Although I can understand this argument, I don’t think it’s realistically so. Leninism COULD mean that, but in practice, it’s used only to exclude Marxist Leninists from the group. When someone says Leninist, they are so often referring to it in opposition to “Stalinists” that the umbrella model can’t really work.

When the contradictions grow and sharpen, there is a dialectical process where the positions then become clear afterwards, and one of those positions sincec Stalin has, up until this point, always been the consensus “ML” position. Right now, there is broad agreement on many positions. I think China is the main one currently, where some ML are saying that it’s not going fast enough. But ML still means something clear in this situation, just something with a growing contradiction (like everything else).

ML is a term which Stalin used to describe Lenin’s additions. Of course that’s how Stalin described it, not how Trotsky wanted people to understand it. That contradiction built up very quickly and made a split, and Trotsky dropped the term and so it’s meaning was no longer split. But again, it’s just a label. You are just opposed to ML and then feel like it shouldn’t be called that because you disagree with it but feel like you still agree with Marx and maybe Lenin.

If it sounds like I had an attidude, I had no intention for that. I was actually paraphrasing a famous speech of Parenti.

If you want to be an island with your own terms, I do have a problem with that. It is a ‘we’ because you are using language and it’s meaningless to create your own language for only yourself. You confuse the terms tin relation to each othergenerally as it exists in a social context and language. That’s why there needs to be a good reason that a person takes such an action, and they must be clear in that. I don’t think you did either of those.

In every one of those cases, the “minority” position group eventually named themselves something else. Left-opp called themselves leninists and then trotskyists (if they were that particular flavor or left opp). Left deviationists of late Mao eventually settled at MLM to distinguish between the majority opinion there of ML (ML MZT if you want to get fancy, but not necessary because it isn’t distinguished from ML in any real scenario relevant to today).

Other nations had different approaches but agree that they are currently ML with differences in conditions and therefore differences in concrete tactics.

But regardless, you are changing a word unecessarily. Everyone who knows anything about it knows what one means with ML. What purpose is there to changing the label for something concrete and existing to which it refers? Call it a Camel for all I care, as long as we know we’re referring to the foundation of historical materialism applied to material conditions, it doesn’t matter. So changing it should have some benefit, which I’m not convinced exists.

I literally can’t imagine a better method of destroying the US empire than these sanctions

Its a nice simple intro to how China sees State mechanisms relating to Market Mechanisms in its overal strategy. It also clearly reinforces that China is socialist, because it’s use of these mechanisms is entirely in line with goals above profit and bourgeois interests, namely, proletarian interests and Chinese interests.

I’m about 50/50 on parts of that being sarcastic vs. all very serious.

If you (poster above OP) are serious: there is a lot to learn about Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and about the history of socialist countries in general, which could help you make sense of this stuff. I’m big into Losurdo, but I think Roland Boer had lots of good stuff on how this works which can be helpful at this stage. China is entirely socialist while utilizing some mechanisms developed during capitalism in order to grow and develop China economically.

Whoa what?? Avoid Anki? I’ve never heard a single person say that Quizlet is superior in the wild. What makes you conclude this?

Goddamn, a significant amount of commies in the country where I live consider themselves some absurd combination of “Post-Trotsky Kautskyists” and I haven’t a damn clue how it’s unironic. It’s mistaking ideological positions for methods and analysis. Pisses me off

Imagine for a split second that the strongest government in the world is constantly attempting to cause the overthrow of your legitimately popular government, despite it being popular and significantly beloved by almost all people there. This external, most powerful government in the world tried to cause unrest in every possible way, including funding all opposition groups and organizations regardless of their violent/genocidal intent (e.g. Falun Gong, Islamic terror groups) and cause unrest on your borders (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Korea).

What do you do? When good faith polling shows that you’re popular and fulfilling the needs and desires of your country’s working class but a foreign press tries to speak about the terribleness and need for overthrow, do you just let that happen with more money and propoganda than you can possibly provide to support yourself? Or do you censor the BS and report to your population that these images/ideas/orgs are actually subversive and attempting to change the government they legitimately love.

In this hypothetical situation, what do you propose? Allowing the propaganda but claiming it’s wrong has failed in many projects, and resulted in massacres once fascism won (Chile, Indonesia). Just trying to set up a wall of no information works for a bit, but info can cross anyways (USSR). Allowing limited access if you search for it but not allowing it’s widespread propagation is the method of china. A VPN allows you to see it all, but it can’t be spread too widely before it is stopped from being viral.

Do you have a better solution? Because this is how China presents itself and how the Chinese population sees it

Vast majority of the links in similar articles are circular or to “original reporting” from people who weren’t there or reporting based on US government sources. But like the other commenter said, it’s absolutely true and agreed by the PRC that hundreds died in fighting around the city. No lies there are all, but the lead up to it makes clear that the forces which resulted in fighting at all were liberal and imperialist-aligned forces. https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/