Stop reading books

there'll always be trotskyism :^)

Trotskyism mainly became a low hanging fruit to attack for most other tendencies because of its extremly underwhelming achievements.

Maoism actually yielded results.

Stop reading books, start pimping proles:

(Also kill off the only good thing about your forced cultural revolution when it turns out your freshly developed working class shifts heavily to a communist left and actually tackling your wage labour relation by themselves: thenorthstar.info/?p=9866.)

What I've noticed in those who reads of lots of books, theory in particular, is that they become dissociated, unable to relativize the gap between language and being.

A narcissistic autist having close to absolute power tends to deliver results.

Is that why he decentralized the economic planning and gave power to village councils or worker/peasents councils which increased production and overcame the food shortages? Idiot.

What did Trotskyism do besides shilling for Neocons in the USA?

lmao, and to say that about fucking Mautism of all things (>>1869753).

I used to think I could at least say something positive about Mao philosophically but then I found out that he openly rejected the negation of the negation and instead developed a fucking cosmic theory of dialectics and how everything from nature to my dick is dialectical while supposedly dropping and critiquing the ML notion of dialectical materialism on the basis that it wasn't Marxist.
Also he inspired Mao Spontex in France which was decent but was based on entirely misinformed facts about what was going on in China and with Mao in a time where the only thing we could hear from China and Mao was vague, so he can only be credited in fiction.

Ideologies are expressions of reactions of the communist movement to the material conditions in which it finds itself in. Some ideas work, some don't. There is nothing idealistic about it.

What?!

marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm

The fuck does self-criticism even mean?

How you can say a (your) particular ideology of Maosim is primary driver of the communist movement while characterizing the communist movement as born from material conditions is beyond me, much less how you can attribute your grand "successes" of killing the early Chinese proletariat, the left wing of a party and some avian species to your ideology.

Isn't that hypocritical?

Mao was, by all accounts, one of the more well-read communist leaders. Up there with Lenin, even.

physical and psychological torture by your peers because you said something non party-kosher

it's as hypocritical as a booj having lots and lots of land when there's millions who have none. people reading jeopardized mao's backward bs. every single catastrophe you could possibly blame on him was because of him not listening to people who read.

wrong.

See

It's not a competition, user. Mao was a fucking nerd, who cares if Bordiga read more.

by the way, if he did, that would prove mao's point about books

I'm black I can't even read

DELETE THIS

Agreed

That's not a problem for most Maoists I've met. Not only do they refuse to read anything but leftist literature, not only do they refuse anything but Marxist literature, but they totally reject anything outside the tankie canon. You try to turn them Gramsci, Luxemburg, Trotsky, etc and they totally refuse, let alone trying to get them to read any anarchists or classical liberals or anything else really.

Well I have ADD now with out hyper activity and I'm too depressed to read.
But I would love to read the Iliad before I die.

Are you basically saying they're objectivists of the left?

Lenin was light-years ahead of him as a literary critic.

This.

it went to basic mistakes as well. There was a japanese communist branch that killed a bunch of people via self criticism over things like not oiling a gun correctly

We know Mao, we know Lmao, but who is Ayy Lmao?

this, and on everything else too. i come across too many anarchists who think that mao "at least had something interesting to say about guerilla war", which is just a red flag of a statement for an impressionable new leftist who doesn't know what they're talking about.

don't go make up maxims based on your own dumb behavior.

...

Are you implying he didn't have something interesting to say about guerilla war?

wait do you know anything about decentralized planning working in china?

how is any of the shit you greentexted pimping proles?

Western Maoists are that level of cringey, and also impossible to work with.

Mao's military theory was based tbh.

Mao was a bookjunkie

Mao was an idiot, but he's not wrong here.

Will you stop

Ideologies aren't a pissing contest about who has read more books. I have read plenty of non-leftist literature, I've read Hegel before I even became a leftist, and I've read most classics outside the tankie canon. What does it matter? Maoism makes the most sense of me, and I couldn't care less about how many books other proclaimed Maoists have read, especially the ones being actively fighting. Also, I don't know why you even make that conclusion. Most French students during the 60s and 70s used to be Maoists and a good amount of citrical theory people as well. You're right about Maoist parties in the west, but that's because they are usually more like Scientology than a polticial party.

I stand with my point that Maoism is the most misrepresented and strawmanned ideology on the left.

occasionally Mao lets out a turd.