What do Maoist's think about stalinism Now?

[spiltteeth]

I know that Mao said he thought Stalin was 80% right but at that time not alot was really known about the horrors of stalin.
What do Maoist's think about stalinism Now?

[LOLseph Stalin]

From what I know, they generally support Maoism. They see it as Anti-Revisionist or something along those lines as Mao's Cultural Revolution was intended to get rid of dissidents from the party. In other words, "revisionists". I think alot of them are also supporters of Stalin's "Socialism in one country" theory. I'm pretty sure they support the stage theory as well. However, I'm not a Maoist so I'm no expert, but I'll leave this open-ended to a Maoist to provide a better answer.

Edit: I read the question backwards. I thought you were asking what Stalinists think of Maoism.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

You know, it's funny: I recently was asked this exact same question on another message board. Thus, I think it will be easiest for me to simply quote my post from there:


On Stalin

Originally posted by Victory:
The period that Stalin was in power was socialist? I thought once he came into power Russia became a totalitarian state and Stalin silenced all who opposed his power. What were the chain of events that led to Russia becoming capitalist-imperialist once WII was over?

I know my stated views on Stalin and the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union have shifted back and forth quite a bit over the last year and a half or so, so I can understand why they wouldn't yet be clearly understood by the MFN community. My most recent summation was provided on the Communism thread (page 5). I'll briefly quote from there to give you the general overview of the way I presently see it:


What was the class character of the Soviet Union: The Soviet Union was a socialist country until the mid-1950s that took up a mainly correct and positive line up to 1934 (although there were methodological errors right from the start). From 1934, the leadership of the Communist Party (namely Stalin) came to be overwhelmingly concerned with the looming threat of war with Nazi Germany and, as an understandable but nevertheless inexcusable result of that and other external (as well as some real internal) threats, began to make increasingly serious mistakes in the areas of nationalism (e.g. subjugating the world communist movement to the defense needs of the Soviet Union, framing World War 2 as a "Great Patriotic War", etc.) determinism (e.g. the infamous Theory of Productive Forces), and reification (e.g. the expansion of the wrong-headed concept of "class truth" to get Soviet society generally moving in lock step). These mistakes didn't cause the counterrevolution, but contributed to its ability to gain a foothold in the halls of power. The counterrevolution arose mainly out of World War 2, with the emergence of an underground capitalist economy (often known as the "black market") that found traction in the one-man management system and was ultimately able to gain political influence in the realm of ideas. Whereas a general atmosphere in which people were afraid to raise dissenting opinions had been created, this prevented the replenishment of the revolutionary ranks by preventing the party from getting at the objective (not "class") truth of things. The qualitative leap to power of the new exploiting class was the rise of Krushchev, with his line of abandoning the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. From that point forward, the USSR was a social-imperialist country: a nation that was socialist in name, but characterized by capitalist imperialism in reality.

My view of Stalin these days is largely ambivalent. He led forward a lot of very good and vital efforts, but also made a lot mistakes. Some of the achievements of the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership included the following:

-The building of the world's first socialist economy.
-The ending of tremendous and horrendous forms of oppression of women.
-The overcoming of starvation, homelessness, unemployment, and illiteracy, all for the first time in world history.
-Great advances in both culture and science.
-The transformation of an economically and culturally backward country into one of the world's leading powers.
-The defeat of Nazi Germany.

All of this was accomplished in spite of the relentless imperialist pressures against the USSR. In its unflagging efforts to crush socialism, imperialist powers twice undertook direct military invasions. They also applied brutal economic sanctions (including banning Russia from importing or exporting food and medical supplies), all while sustaining a prolonged ideological and propaganda war, and resorting to outright subversion and sabotage. And all of this is to say nothing of internal counterrevolutionary currents that here and there and from time to time arose (and, as pointed out already, ultimately won out). The typical analysis of Stalin's legacy is usually conveniently divorced from these crucial contextual facts. The circumstances don't justify the grievous errors that were made, but they do help us to understand that they didn't just come out thin air or out of Stalin's character or whatever.

As a sort of "bonus" on this area of Stalin's personal character that sometimes comes into dispute, I think this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR2ujgpJi2Y) largely dismantles such arguments against him as "bureaucratism", especially in focusing in on the more typical "evidences" of disputable character that arise, such as, naturally, Lenin's Testament. It does this in the form of differentiating between Leninism and Trotskyism. I'm not exactly sure I agree with all the author's views on a number of other areas expressed in this video though. The author also doesn't seem to accept mistakes that Stalin later made, such as the infamous paranoid "purges" of the late-1930s. Whereas Trotsky stood bizarrely accused as well in these trials of plotting with the Nazis, the omission of this entire fiasco in the video is significant, as it would certainly be relevant to this question of Trotsky and his line. It seems fairly balanced, but the author seems more sympathetic to and uncritical of Stalin than me...which I tend to interpret as reeking of at least some dogmatism. I think it's a wrong formulation to identify one's self as a "Stalinist", for example. Nevertheless, it's worth a view.

But there were also indirect benefits to the peoples (and especially workers) of the world to having a socialist nation out there, which was the principle effort that Stalin led forward and deserves to be positively credited with. It greatly strengthened the pressure on the ruling classes to grant substantial concessions to working people in the areas of collective bargaining rights, the 40-hour work week, unemployment insurance, women's rights, health care, public education, and pensions.

But alas, there were also the sorts of methodological errors I laid out earlier.

There are also two talks by Bob Avakian that further elaborate my views on Stalin. The first and perhaps most thorough of these is located here (http://www.bobavakian.net/more.html#elect) in the Q&A Part 1 (first half) of the 2004 talk Elections, Democracy and Dictatorship, Resistance and Revolution. The second is located here (http://www.bobavakian.net/audio4.html) in the second half of the link that says On Leadership (from 2005). (That second talk addresses some areas and aspects of Stalin's leadership the first one didn't.)

[spiltteeth]

Thanks so much -this really helped. I do know (I think) that Maoists are very critical of a Stalinist one party approach.

[Ismail]

On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and its Historical Lessons for the World is a good read by Mao.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm

Basically, Maoists consider Stalin to have been a genuine Marxist and good leader. However, Mao believed that the party should have a mass line and that Stalin focused too much on Europe, was too "mechanical" in combating revisionism, ultra-leftism, the rightists, etc. and negated the role of the peasantry in the construction of socialism. Mao is considered a successor to Stalin, just like Stalin was considered a successor to Lenin.

If you're thinking that Maoists are against "Stalinism" then you'd be sorely mistaken considering that Mao's role in the international communist movement from 1961 onwards was basically stating that the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and onwards ceased to be socialist by moving away from the Lenin-Stalin path, and that Mao was upholding said Lenin-Stalin path while extending Marxism-Leninism into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Maoists still support the vanguard party concept (it isn't "Stalinist," Lenin founded the concept and Trotsky also supported it), they just believe that the party is prone to degeneration and thus needs struggles both 'against' it and within it to rid itself of revisionist elements. The Cultural Revolution is how Mao said this should be done, by stating that the youth must uphold Marxism-Leninism and defeat revisionist elements within the Communist Party of China in order to bring it back to a concrete Maoist path, while also fundamentally changing the cultural situation of China itself. His criticism of Stalin on this issue is that Stalin confined disputes within the party itself and thus further isolated it, whereas Mao believed that Stalin should have involved the people in the denunciation of the enemies of socialism and for the people to root out said enemies, etc.

Lin Biao's Report to the Ninth National Congress explains this: http://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1969/04/01.htm

[spiltteeth]

On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and its Historical Lessons for the World is a good read by Mao.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm

Basically, Maoists consider Stalin to have been a genuine Marxist and good leader. However, Mao believed that the party should have a mass line and that Stalin focused too much on Europe, was too "mechanical" in combating revisionism, ultra-leftism, the rightists, etc. and negated the role of the peasantry in the construction of socialism. Mao is considered a successor to Stalin, just like Stalin was considered a successor to Lenin.

If you're thinking that Maoists are against "Stalinism" then you'd be sorely mistaken considering that Mao's role in the international communist movement from 1961 onwards was basically stating that the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and onwards ceased to be socialist by moving away from the Lenin-Stalin path, and that Mao was upholding said Lenin-Stalin path while extending Marxism-Leninism into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

Maoists still support the vanguard party concept (it isn't "Stalinist," Lenin founded the concept and Trotsky also supported it), they just believe that the party is prone to degeneration and thus needs struggles both 'against' it and within it to rid itself of revisionist elements. The Cultural Revolution is how Mao said this should be done, by stating that the youth must uphold Marxism-Leninism and defeat revisionist elements within the Communist Party of China in order to bring it back to a concrete Maoist path, while also fundamentally changing the cultural situation of China itself. His criticism of Stalin on this issue is that Stalin confined disputes within the party itself and thus further isolated it, whereas Mao believed that Stalin should have involved the people in the denunciation of the enemies of socialism and for the people to root out said enemies, etc.

Lin Biao's Report to the Ninth National Congress explains this: http://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1969/04/01.htm


Thanks. I do know some of what Mao and Maoists said decades ago about Stalin, but since then so much information has come out. After all, what Stalin was presenting to the world wasn't the reality of what was really going on, or how his policies actually functioned or were enforced. Plus now that time has passed it's easier to judge Stalin.
I just assumed that since 1989 and all the revelations that came from the 'fall of communism' Maoists would've reinspected and perhaps change many of their perspectives considering all the new info and the different picture it paints than what they thought Stalinist Russia was all about.

[More Fire for the People]

I recognize Stalinism for what it was--a superstructural response to the economic bureaucratization of the economy. This was the always the fundamental truth about Stalinism. The barbarity of Stalin's actions are still being revealed and interpreted. This barbarism's origins lie in the bureaucratization of the Soviet system which in turn has origins in the bureaucratization of production and planning.

[Ismail]

I just assumed that since 1989 and all the revelations that came from the 'fall of communism' Maoists would've reinspected and perhaps change many of their perspectives considering all the new info and the different picture it paints than what they thought Stalinist Russia was all about."By moving towards a market, we are not swerving from the road of socialism. What had collapsed was not socialism but Stalinism". (Mikhail S. Gorbachev: Report to 28th Congress, CPSU, in: [I]Keesing's Record of World Events, Volume 36; p. 37,615).

Not very encouraging for the whole "re-examine Stalinism" crowd.

There has been more stuff on Stalin that, if anything, is less negative than before (like J. Arch Getty's research shows, see his books like The Road to Terror, also other books like Stalin: A New History from other, also non-communist authors). Obviously it doesn't turn him from being seen as a dictator by anti-Stalin types (including Getty), but yeah. Remember, the 1960's-1980's were pretty much the "Fuck Joseph Stalin" period. Robert Conquest, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the "Ukrainian famine was a genocide" types, etc. all cropped up during this period. Not to mention Khrushchev himself condemning Stalin and the Soviet Union basically doing its best to forget he existed sans maybe World War II. There's something wrong when there's a pamphlet published by the CPSU in the 70's called Contemporary Trotskyism: Its Anti-Revolutionary Nature that mentions Stalin just once, in a quote from a newspaper in a footnote.

[scarletghoul]

A lot of maoists uphold the posetive gains made by the Stalin regime, that have already been outlined. However, a big part of maoism is participation of the masses in democratic process, whereas stalin tended to use the state power above all. Mao himself criticized Stalin for not having enough faith in the masses. This is one point where maoism differs sharply from stalinism. It's hard to imagine Stalin ever doing something like the Cultural Revolution, encouraging the people to rebel against bureaucracy and the communist party. So Maoism places much more importance on popular participation and democracy than Stalinism.

This is the general maoist oppinion, that Stalin was overall a great contributer to world socialism but the masses have to be involved more. However it varies for differant people. Some Maoists completely reject Stalin altogether, and some seem to only regard Mao as a good stalinist.

[Ismail]

Some Maoists completely reject Stalin altogether,Who?


and some seem to only regard Mao as a good stalinist.These would be the anti-Cultural Revolution Maoists, who aren't really much different from Hoxhaists.