Not directly answering your question but I was watching a guy explaining MLM the other day and the very beginning he stressed how Scientific Socialism is scientific due to falsifiability. Then much later on he does the classic “Denying MLM to uphold ML is like denying Einstein to uphold Newton” and that tickled my brain.

So ML is scientific because it has successfully led to revolutions, but MLM is even more scientific because it has successfully done… what exactly? Temporarily occupied rural areas with guerrillas? Even if you buy their position that the ML states reverted to Capitalism, it’s not that much of an improvement.

Honestly I just think it’s obscurantism. Most MLM’s I’ve found would start the explanation with “some aspects of the Cultural Revolution are universal” but then flounder in explaining which specific ones those were. Probably because if they peg one down they’ll cause dogmatic splits in their groups. But then they get to claim that you just don’t understand, it’s all peak Marxism, and all other Marxists aren’t real Marxists. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on different authors this year and major difference between (most) ML authors and (most) MLM authors is that the former are actually pretty intuitive while the latter were very confusing and all-over-the-place.