Neo-Leninism

Neo-Leninism, also known under a variety of different names, is a far-left, culturally progressive  ideology based on the ideological interpretations of Marxism by  Lenin that are known as. It takes minor ideological influences from  and   and is aligned to the   movement.

Neo-Leninism believes that a revolutionary  should be responsible for managing and directing the dictatorship of the proletariat, while local workers' councils known as Soviets should serve as the basis for a socialist nation's legislature and politics. It is anti- (and by extension ) and also  anti-, labeling the former as an ideology which led to the over-bureaucratization of the state and the vanguard party and ultimately led to the reintroduction of capitalism, while the latter is opposed owing to disagreements regarding permanent revolution.

In general, Neo-Leninism seeks to establish a libertarian socialist society in which the dictatorship of the proletariat is organized by a revolutionary mass-worker's vanguard party, serving not as the government or an organism of the government but as an independent organization akin to a labor union, while the managing and running of government is left to local workers' councils (soviets), especially in regards to economics. Neo-Leninism rejects the NEP, seeing the re-introduction of capitalist policies in Soviet Russia as a betrayal of basic communist values, but it also opposes the top-down command economy of the Soviet Union in favor of a decentralized, bottom-up planned economy. Similarly to Cyberleninism, this planned economy would be managed by artificial intelligence and computers, with human oversight should anything go awry.

Personality

 * Mentally fucking deranged

How to draw !

 * 1) Draw a circle!
 * 2) ... Draw a circle.
 * 3) That's not a FUCKING circle, you idiot.
 * 4) You fucking BAFFOON. You MORON.
 * 5) JUST DRAW A CIRCLE. HOW HARD IS IT?
 * 6) You know what? No. I give up.

An introduction to communism (and socialism)
"Communism" and "socialism" are two terms which have vastly different meanings to a crowd of people, including within the Marxist movement. To most in the west, in particular the United States, "communism" is merely the, which we know as Marxism-Leninism. To, others it may be a variety of other definitions, similar to the one listed above (often something something iPhone stealing), but what they all have in common is that they have virtually nothing to do with the actual definition of communism, not the "definition" granted by outside observers but by Marx himself. Communism is both an ideology and an end goal: For many Marxists, using the term "communist" to describe a state or movement is not incorrect. What, then, is communism? It's a, complex subject, one with many layers which even I did not know until recently, but to summarize it: Communism is a rejection of the modern order. Communism rejects the idea of "currency", communism rejects the idea of the "state", and communism rejects the idea that one man should be above or below another. But what does that actually mean? As it turns out, most people do not understand why communism rejects currency and state, let alone how the state and currency disappears under communism.

We cannot discuss how communism achieves its goals without looking at socialism first. Socialism is not a different ideology or "stage" from communism, and it is not the transitionary period between capitalism to communism. When one speaks of the "transitionary period", they often mistake socialism for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the driving force of change which is necessary for any communist movement to make actual change. Socialism is merely a lower stage of development in communism- where the state, currency, and classes have already withered away. What distinguishes socialism from communism though, is the motivation of work. While currency may no longer exist as for the most part scarcity has been overcome, it still does not mean that people are required to work. People still have to work to "earn" a living to support themselves and their family. They still have to "work" to survive, as while the value of their labor has replaced the arbitrary value of a few dollars, it still does not eliminate the concept in its entirety. "labor vouchers"- in a, sort of broad sense is what I am referring to here.

Why does the man work?
In communism, the man works because he wants to. There are many an idiotic anti-communist who state that "Without a profit incentive, people wouldn't work!", or "If everybody could get anything, nobody would work!", and to that of course I say that the man does not work for profit. The man does not work because he wants a bunch of digits to be added to his bank account. He doesn't work because he can't wait to receive a stack of green paper-cloth bills. Money on its own has absolutely no value whatsoever. You can't do anything with a dollar bill without distorting it and thus rendering it unusable. You can draw on a dollar bill, but after a certain point in which you've "defaced" it, it renders it unusable. You can... try and crumple it up, but crumpling up paper isn't really "fun". The most "value" that anybody could get out of a dollar bill itself is folding it up into a paper airplane and then flying it around the room. No, the man does not work because of money. The man works so he can get the things that he needs and wants. Money is simply a form of exchange- a middle man between the buyer and the seller, the producer of the product and the recipient of the product. Of course there is still the question of "why?" If one has his needs guaranteed and he is so freely able to purchase and achieve his wants, what then is stopping people from not working at all and becoming leeches? Two things: One, you would be beaten by a crowd for being a leech and not producing, and two: natural human instinct. The "nature" argument is one that I absolutely despise, especially considering how more often than not it passes pseudoscientific bullshit or capitalist propaganda as being "natural in nature". But humans are not natural. Sure, we still have instincts- we still have a drive to reproduce and to socialize, but we have a grasp on self-control so powerful that it dwarfs anything else in the animal kingdom. What we have not grasped or been able to control however, is the instinct to be productive: the instinct to work. Humans like to work. What work means to me and you may differ, but they both share one thing in common: They produce. They produce, something. Whether that be writing a book for people to read and enjoy, or farming so that people can put food on the table, they both produce something that makes life better to people. Books of course are usually of less value than the food that farms put on the table, but that doesn't mean that books or literature are of no value.

What is work?
"But so and so isn't work!", one may cry. But again, what is work? Is it, something that generates a profit? It certainly can't be considering that volunteer work, which has no financial incentive whatsoever, is considered work. Is it... the idea that because one thing is of more value to more people than the other that both the "lesser product" and the labor that went into it is worthless? Again, no, because that would imply that the book you spent 5 bucks on to read was worthless, you were using a worthless and stupid thing, and that you're a fucking idiot for spending money on a book rather than bread. But the book isn't worthless, is it? If you read it, which you are obviously going to do if you wasted 5 bucks on a book, then you probably gained something out of it: an experience. You may have laughed, cried, been shocked, felt fear or suspense- everything on the emotional spectrum, but you still enjoyed it. Even if you didn't enjoy the book, that still does not make it worthless, as somebody else could pick up the very same book and have the experience I described above. We then come to a conclusion: that defining "work" by anything other than something which produces something of value, whether for ourselves or others is silly and is solely used for propagandistic reasons to put artists, writers and other such creatives down because they're not in the factories or in the farms or in the office building having the value of their labor stolen from them.

The status of currency and the state in communism
What about currency, though? As I mentioned previously both communist and socialist societies have a complete lack of currency, so why?, and or how? Currency cannot be abolished. That is not how basic economics work, and anybody with a sensible mind that is not an anarchist will immediately tell you that trying to get rid of the bartering tool which the entire world is built around would result in a collapse of society. No, socialism and communism do not seek to abolish currency, rather the practical usage of currency falls completely flat when the sociomaterial circumstances that socialism and communism render currency useless. Currency exists because there is both natural and artificial scarcity. There are only so many so and so's, and thus due to the laws of supply and demand currency is required to ensure that the product does not disappear entirely and the seller of the product does not lose his precious profits. So what happens when there is no scarcity? What happens when it becomes astonishingly easy to produce high-quality products in bulk to such a cheap and inexpensive point that applying an artificial value to them simply makes no sense!

What of the state? The state does not exist under communism and socialism, but what many misunderstand that (including many an anarcho-communist) is that this means that the state disappears overnight! Once again, no. It is impossible for a society based on the socioeconomic conditions of capitalism to exist and survive without a state. Again, communism reinvents society, it does not destroy it, and subsequently both the abolition of currency and the state have been proven time and time again to be impossible. No, the state decays naturally, as it is needed less and less for the daily running of society it is used less and less until one day it is not used at all, and nobody bats an eye. This natural decay ensures that the organs of the state actually disappear and cannot be replicated. One can easily see the failings of a society which attempts to abolish the state outright with the Makhnovschina, who despite nomally being "anarchists" were in reality little more than a bunch of libertarian socialists ran by a military junta who retained a state, currency and social classes and of which there is little to no excuse outside of "hard times" as to why this basic betrayal of anarchist thinking (which is already pretty basic of itself) is justified.

In conclusion
In conclusion: What is communism? - A society in which no man is above or below another, where people work because of want to produce rather than need, where currency does not exist due to a lack of scarcity and where the state does not exist due to a lack of need for it. What is socialism? - A society similar to the one depicted above, with the exception that full scarcity has not been achieved and subsequently people still need to work.

REVOLUTION!!... But why?
I think I speak truth and nothing but the truth when I say that the primary divide of the Marxist movement can best be described as a battle between two factions: The reformists, and the revolutionaries. Of course this battle is far more complex than just "REFORM!" or "VIVE LE REVOLUSHONAY!"... But it can be simplified as that. To a newcomer of socialism or somebody who simply has no knowledge of politics the idea of fighting over whether socialism should be established through "peaceful" means (reform) or through violent means sounds like a no brainer. And I mean that in the sense that, "both of them are stupid.". Literally, a no-brainer! ... But to somebody who doesn't just think "This is stupid, let me grill!", they usually are going to pick the side that results in the least amount of violence. Reform. But does reform actually work? Can reform lead a capitalist society to become a socialist one? No. I mean you, really should have expected that from the title of this section but allow me to elaborate. Reformism in Marxism basically implies this: Socialism- which entails the complete transformation of a capitalist society with a bourgeois (capitalist) and proletarian (working) class into a stateless, currencyless, and classless society can be achieved through peaceful reforms. In other words, it implies that the bourgeoisie- the only people who benefit from capitalism, can be convinced to give up their power. This is the same root that utopian socialism sprung up from. Of course you'll realize that the idea of convincing a class of people who basically control all the wealth and capital to give that up for free and virtually nothing in return... is stupid. There's no beating around the bush. Even if one CONSIDERS an alternative where the bourgeoisie somehow accept these reforms... It always ends in the exact same thing: A stopping point. At some point the bourgeoisie will grow tired of their power being chipped away at and so will take absolute power again. Any reformist socialist movement has to walk on eggshells and also do a little dance to appease their capitalist masters because they do not hold power over capital and the state, the capitalists do. Hence, as we see time and time again reformist movements fail to even come close to establishing socialism because they lack the necessary state power to pass those major reforms. I'm talking shit that actually establishes socialism, not just "nationalize shit" or "public healthcare". That is not socialism.

This is not a trend of socialism, but rather a trend of any movement which seeks to actively reconstruct society as we know it. Would the French revolution, a movement which sought to abolish the absolutism and aristocracy of the Ancien Régime with a free democratic and popular republic have succeeded if the likes of Robespierre had peacefully asked Louis XVI to give up power? The answer is obvious: No. There will always be somebody who benefits unfairly from a non-socialist society. For capitalism it is the bourgeoisie, for serfdom it is the aristocracy, for fascism it is the bourgeoisie and the state. The bourgeoisie (and the aristocracy) do not want to give up absolute power for free. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as you might have heard once, and so it is not only impossible but implausible to convince them to give up their power.

Ideologies like  or   are the poster childs of the reformist socialist movement, flaunting and advertising themselves as "sustainable, democratic and peaceful alternatives" to the revolutionary socialism of say,. But when one takes more than 5 seconds to actually look at their ideologies we find that in practice these so called "democratic reformist alternatives" to revolutionary socialism are little nothing more than tools by the bourgeoisie to take control of the socialist movement and divide it even further. Indeed, this has been a thing for ages- the democratic socialist movements of the west (and the east) have been hijacked by the bourgeoisie to fit their interests. They are able to point to themselves and say, "We are socialist! We are not the Soviet Union!", and trick people into believing that this is real socialism and the past iterations have been... corrupted, in some form or way. This is the power the bourgeoisie hold over society: It is one of the tactics that they use to eliminate and destroy class consciousness, even without you knowing. And it is but one of many reasons why reformism is forever doomed. It is now a tool of the capitalist class to maintain power over workers and society. It is a penultimate effort by the bourgeoisie to retain power before the inevitable establishment of fascism- the ultimate class dictatorship.

I've commented on why reformism doesn't work and why it does far more harm than good to the socialist movement, but I've neglected to actually explain why revolution works and reformism doesn't. The answer to that can be boiled down simply to; "Who has state power?". Whoever controls not only the government but the state has the power to fundamentally do whatever they want. To a certain point of course, popular support is still needed for any regime to survive. But generally speaking, reforms cannot be passed if the state and government are not both controlled... at least, not without compromise. Socialism is far more than just "passing reforms"- and these are not just token reforms such as "free healthcare" or "regulating industry". It is the abolishment of private property- of private enterprise- and much, much more. These grandiose efforts cannot be achieved just through reform. They never will. A socialist movement which attempts to establish socialism without the dictatorship of the proletariat and control over both the state and the government will always fail. You will notice that there is a trend for socialist movements: Those who believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat and who actually established it managed to grow far, far closer to socialism than any reformist movement ever has in their century of power. Under the virtual dictatorship of the Social Democratic Party of Germany for 11 years from 1919 to 1930... nothing got done. The economy grew worse under them, they collaborated with the Nazis because they would rather collaborate with fascists than socialists, and they were justly kicked out of power from West Germany until 1972. Compare that with the Soviet Union. In 11 years the Soviet Union (first as Soviet Russia and her sister republics) went from a backwater agrarian society that was hardly literate and which was devastated by constant famine and disease into a world-class industrial power on parr of the likes of western Europe, whilst abolishing private property, genuinely bettering the lives of its people and doing all of this without a profit incentive in mind. Stalin's Soviet Union had the ability to reform and reshape society without interference from bourgeois elements- this is why despite all the setbacks and the problems that the Soviet Union faced, that it was indeed among the most successful examples of establishing socialism through revolution.

One should not confuse "revolutionary socialism" with the implication that revolution on its own establishes socialism. No. The purpose of a revolution in socialism is a means of gaining power to establish socialism. It is a... means of a means, let's say. A revolution which does not take advantage of itself to take power over the state will fail in its goals. It is thus a requirement that any revolution remain strongly organized to ensure that it has a fighting chance. As Vladimir Lenin once said: "'When we say 'the state,' the state is We, it is we, it is the proletariat, it is the advanced guard of the working class.'"

Relationships

 * -|Real-World Ideologies =

Comrades!

 * [[File:Marx.png]] - Hello, father!
 * [[File:Orthlen.png]] - Hello, other father!
 * [[File:Vanguardism.png]] - Vanguardism is the way to go!

Friends!

 * [[File:LeftCom.png]] - Based that you oppose the revisionism of Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, but some of you reject Leninism entirely!
 * [[File:CouncilComm.png]] - I agree with you that society should be organized based on workers' councils... but you oppose vanguardism, so...
 * [[File:Bordiga.png]] - Hits HARD.
 * Gay.png - Homosexuals are comrades too! Now read theory.
 * Trans.png - Transgenders are comrades! Now read theory. And stop talking about weird shit like "Stransserism"!

Frenemies

 * [[File:ML.png]] - You're not ENTIRELY bad, and I agree with you some things, but... you still suck.
 * [[File:Trot.png]] - Permanent revolution is NOT the way to go! I do agree with you that the Soviet Union was a degenerated/deformed workers' state though.

Class Traitors!

 * [[File:Socdem.png]] - FASCIST!
 * [[File:Stalin.png]] - RED FASCIST!
 * [[File:Demsocstar.png]] - NONE of you are socialists! NONE OF YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS GRRRAAWRGH

ENEMIES!

 * [[File:Fash.png]] - FASCIST!
 * [[File:Nazi.png]] - FASCIST!
 * [[File:Strasser.png]] - Socialist economically... BUT STILL FASCIST!
 * [[File:AncomCuck.png]] - The state is to be WITHERED away you idiots, it can't be abolished!
 * [[File:Capital.png]] - GRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAWRGGGHHH

I only add people here by myself if I feel I can actually say something worthwhile to the both of us, or if I feel the need to call you out for being a LARPing dumbass.
 * -|Self-Inserts =

Comrades!
I would say that I would also be a Cyberleninist if it weren't for the fact that I wouldn't describe myself as far-left culturally, nor do I really care about specific architectural/art forms- this doesn't mean I disapprove, though. Conclusion: Closest ideology on this wiki to mine, and no, I will not cool it.
 * [[File:Cyblen-icon.png]] Cyberleninism - We share a lot in common when it comes to Leninism, culture, how to construct socialism and whatnot- you're a bit too authoritarian for my taste (the dictatorship of the proletariat does not necessarily have to be authoritarian; nor does the vanguard party have to be authoritarian)- but it's not enough of an issue for me to bump you down a few spots. I think we both agree that the construction of a revolutionary proletarian culture a la the [[File:RedGuard.png]] GPCR is necessary to build socialism, and we both definitely agree that the modern advancements and circumstances of our world has shown that socialism is now more plausible than ever.

Friends!
Iberian Communism - You're an interesting case. I say that not out of pity or sarcasm but out of curiosity and intrigue. You're pretty aligned to a form of, and I too agree with Mao in regards to a   along with your beliefs regarding   and  ... But I don't agree with the Stalinism and the economy being planned top-down instead of bottom-up. Conclusion: You're cool!

Frenemies
PosadasComrade Thought - You're an interesting case. I don't really have much else to say, other than yeah, I disapprove of your ideology being anarchist and the nuclear war is questionable, but I don't really have anything to speak of that comes from hate, just "Yup. That's, that's anarcho-posadism alright."

Not enough information (you are boring)

 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Boykisser Marxism-Leninism - I mean.. what do you want me to say? Your ideology from what I can tell is just Marxism-Leninism but more electronic and queer. I don't know- maybe if like, I looked into you further I'd find something else to say but I have nothing to say other than "Yeah. That's Boykisser Marxism-Leninism."

Class Traitor!
You're anarchist. I don't like that. I also don't like the idea of organizing society around a gift economy- I also don't like that. That's pretty much all I have to say about you. ... Keep that in mind of course that just because I PLACED you in the "class traitor" category does not mean I hate your guts. You are just weird to me.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] Wudafuqarya Anarchism - I would very much put you in the same category as I did with Sargeant Indonesia down there, but I am not going to create ANOTHER category just for you... so "class traitor" will have to suffice.

List of people that cannot describe what freshly cut grass smells like
One: You're a dumbass LARPer who unironically believe that National Socialists, ultranationalists, fascists and the other ideologies that you seem to love sucking for would actually treat you as their equal (spoiler alert: they would not, as a Filipino you are anything but racially pure). Two: You have this weird vendetta against Russians because they're "communist" when they are literally state capitalist and would thus align perfectly with your views. Three: Racism LARP- you have no room to talk, see the fact that you are Filipino. Four: I have no clue why the fuck you would care any about Jews or Israel aside from again just having no actual identity and having to follow or support others as a lack of it. Conclusion: Go the fuck outside, now. Actually do some work, and stop LARPing on the internet, especially as a "Filipino Fuhrer" 🤣🤣 BONUS! RESPONSE: Yeah, I read through your response and it's incoherent. You are a fascist. It doesn't matter how you spin it or how you put it, you are a fascist. You have absolutely no argument against me whatsoever and so you have to resort solely to ad hominem and other complete misunderstandings of ideology to even come CLOSE to putting up something resembling a defence. Again, your ass would be sent to the concentration camp. Wake up- you are a Filipino, you are not equal to the eyes of the white supremacist and the National Socialist. Conclusion: Please seek therapy and grow as a person. Conclusion: Go the fuck outside, now. Pretty much ditto with Filipino-Fuehrerism.
 * [[File:FilFuhrIcon.png]] Filipino-Fuehrerism - Ah, now where do I begin with you?
 * 1) There is no "real communism". There's only one communism, what everybody says "That wasn't real communism!" is "This dictatorship of the proletariat did not work out well and failed to produce socialism". I literally never said once in this entire article about "real communism" or, whatever boogeyman you're trying to make up.
 * 2) Hey, buddy. That's not how that works. Marxism-Leninism is an evolution of Leninism- and just like in nature, it is also not the only ideology to have spawned out of Leninism! I don't understand how you don't understand this.
 * 3) Deflecting off of the fact that your mixed-race Filipino ass would be immediately sent to the concentration camps to be exterminated to preserve the "white race" that you seem to suck up to so much, especially with your LARPing self seeming to admire Hitler or whatever godless human that you worship. GULAGs. At most 1 million people died in GULAGs total from 1930 to 1953; most of those deaths occurred during World War II- after World War II, the vast majority (57.81%) of prisoners were released and sent home, with only POWs (often German soldiers) being conscripted or sent into labor battalions. Continuing on with the 1 million point, considering that 14 million people passed through the GULAG camps (and there was a massive spike during World War II in both numbers and deaths), it means that the mortality rate in the GULAG camps was 7.14%- the vast majority of prisoners who were sick or on the verge of death were released and were not worked to death unlike in the concentration camps you probably have a fetish for.
 * [[File:AryanMonarchBow.png]] Super-Duper-Mega-Ultra Hyperborean Aryanism - You're just sad. I have nothing else to say to you. I mean, cool that you're trans and all and support LGBT rights but you are LARP beyond comprehension. Seek therapy. I don't mean that in a "Seek therapy, you're mentally ill", I mean that in a "You are very clearly lashing out against the world, I have been in the exact same situation you have been in and I know how it feels". Dehumanizing fellow humans and supporting slavery won't make you happy. >She does, however, recognize that Jews cannot ever be trusted... at the same time she's a Nazi so, that's not a surprise.
 * [[File:N-Acc.png]] Anarcho-Totalo-Libertarian-State-Nationalist-Internationalist-Communo-Capitalism - As users have pointed out on the PCB discord (and on your ideology page) your entire ideology is nothing more than a self-contradicting bunch of LARP which has no coherency aside from just trying to be as explicitly "ANTI COMMIE GRRAWRGHH!" and "ANTI LIBTARD URAAAAGH!". That's it. You have no identity outside of those two things. + You're narcissistic as fuck, nobody thinks you're cool especially with you explicitly having to point out "THIS PAGE BELONGS TO ME!" or "THIS USER IS ME!".

neo-majapahitism
Conclusion: GRRR>..GRRRAWRWGHGH!! INDONESIA SUPREMACY 🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
 * [[File:Pixil-frame-0(38).png]] Neo-Majapahitism - You get your own category, not because I totally despise your ideology but because I don't even know. I don't know WHAT your ideology is. I don't even know WHERE to start. It's not even from a place of disgust or contempt, but it's not out of support either. You are just an anomaly.

Test Results
Below are a bunch of tests that I took in-bulk on March 8th, 2023, with some others taken on April 9th, 2023.

Comments
- Add me? :) Aryan Monarchishm - Please remove the part about supporting slavery as I no longer support it for economic reasons.
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - Very well, but still. Shower, now. At least we both understand there is a common enemy.

Neo-Majapahitism - add me
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - No. (okay)

Meowxism - add me O'Langism - Add me? MugiKotobuki8814ism - add me
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - No, you're bald and ugly. (okay!)
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - Ditto.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Could I have 4 icons to describe your ideology?
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - You can't just use one?
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - check my user relations, I use 4 icons to provide a summary of each ideology.
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - Look at my influences and use that as a base. Relatively straightforward.

Baixian Federalism - Add me Please
 * [[File:Neolenicon.png]] - No. You're both shit- that's all you're getting. I am TIRED of all the "add me!" by fascists- What do you THINK I'm gonna say?
 * [[File:Bakbax1.png]] Baixian Federalism - Relax, I just told you something.