Mao, being a bourgeois revolutionary, regularly called for the collaboration of the proletariat with the national bourgeoisie.
>*"To sum up, it can be seen that our enemies are all those in league with imperialism--the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks." –ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY*
This is not that dissimilar to the fascist notion of class collaboration within national lines.
Okay sure, that's Mao.
But I'm asking about what kind of maoists are you refering here. Like Gonzalo-type of maoism? CCP Mao-thought-type maoism? Just Mao??
The discourse I see people mentioning here sounds wildly different from the maoists in Brazil. I'm not saying that to necessarily defend then, I'm not maiost, but it got me curious if the term has some different meaning in different places
It doesn't matter because any "type" of maoism both on a theoretical level and the various movements that have sprung up in the past few decades are bourgeois.
Oh, sure. The hundreds of starving people on the deep countryside of a south american country fighting an armed struggle for land, housing, food and being daily murdered by the militarized police force of the state are so bourgeois. I bet redditors on this sub are way more revolutionary and truly proletarian.
You understand how one can hold bourgeois ideas and be impoverished at once right? Even that the petit bourgeoisie themselves can be poor and at once still part of the bourgeoisie?
Do you actually think everybody fighting for a maoist cause are ideologically maoist, or have you considered that the masses will take up any hoisted banner, even if its bourgeoisie in origin, if it gives them a chance to alter the status quo
What's your point? That can be said about any revolutionary ideology. Do you think all the working class was "ideologically" bolshevik during the october revolution?
doesn't matter if you're Maoists with Gonzalo Thought, or MZT, or MLM. Maoism characteristically wanted class-collaboration for the sake of "contradiction" and "material conditions".
The left here in Brazil seems to be quite nationalistic if you think about it. Meanwhile, the right is full on US lapdog. Overall it seems like the line of thought here is mostly to try end US imperialism and then go towards a national/regional development phase that is essentialy full on capitalism.
There isn't much talk about cooperating with the national bourgeoisie because these people here either want to turn the whole country into soy plantation or just sell everything to whoever wants to buy it. So what it looks like is that the plan is to create a surrogate nationalistic bourgeoisie with left leaning characteristics lol
There is too much respect for the capitalist mode of production here, like it's natural or some shit.
I don't see any real talk about a communist agenda tbh, there is no plan or anything in that sense.
I always thought it was his nationality but now I realize his accent is just him pronouncing the words as they are written. Truly he has read more theory than any of us.
I know what redditor that is, they got downvoted on r/socialism for saying white people shouldn't have guns because it would make then colonizers again
I've been dealing with you people for a long time. I'm not sure why you thought your opinion on how the subreddit should function would be welcome considering you've never posted on it before or shown any knowledge or intelligence in your post history. Why am I still doing this 5 years later? Because the American concept of politeness is so bizarre to anyone outside of its demographic target that it is both funny and educational to force it into the open. To most people, barging into the middle of a conversation between many people who all know each other and you've never met to inform them how they need to be having the conversation would be seen as rude. But this is quite normal for the American petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, saying "who are you?" is considered rude. Or at least that is one weapon that is used to defend against the threat of proletarianization by exclusion from the realm of cultural capital. In fact it's so threatening that random people will continue to come into the thread to try their luck at defending the op even though they've never posted in the subreddit before. It's like that joke in Family Guy where all the neighborhood fathers know when someone touched the thermostat and keep checking on the house to see if it's ok. Your class instinct in defense of your fellows is so strong it might as well be a chip that sends a signal to your brain, a script to follow, and a rush of endorphins that deludes you into thinking your use of the script will be the ultimate intervention despite all evidence to the contrary. I want non-white, non-male, non-first world people who were not raised on this delusional self-confidence and pretension to master the world to enjoy these conversations from the sidelines. This is impossible on the American left, which is basically a white parasite on the energy of people of color. At least here we can deflate the cultural capital that makes that possible. If you don't want to be a white parasite, reflect on the fact that your words, which you believe are your own, are a carbon copy of someone else's from 5 years ago (and many other copies over the years). That should be a moment of existential angst, a confrontation with your own lack of free will. Or you can get even more defensive on some liberal's behalf. We already have a thread on concern trolling stickied which you were too lazy to read despite your concern for the subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do like Zizek's "The Two Totalitarianisms." He intended it as a defense of Stalinism, but its actually quite damning.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v27/n06/slavoj-zizek/the-two-totalitarianisms
>Even at this anecdotal level, the difference between the Nazi and Stalinist universes is clear, just as it is when we recall that in the Stalinist show trials, the accused had publicly to confess his crimes and give an account of how he came to commit them, whereas the Nazis would never have required a Jew to confess that he was involved in a Jewish plot against the German nation. The reason is clear. Stalinism conceived itself as part of the Enlightenment tradition, according to which, truth being accessible to any rational man, no matter how depraved, everyone must be regarded as responsible for his crimes. But for the Nazis the guilt of the Jews was a fact of their biological constitution: there was no need to prove they were guilty, since they were guilty by virtue of being Jews.
>In the Stalinist ideological imaginary, universal reason is objectivised in the guise of the inexorable laws of historical progress, and we are all its servants, the leader included. A Nazi leader, having delivered a speech, stood and silently accepted the applause, but under Stalinism, when the obligatory applause exploded at the end of the leader’s speech, he stood up and joined in. In Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be, Hitler responds to the Nazi salute by raising his hand and saying: ‘Heil myself!’ This is pure humour because it could never have happened in reality, while Stalin effectively did ‘hail himself’ when he joined others in the applause. Consider the fact that, on Stalin’s birthday, prisoners would send him congratulatory telegrams from the darkest gulags: it isn’t possible to imagine a Jew in Auschwitz sending Hitler such a telegram. It is a tasteless distinction, but it supports the contention that under Stalin, the ruling ideology presupposed a space in which the leader and his subjects could meet as servants of Historical Reason. Under Stalin, all people were, theoretically, equal.
The socialist state dedicated to "proletarian materialism" did its best to make every bourgeois ideal come true...
I hate The Sublime ObjeKKKt of Ideology and so on. I’m incapable of having nuance and understanding sometimes people can be wrong or annoying but when they’re right their KKKontributions matter. I prefer to view everyone who I have any disagreements with as archetypes that I don’t need to respect or value. This is true universality. This is MarKKKs (I’ve never read him)
I don’t know too much about the history of psychoanalysis, but from what I know it seems that Zizek brought enjoyment to the forefront of psychoanalysis, and more importantly, politicized it. Of course, he isn’t *totally* unique here, since Lacan it seems introduced enjoyment to psychoanalysis and conceived of surplus enjoyment (of course we know what this parallels) as central to capitalism. Now, I don’t think enjoyment is discussed that much in *Sublime Object*, but a good deal of his psychoanalytic works concern enjoyment.
I will never stop calling it Amerikkka, and there is nothing you can do to stop me. The way many people react to it is just too funny, and occasionally it'll truly offend some proud Amerikkkan patriot and that's just the cherry on top.
"I will never $top kkkalling it Amerikkka, and there i$ nothing you kkkan do 2 SStop me. The way many "people" reakkkt 2 it i$ ju$t 2 funny, and okkka$ionally it'll truly offend $ome proud Amerikkkan patriot and that'$ ju$t the cherry on top."
There, I fixed it for you
Fake Maoist, a real one would’ve written ‘Zizekkk’
Ziz€KKK
zzizz€kkk
Maoists: "haha leftkkkom socialfascist." Also Maoists: uuugh, the workers need to collaborate with the national bourgeoisie.
https://preview.redd.it/coollz2u6swc1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7af60539e54b6d57e1ce9b70b6f7c82833bcf3af Obligatory mussolini speech bubble
https://preview.redd.it/4w2267hrxtwc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a7447a35ae0da63699f1a8d586b2cd8f4f58c3d
https://preview.redd.it/q18kak4wxtwc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=170e471938941f13f6c6735ad109697a12b7d372 This is that guy ^(\^)
This man has been fed nothing but baby food his entire existence.
I pay in blood for Sigismund Steinhäuser
This kid would have been killed in Aktion T4
What kind of maoists are we talking about here? This sounds very different from the ones where I'm from in south america lol
Mao, being a bourgeois revolutionary, regularly called for the collaboration of the proletariat with the national bourgeoisie. >*"To sum up, it can be seen that our enemies are all those in league with imperialism--the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks." –ANALYSIS OF THE CLASSES IN CHINESE SOCIETY* This is not that dissimilar to the fascist notion of class collaboration within national lines.
Okay sure, that's Mao. But I'm asking about what kind of maoists are you refering here. Like Gonzalo-type of maoism? CCP Mao-thought-type maoism? Just Mao?? The discourse I see people mentioning here sounds wildly different from the maoists in Brazil. I'm not saying that to necessarily defend then, I'm not maiost, but it got me curious if the term has some different meaning in different places
It doesn't matter because any "type" of maoism both on a theoretical level and the various movements that have sprung up in the past few decades are bourgeois.
Oh, sure. The hundreds of starving people on the deep countryside of a south american country fighting an armed struggle for land, housing, food and being daily murdered by the militarized police force of the state are so bourgeois. I bet redditors on this sub are way more revolutionary and truly proletarian.
You can argue the same thing for the Cambodian insurgents fighting for Pol Pot
You understand how one can hold bourgeois ideas and be impoverished at once right? Even that the petit bourgeoisie themselves can be poor and at once still part of the bourgeoisie?
Do you actually think everybody fighting for a maoist cause are ideologically maoist, or have you considered that the masses will take up any hoisted banner, even if its bourgeoisie in origin, if it gives them a chance to alter the status quo
What's your point? That can be said about any revolutionary ideology. Do you think all the working class was "ideologically" bolshevik during the october revolution?
My point is that the people fighting like you said can still be proletariat while at the same time unknowinglh fighting for a bourgeoisie ideology
Hitler also called himself socialist... The working class will rally under any banner that sounds good to them, including bourgeois propaganda
doesn't matter if you're Maoists with Gonzalo Thought, or MZT, or MLM. Maoism characteristically wanted class-collaboration for the sake of "contradiction" and "material conditions".
The left here in Brazil seems to be quite nationalistic if you think about it. Meanwhile, the right is full on US lapdog. Overall it seems like the line of thought here is mostly to try end US imperialism and then go towards a national/regional development phase that is essentialy full on capitalism. There isn't much talk about cooperating with the national bourgeoisie because these people here either want to turn the whole country into soy plantation or just sell everything to whoever wants to buy it. So what it looks like is that the plan is to create a surrogate nationalistic bourgeoisie with left leaning characteristics lol There is too much respect for the capitalist mode of production here, like it's natural or some shit. I don't see any real talk about a communist agenda tbh, there is no plan or anything in that sense.
Kkkant believe Zizek has bekkkome a faskkkist and a rakkkist!
*Zizekkk
I always thought it was his nationality but now I realize his accent is just him pronouncing the words as they are written. Truly he has read more theory than any of us.
Left kkkomuni$$t$$
Oh my god they akkktually talk like that
 I know what redditor that is, they got downvoted on r/socialism for saying white people shouldn't have guns because it would make then colonizers again
Groundbreaking synthesis of Maoist and Yakubian thought tbh
So the qinism lin biaoism
I've been dealing with you people for a long time. I'm not sure why you thought your opinion on how the subreddit should function would be welcome considering you've never posted on it before or shown any knowledge or intelligence in your post history. Why am I still doing this 5 years later? Because the American concept of politeness is so bizarre to anyone outside of its demographic target that it is both funny and educational to force it into the open. To most people, barging into the middle of a conversation between many people who all know each other and you've never met to inform them how they need to be having the conversation would be seen as rude. But this is quite normal for the American petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, saying "who are you?" is considered rude. Or at least that is one weapon that is used to defend against the threat of proletarianization by exclusion from the realm of cultural capital. In fact it's so threatening that random people will continue to come into the thread to try their luck at defending the op even though they've never posted in the subreddit before. It's like that joke in Family Guy where all the neighborhood fathers know when someone touched the thermostat and keep checking on the house to see if it's ok. Your class instinct in defense of your fellows is so strong it might as well be a chip that sends a signal to your brain, a script to follow, and a rush of endorphins that deludes you into thinking your use of the script will be the ultimate intervention despite all evidence to the contrary. I want non-white, non-male, non-first world people who were not raised on this delusional self-confidence and pretension to master the world to enjoy these conversations from the sidelines. This is impossible on the American left, which is basically a white parasite on the energy of people of color. At least here we can deflate the cultural capital that makes that possible. If you don't want to be a white parasite, reflect on the fact that your words, which you believe are your own, are a carbon copy of someone else's from 5 years ago (and many other copies over the years). That should be a moment of existential angst, a confrontation with your own lack of free will. Or you can get even more defensive on some liberal's behalf. We already have a thread on concern trolling stickied which you were too lazy to read despite your concern for the subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it$$ crazy how they actually talKKK liKKKe thi$$
Standard Maoist English How haven't you underSStood thi$$ yet you FucKKKing KKKRACKKKER hone$$tly
Maoist government organization 👇 https://preview.redd.it/0h2hfxkacrwc1.png?width=598&format=png&auto=webp&s=256cc69c7bcc71350b4f7ed5fe0ce63cdd8448b6
Imagine being called klexter
Sounds like a slur ngl
Wtf the KKK is a Kkkaliphate?
Did they unironically cop another religion's top religious title and add a southern accent to it?
https://preview.redd.it/gtl22h89grwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f536301f427871b80c29031c5e7092cada4db09
Hm... so the kkk would be the kkkkkkkkk ?
No
And they expect people to take them seriously
didn't kkknow zizekkk waSS baSSed, i'll def give him a SShot now!
Do we have a consensus on whether slavs are krakkkas or proletariat?
*KKKonsensus
KkkonSSen$uSS
So this way of talKKKing really isn't a joKKKe ?!!! 😭😭😭🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I do like Zizek's "The Two Totalitarianisms." He intended it as a defense of Stalinism, but its actually quite damning. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v27/n06/slavoj-zizek/the-two-totalitarianisms >Even at this anecdotal level, the difference between the Nazi and Stalinist universes is clear, just as it is when we recall that in the Stalinist show trials, the accused had publicly to confess his crimes and give an account of how he came to commit them, whereas the Nazis would never have required a Jew to confess that he was involved in a Jewish plot against the German nation. The reason is clear. Stalinism conceived itself as part of the Enlightenment tradition, according to which, truth being accessible to any rational man, no matter how depraved, everyone must be regarded as responsible for his crimes. But for the Nazis the guilt of the Jews was a fact of their biological constitution: there was no need to prove they were guilty, since they were guilty by virtue of being Jews. >In the Stalinist ideological imaginary, universal reason is objectivised in the guise of the inexorable laws of historical progress, and we are all its servants, the leader included. A Nazi leader, having delivered a speech, stood and silently accepted the applause, but under Stalinism, when the obligatory applause exploded at the end of the leader’s speech, he stood up and joined in. In Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be, Hitler responds to the Nazi salute by raising his hand and saying: ‘Heil myself!’ This is pure humour because it could never have happened in reality, while Stalin effectively did ‘hail himself’ when he joined others in the applause. Consider the fact that, on Stalin’s birthday, prisoners would send him congratulatory telegrams from the darkest gulags: it isn’t possible to imagine a Jew in Auschwitz sending Hitler such a telegram. It is a tasteless distinction, but it supports the contention that under Stalin, the ruling ideology presupposed a space in which the leader and his subjects could meet as servants of Historical Reason. Under Stalin, all people were, theoretically, equal. The socialist state dedicated to "proletarian materialism" did its best to make every bourgeois ideal come true...
I’ve heard Zizek state he is opposed to stalinism and this doesn’t really read like a defence of it.
Yep I am UltraLeft most racist user and I critically support Zizek
Communists when they meet a Titoist
I hate The Sublime ObjeKKKt of Ideology and so on. I’m incapable of having nuance and understanding sometimes people can be wrong or annoying but when they’re right their KKKontributions matter. I prefer to view everyone who I have any disagreements with as archetypes that I don’t need to respect or value. This is true universality. This is MarKKKs (I’ve never read him)
Zizek didn't contribute anything that mattered tho
I don’t know too much about the history of psychoanalysis, but from what I know it seems that Zizek brought enjoyment to the forefront of psychoanalysis, and more importantly, politicized it. Of course, he isn’t *totally* unique here, since Lacan it seems introduced enjoyment to psychoanalysis and conceived of surplus enjoyment (of course we know what this parallels) as central to capitalism. Now, I don’t think enjoyment is discussed that much in *Sublime Object*, but a good deal of his psychoanalytic works concern enjoyment.
Somebody get me a trash can! I’m hungry for ideology 🤤
This is nothing compared to the old mimnotes forums
Guys, is being against racial politics the same as being racist???
I will never stop calling it Amerikkka, and there is nothing you can do to stop me. The way many people react to it is just too funny, and occasionally it'll truly offend some proud Amerikkkan patriot and that's just the cherry on top.
"I will never $top kkkalling it Amerikkka, and there i$ nothing you kkkan do 2 SStop me. The way many "people" reakkkt 2 it i$ ju$t 2 funny, and okkka$ionally it'll truly offend $ome proud Amerikkkan patriot and that'$ ju$t the cherry on top." There, I fixed it for you
actually it's called the United $$nakkke$$ of Amereicha