Alternatives to Marxist Leninism

So far everything I've read about Communism has been from an ML perspective Marx>Lenin>Stalin>Mao>Kim il Sung

What are the alternatives to ML and Maoism?

Attached: tumblr_oxwefr4uSN1rn1nk3o1_500.png (500x500, 118.16K)

Left-communism. It's basically all about commodities.


Market Socialism and Mutualism too

Insurrectionism might work in a place like Ukraine, due to it's history there

Mao and Kim Il-sung are not necessarily parts of the ML orthodoxy.

Alternatives? I don't see what works with the same efficiency without making concessions to some sort of revision of what Marxism was meant to be.

Not being bound by theory and engaging in Marxism-Pragmatism

My flag clashed with this post pretty hard

So Marxism-Leninism then?


Juche/Kimilsungism does not proceed from Maoism but rather from Marxism-Leninism. It's more like
Marx>Lenin>Stalin>Kim Il Sung>Kim Jong Il

Attached: marx engels lenin stalin kims.png (1200x269, 267.57K)

Demsocism aka the approach that actually might work.

Attached: corbyn unelectable man elected again.jpg (400x267, 18.25K)


Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x720, 534.2K)


Attached: BurradonBannerObverse0005.jpg (1277x1600, 847.18K)

How about just plain ol' Marxism?

I love getting killed by the goverment

Democratic socialism
Council communism
Western Marxism (Lukacs, Frankfurt School, Althusser, Zizek)
State syndicalism/DeLeonism
Market socialism
Those are probably all the other ones worth looking into.

What are the alternatives to ML and Maoism?

also I would note that in some places, "ML" has a Stalinist connotation, whereas just plain "Leninist" has an anti-stalinist connotation

Can't get killed by the government when you control it through democratic elections

But seriously capitalist states couldn't just pull a Rosa today, they won't stop you by force from building dual power until you actually start to militarise which you should only do when your sympathiser is in power. GGEZ

Attached: demsoc.jpg (700x700, 65.87K)


Attached: Trotsky.jpg (1000x1000, 63.29K)

*coups you
nothing personal kid

They would just do the modern equivalent; plant drugs/pizza/weapons on them, get them thrown in prison and have them get tragically shanked to death while the guards turn a blind eye during the first week of their incarceration.

Bourgeois elections are a perfectly adequate way to get into power, however if you want to implement socialism you’re going to more or less have to adopt ☭TANKIE☭ tactics. That means purged of the army, changing the constitution, neutering the right wing opposition, disarming reactionaries, arming radical workers. You’d also need to create paramilitaries who can protect your government in the event of a coup. In other words elections are a good way to get into power, since they are bloodless and give you a strong case for legitimacy and a public mandate. However once you are there you will need to engaged in classic revolutionary practice, up to and including terror.

What the fuck is wrong with you? How would you spread your ideas then?


radical liberal crypto-anarchism

Authoritarian communists are not real communists.

what is a "real communist"?

proudhonists who get massacred by professional soldiers, apparently

Austromarxism of Otto Bauer

I think syndicalism has a lot of potential and I would love to see it reconciled with Leninism, a sort of checks and balances system between a council of syndicates and a revolutionary vanguard. Marxism-Leninism has seen both enormous successes and devastating failures, but is certainly unique in revolutionary socialism in that its failures often grew from the problems of achieving success and needing to make hard decisions. I think syndicalism and unions in general could potentially be better incorporated as a bastion of proletarian democracy that is sheltered instead of overruled by a democratic-centralist esque vanguard. Obviously this is fairly idealist ideological grocery shopping but I think it's worth considering as we try to assess the successes and failures of 20th century socialism in good faith.

Attached: download (25).jpeg (790x445, 65.36K)

Making a tierlist for thinkers is so goddamn stupid it is unreal. Although I do realize you may simply be indicating development instead of superiority.

Unless of course you are Salvador Allende you stupid fuck. Being elected into a bourgeoise democracy means you are a tiny pebble of Marxism in a Capitalist rockcrusher. The rest of the government is still bourgeois and so are the surrounding nations. Socdems are so goddamn ignorant of reality it is amazing. It is like the last one hundred years of Communist action doesn't exist to them. Oh wait! Those were "communists"…

*stops you by force*
*distorted oinking noises*

Attached: 98543.png (468x623, 16.9K)

You realize you're on a board filled with larpers, right?

Demsoc is ridiculous and created the alt right
They at the same time want better standards of living for the lower class while also wanting to flood the lower class with niggers and enrich the jews. Just about anything is better than demsoc faggotry.

based and pinkpilled

american culture and the internet created the alt right

learn to read for christ's sake

this is your brain on Asserism


Marx never formulated an ideology, he only wrote theory, and the closest thing to "orthodox Marxism" is probably marxism-leninism

Extremely wrong, read Lukacs. Orthodox Marxism is the methodology Marx & Engels used, not the conclusions they reached (conclusions which are challenged by proper Orthodox Marxist methods)

Too bad Demsocs are just welfare capitalists with a coat of paint.

I've read Lukacs, can you go into detail on what you see are incorrect conclusions and what the correct conclusions are? How would you apply the same method twice and get different results if the subject is the same

A few reasons. First of all because our understanding of our subject, the material, is always mediated through the ideal. And the material itself is never static, it is constantly in contradiction with itself, evolving through dialectical processes. This means that our understanding can never be absolutely precise and even when it is sufficient for pragmatic, immediate ends, the material which we base our understanding on is itself always developing, demanding our analysis to keep up with it. Consider Marx's position on imperialism. Around the time of the Manifesto he thought it was a necessary step in historical development, that capitalism would have to spread to every corner of the world to have to develop productive forces. But this was mediated through his ideological presumptions that understood the non-European world as basically behind and socialism as only being able to arise from industrial development. Later in his life we see fissures in this understanding as he learns about the particulars of Chinese and Indian society and finds in the Taiping Rebellion something he explicitly calls a socialism that arose out of Chinese history independently (though he still thought they would need to undergo a phase of bourgeois liberalism).


Just read Marx, everything is there.

Marxist Syndicalism, come to the light side

Attached: D09DAFF1-1A79-4C37-96B1-62460F8B83D5.jpeg (223x236, 18.83K)

Cybernetic Communism

Attached: 1530208128.jpg (933x1083, 221.18K)

Most of them admittedly are, but that's a later phenomenon, not the original objective of the movement.

I've been thinking of calling myself a "classical socdem." Like how libertarians call themselves classical liberals except historically accurate.

There isn't yet a large cybernetic socialist canon. We should be working on that.

The true immortal science

Attached: index.gif (300x438, 25.69K)

Real socialist industrial republican hours

Attached: hass-siuism-page7-343x469.jpg (674x436 84.67 KB, 79.81K)