Most of the article is pretty levelheaded, but this got a chuckle out of me:
The Communist Party of Peru did not “boil children alive”. I have seen nothing like this written anywhere. They did, apparently, use scalding water as a method of execution, along with stones and machetes. They did, also, engage in the act of killing infants, elderly people, and pregnant women at the village of Lucanamarca in 1983.
Technically they didn’t boil babies, they just sometimes executed people with scalded water, and some of the people they executed were babies.
Bonus from the comments:
sorry to be totally accurate we will call you infant exterminators now MLM’s
I was this close to joining his (blacklikemao) cult at one point. This close. Sheesh.
Story time, you hinted at him being a cult leader a while back. I wanna know more!
spoilin this
FTP (For the People) is the least insane Maoist formation in the U.S. and bla*****emao is the least batshit Maoist chairperson.
FTP advertises itself as a non-Gonzaloite MLM pre-party formation guided in no small part by the struggle for black liberation.
Consequently, the individual in question likes to pretend to be the arbiter of black liberation. Regardless of the utter whiteness of the party - they even once had a split over settler feelings and quasi-ironic talk of deporting settlers and the like.
I know individuals who have been consumed and spat out by the organization. Instructed to carry out… most kindly and non-incriminatingly said, ultraleftist action. Dangerous. No explanation. Demcent means following orders blindly, after all. They do not speak fondly of their experience.
The line taken on revolutionary suicide approaches the idea very, very seriously, and often literally. Though one would be assured that the org’s leadership does not support putting cadre in danger for no reason, I will say that actions speak louder than words.
Non-Gonzaloite, yeah? No. Not really. They ditch the worship LARP of Gonzalo, but he is still upheld (with just a twinge of cautious apologia and embarrassment) as a worthwhile theorist and revolutionary. The politics are eclectic and entirely inscrutable from the outside, seemingly tailing the random ideological whims of their leader.
I have to remain a bit vague in a public comment. They are very online, probably searching for any and all references to the org and leadership.
I used to wonder how they could be so active online with so few people while building revolution.
Ah. It’s because they’re almost entirely online, of course, and when they’re not, they’re plastering arcane propaganda on abandoned building walls or planting crops on toxic land.
They’re better than Red Guards, I guess. They won’t mail you dead rats or impale pig heads, just instigate petty and violent online feuds if you are deemed ideologically impure.
This is where my ignorance on history begins to show. I wasn’t aware that Maoists (I assume that is what MLM is referring to) were generally considered Ultras. I’ve been a fan of Mao for a long time so this was kind of important to know
MLM ≠ Mao. Mao’s philosophy is Marxism Leninism Mao Zedong Thought. It can be kinda confusing, but MLM is a post-Mao synthesis.
5 second skimming and i already can’t:
But, these other “leftists” were not saints
On one hand, using word for word one of the worst chud arguments, on the other inventing something like this: “Bourgeois (And Dogmato-Revisionist)”
MLM vernacular is so god damn cringe, I just can’t with this smug, self-gratifying crap. Like is it some kind of precondition to be an MLM to shoehorn the term “revisionist” in every single paragraph of every single text you write? It’s so excessive and annoying
I mean, it is literally the only thing most MLMs believe distinguish them from MLs. They would be MLs except for all the terrible things we did, but all the terrible things can be explained by revisionism, and they would do everything we did without the bad things because they are “anti-revisionist”. All the bad things they’ll do will only be done to the reactionaries and the MLs, because it’s “anti-revisionist” to do so.
Essentially, it’s a transplantation of the moral binary, which ironically makes it revisionism.
Marx wanted to revise parts of Capital Volume 1, he’s a revisionist (!!!)
I think its some kind of drinking game.
My liver hurts on mere thought.
“dogmato-revisionist” sounds like an oxymoron to me
Not really, for example: maoists. They at the same time managed to wage decades long armed conflicts because dogmatically following Mao and at the same time completely miss the real meaning of his theory.
It’s just a shitty sounding term and it’s annoying because how not self aware they are.
it does make some kind of sense when you put it like that
