Cyberleninism

Cyberleninism is the self-insert ideology of user .dotdotdotsam. It is an economically left-wing, Marxist, culturally revolutionary, ultramodernist, secular, and very progressive ideology that synthesizes elements of Leninism and Cybercommunism. It advocates for the typical Leninist concepts of vanguardism, democratic centralism, and dialectical materialism in conjunction with cybernetic economic planning, automation, and strong developments in technology.

Placing anti-imperialism at the forefront, Cyberleninism believes that many of the workers in the Global North are beneficiaries of a priviledged labor aristocracy. A good first step towards proletarian internationalism is critical support to anti-imperialist movements throughout the world. Because of this, Cyberleninism critically supports left-wing nationalism and proletarian patriotism, particularly of the Latin American kind due to personal reasons (user is Latin American).

To top it off, Cyberleninism advocates for the formation of a revolutionary proletarian culture with heavy belief in the ability of propaganda art. While personally favoring Constructivism and Cubo-Futurism, it understands that the specific form of art that the vanguard leading the cultural revolution will prioritize will be a democratic decision process that is subject to already existing cultural values. Taking inspiration from Aleksandr Bogdanov, it seeks to destroy the harmful, reactionary elements of the previously existing bourgeois superstructure and synthesize them with the values of the new hyperprogressive culture. In short, it seeks to utilize the positive elements of the previous culture to create a progressive culture of the future.

=Beliefs=

Vanguardism and Leninist Strategy
In a capitalist society, the ruling class cabal of capitalists control the resources, the media, the parliamentary process, and the system of education in their favor. Through understanding this it becomes abundantly clear that the working class, whose interests are directly opposed to that of the ruling class, cannot pursue change within the system made by capitalists. Revolutionary tactics are necessary to overcome capitalist imperialism, and it is through a highly-coordinated and intelligent vanguard party that this can occur.

For years upon years and decades upon decades, the Leninist strategy of vanguardism has, unfortunately, suffered attacks from the ultra-left; that is, the dogmatists and idealists who cling to the most ideally "left" position in the face of circumstances that do not allow for this strategy. Vanguardism, the building of a revolutionary worker's party to lead the revolution against capitalist imperialism, is designed for societies that do not yet have the material conditions available for communism. The international working class cannot simply wait for revolutionary circumstances to fall ripe as if it were some kind of apple falling off a tree; those circumstances must be created, and it can be created most efficiently by a revolutionary vanguard as it is specifically designed for the creation of revolutionary conditions and the exploitation of those revolutionary conditions in the favor of the working class. Communism is not built overnight, and neither is socialism, as they require a great deal of organization and intelligent strategy. This is where vanguardism comes into play.

The vanguard, along with leading the revolution, has other vital roles to play in the construction of socialism. As well as feeding them and giving them the proper housing and shelter they were unable to obtain under capitalism, they have a responsibility to educate and mobilize the masses against capitalism and imperialism, creating a sense of unity and purpose among them. In addition, a vanguard is the only force that can fully protect a revolution against counter-insurgency. Every time a socialist society has been established, it has suffered attempts of counterrevolution. Most of these newly-founded societies die under these circumstances and revert to capitalism again, which is unacceptable. It must be noted that almost every time an anarchist/libertarian socialist or "democratic socialist" society has been attempted, it has been crushed under the iron hand of imperialism. The working class must be strong to overcome imperialism, and through a vanguard and strong militant resistance, this can be done. Without a strong vanguard by the working class, the masses will lack the guidance and organization needed to reach their goals.

Cyberware and Technology in General
Through all of the scientific, intellectual, and industrial progress that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have afforded us, it is absolutely laughable that we, in the present day, remain with the antiquated system of capitalism. We are able to detect gravitational waves, create robotic body parts, prove the existence of dark matter, and sequence the genome of cancer patients, yet we remain with the economic anarchy of market capitalism. This is not only outrageous and infuriating, it is also laughable. A core tenet of Cyberleninism, possibly its defining character, is that technology and the resources that it is able to produce must be used for social progress as opposed to how it is currently used in modern capitalism - that is, to simply enrich the bourgeois class.

When the conditions are right, heavy investment must be placed into the sciences. This was one of the greatest and most notable successes of the USSR, as it became possibly the 20th century's greatest intellectual powerhouse in a rapid process. In line with major investments in literary programs to educate the population, academic success must be placed as the forefront of the nation's values so as to produce scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and other intellectuals that are capable of advancing the nation and being at the forefront of technological innovation. After all, the future is engineered only by individuals who are fully capable of understanding it.

Technological developments will be utilized to expand the forces of production, enhance economic planning, program more beneficial and efficient manners of coordinating government, and possibly for experiments in genetic modification of food and reduction of carbon emissions to switch over to sustainable energy, among other things. With technology, the possibilities are endless: we, as humans, can quite literally engineer our future.

(my "Political Economy" section goes more in depth on how cyberware will be utilized under socialism)

Anti-Imperialism and Left-Wing Nationalism
Perhaps controversially, I critically support nationalism in the context that it is national liberation and not petty-bourgeois nationalism. Patriotism can be an important first step to building genuine solidarity, and it is no surprise that many AES experiments (Cuba, Vietnam, Bolivia, Nicaragua, etc) have been built off the top of patriotism. I'm not sure if I would exactly consider myself a Marxist-Leninist, but I do agree that socialism must be built in one country before it can be built internationally. There are multiple steps to the process of completely building past capitalism, and national liberation, as in the liberation of a national working class from the yoke and tyranny of capital, comes before proletarian internationalism. Only with a strong foundation can international solidarity be built; without the resources for socialism in your own country, how exactly do you expect a "permanent revolution" to be built? It is precisely for this reason that I view Trotskyism so negatively, as it is an idealist, deviationist strand of Marxism.

Imperialism must be understood not as something that *happens* as a side-effect of capitalism, but as a natural development - capitalism's highest stage. InImperialism, Lenin succinctly explains how capital must expand beyond domestic lines to yield profits that are enough to rate of profit high enough that it can overcome the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. For capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield it must invest capital into countries with undeveloped economies - this is El Salvador, this is Colombia, this is the Philippines, this is Peru, this is India, etc. Prior to capitalism, the character of production was composed of guilds and skilled artisans; these were men that worked alone, handcrafting commodities. The character of their production could be described as private, as individuals would privately produce commodities with their own labor and sell them at market price, thus reimbursing their very own labor. But as a direct result of the innovations of the Industrial Revolution, the character of production ceased to be private and began to be social. Commodity production was no longer confined to the realm of the individual handcrafting commodities - they are now mass-produced in factories that utilize the division of labor to churn out commodities as quickly as possible, since greater supply allows for capitalists to lower prices on commodities, which is appealing to the consumer. The more the consumer purchases, the more profit that is accumulated by the capitalist, and the more the capitalist accumulates, the more successful he is at The Great Game of Capitalism™. Although the capitalist has found a way to make as much money as possible, he has essentially dug his own grave by socializing production, which plants the seeds to proletarian revolution due to the fact that workers can and will eventually figure out that they are being exploited (class consciousness). Ironically, the establishment of capitalism has been the nail in capitalism’s own coffin.

Due to this internal contradiction of socialized production vs. private extraction of surplus value, the working class has begun to realize that the capitalist needs the worker, and the worker does not need the capitalist. As a result, workers have rioted, protested, and overthrown capitalists, engaging directly in class warfare. The ruling class, trembling at the impending Communistic revolution, has found a way to quell the workers’ cries - labor reforms. The establishment of labor laws and higher minimum wages has served as a way to ultimately leave the workers feeling as though they have accomplished something (they have not). Although it serves the long-term interests of the ruling class (consolidating their hegemony), it comes at the expense of their short-term interests (accumulating profit), and this is not enough for the capitalists. As an antidote to this, they have discovered a dirty trick - exploitation of labor abroad. This is where capitalistic imperialism stems from.

In oppressed nations (such as the Philippines, India, and Nepal to name a few) under the yoke and tyranny of capitalist imperialism, they have developed a unique form of capitalism: bureaucrat capitalism, which is a semi-colonial (colonial in practice, not in name) form of governance in which the bourgeoisie within those countries, referred to as the comprador bourgeoisie, are subservient to the bourgeoisie of the imperial core. The governments that these countries are ruled by are essentially puppets for the interests of the imperial-core capitalists, and it is precisely for this reason that I support national liberation as a FIRST step for the building of international socialism. As imperialism is a natural development of capitalism, following the national liberation of these oppressed nations the imperial-core capitalists who run the world's major corporations will be forced to do imperialism inwards (fascism) which will severely weaken them and expose their operation for what it is: brutal exploitation.

Political Economy
As the system of capitalism currently is wholly inadequate for the needs of the working class, it must be replaced with something new. To begin with, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be established, as socialism cannot be established with the blink of an eye. It will be a bit of a lengthy process, but it is the only way to do it. It is at this point that we must recall a quote from Lenin: "Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat."Industries must be nationalized, agriculture must be collectivized, and parasitic leeches such as capitalists and landlords must be removed from power, forcibly if need be. If the state of the economy is in a semi-feudal state, the DOTP must be established to smoothen the transition towards socialism.

On planning
To begin with, central planning is far more efficient as a method of democratic allocation than a market economy. Because the profit incentive is at the core of the market economy, commodity production is done for profit rather than utility. For this reason we see things like planned obsolescence, consumerism, and Supreme Oreos selling for $91,000 (and being sold out in hours). Many of the commodities that are produced under capitalism, although often plentiful in supply (if you're privileged enough), are generally not useful to people as the exchange-value is placed over the use-value. Under socialist economic planning, the goal is to prioritize use-values over exchange-values.

The central planning of the USSR is, although nonetheless a form of economic planning, not intended to be replicated, and neither is Allende's Chile. Both of those methods of economic management, although progressive for their time, were still confined to it; Stalin's bureaucratic planning being prior to the development of the Internet and modern technology, and Allende's cybernetic planning being reliant upon antiquated Telex machines. We live in different times, and any proposed economic system of the future should reflect that. With the democratic usage of futuristic technology being a core tenet of Cyberleninism, it must follow then, that the economic model of Cyberleninism must abide by these principles as well. Modern technology has made economic planning possible to a greater extent than ever, yet its bourgeois detractors will utilize Mises's Economic Calculation Problem against it, even though the ECP was a criticism of the antiquated Soviet model of economic planning.

On currency
Once again established by Paul Cockshott (and even Karl Marx himself), a system of non-circulating labor credits could be very beneficial under the right conditions of economic and material development. Marx takes the circulation of commodities to be the exchange of commodities for money and money for other commodities. He depicts this as C-M-C’, where C-C’ represents both a change in the form of the commodity and, as is implied by the commodity as capital, an increase in value. He sees the circulation of commodities as facilitated by the circulation of money as capital. A system of non-circulating labor vouchers could very well be the solution for this.

With non-circulating labor credits, people would be credited with hours worked rather than money at the end of the week, and payments for goods and services would also be in terms of time; essentially, you would pay for a garment that took two hours to make with two hours of your own labor-time. This is essentially a monetary system based on time rather than arbitrary currency units such as pounds, dollars, or euros, for example. Although the manner in which these labor credits can be tracked is, of course, dependent on material resources available, when the conditions are right the method in which these labor credits can be tracked will be as follows:

"Nowadays one need not think in terms of paper certificates of work done. Instead we can envisage the use of some form of labour credit card which keeps track of how much work you have done. Deductions from your social labour credit account could be made by filling in a slip, or using a direct debit terminal." 

Political Journey
(///) → (///) → (///) → (///) → (///) → (/// → (///)

Proletarian Culture (Proletkult)


Cyberleninism believes that, as a result of the changes in the base, a cultural revolution must occur in the superstructure to link the base and the superstructure - reality and ideology coming together in a form that displaces the antiquated bourgeois culture. Culture and ideology must be correspondent with material conditions; thus, a cultural revolution is necessary (not in the Maoist manner, I will explain my problems with Maoist cultural revolution in a bit)

Religion and Cultural Expression
Cyberleninism believes that one of the greatest faults of 20th century socialism was state-mandated atheism and religious purges. It believes that religion will always exist and that it cannot be forcibly removed from society, as much as one would like. Instead of destroying religious institutions, banning religious texts, and organizing atheist gangs to harm ordinary religious people, it believes in cooperation with religious institutions to promote socialist values for the religious as religions typically have many core values that are compatible with socialism (the golden rule, caring for the poor and less fortunate, love your neighbor, etc).

Proletarian Internationalism
The vitality of proletarian internationalism cannot be understated. The global working class must put aside their prejudices and their capability to recognize borders and unite as one, if socialism is to be created. Petty-bourgeois nationalist sentiment seems to have infiltrated the minds of many "patriotic socialists", and the consequences are clear seeing as they tend to support Putin's imperialism and reactionary sentiment (racism, homophobia, transphobia, "protecting the family", contempt towards women, etc). These ideas have no place in the international socialist movement, and must be greatly discouraged by all who consider themselves remotely left-wing or Marxist. The proletarians must unite as one if we are ever to see communism on the horizon.

On the Women's Question
It must be noted that ever since the emergence of private property and class society, the mother right was abolished thus leading to the emergence of patriarchy in human societies. Capitalism, along with reinforcing racism, reinforces prejudice against women. They began being treated as essentially property by men, and although they are often not officially "property" in modern times, are still seen as lower than men by many men (and even some women). Socialists, communists, and Marxists of any kind must oppose this kind of reactionary bourgeois mentality, as it is rooted in class society. There are some deviationists in the left, typically the so-called "patriotic socialists" (a social chauvinist, petty-opportunist, and settler-apologist revisionist strain of "Marxism-Leninism") that oppose feminism as they have their own chauvinism and misogyny intact, using distortions of Marxism to legitimize their bigotry. This brand of rightist "communism" is, in reality, more resemblant of fascism than anything else and must be strongly opposed by Marxists of any kind. The contribution of women to the current stage of civilization and society cannot be overlooked. Women, in their socially-constructed (and sexist) role as "homemakers", have arguably made greater contributions to society than even men have. However, they are often not recognized for it due to the fact that childbearing and the responsibilities of motherhood go unpaid while the traditional role of the father, that is to obtain a well-paying job to provide food and shelter for his children, is paid and therefore concretely measurable in terms of currency. The nuclear family is an artificial concept that has its origins in the emergence of class society and private property, and is one that is inherently patriarchal and discriminatory towards women, assigning them tasks that are arguably more difficult than the ones of men (tasks which, again, are unpaid).

To add to this, capitalism-induced misogyny has created a reactionary culture to support it, as that is the superstructure in support of capital - a reactionary one. Rape and sexual aggression towards women has become pervasive in bourgeois culture, leading to the overwhelming majority of women feeling unsafe by themselves at night, being catcalled and inappropriately hit on by men, and occasionally even sexually assaulted. Statistics have shown that nearly 81% of women have experienced sexual harassment of some kind; it all begins with treating women as subordinate to men, rather than actors fully capable of doing anything a man can. Reactionaries and misogynists may use "biological" or "natural" arguments to provide a rationalization of their bigotry and male chauvinism, but these arguments are in all forms misguided. Sure, it is a biological fact that men are (usually) physically stronger and bulkier than women, but these biological differences have become practically irrelevant in modern day times due to the technology that has been developed over the course of history - put simply, with modern technology, there is practically nothing that women cannot do in comparison to their male "counterparts". These differences were only relevant in primitive times where the natural division of labor existed, but in class society the social division of labor has been established thus making those biological differences an unnecessary thing to bring up when speaking of the relationship between women and men in the modern day.

On the LGBT Question and the Rise of Transphobia in the Left
I find that there is little reason to argue about the existence of a group of people who, if not improve it, do no wrong to society by simply being themselves and I do not plan to entertain the liberal notion of a "trans debate". Their existence is nothing to debate. The "gender binary" is an unscientific, idealist conception of gender that is rotten at the core with bigotry, intolerance, and the filth of reaction. Transphobia from reactionaries, conservatives, and outright fascists are not unexpected and completely typical of their bigoted and intolerant nature, but what is indeed concerning and upsetting is the rise of transphobia within communities of those who call themselves "socialists" or even "Marxists". With most reactionaries, there is nothing to debate in good faith and there are no minds to change; they deserve nothing more than the swift strike of a bludgeon across the upper jaw. However, for certain Marxists, I believe that there *can* be discussion about these things in good faith, as this transphobia could simply be a piece of idealism that they have not yet deprogrammed from (although this is not the case for all of these "Marxists" as many may simply be bigots attempting to conceal themselves within left-seeming rhetoric). Let us address these "Marxist criticisms" of trans existence below:

A claim I hear often regurgitated from self-proclaimed "Marxists" is the claim that transness is "idealist" and that it is not based in the materialist understanding of human development. This is ridiculous. Although perhaps appealing to those who are beginners to Marxist theory, it suggests a rugged mechanical materialist understanding of trans existence. This claim is contrary to the form of materialism that Marx puts forward, which is dialectical materialism. Through the dialectical process we can begin mapping out the process in which an individual commits a change in gender, which is spawned first, as in all existing phenomena, by a contradiction. The specifics of this contradiction may differ from person to person. An example of this can be that there is a contradiction between the individual's physical body and their view of themselves, which is conditioned by capitalist media to be that they can only be either a man or a woman and that this view must be in line with their reproductive organs. As ideas and thoughts, which are sparked by the contradictions that emerge out of material and immaterial things, begin to manifest themselves into reality by way of practice, it is indeed possible to change one's gender. Gender cannot be understood as simply "what's in your pants", it must be understood in this sense as a series of sociological norms that are associated with sex, which can be understood as the categories of male, female, and intersex determined by the biological composition of those beings. Thus, gender can be understood as a product of social constructions while sex can be understood as a biological reality. By stating that a trans woman is a woman I am not stating that an individual with XY chromosomes suddenly changed into an individual with XX chromosomes, I am stating that an individual who once associated herself with masculinity now primarily associates herself with femininity and womanhood.

There are more pernicious myths spread about trans people that are, frankly, tiring to address every single one. There are conspiracy theories that "trans people are dangerous" and that trans women are men who wish to assault women in bathrooms, but this is built upon a complete misunderstanding of trans people in their entirety. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that transgender people pose a violent crime risk; if anything, it is far more likely that they will be the victims of violence. According to a report from the UCLA School of Law, 68% of trans people reported experiencing at least one instance of verbal harassment in gender-segregated public restrooms, while 9% had been physically assaulted at least once in gendered bathrooms. Too many times do I see appeals to "freedom of speech" from liberals; our priority should be assisting trans comrades in the struggle against harassment and violence, not "protecting" bigots from them.

How to Draw
Cyberleninism-flag.png A few steps:
 * 1) Draw a ball with a black outline.
 * 2) Draw a line in a slightly dull shade of red diagonally through the ball.
 * 3) Fill the space below with the same color and the space above with a slightly-dark blue.
 * 4) Add the eyes.
 * 5) Place a square hammer and sickle below the eyes.

Short Writings
The recent rise of Infrared and "MAGA communism"/"Ron Paul Maoism" (whatever these idiotic manlets like to call themselves) has been accompanied by the praise of fascists, reactionaries, and the useful idiots that accompany and praise their every move. The "critical support" of communists to a class enemy such as Donald Trump is not a position that can be taken by anyone who calls themselves a Marxist in any way; the nerve these idiots have to call themselves "Marxists" is absolutely astonishing.
 * -|Right-Wing "Communism": An Infantile Disorder=

Relationships

 * -|Self-Inserts=

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

 * - Most based ideology I've seen so far, pretty much me but less Leninist and slightly more council communist (from what I'm seeing). Almost no criticisms here.
 * [[file:Iberian_commie.png]] Iberian Communism - National Communism at its finest, love it. A little too Stalin/Mao for my tastes, but I'll make an exception bc you're really nice.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - Although I'm not big on furries and Stalin, me and you are very similar in various ways.
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] Neo-Leninism - I like your style, and I do believe that some kind of neo-Leninism must emerge out of the left if we are to overpower capitalism. It can even be said that Cyberleninism is a form of Neo-Leninism. A bit too ultra/leftcom for my tastes, but other than that no complaints. But cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.
 * [[File:LeninisBasedsmall.png]] CanadianCommunist - Love what I'm seeing so far, no disagreements as of yet. However, you seem to not emphasize ultraprogressivism and revolutionary technology as much as I would like.

☆ ☆ ☆

 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - I don't like the De-Leonism, trade-unionism, agrarianism (??), and the Neo-Marxist influences but I'll agree to disagree. I like the futurist art, the feminism and progressivism, and of course the Marxism. My previous criticism of you was so bad lol forgive me
 * - You're not completely terrible, but this "mixed market" reformist brand of socialism will get you nowhere, comrade. We need speed, velocity, force, and revolutionary culture, not merely welfarism. Plus, a centrist position on reform versus revolution will lead you to becoming a useful idiot of the right or the social-democrats; such is what happened to Kautsky (who you regard positively for some reason) within the SPD. I agree that *some* reforms have their place in socialism and that worker co-ops and unions can provide benefits for workers, but I see those benefits as simply temporary - revolution must always be the final solution of any attempt at socialism, because you can't win the game of liberal democracy on the rules of the bourgeoisie.
 * - I appreciate your constructive criticism of my ideology, but I fail to sincerely see how ego-communism could have much practical implementation or internal security. Without a strong state and (some) bureaucracy, how will you defend yourself from the Amerikan army? The philosophy is cool and all, but I'm more of a straightforward/realpolitic kind of person (I like the Mark Fisher influence though). It's funny because I used to be exactly like you but less intelligent; I never read Deleuze and Guattari but claimed to love them and ego-communism and would use the terms "desiring-production" and "desiring-machines" without knowing what they meant lol. Overall, I like your style, your revolutionary Marxism, and the Luxemburg-Fisher influence, but other than that, you seem to be too inspired by idealists like Max Stirner (trash philosopher imo) and Michel Foucault (postmodern thought in general just irks me). Thank you for exposing some of the issues in my ideology though.
 * [[File:MLL.png]] Libra Thought - I dislike many MLM's because they're almost as ideologically purist as "left" communists - you are no exception. Most of your page is just typical Marxist shit that I'm not in disagreement with, but your lines on AES are legitimately cringe-inducing. You describe Cuba and Vietnam as comprador capitalism which is absolutely absurd to me. Compromising on ideological principles in order to fit existing material conditions is not "revisionism", in fact, I would say it is more in line with orthodox Marxism to assess existing material conditions and conclusively adapt ideological tenets. I agree with your anti-Deng stance, as well as your criticism of the Developed Socialism era of the USSR, but other than that we do not see much common ground on socialist practice, as I see your particular line of Marxism as being unfortunately plagued with dogmatism.
 * [[File:MrvLIT.png]] Mr. V Thought - You're a fellow socialist (always good to see socialists), but your brand of socialism is quite different from mine. I'm not going to go off on a tangent, but I being a Leninist, of course disagree with libertarian socialism and council communism. I think your humanist influence and embrace of market socialism may also be holding you back as well. I disagree that vanguardism is "authleft oligarchism", but its an unsurprising comment from a libsoc. Your stance on parties is based though and your progressive stance on LGBT issues is also much appreciated. Overall not terrible, but a strand of socialism that comes much into contrast with mine. Cheer up, comrade.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Just an average anarchist. "Anti-authoritarian" socialism will never work in practice and has never worked in practice as authoritarian means must be taken to ensure the survival of a revolution. Revolutionary Catalonia, the society that you place on such a pedestal, was forced to form revolutionary tribunals to suppress the counterrevolutionary Nationalist forces. The construction of socialism involves the suppression of counterrevolutionary forces, and when you're up against the world's largest state and military (the US) an anarchist commune or decentralized territories and whatnot do not really post a threat. Also, you advocate for electoralism and possibilism - you can't win elections when they're created by the bourgeoisie, if voting changed anything it would be made illegal. Plus you argue against cultural revolution, which I disagree with. Overall, you're not bad or anything (I'm just critical lol), just severely idealist. Try giving Lenin a chance, he's more than just a "tankie authoritarian" like how many anarchists try to phrase him as.

☆ ☆

 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade - Unironic Posadist???? And an anarchist?? And a Trot??? Come on dude, just read some Lenin already, you must be insane if you think nuclear war will bring us communism as well as any anarchist strategy. Still I'll take some crazy ass Posadist any day over a fascist.
 * [[File:Brazlib.png]] Brazilian Liberalism - I critically support Lula over that fascist piece of shit Bolsonaro, but I'm not too big on him either. You're a third way neoliberal imperialist who supports intervention in Venezuela and Nicaragua, there aren't many positive things I can say about you.
 * - Incomprehensible armchair autonomist/communization theory type who criticizes but consistently fails to offer genuine solutions. "The party is petty-bourgeois" is astounding for someone who claims to have read Marx, truly a bona fide liberal take. Overall, I've seen worse, but please get off from the armchair for once.

☆

 * [[file:BERNHEism.png]] BERNHEism - How do you believe in this bullshit and think "oh yeah this is totally going to benefit humankind."
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(38).png]] Neo-Majapahitism - I'm going to assume this is ironic.
 * [[File:FilFuhrIcon.png]] Isangtaoism - lmao I called you a fascist and you made an entire section called "why it would be wrong to call me a fascist", coping hard. This has to be a troll, bc how tf do you simp for Yeltsin, the United Fruit Company, Pinochet, the Tsar, and Nazcap? Bite the socialist bullet.


 * -|Ideologies=

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

 * [[file:Vanguardism.png]] - One of the greatest, perhaps THE greatest, Marxist theoretician of all time. Fuck the Tsar.
 * [[file:Cybercom.png]] - A computer can do things much more efficiently than a human, and cybernetic economic planning will bring great prosperity to the human race.
 * [[file:Ultraprogressivism.png]] - Along with the economic base being transformed into socialism, culture must be transformed into progressivism. Socialism, in any form, must be accompanied with an anti-reactionary culture to link simple base and superstructure. Reactionary thought has no place in the society of the proletarians.
 * [[file:Socialist_Patriotism.png]] - "At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery." - Ho Chi Minh
 * [[file:MF.png]] - "Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan! Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!" - Vladimir Lenin

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

 * [[file:ProlIntern.png]] - The plight of the proletariat transcends the boundaries of nations; the class struggle is international and the cause of international revolution - whether it be in Latin America, Asia, or Africa - must be supported by whatever means available. Although I believe that the full construction of socialism in one country comes as a priority before internationalist policies, it is still important to support proletarian internationalism.
 * [[file:Lpop.png]] - Populism can be very useful as a political strategy to grab people's attention. Still, many of your modern adherents align yourselves with social-democracy and/or fall into conspiratorial thinking. The vanguard party must be careful to walk the line between attention-grabbers and outright attention-seekers. Instrumental Marxism must be avoided at all costs.
 * [[file:Erga.png]] - Whenever there are classes in a society, for the Marxist it is abundantly clear that the working class must be the ruling class. Down with the capitalists, landlords, merchants! However, the ultimate goal of communism is to reach a society that is free from the tyranny of class, therefore a dictatorship of the proletariat (covered above) is only a part of the path towards a stateless and thus classless society.

☆ ☆ ☆

 * [[file:Kemal.png]] - Your far-left socialist variants are quite literally chefs kiss, but your more moderate/reactionary variants are lame as fuck. I must say though I admire Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as a great leader and modernizer that we can take a

Comments

 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - add me, fellow futurist communist
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - sure !
 * - Add me?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - done, add me back?
 * [[File:LeninisBasedsmall.png]] CanadianCommunist - yo add me comrade
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - of course. could you add me back on yours?
 * [[File:LeninisBasedsmall.png]] CanadianCommunist - will do once I finish some stuff with much page
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(38).png]] Neo-Majapahitism - add me
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - doing it right now
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] Neo-Leninism - add4add? we share a lot in common.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - sure! just remember to add me back on yours
 * - Want me to draw you a new portrait friend?? :)
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - YES, PLEASE !!! i've been struggling so hard trying to come up w smth good lol
 * - what do you want in the portrait?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - i'm thinking some kind of retrofuturist scifi utopia type of background behind the main ball, also the hammer and sickle has to be the squareish one thats shown in the original image. also it would b cool if the ball was holding some kind of technology accessory, but thats optional its not a big deal lol. other than that, ur free to have at it
 * - Do u have discord or some other social media' it'd be easier to communicate throug there, if that's not a problem for u, all my socials are on my user page
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - sure, i dont ever use discord but its slendertesticle420#2402 (dont mind the username i made it when i was a child lmao)
 * [[File:Jefsynd.png]] Jefbol Thought - add me?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - u got it
 * - Add me back comrade.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - sure! i appreciate the constructive criticism btw
 * - can you put four icons that represent you in my comments so I can add you, comrade? :)
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - ofc ofc
 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade Add me?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - sure, add me back
 * - Communist egoism is not a governmental system it is rather a philosophy. "Without a strong state and (some) bureaucracy, how will you defend yourself from the Amerikan army?" I'm not at all against a strong military if it's necessary to fight against imperialism. You can have an efficient military without a having a strictly centralized authoritarian state. And I'm not against bureaucracy (in a weberian sense of the word).
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - I'm aware of the fact that communist egoism is not a governmental system, I'm simply saying that I doubt a governmental system founded upon ego-communist principles could successfully resist an invasion by the world's largest army. I'm also against a centralized authoritarian state, but I recognize that it may inevitably form in the aforementioned struggle against the world's largest military. We must recall a line from Lenin, "we must follow the rule: better fewer, but better."
 * - "governmental system founded upon ego-communist principles" I don't advocate for that and that doesn't even make sense. "I'm also against a centralized authoritarian state, but I recognize that it may inevitably form in the aforementioned struggle against the world's largest military." certainly because of foreign intervention some level of unexpected over-centralization and over-bureaucratization may happen but i'll simply repeat what i already said, you can have an efficient military without a having a strictly centralized authoritarian state.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - Actually, I'm reading your page to try to figure out what exactly it is you argue for and the more I read the more I realize how in accordance we are and how much of the argument that has occurred between us is provoked out of misunderstandings of your ideology. It makes me wonder where exactly this ego-communism finds its way into your political thought? You don't seem to mention it much on your page. Personally, I see egoism (and ego-communism by extension) to be nothing but a prong of garbage liberal analysis, but I'd like to understand your perspective. I've understood egocom as primarily some kind of ultra-individual communism, so how exactly does this breed of communism influence you?
 * - Yeah i guess were running in circles right here lmao. i havent really written on egoism on my page yet but my conception of egoism is deeply influenced by the group "for ourselves". They oppose narrow individualism which is probably what youre refering when u say "garbage liberal analysis". narrow individualism would be an individualism that doesnt recognize the dialectical relationship between individual and society and thus rejects the latter (neoliberal individualism is an example of that). they propose a communist egoism that recognizes that society is composed of individuals and individuals are shaped by society and thus embraces both (individual and society).
 * [[File:MLL.png]] Libra Thought - add me? (also I can’t add you until later today because my page is locked)
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - sure !
 * [[File:3way.png]] Brazilian Liberalism - Add me
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - will do
 * - Add me?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - working on it rn
 * - You can read Rühle for my explanation for my point on the party.
 * - Plus my critique here comes from a far more libertarian marxist, communization, autonomist, etc stance.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - Fine, then I will adjust it as such. However, I still disagree with the ultraleft "libertarian Marxist" stance.
 * [[File:MrvLIT.png]] Mr. V Thought - Yo what did i find here. Very interesting. Add me. If you would like, I can add you.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - Sure, sure, I'll add you. And yes, I would like if you could add me as well that would b dope.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Add me?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - ofc ! Add me back?
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - do you have 4 icons I can use to represent your ideology?
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - ([[file:Vanguardism.png]]/[[file:Cybercom.png]]/[[file:Ultraprogressivism.png]]/[[file:Leftnat.png]])
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Some notes on you analysis: Tribunals like were formed in Catalonia are not a bad thing, if completely necessary, and I accept this, there'd be no reason to oppose the US, just stay neutral towards them (again, superpower lol), I don't think you can win in elections, I just think capitalism with a welfare state is a better environment in the meantime than the alternative, cultural revolution is kinda mid ngl (joke, I just don't think we should literally murder people that oppose our views), and I don't think Lenin's a tankie, he's got some pretty good ideas.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - Then what exactly is your issue with state socialism? Idk it just seems like running through hoops (insert quote from engels abt authority here lol). I agree that there is no reason to oppose the US and ideally we would want peaceful relations, but this is probably not going to happen as the US has violently opposed practically every socialist power (except for the ones who bowed down to them). Plus I also don't think we should murder people who we don't agree with, but that's not what cultural revolution is lol.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - OK so my general issues with state socialism is that 1. I feel like it opposes the main values of socialism, AKA freedom of the worker, because it just creates a new upper class, that being the communist party, and 2. Ideally the goal is communism, right? So therefore anarchism is at least preferable because it gets to the end goal faster, ig the main issue you state socialists have with it is that you think it's naive, I guess I just disagree. I completely agree about the US, but I have a weird praxis style that I'll right about, so just give me a while to update my page (currently rewriting lol), and I honestly guess I misunderstood cultural revolution and should probably do more research.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - BTW this is coming from a former state socialist (I was literally an ML that thought the state shouldn't dissolve), so I understand where you're coming from and I guess that's why I'm more open to left unity than most.
 * [[File:--CYBERLEN.--icon.png]] Cyberleninism - The issue here is thinking "anarchism gets to communism quicker", it doesn't; the state is not this static, metaphysical thing that can just be abolished. There are (in a dialectical relationship) material conditions and ideological foundations upholding it that cannot be immediately abolished, and realistically it is a long process to completely do away with functions that uphold the state. That is what the proletarian state is for, it's designed for the intention of building communism and eventually doing away with the notions that uphold the state. Marx outlines this a bit in theCritique of the Gotha Programme. Adding on to that, calling yourself a "Marxist-Leninist" and believing that the state cannot be abolished is contradictory, as believing in the permanence of the state is part of a rugged metaphysical worldview that is not in line with Marxism.