Which Tendency is the most popular, or has the most adherents or followers?

[ComingUpForAir]

...both on Revleft and worldwide.. or just by region, and.. why? I ask because I have gone through several phases. At first I considered myself a Trotskyist.. later I became slightly more sympathetic to Stalinism.. then I veered away sharply from that and am now more favorable to Council Communism and Left Communism. Honestly there's still so much history to delve through that I don't think I can honestly say I know enough to be fully committed to any one tendency. Anyway I just wonder which tendency most fall under..not that a minority view would by any means be incorrect.

[Igor]

Probably Marxism-Leninism, to be honest, mostly in the developing world. Maoist movements in countries like Philippines and India are the only thing resembling a genuine mass movement in the world right now. Though if popularity really mattered in any way, we all probably should be social democrats or something anyways, so I don't think it's really that different. We're all relatively irrelevant, which particular tendency has somehow managed to get most relevant (if you ask me, by pretty much stop being revolutionary and aiming to become merely different kind of managers for capital, but many will disagree.) isn't really a huge question for me.

[ed miliband]

anarchism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I would say anarchism is more popular with the youth of today.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Thank god it isn't with the workers of today.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Please tell me there isn't now going to be a ton of threads about "tendency", dear god.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But yeah, I would have to say anarchism, both Chomskyian liberal-esque anarchism and class struggle, revolutionary anarchism seem to be growing greatly. I've also heard Italian Autonomia is making a comeback. Of course, I would love to see Bordigist-influenced left communism take a comback :)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In the world? Undoubtedly Maoism considering the ongoing Peoples Wars in Peru, India, Philippines, Nepal, and elsewhere. These movements have supporters which exceed the hundreds of millions with Vanguard Parties themselves with many millions more. No other tendency comes close. In second place I would say Marxism-Leninism (still some spots around claiming adherence to M-L theory I believe) followed closely by Trotskyism.

In terms of RevLeft I would say it is a close call between Left Communist and Anarchists.

[Hit The North]

A tendency to talk bullshit is the most popular on Revleft.

The tendency of 'me' is the most popular world wide.

[Igor]

But yeah, I would have to say anarchism, both Chomskyian liberal-esque anarchism and class struggle, revolutionary anarchism seem to be growing greatly. I've also heard Italian Autonomia is making a comeback. Of course, I would love to see Bordigist-influenced left communism take a comback :)

we're talking about globally most popular ideologies and you're mentioning the comeback of italian autonomia of all things

don't get me wrong, i like that shit but that's still ridiculously out of touch

[Zealot]

Marxism-Leninism(-Maoism). We have a wealth of experience behind us and it's currently the only relevant communist force in the developing world right now and was throughout the 20th century. "Popularity" doesn't make it true, obviously, but it has definitely proven the truth of the firm theoretical foundations of Marxism-Leninism and has provided much experience that, regardless of tendency, should be carefully studied and analysed to increase our knowledge rather than dismissed as Stalinism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Brosa Luxemburg says anarchism's popularity is rising greatly, but from few to less few by no means makes it near the largest far-left tendency.

Anarchism is not the most popular tendency by a long shot. Marxism-Leninism is undoubtedly the largest tendency.
I honestly think to many whom are not too interested in politics, it doesn't matter whether a communist party is Eurocommunist or Marxist-Leninist all that much. If the Communist Party of France would adopt Marxism-Leninism I doubt they would lose much support.

Trotskyism outnumbers Marxism-Leninism in Sri Lanka, Algeria, and Ireland. But again, I doubt this has much to do with tendencies and more with anticapitalist leaning individuals choosing the dominant far-left party.

Anarchism, I suppose, outnumbers Marxism-Leninism in Spain. United Left (Eurocommunist party) fulfills the role of dominant party which means Marxism-Leninism is a marginal ideology. Anarchist unions in Spain have 100,000 members and are said to represent 2 million workers, which is comparable to the size of United Left in terms of membership and votes respectively.

A mixture of libertarian communism/anarchism/left communism/communalism outnumbers Marxism-Leninism in Southern Mexico and South Africa, possibly in Kurdistan as well.

1. Marxism-Leninism (largest in India, Greece, Portugal, most countries with small far-left parties)
2. Marxist-Leninist Maoism (Philippines, much of India)
3. Eurocommunism (Japan, France, Spain)
4. democratic socialism (Venezuela, Denmark, Germany, Portugal close second)
5. libertarian communism/anarchism/left communism/communalism (South Africa, South Mexico, Kurdistan)
5. Trotskyism (Sri Lanka, Ireland, Algeria)

[Comrade #138672]

I have encountered way more Anarchists than Marxists. I sympathize with Anarchism and would like to see a fully united Left, but their obsession with the State over classes can be quite bothersome.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I read "on revleft" but skimmed over "worldwide".

Sorry for the confusion. I agree, my answer would be horrible for worldwide.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I feel like Maoists are probably the largest worldwide. In the first world, and on RevLeft, I feel like anarchists are probably the most numerous, but I'm including in "anarchists" antistate Marxists, various hippie-types oriented to an informal autonomous politics, etc. If I were only allowed to count Anarchists in a self-identified sense, and actively participating in anarchist organization, there are probably more weird Trotskyists.

[Le Socialiste]

It's a mistake to try and estimate the so-called 'popularity' of any given tendency in the world today. It's an even greater mistake to think the apparent popularity of one's tendency somehow translates into something that is both theoretically and practically sound. I hope the OP isn't asking their question in the hopes of finding the most 'popular' tendency and sticking with it. I have an actual question for those citing the struggles in the Philippines, India, and other countries, however - specifically those they think of as 'Maoist' movements. I honestly don't have much knowledge in the area, do the people making up these struggles self-identify as Maoists?

Lastly, Stalinism being the largest tendency for much of the past century doesn't change the fact that it remains a theoretical dead end with little to no grounding in Marxism (or Leninism for that matter). While there remains plenty of smallish ML groupings/parties throughout the world, Stalinism as a whole has been abandoned by ever widening sections of the left. Furthermore, the average person isn't going to see Stalinism as a means to further or aid them in their own struggles - and for good reason.

This all said, I think the general upsurge in anti-party/anti-establishment attitudes amongst broad layers of the working-class has awoken something of an interest in anarchism, though I think most will see the shortcomings inherent in the 'tendency' in due time. The legacy of ML parties really did a number on how people perceive and relate to the left, contributing to this somewhat vague alignment most people seem to be having with so-called left "libertarianism" (i.e. anarchism, libertarian socialism/Marxism, etc.). Which is, on the large, a bullshit way of framing things, but unfortunately that appears to be the general narrative occurring throughout most first world countries.

[Geiseric]

Yeah petit bourgeois peasant paramilitary movements (maoist as it's called) are pretty big in imperialized countries, however the theory of say the FARC of Shining Path is by no means one that should be followed by leftists anywhere around the world. Those paramilitaries are on the decline, and failed to really force any social change, in the FARC's case, becoming a drug dealing organization.

The PT in Algeria is led by Trotskyists, and it has several hundred thousand members. SYRIZA in greece is really big and has huge influence. The collapse of the USSR really put the international left on a downturn. Anarchism is by no means the most "popular tendency," though, I don't know what planet the people who said that are on. Syndicallism was really big at one point, but most of those leaders eventually turned into communists.

[Goblin]

The most popular tendency on this forum appears to be anarchism. Worldwide, i would say its a tie between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Trotskyism.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yeah petit bourgeois peasant paramilitary movements (maoist as it's called) are pretty big in imperialized countries, however the theory of say the FARC of Shining Path is by no means one that should be followed by leftists anywhere around the world. Those paramilitaries are on the decline, and failed to really force any social change, in the FARC's case, becoming a drug dealing organization.

The PT in Algeria is led by Trotskyists, and it has several hundred thousand members. SYRIZA in greece is really big and has huge influence. The collapse of the USSR really put the international left on a downturn. Anarchism is by no means the most "popular tendency," though, I don't know what planet the people who said that are on. Syndicallism was really big at one point, but most of those leaders eventually turned into communists.

Right. I think the kitchen-sink variety of leftist tendencies -- especially the continued existence of Maoism, or if you prefer, Marxism-Leninism speaks to the long period of reaction -- that got a lot of its impetus from the counterrevolution in the USSR twenty years ago. Anarchism too. The idea that we could organize communism on a worldwide scale without a state -- just go immediately from the mess we have into a totally free society, is in my mind a happy delusion.

Sad to say that there has been a massive regression of consciousness politically in many parts of the world. Here's hoping things change soon.

[l'Enfermé]

The Kenyan Muslim Obama-Marxists. They even usurped power in the White House! :(

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't believe that it matters because we are at ground zero and have to rebuild the entire revolutionary movement. In the real world the answer IMO is M-L-M, but other than the Naxalites in India they are but a shadow of their strength from the 70s.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

1. Marxism-Leninism (largest in India, Greece, Portugal, most countries with small far-left parties)
2. Marxist-Leninist Maoism (Philippines, much of India)
3. Eurocommunism (Japan, France, Spain)
4. democratic socialism (Venezuela, Denmark, Germany, Portugal close second)
5. libertarian communism/anarchism/left communism/communalism (South Africa, South Mexico, Kurdistan)
5. Trotskyism (Sri Lanka, Ireland, Algeria)

You said something about Portugal, so I have to intervene. Marxist-leninism is not the most popular ideology in my country, since the most popular political ideology overall in my country is social-democracy. I know some marxist-leninists, and most are party-fanatics, and I know many anarchists and most are students.
Anarchism is becoming far more popular ammong the youth than marxist-leninism, since the students are not atracted to it because it tends to use complicated words, have lots of theory, and having failed every simgle time it was implemented and turning into a left-wing one party dictatorship. The youth have received the idea that the government was composed of lying bastards from their parents. This anti-government sensation that covers all portuguese society passed onto the youth, who have been atracted to anarchism since it is the only theory that cares about abolishing the state and ending misery at the same time.

[Comrade #138672]

The Kenyan Muslim Obama-Marxists. They even usurped power in the White House! :(Damn those Muslim Obama-Marxist Fascists.

[GoddessCleoLover]

You said something about Portugal, so I have to intervene. Marxist-leninism is not the most popular ideology in my country, since the most popular political ideology overall in my country is social-democracy. I know some marxist-leninists, and most are party-fanatics, and I know many anarchists and most are students.
Anarchism is becoming far more popular ammong the youth than marxist-leninism, since the students are not atracted to it because it tends to use complicated words, have lots of theory, and having failed every simgle time it was implemented and turning into a left-wing one party dictatorship. The youth have received the idea that the government was composed of lying bastards from their parents. This anti-government sensation that covers all portuguese society passed onto the youth, who have been atracted to anarchism since it is the only theory that cares about abolishing the state and ending misery at the same time.

Back in the 1970s to my experience Marxist-Leninists greatly outnumbered anarchists. Today the opposite appears to be the case, at least in Baltimore, MD, USA.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yeah petit bourgeois peasant paramilitary movements (maoist as it's called) are pretty big in imperialized countries, however the theory of say the FARC of Shining Path is by no means one that should be followed by leftists anywhere around the world. Those paramilitaries are on the decline, and failed to really force any social change, in the FARC's case, becoming a drug dealing organization.

The PT in Algeria is led by Trotskyists, and it has several hundred thousand members. SYRIZA in greece is really big and has huge influence. The collapse of the USSR really put the international left on a downturn. Anarchism is by no means the most "popular tendency," though, I don't know what planet the people who said that are on. Syndicallism was really big at one point, but most of those leaders eventually turned into communists.

Do you enjoy parroting capitalist propaganda without backing up your sectarian agitations with facts?

[ed miliband]

i don't actually think anarchism is the "most popular tendency" or anything -- i don't think it's a particularly easy thing to work out, anyway.

for example in britain trotskyist parties and organisations probably have more members than all other "tendencies" combined, but how many members are fully committed ideological trotskyists? i'd say the swp and the socialist party of england and wales, for example, have many more members who identify simply as "socialists" (which is troublesome imo, because "socialism" in my experience is often marred by historical associations with the labour party) as opposed to trotskyists or leninists or whatever. these people will join because through things like university societies, things like the stop the war coalition, or encounters with activists at anti-cuts meetings.

on the other hand, to join the afed for example, you have to meet with an existing member and discuss the aims and principles of the federation, show you are sound, and so on; to join the spgb i believe you have to take a test, or at least you once had to; i remember reading someone on here say they've been in discussion with the icc for a number of years and still not joined (if thats even the right word to use in this context) yet.

so yes, in britain you could say that trotskyism is the "most popular" tendency, but that doesn't mean that there are thousands of trotskyists.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Back in the 1970s to my experience Marxist-Leninists greatly outnumbered anarchists. Today the opposite appears to be the case, at least in Baltimore, MD, USA.

That is true, anarchism has become much more popular along the years.


i don't actually think anarchism is the "most popular tendency" or anything -- i don't think it's a particularly easy thing to work out, anyway.

I agree, it is not easy to understand how it works. Anarchists may have tried to facilitate the learning of anarchism by writing in a way that makes it easier to understand, but still anarchism is hard to understand. There is remarkably little theory on what is to be done after the revolution, and there is much that you must reflect on and come to your own conclusions about. This difficult learning process can make some people turn away from anarchism and go to "safer" left ideologies.
That being said I beleive the best way to teach anarchism is through direct dialogue, not books.

[Zealot]

Yeah petit bourgeois peasant paramilitary movements (maoist as it's called) are pretty big in imperialized countries, however the theory of say the FARC of Shining Path is by no means one that should be followed by leftists anywhere around the world. Those paramilitaries are on the decline, and failed to really force any social change, in the FARC's case, becoming a drug dealing organization.

If you haven't heard, FARC is currently in talks with the government who are begging them to stop and seek a political solution instead. And apparently these "petit bourgeois peasant paramilitary movements" are actually waging a revolution. You?


I know some marxist-leninists, and most are party-fanatics, and I know many anarchists and most are students.
Anarchism is becoming far more popular ammong the youth than marxist-leninism, since the students are not atracted to it because it tends to use complicated words, have lots of theory, and having failed every simgle time it was implemented and turning into a left-wing one party dictatorship. The youth have received the idea that the government was composed of lying bastards from their parents. This anti-government sensation that covers all portuguese society passed onto the youth, who have been atracted to anarchism since it is the only theory that cares about abolishing the state and ending misery at the same time.

Because Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois liberalist ideology.

[Jack]

Throughout the entire with the exception of a few countries, Marxism-Leninism(-Maoism) is the most popular and best organized.

Trotskyites are bigger in Algeria, Argentina, UK, Sri Lanka, technically France (if we want to disregard Eurocommunists), and probably the United States. Ireland is probably a toss up.

Anarchists are probably the largest tendency in America, and may be a toss up with M-L's in Greece. Definitely the strongest in Spain if once again we disregard Eurocommunists. Though some can speculate in a lot of countries anarchism is the most "popular" in terms of numbers of sympathizers, I'm yet to see them actually form strong organizations or do anything with their supposed popularity. Anarchism has almost no presence in Asia or Africa.

To the guy who said Anarchism was more popular in South Africa, Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation has like 50 members half of them white. Awareness League in Nigeria fell apart too.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think the comments in regards to Anarchism are kind of amusing and I'm curious as to what definitions or parameters people here are using in their analysis of where Anarchy stands world-wide. For example, the the Zapatista group the EZLN is Anarchistic without directly using the title moreover similar situations and groups undoubtedly exist world-wide along side organizations which are Anarchist 'proper.'

This "tendency," thing is getting ridiculous.

[Jack]

I think the comments in regards to Anarchism are kind of amusing and I'm curious as to what definitions or parameters people here are using in their analysis of where Anarchy stands world-wide. For example, the the Zapatista group the EZLN is Anarchistic without directly using the title moreover similar situations and groups undoubtedly exist world-wide along side organizations which are Anarchist 'proper.'

This "tendency," thing is getting ridiculous.

What is it with anarchists and grouping anyone and their mother who says or does something vaguely anti-authoritarian as an anarchist? I mean shit I've seen you guys trying to coopt Orwell, Gandhi, Jesus, Thomas Paine, etc.

Edit: Also if you look at the tendency groups, Anarchism is the biggest followed by Marxism-Leninism (which is like 90% banned or inactive members), then Trotskyism then Left Communism.

The last two are just the loudest.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What is it with anarchists and grouping anyone and their mother who says or does something vaguely anti-authoritarian as an anarchist? I mean shit I've seen you guys trying to coopt Orwell, Gandhi, Jesus, Thomas Paine, etc.

:rolleyes:

What is it with Leninists making wild, off based and generalized assertions just because anytime they here anything related to anarchy they have to crap their pants trying to denounce it?

Do you even get what I'm saying?

[Jack]

:rolleyes:

What is it with Leninists making wild, off based and generalized assertions just because anytime they here anything related to anarchy they have to crap their pants trying to denounce it?

Do you even get what I'm saying?

You're basically saying because something has "anarchistic" characteristics, it's Anarchist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You're basically saying because something has "anarchistic" characteristics, it's Anarchist.

Due to the fact that I find the conversation thus far about anarchy to be incredibly wanting in analytic weight. I personally don't believe those whom participate in organizations, platformism, with their banners, titles, names and so on constitute the whole of the Anarchist movement. I don't think their needs to be any organization and so on involved for anarchy to be propagated.

[Jack]

Due to the fact that I find the conversation thus far about anarchy to be incredibly wanting in analytic weight. I personally don't believe those whom participate in organizations, platformism, with their banners, titles, names and so on constitute the whole of the Anarchist movement. I don't think their needs to be any organization and so on involved for anarchy to be propagated.

Could you try to be a little less condescending?

So basically you're saying that anarchism's path to revolution doesn't need organization or any form of organized social movement.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Could you try to be a little less condescending?

Yes, I wasn't trying to be with my last post though, my apologies.


So basically you're saying that anarchism's path to revolution doesn't need organization or any form of organized social movement.

In terms of what we were just talking about no but in general, I'm anti-organizational in the sense that I propose affinity groups over permanent/formal organizations, political programs and so on, yes.

[Let's Get Free]

Depends on the region, but I would say that "Marxism-Leninism" is losing the popularity it once had, and more people are looking toward anarchism/libertarian socialism, as Marxism-Leninism has proven itself to be bankrupt and discredited. Marxist-Leninist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe have collapsed, China is openly capitalist, and it is only a matter of time before Cuba follows the same path.

However, the Marxist-Leninist revolution is not likely to disappear. It's mode of production is perfectly suited to the needs of a neo-colony that is able to throw off the yoke of the imperialists and build an independent economy. This leads to the probability that, even after the collapse of "Marxism-Leninism" in Russia and China, other nations will follow the Marxist-Leninist path of development.

[Let's Get Free]

If you haven't heard, FARC is currently in talks with the government who are begging them to stop and seek a political solution instead. And apparently these "petit bourgeois peasant paramilitary movements" are actually waging a revolution. You?

Who the hell cares about the FARC? It is not a revolutionary group. It is incapable of carrying out a revolution. At the very most, they can foment a coup d'état. And even in the extremely unlikely circumstances that they manage to accomplish even this, it should come as no surprise when they become the new oppressive ruling class over the proletariat, given their track record of crimes committed against workers and peasants, and the negligible popular support they have.

[Tim Cornelis]

Can we really say that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is more popular than Marxism-Leninism? Besides guerrillas in India and scattered elsewhere, and Nepal, where is MLM more popular than ML? I suspect not even in India actually.


Trotskyites are bigger in Algeria, Argentina, UK, Sri Lanka, technically France (if we want to disregard Eurocommunists), and probably the United States. Ireland is probably a toss up.

Anarchists are probably the largest tendency in America, and may be a toss up with M-L's in Greece. Definitely the strongest in Spain if once again we disregard Eurocommunists. Though some can speculate in a lot of countries anarchism is the most "popular" in terms of numbers of sympathizers, I'm yet to see them actually form strong organizations or do anything with their supposed popularity. Anarchism has almost no presence in Asia or Africa.

In the Irish election, the Trotskyists won 2.3% of the votes, the Marxist-Leninists just 0.1%. In Argentina, the Marxist-Leninists have circa 3% support, the same in much of Latin America.

Anarchists in Greece are quite active, but don't come close to the number of people the KKE can mobilise.


To the guy who said Anarchism was more popular in South Africa, Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation has like 50 members half of them white. Awareness League in Nigeria fell apart too.

I didn't say anarchism in itself, but anarchism/libertarian communism/communalism/left communism (I would call these jointly "libertarian communism" but Marxists refuse to use that word) in combination. Abahlali baseMjondolo is a communist movement strongly committed to autonomy, non-hierarchical relations, and democracy from below. It has less members than the SACP but the number of active support, sympathisers, and the influence they exert is much greater in my view.


You said something about Portugal, so I have to intervene. Marxist-leninism is not the most popular ideology in my country, since the most popular political ideology overall in my country is social-democracy.

We were talking about popularity of far-left tendencies, not all tendencies. The Democratic Unity Coalition, dominated by Marxism-Leninism, stands at 10% of the polls; The Left Bloc at 9.5%, so Marxism-Leninism is the largest tendency followed by democratic socialism.

I've seen several people make claims that are, in my eyes, ridiculous, overstated, or biased.

1. Anarchism is gaining ground, Marxism-Leninism is losing support because it has been proven wrong

Despite the collapse of the Eastern bloc, Marxist-Leninist parties still manage to get 20% of the votes in the Czech Republic, 10% in Portugal, 5% in India, and so forth. Evidently, not all of these people are committed anticapitalists, but where would anarchism be able to poll such sympathy and support? Nowhere.

Anarchism has a very, very long way to go if it could ever appeal to such support (one town, Carrara, apparently is already there, but that's not much).

2. Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism are comparable in size

Trotskyism is far less popular than Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism, to my knowledge, has only managed to get electoral success in three countries (Ireland, Sri Lanka, Algeria, and perhaps France as Jack said), whereas Marxism-Leninism in many European countries, almost all South American countries, etc. Trotskyism is mostly small groups with little support.

3.

Because Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois liberalist ideology.

These are nothing but buzzwords. This is based on some individualistic anarchists that advocated market exchange, and a strawman of anarchists wanting to return to small-scale artisan-like production, because Kropotkin used guild-like institutions as examples of mutual aid (but not future anarchist institutions). Anarchists of the communist pesuasion advocate an (almost) immediate transition to a moneyless, wageless, classless, stateless society--that doesn't resemble "petite-bourgeois" or "liberalism" even remotely. Marxist-Leninists advocate a transient state where commodity and monetary relations are perpetuated (capital) and generally see a role for small-scale cooperatives (petite-bourgeois) that are not part of the greater "socialised" production scheme.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Can we really say that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is more popular than Marxism-Leninism?
Why does it matter? Stalin apologists are not Marxists in any sense of the word, no matter how much they would like to fashion themselves as such.

[Jack]

Can we really say that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is more popular than Marxism-Leninism? Besides guerrillas in India and scattered elsewhere, and Nepal, where is MLM more popular than ML? I suspect not even in India actually.

I tend to group the two together, but MLM is probably less popular than Marxism-Leninism but makes up a huge chunk of M-L's so it's a poor choice to disregard it. I'd say it makes up about half of M-L's largely because of its appeal in countries with higher populations in Asia.




In the Irish election, the Trotskyists won 2.3% of the votes, the Marxist-Leninists just 0.1%. In Argentina, the Marxist-Leninists have circa 3% support, the same in much of Latin America.

For Argentina the Trotskyites got 2.46% of the vote, so I'm basing it off that, but I did look and see that the coalition that got 10.18% of the vote has M-L affiliates.



Who the hell cares about the FARC? It is not a revolutionary group. It is incapable of carrying out a revolution. At the very most, they can foment a coup d'état. And even in the extremely unlikely circumstances that they manage to accomplish even this, it should come as no surprise when they become the new oppressive ruling class over the proletariat, given their track record of crimes committed against workers and peasants, and the negligible popular support they have.

The people of Colombia care about the FARC.

Tell me how much more your affinity groups and black blocs are doing to bring down Capitalism instead of standing with reactionaries in denouncing the FARC. There is no reason to not support a popular peasant's army over a bourgeois puppet state, I'd apply the same logic if the ELN were the more dominant group as well.

What is it with you and constantly being an apologist for imperialism?

[Let's Get Free]

The people of Colombia care about the FARC.

Tell me how much more your affinity groups and black blocs are doing to bring down Capitalism instead of standing with reactionaries in denouncing the FARC. There is no reason to not support a popular peasant's army over a bourgeois puppet state, I'd apply the same logic if the ELN were the more dominant group as well.

Again, FARC is NOT a revolutionary organization and the support they enjoy is marginal. Let me be explicit. I am opposed to the rule of capital, whether 'foreign' or 'domestic', militarized or tolerant & liberal, neoliberal or social democratic. I do not collapse all these modes into one, but i recognize the only force capable of opposing capital per se rather than replacing one set of bosses with another is the self-organization of the working class, not some neckbeards in the jungles with AK-47s - there being no guarantee that these new bosses will even be any better than the old ones.


What is it with you and constantly being an apologist for imperialism?

Grow up kid. The world is little more complex than your simple-minded approach. The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend. Im no more a friend of US imperialism than you are but unlike you I have not been conned by a viciously anti-working class paramilitary group who once they get into power, will inevitably install their own dictatorship over the proletariat, ban strikes, kill workers and peasants standing in their way, etc, and I don not need a crystal ball to tell you that this is absolutely certain.

[Tim Cornelis]

A mod should probably split this into another thread or delete these posts, but I can't help but point out the ridiculous line of reasoning and the numerous fallacies spouted here.



Tell me how much more your affinity groups and black blocs are doing to bring down Capitalism

Irrelevant. It's a tu quoque fallacy.


instead of standing with reactionaries in denouncing the FARC.

You went there, huh? Well things Marxist-Leninists stand should to shoulder with bourgeois and reactionaries:

- the believe that capital and socialism are compatible
- the believe that the USSR was socialist
- the believe that state and socialism are compatible

Need I go on or have you figured the guilt-by-association fallacy is a still a fallacy yet?


There is no reason to not support a popular peasant's army over a bourgeois puppet state,

False dichotomy-fallacy. "You're either with us, or with the terrorists." Not supporting the FARC does not mean supporting the bourgeois state. Incidentally, it is by no means a "popular army," nothing indicates widespread support for the FARC.


I'd apply the same logic if the ELN were the more dominant group as well.

Surely, the ELN isn't capable of a revolution any more than the FARC. This has nothing to do with ideology (both are Leninist, while your remark suggests they are not), but with strategy.


What is it with you and constantly being an apologist for imperialism?

Not favouring one type of capital over another does not make one an apologist for imperialism.

[blinxwang]

Post-left anarchy. Post-leftists broke anarchism out of the anachronistic early-20th-century ghetto it was trapped in after the events of WWII and pretty much eliminated sectarianism within the US anarchist movement (with notable exceptions being RAAN and NEFAC).
If nothing else, many post-leftists have contributed insightful critiques, new perspectives, and soaring poetic prose to the anti-Capitalist consciousness as a whole.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

We were talking about popularity of far-left tendencies, not all tendencies. The Democratic Unity Coalition, dominated by Marxism-Leninism, stands at 10% of the polls; The Left Bloc at 9.5%, so Marxism-Leninism is the largest tendency followed by democratic socialism.

First of all those are polls, not the election results, because in the 2011 legislative elections the CDU got 7% and the BE got 5%. And don't forget that 42% of the population did not vote, so you must devide the numbers by 42%. In the end you will realise that the communist parties don't have much support, and that they are not that big.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If nothing else, many post-leftists have contributed insightful critiques, new perspectives, and soaring poetic prose to the anti-Capitalist consciousness as a whole.

Poetic? Wolfi Landstreicher writes like a fifteen year who just read Nietzsche, and thinks they're the most brilliant kid in Grade 10 English.

As for insightful critique or new perspectives, Stirner isn't new, and Left-Communists have a better critique of programmatism that precedes the "post-left" by decades.

[Ravachol]

Poetic? Wolfi Landstreicher writes like a fifteen year who just read Nietzsche, and thinks they're the most brilliant kid in Grade 10 English.


I like landstreicher, don't diss the bro mang.



As for insightful critique or new perspectives, Stirner isn't new, and Left-Communists have a better critique of programmatism that precedes the "post-left" by decades.

I dunno about the latter man, leftcom critiques of programmatism are largely the product of the 'ultraleft' in the '70s and '80s, around the same time as the historical precursors of the 'post-left' emerged (Bonanno, Bob Black, some of Zerzan's pre-primmie writings).

[Geiseric]

I think the message to be gained from this forum is that in most of the world, there are many remnants of groups that were big at some other point, but that situation isn't working too well, meaning their thery is wrong, meaning communists have to re evaluate how to connect with and raise the consciousess of the woking class, from step 1.

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you're going to count Nepalese Maoist class collaborators and fucking Euro"communists" you might as well include every third world nationalist movement and the UK Labour party.

[xvzc]

Contemporary Maoism may be popular in the some parts of the third world, most notably South Asia, but in the first world it has only taken roots to a certain extent in Canada, Italy and Norway.

In Europe and North America, I would say that Anarchism is by a rather huge margin the most popular far-left ideology, excluding maybe Britain where I've heard that Trotskyism is a big thing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

^ you forgot Bob Avakian! He's a one-man north american Maoist juggernaut.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

In the world? Undoubtedly Maoism considering the ongoing Peoples Wars in Peru, India, Philippines, Nepal, and elsewhere. These movements have supporters which exceed the hundreds of millions with Vanguard Parties themselves with many millions more. No other tendency comes close. In second place I would say Marxism-Leninism (still some spots around claiming adherence to M-L theory I believe) followed closely by Trotskyism.

In terms of RevLeft I would say it is a close call between Left Communist and Anarchists.

I think the popularity of Maoism is more questionable than you say. Hundreds of millions? Hmmm... let's look at this.

Peru? The SL is legitimately mistrusted by a substantial portion of the population due to significant and shameful war crimes. There are also other ideological tendencies in Peru. The SL are merely more noticeable due to their armed insurrection.

India? The Naxalites have a big following in the tribal regions, but outside the tribal regions? They have less relevance and traditional MList parties are more significant. Even within the tribal regions there's no reason to think that people are homogenous in their support for the Naxalites. And again, this is a country with significant Marxist-Leninist parties that run or have run several states, and are significant opposition figures.

The Philippines? Maoists clearly are a large tendency there, but do they have the kind of deep support you're talking about? I've seen no evidence of that.

Nepal? Yeah the Maoists are in power but they sold out communism quite a while ago, which in fact is a common problem when Maoists take power.

Elsewhere ... well those are the countries with the four most significant Maoist movements.


The most "popular" tendency of "communism" by party membership is probably the trick-the-masses-then-sell-out-to-capitalism variety in power in the East Asian Stalinist and Maoist countries, but they are as Communist as Goldman Sachs.

Other than faux-communism, Marxist-Leninism is popular in the developing world and Anarchism is popular in the developed world. The problem with both of these "tendencies" is that they have basically both grown to include so many smaller ideological groupings that they really are not one coherent "tendency" any more. Focoism, Hoxhaism, reformist MLism ... even Maoism claims to be a type. These all have substantive differences which seem to go beyond the internal differences of most other "tendencies" The movement which seems to be increasing in popularity more is the strange blend of Marxism and Anarchism which is floating around these days.

IMO all this "tendency" stuff is bullshit anyways, most of these big ideological theoretical systems which have been around have failed to instigate a successful revolution. Why limit yourself to the ideas of one tendency? There are certainly tendencies I take very little from but I don't see a reason to stick to one exclusively like a marriage.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't really see the appeal of Maoism. It is basically a peasant lead revolution aiming for Stalinism mixing vaguely sounding Marxian rhetoric with the Art of War-type military strategizing. There is nothing this tendency has to offer to socialists today, as it negated every principle it once pretended to stand for, from it's alliance with the Fascist KMT before it had even taken power, to it's religious cult inspired by the state propaganda campaign, which is the key factor in understanding the Cultural Revolution.

[bcbm]

who gives a shit? i mean besides leftists trying desperately to prove they matter

[robbo203]

...both on Revleft and worldwide.. or just by region, and.. why? I ask because I have gone through several phases. At first I considered myself a Trotskyist.. later I became slightly more sympathetic to Stalinism.. then I veered away sharply from that and am now more favorable to Council Communism and Left Communism. Honestly there's still so much history to delve through that I don't think I can honestly say I know enough to be fully committed to any one tendency. Anyway I just wonder which tendency most fall under..not that a minority view would by any means be incorrect.

You could try "impossibilism" as a tendency but never judge a tendency on the basis of the number of adherents it attracts. It only needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of workers are, unfortunately, still pro-capitalist in their thinking to drive this point home

The fact that a majority happen to hold a particularly point of view does not necessarily make it right. If it did, we would still be thinking that the sun revolved around the earth or the earth was a comparatively flat surface that we would fall off of once we reached the edge

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Please tell me there isn't now going to be a ton of threads about "tendency", dear god.

Just one more. I added a thread with a poll. Sorry...

[Zealot]

I don't really see the appeal of Maoism. It is basically a peasant lead revolution aiming for Stalinism mixing vaguely sounding Marxian rhetoric with the Art of War-type military strategizing.

Good job:thumbup1: You've summed up one of the world's largest communist tendencies perfectly :laugh:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't really see the appeal of Maoism. It is basically a peasant lead revolution aiming for Stalinism mixing vaguely sounding Marxian rhetoric with the Art of War-type military strategizing. There is nothing this tendency has to offer to socialists today, as it negated every principle it once pretended to stand for, from it's alliance with the Fascist KMT before it had even taken power, to it's religious cult inspired by the state propaganda campaign, which is the key factor in understanding the Cultural Revolution.

I think that's some pretty lousy generalizing.
Of course, talking about "Maoism" as a tendency non-specifically is pretty useless. Finding common ground between the नेपाल कम्युनिष्ट पार्टी - माओवादी, RCP-USA, and PCR-RCP, beyond the fact that they're "in" to Mao is pretty difficult, especially in terms of their various practices.

[ind_com]

I don't really see the appeal of Maoism. It is basically a peasant lead revolution aiming for Stalinism mixing vaguely sounding Marxian rhetoric with the Art of War-type military strategizing. There is nothing this tendency has to offer to socialists today, as it negated every principle it once pretended to stand for, from it's alliance with the Fascist KMT before it had even taken power, to it's religious cult inspired by the state propaganda campaign, which is the key factor in understanding the Cultural Revolution.

Well then the socialists that you refer to must be sucking big time. Regardless of whatever Maoism is, if it remains a successful tool for millions of workers and peasants to fight for and win their basic rights and necessities, then it is definitely worth much more than any 'socialist' ideology that exists only in college students' discussion circles.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think the popularity of Maoism is more questionable than you say. Hundreds of millions? Hmmm... let's look at this.

Peru? The SL is legitimately mistrusted by a substantial portion of the population due to significant and shameful war crimes. There are also other ideological tendencies in Peru. The SL are merely more noticeable due to their armed insurrection.

India? The Naxalites have a big following in the tribal regions, but outside the tribal regions? They have less relevance and traditional MList parties are more significant. Even within the tribal regions there's no reason to think that people are homogenous in their support for the Naxalites. And again, this is a country with significant Marxist-Leninist parties that run or have run several states, and are significant opposition figures.

The Philippines? Maoists clearly are a large tendency there, but do they have the kind of deep support you're talking about? I've seen no evidence of that.

Nepal? Yeah the Maoists are in power but they sold out communism quite a while ago, which in fact is a common problem when Maoists take power.

Elsewhere ... well those are the countries with the four most significant Maoist movements.

Despite your strawman my point still stands: Maoism, or however you want to describe it, has the most followers and stand close to the hundreds of millions; this is absolutely proven in India where the Naxalites control a third of the Indian landmass. Control doesn't equal support but it is a good indication of support. The remaining areas of struggle fill any void in numbers.

Revolution is in constant flux and doesn't halt for anything: Nepal is a stunning example of this where the road to socialism has taken some curves but it getting back on track with revolutionary organizations asserting themselves to throw out the revisionists. This is also seen in Peru where the Peoples War has re-emerged once again with improved ideology and links to the masses. You can refuse to see the clear signs of support if you wish but it doesn't negate the overwhelming premise of the tendency.



The most "popular" tendency of "communism" by party membership is probably the trick-the-masses-then-sell-out-to-capitalism variety in power in the East Asian Stalinist and Maoist countries, but they are as Communist as Goldman Sachs.
Yeah, I am sure :rolleyes:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't really see the appeal of Maoism. It is basically a peasant lead revolution...

Proletarian Ideology leads the Peasantry in struggle hence it is a proletarian conflict by design; the peasantry, or indigenous people, are motivated by ideals of socialist working class liberation and aim to achieve this end.

See this from Kasama: "Where was the Proletariat in Mao's Long March or Nepal's Revolution? (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/02/03/wheres-the-proletariat-in-maos-long-march-or-nepals-revolution/)"



...aiming for Stalinism mixing vaguely sounding Marxian rhetoric with the Art of War-type military strategizing.Perfect analysis... but just for the heck of it try again.


There is nothing this tendency has to offer to socialists today, as it negated every principle it once pretended to stand for, Study actual revolutions and how they progressed, the people involved and what lead to what policies. Then you may see how it is not inherent in the tendency but in the opposition and means to an end (everyone makes mistakes).

With each iteration the revolution becomes more knowledgeable, tighter with the masses, keen to pick up their wants and desires, and is better able to build socialism, promote equality, and advance on the road to communism. I would rather endorse a revolutionary method which inches closer to a perfect synthesis than endorse a dead-end theory. No tendency is perfect and no single tendency will lead the working class to absolute victory (not in the United States anyway), so there is no such thing as "having it all" but some do offer viable tools to reach the goal which we are all working towards.



...from it's alliance with the Fascist KMT before it had even taken power, Wait... who allied with which fascists? Now, assuming that the KMT was fascist, which it wasn't by any means, do you not understand the concept of a United Front to battle Japanese Imperialism (which was far closer to fascism than any KMT variety)? I would be hesitant to call a United Front a proper alliance in the "fighting for the same goal" manner.


to it's religious cult inspired by the state propaganda campaign, which is the key factor in understanding the Cultural Revolution.No, you should really read some history books written by people other than anti-communists... all I'm going to say.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My tendency's bigger than yours. :rolleyes:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My tendency's bigger than yours. :rolleyes:

The OP asked as such and I never said that numbers equal "the correct choice" so I do not see where you get off to be sarcastic about something which never happened.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The OP asked as such and I never said that numbers equal "the correct choice" so I do not see where you get off to be sarcastic about something which never happened.

I wasn't replying to you, but the thread's OP. I don't have any problem with your attitude, tbh, so sorry if it came across as such.

[xvzc]

I think that it's important to not overstate the strength of Indian Maoists. Manmohan Singh declaring Naxalism the nations "gravest internal security threat" was done in the backdrop of several "Memorandums of Understandings" (MoU) being signed with mining companies, and was effectively a declaration that the Indian state was going to do something about the "Maoist-infested" but mineral-rich tribal regions. This understanding gains further significance if we take into consideration that the Maoists had just retreated from their traditional stronghold of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana following heavy state repression.

(EDIT: Note that this is not saying that the Maoists were and are no threat to India's state, that Manmohan was just engaging in wordplay, etc. Naxalism is a very real threat to India's ruling class.)

Naxals are very strong in the areas surrounding Dandakaranya on the southern edge of Chattisgarh, where they are undergoing heavy siege right now, and the Jangalmahal area of West Bengal, despite clear setbacks over there following Kishenji's assassination. I don't know much about the situation elsewhere, though, such as in Bihar or Jharkhand where Maoists have traditionally been very strong.

What's exciting about the situation in India today is the expansion into the Northeast areas in wake of failures of secessionist groups there, such as in Assam, where the CPI(Maoist) is reportedly very active among tea workers, and Manipur, where a new Maoist CP has been formed.

CPI(Maoist) influence does stretch very far and wide, but it's definitely not true that they "control one-third" of India. Things were looking very bright in 2010 when we saw several fascinating and spectacular armed actions, but building liberated areas has proved very difficult in wake of the genocidal Operation Green Hunt.

The People's War in India is still in the stage of "strategic defensive", as compared to Peru in the early '90s where the Maoists were on an even footing to state forces, or Nepal before the liquidation of the People's War, where the Maoists had a clear upper hand over the state.

From what I have heard, the situation in the Philippines is starting to look more and more like Peru did, where Maoists today have sophisticated weaponry, where the army does not dare enter large swathes of areas areas which are effectively liberated by the New People's Army, etc.

[Let's Get Free]

Well then the socialists that you refer to must be sucking big time. Regardless of whatever Maoism is, if it remains a successful tool for millions of workers and peasants to fight for and win their basic rights and necessities, then it is definitely worth much more than any 'socialist' ideology that exists only in college students' discussion circles.

Alright, well if it works for you, that's great. However, if the Maoists somehow, magically, managed to win their hopeless guerrilla struggles and gain political power it should surprise no one when they turn against the working class, ban strikes in order to consolidate a top-down political takeover, and kill workers standing in their way, etc. Or they may abandon the armed struggle and turn into a fully fledged bourgeois political party, as they did in Nepal.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Alright, well if it works for you, that's great. However, if the Maoists somehow, magically, managed to win their hopeless guerrilla struggles and gain political power it should surprise no one when they turn against the working class, ban strikes in order to consolidate a top-down political takeover, and kill workers standing in their way, etc.

1) Why is the armed struggle hopeless? It has been victorious in several prior movements where the odds where slim; this is part of the struggle, hence the protracted part of Protracted Peoples Wars.

2) None of what you described has ever happened. Technically speaking it could happen but technically speaking I could be the king of some long lost kingdom due to my bloodline. One cannot prove it one way or the other.

3) Your black and white musings are not contributing towards an intellectual understanding of the topics at hand.


Or they may abandon the armed struggle and turn into a fully fledged bourgeois political party, as they did in Nepal.Revisionist currents were the ones who sided with bourgeois politics, not the revolutionary current who has reformed the struggle and is beginning to re-engage the Nepalese masses. You mistake non-revolutionary power grabs for weakness in theory. Such simply isn't so.

[ind_com]

I think that it's important to not overstate the strength of Indian Maoists. Manmohan Singh declaring Naxalism the nations "gravest internal security threat" was done in the backdrop of several "Memorandums of Understandings" (MoU) being signed with mining companies, and was effectively a declaration that the Indian state was going to do something about the "Maoist-infested" but mineral-rich tribal regions. This understanding gains further significance if we take into consideration that the Maoists had just retreated from their traditional stronghold of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana following heavy state repression.

(EDIT: Note that this is not saying that the Maoists were and are no threat to India's state, that Manmohan was just engaging in wordplay, etc. Naxalism is a very real threat to India's ruling class.)

Naxals are very strong in the areas surrounding Dandakaranya on the southern edge of Chattisgarh, where they are undergoing heavy siege right now, and the Jangalmahal area of West Bengal, despite clear setbacks over there following Kishenji's assassination. I don't know much about the situation elsewhere, though, such as in Bihar or Jharkhand where Maoists have traditionally been very strong.

What's exciting about the situation in India today is the expansion into the Northeast areas in wake of failures of secessionist groups there, such as in Assam, where the CPI(Maoist) is reportedly very active among tea workers, and Manipur, where a new Maoist CP has been formed.

CPI(Maoist) influence does stretch very far and wide, but it's definitely not true that they "control one-third" of India. Things were looking very bright in 2010 when we saw several fascinating and spectacular armed actions, but building liberated areas has proved very difficult in wake of the genocidal Operation Green Hunt.

The People's War in India is still in the stage of "strategic defensive", as compared to Peru in the early '90s where the Maoists were on an even footing to state forces, or Nepal before the liquidation of the People's War, where the Maoists had a clear upper hand over the state.

From what I have heard, the situation in the Philippines is starting to look more and more like Peru did, where Maoists today have sophisticated weaponry, where the army does not dare enter large swathes of areas areas which are effectively liberated by the New People's Army, etc.

I agree with you. Overstating or understating something ultimately harms the revolutionary forces. One third of India has strong Maoist influence, but most of it is in the situation of dual power, with guerrilla warfare taking place against the government. The regions having a fully functioning Maoist government are comparatively very small in size. Even those regions are just guerrilla zones, not base areas yet.

I would not call the situation in Peru to have reached a strategic equilibrium at any point. During a strategic equilibrium, the top leaders are supposed to be inside guerrilla zones, not urban enemy strongholds. Also, with a stable and strong movement that is in the strategic equilibrium, it is not possible that the movement will degenerate rapidly with the capture of only the top leader. Such situations are not imaginable in India even in this stage; it is more akin to the conditions in the 70s. In Nepal, the PLA was far from outnumbering the RNA when the urban people's movements happened. It was only 7,000 to 8,000 in strength, though the guerrilla squads together made a much larger number. Since the parliamentary parties are stooges of imperialism, involving them in the urban movement demonstrated the tactics of playing imperialist powers against each other, implying that on a national level the communists weren't strong enough to take on the full force of reaction. So, that wasn't exactly the strategic equilibrium as well, though it was approaching that stage. In the Philippines too, communists are just approaching the strategic equilibrium. In terms of advancement relative to their state forces, the Filipino communists are the most advanced communist group in the world right now. The Indian movement is the biggest in absolute strength and size.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

3) Your black and white musings are not contributing towards an intellectual understanding of the topics at hand.

Better to write in big, fancy, words? Would you have understood it better if he used marxist jargon?


Revisionist currents were the ones who sided with bourgeois politics

Yeah, obviously it was all the revisionists' fault.:rolleyes:


You mistake non-revolutionary power grabs for weakness in theory. Such simply isn't so.

The bolsheviks also did a big power grab.

[Let's Get Free]

1) Why is the armed struggle hopeless? It has been victorious in several prior movements where the odds where slim; this is part of the struggle, hence the protracted part of Protracted Peoples Wars.

Armed struggle implies minority action, and socialism can't be created by decree or by force by a minority. It can only be implemented by the majority of the people taking over the economy (taking over their workplaces, streets and estates) and reorganizing them as they see fit.
Without said process and everyday content, socialism has no meaning but empty slogans.



2) None of what you described has ever happened. Technically speaking it could happen but technically speaking I could be the king of some long lost kingdom due to my bloodline. One cannot prove it one way or the other.
It should come as no surprise when it does happen, given their track record of crimes committed against workers and peasants,especially in Peru and Colombia, and the scanty popular support they enjoy.



Revisionist currents were the ones who sided with bourgeois politics, not the revolutionary current who has reformed the struggle and is beginning to re-engage the Nepalese masses. You mistake non-revolutionary power grabs for weakness in theory. Such simply isn't so.

It should come as no surprise when the Maoist movements sell out and take the "revisionist current" either.

[ind_com]

Armed struggle implies minority action, and socialism can't be created by decree or by force by a minority. It can only be implemented by the majority of the people taking over the economy (taking over their workplaces, streets and estates) and reorganizing them as they see fit.

And how exactly is the latter supposed to happen without armed struggle?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Better to write in big, fancy, words? Would you have understood it better if he used marxist jargon?

Who is using "big fancy words"? If I used Marxist jargon it would be even harder to understand. Better to use simplified language as I have been doing. If you have a hard time understanding the words I use than you simply need a dictionary.


Yeah, obviously it was all the revisionists' fault.:rolleyes:

I hate to say it but yeah, it is. This is because unlike in some revolutionary tendencies where splits occur over the slightest provocation (see: Trotskyist) other parties remain together despite vast cultural and even political differences. This is what being a mass-party is. Because of the large and varied size revisionist (ie reformist) currents lodge themselves in the body of the revolutionary body proper and solidify themselves through bourgeois institutions. This is when the revolutionary factions break away and begin the struggle to dislodge the reformists.


The bolsheviks also did a big power grab.

Via a workers uprising, yes. And do not derail this thread.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Who is using "big fancy words"? If I used Marxist jargon it would be even harder to understand. Better to use simplified language as I have been doing. If you have a hard time understanding the words I use than you simply need a dictionary.

So now you discriminate me for being portuguese?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Armed struggle implies minority action,

No, not necessarily. Perhaps in the beginning it implies minority action but by the time the peoples war is successful it has grown from a small force to a large one encompassing, eventually, the majority.


...and socialism can't be created by decree or by force by a minority. It can only be implemented by the majority of the people taking over the economy (taking over their workplaces, streets and estates) and reorganizing them as they see fit.
Without said process and everyday content, socialism has no meaning but empty slogans.

See above.

(And you mean "Means of Production" not "economy")



It should come as no surprise when it does happen, given their track record of crimes committed against workers and peasants,especially in Peru and Colombia, and the scanty popular support they enjoy.

Mistakes were made, yes but the point of all struggle is to rectify said mistakes and push forward in the future. This is happening right now in Peru with the reformed Peoples War; they have learned from the mistakes of the past and formed tighter connections with the peasants-the killings of before are now a thing of the past.


It should come as no surprise when the Maoist movements sell out and take the "revisionist current" either.

There is no "selling out" involved, the revisionist currents take over via force and lodge themselves in the bourgeois superstructure. You talk as if there is a formal agreement between revisionist and non-revisionist. There isn't.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

So now you discriminate me for being portuguese?

Do not bring discrimination into this thread because I had no intention of doing so, either against you or anyone. I assumed English was your first language but if the case it isn't than it was not my intention to make you feel discriminated against.

However, my point still stands that if you are having a hard time reading my sentences due to my vocabulary than you need a dictionary. You can take this as a insult if you wish but I am merely pointing out facts.

[hetz]

It can only be implemented by the majority of the people taking over the economy (taking over their workplaces, streets and estates) and reorganizing them as they see fit.
Why? And how? And according to who?
Because Lenin I think did not agree on this.
What if only 49% of the people support a revolution? I know this sounds like sophistry, but then you did not give evidence for your own argument.