods how could we be authoritarian? Besides I doubt critizing someone for their liberal policies is authoritarian.

Lol, I meant ''this group defends being non-liberal with who?'' Just counter-revolutionaires and reactionaires? Or all the people?


and 'the people' is whom? Proletariat? Peasants? petti-Bourgeosis?

Yes, those. Are we supposed to be authoritarian with those too?

No, the people should be in control. The authoritarianism should be from the working class oppressing the bourgeoisie and their reactionary allies.

Anyway, anti-liberalism isnt just about advocating authoritarian socialism (though thats a part of it I think because socialism must be authoritarian to be revolutionary, as revolution is an authoritarian act). It's about what ArrowLance said, things like being soft and nice in the short term which destroys us in the long term.

But if Marxism-Leninism defends a political party that is the vanguard?

How can all the people opress the bourgeoisie for example.

God there's still a lot of learning to do.


So this group defends that to achieve socialism, the revolutionaires (proletariat, and hopefully lumpenproletariat, peasants and petit-bourgeoisie) must opress the bourgeoisie, reactionaires and counter-revolutionaires.
Because these groups have technology, weapons and etc, they have to be kept at bay, or the revolution will crumble.

If that's it, then I actually don't understand why would someone disagree with us.

How can all the people opress the bourgeoisie for example.

Like they did in Kampuchea, China, And the Soviet Union. Through trials by the peasants, the Proletariat making sure they are allowed very little and the Vanguard party repressing any that try to enter the party.

And what went wrong in the Soviet Union that everyone talks about?

Did Stalin concentrate power?

The Soviet Union went into a sort of civil war didn't it? The prisoners of the war were those who went to the gulags right?

It's just that people talk about the Soviet Union and Cuba as if they were terror dictatorships, no better than the Nazis. Even some of our own comrades.

And what went wrong in the Soviet Union that everyone talks about?

Anarchist view: state-Capitalist since its creation

Trotskyist Vewi: after Lenin the "dictator" Stalin consoltated power and made the bueacratic elements within the party take over hence the Party Bucearism to them is 'Stalinism'

Our View(Maoist): From a developing Socialist state to a Revisionist Socialist state untill the Gorbachev faction took over and destroyed the Socialist model. But we know that there were Bueacratic elements and that the Revisionists in control had no interest in socialism but to destroy Socialism but not only did they still allow the Socialist model and tried to kill it from the in-side but they also supported pregressive movements during the Revisionist era.

Hoxhaist View: developing Socialism to deeloping state-Capitalism.

Did Stalin concentrate power?

No, for if he did his democratic struggle would have succeed since the First Secertaries of the CC held much power as did the CC memebers.

The prisoners of the war were those who went to the gulags right

actually at first the kulaks were exportiated to other locations of the USSR but I think the GULAG was initated in the 1930s. Then we see former White Gaurdists, Counter-Revolutionaries,etc sent to GULAG but the bueacratic elements also sent many innocents/their enemies to the GUALG.

Our View(Maoist): words

this is pretty minor but please don't try to speak for the entire group in terms of their personal ideology or analysis of a historical event.

As for the "repression" of the bourgeoisie, I don't think we should fetishize revolutionary violence or support arbitrary acts of violence against perceived bourgeois sympathizers. Our approach shouldn't be just to kill rich people or capitalist supporters but rather to transfer power from one class to another - and this isn't done by violence alone, this is done by the creation of new administrative bodies which will control the state (when it exists) and economic production and which are genuine organs of the working class.

As for violence, I think the use of violence (active violence specifically) to maintain authority or a specific power relation is indicitave of some inherent weakness in that structure, with regards to its hold on the authority in question. To draw an analogy, a parent who constantly has to spank his children or appeal to the threat of physical violence has obviously not adequately enforced his authority or reproduced the conditions necessary for him to maintain his power in the relationship (respect for elders, trust, etc). Expanding this to our situation, a revolutionary class which must use active and directed violence to maintain power (sending people to gulags, executions, suppression of speech, etc) is obviously a class which has not sufficiently acquired power and reproduced the conditions for its continuation. So if we're put in a position where the power of a state (a revolutionary workers state) is in jeopardy and it must go out decapitating its opponents, that means that the working class has not sufficiently taken power. Therefore its next goals should not be violence but control of the state and production.

the point I guess is that our emphasis should be on the worker control of production (and the transformation of production towards the abolition of wage-labor and the commodity) and of local administrative bodies, not just arbitrary violence.

this is pretty minor but please don't try to speak for the entire group in terms of their personal ideology or analysis of a historical event.

As for the "repression" of the bourgeoisie, I don't think we should fetishize revolutionary violence or support arbitrary acts of violence against perceived bourgeois sympathizers. Our approach shouldn't be just to kill rich people or capitalist supporters but rather to transfer power from one class to another - and this isn't done by violence alone, this is done by the creation of new administrative bodies which will control the state (when it exists) and economic production and which are genuine organs of the working class.

As for violence, I think the use of violence (active violence specifically) to maintain authority or a specific power relation is indicitave of some inherent weakness in that structure, with regards to its hold on the authority in question. To draw an analogy, a parent who constantly has to spank his children or appeal to the threat of physical violence has obviously not adequately enforced his authority or reproduced the conditions necessary for him to maintain his power in the relationship (respect for elders, trust, etc). Expanding this to our situation, a revolutionary class which must use active and directed violence to maintain power (sending people to gulags, executions, suppression of speech, etc) is obviously a class which has not sufficiently acquired power and reproduced the conditions for its continuation. So if we're put in a position where the power of a state (a revolutionary workers state) is in jeopardy and it must go out decapitating its opponents, that means that the working class has not sufficiently taken power. Therefore its next goals should not be violence but control of the state and production.

the point I guess is that our emphasis should be on the worker control of production (and the transformation of production towards the abolition of wage-labor and the commodity) and of local administrative bodies, not just arbitrary violence.

Yes, I didn't mean senseless violence.
The problem, I believe, is what I've said. The enemies of the revolutionaires have technology, weapons and connections.
It all depends on the situation. But the state might need to enforce a bit more security. It depends on the situation.
Of course that if a peaceful turn of events could happen, it would be ideal. But as complete democracy and many things that left communists defend (I believe) would be great, it simply isn't that simple.

There doesn't need to be civil war, nor many conflicts, but there will probably be struggles.