The strategy, the counter coup, are books that do present a lot of tactics. Ideological they are bad, but they highlight the need for power analysis and doing the footwork again and again (the art on organizing, too, mapping organizing and empower people to form a mass movement themselves).

The books are still very liberal, but there is - besides some resurgence of organizing literature - seldom a modern analysis of what to do of you plan a campaign on a lower abstract level.

We have plenty examples of the power of the tools e.g. fall off soviet Union client states. We also have the weak points of it:no ideological analysis, easy to coopt.

It is unlikely to be a useful toolkit on its own (without militancy or mass movements), and doesn’t seem to deliver results in imperialist capitalist states with representative parliaments and strong police and media control.

One further note which should belong on the top. The concept of the multiple pillars of power is strong and can be found in similar ways in other campaign planning literature.

What is a critique of trotzkists or the man itself? For the former the cultish separatism velocity, but the latter?

How do you mean post Maoist?

Nude is socialist.

That is a good take

And we will purge ourselves for it

I really would like to know why trots are so hated. Is it theoretical or practical?

My experience with them is sectarianism with lot of talk and splits.

Trot to Neocon is new to me. But seems to not be uncommon. The others I do understand and did see in practice.

This map could’ve been in a comedy in 2000 and I would’ve l laughed about its absurdity (European teenager then)