Read on Twitter
Thread with some points I have noticed about MLs
So, firstly, ML's hate the own content of their fundamental theory ever being brought up. The only real content their theory has is the theory of the productive forces and the assumptions that it rests on/that rest on it.
The theory of the productive forces comes from a view of diamat that places content above form. From here we get the theory, and from the theory we get all of ML historical materialism and its conclusions.
Issue is, ML's don't want to adopt the logical conclusions of the theory of the productive forces because it would either imply they shouldn't exist, or it'd make them explicitly chauvinistic if they're white cishet ableds.
If you ever bring up the theory of the productive forces, you're "viewing ML too rigidly" even though everything else rests on it. Without it, what content does ML actually have? The answer is always something that leads too or rests on this theory.
So we have a contradiction here, there is a dissonance between their actual positions and the core of the idea they are using to justify those positions. Resulting in a very complicated set of contradictory statements and arguments.
So, how do MLs get out of this position, where they should lose every argument by default? Well, as I said, they obscure the content of their theory to begin with, so it rarely comes up, but they also ensure that any criticism of them gets deflected to put them on the offensive.
For example, if the criticism is from an anarchist, they always make the argument about MLism vs anarchism, and what they then do is project their *view* of anarchism onto their opponent instead of engaging with the content of their theory.
This then makes the anarchist have to constantly be defending themselves and correcting misunderstandings they have been bogged down in. They can't simply argue against MLism, they have to argue FOR anarchism with a dishonest opponent.
Is this to say anarchism is correct? absolutely not, given time I could point out just as many short comings and inconsistencies within anarchism. But it is to point out the pattern of behaviour from MLs. The way they act in relation to other ideologies.
They otherize them, and then criticise a strawman, putting the enemy on the constant defensive. How do we conquer this issue though? Well, the answer is simple. We don't give ourselves ideological labels. If we don't, they can't otherize and strawman us as easily.
It forces them to either give up or engage with the actual criticisms being made, and if they do the latter using lines of argumentation surrounding the theory of the productive forces, it is quite easy to get them to give in.
Because their strategy of always being on the offensive stops working and suddenly we're able to expose how ML is internally inconsistent. So, I advocate for rejecting any ideological label, any linguistic signifier which could be used to project false narratives onto, etc
Because, what can they do with that really? they can say "you think x y and z" and then you can just respond with "I dont though" and their attack stops working. Give your ideology a clear content but a form that is impossible to pin down and attack.