Potentially silly question, but are different arms of Marxism relevant to different global situations?
Potentially silly question, but are different arms of Marxism relevant to different global situations?
Is this a misguided idea? That different ideologies, such as 'vanilla' Marxist-Leninism are more applicable to more industrialized countries, or perhaps countries closer to the imperial core, while ideologies such as MLM are more applicable to the most imperialized, agragrian/feudal countries of the world?
You're completely correct but, I think, looking at the situation the wrong way.
The entire point of the Marxist Dialectic is the ideology evolving to match its material conditions. There is no such thing as "Vanilla" Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, because Marxism includes Dialectic evolution. Maoism is Marxism. Trotskyism is Marxism. Marxism-Leninism is Marxism. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism.
This is why you should be suspicious of anyone who identifies with a sub-tendency, especial "Hoxhaists".
That makes a lot of sense to me. I think my question is really coming from the modern day divide between MLs and MLMs. I'm still trying to understand what differentiates Marxism Leninism applied to its material conditions, versus a new stage of development in ML theory.
It's a chicken/egg thing, the tendencies you mentioned tend to be more effective in their respective conditions because those are the conditions they evolved in.
Marxism Leninism can adapt to any material conditions with proper study. Mao Zedong thought is just more effective in the periphery because it developed in semi-feudal China. It is thus, the basis for socialism with Chinese characteristics. Other periphery comrades can adapt MZt to their conditions further. Dogmatic Leninism doesn’t work well anywhere.
Was what was done in the Soviet Union, at least during Lenin's leadership, considered to be Dogmatic Leninism? What seperates Dogmatic Leninism from Marxist-Leninism?
Also, would you say Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is an adaptation of these material conditions? Or a higher stage of development. What even differentiates the two?
Lenin’s ideology was not dogmatic as it was simply an adaptation of Marxism to the imperialist stage of capitalism and the Russian conditions. Dogmatism means the refusal to change. This would be people who think they can copy and paste the Russian or Chinese experience onto other situations. It’s also when people refuse to give up positions that have been proven false in practice and refuse to take up new developments (ex. Patsocs who hold onto reactionary nationalism and deny new Decolonial theory). MZT was an adaptation to China’s conditions, but it was not significantly different to ML and not all of its discoveries applied elsewhere. Thus there can be dogmatic “Maoism,” but there can also be better versions like that in India. There was a recent post on the difference between “dengism” and Maoism, so I suggest you look for that (search dengism in posts sorted by new).