I'm a boring plain jane marxist, not an ML. I started out as an anarchist though when I was a kid. My reasoning for being a Marxist and not an anarchist or an ML is the following:
Anarchism (which is essentially late stage socialism) is ultimately the end goal of Marxism of any kind
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism as forms of struggle seem to be most successful in war torn regions and areas outside the Imperial Core.
Even France had a sizeable Communist Party at one point, due to the Nazi occupation, reaching 40% of the population's support. However, due to its position in the Imperial Core, this Communist Party did not achieve anything noteworthy. A similar tale happened in Weimar Germany, however they faced the blackest reaction to date.
The lack of success of Communist Parties in the Imperial Core means we are either going about the process wrong, or we simply cannot achieve anything due to the material conditions of the majority of the population. This means we need to change our approach or wait.
The successes of anarchists within the imperial core are even more fraught, mostly amounting to supply line delays or assassinations.
Orthodox Marxist-Leninist states have an issue of developing technology fast enough, mostly due to a lack of cooperation from capitalist countries and being forced to develop things in parallel with no technological advantage. This forces those countries into reformism or stagnation. With the lack of success in the Imperial Core and the current ML states being forced into a period of reformism, we are not currently capable of knowing if our current tech is capable of forcing socialism just yet. Even if conditions within the Imperial Core are not enough to create long term, dedicated socialist movements spontaneously, how do we expect countries like China to hold non-reformist Marxist-Leninist views? They need to find a way to exist in the interim, and the only way that is going to happen is if they develop their countries in the fastest way possible while holding on to an anti-imperialist, but not necessarily a hardline socialist, stance.
Given this, I can see any anarchist society having these issues, but perhaps even more internal struggles due to capitalist encirclement. Again, this is more an issue of technology and conditions, not ideology. We just haven't seen the conditions yet for an anarchist society to thrive.
Ultimately, your ideology doesnt matter at all, in the future some sort of calamity will occur and that will dictate what sort of socialist movement is created. An individuals ideology will have zero say on what form this movement takes.
I'm a boring plain jane marxist, not an ML. I started out as an anarchist though when I was a kid. My reasoning for being a Marxist and not an anarchist or an ML is the following:
Anarchism (which is essentially late stage socialism) is ultimately the end goal of Marxism of any kind
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism as forms of struggle seem to be most successful in war torn regions and areas outside the Imperial Core.
Even France had a sizeable Communist Party at one point, due to the Nazi occupation, reaching 40% of the population's support. However, due to its position in the Imperial Core, this Communist Party did not achieve anything noteworthy. A similar tale happened in Weimar Germany, however they faced the blackest reaction to date.
The lack of success of Communist Parties in the Imperial Core means we are either going about the process wrong, or we simply cannot achieve anything due to the material conditions of the majority of the population. This means we need to change our approach or wait.
The successes of anarchists within the imperial core are even more fraught, mostly amounting to supply line delays or assassinations.
Orthodox Marxist-Leninist states have an issue of developing technology fast enough, mostly due to a lack of cooperation from capitalist countries and being forced to develop things in parallel with no technological advantage. This forces those countries into reformism or stagnation. With the lack of success in the Imperial Core and the current ML states being forced into a period of reformism, we are not currently capable of knowing if our current tech is capable of forcing socialism just yet. Even if conditions within the Imperial Core are not enough to create long term, dedicated socialist movements spontaneously, how do we expect countries like China to hold non-reformist Marxist-Leninist views? They need to find a way to exist in the interim, and the only way that is going to happen is if they develop their countries in the fastest way possible while holding on to an anti-imperialist, but not necessarily a hardline socialist, stance.
Given this, I can see any anarchist society having these issues, but perhaps even more internal struggles due to capitalist encirclement. Again, this is more an issue of technology and conditions, not ideology. We just haven't seen the conditions yet for an anarchist society to thrive.
Ultimately, your ideology doesnt matter at all, in the future some sort of calamity will occur and that will dictate what sort of socialist movement is created. An individuals ideology will have zero say on what form this movement takes.
i think i am now marxist-kristinaist
ah fuck what have i done
Oh yeah? Well I'm the best Marxist-Kristinaist - I'm MK-Ultra
oh no