I'd like to hear real opinions and critiques of Marxist Leninism...

I'd like to hear real opinions and critiques of Marxist Leninism, Marxist Leninism as an ideology is based upon a highly organized workers state. In a truly Marxist Leninist state the proletariat controls both the means of production and the state's politics through central democracy. Decisions are based upon logic, with the betterment of all of its citizens as a main driving force. Purges would only occur when individuals attempt to destabilize the state in order to further their own selfish agendas.

There will never be a "successful" Marxist-Leninist state. The economy reaches maximum productivity with decentralized control of resources with the government controlling certain sectors of the economy.

The Soviet Union collapsed. China is capitalist, Vietnam is capitalist, Cambodia is capitalist. North Korea has a GDP less than South Korea's military budget. If NONE of those countries could make a marxist-leninist state last, why the fuck do you think you can do better?

China isn't a capitalist state at this point, the communist party is still in control they've become revisionists. Their market socialists at this point. Cambodia was doomed for failure with pol pot, and the end of almost every Marxist star required the intervention of several capitalist nations actively sabotaging them for decades out of fear. Also we should learn from the failures of our predisessors in order to forge a better workers movement.

Workers of the World Unite!

>China
>not capitalist

Yes, and after over a century of practicing Marxism, they sure have learned a lot! Check out this workers' paradise that is Venezuela!

Marx actually predicted the breakdown of his own system well before he started drinking the kool-aid and thinking he could improve it. It only works in post-scarcity environments or where the community is tight-knit and well organized. It's fairly easy to destabilize and pervert the system and because everything is centrally controlled a small number of bad actors can have outsize effects.

it cannot ever work on a large scale. It will always destabilize. Humans are just too greedy. It can work on a smaller scale however, like a small village.

Sage

>Purges would only occur when individuals attempt to destabilize the state in order to further their own selfish agendas

that right there is my biggest critique of communism. it removes the ability to choose. at least within a capitalist society you can choose to form a communist society, the reverse is not true.

additionally, it strips away motivation of workers, and stifles innovation. why do anything different when you'll receive the same thing no matter what?

Progress in a capitalist society is focused around short term individual improvement, whereas a communist society focuses on communal long term improvements so that everyone improves together, also innovation is not stifled especially when its citizens have a patriotic mind set where they'll commit to self sacrifice for their fellow man

>I'd like to hear real opinions and critiques of Marxist Leninism
History

>Progress in a capitalist society is focused around short term individual improvement

that is one of the motivators for it in a capitalist society. others are for the betterment of the society, Tesla and Alexander Fleming are prime examples of this.

>also innovation is not stifled especially when its citizens have a patriotic mind set where they'll commit to self sacrifice for their fellow man

prime examples of this are how the soviets totally didn't have to steal hundreds of designs from the west in order to keep up with us technologically. or such as how they immediately applied technology to improve the safety of all of their citizens, like how when Fiat designed the Lada Riva for them in the 60s they immediately removed the disk brakes from the car and replaced them with drum brakes from the mid 1930s.

>when its citizens have a patriotic mind set where they'll commit to self sacrifice for their fellow man
> Purges would only occur when individuals attempt to destabilize the state in order to further their own selfish agendas.

so you want a Fascist society, but with a slightly different economic system?

>Decisions are based upon logic

I'll bet nobody commits crimes either, right?

Not necessarily fascist, but nationalism can be a powerful force of unification and cooperation, it should not be seen as a negative. Only when it leads to the populace to be distracted from their main goal does it become an issue

No criminals are dealt with harshly and quickly, while being rehabilitated they continue to provide their labor to make up for their cost to the state. Selfish individuals who chose crime should be given no opportunity for luxury.

>Not necessarily fascist

that's actually almost literally what you described. nationalist, authoritarian government which controls the economy. literally fascist.

>it should not be seen as a negative
it serves as a force to strip away individuality and divide people. it's not inherently negative, but it can sure as shit turn that way quickly.

>Only when it leads to the populace to be distracted from their main goal does it become an issue

and who, oh great and powerful red big brother, decides that aforementioned goal?

It is an inherently flawed system. It could work if we were all cyborgs with no emotions besides logic. There can be no greed in this system in order for it to work. People will always finds ways to do less work or get more than their fair share. On a large scale it has a very low chance of success.

>No criminals are dealt with harshly and quickly, while being rehabilitated they continue to provide their labor to make up for their cost to the state

so you want to bring back gulags?

just admit to being a tanky and get it over with

I'd like to hear your response to the obvious critique: it's failed miserably and taken millions of lives every time its been implemented

The goal is sutuational, however the goal for a communist society should be focused on economic and technological progress, not racial or national empowerment.

Didn't say I wasn't, I think gulag are excellent idea in theory.

>The goal is sutuational, however the goal for a communist society should be focused on economic and technological progress, not racial or national empowerment.

that states an idea behind decision making, but it does describe WHO is making the decisions.

okay, so you're an authoritarian nationalist who wants to socialize the economy and is fine with mass murder and incarceration so long as it serves your cause. so you're a Nazi wearing red and yellow. got it.

Communism(and anarchy) believe that people are inherently good and that government creates strife among people because government isnt natural. Communisms end goal is to reach a state of anarchy where people have equal outcomes compared to the equal opportunity that systems similar to that of america go for. I believe that people are not inherently good and are competitive by nature and if no government exists(or system of control) people will descend into chaos and very low standards of living

The afformentioned central democracy makes the decisions, said central government is made up of individual is made of people whom are selected based on their qualifications for the role.

so the ruling class makes decisions?

Not true I have no personal love for my people or nation, I just see it as a possible tool for unification, peoples right should not be based upon their race. Not all nations are racial they can be people with any common history or beliefs populations can become ideologically homogeneous despite race with time.

sorry, POLITICAL ruling class. important distinction.

They are not a ruling class they are the people's representatives whom they select after meeting basic requirements, the state should be a republic with elected officials

so you're just a Nazi wearing red and yellow without the racism. got it. still a Nazi.

if you honestly believe that the creation of individuals who have control over others via a democratic process doesn't invite corruption and thus the creation of a political ruling class then you're absurdly naive.

What defines a national socialist is in the name, I'm not a nationalist I do not think it should be a major part of the states political decisions, and said nationalism should not exceed a patriotic comradery

And who dictates who is qualified for that role? And is there a qualified qualifier to dictate who is qualified to dictate roles and determine qualifications?

Because that sounds like one powerful motherfucker in an equal society

The ones making choices should recieve no better treatment than their fellow work also their time as a political representative should be limited after its end the should be required to re-enter the worker force and live the same life as any mother worker.

>What defines a national socialist is in the name

no, what defines a national socialist is the governmental policy. in case you haven't realized this, Nazis and Soviets are damn near exactly the same.

No man should be a qualifier there should be a preexisting criteria, such as a minimum age, prior education involving politics, and lack of criminal offenses.

you're gonna give a ruling class of people control over government and expect them to willingly leave their cushy jobs to return to the regular workforce? you are giving one group of individuals literal totalitarian control over others and you legitimately believe they'll just walk away from that?

have you never interacted with a real human before?

I agree there obvious similarities in the roles of governance

>No man should be a qualifier there should be a preexisting criteria, such as a minimum age, prior education involving politics, and lack of criminal offenses.

so are these gonna be static? or will the political folk be able to change the criteria to better match society?

the differences lie in their symbols, their economic policies, and the people who they decided it was okay to commit genocide against (nazis picket blacks, gays, jews and Soviets picked the cossacks, the ukrainians, and they gays). they are more or less carbon copies of one another with a few smudges here and there.

Amending the criteria would have to be difficult and almost unanimously accepted, this would be one of the only political desicions besides the representatives elections that would be made by the entirety of the state

>Amending the criteria would have to be difficult and almost unanimously acceptedthis would be one of the only political desicions besides the representatives elections that would be made by the entirety of the state

so what you're saying is that you'd better get it right on the first try because the chances you're gonna have a unanimous vote after that are nil.

Unanimous is an exaggeration and I apologize for that, it would require a large majority 2/3s at the very least

again, good luck getting that level of agreement on anything with that many potential variances on it.

pointless conversation because it's all speculation. so lets get to the question you have yet to answer:

why do you think this form of government will work when it has failed miserably time and time again?

That comes down to external sabotage and size, if it is not seen as a large threat it will not be sabataged and it maintains a smaller territory it will be more effectively managed

Marxism is always doomed to failure. A successful communist state requires complete compliance by its citizens. All dissent must be stamped out or else the entire system will crumble. Thus, freedom of speech and thought cannot be tolerated as any deviation from the Marxist agenda by the people will cause it to collapse. Freedom of the individual is impossible and there is no incentive to achieve. Communism breeds stagnation, oppression and eventually atrophy. Communism = the death of a society.

>That comes down to external sabotage and size

so what you're saying is that this form of government is extremely fragile? and that it's prone to mass murder? and it's authoritarian?

your pitch on this idea is terrible.

and what of the horrible track record those countries have of human right?

>humans being highly organized

this is a breeding ground for corruption, nuff said

Read a book on economics. Then you will understand.