No, I don’t think I would. And if you learn a bit about Marxism-Leninism you’d see that either people you talked to didn’t understand what they were talking bout, or you yourself didn’t understand what they were telling you. ML theory is pretty clear on why revolutions happen, and how to conduct revolutions properly.
Well, it’s not like people don’t have different interpretations of things. There is a reason why there are so many violent far left. The Red Army faction, Indian and Filipino communists and Bolsheviks comes to mind, all of whom profess to be Marxist-Leninists.
Communists accept that violence is often a valid and necessary form of resistance. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way Bolsheviks used violence. However, what you said above is just pure nonsense rooted in your superficial understanding of the subject.
Tell that to practical realities lived under the Marxist-Leninist authorities.
The way I see it, ideology is like religion. More often than not, theory and practice do not align. It is especially the case with communism. And look, I will be blunt, you’re committing “No true Scotsman” fallacy. You’re right in theory, but again, the practical reality says otherwise. You claim there are no true communists or Marxist-Leninists who would advocate for wanton violence, but the reality is that there plenty of examples. The Bolsheviks arrested farmers who are apparently too rich. But it is an excuse for collectivisation of farms under state control. Marx also did not believe in the existence of state (he thought it should be a transitional entity towards collective ownership of production under classless structure). And yet, no state who profess to be communists, or its variation, ever relinquished power.
Having grown up in USSR, I think I understand the practical realities of Marxist-Leninist authority a hell of a lot better than you. I implore you to spend he time actually learn about the subject you’re attempting to debate here because all you’re doing is just making straw man arguments out of ignorance. You also evidently have no understanding of what Marx actually said.
Sounds like you are surprised when confronted with what somebody who actually lived in a communist country tells you about it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you think you know more about communism than people who actually experienced it though. That’s very American of you.
No actual Marxist-Leninists say anything of the sort.
You’d be surprised.
No, I don’t think I would. And if you learn a bit about Marxism-Leninism you’d see that either people you talked to didn’t understand what they were talking bout, or you yourself didn’t understand what they were telling you. ML theory is pretty clear on why revolutions happen, and how to conduct revolutions properly.
Well, it’s not like people don’t have different interpretations of things. There is a reason why there are so many violent far left. The Red Army faction, Indian and Filipino communists and Bolsheviks comes to mind, all of whom profess to be Marxist-Leninists.
Communists accept that violence is often a valid and necessary form of resistance. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way Bolsheviks used violence. However, what you said above is just pure nonsense rooted in your superficial understanding of the subject.
Tell that to practical realities lived under the Marxist-Leninist authorities.
The way I see it, ideology is like religion. More often than not, theory and practice do not align. It is especially the case with communism. And look, I will be blunt, you’re committing “No true Scotsman” fallacy. You’re right in theory, but again, the practical reality says otherwise. You claim there are no true communists or Marxist-Leninists who would advocate for wanton violence, but the reality is that there plenty of examples. The Bolsheviks arrested farmers who are apparently too rich. But it is an excuse for collectivisation of farms under state control. Marx also did not believe in the existence of state (he thought it should be a transitional entity towards collective ownership of production under classless structure). And yet, no state who profess to be communists, or its variation, ever relinquished power.
Having grown up in USSR, I think I understand the practical realities of Marxist-Leninist authority a hell of a lot better than you. I implore you to spend he time actually learn about the subject you’re attempting to debate here because all you’re doing is just making straw man arguments out of ignorance. You also evidently have no understanding of what Marx actually said.
Right, so you are a communist. I should not be surprised then.
Sounds like you are surprised when confronted with what somebody who actually lived in a communist country tells you about it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you think you know more about communism than people who actually experienced it though. That’s very American of you.
Those are maoists and also do you dislike them?
Maoism is derived from Marxist-Leninism.
Okay and marxism comes from classical economics
I don’t know what you’re having but I won’t be having it. Classical economics is the original capitalism. Marx rejected and critiqued it.
🤡