Okay but I don't really get it? So basically the sailors made a concession to the Whites to overthrow the Bolsheviks? Alright that's pretty bad. But does the above also suggest that the leaders of the revolt wanted White dictatorship and didn't want Soviet democracy? Can you just clear it a bit more explicitly for me?

Thank you for your response, comrade. I have just a fee more questions from this:

Since the grain requisitioning was a objectively flawed procedure, not because it was a bad idea by itself, but because of the unplanned nature, the peasants would be wrongfully harassed by the Army, a lot of the times even lower class peasants. It was necessary for sure, but nevertheless very taxing on the peasantry. So it makes sense why the sailors revolted. Did Trotsky ever provide a reasoning for the executions and extremely brutal suppression? Could they have not at all negotiated, or it was a move made in excessive paranoia that Trotsky regretted later on? Interpretations on this vary a lot it seems.

Capitalism is basically synonymous with liberal political philosophy, ie rule of law, a system that is capable (but obviously like any system, can be corrupted) of holding people to account.

So we know capitalism is paired with a framework of morality that can help avoid human's worst tendencies,

I wonder if that has prevented hundreds of imperialist wars where the big capitalist states either go to war against each other, or attack smaller countries for their "self interest". What rule of law was Kissinger on when he dropped a gajillion bombs on Cambodia? What rule of law were you abiding by in Iraq? How about the rule of law when you folks bombed Syria? Capitalism is not paired with a philosophy of morality that can avoid human's worst tendencies, it exacerbates them. By making capital and profit righteous, liberal philosophy opens itself wide to be used to justify those same interests. Just because you've been taught that capitalism is "paired with a framework of morality that can help avoid human's worst tendencies" doesn't mean it is. If it can be corrupted, so can so called socialism. Problem is, even beyond corruption, your system is fundamentally exploitative and destructive. It is not the case with genuine Marxism, but you'd have to actually read Marx against the Stalinists and the liberals to get that. Communism is the end point of exploitation of one class by another, by annihilating class. Communism isn't the working class over the ruling class (which is only a transition phase and temporarily necessary to protect the interests of the majority) but no class at all. If you're objecting against the transition phase, the majority of people suppressing the exploitative desires of the minority is far more preferable than the minority preventing the majority from enjoying their fruits of labor.

All talks of individual liberty essentially becomes the dominance of the capitalist class because the system is built to favor their "individuality" over others. Essentially a dictatorship (power over) of the bourgeoisie, aka, there is a hegemonic relation. Marx points out this reality against the flowers and sunshine outward appearance of capital. In doing so, he asked for a revolution to create a dictatorship of the proletariat. Not the dictatorship of any party, but of workers and councils. What happened in all the "socialist" by name states is a degeneration of a workers state. Marxism doesn't have a moral set of axioms other than the collective good of the ordinary. In doing so however, it becomes the most moral, because all that helps the ordinary workers are righteous, and all that do not, are not. Its form is the same as it's content. In that sense, atrocities are incompatible with Marxism. You would do better to understand Marxism for sure, but you'd do even better to first understand your system as absolutely nothing as you described it as. Just because liberal philosophy says it's righteous doesn't mean it is. The most capitalist and liberal states stand as examples. Meanwhile, the "socialist" states were degenerated bureaucracies, and far removed from the Marxian vision. Communism is also the rule of law, the rule of proletarian law, the law of collective economic democracy. Who sets the liberal laws into motion? The bureaucrats and the ruling class. Who sets the Marxist laws into motion? Undoubtedly the working class, and if it is not so, that "socialist" state will degenerate into bureaucracy. And I regret to inform you, that if you want to learn, here is not the place. Read Marx. Read Engels. Beyond the Communist Manifesto and liberal slander. Read capital, read the Paris commune. Read Gotha. You'll not understand Marxism if you're doing it within the limits of "liberal" principles. Have independence of mind, certainly, Marxism is not to be a dogma, but this independence goes both ways.

My guy, look, you can't choose and pick how much of an ideology to attribute to whom. Point is, ideologies can be vulgarized to many a extents by anyone if they have enough influence. Stalin said his ideology was Marxism. In reality, it was a mix between some vulgar Marxism, aka not Marxism, Eurasianism, and totalitarianism. Just like Hitlers ideology was a mix of multiple ideologies, that combined form Nazism. Stalinism is not Marxism, or if you like, Marxism in the way Karl Marx envisioned it, is because it is radically departing from basic Marxist principles. Workers control? Gone. Radical democracy? Gone. Basically everything to be a feature of socialism and communism (please read Marx's critique of the Gotha Programme) was abandoned by Stalin. Marx wanted a permanent revolution, aka, world revolution. Stalin concocted an incoherent theory of socialism in one country, which is the nationalist angle of Stalinism Basically. Where socialism can survive for extended periods of time in one country without there being revolutions all across the world. Of course then, this meant, Stalin could justify whatever as socialism. Finally, Marx was concerned about the means of ownership, not the means of distribution. So the workers should OWN their means of production. In Stalinist Russia, the capitalist manager was replaced by a state appointed manager. What changed for the worker in terms of ownership? Nothing. Whatever Stalinism was, it wasn't what Marx wanted socialism to be. Stalinism isn't Marxism. Stalinism is a distortion of Marxism, plus his own terrible viewpoints. Just as Nazism isn't Nietzschianism, it's a distortion of that, and a couple other things. There is no mathematical quantitative limit to what counts as distortion. "OH but hitler was less Nietzschian than Stalin "was" Marxist" is illogical argumentation. Distortion is distortion, simple as. Please, and j have said this about 7 times now, read more Marx. Coming to a subreddit to ask Marxists their viewpoints, then actively fighting them instead of reflecting on them, is just petty. You were here to learn, we have given you multiple resources and points. Atleast try to be open to those ideas when you're asking for them, rather than trying to make weird syllogisms. You're doing this again and again: "so called Marxist did this, Marx's writings don't have a hard rule for this, so therefore Marxism justifies this" or "Marx didn't have a hard rule for this, this happened, so its Marx's fault and I blame the Marxists". Just because A not equals B doesn't mean it's equal C, ie, whatever thing you have preformed assumptions about. If you hold the preformed assumption that Marxism IS responsible somehow for these things, you'll just force false syllogisms to arrive at that conclusion.

I will not answer to any more of your points, including the collectivisation one, because you do the exact same thing. Just because Marx didn't specify how to centralise production doesn't in anyways even imply collectivisation, you can centralise production through requisitioning too. And if done systematically, that works. If done that is. During the civil war, requisitioning went wrong, and that's partly because the terribly anarchic nature of the Civil War. Instead of taking the surplus from the rich peasants, the Red Army would often harrass them. This was not transmitted properly to the leaders, for quite some time. Not to mention it was unplanned, but rather rather quite unorganized and anarchic, owing to the war. When shit got too bad and they finally realised it, they replaced it with the NEP. What did Stalin do when collectivisation failed? He asked for on spot executions for 'slackers' or something. He doubled down on his inhumane policy. Not only do you conclude that centralisation=collectivisation, you also conclude that collectivision=Stalinist collectivisation. Plus, centralization would in practice be quite decentralised. Most planning would be, after a while, be done locally by worker councils, according to general plans of the Central Committee, which as I explained, is not the Party. Party planned in Russia (and never moved beyond it) is because Stalin distorted Marxism. It's the conditions in Russia like the Civil War which made the Party so central there, and ultimately did create a bureaucratic apparatus which was usurped by Stalin and his supporters. The Left Opposition, aka, back to the workers council group was slowly purged. We are against that. We are pro worker. Pro peasant. No ideology which causes them purposeful harm is a Marxist one. Read up all the texts you've been suggested, and if you're adamant about your conclusions, so be it, you're allowed to. But dont seek the Marxist viewpoint.

Collectivization both in agriculture and industry (just like both Lenin and Stalin tried/did).

This is not implied by that. There are less crude means to centralise production.

That the proletarian revolution must result in the formation of an all-encompassing (totalitarian) state "organized as the ruling class", i.e. hierarchically, with a ruling party (or other similar entity, but since they use the term "party" ill just go with that), in opposition (now being the oppressor class) to its enemy classes.

All encompassing totalitarian? See this is the problem, you keep adding your own radical conclusions to pretty simple statements. The proletariat organises itself as the ruling class. So you could have a Central Committee, ie, a body which is at the centre, with elected delegates from workers councils. The state would then be the DotP, because the state is subject to the workers councils. And they could, if they wanted to, recall their representatives. Assume there are 50 councils in a country. So 50 delegates. If one council wants to change the delegate, arrived at by democratic vote, they can. The State is subordinated to the working class. You can find this very nicely written in Lenin's State and Revolution. A totalitarian party holding the state as a bureaucratic ruling class is the least of what Marx implied. Even in the Leninist (not Stalinist) conception, the so called party would only help seize the state. Once that's done, the party will take an educational and activistic role, supporting the advance of communism. The state will be held by the Central Committee, elected by workers councils.

Authoritarianism (since they themselves say that "in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads"). Authoritarianism of the workers yes. Not the party. The replacement of the working class with the party was one of the first distortions of Stalinism. The vanguard is not about hierarchies. You're adding your own personal spin to it. The vanguard is a democratic instrument, at the hands of the working class. They guide the revolution and lead the revolution in the right direction. This is not against the workers, but noting the mood of the workers. In the period between February and October, youd think Lenin was just scheming to overthrow the state as soon as possible. Yes and no. Lenin took a non aggressive stand for the first few months, because the working class wasn't in the mood for revolution. As hardships piled up, they started revolting. Immediately the vanguard party took the side of the workers and guided the revolution. This also should not produce any hierarchy because the party is to be reduced to an activist force after the revolution. The only hierarchy is the one between the proletariat and the capitalists, but after a while the latter will assimilate into the proletariat. So there would be no hierarchies ultimately. The initial time after October, The Bolsheviks did exactly as described above. The Civil War destroyed the working class and fragmented it. Bureaucratic tendencies started to develop as the Party had to do everything, not the workers. By the time it ended, bureaucracy had seeped in. Lenin and trotsky spent the last few years of their lives trying to end the bureaucracy, but material conditions had other plans for Stalin. That's your explanation for why things went wrong, and why Stalinist views of authority and vanguardism are all vulgar and distorted. I recommend you read State and Revolution, as well as The Paris Commune and Bonaparte by Marx as the person below me suggested. Marx wasn't fixed in stone, his ideas matured over time.

I'll be brief with this because I have been doing this for way too long, but the counter argument is not exactly what Marx himself believes. The counter argument claims that communism-

abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

This is only partially true. Yes Marxism wishes to abolish all traditional forms of the above, because they are all flawed. Eternal truths do not exist according to dialectical thought, all that exist are truths relative to the time period, which may or may not be as true in other epochs. The criteria for checking that is the dialectical method given by Marx in Grundrisse. And in this case, Marx recognises this fact. So we do wish to abolish eternal truths as such, because they have been used to justify terrible oppression. What is we took the principle of classical capitalism "more profit, more wealth, everyone happy" as an eternal truth? In this sense, it is perfectly justified to extend the workday to 15 or 16 hrs. Or what if the authority of the Church was taken as an eternal truth? We would still be living in the feudal ages. Point is, Marxism wants to do away with these unscientific set of views.

Marxism doesn't want to abolish religion, it wants to abolish religious authority. You can practice whatever you like, but you can't hold power over anyone. Or course, traditional religion is structured in a way where religion breeds religious authority. A radical reframing of religion needs to be done under communism.

And traditional morality, finally, is also flawed. According to traditional ethics, it is ethical to have private property, and it's unethical to take away the right to private property, even though that will lead to the welfare of countless other people. So yeah, Marxism requires a reframing of traditional morality to even demand communism.

But then you have the section where it says

instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

This is essentially false. Without this line, Marx's theory never quite abandons a reconstitution of traditional values. Most of his work is that. But this statement immediately mis attributes this to Marx, because to them reconstitution means reformism. Ask the good guys to slightly change the system and keep doing that for a couple hundred years. Except that's not how it works. Marxism wants a radical departure from traditional theoretical concepts, but nowhere does it imply that he wants to just abandon them. Society would be pretty robotic otherwise.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

Exactly what I said. Radical rupture with traditional ideas. Traditional ideas about law, morality, religion, truth, righteousness, all that. Because they are fundamentally flawed. But as we have stated, Marxism believes that every epoch has ideas that have elements of truth in them. All these ideas have to be radically reconstructed, such that they lose their "traditional" form. For a more harmonious and equitable society. Why wouldn't he then, protest against traditional moral questions to his transcendent radical theory? Only if they accepted the radical kernel of his theory, and offered criticism on the basis of a non orthodox morality, then communism would have to answer. Sadly that didn't happen much. Unfortunately Marx seldom elaborated on these particular aspects (morality, ethics, truths, etc) but Marx also wrote generational works of hundreds of pages radically reconstructing almost every subject. You can't expect a human being to elaborate history, politics, philosophy, economics, mathematics, and sociology at the same time. Except he did do all that. He did what he could while he was alive, and sensible Marxists need to read his works without preformed notions, may it be liberal notions or Stalinist notions.

why it wasn't a result of your ideology, or alternatively, why you maintain the ideology when it lead to such consequences.

This is deceitful. A vulgarisation of our ideology resulted in atrocities. Literally any ideology is vulnerable to vulgarisation. Thats not something any author can do anything about. We maintain the ideology because it didn't result in such consequences, the vulgarisation of it did. If ask this to a Nietzschian, would you be seriously applying this shitty logic? "Well the nazis used some of your ideology to kill jews so why you maintain those ideas if they led to such consequences". Did it? Did Nietzsche's ideas lead to the Holocaust? No. Hitler's ideology led to the holocaust. Stalin's ideology led to the atrocities. The ideology was a vulgarisation and distortion of Marxism. We claim no responsibility as Marxists for what Stalin did. Marxism didn't lead to Stalinism. Stalinism led to Stalinjsm. Plain and simple.

Any sensible person doesn't need to know anything about Marxism, except that's not what I said? I literally said anyone sensible can deduce from the basic ideas of Marxism, arrived at by reading the text, what is atrocious and what is not. No offense, you lack reading comprehension.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads"

You seemed to miss out the "in the beginning" there my big guy. The beginning was the Russian Revolution and the Civil War. Was dekulakisatioj the beginning of the revolution? I dont see the part where Marx says that "despotic inroads", will be needed for time immemorial? He also said that this is to be done "to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible". Which part of the beginning of this wasn't achieved already by the time of Stalinist atrocities? If you're suggesting that Marx suggesting a perpetual state of despotism till the end of time, then I don't know what to tell ya. I don't claim to be an expert on Marxism or anything, but you're not really discrediting me either very much by having only read "The Communist Manifesto" and that too with severe misinterpretations. I don't take any offense to your statement, but I do take offense to you trying to distort Marx for your history project.

The basic idea of marxism is the struggle between oppressor and oppressed. The goal/the belief, is that this struggle (if controlled by the oppressed rather than the oppressor) will lead to emancipation, equality, etc etc etc.

And what else did I say?

There is a lot of Marxist theory and practice between the oppressor-oppressed class society and the class-free, emancipated communist utopia.

Which part of whatever I said isn't mentioning that? Did you not read my lengthy conspectus on the Red Terror? You seem to grasp the elementary fact that this violence is only the immediate result of the revolution, yet for some reason you see this as applicable to dekulakisation. Not to mention, nothing you wrote here is at all in conflict with whatever I wrote. The implication of my entire response was that we Marxists are not bloodthirsty bloodmongers but rather revolutionary folks who will do what is needed in order to advance communism, but it needs to advance communism. Killing a Kulak for working less hours than you forced him to isn't advancing communism. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here, if it's learning history, we are trying to set you on the right track, but you seem to have a preformed opinion. Can't help that.

I think in developing countries like mine, they are basically the only ideological Marxist parties. We barely have Trotskyist parties here. And these ML parties are in turn divided into the reformists, the anti revisionist MLs, the Maoist MLs, etc. All of them are some form of neo-Stalinists, but have different goals and tactics.

So what they are asking for is an ethics of Marxism? Welp sadly we don't have a formal body of that by Marx, Engels, or any Marxist for that matter. Lukacs, an orthodox marxist, planned to write an ethics of msrxism but died before he could do it. The closest thing we have are the writings of Sartre, but that involves a philosophical framework which tries to fuse Marxism with existentialism. Ultimately, however, this does not mean Marxism doesn't have ethical implications. No philosophical body of work has ever defined every word in the dictionary to explain their philosophy. There are certain things taken for granted. An atrocity is an atrocity in Marxism. There is no context depended atrocity. Atrocities can have contexts, but they are still atrocities. That's pretty much how it is in Marx. Just because Marx didn't define what an atrocity is, what is ethical and what isn't, doesn't mean it isn't implicit. A thorough reading of Marx will clearly show his disdain for ruling class violence and suppression, and we can apply it evenly to every epoch and every event. The only time ruling class "violence" (though this violence shall be defensive at best) is not an atrocity is if the ruling class is the working class, and "it advances the goals of socialism". Senseless violence or class killings for the sake of it do not advance the goals of socialism. Therefore any violence that doesn't advance the goals of socialism, is an atrocity. I don't think there is a need for any greater basis.

Precisely. The guy above is basically saying "well if they could abuse the text, that must be the fault of the text'.

Im blaming them as authors of an ideology, the faithful followers of which have committed atrocities.

On what grounds? How can you blame an author for someone committing atrocities in their name? If I wrote a book on why we need to change society by removing the patriarchy, and someone in my name 70 years after I wrote this goes on a killing spree against random men because that's somehow what I meant, would you blame me for it? Vulgarisation of objectively humanist ideas can be done by almost anyone at any time. Stalin did it, Pol pot did it, Kim Jong Un does it, that's unfortunate. But Marx shouldn't be blamed for any of that.

Marxist principle 101: the emancipation and rights of the proletariat? An end to exploitation? Dictatorship of the proletariat, aka, the ordinary people decide what happens to them? What part of senseless killing is relevant to communism? The basic idea of Marxism is against atrocities. Any sensible person can deduce from this what is atrocity and what is revolutionary from this.

This is really terrible argumentation my guy. Like really terrible. You know you can "justify" atrocities by pulling those justifications out of your asses right? The Nazis used Nietszche to justify the Holocaust. No sane reading of his texts can offer that interpretation. The vulgar Stalinists support atrocities because they admire Stalin himself. They use Stalin to justify Stalin, not Marx. You'll notice that most Stalinists do not even mention the crimes Stalin did. They either outright deny it or ignore it. It's very difficult to justify the unjustifiable. You're also doing something really weird, which I call "understanding an entire body of philosophy by reading one pamphlet from the beginning of the founder's political journey". Like you'll have to read almost all of Marx and Engels to understand the theoretical basis of Marxism. That's like saying, "the theoretical basis of capitalism is the first essay Adam Smith wrote". It's nonsensical. But I'll do it. I will use the Communist Manifesto to denounce dekulakisation, because that's the strength of the text. Dekulakisation is bad because it doesn't advance the emancipation of the proletariat. Dekulakisation is bad because it doesn't create the circumstances for a communist society. Dekulakisation is bad because it has nothing to do with communism, or getting towards communism. If you want to actually understand communism, read more. And please for the love of God, do not expect to find criticisms of Pol Pot, Stalin or Kim Jong un in that tiny pamphlet.

It's weird that you expect texts from 1850s to condemn events of the type that did not exist till the 1930s. They weren't fortune tellers, if that's what you expected them to be (I don't even know how you thought that was a valid thing to say but okay). If you're asking if marx and engels condemned, I don't know, mass killings of proletarian folks for bureaucratic assertion of power, I think that was quite implicit. I do not think one needs to condemn every specific atrocious act to be implicitly against it. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto as a guide to action. It's about the problems of capitalism, the atrocities under capitalism, and a few ideas on how to overthrow it. That's it. It's a general guide. What Stalin did 10 years after the Bolsheviks seized power does not have anything to do with anything Marx or Engels wrote. The dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the proletariat. In capitalism, you have dictatorship of the bourgeois class. Dictatorship here means the power over. The DoTP that Marx talked about was simply the establishment of a worker's state by the workers. In that state, there would be worker's democracy. That's literally it.

Stalin was a terrible bureaucrat who seized a revolutionary state and used it to consolidate his powers. His atrocities were extensions of his own thirst for absolutism. Whether or not he was a socialist is debatable, but clearly his bureaucratism overwhelmed his socialism by the time he took power. The rest is history. The degeneration of the worker's state. Eventually, it turned capitalism.

Edit: I'll add some points here. The Red Terror was "bad" only in the sense that it turned into lawless killing. The Cheka worked independently of the Bolsheviks, and they often carried out "class killings", ie, killing of people for solely their class background. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not endorsers of this act. Though there is an argument to be made that they could have done more to stop it. Indeed many a times, Lenin asked for restraint in carrying out the terror. But it was not very effective due to the decentralised and indiscriminate, almost anarchic nature of the killings. The White Army was terrible, atrocious and they instigated the civil war. And guess who funded them? The 22 imperialist states, including the US of A. And no civil war is peaceful. The Red terror was justified in the sense that without it, the whites would have seized the state and committed far worse atrocities against the proletariat. One may however critique it's excesses.

The purges were bad because communism isn't about killing political opponents for the sake of it? Also, most purges were killings of Party members. That's literally against the principles of a socialist party, let alone worker's democracy. I urge you to actually read some Lenin, and not just draw a straight line from him to the purges. The Bolshevik Party under Lenin also carried out purges, but these purges were literally just scrutiny or expelling of party members. Not comparable.

Dekulakisation was classicide for the sake of it.

Overall, we Marxists aren't bloodthirsty bloodmongers. We want peace, land, and bread, like Lenin said in his April Theses, and we want it on the terms of the proletariat.

Structurally, mostly true. But it's hard to live like that innit? Purism of meaningful relationships should definitely be an aim, but it's hard to live like that everyday. The struggle, indeed my struggle, is defining the line where I can comfortably call it a more or less "meaningful relationship" and where I can just not see it working long term. Oftentimes you remain in touch with people, but internally you don't feel that unshakable connection. Its all form and no content. And it's hard to cross that line without sacrificing some of your ideological positions.

I could not agree more. The first subtle destruction of social life by capitalism was the eradication of whatever was left of community. Open fields and clubs and libraries are all being slowly privatised and monetized, that was gathering up with a group of people on a street no one lives is trespassing, and you need money to enter networks. Even parties, the most communist ones, ultimately require your donation to them. All this monetization has ruined communities. All communities have moved online, as if that is natural. We are touch starved and overriden with walls of texts and images. Confined to the cages we call home, and whatever the overlords allow us to step into outside of it. It's suffocating. You're not alone, comrade.

I mean yeah,

First of all, you’re making your political beliefs an intrinsic part of your identity when politics and most important Marxist politics is detached from the self, and more about how the environment and about how the material conditions outside of you define you, not the opposite. Saying that you feel sad because you’re a Marxist is not really precise either, since, if we were to use Marxist theory, your material conditions would be the main factor for your feelings. Are you close to anybody? Do you have a supportive family environment? To me it sounds more like something external perhaps trauma related is affecting your mental health more than Marxism itself. You’re blaming and looking at the wrong thing.

I really do appreciate the kind words, comrade. Of course, the material conditions define my condition. I do not, in any way, feel sad 'because I am a Marxist'. I am at unease, and that's precisely because of my material conditions. I should have outlined them more explicitly, but the major one I presented here was the paranoia against Marxism, the bourgeoisfication of social life, and my dilemma at balancing that with my fundamental beliefs. Marxist politics is detached from the self in the sense that it doesn't rely on ones internal feelings and problems, but no politics is absolutely detached from identity. Marxism is a feature of your character developed from material conditions. Just as one can't detach themselves from their material conditions, they cannot detach themselves from their political ideology, since that itself is a result of material conditions. Being a Marxist is not the reason for my sadness. I hope that makes sense. I would also like to state that identity politics, is not outside Marxism, as much as it is forcefully appropriated by liberals. My struggle isn't with my identity but more so the social structure which has a almost determined reaction to my identity. A contradiction between myself and people in general. That's what I am struggling with, and i hope that clears things up.

That being said, I do have personal problems, and I could focus more on solving some of them. Unfortunately at this point in time i can't afford therapy. But also, solving those problems will probably not solve the structural problem I have. In the end, its probably just trial and error till i will probably make peace with what people will perceive me as and the structural backlash I may face, and/or I find people who can care about me without at all caring about my political identity. I do not wanna live with carbon copies of me. I won't see anyone as lesser due to their political ideology if they are good people I vibe with. And that's exactly what I would like. To be an open Marxist and for that to be...not that big a factor at all in those relationships. Oopsie I went on a vent.

Nevertheless, thank you for your kind concern, i will do what my material conditions allow me to so that I can get better :)

This is what I would like to do, but God is this difficult. There are a bazillion parties, and while most aren't sectarian, they are all claiming to be the legitimate heirs of Marx and have a traditionalised style of work which they are adamant adherents of. Now that itself wouldn't be a problem, because we all need ideological commonality for organisation, but there are so many parties like this. So who is the "best heir"? That becomes really hard to decide. For example, most parties are either Trotskyist or anti revisionist and/or neo Stalinist. And each want to uphold the ideological purity of their figurehead. But that's the ideological line, there's also the way they work. At times you have parties who are non Stalinists but organize very little or don't have a connection to the working class. On the other hand you have Stalinist parties that are very good at organising but you have to kinda uphold their ideological line. All in all, very confusing and very tiring. I'll prolly still join a party tho, because where I live most parties are by default some form of Marxism-leninism, it's just who works better. Hopefully the ideological line isn't too rigid and it's a good environment to be around. Atb with your organisation, comrade.

it's easy to feel that way when you first learn marxism but becoming depressed doesn't serve you or the movement. contribute what you can through organising and agitation but you can and should have a life outside of politics

All I try to do atp. While it is a little difficult at times, I try to manage. At the end of the day all I would like is for me to feel comfortable in my own skin. As a Marxist, not many people look at you fondly. But when I can find some people, and I am sure I will, i probably won't feel this way anyone. Thank you for your kind words, comrade.