That's so funny to see as a ProleWiki author lmao, but I think it will be taken down soon. Still, natopedia using a prolewiki article as a reference is one of the most funny things to see come out.
Depends on the "anti-dengist". I believe most "anti-dengists" (Maoists especially) denounce Cuba due to introducing private property, that or Castro never called his revolution "socialist" but rather "bourgeois democratic", thus Castro cannot be a Marxist-Leninist. This is stupid. Not to mention that Maoists also tend to believe that Cuba is a sugar colony.
Materialism isn't just "where everything is matter or energy". That's reductionist. Idealists can agree that things are composed of matter or energy, the same as materialists. The idea of a conscious mind isn't inherently idealist either, as things which are intangible can still be material. Marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, instead they acknowledge its existence. The difference between materialism and idealism is how our consciousness interacts with the world. Materialists argue that it is not consciousness that dictates reality, but reality that dictates consciousness. In other words, there can exist things which are independent of our consciousness. Idealists argue the former, stating that consciousness dictates reality. It's the reason why gods or angels exist within the idealist mind. Idealists believe in the existence of an angel, although it is a product of our minds, and does not exist within reality. Also combining "ideas" with "idealism" supposes that Marxism is also idealist. Science is idealist. Ideas are not inherently idealist, the concept of idea is the formation of our mind, but these ideas can also have some application with reality. Marxism is a set of ideas, it is based on science, which Marxists observe the political economy and form ideas which align with reality.
Your first paragraph doesn't align with the 2nd to last paragraph. If Marxism is simply a different view, why must we have different views? What makes Marxism different from a cyberneticist? I read your examples and they show vastly different things. And your 2nd to last paragraph shows that clearly. Marxism is different from an economist, a cyberneticist, because it looks at things in a different view within the application of the political economy, something which an economist or cyberneticist cannot do. Also saying "the contradictions are sharpening" is vague. What contradictions? What application of Marxism are we using here? We are referring to change, but there are several types of change, with negations or quantitative to qualitative transformations. All of this seems to be speaking in absolutism, in isolation from what Marxism is supposed to be.
Also saying this:
Ultimately the entire thing is fancy language from the 1800s that should probably be replaced because it’s alienating and bad for propaganda.
Why? Why is it bad for propaganda? We used these terms for centuries now and now we need to change them? The proposed terms are absolutely vague. "Conflict" does not speak of non-antagonistic contradictions (i.e. Proletariat-Peasantry), "tradeoff" does not speak of what dialectics truly is (It's not always binary, in fact suggesting dialectics is inherently a binary thing is metaphysical). "change" is absolutely vague because of what I said earlier. The term "motion" is always referring to change, a specific type of change. Ultimately dumbing down terminology should be done for beginners, but not for the sake of sacrificing the word itself.
Read the article, it's clear that CPGB-ML posits that there exists an increasingly "poor" (by what standard?) stratum of the white working class. At the beginning they say the most bullshit things but it becomes then that their wording is that "Trump is no different from other democratic/republican politicians", like what is this article supposed to be? Are they against immigrants? It may be so given that they state this:
The thrust of this kind of reasoning is that the white working class faces a crisis, not of opportunity, but of values, brought about by welfare programmes that make life too easy on slackers.
What values? Is there any value aside from traditionalism that makes up a white working class? They're suggesting freeloading, a statement which would not exist on most immigrants whatsoever given that they are paid less than the white working class to begin with.
The reality is that Trump’s followers are a segment of the population whose participation in the labour market is decreasing year by year, whose life expectancy is declining, who are stuck in blighted neighbourhoods by negative activity and among whom there is a significant rise in disability benefits.
And it's clear that CPGB-ML doesn't believe in the concept of them being reactionary for the sake of it, where they think the "plight" of a white working person overshadows everything including the actual struggles. Not to mention the inherent ableism that they state, which they state as a person from a privileged, complicit standpoint within the imperial core. CPGB-ML is a transphobic party, that much is clear, and it is also a patsoc party. They seem to critically support Trump only as much as he is a representation of the "white working class". They're a shit party. And I hate the fact they exist on this Island.
It is true that they are not worse than the CPUSA. But just because they produce good "takes" doesn't make them worthy of critical support. They may have good ideas surrounding geopolitics, but their "critical" support (or lack thereof) makes them more prone to chauvinistic stances which are displayed within the takes of the Russian Federation. It may be more correct than the CPUSA's international stance, but they're both social chauvinists on different levels.
Let's not forget that patsocs initially "critically" supported Trump, who was deemed an anti-imperialist (or at least his actions were anti-imperialist) by Hazites, and likely the same by those who follow MWM or Hinkle. Just because the party statement rejects both parties doesn't mean it won't likely remain that stance. CPUSA claims to not be a puppet of the democrats yet in their twitter they claimed to be "small d democrats". Their tailism is a product of their chauvinism, they believe that the masses have nothing wrong with their thoughts, of being transphobic, homophobic, etc. That's revisionist, and just because they leech the working class from the republican party doesn't mean those chauvinistic thoughts go away. If anything it may be reinforced.
Also, critically supporting them for the sake of accelerationism is not going to do much. The regard for "chaos" at the cost of trans, gay, and black people would be more costly for them rather than for the cishet whites (or Conservatives to be more specific). This is not a party worthy of support, by any measure, as supporting them is supporting the same social-chauvinistic stances which Lenin initially opposed.
Everytime someone says "Das Kapital", it is more likely that person is either not a marxist or is beginning to understand marxist theory. Every marxist who cites Capital refers it as Capital, with its volume next to it. "Das Kapital" is just the original text of the German release, which there is an English edition which calls itself Capital, because we don't call it "The Capital".
Wow people read. But they don't actually apply the knowledge. The fact this person refers to "Das Kapital" instead of "Capital" shows their lack of expertise. I bet they haven't even read all the 3 volumes, which each one of them is about a thousand pages or so. You can claim you have read a "book" if you only read the first 10 pages. That's literally what they do with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" book. Despite the book supporting the Labour Theory of Value, liberals claim it to be pro-capitalist because they only read the first 8 pages.
The Communist Manifesto is so easy to read I don't think anyone should flaunt about it. And then they state that the Jewish Question is more "antisemitic" despite its dual-character nature of presenting both sides, one which defends the Jewish people in its first half, and makes a caricature of the anti-Jewish people in the other. This is what happens when a metaphysical person reads a book which is intended to be read from a dialectical point of view. Deeply unserious. Don't say you've read it until you actually apply the knowledge.
Down wit cis
"Members of the party were average people who didn't take part in the genocide"
They knew what the fuck they were signing up for. They're not stupid. I hate the narrative that those who follow conservative/fascist mindsets are sheep, because that isn't true. If you follow nazism, you are a nazi. That is it. If you follow an ideology which does an action at the expense of oppressed groups, that isn't "being average". That's just taking advantage of privilege. I can't believe people would dumb down nazis and conservatives as sheep.
~~Aussig supports the Shining Path.~~ But I don't think the distinction matters much in this case. She claimed to be a maoist in the discord server.
Edit: This statement is corrected because I've later learned that this isn't true from Aussig. However as I stated earlier, the distinction doesn't matter much. She's still an ultra. Everything else is correct.
Aussig is irrelevant in general, but her contributions had lead to the Prolewiki accounts being banned. She just took advantage of the vandalism and used it for her own purpose. I can personally confirm that Aussig is not a sock puppet account, especially given she was participating in the discord server not in the same way as Parabola (Wisconcom). She was a part of the scandal but for different reasons.
I think Parabola made a larger dent into Leftypedia that will take harder to scrub off compared to Prolewiki. Especially given at the rate the articles are being changed (Literally productivity has been cut in half since Parabola is gone, only leaving Harrystein to edit the wiki), we won't see Leftypedia recovered.
This is a copy of what he sent to me after I wrote my "What even is 'Dengism'?" essay. Here's what he said lol:
I have read your essay on ProleWiki, "What even is "dengism"?", and I must say, it is absolutely repugnant, as are the other essays (or rather, screeds which are little more than dengist propaganda and pseudo-socialist nonsense) you have concoted on the revisionist hive that is ProleWiki.
The contents of your scribbles is, in short, nothing beyond citing a few examples of Deng Xiaoping's propaganda in which he allegedly affirms his socialist ideology. You totally omit the true aspects of his bourgeois ideology (even claiming quotes he is well-known to have said were "fake" and "made up by Maoists").
Yes, of course it would be the case that if you took this-or-that Deng quote, while removing everything else he said, you could misinform your readers that he is a socialist. Of course, this is both false and intellectually dishonest.
Deng Xiaoping omited class struggle in favor of the "development of the productive forces". To this day, the revisionist CPC keeps ill-informed revisionist propagandists such as yourself servile to their social-fascist ideological line by merely "kicking the can down the road" as to when they are going to become truly "socialist". Once the year 2049 arrives, the revisionists in China are simply going to move the target for "reaching socialism" to 2100, and then 2200, and so on. I believe comrade Enver Hoxha wisely noted this trend when he said:
"In a demagogic way, Mao Tse-tung and the Communist Party of China have subordinated all their declarations about the construction of the socialist and communist society to their pragmatic policy. Thus, in the years of the so-called great leap forward, with the aim of throwing dust in the eyes of the masses, who, emerging from the revolution, aspired to socialism, they declared that within 2-3 five-year periods, they would pass directly over to communism. Later, however, in order to cover up their failures, they began to theorize that the construction and triumph of socialism would require ten thousand years."
Otherwise, you, in your essay, refuse to view things from a Marxist and dialectical view. You remove, among many other features, one of the most critical aspects of socialism: the removal of the bourgeoisie from economic power in favor of the proletariat.
Developing the productive forces is important, but it must be given lesser importance to class struggle, the creation of public ownership of the means of production, and so on.
Using your (very much poor) standards of "proof" for the ideological nature of these leaders, with which you use in this context to make Deng Xiaoping seem to be a Marxist, you could deceit others into viewing Adolf Hitler as a socialist. Your writing is nothing but propaganda to promote dengist ideology, an ideology which the rest of ProleWiki maintains with great zeal.
In the middle of your essay, you use the "cultural revolution" in China under Mao Zedong as a justification for Deng's coup and rise to power over the Gang of Four. However, you fail to account for the fact that, as comrade Hoxha once again correctly noted:
"The course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power."
It is correct Deng Xiaoping was merely following Mao Zedong Thought (albeit a extremely bourgeois interruption of it), however, it is the case that Mao Zedong Thought was, at its core, a revisionist and anti-Marxist ideology, with reactionary elements it attained from religion, among other sources.
Of all, it is your conclusion which is the most revisionary and false.
Not only do you imply that it is exclusively supporters of the capitalist state of China who constitute "legitimate" Marxist-Leninists, you effectively say that only Dengists (additional note, Stalinism does in fact exist) are real Marxist-Leninists.
Not only do you pollute Marxism via attempting to claim pseudo-socialists such as yourself are theoretically genuine, you are engaging in what is effectively dogmato-revisionism; the adoption of revisionism, and attempt to make said revisionism seem like truthful Marxism, and the rejection of all non-revisionists as being "revisionist".
While it is true that Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are revisionists, you attempting to claim that all Anti-revisionists are "revisionists" is nothing but a dogmatic attempt to defend your revisionism.
Regarding what dengism is, it is true that not all Marxists who support the People's Republic of China are dengist, rather, most of them are simply misinformed or have made a correctable ideological mistake. Rather, dengists are those "Marxists" who persist in this mistake, and defend it, which is what both you and the rest of the ProleWiki community is doing.
I wish to present to you a definition of what dengism is from a well-informed and wise Anti-revisionist who is a comrade of mine:
"Dengism is a revisionist and pseudo-Marxist ideology which originated during the full restoration of capitalism in China in the late 1970s. With regards to its followers in this context, it refers to the “Communists” who maintain the view that state-capitalism is socialism, class struggle is trivial and secondary in comparison to the development of the productive forces, that maintaining the bourgeoisie in power is socialist, and that working towards a revolution in one’s own country is useless, and all effort of the Communists must be towards defending supposed “actually existing socialism.”
Dengism is the ideology of counter-revolution, stagnation, and social-imperialism..."
We call you revisionists dengists not because we seek to vacuously attack you, but to separate Marxists from pseudo-Marxists like you.
It is groups such as ProleWiki, GenZedong, and others which have motivated me to cease calling myself a "Marxist-Leninist", and instead refer to myself as a "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist". You people are giving outsiders to Marxism a bad view due to your crypto-capitalist ideology, your defense of revisionist and social-fascist state such as China, Vietnam, the DPRK, and so on. "Marxism-Leninism" has long since been hijacked and corrupted by revisionists starting with Trotsky and Khruschev, and presently with people such as yourself.
I hope you reconsider your views regarding dengist revisionism. Thank you and good day.
(I suggest you post this criticism on the talk page of your essay to give others an alternative view on this subject.)
view more: next ›
I'm a Lithuanian who is living in the UK. Lithuania before the Soviet annexation was a rural and backward peasant state, where there did not exist any form of a communist party, especially compared to its brothers (Latvia, Estonia). Lithuania had a parliament but it was a fascist backing, such that (as you stated) Antanas Smetona was a fascist and he openly admired Mussolini. On top of that, nazi collaboration was a thing and definitely existed in Lithuania against the Soviets (Note that the Baltic people follow the "double genocide theory" bullshit). When Lithuania was annexed, it had a communist party, while Latvia had a communist party since the Bolsheviks, making it one of the earliest communist parties. Lithuania has had a lot of reactionary uptake, including the Forest Brothers, which most of the action take place in, and has killed innocent civilians.
According to Human Rights in the Soviet Union, Lithuanian Nationalism still continued to exist even under the Khrushchev and Brezhnev era of the USSR. The dissolution started with the CIA (obviously) and it was not out of the popularity of the masses. The Lithuanian Nationalists staged a bloody provocation in order to frame a Soviet Attack.. It is clear that Lithuania had its reactionary nationalism even during the Soviet era.
Why do Lithuanians support the modern government? Because they want to. They're want to act more 'western' compared to the great 'Russian threat'. Western in the sense being distinct from Russia. I have also not been taught of Lithuanian history in the USSR and had to search these things for myself (Hence why I am posting sources). It's a shame. Lithuania could've been a great nation (in the socialist sense) however due to the revisionism of the USSR on top of the Lithuanian nationalism, I cannot call myself a Lithuanian patriot, because I would be associated with the reactionaries that kept this country running and also drowning itself of air as it sends resources to the Ukraine.