I know this classic text, Jones Manoel is a Brazilian Marxist-Leninist, we’re from the same country 😁

I even met Jones personally. He’s really, really tall, like 190cm+, very muscular and loves to smoke tobacco. Carries with him a tobacco pouch everywhere lol. Great guy, very fun to talk with.

Yes, always. Not just leftist spaces. Every political, social, w/e space has conflict.

vagueposting

Hahaha never heard that before. I loved it

not allowing obvious liberals to run rampant in lemmygrad is easily recognized as a political outcome focus

I don’t know what you mean by this paragraph comrade, and I have trouble following your reasoning. But I’ll comment about this. The liberal propagandists should definitely be extracted from our community, but the honest liberals should definitely be heard and honestly debated. On our part, trying as much as possible to ignore provocations and try our best to dismantle their arguments in few words. I see a few reasons why:

1. liberals have common misunderstandings which are useful to debunk. Some of us are well read (most of us aren’t), so the thinking you had when you were a conservative, liberal or “apolitical” has been lost. You cannot empathize to how liberals think now. Alas, comes a liberal, with doubts, silly mistakes, but they are prevalent in political discourse and thinking. A lurker on the website may be presented with arguments dismantling the same silly mistakes they may have. So in terms of political education this is useful;
2. we learn to deal with those who think differently. We need to learn to treat a right-winger well and learn how to defuse a tense situation IRL. Not always we manage to do this, often we manage to hurt others from our own camp, but we aspire to do it. We need to learn how to deal with Nazi provocations both online and personally, physically. We need to learn how to deal emotionally with the situation, train ourselves to not be affected by this interaction. You do this by understanding how your opponents think, and respecting as much as possible their identity. So you do not focus on their religion, their political affiliations, their moral stances on subjects, etc. These are divisive points which separates us from these politically alienated people. We cannot change a person’s identity through force or imposition, it only changes socially and historically.

We need to learn to treat a right-winger well and learn how to defuse a tense situation IRL.

A comment on this, about treating well right-wing colleagues, etc. (unless they are awful people of course, besides their shitty foolish worldview). Of course a Nazi provocateur should be harassed or physically assaulted until they stop their provocation, because it is ethical to do so. It is ethical to repress genocidal ideologies because you’re saving lives by punishing some. But notice a liberal surely would equate us with genociders! They are indoctrinated by bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology needs to accuse communists of what they do so that they feel at least “equal” in comparison, and thus, shielded from criticism. At least you’re doing genocide for a just cause! Not the communists, they genocide for evil!

Bourgeois ideology is hegemonic. You should already expect people to be right-wing. You need to learn to accept this fact so that you’re able to be friendly with right-wingers and not be affected by their provocations. Because you understand their worldview is not their fault, they are too distracted to realize the facts, and we need to reach them somehow. How would you achieve this person to eventually learn the facts if you’re provoking the person, teasing them, insulting them, questioning their sanity, their ability to think, mocking them, etc. Practice shows us that these behaviors tend to alienate these people even further, and even worse, alienate yourself from others.

Left-wingers tend to be more critical of certain expressions of authority, whereas sometimes this in excess can be destructive.

Side note on this.

Many leaders and progressive thinkers were awful in their personal lives, especially with relatives or spouses, like comrade Stalin, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, etc. This is because humans make grave mistakes all the time, irrespective of how correct they are. Except Lenin, perhaps, he was both an impeccable human being and very often correct. Look at your own lives, have you not hurt someone? Were you never selfish, arrogant, insensible? People make those mistakes all the time, to a greater or lesser extent. Why should our leaderships be different? Should we disregard historical figures in the past because of their personal mistakes? Should we disregard current leaderships for that?

I think this is a case by case thing, but sometimes we simply cannot afford to be too much critical. Think of an actual communist, politically isolated, representing a small city in the bourgeois state, or something. If the opposition found out bad stuff about that guy’s past, of course the bourgeois media would create a campaign to hunt them down. In such cases should we join the hunt? This is the challenge of having the correct historical understanding of your time and place, so these choices become clearer. Over the time you start acting based on the political outcome, instead of an abstract moral value which you do not adopt yourself in your life. Then you criticize any mistake in private if possible, outside the eyes of the opposition.

One could argue that being gay in the West specifically is curiously associated with a particular identity, which includes music tastes and style of clothing, manner of speaking… Gay people in Brazil has very similar tastes as gay people in US, like adoring “pop divas” like Beyoncé, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, etc.

But I’m not arguing that, I just noticed that it resembles a gender identity on itself, even if in principle is just a sexual orientation.

probably because they restored it

Excellent, I share similar views, comrade. The fact that very easily religion “suddenly” became a phenomenon on post-Soviet countries is a testament that even with constant materialist anti-religion propaganda, you’ll just give people reason to be bitter with your regime, even if you give them all they need. Because religion is a matter of identity, something fostered through generations of family lineage, and in summary acquired socially. We can’t change this through intervention, we can only help the political struggle against bourgeois ideology and exploitation in religion

Any religion is welcome. We cannot fight against religion, practice has showed us this. Religion is by definition under the influence of bourgeois control, it follows that there should be a political struggle in the religious camp as well. Liberation theology is one example of that. So if we accept people from different religious origins and beliefs in our party, it’s an opportunity in following the party line on religious places of action, such as churches, mosques, sanctuaries, etc. Churches are already a place where people share an identity, it can perfectly become a place of political organization. This is well exploited by the extreme right-wing in Brazil, for instance.

This is just formalism, it doesn’t matter what you name it, but what you do in practice. This discussion has contributed nothing to it.

Look, I tried to explain it quite often, with no bad intention at all.

So did I, comrade, but I’ve only received insistence, not counter-arguments on your part. Let’s review the conversation.

You said:

I personally only use “Marxist” and this is how I describe myself. Marxist-Leninist is not valid term in my opinion, because Lenin is the continuation of Marx

Many people all over the topic highlighted the importance of Lenin and how it’s not only a “continuation” of Marx, but a massive improvement of his works, and the first time Marx’s theories were put into practice. You seem to only focus on what people responded to you, and seem to be uninterested in the rest of the thread, so you replied,

As I said ML is not a valid term in my opinion and historically it was used after the establishing and banning of the “left opposition”, especially by Stalin.

Simply reiterating your position. Which, by the way, is FALSE, because Stalin did not coin or invent the term “Marxism-Leninism”, throughout the left opposition struggles, Stalin mostly used the term “Leninism”. The earliest instance of “Marxism-Leninism” I could find in a written work was in 1929, after the struggle against the so-called “left” opposition was already won. By that time, some Latin American parties such as the Communist Party of Peru, had already adopted Marxism-Leninism:

El capitalismo se encuentra en su estadio imperialista. Es el capitalismo de los monopolios, del capital financiero, de las guerras imperialistas por el acaparamiento de los mercados y de las fuentes de materias brutas. La praxis del socialismo marxista en este período es la del marxismo-leninismo. El marxismo-leninismo es el método revolucionario de la etapa del imperialismó, y de los monopoilos. El Partido socialista del Perú lo adopta como método de lucha.

Capitalism is in its imperialist stage. It is the capitalism of monopolies, of finance capital, of imperialist wars for the monopolization of markets and sources of raw materials. The praxis of Marxist socialism in this period is that of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the revolutionary method of the stage of imperialism, and of monopolies. The Socialist Party of Peru adopts it as its method of struggle.

Notice it was published in 1929, but it was written in October 1928 by Mariátegui, before the earliest recorded usage of “Marxism-Leninism” by Stalin, which as far as I’ve researched, is from December 1928 in a speech The Right Danger in the German Communist Party. It’s possible other Soviet party members apart from Stalin used “Marxism-Leninism” before him. What’s important is that the term developed independently from the Soviet sphere and from Stalin itself, so stop associating the term “Marxism-Leninism” with Stalin, because Stalin mostly used the term Leninism until the late 1930’s.

Let’s proceed with your replies. I explained the importance of preserving the name of Lenin in the political orientation of a party or person, and I said that to claim the term “Marxism-Leninism” is invalid is just ignorance. You only repeated yourself and insisted:

I already explained often enough, that ML is still not a valid term for me, it doesnt even stop by Lenin and goes beyond the developments that occurred after his death.

Later, I argued,

What you call yourself is irrelevant, but to claim the term is invalid is just an spectacle of ignorance.

Does Marxism stop at Marx?

And then you ignored that and proceeded to focus on my tone, calling me mocking and sarcastic. Let’s review the tone you used beforehand:

Do I? Where? By saying that I would call myself Marxist and not add more things because to it or just by talking about “Marxism” and not “Marxisim-Leninism” in general? That’s stupid.

Well, I don’t want to be rude, but where the fuck did I want remove especially Lenin in his importance?

Instead of deflecting and crying about your tone, I proceeded to respond to you. I would expect you to do the same. So please proceed from where you left of.

You claimed “Marxism-Leninism” is not valid because it implies it “stops at Lenin”, and I questioned, “Does Marxism stop at Marx?”. Now please, go on, I’ve responded to all your arguments, I did not mock or was sarcastic to you, and I’m giving you all the liberty to respond. And once again, it’s not about what you call yourself, it’s about your claim that the term is invalid.

I said myself you’d be muted if you continued, but I take that back. If you want to continue insisting on your flawed reasoning, go ahead.

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

The ProleWiki article provides an overall summary, but the article is mostly biographical and unfortunately unfinished. The famous Stalin work, Foundations of Lenininsm provides an outline of Lenin’s contributions to Marxism in general

Hopefully it’s not an exclusive contract with these creators 🙏

I will ignore everything we’ve discussed so far and consider you are indeed acting in good faith.

I’m sorry that I mocked you and acted dismissively. At first, I answered your thread without this tone, check my first response to your topic. But after I saw many others arguing similarly, while you and a few others were insisting on it with the same arguments over and over, I completely lost my respect for those who were arguing this.

It reminded of the struggles I had within my previous party, where the leadership there were arguing similar things, that we should abandon the term “Marxism-Leninism” altogether. It got personal, and I could no longer maintain a respectful and professional tone, and I apologize for that.

That being said, please answer this, and I promise I won’t disturb you any longer:

What’s your point? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion? Why do you care so much about this? What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you?

I don’t understand why such an innocent question can generate so much hostility, we’re all here to share and to learn.

Because OP and a few others have been repeating the same arguments over and over in this thread after many people argued a similar thing than I did. And also because it’s a trend to try and dismiss the importance of “Marxism-Leninism” as a theoretical framework all over the world. It happened with Soviet and post-Soviet revisionists, and it happened recently in Brazil, where revisionists and toxic abusers of PCB were forcing people to dissociate from “Marxism-Leninism”, adopting instead “Marxism and Leninism” in their documents. They are snakes like that.

I don’t think OP is this kind of people. I think they are confused, but they insist on their confusion, and they push their confusion onto others. Then they repeat the same things over and over after several people have responded to them, and they continue to insist on it. I asked what’s their point, what they are trying to accomplish, and they completely ignored it. I’m this close to consider they are in fact not confused, but they are dishonest, and they are not “here to share and to learn”.

What? You literally want someone to dismiss being disrespected and being mocked on, and just concentrate on the rest that you say?

How do you want me to treat you when you are repeating the same arguments over and over, after I’ve constantly responded to them? I took patience and time to answer each one of them.

Why don’t you then don’t say it in the first place? If you want to have a constructive conversation with someone why are you disrespectful and then complain that the other person is calling you out for being disrespectful?

There’s nothing constructive about your arguments so far.

Your lack of accountability and your victim blaming is so unreal. You cannot take any criticism at all. Your attitude is just so entitled and patronizing that is just scary. Your attitude is just un-Marxist, honestly. You are literally un-fit to be an admin.

Oh, now you’re a victim? 😒 And I’m unfit to be an admin based on this single interaction with you? But I’m entitled, right. You are the one fit to be admin. Seriously, I can’t tell if you’re trolling at this point.

I literally argued instead of simply dismissing you and you call that patronizing? Since you rather focus on my tone than my arguments, I can only conclude that you are not in fact arguing in good faith, only pretending to do so. Then using this as a shield to dismiss everything I’ve said because I adopt a different form of conversation in this silly discussion.

The fact that I took time to write to you and respond to your arguments is already a sign of respect, which you chose to ignore in your response. We are communists, we are used to be confronted and to confront, to be criticized and to criticize. If that’s too much for you, I’m so sorry, but you need to get out of your bubble and learn to stand for what you believe instead of acting like a coward.

I took you seriously, and responded to your arguments, didn’t I? But you chose to focus on something outside of the argument.

Are users obliged to pay to watch?

Mocking someone and laughing at them is such an unbecoming and unprofessional behavior for a Marxist admin. You should really change your attitude and treat others with respect.

I do. I’m usually the one who insists on doing so. I took an exception in this thread and discussion because the arguments of those who say it’s “redundant” are very flawed, yet they are repeating themselves every time. The same way you’re insisting on your position, I’m insisting on giving the “redundants” this treatment.

If all Leninists are Marxists then it is redundant. Since Lenin was a Marxist who built on top of Marxism then Leninism is Marxist. Just saying Leninist shall suffice.

Marxism has different branches to it, yes, but hyphenating a term that already includes Marxism makes the first word redundant. It is like saying that there are modes of transportation. A car is already a mode of transportation, but instead of saying “car” to refer to the mode of transportation that is a car, people just say “mode of transportation-car” every time.

That example was extraordinarily silly lol. What’s your point? Do you want to convince us not to call ourselves Marxists? Or do you not want to call ourselves Leninists, only Marxists? Vice-versa? What’s your point? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion? Why do you care so much about this? What difference does it make what you call yourself, why do you want us to agree with you? You wouldn’t be insisting on this scholastic and irrelevant “issue” if you didn’t have a purpose. So if you want to be taken seriously, please be clear on what you’re trying to accomplish, because I can only see someone in confusion and trying to confuse others in the process.

To call oneself a Leninist, while a historical term, Marxist-Leninist, already exists, seems like trying to diminish Marx. To call oneself a Marxist claiming “Leninism” is a redundancy seems like trying to diminish Lenin. The term, Marxism-Leninism, a historical term, already exists, and based on that, many revolutionary theories were developed. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

Both Marx (and Engels by extension) and Lenin were extraordinarily important in developing a revolutionary worldview. It’s important to preserve their names as they are both an unavoidable source of knowledge. Removing one or the other completely scars both. Just so you see how this is important, there are a lot of Marxists who ignore Engels’ contribution, I’d say simply because Marx is more known than Engels, and thus, more prone to be read. The fact that our science is called “Marxism” undoubtedly has contributed to this. So preserving Marxism-Leninism is important to not diminish the contributions of one or the other.

Notice how there are people who call themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Don’t they attach to Mao a greater importance than most Marxists-Leninists? Again, it’s not a coincidence, it’s a reaffirmation of a position, like I mentioned, and also a reaffirmation of the theoretical body of work responsible for that position.

there are non-Leninists Marxists

therefore, saying “Marxist-Leninist” seems redundant.

If there are non-Leninist Marxists, then Marxism-Leninism is not a redundancy, it’s reaffirmation of a position. Isn’t that clear?

Also can you please not laugh at what I say? That is just patronizing and rude. This is supposed to be a place of respect, and I in no way have disrespected you or infantalized you by mocking what you say, thanks.

Sorry, but your argument is so silly that I simply cannot take it seriously. I have respect for you as a person, but I have no respect for the arguments you’re giving so far.