I see, thanks for explaining where you’re coming from.

I find Marxism-Leninism a bit too Eurocentric. It is why the 1924 revolution in China failed and Mao created a different approach than that used by the Bolsheviks. I have concluded that the failure of communism in the US is the abandonment of the rural areas and cities of the Mid-West, that were once socialist hotbeds (ex. Minneapolis), in favor of a coastal urban approach.

Reminds me, this thread has an interesting part related to ML, in the Chinese understanding, through the eyes of a member of the KPRF visiting China: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10935588

Some excerpts:

While China has adopted the best of the West in its industrial organization, its creative development is imbued with its own cultural traditions. This is the “Sinicization of Marxism,” the meaning of which is so often debated.

Returning to the forum, I’ll say that at first, the terms used by the speakers, like “the sinicization of Marxism” and “the sinicization of socialism,” jarred on the ear. Someone impressed by the scale of change in China might have imagined that Beijing, having sensed its strength, would now sinicize the entire world in the style of Trotskyism. However, this notion is false. Moreover, it contradicts the very essence of the development model China proposes.

“The Sinicization of Marxism for Russia is Leninism. Lenin is one of the most, if not the most, brilliant Marxist and political figure in world history. In its initial stages, the CPC, inspired by the successes and victories of the USSR, copied the Soviet model as much as possible, but quickly realized the futility of this approach. This isn’t because Leninism, the Leninist model of socialism, is flawed. No, it’s simply that Lenin developed them for Russia, for its culture, traditions, including its traditional economic structure. They are undoubtedly optimal and relevant for Russia.”

Therefore, from the vantage point of my experience, I urge you to adhere as closely as possible to the principles developed by Lenin. They are the most optimal for Russia. Therefore, Leninism is the Sinicization of Marxism for Russia.

So I think it is somewhat a matter of the definition one uses. But there appears to be some agreement on the idea of the concepts of marxism-leninism being worth modeling after, with variation based on the characteristics of where one is doing it.

I would also posit that based on what I’ve read on Trotskyism, your position sounds in line with adaptive marxist thinking and like it would be at odds with the kind of conclusion Trotsky came to. As I understand it, he landed on the end of believing the peasantry could not be a reliable ally. But you are emphasizing the importance of “rural areas and cities of the Mid-West”, which I’d think would have some similar characteristics to the peasantry under feudalism insofar as people who own some amount of land that they work and things like that.

I don’t know, I might be overly hasty in the crossover there, but I guess what I’m getting at is your position sounds (to me) more like supportive of the modern Chinese view on marxism than anything else.

Then again, I’m not the sharpest tack in the box and will definitely not be part of the vanguard. I read Capital three times and still didn’t “get it” until I listened to the “Reading Capital with Comrades” podcast from PSL’s Liberation School. https://liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/

Capital is pretty hard to read. Or at least, I find it to be. I’ll have to bookmark that resource, I may get some help out of it myself.