fully support people consciously not jumping to label...¶

I fully support people consciously not jumping to label themselves too specifically. The various terms for tendencies do have actual relevant meanings to them, and I wouldn't call them "undead," but their relevance is deeply obfuscated in the western context. https://t.co/BZJhH72Uoq I maintain that, in the west, the vast majority of people calling themselves this or that tendency have simply picked up vague impressions of what it means to be "Maoist" or "Trotskyist" or "anarchist," without reaching a level of development necessary to actually embody it. This isn't meant as an insult, it's simply a comment on the ideological desert we find ourselves in. There is no central infrastructure to become educated and trained in any political practice other than liberalism. Everyone is either self-taught or studying with a small group. That small-scale, dispersed model of study is the beginning stage of building a more coherent political framework, but until enough people study and coalesce into distinct ideologies, the highest rank one can generally achieve unaided is "student of revolution." You can't even declare a major, let alone earn a degree in a given field, if there is no university at all. You can say "I'm interested in science, and I like to read about scientific concepts." And you can even act as an amateur researcher in your spare time. But it would be jumping the gun to say "I am a biochemist" when you live in a society that doesn't even accept cell theory, let alone have avenues for studying, experimenting, and publishing in that field. If you've read about biochemistry from those who have actually done that work, and you know for certain that that's your jam, then it's appropriate to call yourself that. But if all you know is that you're convinced of cell theory in general, you are still a student. It's hard to trust someone who claims to believe in cell theory, or even be a biochemist, but hasn't actually studied enough to be able to explain or reproduce those experiments that built the theory in the first place. But again, that's fine, and it's a good starting point. The reason I'm confident calling myself a "Marxist-Leninist" is because I'm certain I've studied the theory enough to actually explain, adapt, and put it into practice. That doesn't mean I've attained a "doctorate" in the field. I'm just ready to put together a rudimentary lab. At the same time, I wouldn't expect anyone to automatically believe that I actually am a "Marxist-Leninist," without us all agreeing on what that term means. I call myself that to maintain consistency across the various revolutionary contexts in which it's been used. In other words, I'm an ML because I understand and agree with the theories of parties throughout history who have also called themselves that. The ones who have accomplished what I wish to accomplish. As a scientist, I go with the theory that empirically demonstrates its fitness. Even agreeing on what constitutes "success" requires a pretty big theoretical leap, considering the hegemonic liberal baseline. If you believe all real Marxist-Leninist movements have been a disaster, you're probably not going to call yourself a Marxist-Leninist. This means you will also find yourself searching for an idealistic "other way" that "hasn't been tried." (It has btw. It consistently fails.) Or you will continuously adapt your conception of "success" until it becomes so loose that you find yourself spoiled for choice of models. On the flip side, there are plenty of people calling themselves Marxist-Leninists because they do agree with that definition of success, but without understanding what ML actually means: what made those movements successful, how the theory must be applied here, etc. "Marxist-Leninists," for example, who uphold national chauvinism, gender chauvinism, ableism, and myriad other counter-revolutionary tendencies. This, again, comes down to lack of actual study and practice (typically rooted in class instincts that dissuade further investigation). All that to say, I would much MUCH rather someone simply call themselves "a communist" while they're on the path to develop themselves politically. As you gain more confidence in what exactly you're developing towards, you can more confidently attach specificity to your label. Someday, there will be a legitimate Marxist-Leninist movement in the west, universally recognized for what it is and what it stands for. There will likely also be coherent, recognizable movements of other tendencies. At that point, specificity will be possible and necessary.