A Modern Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Model

Submitted by josefStallman in Communism

I'd describe myself as a MLM, generally. What that means to me is a few major points:

  • All history is ultimately class struggle (Marxism)
  • A revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is necessary in order to establish socialism (Leninism).
  • A vanguard of leaders is necessary to protect a revolution from outside influences (Leninism).
  • As long as capitalism and bourgeoisie interests exist, it is necessary to attempt to destroy them, because they cannot exist alongside socialism (Maoism).
  • The most important goal is the protection and well being of the members of the society (Maoism).
  • The ultimate goal of a communist is to create a stateless, classless, moneyless, socialist society. We share this (generally) with Anarchists (Marxism).

However, many MLM leaders have failed to follow many of these tenants, and as such their attempts to create a socialist society have also failed. How do we solve that? I think it should be by implementing ideas from anarchism into a MLM model.

A vanguard is required to spread class conciousness. A vanguard cannot really be elected or decided, because it is usually not a real organization. Instead, a vanguard functions more like antifa: allied, but mostly concerned with the well being of the community they serve.

A revolution comes when class conciousness has spread to the point where the majority of the lower class understand that it's necessary (and some event sparks it; a vanguard can also be involved in this). However, a revolution should not be heavily organized. A heavily organized revolution will concentrate power in the hands of the organizers too much, and will often pass that power once the revolution is finished.

After a revolution is finished, most power should immediately be handed to the new directly democratic society. All large-scale economic and social decisions should be handled through direct democracy by the society as a whole. Representatives can be elected if the society sees fit, but its not necessary.

However, foreign policy and defence should still be handled by a vanguard. The vanguard must be able to be recalled if it becomes a danger to the people it's meant to protect. Not having to wait for a vote allows a vanguard to react effectively to threats.

What are your thoughts on this?


You must log in or register to comment.


________deleted wrote

After a revolution is finished, most power should immediately be handed to the new directly democratic society.

This has always been the stumbling block. No one in history seems willing to give up their power. I'm not sure how to ensure that the vanguard doesn't stop serving the people in favor of serving the leader's interests.


Defasher wrote

That's because humans are incapable of acting against their self interests. That's what all communist ideologies forever fail to grasp. People can't be trusted with inordinate power.


ShapesInMist wrote

That's because humans are incapable of acting against their self interests.

This is fox news level anti-communist propaganda.

People act against their self interest all the time.


Defasher wrote (edited )

No, it's basic postleftism. People work together but only if they stand to benefit from it. It doesn't discount mutual aid.


ShapesInMist wrote


I'll bite. Some postleft reading material please.


Defasher wrote

Post-left Anarchism

1) The Left

  • critiquing the Left as nebulous, anachronistic, distracting, a failure & at key points a counterproductive force historically ("the left wing of capital")

  • critiquing Leftist activists for political careerism, celebrity culture, self-righteousness, privileged vanguardism & martyrdom

  • critiquing the tendency of Leftists to insulate themselves in academia, scenes & cliques while also attempting to opportunistically manage struggles

2) Ideology

  • a Stirner-esque critique of dogma & ideological thinking as a distinct phenomenon in favor of "critical self-theory" at individual & communal levels

3) Morality

  • a moral nihilist critique of morality/reified values/moralism

4) Organizationalism

  • critiquing permanent, formal, mass, mediated, rigid, growth-focused modes of organization in favor of temporary, informal, direct, spontaneous, intimate forms of relation

  • critiquing Leftist organizational patterns' tendencies toward managerialism, reductionism, professionalism, substitutionism & ideology

  • critiquing the tendencies of unions & Leftist organizations to mimic political parties, acting as racketeers/mediators, with cadre-based hierarchies of theoretician & militant or intellectual & grunt, defailting toward institutionalization & ritualizing a meeting-voting-recruiting-marching pattern

5) Identity Politics

  • critiquing identity politics insofar as it preserves victimization-enabled identities & social roles (i.e. affirming rather than negating gender, class, etc.) & inflicts guilt-induced paralysis, amongst others

  • critiquing single-issue campaigns or orientations

6) Values

  • moving beyond anarchISM as a static historical praxis into anarchY as a living praxis

  • focusing on daily life & the intersectionality thereof rather than dialectics / totalizing narratives (except anarcho-primitivists tend toward epistemology)

  • emphasizing personal autonomy & a rejection of work (as forced labor, alienated labor, workplace-centricity)

  • critiquing Enlightenment notions of Cartesian dualities, rationalism, humanism, democracy, utopia, etc.

  • critiquing industrial notions of mass society, production, productivity, efficiency, "Progress", technophilia, civilization (esp. in anti-civilization tendencies)


"Whatever You Do, Get Away with It" by Jason McQuinn

"Leftism 101" by Lawrence Jarach

"Anarchists, Don't let the Left(overs) Ruin your Appetite" by Lawrence Jarach

"Critical Analysis of the Left: Lets Clean House" by Joaquin Cienfuegos

"Critical Thinking as an Anarchist Weapon" by Wolfi Landstreicher & Jason McQuinn

"Against Organizationalism: Anarchism as both Theory & Critique of Organization" by Jason McQuinn

"Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values" by Jason McQuinn

"From Politics to Life: Ridding anarchy of the leftist millstone" by Wolfi Landstreicher (heavily critiqued by Lilith in "Gender Disobedience: Antifeminism & Insurrectionist Non-dialogue"

Radical Theory: A Wrecking Ball for Ivory Towers" by Wolfi Landstreicher

"Against Mass Society" by Chris Wilson

"On Organization" by Jacques Camatte

"Pilsen: Chicago’s Revolution of Everyday Life" by Silas Crane

"Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs"

"Days of War, Nights of Love" by CrimethInc

"the Ego and Its Own" by Max Stirner


Nichism wrote

Interesting. This dual power system you are proposing here seems very similar to the dual power system that exists in Rojava. I'm still very wary of the idea of vanguards, though. If there were to be a party with some sort of executive power they should be much more restricted in their authority than other vanguards were in previous revolutions. I'm Curious what your thoughts on democratic confederalism are.


Tequila_Wolf wrote

I'm mostly interested in your thoughts on how direct democracy would work for something country-sized.

Everyone making decisions on every bit of policy? How will people be able to share opinions accessibly at such a large scale?


josefStallman wrote

I think that people should make decisions on policy that directly affect them.

For example, if factory workers need to decide hours, they could decide that within themselves. Perhaps each self-defined community could elect a representative for country-wide policy. It would generally have to be decided by whatever the community feels is best for them.


[deleted] wrote (edited )


[deleted] wrote (edited )


[deleted] wrote (edited )


[deleted] wrote (edited )


BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

Sorry about that grumpy asshole yelling at you.

Primitivists aren't communists so idk what he's even on about.