Forgive me if this is a silly question, but if there is one thing I have learned over the years is how important marketing is. This even includes politics as well, and the right weaponizes this to a scarily efficient degree. Politics becomes more than politics, but a form fashion itself. Think of how much of a selling point of "be one of us and you'll be cool and you'll get laid." CHUDs use.

So that leaves the question, what should we organize our optics around. What is the impression we want to leave on others?

Personally, I kind of like the Soviet aesthetic: Extremely cultured (as befitting of a largely internationalist ideology), hyper-rational, future-minded, egalitarian, hard working people. It implies that despite all the snobbery of fascists; they are the true decadents. Leftists are optimistic about the future, and know that no race or gender is superior to the other because that is simply common sense. Cuban aesthetic is nice too because of how fun and inviting the country looks too. Say what you will about cars, but there is a lovely aesthetic with the classic cars of Cuba. Also, Havana has nice paint jobs on buildings and the cars alike. (Please Hexbear create a Havana theme), especially in a world where corporations are embracing minimalism en masse, and shit like 4chan is around telling the world "conform to inoffensive conservatism or else". It's nice to see some color happily shown. If there was a way to combine the two, I would nut.

  • The_Dawn [fae/faer, des/pair]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I feel like it had a much bigger claim to being a science when the USSR and Maoist China were co-existing, and North Korea was trying to follow a Leninist line. But as projects have diverged from ML(M) thought, dissolved, and ultimately failed at their stated goal, these theories have lost a lot of their claim to replicability. I feel like a lot of the claims to Marxism as a Science are riding off the coattails of Marx's cutting economic analysis, which was very scientific. All this means is that Marxism Leninism (Maoism) is an ideology and not a science, which is not a bad thing to be, unless you ask a lot of Marxists.

    Like IDK, I don't really know how you can read the beginning of things like foundation of Leninism (specifically the parts pontificating about we've made breakthroughs in The Science and this is a Big Deal and provides the Objective Blueprint for revolution and such) and come across as anything other than "okay dude" rather than ":so-true:" if you aren't already a little lost in the sauce. There's probably better words that come off less culty like "practiced," "tried and tested," "refined," "established"

    Such were the conditions under which the method of Leninism was born and hammered out.

    What are the requirements of this method?

    Firstly, the testing of the theoretical dogmas of the Second Interna- tional in the crucible of the revolutionary struggle of the masses, in the crucible of living practice—that is to say, the restoration of the broken unity between theory and practice, the healing of the rift between them; for only in this way can a truly proletarian party armed with revolutionary theory be created.

    Secondly, the testing of the policy of the parties of the Second Inter- national, not by their slogans and resolutions (which cannot be trusted), but by their deeds, by their actions; for only in this way can the confidence of the proletarian masses be won and deserved.

    Thirdly, the reorganisation of all Party work on new revolutionary lines, with a view to training and preparing the masses for the revolu- tionary struggle; for only in this way can the masses be prepared for the proletarian revolution.

    Fourthly, self-criticism within the proletarian parties, their education and training on the basis of their own mistakes; for only in this way can genuine cadres and genuine leaders of the Party be trained. Such is the basis and substance of the method of Leninism.

    How was this method applied in practice?

    The opportunists of the Second International have a number of the- oretical dogmas to which they always revert as their starting point. Let us take a few of these

    IDK why it's counter-revolutionary or whatever to refer to these passages as ideology and not science

    • Awoo [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I'm not saying it's counter-revolutionary. I'm just saying it's odd to dismiss marxism as being a science on the basis of having criticism about some parts of it being ideological. Merging materialism and ideology is always going to be messy an un-exact, humans and society is going to be messy and un-exact... At least until you get to a stage where you can drill down into excruciating detail about the material sources of various aspects. That is impossible under capitalism though. The first order of business is achieving revolution. The second order of business is then the fundamental sciences of changing society.

      I assume since you refer only to Mao's China and not to modern China you do not consider them to be marxists? I'm a little confused by your use of "Maoist" here as Mao was never a Maoist and China was never Maoist, Mao was a Marxist-Leninist. Maoism comes from Shining Path.