Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 314994599691288577
When I talk to Marxist-Leninists
An aristocrat is their hero, in the movement for the workers'
And what do you define communism as?
If aristocrat is on the side of proletariat its all good.
"It is unfortunate the the aloof bourgeois still do not understand the necessity of working with their employees rather than distancing themselves and allowing for others to take their place in that area" The national bourgeoisie
Other aristocrat: Gyorgy Lukacs
Very few who shed blood became influential in that system.
Those who labored, and later fed up and sacrificed never ascended, instead allowing those who did neither to instead.
Lenin was sent to prison
Marx to the exile
Stalin to prison
The bolsheviks robbed banks
Stalin was a worker, Mao too
Stalin was only a worker for a short time in factory as a cobbler apprentice as a child
Otherwise he quickly found his way into politics and/or insurgent activities
He infiltrated factories working in them.
He who acts as one though he is not one
He didn't have an income from capital.
He is of class proletariat.
But he was not a mere laborer
@Deleted User Officials work for the class.
"I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do
not deserve a good half of the flattering things that
have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero
of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, the leader of the Communist
International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the
rest of it. That is absurd, comrades, and quite unneces-
sary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually
said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But
I have no intention of dying yet.
I must therefore give a true picture of what I was
formerly, and to whom I owe my present position in
our Party.
Comrade Arakel* said here that in the old days he
regarded himself as one of my teachers, and myself as
his pupil. That is perfectly true, comrades. I really
was, and still am, one of the pupils of the advanced
workers of the Tiflis railway workshops"
goodbye
>gripes about the social-democrats in the first few pages
Even Stalin hated them
Also I C E P I C K
@Deleted User Social-Democracy is a national-socialism in the first stage.
Has nothing to do with Marxism anymore.
That is a complete and utter untruth my friend
Social Democracy was one of the things National Socialists formed to oppose
In fact it was the very first movement Hitler was introduced to
That is what Marxist theory came to. At first it was an opposition but after Social-Democrats joined NatSoc
He even remarked it had strayed far from anything it ever could have been to begin with
And had taken the unions with it
Social Democrats may have *converted* but National Socialism and Social Democracy are two wildly different systems
If they were able to convert something is wrong there. Marxists do not convert.
They are logical, rational.