Photo 5 of 6 from Third World Caesarean Socialism

This was the most amusing picture I could find without delving into satire.

I had to use that particular picture to depict a necessary projection of developing-country machismo.

Now, some self-deprecating humour:

=====
Gramsci's characterizations are something apart from you offering a Third World left-populist strongmanism (so long as they offer some check-list of requirements) in favor of workers' power, I'm afraid.
=====

=====
I would almost find this theory of yours somewhat sympathetic in limited respects, if it wasn't for your bizarre and inexplicable need to connect it seemingly randomly selected strongmen and autocrats and mish-mash anachronistically and without a basis for the class relations in each case to some completely artificial and unsubstantiated (to an equal extent as "permanent revolution" and "New Democracy" and their shared "leaderships" of the peasantry, to say nothing of the empirical reality of Russian Revolution and the Chinese Civil War and after) class bloc you made up in your head.
=====

=====
You've gone off the deep end with your neo-Aristotlean blathering about "monarchy" + "democracy" attacks "aristocracy" or some such shit.
=====

=====
But I suppose this is too much "mere labor struggle" for you, so better to double-down on the low-rent populist strongmen based on deliberate misrepresentations of bad histories of middle antiquity. As has been pointed out to you endless times, perhaps there is a reason why NONE of the strongmen you list in your little pamphlet have featured working-class independence beneath them; perhaps it is because precisely their class function is to stamp out working-class independent political action with populist authoritarianism? Nah, couldn't be. That might be inconvenient.
=====

=====
I also have continually noticed that DNZ ignores that each of the figures he claims as inspirational - Chavez, Castro-Guevara, Lukashenko, Sankara, ad nauseum - none of them exhibited anything close to the "working-class political independence" he posits as an essential prerequisite to all this. Maybe because these type of regimes existed expressly to displace and head off working-class struggles in favor of one or another variety of strongman populism.
=====

=====
DNZ pays not attention to the fact that neither Mao, nor Focoism, nor Breakthrough Military Coups have ever yielded a system which tolerates working-class political independence, and that's probably because the class interests behind them are directly antagonistic towards it.
=====

=====
B-b-b-because there were some farmers!

DNZ thinks if the industrial proletariat + rural proletarians isn't a 50%+1 majority, then there cannot be a working-class power (which is linked to his commitment to a system of statistical random sampling to fill decision-making bodies). So if there are just too many peasants, who looooovvveee strongman dictators who order them around and kick around landlords, then we should have a proper "Caesarian" strongman.
=====