This Board Disgusts Me

Let me just say that I am in utter shock and disbelief right now. Any reason that justifies the fact that so many would advocate for such a destructive ideology is beyond me. Not only that, but anyone opposed to these inherently malevolent beliefs is forced into a cage on these forums, or otherwise they are told to "fuck off" and a prompt ban follows. Those who are not willing to even critically look at an opposing belief and consider what they are saying should not be taken seriously in the real world, but yet here I am, telling this to a population who consist mostly of high schoolers who didn't have enough money for an ice cream on the way home. So, in an attempt to actually put some sense into what little brains you guys have left, I am going to explain why communism and other leftist movements are an anomaly nowadays. Get ready to have your asses handed to you.

Going through these forums, especially in the learning sub forum, I see a lot of questions about the Soviet Union and China and what their movements really were. Many are quick to play it off as "state capitalism" and never seem to consider otherwise. News flash, you uneducated hags, the movements in China and Russia started just as similar as the movements you and your little neck-bearded friends have wet dreams about happening around the world. The only difference is that the dictators that were supposed to lose power over time to transition into a stateless society got power hungry instead and friend to inflate their ego (like most of you on this joke of a forum) which ended up in disaster. Leftists like you can't handle the fact that your lord and savior Marx was wrong about the process of transitioning to a total stateless and classless society, so, as mentioned before, you play it off as state capitalism like it was nothing. Stop lying to yourselves and the others who come into these forums because they're mad at their parents for not getting them the game they wanted.

And guess what? This crucial mistake in the transition Marx and Engels proposed led to millions upon millions of deaths, both purposefully by the dictators who desires to stay in power, or unintentionally because of the incompetence of the previously mentioned dictators. I know you are going to pretend like I'm wrong and just blow me off or ban me, but the simple truth is evident; the leftist revolutions that occurred inevitably killed innocent peasants who just wanted to survive. You can't wrap your head around this, so you and your massive egos start prancing around in a high horse and proclaim, "It's not communism, it's state capitalism! It's capitalism's fault! We're perfect!" Then, you declare another victory for the leftist cause and go back to jerking off the Communist Manifesto.

I could forgive all of that, and put it off for young naivety and blatant misunderstandings of your own beliefs, but that goes all out the window when I see people here idolizing revolutionaries that openly advocated for violence and torture, especially Ernesto "Che" Guevara. You circlejerk him so much on this God forsaken forum that there is a sub-forum just for him on here. I don't know if you have taken a history class before, given the fact that the behavior of you all lead me to believe you are all five, but Che is the last person you want to flaunt around as the symbol of your movement. The only achievement he had was overthrowing the Batista regime in Cuba, and subsequently turning the country into a dictator-riddled clusterfuck, and tried to do the same for other Latin American countries before thankfully dying. He was an open advocate for violence and torture of anyone standing in his way. Ironically, people like you turned him into a capitalist product more than anything, which makes me laugh a lot.

So in short, the leftists on here don't know what they're even talking about. I dare anyone on here to challenge my thinking. I heard of some guy on here named Rafiq, who is considered a God on here? Fuck it, he can join to. Good luck, you moronic, eccentric, egotistical, backwards "intellectuals".

You really can't support your thesis here, that revolutionary thought / politics is 'inherently malevolent' or 'destructive'. The implication of accepting your position at face-value would be that no one should *ever* consider a better world, much less attempt anything that could bring about positive developments for all in society.



So, again, 'dreams' should be fully *abandoned*, according to you -- this is equivalent to giving up after first attempt, on anything.

The world is hardly 'perfect', so is it any wonder that people would continue to look for possible *solutions* to all social ills -- ?

Russia and China hardly had unfettered *autonomy* in their revolutions, so blame for what their revolutionary movements turned *into* can't simply be laid at the feet of the respective revolutionaries or movements themselves:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...hevik_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...2.80.931937.29


(Also, 'hags' is inappropriate, since it's a smear based on gender.)



It's a common fallacy that we can attribute *world* developments to *individual* ('leaders') proclivities and actions alone -- it's a mismatch of *scale*, and ignores that even very politically influential people are themselves working within certain contexts / historical-material *constraints*, as well as also wielding considerable political power.



Historical time isn't *over* yet, so it remains to be seen -- possibly over and over and over again -- whether a total stateless and classless society will happen sometime in the future



And here you're conflating *theory* with *practice*, when the two are quite distinct and different.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://s6.postimg.org/567knh33l/2520...j_Klk_C_fs.jpg


---



Again you're not supporting your characterizations of 'inherently' 'malevolent' 'inevitably' 'destructive' regarding historical revolutionary manifestations -- anyone can assert *anything*, but any assertion itself isn't necessarily correct.

What's with all of these 'edgy' people coming on with this holier-than-though attitude about how backwards we are? Do you really think you are some kind of messianic figure, preaching us some revelation no one has ever "revealed" to us before? We'll all bow down when we realize that we are in fact high school poor kids rather than activists that have clashed with people like you and the cops before?

Care to explain how none of us know what we're talking about? Ever hear of "winner's bias?" The American people worship terroristic secessionists without a problem. The French continue a tradition born of the mass violence in the French Revolution.

'Dictatorships' suffer from Great Man Syndrome, a singular person cannot hold complete power under any circumstance. A dictator is a culmination of circumstance, the representation of interests of a cabal that seek to gain from such policies. Yes, even the "totalitarian dictatorships" of the USSR and Cuba, Stalin and Castro represent factions within the ruling hierarchy.

All revolution is violent. People will die. On our side, hopefully more so on yours. To argue for the persistence of peasantry is even more reactionary than capitalism, it begs for feudalism. Arguing for the existence of peasants counters capitalism's advances, maybe you should get your economic systems right.

Why are you talking about Che? No one has bothered to talk about him in months, and there is no one I know of who identifies as a Guevarist. Only a few users babble about worshiping Stalin. Interesting how you leave out all of the anarchists as well.

Marx and Engels never proposed dictators. They proposed a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat.' Which means a domination of the working class over society. Like the domination of capitalists over modern society? Like bourgeois democracy? Or perhaps you, as our lord and savior, somehow have an answer as to why "democracy" does not represent the interests of the majority of the population who, as you must know, are workers? Why even disgusting people like you admit "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?"

Rafiq? Why is he even mentioned here? You literally just say "fuck that guy." And newsflash, this isn't a cult. Rafiq is not our lord and savior, no one is. Maybe you've heard of "No Gods, No Masters?" There are plenty of disagreements here, unlike in your little safe zone of "the market will determine all, the invisible hand of the market is the solution to all our problems." Please, explain why there is a "demand" for people to not be in poverty (usually by those very people), and yet your godly market does not match this with "supply."

Egotistical? Of course we are, everyone looks out for themselves, its one of the bases of capitalism. Communism is simply what is most beneficial to us as individuals, and it so happens to benefit everyone in the end. Please, get off your high horse, your very presence here is stroking your ego, feeding a disgusting god complex about how you can be our savior, or damn us to hell. I'm quite positive you have no idea what leftists even are, much less who is a "true" leftist or not.

Who are you to call anyone moronic when you've obviously never opened a book other than facebook? The fact you decide to call us students, who are in fact the most active and informed groups out there, betrays your own immaturity.

All right, then, comrades. I guess the revolution is canceled, it's too disgusting to be compatible with TheManInTheYellowHat's precious worldview.

What did you seriously think you will accomplish by doing this? Do you honestly believe in your right mind that each and every one of us isn't acquainted with this drivel you're presenting here? Do you honestly think we haven't struggled through every single shitty point you brought up during the process of our political maturation? Do you actually think each and every one of us isn't equipped with theoretical knowledge to blow your entire fucking post to smithereens?

If you have practical inclination to learn about our struggle, stick around and read what is being written here. If not, fuck off and stop wasting our time.

Okay, seriously, let's just make one thing clear: Nobody cares about you. You tell us that you're disgusted - so fucking what? Are we supposed to conform to your upright and harmonious illusions? You come at us like a master who thinks he has to educate 5 year olds because they can't behave. You think we are too stupid to realize the terrorist implications of our ideology, when in fact we do know them very well and we are proud that they are as horrific as you present them - maybe even more horrific. Do you want to know why it satisfies us when people like you are disgusted? Because nobody fucking cares about you! We don't want to persuade you, we consider you our enemy. We're not lying about communism, it indeed is an anomaly! We are very conscious of the fact that we're not striving for the same moral ideals, and so on. And then you come at us saying: "Get ready to have your asses handed to you", god damnit, as if we haven't heard your naive, piss-poor, intellectually worthless arguments before, for fuck's sake, you don't even know how ridiculous you sound.

Too bad for you that I, probably among others, have in my lifetime already thought everything about the Soviet Union and China - that they were politically the same, that they both were communist, then that they both were socialist, after that "state-capitalist" in the mainstream use of the term, and finally I read Bordiga, who qualified them as bourgeois "just like" any other bourgeois state. So don't you even dare to come at me saying I'd "never seem to consider otherwise". You do know very well that we're not stupid machines that don't think about what they're told, it's just that you are too scared to even think that your uncritically held positions could be challenged. Would you ever consider otherwise? I'm sure you wouldn't because - and that's what's second most disguting about this - you claim that you have read the threads on the Soviet Union and China - but then you don't even care to refute the arguments put forward, as if they didn't matter, as if it was an uncontroversial natural law that these were communist - for the bourgeois ideologues they certainly are. Go on, refute the arguments at hand, explain why they can be qualified as communist. Probably, your first knee-jerk reaction is something like "Well, they labeled themselves as communist, my teacher labeled them as communist" and you might even tell us that the NSDAP has been a socialist worker party but what you and your pseudo-intellectual gang would never accept is that they might have been democrats because they labeled themselves as ones. This is your hypocrisy, you are too lazy to engage in simplest intellectualizing, to use your brain outside of "common knowledge" and worthless playing with words, and even when you confine your thinking to this domain you don't have the bravery to lead it to its logical conclusion (i.e. that the GDR was a democratic republic etc.).

Even if you had the slightest idea of what was essential about the movements that satisfy our sexual fantasies, even if "the movements in China and Russia started just as similar" - this tells us nothing about the development of these countries. Let's take the Soviet Union for example: Most people here would argue that the Russian worker movement and the Russian Social Democracy were indeed genuinely socialist, and that the October Revolution had genuinely socialist elements. Anyone who agrees with Bordiga on that matter says the same: Politically, the working class in Russia has triumphed. Still, Russia was economically backward, and even the Bolsheviks themselves insisted on the fact that socialism (as a society) was not achievable until there was a revolution in Western Europe. Lenin was talking about "steps toward socialism", and not the establishment of socialism. The essential character of the Soviet society changed radically with Stalinism, there were radical changes in politics (especially regarding the peasants), in economy, in culture and art, in ideology, etc., and any idiot with two eyes and more than three brain cells can grasp that. Yes, the October Revolution was essentially socialist - but Stalinism was when bourgeois capitalism, to be more precise: Jacobinism became a necessity. China, as heroic as the revolution might have been, had more in common with Stalinism than with the early Soviet Union. Right from the beginning it was about transforming a peasant country into an industrialized one, it was Stalinism par excellence. No similarities whatsoever, unless you think it was similar to socialist revolutions because it was a revolution and they called themselves socialist. How could one not say "fuck off"?

Actually, I'm just going to say fuck it and ignore that you accuse us of being religious. I'll just accept it here because it is true: Our belief that "a total stateless and classless society" is possible is indeed constituted by a quasi-religious faith, we are indeed as hopeful as a Christian is with regard to the kingdom of God. Even if what we call state-capitalism was socialism, even if socialism will fail a hundred and a million times in the future and kill trillions of TheManInTheYellowHats, we remain confident. You would have to kill all of us, until then we keep trying because we are as confident of workers acquiring socialist consciousness as Brecht's Galilei is of ordinary and poor people using reason.

"play it off as state captalism like it was nothing", I seriously had to laugh about this one. It just shows that your textbook knowledge of Marxism is so fucking worthless."'We're perfect!'", as if it was about blaming the representatives of a system, as if it was about moral arguments and who killed more. Let me tell you something: When I qualify Stalinism and Maoism as bourgeois, this is not meant as a refusal. Anyone who has the slightest idea of Marxism knows that we're not generally against anything bourgeois. We support the French Revolution despite the Grande Terreur, we consider ourselves as the successors of its legacy. So when we say that Stalinism was bourgeois, we are not saying: "Look what capitalism has done!", but instead, we esteem it despite its tragedies. And you tell us we can't wrap our heads around this. Guess what, we can wrap our heads around the fact that lots and lots of people, be they innocent or not, are going to suffer from communism. We admit that and we still don't care about you.

Funny that you mention Rafiq although he is the most controversial figure on RevLeft. He happens to be a Marxist with a brilliant mind, and he offers the most thorough criticism here. That's why some people despise him while others appreciate his contributions. Anyone who says that he "is considered a God" has simply no idea, neither of the people on RevLeft, nor of Rafiq himself.

I swear, the only people left on here who bother to counter this righteous drivel are Alet and ckaihatsu, even Rafiq posts less and less often. Look how far this site has fallen, to having to deal with this same thing in less than 48 hours. What ever happened to when someone would post this nonsense and immediately be buried by responses? And then the rest would fear us, as they seek to preserve their "dignity," hiding in their holes?

So I suppose that I agree with the OP, I am disgusted at this board. It's dying and carrion-eaters like the OP are already nibbling away.

Have fun Rafiq, no prisoners.

I've been preoccupied with a large post on my blog, which I think is going to be of infinitely more worth to users here. I cannot expect much anticipation from Leftists, however, nor do I think there should be any.

However, others have been, riddling with fear, in anticipation of the post, which grows with each passing day, the sheer unpredictability of when it is going to be released. The OP is one of them, he's managed to crawl his way to Revleft from a different online community, primarily composed of reactionary ideologues and degenerates. A few months back I indirectly set their community in disarry when one of its members, might I add one of its most popular and 'distinguished' members, decided to challenge one of my revleft posts and in the end got fucked badly for it. I don't think they ever recovered from it, poor dogs. Perhaps they see this as a shot of redemption.

This is his way of coping with his own personal fear, which dozens of different users from that website are finding their own ways of doing, mutually re-assuring and comforting each other that everything's going to be fine.

Don't worry at all. They've got it coming for them. They are literally shitting bricks. Sit back, and watch in amusement as I single-handedly and indirectly throw dozens of 'libertarians', and other reactionaries, into a deep existential crisis and inflict an irreversible trauma. It is good and virtuous to inspire terror in the hearts of the sons of the bloodsuckers (who celebrate their confidence online), until the revolution comes where we can torture, mutilate, and drink their blood.

In the mean time, I'll notify the administration to quickly ban all of the users who joined here from the website.

Notice how they attempt to take a self-ironic distance from their actual, real positions, so as to avoid direct responsibility for them, i.e. thereby secreting them to god, nature, or some external authority (i.e. the 'experts' who mediate them). They seep in their real beliefs and convictions, into the positions which they take a self-ironic distance from. This is conventional thinking generally today, if one wants to be a socialist, we must counter-act this tendency by taking full responsibility for our positions.

First, let's assess this post. Was time, energy, hard, critical thinking put into it? No, instead, very conventional conclusions and ideas were literally just shit-out, almost impulsively. The contingency of the rodent's positions on his own conscious use of reason is denied. Thereby his own relation to his own position is absolved from any worldly judgement, for god, not he, is responsible for them. The rodent has the capacity to do this, because the 'truths' which underlie their positions, they secrete externally, i.e. they do not take full responsibility for and assume exists independently even of them.

He literally, makes this bait, knowing full well he can be utterly and sorely ripped apart, but doesn't care because no matter what, even if HE falls, the 'truth' whose truth he places externally from him, remains, sustained by some external force of guarantee. This is how superstition works. He doesn't have to put all his bets, life or death, into his own expression of the conscious use of reason because the rationality of the existing order includes the 'irrational', it includes that which is exempted from the conscious use of reason but none the less insisted upon and asserted. He doesn't have to take responsibility for these stupidities, even though it is only by his devices that he can believe them, because he alone in his mind is not responsible for their truth, in his mind: Somewhere, somehow, someone 'who knows' justifies his own ideas. This tendency has increased exponentially in our self-ironic and increasingly anti-democratic culture where the self-responsible subject no longer exists because in a superstitious sense subjects are denied their capacity to recognize just how responsible they alone are for the prevailing order.

We should remind Leftists that, there is no Left 'meme culture'. We must represent the opposite, we must take full and complete responsibility for our positions as our positions, place no guarantee in any authority or anything outside of us. We must fully assume our own 'subjective' positions. If we say something, we must own up with the full extent of our capacities to defending what we say, else we should say nothing at all. Freedom is not arbitrariness, because freedom is not free. If we want to be free, rational subjects, even as mere socialist intellectuals, that includes full and complete self-responsibility, otherwise one allows a master to think for them.

I never realised people here supported capitalism. I could go on and on in terms of how destructive capitalism is. From keeping the working class suppressed and oppressed, to waging so many wars, to conistently destroying the enviroment, I am in utter shock and disbelief how people like you conviently like to ignore all the many, many issues with capitalism because it doesn't fit into your ignorant capitalist narrative. And then you are somehow baffled at how people have strived for a change from it? That's comical.

I just wanna know what sort of politics the OP advocates . . .

First off, I'm pretty sure RevLeft is mostly populated by middle-aged activists and young college students (although I joined in my senior year of high school). Second, there's a wealth of literature documenting the disagreements within the radical Left: Mikhail Bakunin and his anarchist adherents pilloried Marx for his reliance on the state during the transition to communism (as opposed to Bakunin's "direct action" approach), for instance. Rosa Luxemburg criticized Vladimir Lenin for using the state apparatus during the October Revolution, preferring a more council-based approach to governing during the unsuccessful Spartacist uprising in 1919. Et cetera. Not all leftists are Marxists, and most Marxists have minds of their own.

Now, I know it's popular and convenient to oppose dictators and champion "human rights" nowadays, but you don't quite seem to understand how revolutions work. How the fuck do you think capitalism was established in the early modern era? With magic wands and pixie dust? Capitalism was established on the basis of imperialism and genocide (the "primitive accumulation of capital"): the enslavement of the Africans, the genocide of the indigenous Americans, the colonization of the New World and non-industrialized parts of the Old, the enclosure movement, etc. Revolutions tend to get bloody, whether guided by classical liberalism or socialism. It just so happened that the major socialist revolutions happened in under-industrialized nations, who later went through their own phase of "primitive accumulation" (and it's genocidal symptoms). Like it or not, modern capitalist society is built upon a mountain of corpses, yet few dare to question it's legitimacy.

And finally, we admire Che Guevara for how he stood for the working classes and participated in the liberation of colonial peoples. American conservatives and libertarians get to circle-jerk the Founding Fathers, who defended the genocide of the Native Americans and chattel slavery, yet no one seems to give a shit. Why is it different with the Left and Che Guevara? Or are our collective sins too great for us to enjoy any solace in iconic figures? Methinks the lady doth protest too much..

The reactionaries from Ifunny are spilling into RevLeft


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Communists have killed 100 million people, even if it was 1 million deaths, it is still disgusting democide. When people starve to death or are refused medical treatment for easily preventable diseases in Capitalist states, it is an unfortunate circumstance and it is pointless to calculate the number of the dead. Oh and wars caused by a need to "stop Communism" or rather, anything we claim as such, are totally necessary, even when they kill millions (Indonesia, Vietnam etc...) because we are proactively stoping them from killing themselves.

^^ That is more or less the dungheap that passes off as a mind for your average capitalist apologist.

Anyway, it isn't that Capitalism is some evil system that kills people. Capitalists aren't fit to rule. Its that simple. In some circumstances the sheer stupidity of the capitalist masters could be forgiven because it did not have world-wide implications. Today however hundreds of millions of fucktards like yourself LITERALLY convinced themselves global warming was a "librul hoax rufl". That is a danger to human civilization. So what is there to debate, exactly? And it isn't just that. Capitalism creates ARTIFICIAL problems on top of the very pressing ones, justifying massive, totally pointless economic disasters to their god, the "free market". Now if it was just a bunch of people not being able to purchase a Ferrari, whatever. However, every time one of these collapses happens, tens of thousands die from them.

Ha, good luck with that. They're one of the recent "one and done" posters. They come in, say something that basically amounts to social suicide here, and never return to post anything else.

It's good to see more people actually addressing this nonsense though, rather than letting it fester.

He comes from an online community primarily composed of upper-middle class white kids, i.e. similar to 4chan, the majority of whom are neo-Fascists (i.e. including 'libertarians'). The community is a lot like 4chan in that it blends reactionary, conventional philistinism, so-called 'meme culture' with 'political' positions which they don't personally have to be responsible for, because they presuppose their protection from the police, etc. (let's just leave it at that) Just more an insult to certain ideas like Zim's, that the neo-Fasicsm is in fact not new at all but an expression of a dying past - no, this is fully a conclusion of the postmodern self-ironic culture, even of the transgressive impulses of the counter-culture, and so on.

It is rather amusing: Few of them have any real sense of personal investment (even though it is very there) in their ideas, and spontaneously identify with the most rabid filth, in a self-ironic and yet just as serious way because it is fully compatible with their real lives as the sons of either the reactionary, doomed classes or those in power.

Don't waste time with them, I've got it covered. You can go check it out if you want, the cowards, which is fully expected owing to the right's culture of dishonesty and lies, have made something of a 'meme' of myself, i.e. that I am a '300 pound Arab man with a neckbeard'. They've come up with all sorts of ways to cope with the fear of what my post might indirectly do to their precious community, I suppose making shit up about me personally helps reveal an 'obscene secret' that which all of the real, concrete positions and ideas given can be dismissed in the name of.

u mad bro?

Your criticism of radical leftist ideologies as "destructive" is astoundingly hypocritical. People all over the world would not feel the need to implement these "destructive" systems if it weren't for the horror and true destruction that is capitalism. As Fidel Castro once said, "They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?" The atrocities and appalling functions of capitalism and imperialism birthed the need for socialism and communism, so before you go around pointing fingers and calling just and true ideologies such as those of radical leftists "destructive", take a step back and look at what caused all of this.

And why wouldn't people holding such beliefs be attacked and rebutted in this forum? This is a site where the revolutionary and radical left come together to be inherently anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, etc. This is not a site where capitalist scum such as yourself are openly welcomed to join. You came to us, we did not go to you.

This is a site for intelligent discussion, not petty and idiotic insults such as those you resorted to (according to my count, there were eight such ridiculously immature insults in your post, averaging two per paragraph). I'd be absolutely happy to debate you on any actual arguments that you choose to make, rather than filling your attacks with petulant fluff because you lack any logical points. I find it quite ironic that you insult this community by calling us immature high schoolers, yet you are the one slinging around insults rather than making valid arguments.

Considering your rebuttal to the points made in these forums, which was essentially stating "You're wrong because I'm right", shows the hypocrisy of your statement about this community refusing to "consider otherwise". If you were to really be "considering otherwise" like you claim we fail to do, you would respond with valid and specific counterpoints to specific arguments made in the threads you cite. Considering the way you generically rebuke leftists stances and seem to display no actual individual thought or stance, I'm assuming that your argument against our stances is "they called themselves communists" or something along those lines. If I said to you right now "I'm capitalist", it wouldn't change anything. I'd still be a radical leftist, despite telling you that I'm capitalist. Try to think critically, not just listen to the stream of bourgeois propaganda and take all statements at face value.

Yes, they did. However, this does nothing to determine the end result. The "movements" (revolutions in this context) are a means and not an end. China and Russia, as you have stated, had similar revolutions. Every revolution is similar: a smaller body of people (whether they be smaller in numbers, representation, and/or influence) unites to overthrow a larger group (whether they be larger in numbers, representation, and/or influence). However, each of these revolutions has a different end result, despite the revolutions being greatly similar. Cuba had a revolution and became socialist, Yugoslavia had a revolution and became market socialist, American colonies had a revolution and became capitalist. This in and of itself proves that the revolution is not an end, but a means. Additionally, I can't recall a single revolution where the revolutionaries had an exact plan down to the finest detail about how the post-revolution society would be run before carrying out their revolution. How a post-capitalist (therefore post-revolution) society should be run is the biggest debate/question of the leftist community today. None of us know exactly how a post-capitalist society will be run as that will have to be discussed and decided upon when the time comes, yet we all recognize that there is a necessity for revolution. It is a means, not an end.

It takes more than one person to allow a dictatorship to happen. It takes councils, parliaments, advisers, what have you standing by and letting it happen. That truth is the same whether the system is capitalist or socialist, but you aren't on any capitalist forums decrying their dictators, are you?

Firstly, there are dozens of different schools of thought in leftist ideologies. Marxism, Luxemburgism, Maoism, Anarcho-Communism, etc. All Marxists are leftists, but not all leftists are Marxists. Secondly, the first socialist revolution took place in 1917, not even a century ago. Do you realize that when you state that Marx's theory on a stateless society is wrong that you are implying we have seen all of history in under a century? There is much more for us to see and experience. Additionally, Marx never specified how the transition to a stateless society should evolve. He knew that conditions for the transition through socialism to communism to a stateless society would be in constant flux, and therefore didn't pin down exactly how it should happen. There are still many different ways to reach a stateless, communist society that have yet to be attempted.

Marx never advocated for dictators. He advocated for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is something you would understand if you actually thoroughly studied leftism rather than skimming through an article about Marx on Townhall. You're also confusing theory for practice. One is based off of thought and the other is based off of action, they are entirely separate. I also don't see you criticizing capitalist societies and capitalism as a whole for the deaths that it's caused through neglect of people for profit, destruction of the environment for profit, imperialism, etc. But that's different, because it's capitalism, right?

All you are doing in this statement is saying that El Che was bad and we should be ashamed of ourselves. You've presented no valid arguments for your stance, and if you would be willing to present them I'd be happy to debate you on El Che's importance and idolization.

It really seems that you have no actual valid points for your arguments. You are arguing a stance against an entire ideology, and you don't even know what it is you're fighting against, much less what you're fighting for. You seem to be brainwashed with and constantly spouting bourgeois propaganda. Knowing how your type of people tends to behave, I assume that you won't return to this site, much less reply to any of our counterarguments. However, if you are egotistical and prideful enough to come back and continue arguing with people who are obviously better learned and intellectually superior to you on the socio-economic and political aspects of the world, I invite you to use valid arguments and points rather than just repeatedly using petty insults and telling us essentially nothing other than "you're wrong". That way we can actually have a legitimate debate, as is intended on this site, rather than acting like petulant children arguing in an Instagram comment section.

I haven't gone through the thread, and I am by no means against Marxism etc, but I'd like to point out for the sake of your understanding of the diversity present: I am not a Marxist. I am an anarchist and am more in line with Tolstoy, Bakunin and so on than with Marx. What harm I am doing anybody with this, I don't know.