Only because NOBODY approached a Mao. He's the #1, and far worse in numbers killed than anyone else. It's just that it's all "his own" people, so nobody seems to care...promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:11 am ...even on the worst days of the lenin-style soviets, they nowhere approached the totalitarian autocracy style of a mao or a stalin.
Leninism and Trotskyism as i understand them are the only philosophies faithful to what marx and engels wrote.
Marx isn't some kind of sacred scripture to which you owe some kind of fealty. He wasn't infallible. Not even close.
What Marx wrote was so incredibly, obviously wrong, given how history has actually played out (not to say as well, stupid) that today's Neo-Marxists distinguish themselves from him by referring to Him as "vulgar Marxism." In other words, they regard what Marx said as passe and disproved...because it is...and themselves as better than Marx.
They don't want to be responsible to answer for what Marx actually imagined. Why do you? Why defend something that history itself has shown was wrong-headed already?
People don't "self-actualize through praxis." All of history is not "the history of class struggle." Religion isn't "the opium of the masses." Dialectical materialism is just dumb. And there's no "contradiction" between "labour" and "capitalism" that's going to "dialectically" resolve the Industrial Revolution that is long gone, no workers' paradise impending, and no utopia to follow. Even the basic categories Marx imagined are now obsolete.
Need we go on?