this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
50 points (94.6% liked)
Asklemmy
49729 readers
498 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so I see Mao more favorably than not. He made mistakes, but was also a critical figure in establishing socialism in China, and is beloved in China because of it. That being said, Mao did not invent the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge nor the necessity of unifying theory with practice, that's a core part of Marxism from the beginning. Mao just had a poetic and direct way of writing that is immensely quotable in ways Marx, Lenin, etc. don't often compare.
It's just wild to me that people are invested in Marx's "scientific" application of Hegel's dialectic, esp. considering how badly Marx's theories have failed (even before his death, Marx found "primitive communism" in anthropological accounts he was reading, which invalidates the "evolutionary" way he and Hegel thought about history as linear), and even worse, how little relevance Hegel and German idealism in general has maintained ... Of course Mao didn't invent these ideas, but they're not even great ideas to begin with, Marx is a terrible philosopher tbh. He was much better for his sociology and analysis of capitalism than his ability to predict the arc of humanity.
Mao is poetic in ways Marx and Lenin are not, though - I agree with that.
Either way, I am not a Marxist-Leninist, and as far as I can tell Marxist-Leninism is a misnomer since it seems to betray both Leninism and Marxism 🤷♀️ It's a bit of irony, really, that Stalin would name his state ideology "Marxist-Leninism", esp. as he lost in the power struggle to Stalin.
I'm always open to being wrong about this, but my past experiences with Marxist-Leninists have generally not been productive, and I have yet to understand why people are MLs today other than as a kind of pragmatic alignment against Western imperialist powers, though even then I don't understand the ML love of contemporary Russia, since Russia does not even promise itself to be socialist the way China, Cuba, or North Korea do. I'd love to hear your thoughts, though!
This is... shockingly misinformed. To a frankly massive degree.
Tribal societies, called "primitive communism," were not at all what Marx was describing post-socialist communism to be. Tribal production was largely based on hunting and gathering, and tiny, communal ownership, rather than collectivized production built on a globally interconnected system.
Historical materialism does not pitch history as "linear." It's an advancement on idealist notions of dialectics as humanity advancing, unknown to themselves, a grand "Spirit." Dialectical materialism flipped dialectics on its head, it's matter that drives thought, not a metaphysical ideal that drives movement.
Hegel and German idealism have faded because they are idealist, and thus wrong. See point 2. You're confusing Marxism as idealist, and erasing materialism by referring to it as "scientific" dialectics.
Marxism-Leninism betrays neither Marx nor Lenin. You just kind of left this hanging without explaining why, so I'd like clarification. Stalin's contributions are largely limited to the political economy of the Soviet Union, such as the policy of Socialism in One Country. Not sure what you mean when you say Stalin lost in the power struggle with Stalin, I assume that's a typo.
Marxist-Leninists have no love for the Russian Federation. MLs recognize that due to the RF's lack of the immense financial capital and potential subjects to imperialize that the west already has, despite being a nationalist capitalist nation it's forced to oppose western imperialism, and engage in trade with actual socialist countries like the PRC. Russia has every reason to want to imperialize the global south, but simply lacks the means to do so.
Marx's theories have not failed. Crucially, what I'm picking up on is a surface-level understanding of Marxism coupled with false-conclusions resulting from a lack of depth in understanding. To be frank, I'm a Marxist-Leninist because Marxism-Leninism is successful as a tool to bring about socialism, and a useful tool in identifying the main contradictions in existing society. If you have more specific critiques, we can get into them, but as it stands there's nothing for me to really counter, and I don't want to just stand on a soapbox and tell you to "read more theory," that's almost always unproductive.
Assuming you meant that Lenin lost to Stalin, he lost power by suffering several grave ailments—including three strokes—for several years and then dying. He became physically & mentally unequipped to lead.
This is a common belief among Western leftists, including most Western Marxists[1][2].
As some of us say—tongue in cheek—ultras fear the scroll.
That’s not the whole of it by any means, but imperialism vs anti-imperialism has been the primary contradiction of the last 150+ years of capitalism, and likely will continue to be in the coming decades.
V. I. Lenin, 1916: Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism
That’s because we don’t “love” contemporary Russia, nor do we think that it’s in any way socialist:
https://lemmy.ml/comment/16985906