I’m clearly not saying it’s inevitable In terms of religious rapture/book of revelations, obviously no one believe that, but rather that the assumption is that the breeding of certain conditions allows the ideology to exist given certain actions are taken. But what I’m saying is that it’s worthwhile questioning which of those conditions are actually fundamental, and given conditional changes if the outcome is actually reflective of said ideological origin or if branching possibilities are valid. It’s not meant to be an “epic conservative takedown” of socialism or a criticism of it, it’s a question posed against typical understood orthodoxy to pose catalysts for (as you say yourself) at times the need the update ideas within the sphere

No, a revolution is not neccesarily going to install an authoritarian regime. One advocating for a dictatorship of the proletariat may.

Yes

Is democracy not inherently a dictatorship of the proletariat

basically what im saying at the end of the day @ARCADE_GOON regardless of my own individual thoughts is i think Michel Aflaq & al-Arsuzi are worth reading and their ideas about the place of HM in societal development and branching lineages are unique and worth consideration

Lmao

according to engels, actions are authoritarian because force is involved, it’s a category error and a fallacious way to view authoritarianism

authority is from social relationships between people, not actions

all people are capable of infringing on the rights of another person, and such an action doesn't automatically mean one individual establishes authority over another, it just means they're attacking another person.
Authority requires a sustained relationship of command and obedience with violence acting as a "guarantor", but it's usually not employed at all. In fact, violence would imply the authority relationship is being questioned or being broken down in some way.
Capitalist relationships are authoritarian, but capitalists rarely need to call the police to enforce their contracts.

what party ?

hmm

As a former PSL member I can say PSL is pretty trash imo

FRSO but apparently all they do is book clubs and s*** according to @Womanpuncher69

I meant @spacecadet

that account is so lame lmfao
they said radio free Amanda is a cia op because she went and studied Arabic in Morocco from a scholarship by the federal government

equivalent to saying all pell granters are feds

also Goldman Sachs account doesn't equal Goldman Sachs representative

Perhaps it's just the person I Mets experience
It was a relatively new org so

My local psl chapter is a bunch of dyed hair redditors

Idc about dyed hair but if you're trying to "convert" the average american, having a dyed mohawk is not a good first impression

Good read

palladiummag.com/2021/10/11/the-triumph-and-terror-of-wang-huning

i enjoyed this article but its hugely ironic, because its meant to essentially appeal to RWers but is written in a way that makes the ideas seem sympathetic to socialists. Huning's father fought for Chiang Kai-Shek against China alongside Peng Dehuai before eventually surrendering, and Huning's intellectual upbringings were tied to this same alottment outside of Mao's party, with his academic youth tied to access to foreign reading material that was banned during the CR. Wang's commitment to "Marxism" is in name alone and perhaps only in epistemology or hopes of synthesis/building from, more or less under his own admission in a ways perhaps even more divorced than Deng. Huning's beliefs tie back to ideas of Legalism & Confucianism, which are basically fundamentally incompatible with any (core) Marxist-derivative ideology. Huning's ideas being influential basically imply the reigning philosophical idealism behind the CCP is that Maoism was a fluke and imply China's future philosophical path would (philosophically) mimic ideas found in that that of Baathism or Dhammic Socialism. Which isn't a criticism by any means if you know my own standings, but it does mean that praising China as a traditionally socialist state is amusing

edit: i will say, obviously this is assuming the article is correct about Huning's influence and in reality he is not just a random part of intelligentsia to gravitate publicity towards

ay if u don’t mind id like to hear more behind the idea that the ccp thinks maoism was a fluke

I didn't mean to imply they literally said that, of course they wouldn't do that, any admission of historical (ideological) weakness of the central party would basically go against the way the state conducts themselves, even if things significantly change between leaders/councils (i.e. Mao, Deng, Jintao, Xi).

I also don't want to claim to know everything about the entire CCP - I obviously do not, but I know a lot about Huning because his name has floated around for years and he's written significant amounts about external countries like the US. So if he really is the backbone of the CCP's philosophy, then i'm just extrapolating from that. If they're exaggerating his influence or position (which is, of course, possible), then take what I'm saying with a grain of salt as it would basically invalidate it. So this is really only from that perspective.

Basically Huning really has no interest in the fundamentals of Maoism beyond viewing it as a necessarily stage in China's history, the core fundamentals of his thinking do not draw on Mao at all, and instead draw from (as I mentioned) Legalism & Confuscianism. The thing...I mean in open air...Mao literally hated all of these classical chinese ideologies. He infamously considered Confuscious to be an ideology of the bourgeois and a means of societal control. Mao drew in part from Legalism - but more in terms of action rather than in terms of belief - he viewed Legalism as diametrically opposed to Confuscianism. Also one of the first thing Mao did was outlaw Taoism too as being reactionary. The thing is that although Mao favored Legalism, he saw it as an acceptable cultural format which could be extrapolated from but was ultimately a precursor to (he did not say this as a quote literally before anyone gets on my ass, im just reading between the lines about Mao's words on Qin Shihuang) as a precursor ideology to which ML would be suited to grow from.

Huning's entire fundamental belief system is drawn from a hybrid of traditional classical chinese philosophy, more on the side of Confucianism over others, while also implementing ideas taken from Taoism, and viewing Legalism in a lesser light. Similarly, Huning's political ideas, while well read on Marxism for sure, are way more explorative of western philosophical origin merging with traditional chinese thought - this western philosophical tradition being what Marx set out to obviously counter/distinguish from. Huning is more likely to take from Aristotle (who Marx did acknowledge to be fair) or from general lineages distinct from Marx's post-Hegelian theses, one of which would be (what can only be really considered) Social Darwinism for example.

To me, again personal opinion here, you can't really be a traditionally Marxist party if you abandon the literal full roots of what allow Marxism to even exist (which is fine imo and i don't find a problem with it - there are synthesis ideologies that exist; Jamahiriya for example, just saying though because it goes against how China is often painted by western leftists). Further so, it's just that Deng basically said (again paraphrasing) that rejection of Maoism was not necessarily so long as upholding Mao's thought was done in modernization and reform based in similar philosophical root. So many of Mao's ideas obviously went out the window with Deng, more on the economic side of thigns if anything, since at least politically, the idea was still to hold onto the root epistemology of Maoism. But if we assume Huning is the backbone of the party currently, then what either clearly the party is saying Mao Zedong Thought is either A) unneeded B) a fluke C) a historical stepping stone which can now be disregarded, just given if Deng got rid of the economics basically, and Huning doesn't actively believe in the actual philosophical root or epistemology, what is actually left there beyond the aesthetic of it?

ah ai I get ya just interested what would u consider to be the full roots of marxism, since revisionism especially with Maoism is a huge thing so would these synthesis ideology be consider revisionist or something else?

I just mean that Huning doesn't actually think Marx was right about everything and only uses Marx as a means of building off of and interpreting, not as a foundation. I guess probably revisionist? I have the examples of Baathism/Nasserism/Jamahiriya there because they're some of the only ideologies i can think of were both actually in power and also did a similar thing by only agreeing with certain ideas of Marx & Lenin but mainly pulling from other sources in their reigning philosophy. Like one example is I doubt Huning believes in HM to any real acknowledged extent if he thinks Aristotle's philosophy should be root of societal structure

I think he recognizes that Marx is useful for as what is described in the article as “hardware” (economics, systems, institutions) while China needs to develop and instil its own "software" (culture, values, attitudes) that offers an alternative to "western liberal individualism".

Wangs influence is pretty widely reported and described all over in the same way the article did so I believe it.

As per the current party line towards Mao I believe most of their criticism is directed at specifically the cultural revolution while stuff like the land reforms are praised. Could be wrong here tho...