What does Maoism add to Marxism-Leninism?

What does Maoism add to Marxism-Leninism?

Other urls found in this thread:

massline.info/
lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=4326
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

nothing

revisionism

More reactionary paranoia and even more bureaucratic oppression of the workers

It's like having cancer AND aids

Maoism basically is a rural version of Stalinism.

sure "anarchist"

...

Democratic Confederalism should filter to Anarcho-Stalinism for super fun Rojava threads.

The theories of Mass Line, Mass Perspective, the Universality of Protracted People's War, Cultural Revolution (to uproot liberalism within the population), and New Democracy (which can be rejected, but is useful for under-developed nations)

While this site has less than stellar web design, it's useful for understanding some of these concepts: massline.info/

Mao, compared to other communist thinkers, was not closely wed to Marxist materialism.
For the most part Maoism is nationalist and anti-intellectual.
Mao viewed religion not as a bourgeois dalliance but as a pernicious impediment to revolution.
Mao introduced guerrilla warfare and third-worldism to socialist revolution.
Mao predicted that China would become "state capitalist."

I give about 2-3 years before the killings start and the endless "what went wrong" threads.

...

Dumb shit

Not much; I actually don't think Maoism is much of a continuation from "Marxism"-"Leninism" at all looking at Maoism's principle of accepting non-proletarian emancipation (n.b.: peasant revolution). Mao could be argued to be much more refined than Stalin in this case because Mao did not want to disdain (post-)feudal classes out of existence, but guide them with their subjectivization towards becoming proletarians. Given that he was theoretically quite well-supported and wrote a lot of truth, I can at least respect Mao purely theory-wise while at the same time acknowledging just how much of a self-democidal maniac he was in his misrule.


Kek. Goddamn you fucking Stalinists for actually being honest in your opportunist tyrannies.


What a coincidence.

I like Ocalan, the PKK and the YPG, and i find it ironic that anarchists also support it like it was an anarchist paradise like Kekalonia.

:^) i also think leftcoms should be kept alive as comedians


i hope they make gulags


this pretty much. Anarcho-Stalinism is the future :^)

Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and in politics there's nothing more Chinese than millions of people dead for no good reason.

North Korea 2.0 when?

FTFY

well, Kekalonia had its own collectivization campaign imposed by the means of force

plus, there was a constant drift towards centralization as time passed

I'd say if it survived, it'd become something akin to Yugoslavia

nothing wrong with centralisation carried out democratically

Don't think you'll get the chance without ever repeating yourself as a farce anyways. :^)


Really makes you think, in several ways.

Not democratic centralism, which is a specific set of beliefs, but, for example, several farming collectives may choose to have a central means of producing energy

Now I am the one who is really thinking

So democratic centralism without calling it that and Kholkoz farming without calling it that?


You must not have been thinking, really.

Go on…

I'm liking your thorough apprehension of democratic centralism though.

>I was just pretending not to get the joke to be retarded!
Nah, I'm done.

Alright, I'm not done apparently, and am also really liking your allegiance to democratic centralism while not calling it that.

Did you… just make that picture? Not the black flag man btw. I just like poking holes in dogmatist's horseshit. I'm not a vanguardist, for the reasons that the vanguard would be populated with people such as Leftcoms, so no, I don't hold to an inauthentic DC. You seem to love your absurdly binary false dichotomies though, for someone who appears to want to mock them with shit-tier paint memes.

sparrow elimination

It provided an ideological justification for mob violence and constant paranoia on the part of the ruling party under state socialism (i.e. the "permanent revolution.")

probably, but their society would be more flexible and prone to social change. Depending on the FAI position over the new society


no revolution will come about until we know how to take power from the bankers. Taking over the government isn't enough nowadays ;-;

Thinking about how power operates today is more useful then dwelling eternally on the failed revolutions and blaming Stalin for everything

No.

>lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=4326 (3 hrs ago)
(~30 mins ago)

"Dogmatism" is not interchangeable with consistency. Dogmatism implies an immutable application of consistency without consideration for critique or eventual obstructions.

Hi, neither am I.

Leftcoms themselves would either outright shun the term vanguard and retreat back to their worker's councils and wildcat strikes or operate a vanguard so hard to identify that you couldn't even tell who populates it. Because "leftcom" is not a unified umbrella or its own ideology; it just stands for the left of communism during the October revolution, critical of it from the start, in opposition to the "right" of communism.

The only reason people use this flag on this board is because BO is too lazy to add the few larger Marxist communisms it represents: council communist, Bordigist, synthesist and Marxist syndicalist, or to signal an adherence to Marxist communism explicitly opposed to what went on in the USSR and what it inspired (PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.).

You want centralized democracy (a state necessarily, whether or not you call it that) combined with decentralized industry (of which the Soviet Kholkhoz is literally the first historical example, combined with DemCen). You're a Bukharinite with a boner for beating around his bush.

If people ITT themselves only offer one thing, rebut the implied alternative I propose and then consistently reconfirm that they're doing A while not calling it A that's not my doing.

Not mine, but I thought it was alright.

Actually, RISing that pic shows that it was used as early as february 2016 in 4chan threads about the out of hand growing anti-SJW hysteria.

Thanks for the definition, Webster!

I think you have me confused, I'm not the OTC dissociative-addled black flag you were arguing with before, who nonetheless had a point: that democratic centralism, a pillar of Marxist-Leninism, is about the procedural doctrine of the central committee, about the finality of deliberations once acceded to. It had little to do with democracy and in fact was more anti-democratic, in keeping with the general trajectory Lenin pulled the party down.

Reactionary confucianist thought.

Uh, yeah? So how was anyone here not being non-dogmatic (congruent with its own contradictions and acknowledging of eventual inconsistencies)?

I know, but I figured that any kind of mention at the fact that you like my critique of DemCen was necessary to imply that I either apprehend it or do not. Why else would you, I assume, mention your appreciation (as if to get a "gotcha")? Simply stating your appreciation for my critique with nothing else implied or added would not've been what I consider likely or fruitful.

Correct.

I think I would here reiterate my critique: that the problem is not so much that it's but an instance of democracy for the few, not the many, but that you have here simply another case where democracy is not truly democratic. The very fact that the "socialist state" fancied that it needed democratic centralism implied that it did not verily arrive at a point where democracy is no longer required to reconcile opposing material or class interest: socialism. The USSR was so profoundly capitalistic in its own way of working class-red bourgeoisie that the idea that the red bourgeoisie came to its conclusions at least democratically was the only thing legitimizing it.

This is also why I am skeptical of vanguardism, but especially notions of vanguardism that pretend to be democratic; they set up for a near future in which the vanguard doesn't just disappear after doing its efficient job of guiding the masses towards socialism (its only self-admitted function) and then disolves after having served its function, but instead keeps itself alive and manages to legitimize itself towards the masses after necessarily creating its own "fair" reasons for perpetuating its existence. This can even exist with decentralized forms of popular representation, like in the USSR with its Kholkhoz collective industries and farms, which were basically syndicate-sized cooperatives.

Precisely. This is also the second the left of communism found unison: not in their own alternatives, not in the belief that the October revolution as inauthentic, that Lenin was unprincipled, the Kautskyists preferable, etc. or any other nonsense, but that Lenin was knuckleheadedly (writing books that addressed Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bordiga, Damen, etc. such as "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder") setting up his revolution to fail with a party form destined to not do what it promised it could. And I believe they properly predicted by the USSR ended up the way it did, wouldn't you agree?

So much bullshit in a single thread, wow.

Ecological awareness.

In the sense that we become aware of the need to remove toxic trash like Maoism?

Ecology is reactionary bullshit. Man must master his environment or else communism means nothing.

this

I see, I actually like that critique as stated. But under such a uniformly repressive and propagandistic atmosphere, does it need "legitimation"? To whom are they legitimizing to? After all, it quickly just became a rubber stamp.

Whatever the limitations of liberal formal democracy under class rule, it still has benefits unrelated to the direct translation of mass preferences into policy.

My point is really that "democracy" comes in many, many forms, and Bordiga himself by the end of DP doesn't even reject its use in the party apparatus outright, just declines the terminology euphemistically.

(You're reading too much into a throwaway epithet.) I might use it similarly to how Zizek uses ideology, hubris, etc. I'd suggest rather than being about steely, principled consistency, it all but ensures accumulation of contradictions, compounding global inconsistency.

You have it backwards. We're at the mercy of what the earth can sustain, go over the tipping point and you're fucked.