*As always I do want to indicate my support and appreciation to the Maoists in the Phillipines and a few other different places. Some are good, some are definitely less good, but I see no reason not to support groups that aren't bandits
Everytime I start having doubts about Communism and Marxism Leninism, I ask myself simply "what's the answer then?" Liberalism? Well no the critique of capitalism as triumphed as being the only correct analysis here, we've established this. Anarchism? While it certainly doesn't come from a bad place, mostly, they're simply naive, and the state, its role and it's development is fairly easily understood (thx Engels and Lenin). So if not Marxism Leninism, then it must be some derivation of marxism. Left communism? I mean maybe but I cannot get left communist arguments to actually make any sense beyond "oh well they did it wrong" which is unproductive.
Beyond all of that I reach Maoism. I like Mao, the 红宝书 was my very first theoretical book. Maoists generally make sense and point at the serious issues and criticisms of socialist experiments. But, beyond the fact that i dont quite agree with their arguments...goddamn I wouldn't be able to even if God himself came down and said they were right. It's so depressing. Marx and Engels succeeded in the development and spreading of the communist ideology. Lenin succeeded in further refinement and the creation of the soviet union. By the Maoist interpretation, Mao failed, no? By the maoist interpretation every attempt at socialism failed in some form, even when the hardline Marxists like Hoxca (i know hoxca-ism is a different thing) were at the helm. Sure when they were successful they did have undeniable successes, but how do you reconcile with the fact that your interpretation means that every single attempt has been an inevitable failure? Sure, leftcoms are like this too, but they're also big believers in first world revolt, which maoists are firmly against (some even going as far to say that there isn't an imperial core proletariat). Obviously if I agreed then I would do my best to further the cause, even if I don't want to believe it (trust me, being a liberal is a lot less depressing, so I don't believe in Leninism out of convience), but I dont know how long I'd survive with that level of depression.
This is the inevitable conclusion of the logic “practical success = correctness.” If something exists it’s “right.” If something doesn’t exist it must be wrong. Scientific socialism isn’t merely something to have faith in. Marx is supposed to show why capitalism sucks for the proletariat and what is necessary to build a world in the proletariat’s interests. I encourage you to cease your ideology shopping and read this: https://ruthlesscriticism.com/Marxism.htm
Thats not what I meant with this post. I dont "ideology shop." I suppose I can elaborate although I don't think I should've needed to. It was simply examining the alternatives if Marxism-Leninism was wrong. If there are no alternative theories that fit the facts then Marxism Leninism must be correct.
And my point was not "practical success=correct." (Although presumably thats at least part of analysis. If the USSR was as successful as the Free Territory then we wouldnt talk about the Bolsheviks the same way, no?) My point was questioning how anyone has revolutionary optimism as a Maoist if every example is an abject and almost instantaneous failure under said theory. Maybe I spent too long on the preamble but that was my main point
The real alternative to Marxism-Leninism isn't even Maoism, but something like Nkrumahism-Toureism adopted by various pan-Africanists. At the end of the day, both Marxism-Leninism and Nkrumahism-Toureism are branches of scientific socialism, so they'll converge because both ideologies are powered by Marxist economic analysis, emancipation of the working masses as a political goal, and dialectical materialism.
I don't really consider the branches of Marxism (Trotskyism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, and so on) to be all that different in the grand scheme of things outside of just thinking X country is AES or not. Seriously, what distinguishes a Trotskyist analysis from a Hoxhaist analysis or a Maoist analysis on a country like Paraguay outside of some semi-relevant quote from their respective head? It would just be like any other Marxist analysis.