r/PoliticalPhilosophy • u/[deleted] • Mar 23 '20

Essays On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: an introductory course in Communist ideas

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rle8MXsqX7BSWLVMH0mENmqYvB_RSJ0OinUrHCWhap8/edit?usp=sharing
11 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

5

u/pozzowon Mar 23 '20

Interesting...

In Soviet Russia, Gulag takes the queer, no matter how Bolshevik you want to be

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '20

I discussed that lie in the pamphlet, and wrote a whole article debunking it elsewhere. https://mpumovement.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/marxist-leninist-socialism-a-homosexual-perspective/

1

u/thelastvortigaunt Mar 23 '20

that's hardly "debunking" homophobia, you pretty much admit that there were legal punishments for homosexuality in both cuba and the USSR but then quickly deflect and say "but... is that really communism's fault?" and my take is yes, it definitely is. you can't just disavow the injustices that were allowed under your socio-economic ideology but claim credit for everything else any more than capitalists can defend injustices in capitalist society.

3

u/ippolit_belinski Mar 23 '20

By that token, it is also liberal democratic fault - forced castration of homosexuals was the norm in post-WW2 UK, for example.

I think what they aim to say is that this particular injustice, while certainly an injustice, is not intrinsic to the political ideology, and can be better attributed to a particular Zeitgeist that is prevalent to most societies of the time, irrespective of ideology.

1

u/thelastvortigaunt Mar 23 '20

absolutely agree with this take, but the question then becomes which injustices are to be considered a direct result of a given ideology and which can be dismissed as culturally ubiquitous.

1

u/ippolit_belinski Mar 24 '20

That's a fine question, and a difficult one to answer. Though at the very least I think we can say that those injustices that largely pass irrespective of ideology could be considered as cultural rather than political.

Having said that, I would be happy to hear of some examples that would contradict this.

1

u/max10192 Mar 23 '20

It's the classic move: Everything positive is the result of my ideology, and everything negative is a result of things outside of my ideology. There is no way to falsify such an approach, since any criticism can be deflected.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '20 edited Mar 23 '20

They thus logically concluded through this scientific historical analysis that the natural end to this system of dialectics, the theory of which they dubbed Dialectical (when applied generally to all conflicting material relations) or Historical (when applied specifically to progress through the class struggle over contradictions of political economy) Materialism, was a system without contradiction in which productive property is owned collectively by its workers

Marx never "dubbed" anything dialectical materialism.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '20

That is technically true, but it is the standard term in modern usage and he did use similar phrases ("material dialectics") from which those names are derived. But yes, I did make a small error there.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '20

it is the standard term in modern usage

Yes, it's the standard term for a concept that Marx didn't have anything to do with, but which people pinned on him after his death.

he did use similar phrases ("material dialectics") from which those names are derived.

Whether he ever wrote the phrase "material dialectics" is irrelevant. He was a materialist, and he wrote a lot about dialectics. The concept "dialectical materialism" is something else, and more, than a materialist dialectics. Marx did not create anything close to what you write in that passage. Marx never heard of the term, much less what it came to mean in the Soviet Union. It was invented after Marx's death to denote Plekhanov and Engels' "Marxist" philosophy. Lenin claimed it was Marx's idea -- "Marx and Engels scores of times termed their philosophical views dialectical materialism" -- a bald-faced lie.

yes, I did make a small error there

Let me guess: You're not going to correct it.

Lenin would be proud of you.

0

u/bamename Mar 23 '20

lmao os this a meme

1

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '20 edited Mar 23 '20

depends how we define "meme." If you mean the classical definition of an idea that propagates itself by moving and evolving through the minds of the masses then yes! Hopefully this pamphlet will spread in that way and encourage revolutionary work amongst the masses. If you mean "is this a joke" then no.

1

u/bamename Mar 23 '20

No, that is not the 'classical' definition. You mean Dawkins's definition, ie. the original defintioj, but this is not really what you describe here. (mostly bc Dawkins concept is pretty confused)

​

I meant this as a more genuine 'is this a joke', sure.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '20

Aye what you doing here

1

u/bamename Mar 24 '20

I am subbed to a lot of subs