My personal revolutionary theory

[ashtonh]

Hello today I wpuld like to put forward a theory. Marxism-leninism-maoist-guevarism. It follows the proletariet class-less revolution whil arguing for the need of a party to found the revolution then establish the economy before moving on to a law drawing group that is not full time career but a passion where the people vote on the laws drawn by the party. Also I advocate the use of rural guerilla warfare and "peasants" as a force in revolution while following guevaras dislike of stalinism. Any ways to improve this theory or anyone who likes it?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Well I think the role of Engels, Stalin and others are not properly represented. A counter proposal...

Marxism-Engelism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism-Ho Chi Minhism-Guevarism-Castroism

Amongst other things, it's just far more catchy.

[ashtonh]

Sorry I did mean engels as well I amguilty of lumping him and Marx together now I can agree to add castro but may I ask why Ho chi minh :confused:

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Sorry I did mean engels as well I amguilty of lumping him and Marx together now I can agree to add castro but may I ask why Ho chi minh :confused:

I was just trying to make the thing longer.

I'm fairly certain that Marxism-Leninism-Guevarism is an ideology that at the very least heavily implies Maoism; I think it's also a tendency/group here, you should find it and ask. I'm sorry for being an arse and for not being more helpful, Maoism et all isn't really my strong suit.

[ashtonh]

Well I just started one based on this theory i just posted dissolving the parties power but allowing partybmembers to draw the laws but being voted on by the people.

[Prometeo liberado]

Explain to me why I'm crying now?

[consuming negativity]

Why can't you just say "I'm a Maoist who likes Che Guevara" or something? Does everything have to be its own separate theory?

Nevermind, this is the left. Of course it does. :glare:

[#FF0000]

Isn't that basically what "focoism" is?

Either way I think it's a little premature for you to be drawing up your own "revolutionary theories" :P

[ashtonh]

Reason being a seperate theory is because of the use of ideas in a theory while not dping everything the theorist did. Would you make a cultural rebolution, probably not. Would you work to use opprrssed peasants to guide the industrialization. Yes. That is my goal to form a theory that folllws ideas of many revolutionaries adding on to each other while using a distinct return to democracy after some time.

[ashtonh]

And I respect that you find it premature but alas I thought of it in the shower:laugh: lol best ideas come fron there. :grin:

[#FF0000]

Reason being a seperate theory is because of the use of ideas in a theory while not dping everything the theorist did. Would you make a cultural rebolution, probably not. Would you work to use opprrssed peasants to guide the industrialization. Yes. That is my goal to form a theory that folllws ideas of many revolutionaries adding on to each other while using a distinct return to democracy after some time.



Where do you see this taking place?

[synthesis]

This should probably be in the Learning section, no offense to ashtonh.

[Brutus]

In will only follow #FF0000ism.

[Q]

This should probably be in the Learning section, no offense to ashtonh.
I completely agree. Despite the title. this is a little lightweighted to be here.

Moved from /theory to /learning.

[khad]

Why is this in the learning section? What could anyone possibly learn from this thread?

[Nakidana]

I thought of it in the shower:laugh:

You're going to need one heck of dramatic buildup when writing your autobiography, that's for sure.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why is this in the learning section? What could anyone possibly learn from this thread?

"Don't do drugs, kids."

But that's a terrible lesson to learn so meh.

In any case, Maoism and Guevarism are pretty much incompatible, even if you allow that anything called Guevarism exists. Sure, both Mao and Che wrote on guerrilla warfare, but (1) they had different conceptions of guerrilla warfare (a "foco" versus a full-scale war in order to establish a New Democracy), (2) their economic theories are blatantly incompatible (Che's emphasis on moral incentives, the emphasis of Maoists on immediate communisation etc.), (3) their analysis of the Soviet Union was also quite different (Che thought it was socialist, Mao capitalist).

[ashtonh]

O well great points all of you

[synthesis]

Why is this in the learning section?

I was just worried that someone might rip the OP to shreds, and I figured it might be better if it was in a place where people wouldn't be dicks about it.


What could anyone possibly learn from this thread?

Mostly, I figured it would be a learning opportunity for the OP.

[ashtonh]

Thanx lol dickism is very widespread partly because the leftist ideals are so varied. The reason I left right wing idealologies is because of hatred,oppressiom,and bigotry.

[Comrade Jacob]

Wasn't Che a fan of Stalin though?

[Christian Insurrectionist]

Hello today I wpuld like to put forward a theory. Marxism-leninism-maoist-guevarism. It follows the proletariet class-less revolution whil arguing for the need of a party to found the revolution then establish the economy before moving on to a law drawing group that is not full time career but a passion where the people vote on the laws drawn by the party. Also I advocate the use of rural guerilla warfare and "peasants" as a force in revolution while following guevaras dislike of stalinism. Any ways to improve this theory or anyone who likes it?

How about...

I don't know if this would work. Heck, as mentioned already Mao and Che had different views on the revolution, the USSR, and what guerrilla warfare should look like. A better option, if you find value in the theories of Che or Mao is to simply take what you like and disregard the rest. There's no need to reinvent the wheel if you don't have to.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can think of a number of countries where the theories of a dead Cuban revolutionary would be applicable...oh no wait I can't.

OP, you need to think about framing your own theories and worldview around current societal conditions. Do you really think, for example, that large swathes of the western, developed world, such as Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, are well-suited to rural, peasant-based guerilla warfare? Do you really think that, given what we've seen in the Arab Spring, that countries like Egypt, Syria, Libya etc. would do well out of guerilla warfare?

There is no unified theory of revolution, partly because we don't have much contemporary experience of a situation in which a post-capitalist society has become a genuine possibility, and partly because there are many things that cannot be pigeon-holed, such as differences in geo-politics, culture, societies, traditions and norms etc.

Any revolutionary theory, OP, should combine your own real-world experiences, what you can evidence from theory, and also take into account social-cultural conditions. This last point means that revolutionary strategy in London would be wildly different from revolutionary strategy in Budapest, or the deep South of the USA, or Quebec. You get me?

[ashtonh]

Yes I do get you.