anarchists

twitter

For me it's def anarchists bc it's the tendency that seems to most often not actually be revolutionary and just uses that name when in actuality they're just liberals

haven’t finished it but it’s interesting it points out the hypocrisy of liberal capitalism development. the most memorable part was the comparison of absolute monarchies and how the more decentralized nature in america was used to protect slavery while on centralized monarchies had it abolish, tho it’s been a while since i read it.

What makes maoists so bad. I've seen a few bad ones that just say everything is revisionism but I think taking in Mao's contributions is really important. That's really the only reason why I consider myself MLM, it's just the next logical step forward, since it was the next (after USSR) huge socialist state.

I am a bit looser on the revisionism side though, for example some maoists would consider Cuba to not be socialist anymore because of the capitalist reforms and completely denounce them, but it's not that simple imo, you have to look at the entire trajectory of a country not just individual reforms that have taken place

I have no idea why someone would consider themselves a ML, other than because they are a Dengist or because they think Protacted Peoples War isn't universal. I feel like choosing to be a ML because PPW doesn't apply to all countries ignores all the other great critiques on the USSR that Maoism attempts to solve (e.g. mass line). If someone could educate me on this I would love to hear it

I agree I think being terminally online just f***s you up no matter what tendency you fall under. I have met decent anarchists in person.

This dude goes lower and lower everyday

jeff bezos must be getting jealous of musk because now he's trying to be a policy superhero on twitter

My main problem with them is their take on the Sino-Soviet split and obsession with "revisionism". I actually haven't read Mao, I'm sure there's good stuff in there but from what I've seen of his supporters I'm not encouraged.

I wouldn't consider myself an ML or any tendency tbh I'm a bit idiosyncratic. Most of the time that people describe themselves by a tendency I feel like they're saying who they would've sided with if they were alive back then which I'm not really interested in. I think what matters is what do we today? Which we're all still trynna figure out.

some maoists dont support / retroactively support proletariat revolutions of the third world on the basis that they are revisionist which makes no sense. im not a fan

i saw some twitter maoists saying the Afghan Revolution was invalid because it was carried out by the pro USSR Parcham and not the hardline orthodox Khalq faction

things like that. third world anti-imperialist national liberation is something i consider myself unconditionally supportive of (in regards to the politics of the thing, obviously there are social conditions that i need to see).

This is why I don't call myself ML, MLM or whatever, I'm just a Marxist. I acknowledge the theoretical contributions of Lenin, but Mao as well. Although I don't think PPW is universal, I think a lot of the talk about revisionism is bs and unnecessarily dogmatic, I do think his formulation of the mass line is a great contribution, although it was already implicit in Marxist theory and even practiced to some extent, he formulated it in the best way.

So what am I now a Maoist because I like Mao's contribution of the mass line? Am I a ML because I don't think Cuba is revisionist? Or that PPW isn't universal?

I think a lot of it is just unnecessary divisions that are the result of geopolitical splits overly interpreted as deeper ideological splits by Marxists. Which is apparent by the fact that these tendencies are often limited to theorists who held state power.

What if I find the contributions of Cockshott really significant, am I know a Cockshottist? What if I think Chibber's understanding of the role of ideology is essential to how we should organize, does that make me a Chibberian Marxist lol?

I'm just a Marxist, I think a lot of theorists made contributions that are significant and I don't really find those of any one theorist to be that radically different or paradigm shifting that I'm gonna call myself a Marxist (insert name here)ist

Depends on how we define leftist

Left-liberals probably

If we only talk about the "far left" than NATO anarchists

If we only talk about communists then unironic Dengists, Gonzaloists, left-communists and "value criticists"

Jokes on you I'm a Cockshottist-Trotskyist-Leninist-Castroist-Sankaraist-Orthodox-Marxist

I think a lot of it is just unnecessary divisions that are the result of geopolitical splits overly interpreted as deeper ideological splits by Marxists. Which is apparent by the fact that these tendencies are often limited to theorists who held state power.

Exactly

i disagree on the siding with people well yes it is quite that but it’s more than that it’s representations of lines an organization takes in general and applies it to their material conditions take which is very important.

For example the split sino-soviet split, one of the reason for the split was the difference in strategy of securing a socialist state, the CPSU with the parliamentary road due to fear of nukes and the CPC advocating the revolutionary road, that winning elections isn’t enough and the communist party should always prepare for revolution when the opportunity arrives. These lines have actual practical consequences, look at what happened to parties that took the parliamentary road, Chile couped by the USA, Indonesia communist who listened to the Soviet Union over the Chinese and demilitarized you can guess what happened after (looking for a source for this i couldn’t find one forgot where i heard it so if anyone knows im incorrect be free to correct me).

Even then in a marxist philosophy sense the parliamentary road is not marxist at all, at the core of marxist philosophy, dialectical materialism in its parts particularly, the negation of negation and quantity into quality it’s a clear violation

On the negation of negation, winning an election does not negate the previous bourgeoisie state, the army is still under control of them you might have won the elections but the bourgeoisie still have economic and military control of the state, hell even political cause if you piss them off too much well here comes the coup, the state is still a bourgeoisie state and the change can only come through smashing the bourgeoisie state and the armed forces, only then can the bourgeoisie state transform change into a proletariat state cause the bourgeoisie has finally lost their power in that area (their armed forces), and the proletariat can enforce their power now through the state.

On quantity into quality, that qualities change happens after enough quantitive change (think of water boiling, quantitive change being the temperature and the qualitative being the the liquid into gas). The parliamentary road is 100% just quantitive, there is no qualitative change happening to the economic foundation or relations between people since we already know you can’t establish a DOTP with this road , at best you’ll get a social democracy and that’s just a quantitive change of capitalism.

My overall point is that “revisionism” exists cause it’s about learning from past mistakes and making sure we don’t repeat them, that from the past we make sure we learn what’s still helpful and discard the waste, look at the parliamentary road Khrushchev advocated for its just a repeat of what Kautsky preached in the second international. There’s also a second part of revisionism is that how much marx can we change before we are no longer marxist like i showed the parliamentary road is completely against marxist philosophy so why should we let listen to people who advocate for this road, we know they’ll lead us to a dead end, we know it’s anti-marxist, should wr just listen to it cause they call themselves marxist ?

This is why I don't call myself ML, MLM or whatever, I'm just a Marxist.

Isnt the whole point of Lenin mainly is that the imperialist era and era Marx lived in are qualitatively different due to imperialism so in the current era that you cant understand marxism without reading Lenin making them as equally important (imo), and with Mao for the maoist is that that Maoism answers new Brough questions that marxism-leninism isn't able to answer like to deal with revisionism.

So what am I now a Maoist because I like Mao's contribution of the mass line? Am I a ML because I don't think Cuba is revisionist? Or that PPW isn't universal?

I mean no one ever gonna fit one to one to another ideology im a Maoist and I disagree with his abandonment of the negation of negation (I dont f*** with Engels erasure).

I think a lot of it is just unnecessary divisions that are the result of geopolitical splits overly interpreted as deeper ideological splits by Marxists. Which is apparent by the fact that these tendencies are often limited to theorists who held state power.

I know we already talked about this together before in MSCT, but still splits have been apart of marxism since the start with Marx with the utopians, blanquiest and anarchist, Lenin even before he conquered state power was splitting with Kautsky and the 2nd international.

On the cockshott point well, he or anyone never put his theory to practice (not to any of their faults of course, we need a socialist state for that). The whole marxist theory of knowledge is the feedback loop of applying theory to the world, and then refining your theory to fit that, Marx, Lenin Mao all have been able to put their theory to practice and see what works and doesnt thats why people take their banners and not Cockshott cause its still just theory. Its taking what Lenin and Mao found universal applying it to ur practical conditions seeing what works and doesn't, and then going back to theory improving it and the applying it and so on and so on.

always hated making fun of the names thing, its such a super-facial and lazy way to attack an ideology without actually attacking what that ideology actually is, used to do it a bunch when I was an anarchist.

name to thread ratio off the charts

I saw it hit 500, wanted to mark my spot.

Also what is the ML or any critique of PPW is that the surround the city by the countryside I've always seen that application of PPW being more depending on material conditions. With the way Mao described the reason that PPW is universal is that the communist faction in a revolution is always gonna start off weaker than the capitalist faction you due to the whole having an army and state thing. So the revolution is gonna go through three phases the defensive, equilibrium and then the offensive (well a victorious revolution is), there isnt any time minimum or anything, the Peruvians reached equilibrium in 7 year for example compared to the Indians and Philippines