I’m sympathetic to most communist causes (except like most western ones) but at the end of the day I think socialism works for a different reason than most people who identify as communist do
I don’t really disagree with most underlying principals from Marx in terms of economics but the way I see it applied I think differentiates from most self-identified communists essentially
I’ve mentioned it before but the existence of superstructural issues w/o base solutions I also think plays a large role in this thought process. I also question the nature of things like contradictions as opposed to natural phenomena.
None of this is inherently dispelling of the ideology but group labels carry wider implications in any society and I live in the west, and the political action & policy ideals I subscribe to differentiate too much from the norm of said group for me to identify in that manner outwardly
I feel like Maoism addresses your issues with base/superstructure
I feel like Maoism addresses your issues with base/superstructure
Why so
Why so
A large part of Maoism is the position that there is a degree of superstructural independence from the base that causes it to also impact and shape the base as opposed to the sort of one way understanding of “base creates superstructure” that more orthordox marxisms have. The base is still the more fundamental and dominant aspect, but the resulting ideology can and does become so strong that it in turn impacts how the base is organized to a degree, or at least how this organization is implemented. There are of course cultural factors that play into this too that don’t simply derive from the base’s resulting ideology. This is why we say there is a need for a cultural revolution - a “revolution within a revolution” following a period of revolutionizing the base.
Hopefully that makes some sense, I’m hungover and not articulating this as well as I normally would
A large part of Maoism is the position that there is a degree of superstructural independence from the base that causes it to also impact and shape the base as opposed to the sort of one way understanding of “base creates superstructure” that more orthordox marxisms have. The base is still the more fundamental and dominant aspect, but the resulting ideology can and does become so strong that it in turn impacts how the base is organized to a degree, or at least how this organization is implemented. There are of course cultural factors that play into this too that don’t simply derive from the base’s resulting ideology. This is why we say there is a need for a cultural revolution - a “revolution within a revolution” following a period of revolutionizing the base.
Hopefully that makes some sense, I’m hungover and not articulating this as well as I normally would
I see what you mean and agree with most of what you said. My own reading of Marx isn't that the base wholly determines the superstructure and I don't think most Marxists do either except some who are very dogmatic. Gramsci of course elaborated on the role of the superstructure a lot and MLs don't denounce him as "revisionist" for that. Maoism's theoretical contribution to the relation of the base and superstructure how I see it is mostly in how it should be dealt with in practice with cultural revolution, not necessarily that the superstructure is merely epiphenomenal to the base, I think that had alreadt been established earlier.
I see what you mean and agree with most of what you said. My own reading of Marx isn't that the base wholly determines the superstructure and I don't think most Marxists do either except some who are very dogmatic. Gramsci of course elaborated on the role of the superstructure a lot and MLs don't denounce him as "revisionist" for that. Maoism's theoretical contribution to the relation of the base and superstructure how I see it is mostly in how it should be dealt with in practice with cultural revolution, not necessarily that the superstructure is merely epiphenomenal to the base, I think that had alreadt been established earlier.
I agree that a correct reading of Marx lends itself to this interpretation, and that people like Gramsci got at a lot of this same stuff as well
For a long time tho this wasn’t really something that the Marxist movement properly grappled with and it was considered “revisionist” to some degree. It may be true that most Marxists now acknowledge this, but Maoism emphasizes as a central and crucial point of a***ysis. Particularly because failure to grasp this was one of Stalin’s biggest errors and this amongst other things really opened the door for revisionism to take hold and become such a detrimental force in the USSR
I agree that a correct reading of Marx lends itself to this interpretation, and that people like Gramsci got at a lot of this same stuff as well
For a long time tho this wasn’t really something that the Marxist movement properly grappled with and it was considered “revisionist” to some degree. It may be true that most Marxists now acknowledge this, but Maoism emphasizes as a central and crucial point of a***ysis. Particularly because failure to grasp this was one of Stalin’s biggest errors and this amongst other things really opened the door for revisionism to take hold and become such a detrimental force in the USSR
Dialectical Materialism So Advanced It Is Indistinguishable From Magic
I dont think so
I was watching this Netflix show narrated by Peter Dinklage on “tyrants” and the Stalin segment makes no attacks on Lenin. Even the tsar got flak but not lenin
ngl Napoleon was hard as s***
Socialism thread when Chinese social imperialism : 😡
Socialism thread when Napoleonic social imperialism: 😍😍
Why
just as a central figure in that time period that influenced a s*** ton
just as a central figure in that time period that influenced a s*** ton
Tru
I was watching this Netflix show narrated by Peter Dinklage on “tyrants” and the Stalin segment makes no attacks on Lenin. Even the tsar got flak but not lenin
You are braver than me. I watched the trailer for that and was like
You are braver than me. I watched the trailer for that and was like
It was terrible
Clips of Fidel Castro and spreading multiple lies about the CPC and the Bolshevik parties as wel
It was terrible
Clips of Fidel Castro and spreading multiple lies about the CPC and the Bolshevik parties as wel
What they say abt Fidel?
What abt the Bolsheviks
It was mostly Stalinist “edit the truth” and censoring party official names etc