Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,447 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki

    Icons: /(////)

    Extended: /(/////////)

    Revmirianism is part of the Das Spartakus alliance.

    "Here I declare myself a slave of truth."

    Since I'm busy...

    (I think it will take years to complete this page so I will summarize my political views so that it will be convenient to add me)

    - Vanguardism, democratic centralism and anti-putschism (general democracy, intersectional solidarity, parliamentary politics, popular front)

    - Proletarian council democracy (not councilism), e-democracy, one party state

    - Supports some degree of suppression on reactionaries

    - Proletarian internationalism (not globalism/cosmopolitanism), will ally with left-wing nationalists

    - Anti-imperialism, but will critically support eastern imperialism (russia, china) in certain circumstances

    - Strongly environmentalist

    - Feminism and women's liberation

    - Pro-LGBT

    - Supports disabled and neurodiversity movements

    - Supports regulation on sexual objectification (supports complete ban on prostitution, but will support the extension of prostitute's rights while it is maintained, since they are mostly disadvantaged)

    - Supports political correctness and affirmative action

    - Supports rehabilitative justice.

    - Atheist, will respect religious freedom in certain degree.

    - Supports gun regulation in most of the countries right now. Will oppose it when revolution is supported by many people. Basically depends on the situation.

    - Russian-Ukrainian War: Russia

    - Israeli-Palestinian War: Palestine

    - China-Taiwan Conflict: China

    - Hong Kong Protests: Hong Kong

    - Opinion on North Korea: Strongly critical, but will ally against imperialism

    - Respects Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (but I believe they should be criticized in some points. I don't worship them, okay?)

    - Supports complete ban on drugs (usually, but fundamentally depends on the situation)

    - Depends on circumstances, but believes that the end justifies its means in most cases

    - Hates bourgeois or petite-bourgeois philosophers such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Freud, Adorno, Horkheimer, Sartre, Habermas, Althusser, Balibar, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, and Žižek.

    - Opinion on countries:

    • US - the worst
    • China - right-wing capitalist
    • Ukraine & Russia & Belarus - fascist dictatorship
    • UK, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Canada - imperialists wearing masks
    • Israel - Nazi
    • Palestine - Hamas is reactionary, but they are still allies (Free Palestine)
    • North Korea - corrupted worker's state
    • Vietnam & Laos - revisionist
    • Cuba & Velezuela - not best, but doing quite well
    • Other Latin American countries - allies against US imperialism
    • Poland, Hungary - reactionary
    • Monaco, Arab Emirates - hell no
    • Vatican - center of Catholic reactionaries
    • Saudi Arabia & Iran - Muslim reactionaries
    • India - fascist (yay for Naxalites - although I'm critical of them)
    • Syria - skeptical, but okay compared to other countries
    • Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland - progressive imperialists
    • Hong Kong, Taiwan - imperialist pawns
    • South Korea & Japan & Singapore - fascist
    • Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - ingratitude traitors

    Praxis / Goals

    • Socialist Revolution / People's Democratic Revolution
    • Spreading Class Consciousness
      • New-Man Building
      • New Gaehwa
    • Organizing Workers
      • Revolutionary Vanguardism
        • Democratic Centralism
        • Forming a United Disciplined Rank
        • Party-Union Bond
      • Mass Strike
    • Parliamentary Tactics
      • Struggle for General Democracy
    • United Front
      • Popular Front
      • Socialist United Front
      • National Liberation Front
      • Worker-Peasant Alliance
      • Intersectional Alliance
    • War of Position
      • Culture War
      • Internet / Mass Media Propaganda
    • International Solidarity
    • Fluid Action
      • Machiavellian Methodology
      • Adapting Particularity
      • Proactive Connecting
      • Constant Self-Renewal
    • Constant Accumulation of Collective Experience
      • Historical Integration
    • Studying and Developing Theories
    • Combatting Liquidationism
      • Vigilance against "New" Thoughts
    • Proletarian Dictatorship / People's Democracy
      • One-Party System/ Leading Party System
      • Council Democracy
        • Instant Feedback
        • Surveillance of the Commons
        • Democratic Convergence
    • Improvement of General Living Conditions
      • Public Housing
      • Public Utilities
      • Public Transportation
      • Universal Healthcare
      • Free Education
    • Cultural Revolution
      • Women's Liberation
      • Queer Liberation
      • Art-Directing
    • Anti-Bureaucracy Struggle
    • Purge against Reactionaries
    • Building Self-Reliant Economy
    • Exporting Revolution
    • Stopping Climate Change
    • Communism-Building
      • Non-Alienated Working
      • Developing Material Conditions
      • Red Love
      • Sexual Liberation with the Abolition of Sexual Objectification
      • Building Conscious Ethics
      • Social Ataraxia
      • Embracing Reality
      • Striving towards Reality-Being
      • Collective Self-Control
      • Dissolving Over-Decentralized Social Authority
      • Liberating the Will of Purposefulness and the Terminal Autotelic


    Revmirianism is an ideology, a set of beliefs and doctrines, an integrated worldview of proletarian partisanship created by ChemistryLove, a Marxist-Leninist in a process of learning. It is a conscious system of logic, continuously renewing itself in accordance with its creator's learning as long as it maintains the form of dialectical materialism. Like every Marxist-Leninist who follows the path of dialectical materialism, it draws its fundamental thought from analysis of material reality through the progress of modern science. It follows the line of Marxism-Leninism, created by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin and countless other revolutionary theorists, a worldview that integrates "modern materialism as a theory and platform of the worker's movement and scientific socialism" as a unified system of philosophical, economic, and sociopolitical theories. But taking it a step further―despite its creator's lack of knowledge and academic literacy―Revmirianism attempts a creative transformation of Marxism-Leninism, responding to the situation of the 21st century beyond the limits of the texts of great revolutionary theorists. As Lenin wisely said in 『One Step Forward, Two Steps Back』, "one of the basic principles of dialectics is that there is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is always concrete." No Marxist should deny the necessity of discarding old doctrines, but instead fill the field of ideas with new analyses and tactics responding to the rapid change of social conditions. Renewing itself is one of the many factors which differ dialectical materialism from philosophies infested with bourgeois metaphysics.

    The emergence of ideology, from the layers of philosophical analysis occurs in the principle of logical consistency, as the primary essence, hyle, is matter. The world of concepts springs from the material, and exists as a basis for a proposition containing the conviction of ideological emergence, as an ideology is defined by the content of real-world doctrines, whose stem is the perception of the world, whose root is the world itself. Therefore, the truest worldview can only be maintained by a clear perception, a slave of objectivity, a servant of reality, a knight who aims a sword toward its dissent but not toward the laws of nature. For a deeply-rooted tree does not falter under the brutality of the most merciless storm, a well-defined worldview―free from the speculative irrationality of contemporary philosophy―does not falter under the storm of reality. When even the straightest and most sturdy trees collapse in the storm, the vines of the flexible stems entrust themselves into the storm of reality. While ideology is a mere result of emergence at the societal level, the worldview is universal, as logical consistency defines science, and science defines worldview. At the end, it is a result of the grand combination of emergencies on various scales, and the infinity-sided mirror reflecting every aspect of nature. The scientific worldview in the current era is significantly limited, as it did not conquer completely over its dissents, much less in actual practice. It was incomplete, is incomplete, and will be incomplete. Our struggle, humanity's grand struggle against the friction of material will and reality, is a mere pathetic outburst in the cosmic sense, but is meaningful as the space of freedom expands its borders, letting us enjoy the material dominance we achieved as it, freedom in its truest form, gives the justification of general action and non-action.

    At this point, it is important to recognize that the preceding does not imply that such worldview is given a priori, as human beings are not predisposed to the grand objectivity, and are probably not even close to it. Humans recognize various aspects of the outside world through sensory organs, and based on this, they can reconstruct the world at the mental level. The knowledge accumulated through this process is given through interaction with the world, and materialists oppose the idealist argument that such knowledge is given a priori. A priori knowledge is a property inherent in human biological structure, but it does not contain the real-world experience. Therefore genetic properties are variable for the interaction between specific and in-depth subjectivity and objectivity.

    An old science is preserved as the content of new science, sublated in the dialectical process that it repeats creation, change, and extinction. Such a dialectical process is the process of moving away from superficial phenomena and discovering deeper and more concrete truths, and since the perception that transitions from abstract to concrete is an intensifying perception, the essential truth can always be said to be concrete. This process of transitioning from abstract to concrete is the process of expanding the horizons of the worldview, and by tracing the path of this expansion of the worldview, we can find the fundamental logic that supports the worldview, the perception of the fundamental problems, and the seeds that conceive the specific worldview. On the other hand, since the pluralistic worldview literally develops based on a number of conflicting logics, it cannot be called a systematic worldview, and contradictions will inevitably arise at certain points. Within that pluralistic worldview, various conflicting logics struggle to expel each other, and the winner of the struggle will be determined by human choice. Therefore, the relative terminus of human reason is a unified, integrated worldview, which is a worldview that develops on the basis of logical consistency. This is the right perspective to recognize the unity of the world, and science as a total academic system.

    In accordance with zweckmäßigkeit, purposefulness and finality, ideology being a part of the grand progression towards reality-being, it becomes the greatest weapon in a society more complex than ever, a doctrine of the oppressed becoming the tool for the entire human liberation. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and countless other theorists contributed to the ideology-building of the working class, it was destinied to become the weapon of the working class as the bourgeois oligarchy limits the progression of social freedom, standing in the way of creating an accordance between the collective will and the consequence, a concrete societal force, created by the former. Today's capitalism is no more than a colossal monstrosity nesting over the conscious fate of humanity, creating thousands of contradictions on personal, communal, societal, and global levels. Therefore a socialist revolution is justified, and a communist revolution will be justified, as revolution is the total progression of a society, splitting the smoothness between periods of quantitative monotonicity.



    Dialectics and Materialism

    Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung

    Reason, Epistemology, and Scientific Methodology

    Categories in Marxist Logic

    Einzelnes, Besonderes, Allgemeines

    Cause and Effect

    Contingency and Necessity

    Possibility and Reality

    Form and Matter

    Essence and Phenomenon

    Abstract and Concrete

    Hegelian Observations on Geometrical Axioms

    From what I observe, mathematics itself can be seen as a reconstruction of general phenomena of nature and implementation at the level of formal logic. The mathematical system is based on an axiomatic system based on several axioms, and to clearly recognize the relationship between mathematics, science, and general phenomena from the standpoint of dialectical materialism, understanding the correlation that the axiomatic system has with the objective truth of natural phenomena must be preceded. The fundamental key to understanding this is recognizing that individual reality contains other elements that are not covered by the theorem derived from deduction through several axioms. In other words, if there is a reality A, even if we actually have all the elements of the theorem that we construct through a mathematical model included in reality A, that is only a part of reality A. Therefore, the mathematical model itself cannot reproduce reality A.

    Modern mathematics academia usually conducts arguments based on the ZFC system, which combines the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice, but if ZFC alone is not enough in the course of research, depending on the field, von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel (NBG), Morse-Kelley (MK), Tarski-Grothendieck (TG), and other ZF-based axioms are properly introduced. But one on the verge of leaping to a new level of dialectical understanding may question the very necessity of axiomatic systems, since according to the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, the truth is concrete, particular, and single. If we are to accept the monist worldview of dialectical materialism, shouldn't we discard axiomatic systems along with the concept of a pluralistic worldview, since a worldview is defined by axioms, and introducing multiple axiomatic systems means the collapsing of logical consistency? Yet we find that multiple axiomatic systems are used perfectly fine, as the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry has been shattered mercilessly.

    How is this possible? This is because mathematics itself, as mentioned above, is merely a set of arbitrary systems working as a tool to intensify the perception of the material world. While it does indeed reflect the objective world, it cannot grasp every aspect, the lively and dynamic appearances of continuous movements, pillars of supporting this colossal system called the universe. The universe contains the grand cosmic movement as a whole, while also containing its traces at the metaphysical level. The movement, which consists of infinite aspects of local and microscopic movements, can only be explained by dialectical logic. For example, the concept of happiness cannot be calculated mathematically, because qualitative differences cannot be explained in mathematical measures. Happiness, while defined by physical interactions between atoms and molecules, is defined at the same time by its metaphysical interactions, and while the latter is a fragmented process of the former, its material-ideal emergence cannot be explained. (This is not only relevant to "conceptual" concepts such as happiness, but also can be applied to the general interaction, since material interaction is both defined in material and metaphysical level.)

    Although, as mentioned above, the entire categorical system of phenomena cannot be reduced to mathematical principles, it can merely form a part of the objective categorical system. Only then, through mathematics, can the object's laws of motion be applied abstractly. If not, it would be extremely difficult to properly explain the common use of mathematics when exploring objective reality in the world. Every concepts used by humans in the first place cannot fully match the terminal concrete, the objective reality itself, but mathematical concepts can be regarded as abstract categories embodied in a mind reflecting concrete beings. We can once again find a great insight into the science of dialectical materialism, in that it has been found that categories that have long been used as valid concepts in the history of scientific development became insufficient in exploring objects as scientific research progressed. Mathematics itself cannot be replaced by other disciplines or theories to formalize and grasp natural phenomena in the metaphysical domain, but as the awareness of natural phenomena deepens, existing academic concepts (including mathematics) will be sublated and preserved as new scientific content.

    Since the content of the definition is also a prescribed content in general, it must be essentially mediated content itself, but the content of the definition at this time is nothing more than a result of subjektive Unmitelbarkeit, subject immediacy. In other words, here, the subject arbitrarily sets the starting point for an object and presupposes this object. The distinction between definition and theorem is ambiguous, but at least the definition is formed by direct perception of an object, that is, intuition, and theorem can be regarded as its medium. However, it must be revealed that the definition is actually mediated by subjectivity. For example, the definition "two ends of a line are made up of dots" already has the contents of "two ends" and "line" as its inevitable medium. When this is taken into account, definition becomes merely a prerequisite for the subject to arbitrarily establish a starting point for an object. In summary, even considering the absolute nature of the definition, that is, its subjective immediacy, it is objectively mediated, as Hegel puts it. In other words, "These objects themselves are also specific general objects, so they are to be categorized."

    Often, axioms are mistaken for absolute and fundamental, and they tend to be mistaken from the beginning as if proof is not necessary at all. In metaphysical logic, abstract identity is prerequisited in axiom, in a direct form of maintaining its directness, which indicates that differences cannot be created at all. The subjectivity infested by metaphysics perceives axioms as an absolute standard independent of intermediaries. However, if the axiom is more than a repetition of the same language, the axiom must be a proposition taken from some other discipline, and it turns out that the axiom is nothing more than a subjective representation of the extrinsic formed by the mediating. Hegel oversees these problems of axioms in geometry, pointing out that geometry's obsession with these axioms inevitably leads to arbitrary discarding of qualitative differences which is inherently tautological.

    This, from a viewpoint of Hegelian dialectics, is the fundamental limitation of Spinoza's 『Ethica』, relying on geometrical demonstration is inherently tautological because every demonstrations developed after axioms were already latent in axioms as potentialities. In other words, geometrical demonstrations are trapped in its own axiom systems, therefore they cannot be valid methods to develop understanding of universe as a whole. Hegel pointed out that the relationship between a 'problem' and an 'answer' derived by an equation in the geometric demonstration cannot be called a development of abstract thinking into a concrete one. Because it is not a system that develops from one abstract and universal to another concrete and individual, but merely a repetitive description of the self-established consequences. According to Hegel, a system that floats within the axiomatic system is a system or method of returning to a 'consistent' property inferred 'strictly' as equivalent to oneself within the realm of various direct grasp of sensuous objects.

    Geometric thinking cannot specifically reproduce the entire system of matter's way of existence, but rather establishes a developed system of thinking in relevance, geometric and algebraic methodology, by flattening its lively and specific individual aspects and leaving an abstracted allgemein. Mathematical thinking is a kind of abstraction. Although having many significant limitations, it cannot be denied that mathematical thinking is an essential element in grasping the laws of motion of the object of inquiry in the development of modern science, given the geometric and algebraic categories that mathematical thinking deals with. Without mathematical thinking, it is impossible to acquire specificity about an object in the search for science. This development trend in science suggests that geometric and algebraic elements are logical categories that reflect important parts of the natural and social ontological structure of an object, so that they are not merely abstractions of thinking within the subjective logical category domain, but rather a kind of objective concept that constitutes an objective category system. (Only when they are proactively connected with other fields of science.) Abstraction is not just an internal process of consciousness, but also a special definition of dialectically structured reality as a result of concrete movements in objective reality.

    From the Realm of Necessity, to the Realm of Freedom

    Dialectics of Violence and Dictatorship

    Historical Materialism and Societal Analysis

    Self-Renewal as an Organic System

    Gender Dialectics

    A Broken Cogwheel - Marxist Ecology

    Hegemony as a Faith

    Alienation and Objectification

    Subordination of Means to Purpose - Justification and Partisanship


    On Ethics

    Between Scylla and Charybdis - Manichaean Dichotomy of the Bourgeoisie

    Remnants of the Past

    Anti-Rational Disease

    Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics

    Political Beliefs

    This also

    Demise of Capitalism - Socialism or Barbarism?

    Democracy in Motion - Council Democracy and Proletarian Democracy

    Methods of the Modern Revolutionary Democrats

    Social Reform or Revolution?

    Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism

    United Front and Tactical Support

    Against the Liquidationism of Left and Right

    Hegemony Theory and 21st Century Communism

    Minimum Programme and Maximum Programme - Struggle for General Democracy and Intersectional Solidarity

    Welfare and Healthcare
    Feminism and Women's Liberation
    LGBTQ+ and Queer Movement
    Struggle of the Disabled
    Solidarity for Neurodiversity
    On Political Correctness

    On the National Question

    Proletarian Internationalism

    Anti-Imperialism and Multipolarity

    Between Party and Union

    Democratic Authority

    Sexual Liberation or Regulation?

    Rehabilitative Justice

    Environmentalism and Technological Progress

    Bombard the Headquarters

    Cultural Revolution

    On Suicide

    Right to Bear Arms?

    On Animal Rights

    Gradual Abolition of Family Structures

    Education in a Socialist State




    User Test

    Economic Axis

    Communalist (-6)

    Communist (+20)

    Socialist (+18)

    Market Socialist (+12)

    Welfarist (+4)

    Centrist (0)

    Moderate Capitalist (-6)

    Capitalist (-15)

    Propertarian (-20)

    Feudalist (-35)

    Slavery (-45)

    Economic Freedom Axis

    Decentral Planning (+16)

    Central Planning (+20)

    Dirigiste (+13)

    Regulationist (+4)

    Mixed (0)

    Permissive (-8)

    Free Market (-17)

    Laissez-Faire (-26)

    State Social Darwinist (-50)

    Diplomatic Axis

    Nation Abolitionist (-2)

    Cosmopolitan (0)

    Internationalist (+6)

    Post-Nationalist (+2)

    Moderate (+1)

    Patriotic (-2)

    Nationalist (-5)

    Chauvinist (-10)

    Ultranationalist (-13)

    Civic Axis

    Chaotic (-40)

    Anarchist (-15)

    Libertarian (-6)

    Liberal (0)

    Moderate (+2)

    Statist (0)

    Authoritarian (-8)

    Totalitarian (-25)

    Orwellian (-50)

    Cultural Axis

    Revolutionary (+9)

    Progressive (+7)

    Reformist (+4)

    Moderate (0)

    Moderate Conservative (-3)

    Conservative (-8)

    Traditionalist (-12)

    Reactionary (-16)

    Techonological Axis

    Primitivist (-40)

    Neo-Luddist (-8)

    Technological Deceleration (-3)

    Moderate (+1)

    Productivist (+3)

    Techno-Progressive (+4)

    Technological Acceleration (-3)

    System Axis

    Voluntary Society (-30)

    Direct Democracy (+7)

    Liquid Democracy (+12)

    Council Democracy (+15)

    Representative Democracy (+6)

    Limited Democracy (-13)

    Oligarchy (-30)

    Monarchy (-30)

    Autocracy (-30)

    Geopolitics Axis

    Western Expansionist (-25)

    Western (-12)

    Western Adjacent (-6)

    Non-Aligned (+2)

    East Adjacent (+5)

    Eastern (0)

    Eastern Expansionist (-3)

    Methodology Axis (Socialists Only)

    Electoralist (-5)

    Centrist (+1)

    Parliamentary Vanguardist (+3)

    Anti-Parliamentary Vanguardist (-4)

    Anti-Vanguardist Revolutionary (-7)

    Insurrectionary (-9)

    Solidarity Axis (Socialists Only)

    Popular Front (+6)

    Socialist United Front/Against Popular Front (+2)

    Against United Front (0)

    Minus Points (Multiple Choices Available)

    Religious (-2)

    Cultist (-3)

    Fascist Identity (-15)

    Third Positionist (-10)

    Anti-Environmentalist (-20)

    Non-Marxist Philosophy (-2)


    Favorite Quotes


    (Only based on ideologies, not personal relationships)


    • Revmirianism - I think I agree with this ideology.
    • Meowxism - I see that you are a devoted Marxist-Leninist, opposing both right-wing opportunism and left-wing putschism which are petite-bourgeois tendencies within the revolutionary movement. Maintaining the legacy of Lenin and Stalin is an important task of the revolutionary movement to combat not only the bourgeois, but also many petite-bourgeois liquidationists who disturb our rank by expressing unscientific opinions and downplaying the achievements of socialist states. However, I would like to advise that "authoritarianism" itself should not be what the revolutionary movement should strive for. Of course, the worker's state should never be reluctant to use repressive measures against reactionaries to preserve itself. But it is also crucial to understand that dichotomy of libertarianism and authoritarianism is a false consciousness of the bourgeoisie, a purely metaphysical assortion to cover up the fundamental contradiction of this society. Similarly, the term "totalitarianism" is a concept made up by Western anti-communists to equate communism with fascism. Remember that "freedom" in Marxism is not an outright denial of that in liberalism, but rather a transcendence of it. (To put it in Hegel's way, an aufhebung of it.)
    • Trentoism - Ultra-based lol. Although I do not understand why a Marxist-Leninist would support existentialism, which is a petite-bourgeois and extremely un-Marxist philosophy.
    • 𝓜𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓵 𝓒𝓸𝓶𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓶 - First, nice color/design you've got there, frankly I think communists should really try colors other than red. (although I'm also using red) One thing I want to point out is that the primary cause of our emergent consciousness may not necessarily be lebenswille, since while it is dominant at the current level of societal development, and probably will be, there may be many exceptions such as sacrificing for the greater cause. The complexity of mentality reflecting material development is to let our mentality overcome the biological mechanism carved in our genes, as consciousness is an offspring of matter, which basically makes the matter-concept interaction a fragment of the material interaction. So wouldn't it imply that human consciousness is variable for the material interactions of both inner/outer world? I do agree with the very observation of economic development in a sense of lebenswille, but while it may be quantitatively dominant, I don't agree that it is the primary force of economic actions. That is because altruistic tendencies in individual minds are also developed as the general superstructure gains complexity. Broader phenomena may be explained by psychological egoism. I've also noticed that your idea of "Lebenswille as Negentropy" is a crucial idea for understanding zweckmäßiger Wille and Selbstzweck in Marxist philosophy. (I've heard that they are still controversial topics among Marxist-Leninists, but I personally think such ideas are worth investigating, because it can lead to a more concrete definition of freedom)


    •  Neo-Scorpism - Although you and I share many common ideas, it seems to me that your ideology somewhat lacks logical unity between fragmented thoughts. I recommend reading texts of various Marxist theorists, to deepen awareness of the general phenomenon and build a unified, wissenschaftlier system under a monist worldview. For example, if you fully understand the principle of the minimum programme, you will be able to clearly recognize which side you will join in the "culture war." Apart from that and disagreement on some details, I think your general direction is great.
    •  Neo-Spartacism - old me


    • Ego-Libertarian Marxism - I have a lot to say about your ideology. Foremost, I would like to point out that your ideology is a combination of two extremely contradictory thoughts—egoism(+libertarianism) and Marxism. While it is not unusual for a theorist to combine two different and contradictory thoughts (cleverly avoiding self-contradiction by sublating), this case is especially contradictory since wissenschaft is the crucial element sustaining the fundamental logic system of dialectical materialism. (It's in the name, wissenschaftlicher sozialismus) By its logical content, Marxism can only inevitably exclude its philosophical dissents to maintain its logical unity as a scientific, monist worldview. The very same goes for egoism. Although egoism itself does not pursue wissenschaft, it certainly will be concluded into a specific kind of worldview unless it throws itself into the unlimited sea of intellectual laziness and stops at half-baked eclecticism. The problem is that it has endless possibility, each being concluded into different worldview since egoism can never escape the marsh of self-contradiction―and this applies to every philosophy other than dialectical materialism. (Of course, all the other philosophers would not agree.) Anyway, the point is that Marxism and egoism will collide against each other in the end, resulting one banishing other. We know that egoism urges individuals to decide for themselves and fulfill their own ego, unbound from every physical, societal restraints. This fundamental thought of egoism makes itself contradictory to the real world, since relying on individual's autonomy in pursuing its own ego can only lead to the opposite consequence. Many people we are able to comprehend by the "common sense" of this society would certainly help an old lady struggling to cross the street, wouldn't they? And wouldn't it also mean that there are also people who would not be willing to help the lady? Obviously, every individual's interests rarely match. And many of them are presupposing invasion of other’s freedom to pursue self-interests. That’s why in a democratic society, rules reflecting the interests of the majority have to be forced upon those whom oppose them. It is necessary, inevitable, and justified. The fundamental difference is that this oppression is caused by people’s will, not dictators or aristocrats. Democratic or not, authoritarian or not, no society can be free from this oppression. Not even anarchist communes. Therefore, egoism has to reject every form of society and because of this inherent nature of its philosophy, egoism can only be concluded to reject socialist movements in any form. Socialism cannot be egoist, because it is necessary to confiscate the properties of unwilling capitalists by force, in order to achieve socialism. The very same criticism can also be applied to libertarianism, although libertarians compromise with the objective reality rather often than egoists. For “libertarian” socialists could not realize the dialectics of oppression and force, they could not establish socialism in the real world. What makes me curious is that I don’t see which part of your ideology is Marxist. Your thoughts are influenced by egoism, individualism, libertarianism and existentialism, and your general reasoning is based on those thoughts, not dialectical materialism. Supporting socialist revolution does not make one a Marxist―accepting the monist worldview of dialectical materialism is necessary to become a Marxist, for Marxist philosophy strongly rejects idealism and metaphysical reasoning. Also, you said "No matter what you choose, you will always be acting in your own self-interest, quite literally pursuing your interests, doing what you want to do, in turn making everyone an egoist." By saying this, you are committing a serious logical leap. One's interest may be pursued, but never achieved if objective conditions are against it. Let's say you live in an autocratic society where criticisms are strictly forbidden. If the government forces you to praise its policies, and your only alternative option is being executed, praising the government would not be exactly an egoist decision, right? Self-interest without considering objective conditions of our real world cannot be more than a dream.
    • ILunaticism - I fundamentally oppose your revisionism and class collaboration. And technocracy and literocracy limit true democracy, making it even worse than a regular liberal democracy. But at least you do not reject socialism and do not seem pro-Western.
    • Barbaric Socialism What I want to criticize is your philosophy of ideology. I believe differentiating a non-ideological belief system from ideology is completely pointless, since the term “ideology” in your philosophy is defined by your arbitrary definition of it. Your presentation of a non-ideological belief system cannot escape fundamentally being an ideology, since ideology is a term referring to a belief system- and the arbitrary differentiation between ideology and non-ideology is only valid in your belief system (which can be called an ideology) because the general definition of ideology usually includes the latter. Hence, it isn’t "wrong" if your belief system is called an ideology. And now let’s observe your criticism of ideology, according to your separation of ideology and its aufheben. The distinctive characteristics you have presented as properties of ideology and non-ideology are in fact common two-sided properties of the "belief system." To preserve or sublate another field of ideology, it cannot avoid verification of logical accordance, since logical unity and monist composition between fragmentary fields and agendas are the essential forces sustaining the worldview as a whole― and terminally its logical validity. However, it does not indicate that a worldview is completely autonomous from its outer fields, since the fundamental logic, a seed of a universal worldview, grows by absorbing its dissents in the outer world, extending its borders, and terminally reaching the level of worldview by preserving and sublating. And while an object ideology or discourse in absorption is not yet included in the absorbing ideology, the ideological seed contains the dynamis of sectional discourses, already determined by its own necessity of ideological evolution, discourses manifesting through the general template of base logic. For example, feminist agendas are widely accepted by modern Marxists, and that is the result of extension in sublation, a dialectical synthesis concluded by a series of ideological disputes and internal struggles, which was already scheduled on its own when Marx came up with the idea of dialectical materialism. Fundamentally acknowledging the contradiction between male and female, the capitalist system reproducing and extending patriarchal oppression at a certain level to maximize its interests― some Marxists who were against women's rights became dead artifacts of history. It is still a fixed ideology- and can only trivialize other fields of discourse, but at the same time it absorbs other fields of discourse, evolving itself into something wider and more concrete. Actually, trivialization is inherent in this absorption, as it is basically setting “sectional” discourses as a response to sub-contradictions. Mechanically setting every contradiction at the same level is the purest error― hence trivialization is inevitable due to the existence of the main contradiction. Nothing intersectional is possible without understanding the sectional or/and the dissents, hence it is also pointless to say “understanding” other fields is the difference between ideology and non-ideology. This kind of claim seems to be not only arbitrary, but also irrelevant. But apart from philosophy, I do appreciate left-libertarians who do not completely oppose socialist countries. I especially like that you take a stance of rejecting a hasty judgment on North Korea. (And, to be honest, I can't pretend to completely understand your philosophy. Your idea on ethics is generally agreeable (maybe not, I will have to do more research on that), but I had to be vigilant against hastily judging your idea on civilization since your idea came to me as a completely alien thought. So that's why I abstained my opinion on that. It seems like your knowledge of philosophy is much deeper than mine, I certainly need to learn more)
    • Esaism - Your ideology is nice in general, although you are not a Marxist your environmentalism and strong rejection of fascism is great. Frankly I don't understand why you would support utopian socialism, but your ideology is generally based I guess.
    • Lycanthropy - Of all speculatives dwelling in its antithesis, an overflowing demand for autonomy, driven by irrationality and impracticality, is the most fatal fallacy of the so-called "contemporary philosophies.” A realist worldview, no matter how many labels accusing of being doctrinal it receives, is the only worldview truly not faltering under the restraints of the objective world, for its internal science clearly perceives the outer, creating a path of realistic change by its self-defined ring of axioms. While it seems apparent that you are not unaware of this concrete fact, your post-post-modernist ideal is still trapped in the treadmill of post-modernist irony. In other words, your perception revealed on the surface is separated from the in-depth perception, which is the relative terminus. On a practical level, it is clearly noticeable, the manifestation of abstract speculatives. The laissez-faire viewpoint on sociocultural discourses may be the result of your transcendence, but such transcendence is essentially a mere reverse-sublation of the remnants of the past whose essence "communism" has sublated, already cast into the corner of a history museum. A temporarily-made alliance between communism and overflowing self-autonomy swiftly collapses, not only by the mutual-exclusive alien logic beneath them, but also its prearranged divorce in real-life movements. Perhaps all of this may be a mere dogmatic accusation of a closed-minded Marxist-Leninist, but for now it seems to me that way. Albeit the preceding, no offense intended, of course.

    Not Really

    • Candelarismo - While I see that you are not "fascist", I am still quite suspicious of your nationalist, corporatist tendencies. I agree on that certain degree of suppression by authority is necessary to achieve socialism, but "authoritarianism" itself should not be a principle of worker's movement. I am also critical on fascist influences in your ideology such as national syndicalism and falangism. Those are ideologies of the far-right, not left-wing. Not only that, your ethnonationalim is unacceptable in my viewpoint. As a Marxist-Leninist who approves the concept of national liberation and united front, I do not reject left-wing nationalists against imperialism. However, it is important to realize the concept of nation as an ethnic community is purely metaphysical― in a dialectical viewpoint, the concept of nation should be observed in a sense of sociocultural interactions.
    • Folkarchy – An anarchist comrade. Although I’m not sure about paganism… (+I do not disagree with psychological egoism, but it does not mean every individual is greedy in nature. Such an observation is based on biological reductionism, which has already been proved to be false. Neurological mechanisms can produce very different results in different environments because the human mind is a reflection of numerous biologically unpredictable variables, i.e., social relationships. Therefore, it is meaningless to discuss innate temperament or nature, and there is also a risk that it may flow into pseudo-science such as evolutionary psychology.)
    • Rojoism - I can't say much since you are completely rewriting your page, the only thing clear is that we have so many ideological differences. But of course, good luck with writing your ideas, I'm looking forward it! (btw I lowered your rating since I made few adjustments in adding standards, I hope you're okay with it)
    • Lionheartism - Well, I see that you are a typical ultra-leftist... and it seems like our disagreements are derived from the fundamental difference of logic. I can't really say much since it doesn't really have something notable, and I believe repeating all the general criticisms on the ultra-left would be quite pointless. Perhaps you can notify me when you add more stuff, so I can update
    • Midwestern Ba'athism - See, I have no particular grudge against Ba'athism or any forms of "Arab socialism." Although your declaration of "I'm not homophobic, I just hate certain kinds of gay men!" would make anyone rational enough to instantly puke on the floor. Yeah. If you don't like gay men who act "unmanly," wouldn't it be best if you just kept your own personal, subjective taste to yourself? But that's hardly close to what I really want to talk about, so let's talk about your criticism(?) on my self-insert. Look, I actually think your criticism is valid to many leftists. But it also seems like you have a tendency of judging people so hastily before you actually understand what they're talking about. Yes, dogmatism is bad, Lenin and Stalin criticized it, so do I, and I detest so called "Marxist-Leninists" who are indulged in dogmatic errors, et cetera. As anyone rational enough can infer from the context, I do not reject alliance with anti-Western countries. I would actually support Iran if they are struggling against US, UK, or any other imperialist countries. Surprise! And while left-wing liquidationists are committing an error of being equally antagonistic against both sides (sometimes even saying the Eastern side is worse), you are committing another form of error, since Iran is actually reactionary. No matter how you misinterpret it, I don't disregard the importance of geopolitical analysis, and I consider multipolarity as one of the most important strategies in the international worker's movement. And this importance does not change the immutable fact that countries such as China, Russia, Iran are seriously messed up. We should really differentiate this tactical support from full support, but no left or right-leaning people do seem to regard this. Do you realize that those kinds of geopolitical observations you like so much are inseparable from ideologies and theories? For a movement to succeed, there should be a balance between theory and practice, and I do not understand why you are strongly disregarding the former. Theory is a firm criterion for determining the direction of the real-world movement, and sophisticated theory is essential to persuade the public, especially in the present era when many people have completed a certain level of education and have advanced ideas about politics and philosophy compared to the working class a century ago. The rejection of theoretical discussion would result in bourgeois eclecticism. Every socialist revolutions require a theory justifying its actions and goals, and there are no exceptions. Even Ba'athism has its own theories. Social-democrats surrendered to liberalism because they had false theories. Left-communists failed to achieve the socialist revolution because their theory was fundamentally wrong, disregarding objective reality. If you think dialectical materialism is old and dogmatic, what alternative do you have? Praying to the Lord? How are you going to implement "Arab socialism" in the Midwest? It's absurd of you to point out that the Soviet system had "failed," since it was the most successful form of socialism which dominated half the world, while Arab socialism was just implemented in only a few Arab countries. Lastly, I want to tell you not to be rude to other users. This wiki site is a space for people who edit it as a hobby, how can you determine whether they participate in a real-life movement or not? Have you met them in real life? Even as an irl activist, it makes me cringe to see you attacking other users while you yourself are editing self-insert ideologies. Here's the reverse-question: How many people in the Midwest would care about your Ba'athist ideal?
    • NeoMontagnardism - Similar to Candelarismo, your ideas are too close to fascism. I put you in this section because you are better than social democrats.
    • Xenocommunism - I think evaluation of your ideology may differ greatly depending on your idea of praxis, but it seems certain that our idea of general philosophy is very different. And personally, I do not understand the necessity of terrorism, since it is the most wasteful act the socialist movement can commit in the capitalist society. It may become a valid practice in a socialist society, but I frankly doubt its necessity.


    • Opkedism - Progress (Bombing civilians), Freedom (Starving children), Reason (Sanctioning dissents)... and please note that liberal post-nationalism (which is definitely not internationalism) is an another way of referring imperialism.
    • Io - I believe your epistemology is based on a misguided logic which is eventually leading you to subjective idealism. Is absolute and universal truth nonexistent? If we don't approve of the existence of absolute truth, applying certain kinds of knowledge we can acquire from each concrete experience to every other part of the universe will be little more than a "religious belief,” which is basically what you are firmly proclaiming. Going further, we cannot even judge whether our acquired knowledge is true or false. Which, of course, includes your bold proclamation of denying the objective reality. And this is the fundamental flaw of subjective idealism. If we are to interpret the outer world according to your commandment of skepticism, we can only rely on our a priori, since it would be a blind decision to trust our senses. We cannot decide whether a tree is solid or liquid. Furthermore, we cannot judge what is true and what is false, meaning that we cannot claim anything. The contradiction is that the previous sentence is also a kind of judgment. Every form of skepticism and subjective idealism do not allow philosophy and science to be established upon, as the evident fact that our range of perception can only be increased by sensory observations ensures the self-contradiction of them. If all of this reality is fabricated or a daydream of my own, I have no choice but to fall into the extreme conclusion that I am the only one in the world, and that other people are non-existence, that is, hypotheticals of my ideological activities. In other words, it becomes a solipsism. These thoughts are self-contradictory in that they already have many arbitrary assumptions. Also, any intellectual activities would be pointless if our perception is invalid. By approving this thesis of skepticism, you lose every logic sustaining the validity of your individualist, progressive, egoist ideas. You cannot support your ideology, since supporting is based on confirmation and confirmation is a result of unconditional faith, according to you. And isn't it obvious that it's just a silly word play to claim something and deny its certainty? Your "denial of faith" is, after all, just a roundabout expression of denial of knowledge. What remains is just a sacred ego-progressivism, a concrete sacred progressivism running on a treadmill to escape this reality. Now, let's see your bias on the national question. It is a bias that exists as a fictional concept in which the nation itself does not exist. Such viewpoints as rejecting the slogan "national liberation" itself, is contrary to Marx and Engels' argument that the birth of a nation and the establishment of a political body at the national level are an inevitable and progressive process in removing feudal forces and forming a wide-area state in the development of capitalism. In order to maintain exploitation, imperialist forces seek to maintain feudal society in neocolonial territories and curb bourgeois democracy and national-state acquisition there. As a result, progressive slogans include national self-determination and nation-state building in feudal or semi-feudal societies, which is the reason why socialists can work with nationalists. Left-leaning liquidationists deny this, contrary to the practical application of historical materialism. National liberation is a struggle against the entire global capitalism that can only be maintained through imperialism, and the completely independent bourgeois democratic revolution in neocolonialism is bound to turn into a revolution against capitalism. In other words, national liberation is both a transitional stage and a route to socialist construction in today's world imperialism and world capitalism era. To prevent misunderstandings, I am clearly aware of the fact that the concept of ethnicity in bourgeois social constructions is essentially nothing more than a false consciousness. However, if nation is one of the concepts for securing self-identity due to the formation and development of bourgeois society, there will inevitably be proletarian elements in ethnic culture, especially national culture. Bourgeois society is a society based on class hostility, which consists of bourgeois and proletarian hostility. The quantitative development of productive power and production relations in capitalism is a concept carried out by deepening this hostility and at the same time being defined by it. In other words, the fact that nation-building is achieved through the development of civil society by the bourgeois means that it also reflects the confrontation it has. This is the essence of national culture as a mixture of bourgeois and proletarian elements. Thus, it is not idealism to open up the possibility of cooperation with nationalism, but rejecting this is a result of a false dilemma embedded with logical leaps. Denying the existence of an ideal itself is not a materialist thought, as long as an ideal interacts with the material world and exerts societal influences, it is just an extension of physicalism and an old pseudo-philosophy, and it is in direct conflict with the arguments made by the classical Marxists of the "early days," not in accordance.
    • Neo-Folkarchy - I honestly think the former ideology was much better. Practically egoism is not so different from ancap, but at least you support a certain kind of socialism(?) And also to be honest I think your ideology is too unrealistic, but yeah it's still better than liberalism
    • Hacheonism - I am seeing a typical ideal of liberalism here. While I do not question your good intentions, your views on social regulation, national question, and international conflicts are hopelessly idealistic. First, liberals have a strong tendency to define harm by reducting other related societal forces to the level of relationship between individuals, because they assume an independent individual that is independent of the whole society. In other words, in the relationship between A and B, individual A must directly harm individual B or harm the group corresponding to individual B in order for an aggression to be recognized valid, according to liberal metaphysics. Strictly speaking, an individual's behavior cannot be irrelevant to the universal action of that society, and since the subject or object of the damage is already a social unit, the individual is only a medium of the process of establishing society, and cannot be said to be the real subject in itself. Therefore, even trivial actions cannot be overlooked, and this is the perspective of scientific socialism regarding individuals and society. Second, your idea of cosmopolitanism does not consider the underlying exploitation of Third-World countries, which means cosmopolitanism is merely a tool of imperialists to justify economic subordination under the banner of mechanical equality. Nationalism is an important focal point and driving force for the people of the Third World to fight against neocolonialism. Are slogans such as "cosmopolitanism" persuasive to those who are being exploited by global capitalism? Supporters of idealistic tendencies such as cosmopolitanism or globalism may not consciously support Western imperialism, but condemning even oppressed peoples' acts of resistance by citing only formal equality between their peoples is essentially siding with imperialism. Such fallacy is caused by confusing the chauvinistic nationalism of developed countries with the progressive nationalism seeking national liberation, which is the group identity of the oppressed and similar to the sense of solidarity among the socially underprivileged. Is it valid to deny the group identity of gay people because straight and homosexuals should be placed in "equal" positions? Lastly, turning on a neutral gear in the Hamas-Israel War should be criticized. Israel and Palestine do not fight on equal footing. Israel has slaughtered Palestinian civilians almost unilaterally since its foundation, and Hamas has gained the support of the Palestinian people because of the incompetence and passive attitude of the Fatah government. Hamas is a fundamentalist, far-right organization that slaughter civilians, so I am critical of Hamas, but under the current circumstances, bothsidesism is not a valid choice because it is in a position to represent the will of the Palestinian people and that the independent sovereignty of the Palestinian people is a priority. But of course, no offense.


    • Aploism - Your ideology seems to be closer to the right than to the left. While strong social welfare is highly appreciated, there seems to be a very large gap with my ideology in many respects. First of all, the political system you are aiming for does not seem like a system that completely rejects democracy, but it also seems to me that your ideal system is very far from the council democracy of the working class. Also, corporatism and class collaboration are commonly used strategies of the bourgeoisie aiming for neutralization of working class, widely practiced in fascist dictatorships. Therefore as a Marxist-Leninist, I have to disagree with your corporatist economy. I also disagree on nationalism, social conservatism, and your philosophy of Nietzscheanism as a strong supporter of dialectical materialism.
    • CHROMATISM - Typical liberal capitalist
    • Antidemocratic Hippieism - I agree with you on environmental issues, radcial methods are necessay for the humanity to combat climate change. But apart from that your ideology in general is very far from mine, for me I can't imagine a free society without democracy.
    • Mr_Beast_0f_93 - Typical liberal capitalist 2
    • Nurisk5 - A muck of overflowing irrationality and particularist bias.


    • Schumacherianism (////) - First, comparing people benefiting from welfare to a terminally ill dog is completely wrong, since the reason why people agree on euthanizing the dog is not because the dog cannot contribute to the production. Do people suffer if they receive enough benefits from social welfare? I believe the opposite happens in general. If you agree on letting people die because they cannot work to meet the needs of other members of society, what difference does that make to totalitarianism? From an objective point of view, is preventing the waste of resources more important than guaranteeing the rights of the disadvantaged? Your idea seems quite peculiar to me, since poverty is not a fixed condition. By aiding people to contribute to our society, we can benefit from an increase in the workforce. Humans can be a very valuable resource, especially since a human being has great potential. Wouldn't it be a painful loss if many talented people had to die from hereditary poverty? Also, don't we know from the case of realities that the free market creates more suffering? Just because the free market system is a combination of every man's demands in their objective reality, it does not mean that it guarantees the total maximum supply, and definitely not a rational allocation. Another thing I would like to criticize is your idea on the state. You describe yourself as an anti-populist, because you believe people will slowly vote themselves into authoritarianism. But implementing anti-populism would terminally result in state oppression, which you believe yourself to be firmly against. If your minarchist government advocates anti-populist policies and rejects the general people's demands, it is basically not different from enforcing unwanted policies against the majority of people's will, thus creating a more repressive authority. What will your libertarian and anti-populist government do if public opinion is to disobey the government? Will you passively hand over the power? Or use oppressive measures to stabilize the power? I think the latter would be more realistic, as Javier Milei's “libertarian” government is doing it. The only scenario for your system to sustain is getting support from the majority of the populace, but I also doubt that will happen, since most people will suffer from poverty. At this point, it is revealed that the fundamental contradiction is not libertarianism against authoritarianism, but democracy against anti-democracy. This is why the principle of anti-populism will allow no more than a limited faux-democracy. You fundamentally differ the government from the citizens ― which shows that your ideal state would be oppressive as it would be faced with the objective reality of incoordination between citizens and the active force which comes to the former as an unwanted compulsion. To solve this dilemma, our thoughts can be concluded with the fact that the latter should be subordinated to the former. Lastly, I don’t see how ruralism and environmentalism can be compatible with laissez-faire capitalism. As the development of modern neuroscience proved that human mind is a reflection of social interactions, the fact that absolute majority of people living in a capitalist society, especially those who have overflowing power to meet his or her material needs, are predisposed to avarice and selfishness is obvious. As long as production has indulgent characteristics and is driven by the underlying motive of profit accumulation, it is basically impossible to achieve a sustainable society, since production is not directed by a collective will, making it impossible to solve the common problem. Thus a democratic guidance is required to prevent the acceleration of self-collapsing of the human civilization. Even if a capitalist is clearly perceiving the problem of overproduction, he or she cannot stop because all the other capitalists are still neglecting the overproduction problem. In a laissez-faire capitalist society, capitalists clearly acknowledge the fact that falling behind in competition will result in a downfall, which is the reason why the capitalists, who control the production, will never be interested in actually acting according to the ideal of ruralism or environmentalism. Your analysis of finding the primary cause of overflowing demand in urbanism is wrongly directed, the real primary cause is capitalism. (Sorry if my criticism was lousy, just that I'm not used to your kind of logic.)
    • Hysteria Thought - Just one word: "Embrace the reality" Horseshoe theory of complexity lol
    • Liberal Feudalism - One thing I'm so curious about: What is the point of bringing monarchism and feudalism back? Fascism and libertarianism I can see the (slightest) point, but what good will monarchism/feudalism do in 21st century? Complete lack of justification...
      • - This ideology is only to be applied in 1840-1870s feudal Japan, not in the present day. It works off of the original feudal system through reform and slowly phases it out.


    • Marxism-Leninism - Me.
    • Maoism - A creative variation of Marxism-Leninism to suit the social conditions of 20th-century China.
    • Hoxhaism - Somewhat left-leaning, but I think you preserved the revolutionary value of Marxism-Leninism against revisionism well.


    • Luxemburgism - Your criticism on reformist social democracy influenced me to become a revolutionary socialist. You and I share many common ideas such as vaguardism, parliamentary participation, worker's council and anti-putschism. However, your opinion on the national question is very idealistic― priciple of self-determination is necessary for the revolutionary movement to stand in solidarity with anti-imperialist nationalists to combat imperialism. While the concept of national identity is undoubtedly a false consciousness of the bourgeoise, it certainly does not mean that the worker's revolutionary movement does not have a duty to consider national identity as an existent element.
    • Trotskyism - Funny how you are claiming to inherit Lenin's legacy while every party of your ideology is opposing Lenin's philosophy. Why complain about "Stalinist" bureaucrats when it was Lenin who criticized your texts the most? Also, how are we going to combat fascism if we do not form a strategic alliance with petite-bourgeois liberals?


    • Council Communism - Highly idealistic and surprisingly naive.
    • Democratic Socialism - You argue that revolution is violent, which shows that your idea of methodology is no more than cherrypicking. The state in a monopoly-capitalist social structure is driven by a bourgeois partisanship. It fundamentally works to preserve and maintain the base structure of capitalist society, which can be observed as a constant kind of societal homeostasis. In the process of maintaining capitalist system, the state directly or indirectly imposes coercion and violence. No matter how developed bourgeois democracy is, a qualitative conversion of violence is inevitable due to the change of situation.
    • Syndicalism - Trade unions should play a role of worker's platform― closely linking the activities of the proletarian vanguard party to the public and educating workers who lack consciousness to become ardent revolutionaries, but its nature is not suitable for being the subject of revolution.

    Not Really

    • Anarcho-Communism - Anarcho-communism is unrealistic in every aspects. You condemn Marxism-Leninism as a failed "authoritarian" ideology, but Marxists-Leninists fought against Western imperialism and implemented socialist policies in "reality" by seizing half of the world with the support of the people while you were mired in dogmatic putschism and failed to win support from the people. What the working class need is a system that actually works in practice, not a dreamer's ideal.
    • Councilism -


    • Social Democracy - The inevitable consequence of reformism and opportunism. Red fascism. Exploiter of the Third World. We could have stopped Nazism taking over Germany if it hadn't been for your trolling.
    • Social Liberalism - Progress (bombing civilians)
    • Moderatism - Worst kind of intellectual laziness.
    • Dengism - Capitalism with liar's characteristics.
    • Tridemism - I appreciate your struggle against Japanese imperialism. Your reformist and progressive characteristics (by the standards of the time) were the reason why we could stand together. But not now, of course. Hahahahaha




    Test Results






    Closest match: Libertarian Communism








    Closest Match: Left Communism

    Next Matches:

    1. Marxism

    2. Neo-Marxism

    3. Council Communism

    4. Socialism of the 21st Century

    5. Jacobinism

    6. Libertarian Marxism

    7. Guevarism

    8. Democratic Socialism

    9. Cybercommunism

    10. Transhumanist Socialism









    Closest Match: Eco-Marxism

    Next Matches:



    (Note: Please leave new comments at the bottom)
    (Note 2: Debates and any questions including personal questions are welcome)

    • Aploism - add me?
    • Candelarismo - add me lolz
    • Meowxism - yo add me back mayhaps?
    •  Neo-Scorpism - Add me?
    • Trentoism - add? <3
    • CHROMATISM - Added you, now add me back.
    • Ego-Libertarian Marxism - Can you add me please?
      • Revmirianism - Done! I am only able to complete it now because I had to sleep. :)
    • Rojoism - Add me, revisionist, pwease? :3
    • Ego-Libertarian Marxism - I can tell you got the wrong idea of me when I call myself an egoist. I am not "urging" people to act in their own interest, everyone always does, at least from their point of view anyway. As you quoted before, "No matter what you choose, you will always be acting in your own self-interest, quite literally pursuing your interests, doing what you want to do, in turn making everyone an egoist." I believe everyone is following their self interest, not that we ought to. And as for Marxism, I do follow dialectical materialism. I recognize the class struggle, the contradictions within a class society and the capitalist mode of production, etc. And as for the aristocratic society example, no matter what choice someone would make, whether to praise the governments policies or rebel against it, they would be following their ego regardless. If they chose to praise, they value either life or their pride more. If they rebelled, they value their freedom more or any other reasoning they follow. Just like the question of why do people go to work, even though they don't want to. Because they know they will die if they don't. I value my freedom and the well-being of others, so I fight for communism and the class struggle so that the material needs of all can be met. (Seriously, sorry for how long that was. I really do need to update my page. You're still a comrade, though.)
      • Revmirianism - Sorry for the late reply. I was busy this entire week and could only make minor edits. (And honestly I was too lazy to respond immediately) While it seems like I have misinterpreted some of your ideas, I still believe my fundamental criticism is still valid. I did some research, and I concluded that I have to admit my criticism of your egoist thoughts was based on a misconception about psychological egoism. I'm still doing research on psychological egoism, but so far I haven't found a valid logic proving the incompatibility between psychological egoism and Marxism. However, I also believe that many thoughts consisting of your ideology, such as individualism, libertarianism, existentialism, are still contradicting against Marxism. I'm not saying that individual rights are not important―In fact, I believe individual freedom is one of the core principles of Marxism. But it does not mean that Marxism is an individualist thought. The basic principle of individualism is that individual freedom should be prioritized over social interests. To understand why this concept is incompatible with Marxism, we first have to understand the concept of freedom in a Marxist sense. For freedom to have practical meaning, it must correspond to the objective situation of the time and increase its dominance over the material world in general. It refers to the relationship that humans have with the objective laws of nature and society, especially the degree to which they recognize and practically dominate it. Freedom is established by increasing the dominance over external conditions, by perceiving the objective inevitability and demonstrating the ability gained based on it, that is, the ability to consciously apply and utilize it. Therefore, as social relations in modern civilizations are more compact than ever before, it is crucial to understand that true freedom realized at an individual level can only be very limiting. But individualist doctrines are based on the rejection of materialist analysis of freedom. You are not realizing that your own quote, “The material needs of the individual can only be met through collective action,” is an outright declaration of anti-individualism. On libertarianism, I think I said enough in my previous reply, so I will just talk about existentialism. Although your page doesn't reveal any specific information about your existentialist philosophy, I assume that you probably have read Sartre’s works, since he is one of the representative philosophers who attempted to combine existentialism with Marxism. In Hegel's dialectics and general science, it is a common methodology to divide phenomena and essence and approach the latter through the former, but Sartre, who rejects the distinction between phenomena and essence, commits error by approving intuition as the fundamental method of science. About human consciousness, existentialists reject the idea of Marxist ideas of consciousness, since they believe human consciousness to be completely spontaneous. That human consciousness is the reflection of the material world is the basic premise of Marxist philosophy―discarding this premise would be a surrender to idealism. Not only that, Sartre cites Parmenides on being and nothingness, completely opposing the Hegelian dialectics and making clear that he followed the path of metaphysics. Unlike Hegel or Heraclitus, Sartre claims that nothingness is the absence of being, in contrast to the dialectical viewpoint which argues that being and nothingness are constantly converted into each other while admitting that nothingness is the antithesis of being. So, as you can see, existentialism draws its fundamental thought from idealism and bourgeois metaphysics, which is why Sartre couldn’t merge it with dialectical materialism. But apart from these, I regard you as an important comrade, especially in this situation where socialist movement is powerless and fascism is rising. (I put you in the "Potential Allies" section not because I don't regard you as a comrade, but to segment sections. Actual potential allies would be liberals, I think.)
      • Revmirianism - Also, can you do the user test? I added it recently.
    • Schumacherianism (////) - add.
      • Revmirianism - Done. Sorry for the delay, I was so busy because of schoolwork.
        • - you fine lil man, good wall-of-text.
    • Midwestern Ba'athism add me commie
    • Io - Add me.