Other (please specify): a generic Socialist, not because I do not agree with any particular strand, but due to the lack of theory knowledge. Although, always trying to educate myself, but never feel like I know enough. To make matters worse, my attention span is not great, while reading one theory I can get pulled to other theories. However, no matter how strong I feel toward a particular tendency, I always support AES, past and present. If I were to rank my AES from most to least interested they would be DPRK, PRC, Vietnam. Could never quite get into appreciating Cuba and Laos enough, although Che Guevara holds a special place in my heart. I almost literally know nothing about Laos, unfortunately.
To me the label isn’t quite so important as being in line with the modern anti-imperialist trend. What do I mean by modern anti-imperialist trend? The world as it stands is generally split into 2 camps (not perfectly, hence the use of ‘generally’), 1 camp generally leans towards the US, the other leans away. For example, in the UN, the countries that denounce what PRC does in XJ are the usual suspects of the anglosphere, Europe, Japan. Those that support the PRC tend to be the current “main enemies” of the US like Iran, Russia, Venezuela as well as some GS countries. When I say modern anti-imperialist trend I’m referring to the attitude shown by this latter group.
100% agree. Capitalist-Imperialism, or the division of the world into poor and rich countries, and the exploitation of the global south by the imperial core countries, is the #1 contradiction in the world today. And that is being held up more than anything by the US military and the US dollar. Any country or group that materially opposses that, whatever their designation, is doing a favor to uplifting the millions of people suffering under the bootheel of the US.
I’d also note tho that there were even US leaders like Henry Wallace, a US socdem ( 99% of them are terrible of course ), who was staunchly anti-imperialist not just w/ regards to the military, but also economic interventions… that made him immensely popular in Latin America. It also lead to him being pushed out of the US presidential ticket in favor of Truman.
Marxist-Leninist. I don’t know enough about MLM to know if it makes sense to call myself that. I don’t to care too much about labels though. They give others a rough impression of your politics on introduction, but that’s about all they’re useful for.
MLM was synthesized in the 70s or 80s by Gonzalo in Peru, holding that Mao’s advancements, which he formulated for China’s material conditions, were universally applicable and formed enough of a theoretical body to get their own name.
There are Maoists in China however not affiliated with Gonzalo, but there the name is more akin to MZT, Mao Zedong thought, meaning that one is ML but still integrates that some of Mao’s theories are relevant and can be learned from. But certainly I can understand that in China they uphold MZT since it’s literally what brought them where they are today.
Honestly while I can admire MLMs fighting their ppw, I don’t believe Mao’s theories are universally applicable nor are their analyses correct. Social imperialism today sounds more like something trots would say, and it’s a whole theoretical field that simply does not exist in ML theory. Mao only used that against the USSR after Stalin died (trots try to reclaim Mao or Maoists sometimes and conveniently forget Mao was admirative of comrade Stalin).
I also have issues with Mao as a leader after the PRC was declared. He was a great general, there’s no doubt about that. In on protracted war, 1933, he correctly predicted what would happen after the war: Japanese imperialism would die, China would win and become socialist. I also uphold his struggle and what he made of China. But his years as a politician, while he was leading the PRC, were not made with the best policies.
Marxist-Leninist here. I think the general theory that Marx and Lenin outlined is still a valid platform for building communism today. Others have made valuable contributions to be sure, but I don’t think anything fundamentally changed over the years.
Marxism-Leninism is still the path towards communism, and I think we need to adapt the theory to current social and material conditions just like other revolutionary leaders have done over the years.
Stalin, Mao, Xi Jinping, and Ho Chi Minh were/are all Marxist-Leninists.
Stalin added very little to Marxism-Leninism, and mostly just saw the continuation of the revolution as Lenin put into motion, the term “Stalinist” is widely used against Marxist-Leninists in anti-communist propaganda, and there’s an argument that the term was coined by Stalin’s counter-revolutionary opposition, who used it after Stalin’s death to smear his leadership and steer the Union towards liberalizing.
Mao’s additions to Lenin’s theories are referred to as “Marxism-Leninism with Mao Zedong Thought” or “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”, he didn’t forge an independent ideology, rather he fit Leninism to the Chinese situation. At least of what I understand from trying to read it, most of what he puts forwards are theories on how to put Socialism into motion within the material conditions of warlord era China, with the bulk of his theories on how Socialism should function being standard Marxism-Leninism
Xi Jinping is just a Marxist-Leninist, all of his policies are in line with Lenin’s theories and he represents a return to Marxism-Leninism for the CCP.
Ho Chi Minh was also just a Marxist-Leninist, his contributions are referred to as “Marxism-Leninism with Ho Chi Minh Thought”, and is just Marxism-Leninism fit to the Vietnamese situation.
So, the ideologies you listed are, more accurately Classical Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and other.
Before I list other socialisms, it’s worth noting that naming small differences in ideology after people is a bad way of looking at political ideals. There is no “Trumpism” for instance, what he and his predecessors brought forwards (and for that matter, Biden does it too) is “American Fascism”. There is no “Dengism”, Deng was only a reformer and didn’t represent a new and unique ideology block. Ideologies that are named after people, are done so because they’re unique enough to deserve it. Leninism is different enough from Marxism that his contributions are denoted in the title, but those who build upon the foundation he built often don’t stick out enough to deserve their own ideology.
Other socialisms include;
Orthodox Marxism (being more dialectical than Classical Marxism)
American Socialism (being a family of ideologies instead of a united one, including Syndicalism, Pantherism, Unionism, etc.)
Trotskyism (being attributed to Trotsky, who rejected Lenin’s path. Though the major thing that sets it apart from ML is the adherence to the idea of ‘permanent revolution’ or a belief in having revolutionary movements in non-developed nations without aid or preparation - it is directly opposed to ‘Socialism in one state’, which is the belief that a single socialist state should be formed and maintained that would then export the revolution in support of revolutionary projects)
Neo-Marxism (which seems to be lax on the dialectics, in favour of psychoanalysing and existentialism)
Then other forms on non-marxist socialisms
Proudhonian Anarchism (one of the more popular ones, though they don’t seem to like to call themselves that)
Democratic Socialism (the belief that socialism can be achieved via the polls. Sometimes it’s Marxist, sometimes it isn’t)
American Socialism (mentioning again, because it’s a family of ideologies, and some of them are non-marxist)
and others, but this list is long enough.
I, personally, describe myself as being Eco-Marxist and a Leninist.
Biden’s still putting Mexicans in cages. Biden’s still turning immigrants away. Biden’s still propagating the police state. Biden isn’t putting forwards any efforts to end the race war that has existed in America for generations. Biden isn’t reducing the size or the scope of the military-industrial complex. Biden is doing nothing about climate change. Biden refuses to pass social system reforms.
What does Biden do, then? Well, American Fascism.
The natural progression of Liberalism - the ideology of capitalism -, is the transition to Fascism. Liberalism only exists to set up the social and material conditions for the state to transition into the far-right. The Liberals, first and foremost, achieve this via suppression of left-wing ideology, and the systematic oppression of all peoples below the bourgeois class. Then, the Liberals pit oppressed peoples against each other. Blacks against whites, gays against straights, worker against worker, etc. Biden is completely complicit in this, so was Obama, and every democrat to have ever existed since the formation of American Capitalism. The only difference between the democrats and the republicans in American politics, is the democrats pretend to be polite about their transition towards Fascism.
Further, the Liberals achieve Fascist reform under the voter’s noses, by pushing the ‘overton window’ (the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time) steadily to the right, slowly setting into motion the downward spiral the state requires to push openly Fascist narratives. The more they’re able to push the window, the more they can abuse the material conditions they made exist, and the more disenfranchised their populations become. The more disenfranchised the population, the more likely they are to be radicalized into “extreme” ideologies. They intend for their populations to radicalize into Fascism, but it appears in times of extreme disenfranchisation radicalism into Fascism and Communism are proportional, if your population begins drifting into one the other half of the population will drift into the other to “defend” themselves. Which, is what we’ve been seeing in the United States over the past few years.
Liberal means right wing, pro capitalist, pro wage slavery, pro landlordism, pro free market. The Australian right wing party for example, is the liberal party. Reagan and Thatcher are liberals.
In the US, a distinction is made for social liberals, who also hold all the same views as those above and are also right wing, but occasionally progressive on social issues, as long as it isn’t an affront to capitalist rule. IE more women prison guards and trans drone pilots.
Think about American politics not as two independent parties, but as two hands to a connected body. The Democrats would be the left hand, the Republicans the right. They both act in the interests of the body, and they help each other achieve goals that mutually benefit the ruling class. The “#Resistence” against ‘the right’ is theatre, nothing more.
Conservatives are Liberals, the rest of the world understands this already. The Republican Party would be considered a Far-Right party by the world’s standards, and the Democrats would be considered a right-wing Liberal party. Bernie, the person both parties called a “communist”, would be considered a Social-Democrat and still on the right, in accordance to the rest of the world.
Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.
No non-marxists
This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.
There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn’t here to convert naysayers to marxism.
If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
No oppressive language
Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.
Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.
We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.
TERF is not a slur.
No low quality or off-topic posts
Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.
This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.
This includes memes and circlejerking.
This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.
We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
No basic questions about marxism
Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.
Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.
No sectarianism
Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.
Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.
If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.
The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
ML / Third-worldist / SWCC ( which is one of the best current examples of living, breathing MLism / Scientific Socialism )
MLism is based
Ancom
To me the label isn’t quite so important as being in line with the modern anti-imperialist trend. What do I mean by modern anti-imperialist trend? The world as it stands is generally split into 2 camps (not perfectly, hence the use of ‘generally’), 1 camp generally leans towards the US, the other leans away. For example, in the UN, the countries that denounce what PRC does in XJ are the usual suspects of the anglosphere, Europe, Japan. Those that support the PRC tend to be the current “main enemies” of the US like Iran, Russia, Venezuela as well as some GS countries. When I say modern anti-imperialist trend I’m referring to the attitude shown by this latter group.
100% agree. Capitalist-Imperialism, or the division of the world into poor and rich countries, and the exploitation of the global south by the imperial core countries, is the #1 contradiction in the world today. And that is being held up more than anything by the US military and the US dollar. Any country or group that materially opposses that, whatever their designation, is doing a favor to uplifting the millions of people suffering under the bootheel of the US.
I’d also note tho that there were even US leaders like Henry Wallace, a US socdem ( 99% of them are terrible of course ), who was staunchly anti-imperialist not just w/ regards to the military, but also economic interventions… that made him immensely popular in Latin America. It also lead to him being pushed out of the US presidential ticket in favor of Truman.
libertarian
“What are you doing here on lemmygrad,” he said while on Lemmy.ml
I posted this on a lemmygrad sub
Marxist-Leninist. I don’t know enough about MLM to know if it makes sense to call myself that. I don’t to care too much about labels though. They give others a rough impression of your politics on introduction, but that’s about all they’re useful for.
MLM was synthesized in the 70s or 80s by Gonzalo in Peru, holding that Mao’s advancements, which he formulated for China’s material conditions, were universally applicable and formed enough of a theoretical body to get their own name.
There are Maoists in China however not affiliated with Gonzalo, but there the name is more akin to MZT, Mao Zedong thought, meaning that one is ML but still integrates that some of Mao’s theories are relevant and can be learned from. But certainly I can understand that in China they uphold MZT since it’s literally what brought them where they are today.
Honestly while I can admire MLMs fighting their ppw, I don’t believe Mao’s theories are universally applicable nor are their analyses correct. Social imperialism today sounds more like something trots would say, and it’s a whole theoretical field that simply does not exist in ML theory. Mao only used that against the USSR after Stalin died (trots try to reclaim Mao or Maoists sometimes and conveniently forget Mao was admirative of comrade Stalin).
I also have issues with Mao as a leader after the PRC was declared. He was a great general, there’s no doubt about that. In on protracted war, 1933, he correctly predicted what would happen after the war: Japanese imperialism would die, China would win and become socialist. I also uphold his struggle and what he made of China. But his years as a politician, while he was leading the PRC, were not made with the best policies.
deleted by creator
ML is already scientific, though.
deleted by creator
ML
Eco-marxist
Marxist-Leninist here. I think the general theory that Marx and Lenin outlined is still a valid platform for building communism today. Others have made valuable contributions to be sure, but I don’t think anything fundamentally changed over the years.
Marxism-Leninism is still the path towards communism, and I think we need to adapt the theory to current social and material conditions just like other revolutionary leaders have done over the years.
You only really listed two socialisms.
Stalin, Mao, Xi Jinping, and Ho Chi Minh were/are all Marxist-Leninists.
Stalin added very little to Marxism-Leninism, and mostly just saw the continuation of the revolution as Lenin put into motion, the term “Stalinist” is widely used against Marxist-Leninists in anti-communist propaganda, and there’s an argument that the term was coined by Stalin’s counter-revolutionary opposition, who used it after Stalin’s death to smear his leadership and steer the Union towards liberalizing.
Mao’s additions to Lenin’s theories are referred to as “Marxism-Leninism with Mao Zedong Thought” or “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”, he didn’t forge an independent ideology, rather he fit Leninism to the Chinese situation. At least of what I understand from trying to read it, most of what he puts forwards are theories on how to put Socialism into motion within the material conditions of warlord era China, with the bulk of his theories on how Socialism should function being standard Marxism-Leninism
Xi Jinping is just a Marxist-Leninist, all of his policies are in line with Lenin’s theories and he represents a return to Marxism-Leninism for the CCP.
Ho Chi Minh was also just a Marxist-Leninist, his contributions are referred to as “Marxism-Leninism with Ho Chi Minh Thought”, and is just Marxism-Leninism fit to the Vietnamese situation.
So, the ideologies you listed are, more accurately Classical Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and other.
Before I list other socialisms, it’s worth noting that naming small differences in ideology after people is a bad way of looking at political ideals. There is no “Trumpism” for instance, what he and his predecessors brought forwards (and for that matter, Biden does it too) is “American Fascism”. There is no “Dengism”, Deng was only a reformer and didn’t represent a new and unique ideology block. Ideologies that are named after people, are done so because they’re unique enough to deserve it. Leninism is different enough from Marxism that his contributions are denoted in the title, but those who build upon the foundation he built often don’t stick out enough to deserve their own ideology.
Other socialisms include;
Then other forms on non-marxist socialisms
I, personally, describe myself as being Eco-Marxist and a Leninist.
I wouldn’t really call Biden a fascist per se, I’d group him more with liberals than fascists.
Biden’s still putting Mexicans in cages. Biden’s still turning immigrants away. Biden’s still propagating the police state. Biden isn’t putting forwards any efforts to end the race war that has existed in America for generations. Biden isn’t reducing the size or the scope of the military-industrial complex. Biden is doing nothing about climate change. Biden refuses to pass social system reforms.
What does Biden do, then? Well, American Fascism.
The natural progression of Liberalism - the ideology of capitalism -, is the transition to Fascism. Liberalism only exists to set up the social and material conditions for the state to transition into the far-right. The Liberals, first and foremost, achieve this via suppression of left-wing ideology, and the systematic oppression of all peoples below the bourgeois class. Then, the Liberals pit oppressed peoples against each other. Blacks against whites, gays against straights, worker against worker, etc. Biden is completely complicit in this, so was Obama, and every democrat to have ever existed since the formation of American Capitalism. The only difference between the democrats and the republicans in American politics, is the democrats pretend to be polite about their transition towards Fascism.
Further, the Liberals achieve Fascist reform under the voter’s noses, by pushing the ‘overton window’ (the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time) steadily to the right, slowly setting into motion the downward spiral the state requires to push openly Fascist narratives. The more they’re able to push the window, the more they can abuse the material conditions they made exist, and the more disenfranchised their populations become. The more disenfranchised the population, the more likely they are to be radicalized into “extreme” ideologies. They intend for their populations to radicalize into Fascism, but it appears in times of extreme disenfranchisation radicalism into Fascism and Communism are proportional, if your population begins drifting into one the other half of the population will drift into the other to “defend” themselves. Which, is what we’ve been seeing in the United States over the past few years.
I thought the conservatives want to move the overton window to the right and the liberals want to keep it where it is
Liberal means right wing, pro capitalist, pro wage slavery, pro landlordism, pro free market. The Australian right wing party for example, is the liberal party. Reagan and Thatcher are liberals.
In the US, a distinction is made for social liberals, who also hold all the same views as those above and are also right wing, but occasionally progressive on social issues, as long as it isn’t an affront to capitalist rule. IE more women prison guards and trans drone pilots.
Here’s a better and concise definition tho than that I did above.
not at all.
Think about American politics not as two independent parties, but as two hands to a connected body. The Democrats would be the left hand, the Republicans the right. They both act in the interests of the body, and they help each other achieve goals that mutually benefit the ruling class. The “#Resistence” against ‘the right’ is theatre, nothing more.
Conservatives are Liberals, the rest of the world understands this already. The Republican Party would be considered a Far-Right party by the world’s standards, and the Democrats would be considered a right-wing Liberal party. Bernie, the person both parties called a “communist”, would be considered a Social-Democrat and still on the right, in accordance to the rest of the world.
deleted by creator
Okay