I've lost the websites where this guys gather. I'm interested in the Marxist nationalism the most. I know /pol can find me links to this guys. Thanks.
>>76909874
I saved to my shuffling wallpaper folder without even thinking... oh well...
Are they still alive?
Nationalism is bad, goyim. Submit to your israeli shecklebers
>>76909874
Has Monre ever been penetrated on film
If not thats hot
If so thats hot
>>76909874
You are in the wrong place pinko faggot.
>>76910160
I think she was not!
>>76910397
Fuck commies
>>76909874
She does twitch now doesn't she?
C'mon /pol. You can't completely reduce yourself to one current.
>>76910709
She is out of business. Having a dayjob, lol.
>>76909874
Fuck man I don't know. Go ask /leftypol/ on 8ch
Marxism is inherently anti-nationalist, Strasserism is the closest thing you'll find to it.
>>76911056
It is not inherent. I'm a nationalist Marxist. Mao was national Marxist. Stalin was also on our side, but more left. Everything progress. Marxism as well. You totally can combine class and nation.
>>76911220
Mao destroyed thousands of historical Chinese artifacts and traditions in order to try and recreate the Chinese identity. Definitely not a nationalist.
National Socialism (especially Strasserism) combines class and nation
Easy to be a "socialist" on a full stomach in the wealthiest time in history.
>>76911056
Strasserism is a total failure. It reduced science of Marxism to an idea. It reduced an Idealism to fairy-tails. There is nothing in it. Except the proximity on the left-right coordinates.
>>76911441
Recreation is nice. Even developing of something new is nice. Nationalism is not always reactionary. Give new thought a try.
Give me the damn links!!!
>>76911485
All forms of forced economic collectivism are idealistic fairy tales.
>>76911573
But he wasn't a nationalist of China, he was a nationalist of the Marxist ideology.
>>76911707
Why is he criticized from the left side for nationalism?
>>76911866
Because any mention of your country will get you criticized for nationalism by the far left. If you really want a nationalist communist figure Tito is probably the best you will get.
>>76911866
because they needed a way to escape the blame for all their atrocities. If you ever justly criticize a communist it will turn out that they weren't "really" communist.
>>76912172
>>76912263
Can you describe the criticism you are making your opinion of? How many critics from left of Mao did you read? Name them.
>>76912636
Why the fuck would I have to read leftist critiques of Mao to understand that the far left cries "ahh nationalism from the evil bad man" every time someone is within a 4km radius of a nation's flag?
>>76912809
To make an opinion on something you need to know about it.
>>76911441
fascism combines class and nationality (in theory)
nat socialism was Hitlers form of fascism and put a heavy emphasis on race theory and the Jews
>>76912953
The wrong class.
>>76912881
>implying that I have to understand a very specific and relatively irrelevant part of an idea to understand the overall idea.
>>76912636
Trotskyists attack "socialism in one country" aspect of non-revisionist ideology as being an affront to the internationalism of marxism, and being a kind of fascism. They thinks this gets them off the hook for things like the cultural revolution and Holodmor, while Trotsky advoccated constant world war until every one was communist, because the workers revolution had to be a global one.
but basically since communism can't actually work all communist regimes make compromises. These compromises, then allow other groups to free Marxism of criticism based on the compromised regimes because they were not "true" Marxists
>>76913192
Ideas are not easy. You may want to study basics before making high-level conclusions. Education works this way. For example. Not the opposite way.
>>76913310
To understand that 2 hydrogens bond to 1 oxygen to make water you don't have to understand everything about elementary particles.
>>76913654
Knowledge is not "understanding". To understand you actually need to learn why
>>76913232
> These compromises, then allow other groups to free Marxism of criticism based on the compromised regimes because they were not "true" Marxists
Not true "communism" maybe? Because Marxism can be different in every single head. Anyway. Trotskie was an agent who fought against rising communist power. He did not attempt to legitimate communism. Quite the opposite. Do you see all this kids posing communist today? They are in fact left-liberals, not more. It is in part the work of Trotskie.
>>76913862
Was that not a shift in his ideology due to being ran out by Stalin?
Anyway I do not see how the communist orthodoxy of Trotsky has anything to do with my original comment. Tankies are not going to be criticizing Mao for his nationalist tendencies and people who are neither tankies or trots are just hipster faggots LARPing communism.
>>76914356
>Was that not a shift in his ideology due to being ran out by Stalin?
Shift never happened because he was not into Marxism in the first place. He was very good in planning, organizing and doing propaganda for the party but every single time shifted from the Marxist system of thought. He was expelled from the party for that and excused twice. Even before Stalin.
>Anyway I do not see how the communist orthodoxy of Trotsky has anything to do with my original comment.
Because it is not a criticism from the left. It is a criticism from a Jew manipulator that fought against the left. Which makes him a very smart rightist.
Also, Mao:
1) made peace with the upper class of China.
2) made a 3rd-world theory which is completely a nationalist invention.
>>76914864
>He was very good in planning, organizing and doing propaganda for the party but every single time shifted from the Marxist system of thought.
>Because Marxism can be different in every single head
I think you proved what I was saying in the original post.
>Because it is not a criticism from the left.
Do you consider Nationalism leftwing. If not, then it is a criticism from the left, just not from a leftist.
>Which makes him a very smart rightist
>rightist
>being against the Czar
Mao tried to destroy every part of traditional Chinese culture, up to executing people for knowing how to make traditional bows
>made peace with the upper class of China
see the second paragraph of >>76913232
Mao also did everything he could to annihilate traditional chinese culture
>>76915628
>I think you proved what I was saying in the original post
Communism is a defined thing. Marxism is a science. So Marxism changes every time a new fact is presented or by studying. Communism is hard to change, Marxism is not.
>Do you consider Nationalism leftwing.
I consider nationalism right-wing.
Trotskie made a leftwing criticism. But it is not a legitimate criticism as it is only a form of manipulation. In this case the wrong thing is to listen to a manipulator with a false left-wing agenda.
>rightist
>being against the Czar
Yes, most of them are.
>Mao tried to destroy every part of traditional Chinese culture, up to executing people for knowing how to make traditional bows
>Mao also did everything he could to annihilate traditional chinese culture
This is why Chinese are one of the most traditional nation ATM? I was in China so many times personally. In fact my step-grandfather is Chinese. They are more traditional than anybody.
>>76916515
>Marxism is a science
It is an ideology that has certain Ideological presuppositions. The Ideology is destructive to others and itself. To ignore this most advocates hide behind the "its never been tried" argument.
> But it is not a legitimate criticism as it is only a form of manipulation.
Are you therefore a proponent socialism in one country and if so, what is it about Mao that makes him a nationalist?
>Yes, most of them are.
I disagree, but we probably have different definitions of right wing
>This is why Chinese are one of the most traditional nation ATM?
That is both debatable and irrelevant. Easter Europe is more traditional than Western Europe. One the most hilarious ironies is that the leftists that wanted to destroy European culture preserved better than the leftists who claimed to be defending it.
>>76917550
That is both debatable and irrelevant. Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe. One the most hilarious ironies of the 20th century is that the leftists that wanted to destroy European culture preserved it better than the leftists who claimed to be defending it.
sorry
>>76917550
>The Ideology is destructive to others and itself.
There are two types of ideology. One is based on materialism and science. Second is based on idealism. Ideology which is based on science is a true, progressive ideology.
>To ignore this most advocates hide behind the "its never been tried" argument.
Its never been used arguments is coming from the ignorance of people that claim the end point(communism) to be an equivalent of a starting point(socialism). Every single time you can see some idiot clams the starting has failed calling it "communism". If communism was never introduced it is right to say it was not.
>Are you therefore a proponent socialism in one country
There is no therefore. Stalin and Mao were up to proceeding with the rest of the world. "socialism in one country " is as well a Trotskie manipulation.
>what is it about Mao that makes him a nationalist?
Giving ruling power to the national upper class.
> but we probably have different definitions of right wing
I use the one from the dictionary. Just in case.
>That is both debatable and irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. Chinese traditions were preserved. I'm not traditionalist. I'm against traditionalism as I'm progressive nationalist. That is why for me is important to know how to get rid of the traditions. And Mao did the opposite. He preserved traditions.
I don't care about Socialism but Americans should have prohibited the use of Guevara symbols.
>>76918167
>One is based on materialism and science
Any political ideology assumes the true existence of abstract forms. Thus no political ideology could be anything but Idealist.
> If communism was never introduced it is right to say it was not.
Why was it never introduced? Why has it been impossible to get past the dictatorship of the proletarian phase? Communism is Utopian and can never be manifested in our fallen world. Would you accept that Theocracy has never been tried because Jesus has yet to come back and make the new Jerusalem.
>Giving ruling power to the national upper class
That is an idiosyncratic definition of nationalism.
>I use the one from the dictionary.
Webster says; "the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right" which at the time would exclude anyone opposing the Czar.
>And Mao did the opposite. He preserved traditions.
He tried to destroy traditions he failed. Just like communists the world over failed. If you want to destroy tradition, your best bet is capitalism.
>>76919388
>Any political ideology assumes the true existence of abstract forms. Thus no political ideology could be anything but Idealist.
Why? The second doesn't come from first.
>Why was it never introduced? Why has it been impossible to get past the dictatorship of the proletarian phase?
Because it is not easy. You need to make it happen. It is not going to be done by itself. If you will not make it happen - it won't.
>That is an idiosyncratic definition of nationalism.
This is not a definition. It is a causality.
>Webster says
Didn't know such a definition exist.
>He tried to destroy traditions he failed.
>He tried
Trying doesn't count.
I FOUND THE LINKS, YAHOOO! Thank you guys.
>>76919756
>Why?
The actual existence of abstract forms negates materialism. That leaves merely pragmatic, anti-ideological politics, such as conservatism, or Idealism.
> Because it is not easy. You need to make it happen. It is not going to be done by itself. If you will not make it happen - it won't.
>Trying doesn't count.
So no communist is alive or has ever lived. I had only ever dreamed that this day would come.
>Didn't know such a definition exist.
It is a bad definition, but you wanted to use a dictionary.
>>76920639
>The actual existence of abstract forms negates materialism.
How?
>>76921278
Materialism asserts that only material things exist.
Abstractions are not material.
Therefore if abstractions exist, materialism is wrong.
>>76921706
But abstractions ARE material.
>>76921897
abstraction
n. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
>>76922028
> apart from concrete realities
>concrete
>>76909874
>Marxist
>nationalism
Now, I'm not one of the bird-brained morons who go out and say "Marxism and nationalism don't mix, communist state is oxymoron hurr," but you can't have socialist economics mashed together with fascist foreign and government policy. It doesn't work. Engels proved that you can't have socialism in one country indefinitely.
>>76922063
That is why you push for expansion.
>>76922137
The way Stalin figured it, it was up to the USSR to kick-start all those revolutions that failed in western Europe. Then Mao came along and said you need to liberate the agrarian peasants first before you came knocking on the West's door.
Now, what do Mao and Stalin have in common? They died before they could get their ideas off the ground, and their successors cared more about keeping themselves in power than communist ideology. And the state bureaucracies in both countries obstructed progress even during those two people's lifetimes because it was in their own personal interest.
A lot of people who say "communism can't work because of human nature", don't know *how* human nature prevents communism, but they're right. It requires a sort of political unity and cohesion that just isn't possible in human society. The far-left as of recent is the most sectarian political group in the whole world, and that's mainly because there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians, and no chief wants to downgrade to Indian.
>>76922061
Which I take to mean hard, material. There are material circles. there is no material circleness.
>>76922513
I agree with most of your analysis.
But my conclusion is right the opposite. Not too many people are able to work hard to become chiefs. Look at the left today, they can't figure anything. They don't study, but protest. Their mama was tough with them. Didn't buy a new porshe. So they "rebel". It is not a material you can do something with. We need a group of theoreticians, organizers, income finders. Not the kids, who can follow. We will easily find people to follow, they are 6 billion of them. But there shall be a sovereign, group, or party which is capable of leadership. And there is non.
>>76922547
There are material circles in your head. In the form of electrical signals. Or in position of transistor 11001010100100001
>>76923152
but circleness is not dependent on any of my thoughts or any particular circle. Thus it is not material.
Also material objects are non-determinative. whereas formal thought is inherently determinative. Therefore formal thought is immaterial. Political ideologies involve formal thought, and thus require the immaterial.
>Or in position of transistor 11001010100100001
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
>>76911056
/thread
OP is a retard.
>>76923905
>but circleness is not dependent on any of my thoughts
It is dependent. Why not? Where it is? Only in the signals.
>Also material objects are non-determinative. whereas formal thought is inherently determinative.
Why?
>>76909874
>Marxist nationalism
no such thing
>>76924052
>It is dependent. Why not? Where it is?
If no humans existed to think of circles physical circles would still exist. if no physical circles existed but humans did, we could still come up with circleness, if only through geometry. so circleness is not dependent on any physical nor mental circle. It has an abstract existence thus the question where is meaningless.
>Why?
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/oerter-and-indeterminacy-of-physical.html
>>76924991
>if no physical circles existed but humans did, we could still come up with circleness
Which would be based in the material signals of their brain.
>>76925162
>Which would be based in the material signals of their brain.
This does nothing to address my point also
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/oerter-and-indeterminacy-of-physical.html
>>76925490
Your point is that abstractions are not material. They are.
>>76909874
OP you should read this
https://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Enduring-Legacy-Kerry-Bolton/dp/1908476427
Extremely well written book and very relevant and you will understand why Donald Trump is so important and what he is doing and that he is not a joke.
>>76925814
Joking, right?
>>76925615
Even if the formal thought required to discover circles, without any physical circle to go off of, was a material process, which it objectively is not, that would in no way contradict my argument. since I was demonstrating that circlness was not dependent on any physical or mental instance of a circle.
>>76925958
Provide me short thesis from the books of this gentleman please.
>>76926037
Why is it important to be dependent on the outer matter if it depends on inner matter. Dependence on any matter is solely enough to be materialistic.
>>76925889
Stalin was anti-marxist
The US cultural empire is pro-marxist
When Leon Trotskys widow wrote that "Stalin betrayed the (marxist) revolution" and from now on she had to supported USA imperialism instead because it promotes modern lifestyles and modern arts/architecture.
I can't say she was wrong, Stalin DID betray the revolution.
>>76925162
>If no humans existed to think of circles physical circles would still exist. if no physical circles existed but humans did, we could still come up with circleness, if only through geometry. so circleness is not dependent on any physical nor mental circle. It has an abstract existence thus the question where is meaningless.
Why not keep your narrow positivism in the engineer section where it belongs? this is /pol
>>76909874
Read the shit yourself. But the Das kapital and get it over with it, and you might be not retarded after you read it
>>76926386
because matter only accounts for its particular instances which its abstraction is not dependent on.
>>76926467
>Why not keep your narrow positivism in the engineer section where it belongs? this is /pol
What do you when by this. because I hope it is a joke.
>>76926400
>Stalin was anti-marxist
I've read most of Stalin. Didn't find much
anti-marxism in it. I think the problem here that somebody didn't read him. He had to do a lot of trade offs. That's confuses many. Marxists are not idealist and can act in opposition of their ideas. Because dialectics allow that. Only dialectics can erase this confusion.
>>76926768
>What do you when by this. because I hope it is a joke.
Physicists should stick to their disciplin, you are such narrow thinkers that you cant contribute to other sciences.
The humanities has finally overcome your 19th century positivism, so lets keep it out of /pol.
The biggest contribution of marxism is the creation of a proletarian and burgeoise identity.
>>76926400
>Stalin was anti-marxist
Your head's up your ass
>>76926768
>because matter only accounts for its particular instances which its abstraction is not dependent on.
You are loosing me. There is two types of matter. Objective (the one you say may not exist to learn curliness) and subjective (the one you need to have a brain and use it to learn curliness). Ether is matter. If you don't depend on the first one - you depend on the second. Change of type of the matter doesn't change that it is matter.
>>76927243
I am essentially defending Platonism and you are accusing me of 19th century positivism. Philosophy is the humanities.
>>76927525
But the abstraction is neither. You are saying that any particular circle is material, which I reject but its not important currently, but we are discussing the abstraction which i not dependent on any particular circle.
>>76927861
It depends on a particular circle in your head. It depends on your subjective material. Try having an abstraction without brain. You can't.
>>76927861
>I am essentially defending Platonism and you are accusing me of 19th century positivism. Philosophy is the humanities.
Im accusing you of positivism in general, the 19th century was the last time that ontology was modernized. Refering to Plato is not really a chronological progression after that. How about reading some actual contemporary, like lets say Derrida?
>>76928168
But the abstraction is not dependent on my brain. Circles would still be circles, even if no humans were around to think of them as such.
>>76928412
I have, it nonsense.
>>76910160
Just by another girls hand ;-)
>>76928440
It does depend of your brain. Abstract circles would not exist without it. Because they exist solely in you head.
>>76927861
here you go :)
>>76928626
They do not exist solely in my head but every other rational creatures head as well. Even with out rational creatures circles would still have circleness in common, and thus the abstraction would still be real.
>>76928715
Words either represent real things or they don't. If they don't, we can't even have a discussion. If they do, you have not made an argument
>>76929153
There would still be a need for someone subjectively having it in their head.
>>76929153
you are so narrow minded :( all you will be able to contribute is to fix my car or toilet, those, we surely can agree, are your beloved "real things".
>>76929321
Last time it was worse. Someone arguing that I'm his imagination. We can say this subject is a step ahead!
>>76929262
Why?
>>76929321
I have deconstructed the meaning of your words and reconstructed them into my own cultural idiom as you saying that you have surrendered and completely agree with me. Also that you think its foolish to expect Derrida fans to work anywhere other than starbucks.
>>76929517
you know what the problem is? If they talk their physics and formulas, everyone who doesnt have a clue would shut up and not dare to interfere.
But if we humanists talk our science, every dork in the village thinks they would have a right to make objections, wtf?
>>76929610
hoho the "sociologists are all unemployed" card, welcome to the bottom
>>76929907
better than the platonic plumber meme
>>76929610
>Why?
Because abstract does not exist outside of the brain. But there are common laws, yes. Material laws of how matter behaves which make it form a lot of similar object. Circles, even! And by using our brain we can find similarities of the material objects and use our grey matter to form a common abstractions for groups of objects. Common laws, similar objects =! abstractions. First exist in objective, abstractions exist in subjective.
>>76929702
Formulas do not change the worldview and are not connected with "I". You don't need to change yourself to calculate. Integrity is an important part of how brain works. You ruin them the whole world, what you expect? You don't want people to stop functioning, right?
>>76930119
but Circleness would exist without us though, circleness is an abstract entity. Circlness objectively exists. Thus abstractions objectivly exist.
>>76930716
>but Circleness would exist without us though
How? Show me circleness without us.
>>76930716
this discussion is the only circleness i can see.
>>76930119 points are valid from a positivist ontology.
>>76930716 points are valid from an anti-positivist/intrepretivist ontology.
Both can contribute, but since this is /pol, intrepretivism is the more promising lead.
>>76930841
I can't show you an abstraction, i can only show you particular instances that prove the existence of the abstraction, but I think you know what a circle is. The fact that physical circles exist means that they participate in circlness and would do so even if we did not exist.
>>76931171
> i can only show you particular instances that prove the existence of the abstraction
Go ahead
>>76911470
Incredibly underrated
>>76931132
No, I'm not positivist.
>>76931287
>>76931436
didnt think you were. I'd guess you are a pyschologist that chose the more biological rather than the more social science track of that disciplin?
>>76931287
circles
>>76931838
I don't see any proof.
>>76931287
cells
>>76931932
They are all participating in circleness
>>76931849
I wanted to be a psychotherapist, but 10+ years in medicine repelled me into economy and philosophy -((( No regrets.
>>76932015
I don't see it.
>>76909874
>>76910709
>>76910765
Who is she?
>>76932164
Don't see what? circles, then your blind.
>>76932372
I don't see any proof.
>>76932555
That they are all participating in circleness is the proof.
>>76932696
I don't see them participating
>>76932826
Then they wouldn't have circleness and thus you could not see circles
>>76932997
I don't see any proof. I think it might be in your head as an abstraction, lel. Can you pass it to me?
>>76933100
How can I? Only humans can grasp abstractions and humanity is an abstraction and thus cannot be participated in. Therefore you cant be human, humanity is all in my head.
>>76909874
>the only way communists can argue is by posting whore models
>>76909874
>nationalist
>communist
kek. Communism is by definition a globalist ideology.
>>76909874
Democracy and Communism doesn't go well together at all
>>76933472
Does this sum up your stance?
>>76933472
If you can't present me an abstraction without a subject to perceive it than your argument of existence of abstractions without a subject is invalid. I'm done here
>>76933997
I can't present you with a material object without needing a subject to perceive. I am showing it to you. you are a subject. If you don't perceive, I would not be doing any thing.
>>76933877
How does that have anything to do with what I said
I know there are national-bolsheviks in russia, but they be banned desu
>>76909874
Bolsheviks and Marxists are to blame for everything. Those non-persons need to be destroyed.
>>76934341
thats about as much as positvism can "contribute" to social sciences
>>76934625
>>76934880
>>76935249
Why be free from the patriarchal canon, when its objectively, demonstrably true?
>>76935586
so sad :(
>>76935736
Whats to understand? The memes have not inherent meaning and can only mean what I perceive them as meaning.
>>76935943
nothing has inherent meaning and everything only means for what you perieve it to mean. And yes, this might not be a promising approach for physics or mechanics, but in the social sciences we can great amazing concepts and ideas when basing it on this ontology.
>>76935249
Derrida was a huge faggot though
why would anyone take that French loser seriously lmfao holy shit I'm laughing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtpikt8eWc
>>76936156
Then I perceive you as hating Derrida and loving Plato, since you words can mean that as much as anything.
>>76936284
exactly :) welcome to the world of the social sciences. We maybe dont have formulas, but its actually still even more complicated.
>>76936482
Well I am happy that it results in me always being right.
anyway I'm off. Night jutebro.
>>76924442
This anon is the only correct person in this thread. Marx and Engels were both insistent that Marxism could not happen unless it happened to ALL the workers of the world. Nationalism in itself was counterproductive to the movement, as the common worker "knew no nation"
"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range." -The Principles of Communism, Engels
However, after several socialist uprisings failed in Germany and Hungary, Stalin recognized that he would have to look inwardly within the Soviet Union, and thus put forth his "Socialism in One Country" theory, which then officially became Soviet doctrine until de-Stalinization.
Ask me anything, this is my minor.
>>76937243
nice summary. Think its interesting to think about national identity and class identity as rivaling forces. Bourdieu claimed that Marx failed to see the implications of his identity creation, but maybe he actually realized it anyway and saw it opposed to national one?
>>76937533
Marx would not have lived to see the socialist uprisings fail in Europe post-WWI like Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviets leadership of the time did. I would say that no, he would have remained opposed to the national one, and this school of thought can still be seen today in various extremist Marxist/Socialist/Communist groups. Bourdieu is absolutely correct here, Marx did not see what he had done.
Interestingly enough, since the Russian Empire at the time included the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) and the eastern portion of Poland (the rest being divided between Germany and Austria-Hungary), Marx and Engels both recognized the right of those nations to assert their independence. Once the October Revolution took place, they were the only countries to actually receive independence, but this would only last until Sept. 1, 1939 for Poland (German Invasion) and until 1940 for the Baltic States, when they were once again absorbed by the Soviet Union as a means of resistance against the German advance. After the war, the Soviets retained these states until the dissolution of the USSR and you probably know the rest.
>>76927101
>Marxists are not idealist and can act in opposition of their ideas. Because dialectics allow that. Only dialectics can erase this confusion.
>lefties have to resort to this kind of mental gymnastics
>mfw
>>76940288
no es un argumento hombre negro compañero
>>76942263
not trying to argue anything, just having a laugh at the idiotic left. Marxism is internationalist by definition. Stalin's brand of communism was just imperialism masquerading as communism and using internationalism as an excuse for expansion.
Now if we were to say, national bolshevism, maybe you'd be up to something. But national marxism is beyond retardation and can't happen unless you're a lefty suffering from cognitive dissonance like they tend to do.
>>76936265
commies BTFO
