Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
🎶_Well, I wish I was in the land of cotton_
The workers there are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away, Dixieland!
In Dixie’s land, the workers rally
Come and sing the Internationale
Look away, look away, look away, Dixieland!
The workers there are not forgotten
Look away, look away, look away, Dixieland!
In Dixie’s land, the workers rally
Come and sing the Internationale
Look away, look away, look away, Dixieland!
Source
not provided yet
Found the communist apologist.
I just hate that cheap and insolent western propaganda, which shows USSR as “empire of evil”. Cold War ended, but this shit never stops.
Yes, history and practice are the most anti-communist propaganda.
Edited
«Nicolaus II started eradication of illiteracy». He was one of the worst monarchs in Russian history. I don’t know, how would he raise literacy rates to >90% of population, when he couldn’t even carry out liberal reforms to prevent at least one of revolutions.
The best Soviet education in the world is the same myth as the dictatorship of the proletariat. All that was good in it was taken from the Russian Empire, and everything new that the Bolshevik revolution brought was dialectical materialism and scientific communism. Over the entire 20th century, the USSR did not make any significant contribution to world philosophy and jurisprudence.
Due to the fact that the government of the Russian Empire could not prevent the revolution, in terms of police and search, everything was very bad, it was very undeveloped and lagged behind. I can write a lot here about the revolution and why it happened, in general, all sorts of terrorists are running around with bombs in one hand, and with Lenin’s book in the other, and the government could not do anything, there was no investigation.
It was all very weak developed, it just needs an emergency response department, of course there was nothing like that in the Russian Empire.
Security Service MI5 - United Kingdom
Centre for Combating Extremism - Russia
Center for a New American Security - USA
There was nothing like this in the Russian Empire, this is one of the factors that destroyed it and brought a lot of civilian casualties. :/
So you claim that Soviet education system was recognized as the best of its time just because of old professors from Russian empire? That’s something new.
The Soviet education system is a program of the Russian Empire, but the Communists and fans of the USSR, they do not like to talk about it. In general, in the beginning there were many experiments on education. Until the end of the 30s, history was generally forbidden to teach, the education system was required to be simplified as much as possible. In schools and universities, the “Dalton Plan” was introduced, it is the brigade-laboratory method of teaching, all students were divided into teams and performed tasks together and only the team leader answered, the teacher evaluated the completed task and gave the same rating to the whole team.
I agree with the manifesto on the unified labor school of the Russian socialist federal Soviet republic, it was proposed to educate children through labor, teaching them the basics of the production profession, this was certainly done to the detriment of the development of other subjects. In addition, all academic ranks, examinations in higher educational institutions and any requirements for applicants were canceled, a worker from the church school or an uneducated peasant could go to university. The main thing was not his knowledge or ability, but class origin.
It was only in the 30s that a partial reversal to the pre-revolutionary school began, then all these strange experiments were canceled and the old class-lesson teaching system with a schedule and individual grades returned. The Soviet educational system essentially achieved great coverage only by reducing requirements.
Until the 50s, it was actually based not on pre-revolutionary knowledge, but on pre-revolutionary Zemstvo schools, but I explained above that the education of technical sections was at a very good level, which I can not say about humanitarian education (only a psychiatric hospital will help here)
We can say that the USSR has achieved what it has achieved because it relied on scientific thinking and a system of mass education and testing - Well, yes, but this was due to the fact that the heads of techies, mathematicians, physicists were not particularly washed out with dialectical materialism.
As it was said, “Leave them alone, they make rockets for us” This means when at one of the physics departments they tried to strengthen the study of dialectical materialism, the director wrote, “leave them alone, we teach them to make rockets later, your fucking dialectic doesn’t need “
“Learns, learns and learns again” - this is taken out of context because Lenin said “Learns, learns and learns communism again.” Again, NOT science means, not physics, not mathematics, all these bourgeois nonsense.
Well, there was lots of reasons why USSR collapsed. And surly not because there was no empire’s professors. Even in 2000-s Russia still has a great scientists. I hope, you don’t want to offend your own country.
On the account of why the Soviet Union collapsed, it all seems to me a logical and logical process, but I’m afraid I will write more texts on this topic, but if it’s very rude and in short. That Gorbachev tried as Deng Xiaoping (in the experience of the Chinese comrades to introduce a market sector economy in order to save the country) But only Gorbachev’s mistake was that he did it in parallel with the democratization of society, so the system went into pieces and everything fell apart. In China, no political democracy followed, where the opposition on the Tiananmen Square killed everyone.
Well, if it weren’t for oil, then the USSR would have collapsed even earlier, and this only took the process to 91 years.
I think if the NEP had not been abolished, if Bukharin had come to power instead of Stalin, then perhaps everything would have been much better if the USSR had taken a course on a market economy, and not on fucking socialism.
But .. Bukharin was shot.
So, you may call it socialism or state capitalism – I don’t care. As I know, even communists have argue about it.
The Communists have a lot of contradictions and they argue among themselves a lot, if you call the Nazis leftists, they laugh) because they can’t go into politology.
Fascism and communism is all left totalitarian ideology. But communists usually disagree with me)
I just hate that cheap and insolent western propaganda, which shows USSR as “empire of evil”. Cold War ended, but this shit never stops.
Yes, but in fairness, the USSR also had very clumsy propaganda that the United States and the West live very poorly, as there were bad posters, but the borders were closed, and there were many people even among the military who fled to the USA military aircraft, there are such cases. Some scholars crossed the ocean and asked for political asylum, if interested, I can leave links to such stories. The propaganda was not only in the West, it was still in the USSR, as it were, but only if you didn’t like something, a simple American could leave the country, for example, to West Germany or Great Britain, a simple Soviet person couldn’t even listen to foreign radio, because there were huge jammers, if you do not like propaganda? don’t like the government? Soviet man could not change it.
Great example: the White House congratulated USA and UK on V-Day this year.. Not even mentioned the country, which fought with 2/3 of all German forces on its territory and actually destroyed the Third Reich. It becomes obvious, that after collapse of USSR they want to wipe out it’s history with all great moments.
Yes, I saw Twitter, those who lead the White House Twitter, they are uneducated ignoramuses, as I understand it, they did not have history at school and this can be understood, they do not read books. Perhaps the authors completed the 3rd grade of education and left school early, this apple was not surprised.
Although, there is most likely a deliberate distortion of history, suppression of facts, of course I am against this, it was not very beautiful on the part of the official account that represents the official US political agenda
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1258842411524132865
Yes, centralized war comminism was a disaster for citizens, so nep was nessesary.
Yes, after a devastating civil war, NEP had to be introduced in order to boost the country’s economy, Lenin came to power under the slogan “Down with private ownership of the means of production” everyone shouts “yay!” and then Lenin introduces the NEP, and everyone is perplexed, they thought that Lenin was killed and this is a double.
Then everyone got used to it, and the Soviet government abolishes the NEP, it decides to take a course on socialism, and here again a lot of dissatisfied have appeared, as a peasant I can’t sell my goods and sell? everything must be given to its owner - the state? how did it happen? it’s outrageous!)
I’m sure, you know how big your country is, and imagine how hard it was to rule economy from the centre.. during the terrible civil war.
The USSR is not my country, I was born in Russia, the Soviet Union is just a regime that was 70 years old, well, I treat this as Germans to the Third Reich. The Bolsheviks concluded a shameful Brett peace, on conditions not favorable to Russia, that’s what I understand the course of genius.
The Russian Empire was a great country, albeit with its drawbacks, but in terms of Russian culture, it was dawn, in terms of books, the whole world read Russian books, music and artists, in the Russian Empire it was all very well developed. The Bolsheviks came and introduced censorship into the work, which limited the authors, I can name famous writers from the Russian Empire, but I will not name a single writer from the USSR, more precisely, you can find, but still there are very few of them.
If you are interested in looking at the pre-revolutionary architecture alive, come to St. Petersburg, one of the most beautiful cities on earth, well, I live here) There are a lot of historical houses preserved here.
Photo - https://imgur.com/a/HoHGv3K
«…these are not necessary conditions in order to carry out industrialization in the 20th century» – I dont know what you tried to say.
The Bolshevik dictatorship is not a prerequisite for industrialization, industrialization began in the Russian Empire, and yes, as practice shows, the construction of schools and hospitals was also in other countries, without gulags and repression with closed borders.
In general, to say that the USSR began industrialization, electrification only thanks to the Bolshevik dictatorship is very stupid.
Because it’s like comparing the USA of the 20th century and the 17th century, look, the country was the rest in the 17th century, and now look at the industrialization of the 20th century - there are arguments at about this level. I can also compare Russia of the 21st century and the USSR of the 20th century, it’s like saying that Russia is better because now TVs are better and there are mobile phones.
I mean, to compare the Russian Empire of the 19th century, and the USSR of the 20th century is very incorrect.
The problem is that in other countries that carried out forced industrialization in the 20th century, the chain of events was different there. They somehow managed to survive without killing hundreds of thousands of people for political reasons, without forcible collectivization, and without forcibly relocating people with entire estates and peoples against their will. Somehow, other countries also developed the economy, also built schools and factories, but without the Bolsheviks.
Industrialization. Part 1. Myths about pre-revolutionary Russia (include English subtitles)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD9ppMXSYmg&t=
That “illegal confiscation” calles expropriation of kulaks
Yes, the commissars came with the support of the Red Army, began to confiscate houses, grain, horses, from peasants, everyone was dissatisfied with this. Well, in the end, violence began where the Red Army men with a rifle and peasants with a rake - And what is it?) Is “kulak terror” That is, when the commissar comes and tries to take your bread from you, you are against it, then you are a terrorist, you are against the Soviet regime .
And about the methods by which “kulak terror” was suppressed. You can ask the Communists of the historians themselves about how bolshevik took hostages, children and old people hostage, locked them in huts, covered the huts with dry hay and set fire to it.
The kulaks (peasants) are sheer terrorists, they do not want to give away grain to the soviet power. These idiots opposed the state monopoly of the trade in bread, nonhumans are just how you can .. The peasants are terrible people, they will do anything to prevent Comrade Lenin from building communism))
Collectivization was a progressive politic
There are examples of countries that underwent forced industrialization in the second half of the 20th century, and there were no collective farms there. Collective farms and collectivization brought only hunger to the people, yes, this is progress, only very specific.
But it was so effective, it ended in 91 years, that’s the 70 year outcome of the Bolshevik agrarian policy, it became noticeable in the late 80s and early 90s - complete devastation, scorched earth, at the time of the collapse of the collective farm looked terrible. Of course, inside the Soviet Union, thanks to propaganda, it was possible to convince people that it was good, the collective farm system was all wonderful, it was necessary. But then when the propaganda machine was blown away, there were empty fields.
The volume of agricultural exports to the Russian Empire was absolutely huge, and this just indicates that Russia had a fairly efficient agricultural system. The grain trade, both internal and external, was very developed. And with its agricultural labor products, Russia covered not only the needs of the domestic market, but was one of the largest countries that exported its agricultural products, after that there was never such a thing in the history of Russia, the Bolsheviks were not able to return even the level of the pre-revolutionary Russian village. Due to hunger and lack of grain, the Soviet Union began to purchase from Europe - here you have collectivization.
By the way, Bukharin traveled around the country, saw how people live, and was against the abolition of the NEP, but he was shot. I like the later Bukharin who changed his views more, it would be better if he was a leader instead of Stalin, maybe he would be some kind of Deng Xiaoping.
Collectivization - is collective management in the sense that the Politburo is a collective, because in fact the Politburo ruled everything and the collective farms were not autonomous and obeyed the central plan))
You know, when there was a confederation in the south of the present USA, after all, they also had collective farms, which were also quite effective, so if they say that collective farms are not effective, Trudoden are slavery. You can look at the history of agriculture in North America, because when collective farms began to take shape there, the volume of agricultural production increased tremendously, yes)) that is, the collective farmers gathered cotton there, tobacco and wheat, corn. So no, they proved collective farms that they were very progressive for their time and very effective, already on the example of the southern American states, there are happy swarthy collective farmers, they went to work as a holiday)
There were commissars who watched so that more than one rural proletarian would not run away from work, would not desert from the labor front. Because there are deserters who do not want to work for the fairest state in the world. Because who is the peasant? it is a petty-bourgeois element that primarily thinks not of a “public” good, but of its own.
Individual peasants are bad, peasant farms are not effective, because the Christian thinks first of all about his own benefit, and not about the good of the whole society. And just then, when individual peasant farms were replaced by collective farms, that is, collective farms in the confederate states of America, then everything was fine. Because it was not peasants who worked for the land for whom this land belonged to them, but honest collective farmers who were swarthy in appearance who were picking cotton, worked very “progressively”
But the commissioners, of course, beat them with a whip if they worked slowly or took off work, there they could even hang a collective farmer. Well, you don’t just have to fight against the dictatorship of the proletariat, you don’t need to show your bourgeois nature, you need to work honestly and then everything will be fine. Trudoden was covered with lentil stew bowls. Honestly worked - here’s Trudoden for you.
With the advent of collectivization, from year to year, export volumes fell and fell lower, and then imports began under colossal volumes under Khrushchev. Yes, so collectivization was progressive, so the Bolsheviks boosted the economy that just came fucked up.
Such an effective economic model fell apart in ‘91, it was Kosygin who joined foreign agents and ruined everything))
Such an efficient and wonderful economic system of the national economy collapsed, everything was perfect and good, and here 91 years have come. Yes, yes, yes, only enemies could ruin such a wonderful economy.
Yes, collective farms as a mass phenomenon existed even before collectivization - well, because collective farms, collective farms can be called by default any collective farm, I already gave an analogy with slave-owning plantations in the south of the present USA, this is also a collective farm)
But the problem is that this collective farm is more like a soviet collective farm than other collective farms. In principle, by default, any collective farm can be called a “collective farm” For example, the Israeli Kibbutz, but it will not be corrupted by analogy with the Soviet collective farm, because The Israeli Kibbutz can dispose of and have its own tractors, he can buy them himself.
In the case of other collective farms, the entire aggregate of ownership of the means of production does not belong to the state, it can be private. And the Soviet Union as a communist state (although the communist state is already idiosyncrasy as a formulation, but we will not talk about it)
The Soviet Union was consistently striving to abandon any private ownership of the means of production.
unfortunately, can’t give all peasants their own instruments and technics for their part of land. But if peasants would be in collectives, than it would be possible.
Yes, compare the money that they spent on paying rent for land to the landlords, with the tax that the Soviet authorities imposed for individual owners who refused to join the collective farm. Compare these two numbers and you will find a unique discovery (:
In the Russian empire, however, peasants could completely afford to cover the domestic needs for agricultural products and even huge exports. How bad, not everyone can afford a tractor and equipment for the land, but nevertheless it means huge volumes of agricultural exports.
In the USSR, everything was the other way around, collective farms, collectivization, everything was fine, but at the same time, grain had to be bought for gold in the USA and Canada. Soviet agriculture, as opposed to “backward pre-revolutionary Russia,” it was so effective that the amount of gold and foreign exchange reserves was spent on the purchase of grain in Canada and the United States.
Compare the scale of mortality from starvation in the Russian empire, with what was happening during the time of the prodrazvyorstka and collectivization, everything is known in comparison. If in the days of Russia there were hungry years. 20-30е years it is necessary to introduce a special separate term “VERY hungry years” “SUPER hungry years” given the amount of deaths from hunger after the Bolsheviks came to power.
Yes, I recall that at the final stage of the civil war, most of the hostilities consisted in
to suppress peasant anti-Bolshevik revolts. Because the peasants came to their senses
the Russian village realized that the slogan “land to the peasants” is a populist lie that costs nothing,
Lenin was not going to give land. As a result, popular anti-Bolshevik uprisings broke out that were brutally suppressed. Krashtat uprising, West Siberian uprising, Tombov uprising. When the market economy (NEP) was introduced, the peasants calmed down and stopped rebelling. And when Lenin died, Stalin abolished the NEP and again the people became dissatisfied, but under Stalin they professionally suppressed all dissatisfied and exiled to the camps.
There were too poor and too rich peasants.
“Yes, it never happened, and here it is again.”
There are always poor and rich people in any society, there was also a stratification of property in the USSR, rich party officials lived in large apartments with high ceilings and their servants, in general the only people who were good in the USSR were party officials who promoted their children in relations with good places.
Unfortunately, there is always social stratification, and it seems impossible to get rid of it only if in utopia, for example, in the Star Trek, or in the books of Marx or in the Bible.
Although it is better to be poor in a country where capitalism is than to be poor in a country with a socialist bias.
p.s. Perhaps the translator distorted some words and changed the meaning of some sentences, unfortunately I do not speak English
Ugh.. I don’t even know, what to start with.
That “illegal confiscation” calles expropriation of kulaks (I do not deny the fact that the innocent people suffered). There were too poor and too rich peasants. Collectivization was a progressive politic, because socialist state, unfortunately, can’t give all peasants their own instruments and technics for their part of land. But if peasants would be in collectives, than it would be possible.
Yes, centralized war comminism was a disaster for citizens, so nep was nessesary. I’m sure, you know how big your country is, and imagine how hard it was to rule economy from the centre.. during the terrible civil war.
«…these are not necessary conditions in order to carry out industrialization in the 20th century» – I dont know what you tried to say.
«Nicolaus II started eradication of illiteracy». He was one of the worst monarchs in Russian history. I don’t know, how would he raise literacy rates to >90% of population, when he couldn’t even carry out liberal reforms to prevent at least one of revolutions.
So you claim that Soviet education system was recognized as the best of its time just because of old professors from Russian empire? That’s something new.
Well, there was lots of reasons why USSR collapsed. And surly not because there was no empire’s professors. Even in 2000-s Russia still has a great scientists. I hope, you don’t want to offend your own country.
So, you may call it socialism or state capitalism – I don’t care. As I know, even communists have argue about it.
And one moment – I’m not communist So you don’t have to dump on me all your hatred of everything connected with Soviet thematic.
I just hate that cheap and insolent western propaganda, which shows USSR as “empire of evil”. Cold War ended, but this shit never stops.
Great example: the White House congratulated USA and UK on V-Day this year.. Not even mentioned the country, which fought with 2/3 of all German forces on its territory and actually destroyed the Third Reich. It becomes obvious, that after collapse of USSR they want to wipe out it’s history with all great moments.
Edited
Now a little dialectic will…
There was no exploitation in the Soviet Union, because in a Soviet Union of antagonistic classes, exploitation can only occur under capitalism, when the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat.
And in the Soviet Union there was socialism)) there were no different classes, the party democracy is not a separate class with its own way of extracting the surplus product, which consisted in exploiting the proletariat. And partocracy is the best people of the country, just like the proletarian intillegence it only serves the proletariat. And the proletariat is a hegemonic class, therefore, from the very beginning, the anti-communists and enemies of the Soviet regime, they carry complete garbage.
Because they say “the village under the Soviet regime was subjected to severe exploitation” And this is not correct) because there was really no exploitation, because the word “exploitation” has a different meaning in the Marxist discourse))
And if the word exploitation has a different meaning in the Marxist discourse, then there was no exploitation.
How do you like that? dialectics))
My friend, you are replacing concepts) there was a time like this, peasants made up a large part of the population all over the world, but with the advent of technology, industrialization, they moved to cities and thus the class of peasants became smaller.
Yes, this is a normal practice for the development of society throughout the world. But, I’m talking specifically about the mass extermination of peasants, because peasants are a petty-bourgeois class, they are not sorry. The peasants must be replaced by the rural proletariat, I am talking about violent illegal confiscation of property, now a horse, a cow and a house, all this is “public” but in reality now it belongs to the state. Here the very essence of understanding the civil war is important, it is the Bolsheviks who waged a war against the peasants.
Of course, I can take an objective look at the achievements of the USSR, it was the first in Europe to introduce an 8-hour working day, I do not deny this, and this is good. But the policy of war communism, as practice has shown, does not work, and Lenin introduced the NEP.
The Bolsheviks came and returned the cruel right, only now the lord is a whole state. Again, there has never been socialism in the Soviet Union, it was state capitalism.
As for industrialization and the USSR
Yes, the Soviet Union is the peak of development because industrialization under Stalin. The only problem is that so many pre-industrial societies with an agrarian economy, they also did forced industrialization in the 20th century. But without the communists in power, without having to drive people into collective farms, without the mass extermination of people on the basis of their class affiliation and the physical destruction of political dissidents, without gulags, without collective farms, without prodrazvyorstka.
For some reason, they carried out forced industrialization in just a few decades, somehow they succeeded. It turns out that there are communists in power and political practice implying a class struggle and the principle of collective responsibility, it turns out that these are not necessary conditions in order to carry out industrialization in the 20th century, who would have thought.
It turns out that all this can be done without prodrazvyorstka and the gulag.
About the educational program, compulsory primary education still appeared under Nicholas II, already then a deliberate eradication of illiteracy began, and the Russian Empire had already begun to actively catch up with Europe by educating the population. By the way, all this “great Soviet education” at the beginning it was all an achievement of the Russian empire, professors who received more imperial education taught at universities, all these programs were created back in the Russian empire.
Korolev, who was a genius of his time, launched a rocket into space, he received education from teachers of the Russian Empire.
Then of course they all died, and Soviet professors became teachers, and all this began to degrade in the 80s.
Well, for the sake of justice, the Bolsheviks did not immediately close the borders, in the assal, everyone who was dissatisfied, they were actively leaving the USSR as a newly formed state. Then they saw that the people were leaving the country en masse, they had to close the borders. People always vote with their feet for communism / socialism), they simply leave the country.
The West began to carry out reforms for the people looking at the USSR - Yes, and this is called competition) and competition is always good. Only inside the USSR there was no competition, there was a state monopoly.
Lol, destroy the peasantary? Do you even know, that peasants were 80% of population in Russian Empire? So new government started industrialisation.
New factories, power plants, electrification, 8-hours working day.. Or these achievements just fell from the sky? Should I even mention educational program? Building new schools and universities? Evil Bolsheviks..
Yes, soviet government did lots of shit to secure themselves. They closed the border even with counies of Warsaw pact – their actual friends. They made unreal plans, which leaded to disaster of places.
Communist party from ideological communists turned into a of
unpublished freaks.
But it doesn’t mean, that Soviet Union brought nothing good to our world. Authority of Soviets provoked social changes in the West. Governments were afraid of revolutions, so they had to do reforms for working class.
I think, no one can deny it.
Yes, but in the Soviet Union there was no socialism, not communism, in the USSR there was state capitalism. Well, actually, I have to disagree with the standard of living, now the Russians live much better compared to the Soviet period. I tell you this as a person who lives in Russia.
Nobody gives communists in Russia victory in elections? but, in Russia there are no communist parties.
At the expense of a successful Soviet experiment..
Lenin just put his main ideas into practice, the basic idea of Lenin was to establish a state monopoly on the trade in bread. Just the same Lenin embodied this idea, this is the main problem of the subsequent development of events.
The New Economic Policy is a necessary measure that the Bolsheviks went after when they won the Civil War, but the policy of war communism has exhausted itself and it was necessary to lift the country from its knees. So the NEP is a forced rollback to capitalism, because only the capitalist economy works in reality, and not on paper.
That is, in the end, they took power into their hands under the slogans of the destruction of private ownership of the means of production, but ended up with the fact that they had to enter the NEP, it was a feil (:
For 70 years of Soviet power, a deliberate policy was carried out to destroy the peasantry, in all forms. And the destruction of motivation to work for those who work in the field of agricultural production. Because the peasant who works on state land for workdays, he is not interested in the results of his labor, he doesn’t give a shit)
In the past, the villages degraded, people fled from the villages to the cities, in search of a better life, so that they would not run there, they would not be given passports for a very long time. In fact, this is a defeat in rights.
Hmm, so what exactly was the Soviet experiment successful?
It’s called the “Soviet experiment”. And yeah, I’d say it was pretty successful, given how it took Gorbachev to dissolve it and the dissolution caused the people’s quality of life to take such a nosedive that the Russian elections had to be rigged in order to keep the Communists from being voted back into power (look it up).
Are you a Marxist? wow, it’s unusual to see an English-speaking Marxist.
May I ask a question? What does it mean to be a Marxist, What do people who profess this ideology want?
What do you think about the Soviet experience? whether he was successful, or you reject the experience of the ussr.
in the USSR, by the way, there were exercises in the departments, they taught dialectical materialism and scientific communism (of course this has nothing to do with science, but okay) and the book of Marx was like a holy bible.
I remember what it was now. I looked up “Jason Unruhe Hoxha” on YouTube. I was thinking the Mao Zedong quote “Being Marxists, Communists are internationalists, but we can put Marxism into practice only when it is integrated with the specific characteristics of our country and acquires a definite national form”, which I heard on Jason’s vid “Refuting Hoxha’s Lies About Mao Zedong Thought. My mind must’ve warped it over time.
Edited
Maybe I was remembering it wrong or something.
I’ve read a lot of marxist literature, but I didn’t hear anything like that.
Unless you talk about pseudo-left “Cultural Marxism”..
I’m a Marxist in the Deep South. I can’t remember where, but I heard the quote “Marxism must take the form of the culture”. However, looking through Google, I can’t find it. I removed the tag now.
At least, tag “ confederate socialist States of America”
What confuses you?