cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3023016
Took part in an RGS and the head people all push that Maoism is scientifically the best form of Communism. Can anyone explain this view? Also, the group seems to want everyone to hold this view. Isn’t splitting into sub-ideologies hurting the potential for a larger movement?
-a confused newbie.
Not directly answering your question but I was watching a guy explaining MLM the other day and the very beginning he stressed how Scientific Socialism is scientific due to falsifiability. Then much later on he does the classic “Denying MLM to uphold ML is like denying Einstein to uphold Newton” and that tickled my brain.
So ML is scientific because it has successfully led to revolutions, but MLM is even more scientific because it has successfully done… what exactly? Temporarily occupied rural areas with guerrillas? Even if you buy their position that the ML states reverted to Capitalism, it’s not that much of an improvement.
Honestly I just think it’s obscurantism. Most MLM’s I’ve found would start the explanation with “some aspects of the Cultural Revolution are universal” but then flounder in explaining which specific ones those were. Probably because if they peg one down they’ll cause dogmatic splits in their groups. But then they get to claim that you just don’t understand, it’s all peak Marxism, and all other Marxists aren’t real Marxists. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on different authors this year and major difference between (most) ML authors and (most) MLM authors is that the former are actually pretty intuitive while the latter were very confusing and all-over-the-place.
Thanks, this is also helpful. Any reading recommendations?
BTW why is your text background all brown and hard to read?
Seems to be the indicator for “new reply” in the new lemmy version. Maybe whoever implemented that did not consider how that’d be harder to read for some folks. As a quick fix you can just refresh the page again.
On critiques of MLM specifically or just MLM in general? If the latter, the PCP had a web page that’s still up on the web archive, complete with a very long and detailed FAQ section in both English and Spanish. No better sources for their beliefs than themselves.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061003131815/http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/
Now the criticisms were mostly loose texts in Portuguese (in particular against our own university Maoists), so they won’t be of much help. But I’ve heard that there’s some ProleWiki book with heavy critiques of the Peruvian people’s war in the works.
Thanks for explaining. Very hard to read, hope I can change that.
I will check out that website, thanks. I will try to find more.
There’s a new UI feature that makes new comments have a different background color. It expires after a few minutes.
Thanks for explaining. Hope I can change this because the text and background font are almost the same on my screen.
Maybe you’re not the only one. I’d check here:
Yeah, Maoists claim to be scientific, but simply state that they are. Ask 15 different Maoists what makes Maoism more scientific than traditional ML theory and you’ll get 15 different answers.
I know this word gets thrown around a lot, but they are dogmatic. They repeat their “universal truths” to themselves hoping that will make them come true (MLM is the next step in socialist movements, PPW is the only correct way to wage a revolution etc.) They’re idealists who refuse to perform self-crit.
(And then there’s the shady stuff, where a lot of MLM theory was developed by various US communist orgs, who were always 100% definitely not being influenced by three letter agencies to create a defanged and ineffectual form of Marxism. Not to mention Gonzalo or the CPP or the Nepalese Maoists)