Cred

Most Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Leaders in history were and are great but they are painted as evil by capitalist propaganda. The problem is that if you learn about history from western accounts, you understanding is biased and unfortunately a lot of Leos information about history is skewed in that way. "Power always corrupts" and "the most selfish people seek power" is just not true and a lie spread by capitalists to make the working class believe capitalism is the only valid system, which is a lie. I'm currently a big fan of Xi. I suggest you this video:

The point of scientific language is information compression. If you have a sentence of seven neologisms, each corresponding to one complex idea, if you want to communicate the same sentence in simple language, you'd need seven sentences. Suddenly you turned one sentence into a paragraph. Remember, your point was not to list the seven concepts, it was to state a relationship between them. This relationship is lost now in the paragraph, so I'm arguing that non-scientific language is in this case also a kind of obscurism.

I completely agree with this except in the notion that all marxists are the same. Again, as I said there are a ton of different flavors of marxism. I also think that marxists who want to recklessly establish socialism immediately without compromise are naive. What you are advocating for is called revisionism and I also think it is a good thing. It is important to note though that more freedom in the free market also means more power in the hands of the capitalists who can use this power to conspire as you say. At the end, there has to be a balance but what's important is that the power of the capital does not rise above the power of the people and this is exactly the case in China. This principle is even codified in the Chinese flag: The billionaires are the national bourgeoisie. Their importance is acknowledged in representing them as one of the stars, but importantly, they are in line with the rest of the classes. At the end, the revolution is a science and an art. There is not one strict plan. A lot of it is improvisation and trial and error. The cool thing with Marxism-Leninism is that they already went through a ton of this trial and error already so nobody has to reinvent the wheel in order to have a revolution. I'm absolutely not saying blindly trust the marxists lol. I'm advocating for teaming up with them and expanding their horizon for integral theory, mysticism and all this good stuff. Theoretical marxists are just as interested in truth, theory, critique and interesting philosophy as everybody here. They have great self awareness and are very open for criticism if that critique doesn't come from ignorance in my experience.

This thread is gold😂

@Leo Gura I'm open that my view of you is imperfect. I hope you know though that I know a lot of things about neurodivergency that you don't know.

Well based on my knowledge of history, Lenin and his theory, I completely disagree. Where did you get your information to come to these conclusions? You know that a lot of history is written by the victors right? Leninists are very much "the ends justify the means" type of people. Why? Because they know that idealism (as in non-violence, perfect honesty etc.) helps the powerful stay in power. As soon as you have a system that is significantly less exploitative then the current one, it is reasonable to want to fight to implement it imo. Else the world stays corrupt forever.

When you are sensitive and have adhd, you naturally struggle in academic philosophy. Having ADHD means only wanting to pursue things that seem immediately meaningful which is often not what the professor says, and being sensitive means wanting to sit with emotions, thoughts and practice self reflection rather then devouring one philosophy book after another. This does not mean you are bad at philosophy, as you know, it just means the academic setting with endless reading assignments etc is not right for you. This does not mean however that you are superior to the people who thrive in this setting. It is true that they are less openminded (non-adhd) and less self-reflected (non-sensitive) but they have other strengths like being able to read one philosophy book after another without being overstimulated or upholding scientific methods and institutions.

Bro you are pretty arrogant if you think that you have somehow orders of magnitude more epistemic responsibility than a professional philospher just because you meditate, do peter ralston contemplation, take dmt and all this stuff. I do agree that it makes a difference but not as much as you think. Like I want you to tell me how Peter Ralston with his state of not knowing is so superior to Husserl with his epoché. I think it's cool that peter ralston talks about zen but to claim that because of that he is somehow completely superior is absurd to me. Anyone who dedicates their lives to philosophy has solid epistemics whether they mediate or not. Like these people studied idealism until their brain bleeded. When you hit them with "everything is mind!", "solipsim!" and you expect that they clutch their pearls you are naive. The mistake that you are doing is thinking that everyone who does not read Ken Wilber or some shit is somehow so far below you that they are equal. That's just not true and epistemically irresponsible. There is a lot of stuff that professional philosophers are blind to but there is also a lot of stuff mystic philosophers are blind to. If we hate them just because they are very scientific and rigorous, we miss the opportunity to work together with them in a symbiotic relationship. You must accept that you gravitate towards autodidactics (normal for people with ADHD) while professional philosophers gravitate towards academia. Not one approach is superior. They are supposed to complement each other.

I acknowledge that communists in the past did extreme things but I believe they mainly do that so that the system survives. Because they know when the system collapses, the capitalists come in and steal everything and oppress the people which is what happened when the UDSSR collapsed. And this is why communism would be so goddamn effective in America because then there is no America (assuming europe fucks off) to sabotage it. Communism without sabotage from the west just never existed and I'm convinced if it ever happens, it would be capable of miracles.

It makes a massive difference if someone seeks power because the theory says they should seek power in order to use that power in the name of the poeple or if they seek power out of insecurity or loneliness or some shit

Yes I agree with that. You can't just equate people who act out of self interest with people who act out a theory. It is true that opportunists exist that only use theory when it benifits them (if at all lol) like Trump and Vance and not for the sake of truth.

I want to emphasize this point. I know the worldview that people in power always become corrupt makes logical sense bc I also used to hold this worldview. The more I learn about the history of Leninism though, the more I realize that this is just not true and just some notion that the capitalists want us to believe. This "there is no alternative" and "capitalism is the least evil evil", "absolute power corrupts absolutely" are notions, capitalist propagandists use very deliberately to facilitate the capitalist system.

Can you give me a source where you got the bokunin thing from or tell me where you got it? I'm genuinely interested this is not a debating strategy. I think Leninism and anarchism are both respectable ideologies. However I have noticed that when people are both educated in anarchist theory and leninist theory they generally gravitate towards leninism bc of its practicality.

Marxists use religious imagery, ideology, dogma, nationalism as a pragmatic tool. They don't do it out of personal potive (ideally). I'm not saying there are no currupt marxists but they sure as hell are less corrupt than capitalists.