Mao is correct in saying that communists need to learn from the masses. He’s talking about the Mass Line, an organizational tool to help keep the communist party linked with the masses and avoid tailism or commandism. However, that doesn’t mean liberalism is correct, because there are more liberals. Mao also wrote Combat Liberalism, in which he talks about the necessity of ideological struggle within the party, and proper agitation among the masses to lead them to correct theory and practice, as is the utility of the vanguard.
In your quoted text, Mao is fighting those members of the communist party that shirked their duties and looked at themselves as above the masses, a small but relevant issue within the CPC at the time. He isn’t saying to abandon Marxism or teaching about Marxism in favor of whatever is most popular.
In your quoted text, Mao is fighting those members of the communist party that shirked their duties and looked at themselves as above the masses, a small but relevant issue within the CPC at the time.
Liberals on Lemmy.world are ideologically wrong. Lemmy.ml is also made up of largely working class people. Mao’s point is not that anything that is popular is correct, but that the working classes better understand the world through direct practice, life-activity. The conflict between Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ml isn’t because communists refuse to see the wisdom of the working classes, but because in areas where liberals and communists disagree, the liberals are incorrect. Wisdom comes from the working classes engaging in direct practice, yes, but this practice needs to be guided by correct theory, otherwise it’s just vulgar empiricism rather than dialectical materialism.
But you don’t achieve wisdom by cloistering yourself apart from the out-group to create a neo-intelligentsia that treats theory as scripture and prioritizes only the aesthetics of revolution while ignoring the plight of the uneducated masses as a lost cause. That is the idea I am critical of (not you per se, but the behavior I’ve seen from a lot of others around the fediverse who care more about tribalism based on nothing more than the instance someone calls home).
I’m just here for a forum, not a soapbox.
Ok, I am also here for some memes, too. Life sucks without laughter.
We don’t cloister ourselves, nor are we a “neo-intelligentsia.” Theory isn’t scripture, and we don’t prioritize aesthetics while ignoring the plight of the masses. I even made an introductory ML reading list to help out with theory. I just don’t see the issues you see here.
I wasn’t factoring you in this “we” you mention, I specifically clarified I wasn’t. This “we” tribalism is a simulated and false perception, that’s the point I’m getting at.
Are you actually responding to me or are you just talking around me to make a point?
Mao is correct in saying that communists need to learn from the masses. He’s talking about the Mass Line, an organizational tool to help keep the communist party linked with the masses and avoid tailism or commandism. However, that doesn’t mean liberalism is correct, because there are more liberals. Mao also wrote Combat Liberalism, in which he talks about the necessity of ideological struggle within the party, and proper agitation among the masses to lead them to correct theory and practice, as is the utility of the vanguard.
In your quoted text, Mao is fighting those members of the communist party that shirked their duties and looked at themselves as above the masses, a small but relevant issue within the CPC at the time. He isn’t saying to abandon Marxism or teaching about Marxism in favor of whatever is most popular.
That is the analogy I was looking to make, yes.
Liberals on Lemmy.world are ideologically wrong. Lemmy.ml is also made up of largely working class people. Mao’s point is not that anything that is popular is correct, but that the working classes better understand the world through direct practice, life-activity. The conflict between Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ml isn’t because communists refuse to see the wisdom of the working classes, but because in areas where liberals and communists disagree, the liberals are incorrect. Wisdom comes from the working classes engaging in direct practice, yes, but this practice needs to be guided by correct theory, otherwise it’s just vulgar empiricism rather than dialectical materialism.
But you don’t achieve wisdom by cloistering yourself apart from the out-group to create a neo-intelligentsia that treats theory as scripture and prioritizes only the aesthetics of revolution while ignoring the plight of the uneducated masses as a lost cause. That is the idea I am critical of (not you per se, but the behavior I’ve seen from a lot of others around the fediverse who care more about tribalism based on nothing more than the instance someone calls home).
I’m just here for a forum, not a soapbox.
Ok, I am also here for some memes, too. Life sucks without laughter.
We don’t cloister ourselves, nor are we a “neo-intelligentsia.” Theory isn’t scripture, and we don’t prioritize aesthetics while ignoring the plight of the masses. I even made an introductory ML reading list to help out with theory. I just don’t see the issues you see here.
I wasn’t factoring you in this “we” you mention, I specifically clarified I wasn’t. This “we” tribalism is a simulated and false perception, that’s the point I’m getting at.
Are you actually responding to me or are you just talking around me to make a point?
I just have a different perspective on it than you do.