I would like to know what communist tendency you follow, why you follow it and who best represents your tendency of communism weather it be a modern day country like China or a country like the USSR?
The answer to this question myself is that I am a Marxist-Leninist. I follow Marxism Leninism because it gives power to the working class rather than the bourgeois and aims for a classless money less society this is achieved through following Marxist Leninist theory and analyzing the conditions in the country you are trying to achieve Marxism-Leninism in. Those who best represent Marxism Leninism for me are Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha.
I’m a marxist-leninist, but call myself an eco-socialist as well
ML, because it’s the only thing that’s worked
A Marxist-Leninist here as well. In my view, dialectical materialism is the best tool we have for understanding the world and social relations.
ML with CAT (Marxism-Leninism with Chronic Anxiety Thought).
Okay, I am joking about the last part. Kind of. But I adhere to ML in its various practiced forms because history and theory have shown it to consistently succeed in rapidly transforming entire societies out of exploitative, desperate conditions into largely equal and modern societies that look after their people as a priority.
I see it kind of like this:
“When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist, when asked if he is a ‘Newtonian’ or of a biologist when asked if he is a ‘Pasteurian.’ There are truths so evident, so much a part of the peoples’ knowledge, that it is now useless to debate them.” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara
When you get past the bubble of imperial slander, the evidence is overwhelming.
Now does this mean I think ML is the “end of history” theory development of Marxism? No. However, it is currently the most proven and reliable means of dealing with the recent (history) conditions. I always try to keep an open mind to further scientific development, but that doesn’t mean further developments will come from people throwing out ideas at random either; they will have to come from being tested against reality and so far, ML is the one that holds up.
Note that when I say “ML in its various practiced forms”, I’m going by the idea that, for example, China is its own expression of ML in culture and conditions (e.g. “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”), not a unique branch of Marxism. Same with the USSR. Same with Cuba. Etc.
I follow Marxism-Lesbianism because women are hot.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, because Marxism-Leninism has proven itself in theory and in practice. I don’t think it makes much sense to see which country “best represents Marxism-Leninism,” and instead makes more sense to see what countries use Marxism-Leninism in struggling against imperialism, settler-colonialism, and neocolonialism, and in establishing and building socialism, as well as how Marxism-Leninism helps them.
Marxist-Leninist and militant unionism
ML for sure
While I do identify more with Marxist Leninists than any other tendency, I don’t like these labels a lot. I think sometimes this leads more to group identity, so people are forced to uphold values of a particular tendency rather than criticize and evolve our thinking.
Marx and Engels laid the foundation of the system and there were many contributors to our field. We have people like Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky (before he turned into a renegade), Bebel, Liebknecht, Plekhanov, Bukharin, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin, Losurdo, Deng, and many others. Some people held contradictory views, some argued against each other, but I do think debating is important to make our field grow scientifically. Our science needs criticism and contradiction in order to develop itself more and to respond to our current practical issues.
It does not mean, however, we should embrace eclecticism, as some people may criticize correctly. When we are building a political movements we need to have a clear political line and avoid embracing everything, or we end up with nothing. In this way, MLs were the people who brought me to Marxism, and I tend to agree with them more than anyone else.
Yep. We need to always be interrogating our own positions and if they continue to be relevant to our current conditions, which will be different depending on where the struggle is located. People becoming too attached to labels encourages people to treat socialism like a subculture.
I agree, but I sometimes do not understand the disdain or avoidance of labels that some communists have (not talking about peeps here); if it comes from a place of inexperience and not knowing the theory behind any communist positions, then I understand not wanting to attach a label to yourself, but if you know enough theory to say what you are yet you do not, I have trouble coming up with a good reason for doing so (admittedly, I am not sure how common this second type is). If you think you are boxing yourself in by attaching yourself to a label, then I think you misunderstand the fact that people can have labels and interrogate them while having these very same labels.
I assume that the second type might want to avoid confrontation or being wrong, but that is honestly not a major problem for me (despite myself being a beginner Marxist, I am firm in my conviction that Marxism is the right path; any criticisms thrown towards my way can either be criticized themselves or they can help me improve), and labels are important whether it is or is not desirable. It might also be a way for some people (like content-creators) to become popular amongst a wide variety of people without alienating their audience, which is a more selfish reason for it.
On a somewhat related note, Lenin made it very clear that labels are important in What is to be Done?: “only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous. The fate of Russian Social-Democracy for very many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or the other “shade”.”
maoism
Is your profile pic Daniela from Katseye wearing a photoshopped commie hat? Damn sick yo
May I know why?
because i come from a rural background and i believe that country people are still important when it comes to revolutionary purposes (a significant part of the population in my country is rural) although i dont believe its ideal everywhere
But Marxism-Leninism does not ignore the peasantry (on the contrary, they actively used the peasantry in the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and likely several others) or rural workers in general. I am glad to see that you do not think the emphasis on rural people is not relevant in all places (some Maoists apply their overemphasis of the countryside and their people to places that are completely different from semi-feudal China).
I think most of us here are Marxist-Leninists. The reason for me at least is fairly simple: it’s the most scientific (in the sense that it looks at the world through a materialist lens and analyses it rationally, systematically and holistically) and it demonstrably works when used to guide revolutionary practice.
The second part is particularly important because if your ideology doesn’t work in the real world then what good is it? I’m paraphrasing here, but: “The point isn’t just to analyze the world, it’s to change it.” Only Marxism-Leninism has managed to produce successful revolutions that create stable socialist societies which have improved the level of human well-being beyond what any capitalist system would be capable of doing in the same circumstances.
Marxism-Leninism is also flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and to incorporate a newer and better understanding of how the world works. Dogmatism is the death of science. I find that China has some great phrases that express the scientific approach to socialism, such as: “Crossing the river by feeling the stones” and “Seeking truth from facts”. We observe the world as it is to form theories, proceed forward through trial and error, adopt what works and discard what doesn’t.
This also means we should be open to learning from many different sources, so we should not attach ourselves to one particular person or country (though obviously some have been objectively more successful than others, and we should study why that is and learn how we can replicate their successes and avoid their mistakes).
One could argue that Juche has worked, but I would honestly need to research more about it to determine if it is its own distinct philosophy or if it is Marxism-Leninism in Korean material conditions (I would also need to determine how much Juche influenced their survival against American imperialism). Other lines are not so lucky: Maoism claims no currently-existing socialist countries, orthodox Marxism claims literally nothing (except the Paris Commune, I guess), and other niche camps are hardly worth talking about.
I agree with cfgaussian in their assessment of Marxism-Leninism: It is the most scientific communist tendency based on observable results (the currently-existing socialist countries and past ones show that it can succeed and has succeeded) and the theoretical strength (meaning how much it is able to answer questions regarding the word and combat criticism). I am a Marxist-Leninist not simply because it is the only road I see to creating a better life for all people, but also because it answers questions in a way that liberal and social-opportunist ideologies fail to answer scientifically (seriously, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are seldom used in consistent ways and are often so vague and mired in idealist understandings of politics that they hardly amount to anything more than pseudoscience posturing as science).
Supporting the USSR and modern PRC is not contradictory to me; they both count as socialist experiments enabling the worker’s liberation movement to better understand what mistakes to avoid and how we can succeed as a socialist society. I do not think that the market reforms in China were a betrayal of socialism, and I think the PRC is the greatest ally to socialism that we currently have (in terms of influence). I would also say that the PRC’s survival into the current day (as a socialist country, not a capitalist one like ultras would like you to believe) shows that the way of the PRC is the one we should look towards for inspiration in constructing a socialist country (though I am not well-informed on the economy of Stalin-era socialism, so I have to look into that to say whether or not I would be on board with it).
However, I am a bit weirded out by your mention of Hoxha. Could you explain why you include Hoxha there (and not Marx or Engels)? From my experience, only Hoxhaists bother upholding Hoxha.
I admit that i am not very knowledgeable on the topic of Juche, but from what i can tell it seems like an adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of the DPRK post Korean War. An ideology doesn’t need to be called Marxism-Leninism (or even mention Marx and Lenin) to be essentially Marxist-Leninist in its world outlook. Another good name for Juche might be “Socialism with Korean Characteristics”.
I do wonder why Jucheists emphasize the fact that it is its own ideology (though they admit it is a sister ideology to Marxism-Leninism, I think). The focus and wordage used is definitely different, but eh, I do not know. Thanks for the recommendation, by the way.
Juche socialists believe the juche idea to be a universal advancement on Marxism-Leninism, even if they accept Marxism-Leninism as correct.
So would it be like Maoists viewing Mao’s contributions as a universal advancement of Marxism-Leninism (they are not)? I guess it might differ if Jucheists actually think Marxism-Leninism is outdated or not. Any Jucheists here to state their opinion?
Kind of. One key difference is that juche socialists tend to support other AES just like Marxist-Leninists, while Maoists tend not to.
I feel like Jucheists are primarily relegated to the DPRK and some small online places. Oh, I knew that Maoists denounce AES countries, but my understanding of their stance on AES was unclear until you answered (honestly, I am somewhat surprised they support other AES countries outside of the DPRK).
This answer from our great comrade @zhenli can help clarify things about Juche.
Oh I would rather not use Quora if possible due to there being a higher amount of fascists on there than one would normally expect (and also other things…).
Well, the same answer is here too: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5545394
Much appreciated! I definitely think that learning about Juche and how it relates to Marxism-Leninism is useful for my brain. :>
Marxism-Leninism-mzd thought-Dengism-thirdworldist
Also sympathetic towards Maoists and Anarchists.
I’m a Heinz-57 Varieties socialist; little bit of this, a little bit of that. If it makes sense to me, I add it to my internal folio, which sometimes leads to bizarre contradiction. I blend together everything from Karl Marx to Deng to anarchism to Groucho Marx. I’m either all the labels, or none, I’m not sure, and I quit worrying about it ages ago.
