M-L-M Mayhem!

Over a year ago the inter-blog dialogue about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism philosophy, between myself and BF of Workers Dreadnought, was temporarily halted.  Thankfully, he just reinitiated the back-and-forth, which forces me, after a year and almost two weeks, to return to our meandering dialogue.  One of the problems with such a re-engagement is the potential for redundancy: I'm trying to reread everything we have written since the dialogue began, already marked somewhat by redundancy, but it is difficult to keep this sort of style conceptually clear––it has its strengths and its weaknesses. Whatever problems (redundancies, tangents, spiralling back-and-forths) result from this sort of theoretical discourse are balanced, I would hope, by the fact that theory is already improved if there is more than one (though there is never an individualistic and isolated "one") writer.  A sort of synthetic insight, I would hope, results from this practice.  Moreover, we hope to clear u

Finally, we return to the interblog dialogue between myself and BF of Workers Dreadnought .  This dialogue began in the fall and the careful reader can read the first entry here .  The most recent contribution, BF’s Regionalization of Marxism , thankfully returns us to our overall outline of Maoist philosophy, perhaps proving that, despite the problems that arise from this form of writing, we aren’t as convoluted as some might think... My last contribution to this shared essay concluded our discussion of what we called the analysis of class and nation in peripheral capitalist formations.  Although more can probably be said on this matter, BF decided that it was appropriate to shift gears and move unto our next topic, the regionalization of marxism.  My last entry ended with a suggestion that it might be appropriate to go further on the first topic, and perhaps connect it to the thought of the Frankfurt School, but in side discussions we both decided this was, at least for the moment

This is a continuation of a dialogical essay between myself and BF of The Workers Dreadnought . In his last entry , BF expanded on some of the concepts I briefly mentioned and thus provided a more coherent background for the international contradiction between the imperialist centres [the capitalist modes of production] and the global peripheries [capitalist formations that have disarticulated and pre-capitalist modes of production].  Moreover, he provided a more specific analysis of the class contradictions that inform both of these contexts.  In this essay, then, I would like to dialogue with his recent contribution by focusing on the concept of semi-feudalism that BF has mentioned at various points.  We must remember that, despite this concept’s popularization with Maoists, it was initially conceived by Mariategui.  It is my contention that Mao’s use of the concept possessed more depth, going beyond its surface and simplistic meaning.  For Mao the label semi-feudal was less an a

This is the ninth part of an interblog dialogue between myself and BF of The Workers Dreadnought .  The eighth part of this dialogical essay, written by BF, can be found here .   In his last entry, BF provided an introductory summary of the first category of our generalized definition of the Maoist development of marxist theory.  He conceptually separated the basic points of what we are calling the analysis of class and nation in peripheral capitalist formations , clarifying “different levels of analysis.”  For this entry, I want to simplify his broad brushstrokes and, beginning with his first level of analysis, try to approach this part of Maoist theory in a manner that renders it less opaque.  That is, I want to focus primarily on what BF called “the inter-national level” because I think this will help us to simplify what we mean by the Maoist analysis of class and nation in peripheral capitalist formations. First of all, we need to understand what is meant by peripheral capital

This is the seventh part of an dialogical essay between myself and BF of Workers Dreadnought .  You can read his previous contribution here . At the end of BF’s last contribution to our dialogue he wrote: “[u]nfortunately in the years after Mao’s death this profound insight has been lost and there has been a retrenching of Mao’s dynamic concepts into a stagnant static form.”  I want to start by recognizing this statement because I believe it is important to note that this is the very reason we have begun this essay dialogue––to reopen Maoist theory, rejecting its ossification.  BF has done a good job of further de-ossifiying the field by rearticulating the categories I put forward at the conclusion of my last entry . While I intend to quibble with his rearticulation of the third category (by following his example and rearticulating it even further), I want to first indicate the four categories of discussion we have, after his intervention, so far: 1. Analysis of class and nation

This is the continuation of the interblog dialogue between myself and BF of Workers Dreadnought . This part of the discussion follows his entry Science and the Concept , which you should read first. Indeed, it is probably best to begin with my first entry , and then work your way forward, back and forth, between our dialogical essay. At this point in the inter-blog dialogue, I think it is worthwhile to move the discussion towards the meaning of the Maoist theoretical coherency we have been circling around for the last four entries. Originally I indicated that there was something that we could properly call “Maoism”, or something that gave the M-L-M equation a general theoretical meaning. BF noted that, while this may be true, we also have to take into account the heterogeneity marked by competing Maoisms: he drew our attention to the concept of a “living science” and indicated that the Maoist development of marxist theory was connected to what he called the displacement of Mao.

This is a continuation of a dialogue between BF of Workers Dreadnought and myself about Maoism. Since I am responding to his response to my previous posting, the careful reader should read his entry here . When I ended my last contribution to the inter-blog dialogue, I thought that BF would begin to excavate the theoretical territory that we can call Maoism. Thankfully, he has provided a much more fruitful response––one that narrows in on the issue of coherency in general. Thus, I think it is important to engage on this level of theory so as to provide a basis for a discussion of what we mean when we say Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: BF’s entry has done a good job of describing the general characteristics of this basis. Here, I hope to show that his analysis coincides completely with what I meant by Maoist coherency. First of all, I want to agree with his insightful statement: “perhaps an important component of Maoism is the displacement of Mao being our single theoretician and revolu

This entry will begin an inter-blog dialogue between myself and BF of The Workers Dreadnought that is aimed at discussing the theoretical contributions of Maoism to the Marxist canon. The title comes from a statement by John Hutnyk in Bad Marxism where he speaks of drawing upon “that three-headed beast” of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Our intention is to demonstrate how the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist tradition should not be understood simply as a sectarian species of Marxism but, rather, as a tradition that has produced a very important development of Marxist theory. Thus, instead of relying on dogmatic diatribes that bash other marxisms, we are concerned with what can be used productively for the reinvigoration of a Marxist politics. When the Cultural Revolution failed and the “capitalist roaders” became the directors of China’s national destiny, Mao’s rich and revolutionary legacy was obscured behind successive waves of reactionary historiography, both from the centres of capitalism an