So just so I understand if there was any succesful organised revolution based on general strikes she would be right? It would have worked? Same stupid argument which you made could be made about anything that ended.

We have a century of history now to look back at and see what types of organization succeed and what don’t. The history has very clearly proven Lenin to be right.

Her approach failed, so did bolshevism. I dont actually mean this, I want to show the stupidity of the claim.

All you’re showing here, once again, is that you just like to make absurd statements in place of having an actual reasoned argument.

That does not mean that the idea of historical materialism is not deeply marxist.

Nice straw man there, I never said anything of the sort. What I actually said, is that taking the writings of Marx dogmatically is contrary to Marxism which is a dialectical process.

What it actually means is to attempt to discredit the argument by attacking the speaker instead of the argument.

Well this is just ahistorical, what do you mean by proved to be unworkable?

Remind me how it worked out in the end.

That does not mean that she was somehow wrong, she was abandoned.

Her approach failed, that’s the actual history.

Mensheviks were marxists, social democrats today are not

Marxism is revolutionary. Again, either you don’t understand what Marxism is, or you’re just trolling.

I should also point out how deeply marxist, in the sense that it was idea of marx, is the point that bourgeois revolution is necessary before the socialist one. Pure historical materialism.

You should let Vietnam and China know asap. Marxism isn’t dogmatic, which is evidently another thing you fail to understand. Maybe spend your time actually studying Marxism instead of arguing out of ignorance in public forums.

At least learn what ad hominem means if you’re going to keep using it to try and make yourself sound smart. Ad hominem would be me dismissing your argument by attacking your personality. I’m dismissing your argument because the argument itself is nonsensical drivel as I’ve explain in detail in another reply in this thread.

Simply put, Luxemburg fundamentally agreed with Lenin, but her approach proved to be unworkable while Lenin’s tactics succeeded. BOTH ADVOCATED FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Meanwhile, menshiviks were reformists akin to modern social democrats. The fact that you continue to misrepresent history here only further highlights that you’re not interested in a good faith discussion.

Social democrats are organizing commities like the soviets and unions? Where?

Social democrats are reformists just as menshiviks are. The approach demonstrably does not work, and what it accomplishes in practice is perpetuation of capitalism.

Meanwhile, Luxemburg was very much not against centralized structure. You make blatantly false statements either because you’re ignorant or because you’re intentionally trying to misrepresent things.

Luxemburg and Lenin shared core Marxist commitments to revolution and socialism, but their views on centralization and the vanguard reflected nuanced disagreements within revolutionary strategy. Here’s how Luxemburg’s ideas aligned with, and diverged from, those of Lenin.

First thing to state is that Luxemburg supported revolutionary centralism. She believed that a centralized party was necessary to coordinate class struggle, but it must emerge organically from the self-activity of the masses. What she warned against was top-down power, advocating for internal democracy and constant dialogue between the party and the working class.

Both Luxemburg and Lenin saw centralized organization as essential to overthrow capitalism. In fact, she praised the revolutionary discipline of the Bolsheviks in 1917, writing:

The party of Lenin was thus the only one in Russia which grasped the true interest of the revolution in that first period. It was the element that drove the revolution forward, and, thus it was the only party which really carried on a socialist policy.

Luxemburg diverged with Lenin arguing that while a vanguard was necessary, it should not be an elite cadre but a theoretically advanced section of the working class itself, emerging through struggle. However, both agreed the working class needed political leadership to avoid reformist pitfalls. Luxemburg’s Social Democracy and Communism stressed the party’s role in clarifying revolutionary goals.

Despite tactical some disagreements, Luxemburg and Lenin shared strategic unity and were in a fundamental agreement. Both rejected parliamentary reformism, insisting capitalism could only be overthrown through class struggle and proletarian dictatorship.

If you state absurdities then don’t expect people to engage with that nonsense seriously. What you’re doing is just trolling which wastes everyone’s time. If you don’t want to have a serious discussion then move along.

And my whole point is that Harris would not have been better than Trump, but would’ve allowed liberals to pretend that things Trump does in the open aren’t really happening. At least with Trump the crimes of the empire are in the open for all to see. The system is fundamentally broken, and Trump is exposing this fact for everyone to see.

Your word salad exposes the fact that you have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you’re attempting to debate.

That’s pure nonsense I’m afraid. Menshiviks were basically what social democrats are in modern capitalist societies. They were not a revolutionary party. Meanwhile, Luxemberg was a principled revolutionary.

Sanders is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.

Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.

Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.

When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.

A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.

Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.

When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.

The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.

The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.

Biden admin shows beyond all doubt that liberals want to blow people up just as much as conservatives do. The only difference is that conservatives don’t hide it.

Removed by mod

I can highly recommend reading a book produced by US military, it makes it pretty clear that allies played a minor role in the war.

a few quotes from it

that’s the liberal spirit

🤡 o

I’m not the one trying to make myself feel better. I don’t even live in yankeestan. It’s the liberals like you who keep pretending that the genocidal party you support who are doing the coping here. You don’t have any moral superiority. The only difference is that Trump isn’t making any excuses and hand wringing regarding the atrocities he commits, while you do mental gymnastics to justify doing the same thing. It’s pathetic beyond belief.

I’m the same way, and I find it takes me a little bit to get engrossed in a new book as well.

It’s so disgusting to watch libs brigade these threads victim blaming while claiming that their party that was actively facilitating the genocide has some moral superiority.