Mao Zedong good or bad? [Archive]

Saorsa

27th February 2009, 02:33

The Chinese Revolution, under Mao's leadership, liberated a quarter of humanity and was one of the greatest blows to capitalism and imperialism in history, probably second only to the Russian Revolution. Hundreds of millions of peasants were freed from the shackles of the feudal system and given the land and power needed to bring them away from the brink of constant near-starvation. Women's rights were hugely advanced, living standards rose, literacy rates skyrocketed, healthcare and education were extended to the working masses, and ordinary working people were involved for the first time in the political process and making the decisions about their communities, their lives and their country. This involvement was espescially pronounced during the Cultural Revolution, a massive and radical process of struggle that mobilised millions of workers, peasants and youth against counter-revolution and the increasing buerucratic tendencies of the revolution and the revolutionary government.

Mao's leadership was central to all this, and while like all humans he made mistakes, his overall impact was overwhelmingly positive and hugely significant. Mao's theories of Protracted People's War and his other contributions to revolutionary strategy and ideology continue to inspire mass movements today that are challenging oppression, from Nepal and India to Peru and the Philippines. It's no coincidence that virtually every single mass revolutionary movement of workers and peasants in the world today is led by Maoists, and that Maoism bases it's strength in the Third World, the most oppressed areas of our planet and the launching pad of the future global revolution.

Mao's legacy deserves to be upheld, promoted and learned from by all revolutionaries.

LOLseph Stalin

27th February 2009, 02:39

Mao is definitely not an admirable figure in history. He did help to improve the living standards for the Chinese, but other than that there's nothing good I can say about him. The Cultural Revolution was just an act to keep him in power. He wasn't as influencial so he was willing to kill to stay in the top position. That's not right.

Saorsa

27th February 2009, 02:48

The Cultural Revolution was just an act to keep him in power.

I just love that special brand of leftists who swallow everything their high school history teachers told them. They ignore the very real struggle that was going on within the Communist Party and Chinese society as a whole between the capitalist roaders (Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shao-Chi were two of the main leaders of this tendency) and the forces grouped around Mao and what later became known as the "Gang of Four" that wanted to continue the revolutionary process and indeed deepen it.

No, there was no politics here, it was just a power struggle between bad greedy men. Right.

Kassad

27th February 2009, 03:03

Those who are so quick to criticize the legacy of revolutionaries like Mao Tsetung often fall into a category of sympathizing with counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries and the very bourgeoisie that we claim to oppose consistently. The Cultural Revolution was a working class advancement that launched the People's Republic of China into modernization programs, led by the peasant class that has claimed power from the hands of the feudalist oligarchy and the reactionary elite that had manipulated the means of production in China for so long.

Tsetung's developments in the concepts of military strategy, People's War and the advancement of the party were instrumental in formulating a workers movement in China which liberated the land from reactionary oppressors. Millions and millions were left to starve during the time before the revolution, as opposed to the revolutionary social and economic reforms that made basic necessities like education and healthcare available to all citizens of China. The standard of living in China and all of its regions drastically increased through, much in thanks to the organization of the People's Liberation Army, which operated under the military theories and tactics of Chairman Mao, which are incredibly revolutionary in their success in regions worldwide.

The Chinese Revolution was comprised of a civil war between socialist revolutionaries and reactionary fascists, most of which fled to Taiwan after the Revolution. Strange that the United States is very adamant in their support for Taiwanese sovereignty, isn't it? Also strange that the United States government and the ruling class are very supportive of religious feudalists such as the Dalai Lama and the 'Tibetan government in exile', which manipulated the peasant class in Tibet for a significant amount of time before the Tibetan liberation. It should raise many warning signs with revolutionary socialists when the imperialist and corporate empire of the United States advocates support for something, as nothing is ever done without a proper agenda by the ruling elite. Consistent demonization of nations like China and Cuba are consistent in imperialist attempts for military aggression and economic exploitation.

These social reforms and massive industrial modernization were made possible by the revolutionary implementation of Marxism-Leninism and the consistent opposition to reactionary forces in the form of military strategy and Protracted People's War. This theory proves consistently implementable, as it is a strategy for working class liberation, notable in the most oppressed parts of the world that rely on revolutionary insurrection in the hopes of emancipation from the shackles of the bourgeoisie elite. Without this revolutionary movement and the theoretical implementation of proletariat revolution in the form of armed liberation, the working class of the world might often find itself gunned down quickly by those who are armed against the insurrections of the working class.

The implementation of Marxism and revolutionary socialism and China launched a devastating blow to the ruling elite of the world, but unfortunately, much like the Soviet Union, much of the revolutionary gains were lost due to reactionary uprising, advocacy for bourgeoisie democracy and revisionism. Regardless, the contributions to Marxism-Leninism by Mao Tsetung are revolutionary and contribute significantly to the consistent struggle for liberation.

Hiero

27th February 2009, 03:12

Yes Mao was evil, case closed, now lets never speak of him unless you in the MLM group.

Bilan

27th February 2009, 03:14

"Good" or "bad" is overly simplistic, but nevertheless the answers for why Mao is "good" are just as ridiculous. There is so much historical dishonesty on both sides, that it's simply not worth wasting your time on.

I found this gem amusing though:

The Cultural Revolution was a working class advancement that launched the People's Republic of China into modernization programs, led by the peasant class that has claimed power from the hands of the feudalist oligarchy and the reactionary elite that had manipulated the means of production in China for so long.

So you admit, right there, that it was not a proletarian state, and never has been?

Tsetung's developments in the concepts of military strategy, People's War and the advancement of the party were instrumental in formulating a workers movement in China which liberated the land from reactionary oppressors. Millions and millions were left to starve during the time before the revolution, as opposed to the revolutionary social and economic reforms that made basic necessities like education and healthcare available to all citizens of China.

Millions are still starving in China now. You know this.

Also strange that the United States government and the ruling class are very supportive of religious feudalists such as the Dalai Lama and the 'Tibetan government in exile', which manipulated the peasant class in Tibet for a significant amount of time before its liberation.

Yeah, see this is what I was getting at early: overly simplistic.

The implementation of Marxism and revolutionary socialism and China launched a devastating blow to the ruling elite of the world, but unfortunately, much like the Soviet Union, much of the revolutionary gains were lost due to reactionary uprising, advocacy for bourgeoisie democracy and revisionism. Regardless, the contributions to Marxism-Leninism by Mao Tsetung are revolutionary and contribute significantly to the consistent struggle for liberation.

Materialism is weak when faced with Maoist drivel.
Are you suggesting that the Chinese "proletarian" revolution (of which, I'll remind you admitted it wasn't above, but we'll go with it anyway, just for fun) degenerated because of "liberal democracy", and reactionary uprisings, rather than isolation and the underdevelopment of the economy, as well as the inherently bourgeois nature of the Maoist revolution?

Kassad

27th February 2009, 03:26

Very simplistic ideological talking points. The Republic of China is still a very backwards nation when it comes to many social and technological issues, but compared to the pre-revolutionary period, it is almost impossible to compare. The industrial class did not formulate a struggle in the face of reactionary fascism, whereas the peasant class did. Much of the libertation of China came from the peasant class, after which a revolutionary fervor shook much of the nation and incited the full scale revolution in China, in which the peasant class and industrial proletariat collaborated greatly in maintaining unity in their party, as well as advocating revolutionary reforms, which made education, healthcare and other necessities available to all citizens of China. Saying it was 'not a proletarian state' is incredibly simplistic.

Please do not pretend that I am a supporter of the current Communist Party of China, 'market socialism,' 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' or any of the reactionary market reforms which have allowed the bourgeoisie elite to impose themselves as the ruling class once again. The millions that are starving now are unable to sustain themselves, mostly due to the total and utter failure of reactionary conservatism which revoked common ownership of the land, Chinese resources and the means of production. The Chinese Revolution greatly raised the standard of living for the majority of the Chinese people, but the implementation of market reforms has all but revoked that.

In conclusion, the revolution degenerated due to multiple issues. First of all, the People's Republic was incredibly impoverished and backwards in terms of economic development. Mao Tsetung's attempts at modernization were very successful in managing Chinese resources properly for common ownership, which made basic necessities more readily available. The revolution failed because it was torn apart by reactionary market ideologies, which are inherently corrupt and counterrevolutionary. As a result, the bourgeoisie class have been all but reinstated and their power is absolute, with the now anti-working class 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' ideology being predominant in the Communist Party of China. The counterrevolutionary reforms have destroyed the revolutionary gains of the Chinese Revolution and the liberation of the people.

LOLseph Stalin

27th February 2009, 04:43

I just love that special brand of leftists who swallow everything their high school history teachers told them. They ignore the very real struggle that was going on within the Communist Party and Chinese society as a whole between the capitalist roaders (Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shao-Chi were two of the main leaders of this tendency) and the forces grouped around Mao and what later became known as the "Gang of Four" that wanted to continue the revolutionary process and indeed deepen it.

He killed Revisionists. I can't respect a man who would have killed me.

Blackscare

27th February 2009, 05:32

The fact that those who support the more brutal of the communist leaders call anyone who calls them into question a "revisionist" is silly to me. Don't hem yourself in! Go by the name for your ideology you create, not a label that someone else made because "anti-revisionist" sounds cuddlier than "stalinist" or "maoist".

LOLseph Stalin

27th February 2009, 05:35

I agree. I'm proud to label myself as a Trot.

benhur

27th February 2009, 06:12

mao good or evil?

He was good to evil people, and evil to good people.

LOLseph Stalin

27th February 2009, 06:13

He was good to evil people, and evil to good people.

That's one way to put it. Us Trots think so much alike. :rolleyes:

Killfacer

27th February 2009, 09:57

(flame))

Pogue

27th February 2009, 10:04

Saorsa

27th February 2009, 10:23

Responsible for many death

Like when?

created an authoritarian regime

Authoritarian towards counter-revolutionaries.

did it under the name of socialism

Actually under the name of New Democracy for quite a wee while, socialism came later.

and so you can guarantee theres people on this board will worship him because they lack the imagination to do anything else.

Cool story bro.

Mao was just another failure of history, another anti-working class dictator and part of the ruling elite of society.

:lol:

Blackscare

27th February 2009, 10:53

Authoritarian towards counter-revolutionaries.

Funny how that excuse always seems to lead to the brutal repression of anyone who questions the government. Giving government the ability to persecute anyone who steps out of line "in the name of the revolution" is a great way to make sure it no longer has to answer to the people no matter how bad things get, because anyone who complains isn't cooperating and must be silenced.

I'd respond to your other "points" but this is the only thing you said that looked like an argument for anything. Try some critical thinking.

Hiero

27th February 2009, 10:54

Responsible for many deaths, created an authoritarian regime, did it under the name of socialism, and so you can guarantee theres people on this board will worship him because they lack the imagination to do anything else. Mao was just another failure of history, another anti-working class dictator and part of the ruling elite of society.

But for what reason?

You and your lot do not understand historical materialism and have failed to up root yourself from the idiocy produced by bourgeoisie ideology. It is you who lack immagination because you judge regimes based on idiotic, idealist and flat out fairy tale notions about evil men creating evil for the sake of evil.

Blackscare

27th February 2009, 10:57

But for what reason?

You and your lot do not understand historical materialism and have failed to up root yourself from the idiocy produced by bourgeoisie ideology. It is you who lack immagination because you judge regimes based on idiotic, idealist and flat out fairy tale notions about evil men creating evil for the sake of evil.

It's not for the sake of evil that these regimes form, but the unrestrained power they wield is dangerous because it then opens the doors for abuse. To just trust an authoritarian regime not to do anything bad is naive.

Blackscare

27th February 2009, 10:59

But for what reason?

You and your lot do not understand historical materialism and have failed to up root yourself from the idiocy produced by bourgeoisie ideology. It is you who lack immagination because you judge regimes based on idiotic, idealist and flat out fairy tale notions about evil men creating evil for the sake of evil.

Also, don't go acting prolier than thou on us, it's not like you're privy to some untold wisdom over those who disagree with you. That's often the way it is with zealots though, you assume anyone who disagrees with you must have not received the "truth".

Matty_UK

27th February 2009, 11:27

Responsible for many deaths

Like when?

800,000 landlords were killed. But not by the CCP, every historian agrees that after the victory of the revolution China was still a pretty lawless place. Peasants were permitted to set up people's courts to try their landlords, without any supervision from the Party. The killing of landlord's were spontaneous expressions of anger. Do you expect CCP cadres to supervise every court and protect the landlords from the peasants?

Quite a lot of women were murdered after the Communists passed the Marriage Law, outlawing infanticide, sale of children and women, concubinage, arranged marriage, and legalising divorce. Thousands of female cadres were killed trying to bring this law to the more chauvinistic villages and thousands of women were murdered when they tried to get divorced. (which is why it is quite hard to get divorced in China today) So yes, I suppose, this was Mao's fault. What a bastard! He should never have legalised divorce!

Anti-rightist campaign-a lot of arrests and penal service, lots of them unjustified very true, but contrary to what people think very few were actually executed.

Great Leap Forward-a famine was caused by excessively high targets, and yes the CCP were responsible; but the Deng and Liu faction, not Mao. (and it's also worth noting that the crude death rate during this period was not as high as the pre-revolutionary period)

Mao sez at Lushan Plenum:

Let me again play the practical note, let us rein in our thinking a little bit, let us turn down the volume. Let's achieve something first; if that is all right and there is some spare ability, if things go smoothly, we can try a little bit more. This may sound like pouring cold water [on our enthuisiasm], like right-wing opportunism...Do not attempt to meet an overambitious target while incurring real disasters. Now we must lighten the load. In water conservancy construction, over the last winter and this spring, the whole country completed 50billion cubic meters of work. Over this winter and next spring, we are planning for 190 billion cubic meters, a threefold increase. And there are a variety of production areas we must improve, such as steel, iron, copper, aluminium, coal, transportation, processing industries, chemical industries. What amount of human and material resources would we need? [if we carry on] in this way, I think, one half of the Chinese people would have to die, if not half, one-third, or one-tenth, [that is] 50 million people would die. If 50million people die, if you are not dismissed, at least I should be dismissed. Our heads would also be a problem. Do we really need that much, it is all right if you want that much, but do not let any one die...and if someone dies, do not take my head...This meeting should take a lower tone, compressing the air. The strings of the hu qin should not be pulled too tight, or it will be broken.
^
Not only completely ignored by bourgeois historians who insist that Mao was responsible for excessive targets and the famine, but even twist it for the purpose of outright deception. For example, Jung Chang's book "Mao: The Unknown Story" took the quote,

"[if we carry on] in this way, I think, one half of the Chinese people would have to die, if not half, one-third, or one-tenth, [that is] 50 million people would die."

completely out of context to make Mao look evil!

Lots were killed in the cultural revolution, but Mao did not control the cultural revolution and intended to use it take power from the bureaucracy into mass based revolutionary committees. The first stage of attacking the "four olds" was meant to be holding debates and arguments, but the red guards carried out some violence. Violence also broke out between radical and conservative Red Guard factions, and within the military.

-------------

Mao =/= monster

Cumannach

27th February 2009, 11:53

Tower of Bebel

27th February 2009, 12:29

Those who are so quick to criticize the legacy of revolutionaries like Mao Tsetung often fall into a category of sympathizing with counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries and the very bourgeoisie that we claim to oppose consistently.Too bad you had to say this because such claims encourage stagnation, not the progress, of marxism :(. I don't think anyone of us sympathizes with the bourgeoisie.

Kassad

27th February 2009, 14:13

Too bad you had to say this because such claims encourage stagnation, not the progress, of marxism :(. I don't think anyone of us sympathizes with the bourgeoisie.

Maybe not directly, but by repeating the same bourgeoisie propaganda and talking points that many people here seem very prone to doing, it's quite difficult to make a distinction.

Killfacer

27th February 2009, 15:08

Matty_UK

27th February 2009, 16:22

You Mao apologists make me sick. Don't you know that Mao actually achieved something? Well if you had any real knowledge of true socialism you would know then that it follows he was a bloodthirsty tyrant. But in reality you just hate the working class.

I know what true socialism is, and I know China from 1949-78 was not true socialism; it was led by a bureacratic structure and not by the proletariat, unlike the Russian revolution. However, China had a very weak industrial base and very small proletariat; revolution failed in the cities, and it had to be carried out by the peasantry. To form a system of genuine soviet power was near impossible at this stage in development, but Mao genuinely tried to give power to the masses and take out the bureacracy during the Cultural Revolution by setting up revolutionary committees based on collective decision making of mass organisations and in Shanghai, a political system modelled on the direct democracy modelled on the Paris Commune emerged for a short period during the cultural revolution.

China before the revolution was a terrible mess, what would you have done? You say I hate the working class, but I'm not the one sitting on my moral purity perch where any serious attempt by people to liberate themselves is condemned. Recognising that it was a dictatorship of the bureaucracy is one thing, but what would an attempt to resolve that look like if not the cultural revolution? And the material conditions of China in the first half of the 20th century did NOT allow for any other expression of the struggle against imperialism, capitalism, feudalism, and patriarchy.

------

Edit: oops, was your post sarcastic? interwebz confuses me

Cumannach

27th February 2009, 17:13

China before the revolution was a terrible mess, what would you have done? You say I hate the working class, but I'm not the one sitting on my moral purity perch where any serious attempt by people to liberate themselves is condemned. Recognising that it was a dictatorship of the bureaucracy is one thing, but what would an attempt to resolve that look like if not the cultural revolution? And the material conditions of China in the first half of the 20th century did NOT allow for any other expression of the struggle against imperialism, capitalism, feudalism, and patriarchy.

Yeah that was my point ;) well put though.

Rawthentic

27th February 2009, 19:09

Shut the hell up with your "true socialism" crap.

That's ridiculous. Socialism is not a religion. You DON'T know what it looks like.

Pogue

27th February 2009, 19:13

But for what reason?

You and your lot do not understand historical materialism and have failed to up root yourself from the idiocy produced by bourgeoisie ideology. It is you who lack immagination because you judge regimes based on idiotic, idealist and flat out fairy tale notions about evil men creating evil for the sake of evil.

Its me and my lot who recognise that if you keep a state intact and take away all democracy, well, shit happens.

It doesn't actually take much logic to work that one out.

Saorsa

27th February 2009, 22:12

Its me and my lot who recognise that if you keep a state intact and take away all democracy, well, shit happens.

A state is necessary to organise, consolidate and defend the revolution from reaction, and to act as a weapon of the revolutionary classes to enforce their often brutal, often bloody class dictatorship.

And christ man, you really do come up with some shit. Democracy was never taken away in revolutionary China and anyone whos done any reading into the grassroots political structures that existed in various forms from the time of the first base areas right up to and during the Cultural Revolution knows this. Read up on the Peasant's Associations, Fanshen is a good place to start.

JimmyJazz

27th February 2009, 23:06

I'm not Maoist or anti-Maoist, I'm a Marxist, living in an incredibly industrialized capitalist country, who frankly doesn't feel qualified to speak one way or the other on how to make life best for peasants. Sometimes I wonder if there is anyone else besides me holding this (on its face quite sensible) view.

Bilan

27th February 2009, 23:13

Maybe not directly, but by repeating the same bourgeoisie propaganda and talking points that many people here seem very prone to doing, it's quite difficult to make a distinction.

That's because Maoists, like Stalinists, find it impossible to understand that the world is not black and white. That not supporting Mao does not mean you support the bourgeoisie.
It is impossible to have a discussion with you because you (not personally) act so dense on the subject, and instead of critically analysing Mao and the Chinese Revolution, you pay lip service and ignore the terrible things that occured.

Your "analysis" is so shonky that you blame "revisionism" for the dictatoral form that the Chinese state took, rather than underdevelopment of the ecomony, small proletariat, (as said by you earlier) Peasants seizing power - as opposed to the proletariat, and isolated.
And yet, it's still "Marxist-Leninist-Maoists"?
I suggest you remove the former two, because there is no connection when you blame historical events purely on "revisionism" and people.

And also, you said before Mao made contributions to military tactics and all that jazz. Are you serious? Mao's contributions - like that in "On Peoples War" - are, at best, 19th century military tactics. They're not 'amazing contributions'. It was just some fat bloke who re-wrote things people already know, and used a shit load of metaphors to do it.

Os Cangaceiros

28th February 2009, 00:43

rosie

28th February 2009, 01:19

Without putting any moralistic values on him or any comrade, there are always positive and negative attributes to every contributor to our ongoing revolution. The only thing you can do to really know if ANY of our founding members were "good or bad" is to read up on them and decide for yourself. When you can come to an educated opinion for yourself you will find that you can also back up any debate you may have to encounter with anyone from the capitalist class. Good luck on your search!!! :hammersickle:

Bilan

28th February 2009, 01:27

Kassad

28th February 2009, 05:24

That's because Maoists, like Stalinists, find it impossible to understand that the world is not black and white. That not supporting Mao does not mean you support the bourgeoisie.
It is impossible to have a discussion with you because you (not personally) act so dense on the subject, and instead of critically analysing Mao and the Chinese Revolution, you pay lip service and ignore the terrible things that occured.

Your "analysis" is so shonky that you blame "revisionism" for the dictatoral form that the Chinese state took, rather than underdevelopment of the ecomony, small proletariat, (as said by you earlier) Peasants seizing power - as opposed to the proletariat, and isolated.
And yet, it's still "Marxist-Leninist-Maoists"?
I suggest you remove the former two, because there is no connection when you blame historical events purely on "revisionism" and people.

And also, you said before Mao made contributions to military tactics and all that jazz. Are you serious? Mao's contributions - like that in "On Peoples War" - are, at best, 19th century military tactics. They're not 'amazing contributions'. It was just some fat bloke who re-wrote things people already know, and used a shit load of metaphors to do it.

Is this seriously how you comprehended my argument? I'm not coming out and blatantly stating that all anti-Maoists are supporters of the bourgeoisie state and its tyranny, but I would hope that my fellow revolutionaries would look at how they view bourgeoisie propaganda and the ideology they spew. Many of the arguments that attempt to belittle the Chinese Revolution and socialism's gains under Mao Tsetung in this thread are the same arguments used by bourgeoisie scholars and advocates of market reforms, capitalism and the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

The Chinese Revolution focused on fairly new military tactics of a people's war; guerilla warfare and a unity of the working class that confronted reactionary forces. When I blame revisionism, I am blaming the failure to counter reactionary forces, such as the market reformists and bourgeoisie sympathizers that are currently in power. It's safe to say that most socialist revolutions take place in highly impoverished nations of the world. That makes it critical for those leading the revolution to escape the shackles of bourgeoisie and colonialist-forged poverty through the industrialization and modernization of the nation and the revolution. Tsetung and Stalin focused heavily on this topic and suppressed counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries and conservatives who opposed the revolutionary social reforms that benefitted the working class. Frankly, it would have been impossible to manage the People's Liberation Army and the revolution without support from the peasant class that helped maintain the people's war against tyranny. Maoism does not stress the specialization of the peasantry over the industrial proletariat, but instead advocates a people's war that manages the best-suited class of workers to liberate the nation. The peasants worked hand in hand with the proletariat who quickly joined the ranks. China's modernization through the Cultural Revolution and the Five Year Plans contributed to the modernization of the Chinese state, which was only set back after Mao's death and the subsequent market reforms.

Mao's contributions to military tactics and ideology were not completely new tactics, but they had not been properly applied in the field of Marxism-Leninism. There was no real 'means' of revolution described by Marx or Lenin, spare vague references to violent destruction of the bourgeoisie state. Mao's works enlightened those who sought to overthrow the bourgeoisie dictatorship, which made it possible to implement socialist reforms in China, such as accessible healthcare and education, along with the liberation of women. Therefore, the failure of the revolution was not due to Mao's failures, despite many critical mistakes, but assuming anyone is perfect is totally absurd. The destruction of the revolution came through revisionist market reforms which reinstated the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

Emily

28th February 2009, 07:08

Bilan

28th February 2009, 07:50

Is this seriously how you comprehended my argument? I'm not coming out and blatantly stating that all anti-Maoists are supporters of the bourgeoisie state and its tyranny, but I would hope that my fellow revolutionaries would look at how they view bourgeoisie propaganda and the ideology they spew. Many of the arguments that attempt to belittle the Chinese Revolution and socialism's gains under Mao Tsetung in this thread are the same arguments used by bourgeoisie scholars and advocates of market reforms, capitalism and the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't make the criticisms untrue, nor does it make your defence 'revolutionary'. Again, it is not black and white.

The Chinese Revolution focused on fairly new military tactics of a people's war; guerilla warfare and a unity of the working class that confronted reactionary forces. When I blame revisionism, I am blaming the failure to counter reactionary forces, such as the market reformists and bourgeoisie sympathizers that are currently in power.

But by stating this, you're contesting its own nature as a "socialist", and by that I presume you mean Proletarian, state? Although, I suppose "New Democracy" sort of proves that in itself, by supporting the National Bourgeoisie.

It's safe to say that most socialist revolutions take place in highly impoverished nations of the world.

Do you use "socialist revolution" interchangably with "National Liberation", and if so, why?

That makes it critical for those leading the revolution to escape the shackles of bourgeoisie and colonialist-forged poverty through the industrialization and modernization of the nation and the revolution. Tsetung and Stalin focused heavily on this topic and suppressed counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries and conservatives who opposed the revolutionary social reforms that benefitted the working class.

This is what I mentioned above. This is blind apologism, not a legitimate historical analysis.

Mao's contributions to military tactics and ideology were not completely new tactics, but they had not been properly applied in the field of Marxism-Leninism. There was no real 'means' of revolution described by Marx or Lenin, spare vague references to violent destruction of the bourgeoisie state. Mao's works enlightened those who sought to overthrow the bourgeoisie dictatorship, which made it possible to implement socialist reforms in China, such as accessible healthcare and education, along with the liberation of women. Therefore, the failure of the revolution was not due to Mao's failures, despite many critical mistakes, but assuming anyone is perfect is totally absurd. The destruction of the revolution came through revisionist market reforms which reinstated the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

The failure of the revolution was not due to Mao, you're right. It was due to Maoism.

DancingLarry

28th February 2009, 09:00

It's probably more fruitful not to analyze Mao through the lens of the usual Marxist/socialist perspective, but rather in the context of Chinese history as a dynastic founder, who reassembled a crumbled and prostrate China and initiated the Red Dynasty. The bureaucracy was strengthened and restored, the long intellectual and economic decline stemming from fairly early in the Qing Dynasty was reversed. Like most Chinese dynastic founders Mao was a mixed bag. reinvigorating the "sleeping giant", especially from the sort of desperate lethargy and submission to the imperialist powers is not an easy task, and while the fruits are powerful, it takes acts of staggering brutality to break the chains of the past. You'll find that few dynastic founders in China were "beloved" figures, much more often feared. In his visionary rise, his shaking of the nation to the roots and rebuilding it from scratch, and his long slow decline into dementia, Mao is almost the archetype of the Chinese dynastic founder.

southernmissfan

28th February 2009, 09:02

The failure of the revolution was not due to Mao, you're right. It was due to Maoism.

I would be more inclined to say it was due to the material conditions, of which Maoism arose. How can a proletarian revolution take place where there is hardly any proletariat?

Bilan

28th February 2009, 09:16

I would be more inclined to say it was due to the material conditions, of which Maoism arose. How can a proletarian revolution take place where there is hardly any proletariat?

That is evidently another very important factor.
But you can't negate the role of a movement which supports the National Bourgeoisie, The Peasantry, and the petty-bourgeois, and regards them as "revolutionary" in the third world.
I still don't understand why people consider this a communist revolution...

southernmissfan

28th February 2009, 09:20

That is evidently another very important factor.
But you can't negate the role of a movement which supports the National Bourgeoisie, The Peasantry, and the petty-bourgeois, and regards them as "revolutionary" in the third world.
I still don't understand why people consider this a communist revolution...

Technically, it is revolutionary in the third world. Building modern, industrial capitalism is historically progressive and revolutionary in feudalistic, underdeveloped societies. Now calling it communist, that is a problem.

AvanteRedGarde

28th February 2009, 09:42

Name a revolution that went further than the up to the early GPRC. This was indeed a new lesson for the international proletariat.

Cumannach

28th February 2009, 10:00

That is evidently another very important factor.
But you can't negate the role of a movement which supports the National Bourgeoisie, The Peasantry, and the petty-bourgeois, and regards them as "revolutionary" in the third world.
I still don't understand why people consider this a communist revolution...

Exactly what would have had to have happened for you to consider it a communist revolution? How would the history of China have had to proceeded in the 40s, 50s and 60s for it have qualified as a communist/socialist revolution in your eyes? Would your preferred narrative have been?

Bilan

28th February 2009, 10:18

Exactly what would have had to have happened for you to consider it a communist revolution? How would the history of China have had to proceeded in the 40s, 50s and 60s for it have qualified as a communist/socialist revolution in your eyes? Would your preferred narrative have been?

It would require a proletarian revolution, a working class revolution, not a National Liberation struggle, for one.
You can work it from there.

Hiero

28th February 2009, 11:43

I think its difficult to give a leader that kind of black and white label. Mao did many good things- build cinemas, theatres, museums, galleries, etc. But on the other hand, he sent many intellectuals to work in harsh conditions in the fields and executed many thousands of people. But there are other things to take into account too, like the fact China had just come out of both a war and a civil war, and the flooding of the river.
Overall, I think his reign was pretty much filled with a lot of negativity.

It is funny the criticism of Mao sending intellectuals into the "fields". For starters it was the Mao faction in the CCP who decided this, not just Mao. Secondly, what about thoose who lived and died in the "field" every day? If it was wrong to send people to this conditions, it was brutal to leave such people in such conditions following the revolution.

The idea of sending university students to the "fields" has various reasons. One reasons was that throughout Chinese history education always privileged the urban population. To address this problem and the uneven development in the rural areas Mao found it more important at the time to send people who had some training to go to the country to spread their knowledge to help the improve the underdeveloped in the country side. This policy is often considered "radical" and ideologicaly driven. It was radical but pragmatic at the same time. For instance many people in the rural areas died from the common cold, having the bare foot doctors program gave millions of peasants access to knowledge and medicine so they didn't die from easily preventative causes. The other reason was to give students practical experince. This policy should be considered positive and it should be in other nations that have such inequality between urban centre and rural areas.

The criticism of such policy comes from bourgeoisie ideals. It is a disgusting thought for the bourgeoisie to have students being sent to poor areas under the idea of "serve the people". They would rather have them remain in the cities and experince urban life while the peasants live and die in filth.

About Mao executing people, I can safely say not true. Mao encouraged, imprisonment, reeducation, rehabilitation but he never encourage murder after 1949.

Trystan

28th February 2009, 12:19

:lol:

And I thought my conclusions sucked.

But as you have said, the Chinese revolution did undoubtedly improve the lot of the working-class and the peasants. That said, Mao was just another authoritarian who was responsible for huge human rights abuses . . . and ultimately the working-class lost any power they had and the Party ended up with all the power so they could completely betrey the people they supposedly represented.

Same old story, really.

Emily

28th February 2009, 14:25

It is funny the criticism of Mao sending intellectuals into the "fields". For starters it was the Mao faction in the CCP who decided this, not just Mao. Secondly, what about thoose who lived and died in the "field" every day? If it was wrong to send people to this conditions, it was brutal to leave such people in such conditions following the revolution.

The idea of sending university students to the "fields" has various reasons. One reasons was that throughout Chinese history education always privileged the urban population. To address this problem and the uneven development in the rural areas Mao found it more important at the time to send people who had some training to go to the country to spread their knowledge to help the improve the underdeveloped in the country side. This policy is often considered "radical" and ideologicaly driven. It was radical but pragmatic at the same time. For instance many people in the rural areas died from the common cold, having the bare foot doctors program gave millions of peasants access to knowledge and medicine so they didn't die from easily preventative causes. The other reason was to give students practical experince. This policy should be considered positive and it should be in other nations that have such inequality between urban centre and rural areas.

The criticism of such policy comes from bourgeoisie ideals. It is a disgusting thought for the bourgeoisie to have students being sent to poor areas under the idea of "serve the people". They would rather have them remain in the cities and experince urban life while the peasants live and die in filth.

About Mao executing people, I can safely say not true. Mao encouraged, imprisonment, reeducation, rehabilitation but he never encourage murder after 1949.

Ok but perhaps he and his government should have provided more support for the people, particularly considering the harsh difficult times. I'm glad to hear that executions were discouraged. Do you have a reliable source for that? Just to put my mind at rest.

Kassad

28th February 2009, 17:51

Even if that's the case, that doesn't make the criticisms untrue, nor does it make your defence 'revolutionary'. Again, it is not black and white.

Yes, of course. Hitler advocated national socialism, but his own twisted form of socialism nonetheless. This doesn't make him revolutionary for paying lip service to bourgeoisie opposition. Opposition to the bourgeoisie is not revolutionary by definition, but when I see a socialist revolution, led by Marxist-Leninists advocating a people's war of the proletariat and peasant classes united against capitalism and tyranny, I see it as revolutionary.

In all honesty, I totally disagree with your statements on New Democracy. Tsetung and Stalin both used heavily suppressive measures to keep the bourgeoisie reactionaries from gaining power, but the theory that they will just disappear in a post-revolutionary society is absurd. They will always be there, but what they are fighting for can be ideologically altered. It's not unknown that the greed and manipulative nature people are conditioned into under capitalism fuels their lack of regard for others and society as a whole. In a revolutionary society, though it will not work for everyone, there is likely to be a significant amount of people who not only sympathize, but totally advocate the socialist revolution that might come from petit-bourgeoisie classes and even the bourgeoisie classes. I don't see someone coming out of the womb with a fat paycheck and a contract to start bulldozing forests for resources. Instead, I see the bourgeoisie attitude being promoted by conditioning in a capitalist system, but there is no reason why that conditioning cannot be broken. I'm not saying that the working class stand with the bourgeoisie, for the bourgeoisie has no revolutionary potential, but in a post-revolutionary society where the dictatorship of the proletariat is being implemented, there are going to be people who will advocate that social system over capitalism like they had before. It's not stating that the bourgeoisie become the vanguard, but merely a contributor, as all people can do in a revolutionary society.

I view national liberation in kind of an odd way. When nationalism and patriotism are advocated, I find it preferable to the bourgeoisie state. Why? Well, the bourgeoisie exploiters seek to exploit a nation for its resources and use it for their own gain. At least nationalists want to use the resources for their own country, exploited or not. It's not a significant progression, but there isn't much that isn't preferable to the bourgeoisie dictatorship. Now, 'nationalism' is not something that will just fade away in the earliest stages of the development of socialism. All over the world, people are filled with nationalist fervor. Am I? No. Are you? Doubt it. But the point still stands. The Chinese Revolution and Mao Tsetung's teachings were directly used in the liberation of China, as each working proletariat will have a different means and necessity when confronted with their own potential for revolutionary change. I don't see national liberation as terribly unsound, as each nation has its own ideological background and requirements. Regardless, Mao was advocating international unity of the proletariat and working classes against the elitist oligarchy of the oppressors. It was under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, not the banner of Chinese liberation. The national factor in the revolution was menial in comparison to the advocacy of Marxism.

The failure of the Chinese Revolution did not come through the people's war. The people's war was a significant contribution to the ideological implementation of revolutionary militancy which is leading the vanguards of revolutionaries in places like Nepal and the Philippines. Maoism is a significant continuation of Marxism-Leninism which is currently leading vanguards worldwide and, despite your ideological view that Maoism failed in China, would have succeeded had it not been for revisionist reforms and the manipulation of the working class which came from forsaking Maoist principles.

Bilan

1st March 2009, 00:33

Yes, of course. Hitler advocated national socialism, but his own twisted form of socialism nonetheless. This doesn't make him revolutionary for paying lip service to bourgeoisie opposition. Opposition to the bourgeoisie is not revolutionary by definition, but when I see a socialist revolution, led by Marxist-Leninists advocating a people's war of the proletariat and peasant classes united against capitalism and tyranny, I see it as revolutionary.

Which people lead it means nothing without considering the context of the struggle and the material conditions of it. And what does it matter what they say they're against when as a Marxist, you should be able to recognize their material constraints, and the fundamental errors of their practice?
Maoism is a blood bath. Little more.

In all honesty, I totally disagree with your statements on New Democracy. Tsetung and Stalin both used heavily suppressive measures to keep the bourgeoisie reactionaries from gaining power, but the theory that they will just disappear in a post-revolutionary society is absurd. [quote]

No one has said they will just "disappear".
Although, the bourgeoisie, in time, will.

[quote]
They will always be there, but what they are fighting for can be ideologically altered.

Are you suggesting the bourgeoisie, a class which requires commodity production, and a specific mode of production to come into existence, is going to always exist, irrespective of whether this mode of production still exists?

I view national liberation in kind of an odd way. When nationalism and patriotism are advocated, I find it preferable to the bourgeoisie state. Why? Well, the bourgeoisie exploiters seek to exploit a nation for its resources and use it for their own gain. At least nationalists want to use the resources for their own country, exploited or not.

And that's good...why?

It's not a significant progression, but there isn't much that isn't preferable to the bourgeoisie dictatorship.

?

I don't see national liberation as terribly unsound, as each nation has its own ideological background and requirements.

That's not really the point. National Liberation for one, divides the working class on bourgeois lines; it also unites opposing classes on national lines - primarily, the bourgeoisie and the working class; and what is the result of all of these struggles in the context of modern capitalism? Liberation? Certainly not.

From its origins, capitalism has been based on furious com*petition, as much at the level of nations as of individual firms. This has produced an unequal development of pro*duction according to country. However, while “the law of the unequal development of capitalism, on which Lenin and his epigones based their theory of the weakest link, was ex*pressed in the ascendant period of capitalism through a pow*erful push by the backward countries towards catching up with and even overtaking the most developed ones ... this tendency tends to reverse itself as the system as a whole reaches its objective historical limits and finds itself inca*pable of extending the world market in relation to the neces*sities imposed by the development of the productive forces. Having reached its historical limits, the system in decline no longer offers any possibility of an equalisation of develop*ment: on the contrary it entails the stagnation of all devel*opment through waste, unproductive labour and destruction. The only ‘catching up’ that now takes place is the one that leads the most advanced countries towards the situation ex*isting in the backward countries - economic convulsions, poverty, state capitalist measures. In the 19th century, it was the advanced country, Britain, which showed the way for*ward for the rest: today it is the third world countries which, in a way, indicate the future in store for the advanced ones. However, even in these conditions, there cannot be a real ‘equalisation’ of the situation of the different countries in the world. While it does not spare any country, the world crisis exerts its most devastating effects not on the most powerful, developed countries, but on the countries which arrived too late in the world economic arena and whose path towards development has been definitely barred by the older powers”

...

The new nations favour neither the development of the productive forces, nor the historic tasks of the proletariat, nor the dynamic towards the unification of humanity. On the contrary, they are - as an organic expression of the agony of capitalism - a blind force which leads towards the destruction of the productive forces, towards difficulties and dispersion for the proletariat, towards the division and atomisation of humanity.