I came across this thread which had some interesting interpretations and posits that ML grew as a function of anarchism's failure to recruit/organize:
My sincere answer for why tankies reemerged five years ago is that movements are social hierarchies and newbie teens don't want to compete for status in existing illegible/inaccessible spaces like anarchism, so they resurrected a dead/empty scene that had trappings of status.
See also leftypol & the dirtbaggers. Folks get converted on one issue and then recoil about being expected to also learn / change their opinion on a variety of other topics. Respecting pronouns?! Never! You olds are a joke! We're making a new movement with hookers & blackjack!
Most of the anarchist movement had sneered at and avoided the internet (seen as an insecure tool of civilized alienation). Also it was illegible, most of the shit we expect you to learn/accept we don't even write down. And getting involved? We're terrible at helping folks join.
But ALSO the anarchist movement got up its own ass. We derided the internet and avoided utilizing it effectively. We embraced illegibility as resistance, forgetting that accessibility is critical to undermining hierarchies. And we corrupted into playing internal status games.
So what do we ascribe the sudden uptick in radicalization?
I want to not die in a climate holocaust. That requires the overthrow of capitalism and institutions willing to use their authority to crush any movement back towards capitalism.
Marxist-Leninism (and its derivatives) has been the most successful tendency at carrying out a revolution, and defending it.
After studying the theoretical works of Marxist-Leninist thinkers & seeing that theory put to practice in Marxist-Leninist states, it becomes incredibly obvious why they have been the most successful.
Yeah, this is spot on. People are looking for solutions that work. Marxist/Leninism has a track record of success that can't really be compared to any other leftist tendency -- it's taken two feudal backwaters to superpower status, and kept smaller states like Cuba and Vietnam afloat despite enormous outside pressure.
The "what might actually work?" question has driven lots of people to democratic socialism for similar reasons. The DSA is pointing to existing non-ML states that, while not socialist, have far more worker power than the U.S. and do far more for their citizens. On the back of that they've actually won some major elections and are getting to the point where they're approaching real political power.
There are legitimate criticisms of both of these projects, but the value of "hey, they're out there doing stuff, and it's either worked before or is working now" is high.
deleted by creator