chapotraphouse

I think they means the particular criticism you levied says are approaching anti-orthodoxy rather than being a critical lens.

For example, in my argument, I mentioned that people are seeing parallels to previous attempts and how their electoral campaigning was broadly opportunistic. i.e. the mensheviks. You could counter that with the fact that the Bolsheviks where in alliance to them until conditions advanced where a split was needed and explain why that stance is appropriate here, here even if it isn't the most progressive ideological line but a more practical one.

Generally, the people railing against it, while some are just on an ideological bent, have criticisms in the fact they view both Bernie and AOC (particularly the latter) as the practical attempts of nominally socialist candidates using electoralism. How would you address this attempt as different?

Material conditions change constantly, the people's mindsets are constantly shifting, our enemies are adapting. So should we. Use the theory as part of a toolbox along with actual action, along with electoralism, along with mutual aid, etc. Sometimes it has good lessons to apply and sometimes it's out-of-date and doesn't apply today.

Also the method that you're rhetoric is taking makes it come across as if you haven't read the theory because you're repeating things that are said in the theory as an argument against it.

You're also still leaning hard on the out of date rhetoric when I think that isn't particularly apt as out of date means that idea has no relevance now and will never again when evolving circumstances may make it more relevant thus being closer to contextually inappropriate instead of our of date.

For example, Mao believed that the unique situation in China called for alliance with their national bourgeois, and explained how that alliance is brought about and needed in works such as ON THE QUESTION OF THE NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE AND THE ENLIGHTENED GENTRY He then explains the conditions of contradiction that the individual landlord's had with systems of imperialism as well as how serving them to an extent can create a contextually needed Broader front against the ROC. It also ties into his writings ON NEW DEMOCRACY where he explains how the changing circumstances from the success of the Soviets modified the context of revolutions world wide and in the Chinese context it was paramount to cast off the chains of the semi-feudel and semi-colonial nature of Chinese society at the time. The contradictions brought about by imperialism and the opportunities brought by an active socialist state that was assisting in liberation struggles, they acted as a revolutionary force in their defiance of imperialists, and thus could be a revolutionary force whom could be utilized in the socialist struggle. He draws a distinction from the behavior of the Tsarists here who sought to ally with imperialists. This is the explanation for why new democracy is not necessarily on the same line that made revolutionary defeatism needed in the context of Russia.

I think what @CyborgMarx@hexbear.net is calling for (who can correct me if I'm wrong) is some sort of explanation as you why you believe parts of the theory are wrong and what conditions and contradicts are make it so.

I think so would be good for your point as nothing you said so far is in contradiction with any theory I've read so far, so I am a bit lost as to what exactly you're saying needs to be reanalyzed due to no longer having relevance.

Please show grace for any mistakes, writing this in suboptimal conditions and frankly don't feel like proofreading until I have a PC to access.

If anyone thinks parts of my analysis have issues (particularly those better versed in Mao and new democracy than me) I welcome criticisms for my understanding.

Apologies if anything came out jumbled, long posting on phones sucks balls lmao