Bakunin was an anarchist so your better of in that thread, we're anti Bakunin over here

I mean he seems idealist a lot of the time but why are you specifically anti-Bakunin

Not a big enough beard

Bet any readings on bigger beards?

For me personally I cant speak for other people on in this thread.

Well I'm a Marxist I uphold the fact we need a DOTP, while Bakunin rejects it at all. I used to be an anarchist so I see why this is seem desirable but after the revolution classes still exist, and you need the DOTP to crush the bourgerious, look at China if the state didnt push for land reform and co-ops. Without them the Rich Peasants would outperform all other farms, and start hiring wage labour and start capital accumulation while the state came in and backed the poor peasants through landform, co-ops and communes which gave the poor peasants through mutual aid the upper hand and outperform the rich peasants where even the rich peasants started joining them as they would be more beneficial to be in them than not but not as beneficial if capital accumulation was allowed.

His take on the lumpen where they can be the revolutionary force, well I agree they can turn into one through prolateriantization but without that they're an unreliable force that one day can do the greatest heroic deeds to the next the most vile banditry, like gang members collaborating with police to disrupt BPP meetings and to the murder of the cadre in the RCP where the gang member told them to take down the red flag, his flag is red white and blue.

well at least youve read the best book ever

start with Lenin

View OG source for the full size

Big pharma bad except for when they make ivermectin

eh it’s cause they idolize the mythology of a guy working from the bottom up, a man that started with nothing and ended up with everything that’s why they tend to adore people like Elon Musk someone who sells that story himself or a variant of it while it being far from the truth and hate pharmaceutical corporations who seemed to be a faceless entity.

This myth has a lot of benefits to capitalist like avoiding the actualization of capitalism being a story of inheritance, brutality, and the upmost exploitation and destruction

the a***ysis by a lot of these people is braindead but in their minds its consistent. for libertarians/ancaps, they think big pharma is only corrupt because of regulation and government bureaucracy/control (LOL), for more liberal minded they think big pharma is only corrupt because it's not regulated enough or incorrectly, and obviously most liberals want capitalism w/ regulation so to them they feel its consistent

Yeah I see that. Feels like thats just stem from the overt individualism that capitalism breeds that if we get rid of this one guy or entity like Joe Manchien or Big Pharma are the reason we aren't getting what we want rather than a systematic view that critiques the structure and how they are rather symptoms of the disease of capitalism.

I dont see any education reform solving this under a capitalist mode of production, I dont see why anyone in power would want it, it doesnt make the people better works, in fact it might make them even worse workers cause it woulds be raising class consciousness. If it does get implemented through any grassroots movements I wont be surprised that the structural critique would be b******ised like how the civil rights movement is.

i need to read some hegel at some point in anti duhraing when Engels mention that for Hegel in itself means the covered hidden contradiction within a thing, added a whole new meaning i forgot who says it when the working class becomes a class from “in itself” to “for itself”

Talking about this line by Engels

“ With Hegel, “in itself “ covers the original identity of the hidden, undeveloped contradictions within a thing, a process or an idea, and “for itself “ contains the distinction and separation of these hidden elements and the starting-point of their conflict”

any like, good, impartial books on stalin? or even just a historical survey of the USSR in general?

reading "a peoples history of the world" rn and it's so obvious this guy is a trotskyite and is unable to say anything positive about the Stalins USSR

anyway what is the "socialism in one country" stuff trotskists talk about?

my understanding is they reject that one country can turn to socialism; the revolution has to either spread or die.

They agree that workers can establish a state of their own in a single country, however overcoming the 10,000 years of class society would only be possible by utilizing all the means of production created by modern industrial capitalism, and this exists on a world scale

Why do you feel like this is right or wrong?

like, for example, "to either spread or die" -- they would reject modern day China as socialist, then, right? also Cuba, then, because they're taking on some forms of Capitalism?

"to die" is defined as what? does it mean to be taken over by a capitalist roader? so in this case, the politicans who took after Stalins death, or Deng Xiaoping in China?

Why would utilizing more means of production prevent a capitalist roader from taking place? Isn't it more about how you utilize the means of production (e.g. the base and superstructure dialectic?)

I don't think there really is any impartial books on Stalin except like some works of some academic historians like J. Arch Getty

Do you have any on the ussr in general