• ClathrateG [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Parenti sure but Sartre wasn’t a Marxist-Leninist he was a ‘libertarian marxist’ and not in the Rossa Luxemburg Council Communism, or Anarcho-Communism’s use of that term, he’s extremely heterodox given a favourable view on his attempts to critique classic Marxism with his own phenomenology, and anti-marxist giving a less favourable reading

        • ClathrateG [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s subjective view, personally I would call Marxism-Leninism an extension of Marx’s Marxism rather than a rejection, their main difference being that Marx predicted that Socialist revolution would begin at the in the most advanced capitalist nations(such as Britain and France and the time both were writing) Leninism emphasizes the particular role imperialism plays alongside global capitalism, and thus that revolution may begin in a society such as the Tsarist Russia Empire which while capitalist in many respects still retained many feudal characteristics, which according to your own views on the socialist character of the October revolution, August Revolution etc has been proven correct

          • алсааас [she/her]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            yes, you can individually choose to redefine widely agreed/used on terms when talking about the history of Marxism. It just makes conversation with others so much harder, as with all subjective definitions

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          no, marxism leninism is considered the “orthodox” reading by many. the orthodox being not abandoning class struggle as the main moving force of history. which is essentially what eurocomunnism introduced in the west. rejection of class struggle. introduction of communist parties into electoralism. abandoning armed struggle. supporting liberal policies and the liberalization of the party.

            • davel@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              21 hours ago

              Regardless of which tendency is “orthodox”—a fruitless conversation given that each tendency claims orthodoxy—the great majority of Marxists in the world are Marxist-Leninists, and the only successful communist projects to date have been Marxist-Leninist ones.

            • ghost_laptop@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              2 days ago

              that’s because “orthodox” in the case of marxism is largely a matter of optics. the mensheviks could be considered orthodox simply because of their ties to russia, the bolsheviks, and so on, but when we analyze their policies we realize they were simply opportunistic and reactionary. today the term is widely used in the sense i describe. essentially to differentiate between actual revolutionary movements that did not abandon class struggle, and eurocommunism which is essentially red liberalism in circlejerk academia groups.