She/her. 24

  • 28 Posts
  • 267 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: May 29th, 2022
  • SovereignState@lemmygrad.mltoWorld News@lemmygrad.ml•Time: "Marxism identified Jews as an enemy deserving liquidation."English
    1·
    1 year ago

    I would say you are probably correct. A lot of it is semantics - I think prior to the eighties you’re just more likely to run into phrases like “adherent to Mao Zedong Thought” rather than “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist”.

    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's words on the matter

    “Our two Parties, two governments and two peoples have maintained a fundamentally identical, correct, Marxist-Leninist stand.”

    Speaking first, Hua Kuo-feng welcomed the Kampuchean comrades, calling their visit a “major event” in the relations between the two parties and countries. He said, “The Communist Party of Kampuchea, headed by comrade Pol Pot, is a staunch Marxist-Leninist Party.” He called the CPK “the force at the core leading the Kampuchean people in seizing victory in their revolution.”

    In warmly praising Mao Tsetung Thought, Pol Pot said, “Following Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Chairman Mao and his thought have triumphantly stood the test of successive revolutionary storms.” He said that Mao Tsetung Thought today illuminates the path of revolution for people all over the world.

    “More precisely,” Pol Pot said of Mao Tsetung Thought, “It is the most effective and sharp ideological and political weapon which infallibly guides our struggle to victory.”

    emphasis mine

    Undeniably, I would say, they were Maoist, but at the time ‘Maoism’ and ‘Marxism-Leninism’ were considered pretty much one and the same by “anti-revisionists” or those communists who split with the USSR after Khruschev’s coup d’etat. I’d say calling Pol Pot a ‘Maoist’ is a fair enough examination, it’s just that to him “Maoism” and “Marxism-Leninism” were synonymous. I’d maybe go so far as to call him a proto-MLM.

    source: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/cpml-pol-pot.htm

  • SovereignState@lemmygrad.mltoComradeship // Freechat@lemmygrad.ml•*Permanently Deleted*English
    10·
    1 year ago

    I have often wondered about the boundaries of horror art… or more precisely, the lack thereof.

    There is “tasteless” and there is “should probably be illegal”. I may be wrong and all art should be allowed and criticism should reign, I don’t know. But you mentioned Terrifier, a film that was marketed as the one making people vomit and pass out in movie theaters.

    I don’t see the benefit here… for anyone. I see cheap exploitation and majorly creatively bankrupt gimmicks.

    I, like you, am also no horror prude, and I sometimes even explicitly seek out gory films. I have a soft spot in my heart particularly for the V/H/S series, which are fictional representations of what are basically snuff films. They don’t make me vomit and cry and shit my pants and dream about clowns murdering me in my sleep, though. I prefer it that way, personally.

    Also fuck r@pe in horror movies. For every time it’s tastefully done, it’s done in the most degrading and unnecessary way possible 100 more times. Graphic depictions of sexual abuse almost always evoke in me disdain for the director or creator rather than any involved emotion regarding the film itself. I’m looking at you, “I Spit On Your Grave” and basically every other "r@pe revenge* film.

    I feel you, comrade.

Moderates