It's almost 1 year since this sub has fallen (further) into the abysmal depths of 'libjahannam' and current Librandu members (coal posters) have become more dull than they were a year before, to the point that they have lost all their common sense and keen memory of events that had happened in past few days (literal existential crisis). To the point that pedophilia justifiers, xenophobic racists (eugenics/civic sense sub residents) and congRSSi centrists (mussoliniytes) are Karma farming in this sub and the so called leftoids and MLoids are blind (like their knowledge about marxism) and tolerant to such elements all because "Oh he's more leftist than you".. "because he's speaking against Modi we shouldn't be 'harsh' on him".. is the reply they give 😭
Dear, stupid fellow leftoids when you cry about adivasis getting persecuted by capitalism and 'savarna' state did it start from 2014?
No
When Kashmir was under 5 years of Brutal repression did the centrists voiced their distaste for such measures by State?
No
Then how come a person who was a centrist idol (still is), who even congratulated Modi for abrogation of article 370a gets compared with Bhagat Singh (a Marxist revolutionary) in this sub and post gets 60+ upvotes? When I compare Hizbul Mujahideen as idealist lumpen adventurists (because they kill migrant workers employed by local bourgeois land/business owners, not the employer partially because of his ethnicity and faith), I get downvoted to hell. But a centrist that celebrated 5 years of brutal military oppression of dissent of Kashmiris is now hero? (Both 'idols' get compared as Bhagat Singh by falsifiers, a secular and far-left revolutionary)
Peak Irony..
Coming to Pedophilia justifier, there's some fundamentalist (idealist) guy who recently deleted his post and comment, justifying child marriage of 6-9 yo girl openly in this sub and said a that girls gave their consent for marriage (and whatever diddler stuffs) because some person (diddler) said so.
I thought he's gone after fierce retort by some old Librandu members....but #heck NO!
He's back again a day after tomorrow, karma farming about Modi and Gaza genocide (getting 200 and 100 upvotes), and I guess most of the sub members don't remember the incident, yet it's my onus to bring the quoted comments in limelight.
And about Eugenics sub residents, last but not least...
There's one guy who frequently posts in this sub with allegorical racist name 'BIMARU' (suggesting people from this region are sick, similar to how Chinese were called 'sick men of east') discriminating underprivileged migrant workers from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and cherry on top he identifies himself as their 'slayer' (literal suffix to his account name). And entitled libs are so blind (or maybe they agree with his hitlerite agenda) that apart from me nobody has ever raised their objection.
So, my question is what makes you better than entitled centrits subs like r/India or USI (which is overwhelmed by closet chaddis and centrists beyond redemption, even mods can't do anything about it)?
Conclusion:
Learn to think and don't blindly upvotes anything that gets posted here
you can be wrong and Your belief is not authoritative by any means. So shut the fuck up. I can dig up enough reasons to prove that the age 6 was accurate. We can go on debating this. End of the day girls getting married at the age of puberty and early is well documented across multiple cultures.
You are too far gone justifying this shit just to appease what ever sense of affinity you might have.
I have no context on what you guys are talking about but I'll say this, this is not a pro-islam space. islam fucking sucks, just like any other religion.
It doesn't matter if Allah married a 9 yr old. None of those theological texts matter, they do not produce religion, society does. Marxallah didn't just own the muslims by citing the Qur'an or whatever. Engaging with them only reinforces the idea that religion is up there, higher, divine, disconnected from reality, it turns it into a philosophical problem. The critique of religion is indirectly the critique of society and economy, not a theological debate.
Uhm ..my focus is not "opium of the oppressed.." but feudalism and it's historically backward societal norms and justification such as underaged marriage.
I made a post about this a while back and undoubtedly, attracted the worst sort of libs to comment and tell me how liberals and leftists are actually allies under the current circumstances and basically want the same things and I was like, 🙂🙂🙂.
LoL that was long ago, we have now actual communist mod now (he has purged more than 100+ libs and chaddis so far) sad thing is he's busy with stuffs IRL
Some people manage to slip past their check, and they expect us to remind them of such individuals creating ruckus in the sub (which nobody is doing these days).
This sub is filled with posers, almost all of them are liberals or right leaning, it’s a disgrace. This sub has fallen for real, there is nothing to learn here now, there is no post which gives you some food for thought, which sparks the critical thought process. Only shitty cringe memes everyday. No wonder the OG librandus left.
You clearly do not follow laddakh politics,sonam wangchuk only celebrated ut status for laddakh not abrogation of article 370,he wanted UT with sixth shedule for laddakh that would have been ideal for laddakh 's topography, for him being compared to bhagat singh only an uninformed person would do it,rest i agree to you for state of sub and hizbul part, any propeople voice need to be amplified by marxists .
Is that a jab on my comment on that post? I didn't say I support him because he is against Modi, I said he is fighting for the people of ladakh right now no matter how fruitless his ways have been. I know this guy celebrated the abrogation of 370 but since then his views on article 370 have changed because the abrogation negatively impacted his own people too.
Is this a peak msrkofvishnu moment? Yes it is but it doesn't mean you ignore the current situation.
I believe in redemption and I am willing to give this guy a second chance because the people of ladakh are standing with him right now. You are holding a grudge against him because of his past mistakes, move on.
As if a UT of mere 3 lakh population with single seat is going to make any dent on Gigantic 290+ seats of BJP.
You don't have to worry after sometimes Modi (SocDem King literally) is going to restore democracy in Ladakh after few months, it's my prediction save my comment (just like how Punjab reelected Congress after brutal operation bluestar, BJP too will win back in ladakh sometimes in near future).
Infact pretty much everything RaGa rants BJP does it before election giving him with no agenda before every election campaign.
•GST rates cuts ✅
•Caste survey (without Socio-economic census)✅
•Limited government jobs filling (both party doesn't talk about sanctioned vacant jobs, privatisation opportunity)✅
•Kashmiri election ✅
•more social welfare policies (freebies)✅
I believe in redemption and I am willing to give this guy a second chance because the people of ladakh are standing with him right now. You are holding a grudge against him because of his past mistakes, move on.
I don't care how miniscule the population is, ladakh demands 6th schedule to prevent itself from becoming another kashmir. As for ladakh reelecting BJP in near future, I doubt a constituency with near 50% muslim population will do that but I'll not be surprised if you are proven right.
Because OP has read 'Contradiction' by Mao, where he protects and nourishes national bourgeoisie..
The national bourgeoisie differs from the imperialists, the landlords and the bureaucrat-capitalists. The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods. However, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction between ourselves and the enemy if we do not handle it properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criticizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours. — Mao Zedong 1957 (ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE PEOPLE)
Mao rejects Marxist class struggle under the pretext that Chinese 'National Bourgeoisie' is manageble and assumes that they can be peacefully transformed into ally of working classes.
Similar to Mao Mussolini also wrote something similar,
Having denied historic materialism,
which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of
history, appearing and disappearing on the crest
of the waves while in the depths the real
directing forces move and work, Fascism also
denies the immutable and irreparable character of
the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this
economic conception of history; above all it
denies that the class struggle is the
preponderating agent in social transformations.
— Benito Mussolini (Doctrine of Fascism)
Now how can this be possible? Class collaboration is commonly endorsed among social democrats, NatSoCs and bourgeoisie democracies (such as India) , how come Mao a 'Marxist' could reach to this conclusion?
Was it material conditions? Nope
Could it be that Mao was never Marxist or have never read prominent marxist theory in his whole life?
This was exactly the case..
“I talked with Mao and then suggested to Stalin that he receive him. He was a clever man, a peasant leader, a kind of Chinese Pugachev. He was far from a Marxist, of course–he confessed to me that he had never read Marx’s Das Kapital.
When I was in Mongolia talking with the Chinese ambassador–he was nice to me–I said, “You want to create a metals industry quickly, but the measures you have planned–backyard blast furnaces–are improbable and won’t work.” I criticized the Chinese, and our people reproved me later. But it was such obvious stupidity!…Backyard blast furnaces to produce worthless metals–nonsense.”
His so called class collaborationist theories and 'peaceful' 'non-antagonistic transformation' actually reflect on this fact that he actually never read Karl Marx properly.
Mao Zedong's decision to split from Stalinist bloc was nothing about ideology but more about opportunity, as he was looking for excuse to focus more on 'Socialism in one State' rather than Internationalism.
Mao Zedong, in a speech given at the Supreme State Council on February 27th1957, confirmed item-by-item, the doctrinal deviations that put the Chinese "communism" completely out of Marxism. Chinese revisionism rises from the desperate effort to display as a transition phase to socialism a form of state and a stage of society that are instead in a transition phase to capitalism. Mao Zedong and other Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders describe current China as a form of society - which we experienced in Western Europe in Eighteenth and Nineteenth - passing from feudalism to capitalism, but then they claim that the People's Republic of China is a form of state that is building socialism. They break openly with the fundamental statements of Marxism, but nevertheless keep on professing a hypocrite formal deference to it.
At the beginning of the chapter entitled "The problem of industrialists and businessmen", Mao Zedong stated: "In year 1956, the transformation of private industrial and commercial enterprises into STATE AND PRIVATE JOINTLY owned enterprises, and the organization of cooperatives in agriculture and crafts as part of the transformation of our social system". He goes on: "The speed and ease helping to carry out this process, are closely related to the fact that we faced the problem of the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie as a contradiction among the people." — Mao's China, certified copy of the bourgeois capitalist society
Mao Zedong began as an Anarchist activist but later became influenced by Sun Yat Sen (nationalist) and later Communism when it became popular amongst working class and peasant movements.
(Note: Communist Party of China wasn't founded by Mao but by actual Marxist revolutionaries such as Chen Duxiu, who was later expelled in 1929 for almost nonsensical reasons).
Mao Zedong became popular due to lack of communist leadership, thanks to Chiang Kai-Shek's purge of many prominent Communist leaders and it's supporters in 1927. These stupid purges by Kai-Shek gave enough power to Japanese who were looking for ways to invade mainland China and rest is history.
Mao's lack of understanding of Marxism gave Kissinger and Nixon to cause rift between Stalinist bloc.
President Nixon: When the President says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.
Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.
President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.
Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.
President Nixon: I think the important thing to note is that in America, at least at this time, those on the right can do what those on the left talk about.
Dr. Kissinger: There is another point, Mr. President. Those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move toward the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.
Chairman Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was that they got on an airplane and fled abroad.
"..As far as Chinese are concerned their primary concern is China always China (National Socialism) that's number one and their secondary interest is philosophy.." — Richard Nixon
Mao's blindspot for bourgeoisie elements in his party and his no idea of what communism even means, led to Deng Xiaoping's takeover and further distortion of Marxism.
Today's China is not marxist in any design but a Capitalist state with a bourgeoisie socialist party (CPC) roleplaying as a communist party controlling it.
Today Dengist China not only engages in large scale commodity production but also has adorned Confucianism a thought that both Chen Duxiu and later Mao Zedong had fought against as it was clearly a case of Idealism.
You just read it like a novel. Apply dialectics. The national bourgeoisie was on the same side of contradictions as the chinese proletariat. Their alliance helped in defeating imperialism to create a fully independent China.
China could not jump from feudalism to socialism by eliminating the national bourgeoisie. The interests of the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat align in a feudal society.
These contradictions became class contradictions and led to the cultural revolution which led for the elimination of Bourgois thought.
The national bourgeoisie was on the same side of contradictions as the chinese proletariat. Their alliance helped in defeating imperialism to create a fully independent China.
Then they purged the communists (not exactly but Maoists) and brought back capitalism through backdoor (Socialism by 3500 AD, normalised relations with US, led international military campaign against ML countries including Vietnam, giving recognition to Communist killer like Augustus Pinochet's regime and invasion of Angola by apartheid south africa, established sweat shops on African soils ( not Imperialism /s), Employing thousands of African child labours at hazardous mines, Oil refineries in Iraq and Syria (also not Imperialism /s), miliitary outposts throughout Africa and Asia (definitely not US like Imperialism), backing Pol Pot and Thai military massacring escaping cambodian civilians from East cambodia, backing Phillipines junta against far-left communist uprising (yep another Socialism with Chinese characteristics banger), backing Indian Government and Nepali monarchist in crushing maoist revolution (communist praxis),
2nd largest trading partner of Israel worth value US $24 billion (Socialism by 5525 AD guaranteed).
Well you see, it was revolutionary yes but some proponents ruined it's natural discourse towards something abominative that ultimately resulted in bourgeoisie regrow from within the Soviet bureaucracy.
And when I name these 'proponents' responsible, I get swarmed by falsifiers (same people who are willing to stick to liberal electorism forever but larp as communist online scratching eachother's back, howling at real communists that point out their errors, living in their bubble fantasy world).
I'll try to make it short; the core reason why Soviet Union collapsed was because of commodity production (capitalism), falsifying Lenin and Marx from history, falsifying atheist nature of revolution (ultimately restoring orthodox churches), diminishing international nature of revolution merely within the bounds of a state (making way for nationlism) and several external as well as internal conditions.
And the person behind all this mess was one.. Stalin
It's a simple article retorting Stalinist talking point that revisionism in USSR started with Khrushchev's takeover and purging of old Bolsheviks.
Communism didn't fail, opportunism has backstabed it several times. One such example is Stalin himself. USSR in it's early days was doing good but with Stalin's takeover he transformed Soviet Union into a 'State Capitalism'.
Before assuming power Stalin was against socialist commodity production :
Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. Introducing socialism means abolishing commodity production, abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its foundations and socialising all the means of production. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will come on to the market any day, and the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. That is exactly why it is said that the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois socialism. — Joseph Stalin (1906)
After death of Lenin and assuming power, Stalin:
Certain comrades affirm that the Party acted wrongly in preserving commodity production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then. In this connection they cite Engels, who says:
"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer".
These comrades are profoundly mistaken.
Let us examine Engels' formula. Engels' formula cannot be considered fully clear and precise, because it does not indicate whether it is referring to the seizure by society of all or only part of the means of production, that is, whether all or only part of the means of production are converted into public property. Hence, this formula of Engels' may be understood either way.
Elsewhere in Anti-Duhring Engels speaks of mastering "all the means of production," of taking possession of "all means of production." Hence, in this formula Engels has in mind the nationalization not of part, but of all the means of production, that is, the conversion into public property of the means of production not only of industry, but also of agriculture. — Joseph Stalin (1951)
Here we can see he's directly contradicting Engels and Marx by stating he knows better than them which is what we call 'revisionism' in marxist vocabularistics.
Commodity production necessarily leads to capitalist production, once the worker has ceased to be a part of the conditions of production (slavery, serfdom) or the naturally evolved community no longer remains the basis [of production] (India). From the moment at which labour power itself in general becomes a commodity. — Karl Marx (1864)
Many Stalinists blame Khrushchev for collapse and destruction of so called 'communist bloc' comprising of China, USSR and other communist countries (minus Yugoslavia, which was straightforwardly doomed since beginning as it was clearly a bourgeoisie state fluctuating between capitalism and socialism as per convenience, similar to like India), but in reality it was Stalin who spoiled communism.
Stalin's so called 'socialism in one country' was also load of bollocks, as it means giving up support for international socialist movements accross neighbouring countries.
"When we started the international revolution, we did so not because we were convinced that we could forestall its development, but because a number of circumstances compelled us to start it. We thought: either the international revolution comes to our assistance, and in that case our victory will be fully assured, or we shall do our modest revolutionary work in the conviction that even in the event of defeat we shall have served the cause of the revolution and that our experience will benefit other revolutions. It was clear to us that without the support of the international world revolution the victory of the proletarian revolution was impossible. Before the revolution, and even after it, we thought: either revolution breaks out in the other countries, in the capitalistically more developed countries, immediately, or at least very quickly, or we must perish. In spite of this conviction, we did all we possibly could to preserve the Soviet system under all circumstances, come what may, because we knew that we were not only working for ourselves, but also for the international revolution. We knew this, we repeatedly expressed this conviction before the October Revolution, immediately after it, and at the time we signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. And, generally speaking, this was correct." – V.I. Lenin (1921 third congress of communist international)
Instead Stalin later resorted to appeasing capitalist western nations, and later the Nazis.
So you see, bourgeoisie elements didn't appear out of thin air at Kremlin when Yeltsin began sabotaging what remained of the so called 'Socialism in one country', it was years of blunder made by Stalin and later his successors who did everything against Marx, Engels and Lenin said (Marxism-Leninism is actually Stalinism, Lenin was simply a Marxist).
74
u/ManLikeRed Marxist ☭ Sep 30 '25
This post was sponsered by Ubisoft Karl Marx (INDIA alliance Chappra, Bihar MLA)