inactive for 2mo
Bad twitter Maoist posts are like the bat signal for our resident Gonzalo bit poster
Yes. I fucking hate ultras. Any Gonzalite is not a Maoist, they are a petulant child roleplaying as a revolutionary.
And they are almost always white western chauvinists.
:le-pol-face: "MZT is dengism and I know Mao better than those nefarious chinese"
fucking insufferable.
How the fuck does anyone become a Gonzalite
like that is some pretty out there shit to begin with even among a very niche ideology in the West™ but like they all have a weird cult around him which is like :thinking-about-it:
Pretty sure that all IRL Gonazloites (in the US) are feds or the dupes of feds. Dunno for purely internet ones.
here in brazil they're actually real
i mean, not numerous (thank god), but real, and part of actual peasant movements
Charitably, you could be an unironic Prachanda Pathist since a synthesis of some of Gonzalo Thought has seen success in Nepal. Otherwise you have to be so, so online or it's your first org and you didn't know better.
it's like the leftist equivalent of some kid in Alabama calling themselves an Integralista or an Iron Guard
just turbo nerd shit
like bruh you don't even speak Spanish lmao
Honestly, even our boy :cmnd-marcos-pog: would be a better choice since he started out Standard Maoist and was forced to adapt hard because unlike Gonzalo he actually took the Mass Line seriously.
But the whole thing about the heads of Marxism-Leninism is about ideological contribution to the theory.
You're correct. Stalin didn't want to include himself on the banner of the Heads of Marxism-Leninism, because he himself didn't regard his work as ideological furtherments in the development of the ideology. To put it simply, he never viewed himself as an "inheritor of the mantle of Lenin" but simply as a student of Lenin.
It's mainly because the PCP were the ones that established the term Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The heads are supposed to represent a continuous through-line of ideological development of the distinct stages of revolutionary theory. It's kinda silly, but that's how we're doing things with philosophy I guess
I just think the heads are funny because they scare conservatives. I'm not a Maoist but I keep a wall scroll of Mao in my entryway just in case my landlord ever stops by.
they are not Maoists. They are ultras roleplaying as revolutionaries.
Anyone that unironically thinks gonzalo was a communist needs to actually read his shitty ramblings
And then face the wallYou know, I might have been besties with police informants, but at least I never put a toddler in a crockpot.
Some of my best drinking buddies may live around Langley, but at least I don't throw the babies in the bathwater :sicko-instapot:
Who tf is Gonzalo and the shining path? I keep seeing references to him but outside of the names I know nothing
Gonzalo was the leader of the Communist Party of Peru until the 90s when he got nabbed by the state. The party (PCP) was referred to as Sendero Luminoso because it was part of their slogan, something like "communism is the shining path to freedom" IIRC, and then after Gonzalo was captured the party had a shakeup that resulted in the offshoot PCP-SL (Sendero Luminoso).
Aside from the memeing about him eating babies or whatever he was a Marxist professor that made theoretical contributions to the development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, a purported newer evolution in the continuity of Marxism-Leninism.
Guy who got paid by the CIA to murder actual Maoists / communists. Boiled babies alive. Pol Pot of LATAM with a slightly better marketing budget.
yes lets believe bourgiosie propaganda against the Shining Path. You do realize that the same accusations against him is the same ones levied at Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc? The mere mention of Gonzalo causes terror in revisionist and opportunists who simply cannot imagine what revolution looks like in the era of neoliberalism
Uh huh and next you'll say Pol pot was a very misunderstood fella
Look at the life expectancy over time for any communist country like Cuba, Russia, China, etc. and you'll see that despite the capitalist propaganda, life expectancy improved dramatically once the communists took power.
The Khmer Rouge, not so much.
What are you talking about, they increased the life expectancy to 18 years old :my-hero:
Nobody actually cares about Pol Pot, the suffering that Cambodians have to undergo for complete submission to the US Dollar and being stuck in perpetual poverty is far worse than anything the short-lived Khmer Rouge did which at least attempt to break that cycle not afforded to other imperialized countries.
pol pot was supported by the CIA, this outcome was a feature, not a bug.
Idk I'm willing to defend Gonzalo and mlms a little but I'm pretty sure pol pot was not it. I'm not clouded by bougie judgment I just haven't ever seen any evidence that the Khmer Rouge wasn't absolutely dog shit.
What if I do think that Khmer Rouge is not understood well by Communists and Communists can not historicize it so we let bourgeoise research cloud our judgement? This is the opportunism that lurks behind anti-gonzaloism as its completely giving up any type of truth and we just let reactionary discourses run amok since they were failures. Nobody actually cares about Pol Pot, the suffering that Cambodians have to undergo for complete submission to the US Dollar and being stuck in perpetual poverty is far worse than anything the short-lived Khmer Rouge did which at least attempt to break that cycle not afforded to other imperialized countries.
That’s a lot of words to defend a murderer who bastardized socialism and was funded by the CIA.
Gonzalo's own writing makes the dude sound like a quack. He keep talking about a "death quota" that must be obtained for socialism to be achieved, not like saying "violence is necessary for revolution" but literally "there is a specific number of people we're going to have to fucking kill to achieve revolution", and that number was always around like a third of Peru's population. Plus they engaged in a lot of random terror bombings in Lima that needlessly caused civilian collateral damages. Even if they were actual communists they conducted themselves in a totally ineffective and adventurous manner.
Show me where Gonzalo writes that. The reason why they committed acts of violence is because they thought it would benefit the revolution. Plus why are we retreating back to liberal terms? How does one mention death of "citizens", were they ronderos who were a reactionary force in the peasantry? The truth is that despite all these liberal accusations of Gonzalo, they were still massively popular among the peasantry and had to be put down by full force of the US and the fascist Fujimori regime. Ill leave with a Mao quote
" Revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. [4] A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
Really, were just repeating the Soviet accusations against Mao, they too thought that Mao was being a left adventurist in his revolution and even Hoxha thought he was Petty-Bourgiosie. It seems like we are repeating the Wang Ming vs Mao Zedong debates all over again
Show me where Gonzalo writes that. The reason why they committed acts of violence is because they thought it would benefit the revolution.
Then Gonzalo was a fucking idiot at best and (more likely) a goddamn CIA asset at worst. “Acts of violence” is putting it fucking mildly and is a disgusting attempt at papering over the atrocities of the shining path and the damage it did to the Peruvian Socialist movement.
" Revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. [4] A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
Keep his words out of your mouth. Villages of farmers, indigenous people, LGBTQIA+ people, actual Marxist-Leninists, and children were not “another class”.
Please stop, you sound like a conservative. "Won't somebody think of the children??!!?!?!?" Why dont you actually read who you're named after. I dont think you realize the reactionary nature of the ronderos and their class basis.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901122&slug=1105487 This books claims that the CPC killed 150,000 innocent civilians. Should we denounce Mao? Or hell even Stalin who supposedly starved the Ukranians. Or the Kim Il Sung for starting the Korean war leaving millions dead and splintered off a country
damage it did to the Peruvian Socialist movement
I would like to see you do a comparative analysis on the revolutions done by the Shining Path and by the MRTA. Why were the peasants much more receptive to the Shining Path than the MRTA and why did the former get so much more popular than its counterpart? What made the Shining Path succeed instead? It seems your assertion is the opposite of truth.
The mere mention of Gonzalo causes terror in revisionist and opportunists who simply cannot imagine what revolution looks like in the era of neoliberalism
Fascinating, the brainworms on this creature… You cannot murder the proletariat to build class consciousness, liberal.
well they are infantile, in the sense that most of them are literal children
In Maoism you occasionally see it used in the sense of an anti-dengist who thinks the CR didn't go far enough.
fought long and hard against a head on attack from imperialists
uhhhh the north invaded the south. yeah what america did was obviously bad but they didn't make north korea invade the south
The history is a bit more complicated then that. Korea was occupied by Japan for like 20 years and then arbitrarily divided after WW2.
There were people committees formed in the aftermath that were largely anti-collabrator, pro-peasant/worker and wanted land reform.
The American and Soviet occupations both tried to deal with them and while I don’t know if the Soviet’s handling of it was perfect they did make some attempts to integrate them while the Americans and the south outlawed them.What happened in Korea was and is much closer to a civil war than an invasion of a foreign force, especially in 1950.
ok thanks for providing a source. im a bit iffy learning history from randos on the internet though.
so i have been told that the tweet is garbage.
It's garbage; the source is a self published book by someone who describes themselves as an "independent economist". Rhee Syngman had ambitions of conquering the North and reuniting Korea, but they were no more than dreams and the ROK Army wasn't remotely prepared for offensive action in 1950.
a further explanation provided by another person if you want it:
There are several basic errors contained within the tweet thread (and in the screenshots), but the biggest tell is that the source claims the mobilization of only six of fifteen divisions by North Korea in their initial offensive is proof that North Korea could not have started the war. This is, of course, nonsense and the much more likely explanation is that mobilization is difficult particularly with underdeveloped infrastructure. Hardly any country ever met the full mobilization tables on time. There's also some intentional misrepresentation of quotes: Gunther quotes Syngman Rhee stating "We started the fight in the first place in the hope that Communism would be destroyed" as proof that South Korea started the fight. This is again absurd, this quote is pretty obviously saber-rattling and rhetorical flourish and not some indication that Rhee literally started the fight. Similar quotes can be found by leaders of nations at war in WWI and WWII that very obviously did not start the war in question. Finally, they cite UN assessments that North Korea couldn't have launched an offensive in 1950 as proof. This again is absurd. The UN and its predecessor The League of Nations had repeatedly failed intelligence estimates of force and still regularly fail to anticipate conflicts!
The overall sense is that this is someone who started with a thesis (and, unsurprisingly, the thesis seems to be USA bad, enemies of USA always good and blameless) and subsequently found sources that could be interpreted to agree with the thesis, rather than looking comprehensively at the evidence and making a thesis from that.
fighting off an imperialist military force on occupied land is invading?
SK started the fighting and through massacres (even commited like 80% of them during the war) and even if they didnt NK was absolutely justified in trying to liberate half of their country
Check out the top banner for the SUCI(M) website. You’d love it. They do be kinda based tho.
