Mao Zedong Thought vs. Rest of Communism

[ZhuxiWansui]

Hi guys,
I am Chinese, and now live in America. I want to understand what exactly is the difference between Mao Zedong Thought ( in China we call it this, but I know a lot of you call it Maoism ) and Marxism, Leninism, Stalinist, and all the rest.

Thanks guys, really looking forward.

[rosie]

Umm...I can only direct you to Marxistarchives.org There, you can read till your eyeballs fall out of your head ANYTHING by Marx, Engles, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin and the like. I wish I could be of more assistance, Comrade! Oh, and welcome to America...home of the duped.

[h0m0revolutionary]

These will much more succinct ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

If you're after a less rigid and statist brand, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism (or more specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_communism)

[ComradeOm]

In a nutshell: Maoism is Marxism with peasants. Make of that what you will

Edit: Oh, and welcome to the forum!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unfortunately, as I have shown, Mao's 'theory' of change, for example, is unworkable:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-39-contradictions-t64308/index.html

[Fire Right Now]

Unfortunately, as I have shown, Mao's 'theory' of change, for example, is unworkable:



Rosa, it is time someone had this conversation with.

You are right in a technical sense, but your own positive contentions are wrong on nearly every point. It is a stunning admixture you've brewed of hostility towards theory combined with theoretical "insight" that is underwritten by a complete lack of theoretical knowledge.

Theory is everything, Rosa. Nevertheless..

Marx appropriated Hegels method and not the specifics of his philosophical system. He explicitly says this. Because you're a walking contradiction, you get this superficially but have no idea what it actually means. You are right that RevLefters for the most part probably do not get this, especially in the entirety of its implications; few do. A more transparent example might be Old Spinoza. Marx, and Hegel, certainly did appropriate the core of his thought, but certainly did NOT retain any of his philosophical system which remains secondary and mostly unimportant

Hegel makes Man the Subject. The world is collectively human and intelligible or as Protagoras put it Man Is The Measure Of All Things. This is no kind of relativism.

If you say the world is not intelligible then you are forced to explain how purposeful action is possible. Good luck.

Lets talk about your "debunking" of Being/Nothing. "Pure" Being is God. Hegel tells you there is no God available to play the part. You respond "I really think you're wrong". You are no kind of materialist.

As for Marx's method, it is exactly what he states it is. Setting aside all of the baggage that comes with the phrase, it is not the Scientific Method as you intend that term to mean. Marx is looking under the hood, and analyzing all of the myriad processes in parallel. He is not trying to establish which process is primary; abstraction is used to understand not to explain. Each layer of abstraction is peeled back one by one.

Once you understand the various goings-on abstracted to be separate and apart from each other but WHICH THEY ARE NOT, you put them back together again. This is the key step, the moment of truth. This is also the step where you and nearly everyone else get off the trian. Now you are looking at the same Subject as you were originally. Only this time instead of being a jumbled mess of manufactured parts and mechanical processes, you have a car.

And that is what is important: you want to know not about the carburetor or the the gas tank, but the car.

You are right that Hegel supplies the lingo, but he does far more than that as well. You miss this fact for the same reason that reason that those who argue against you miss it: the purpose of philosophy is not to explain the world. It is not becuase philosophy can be "purposed" towrard this end or that, it is because the process of investigating implies self-transformation.

Philosophy didn't die with Hegel..but it should have

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fire Right Now -- thanks for that; I'll reply to you just as soon as I am re-connected to the internet.

However, I must congratulate you on not actually responding to my refutation of Mao's 'theory' of change; instead you vere off at a tangent, and end up making stuff up about my beliefs. Nowhere do I question the need for scientific theory. Nor do I say anything about 'Being' etc. And I reject what you have to say about Marx -- in Das Kapital he abandoned Hegel's confused ideas root and branch. I'll post a few links to where I substantiate that particular claim. [I am posting this from a friend's computer, and do not have my usual access to the links I have saved. So this might take a few minutes.]

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

Ok, here they are:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

However, you will need to read these with far more care and attention than you seemed to manage in your last attempt.

[Holden Caulfield]

I know its not my place to make mod like posts outside my forum but Rosa and FRN might want to take their discussion elsewhere this is clearly a thread by a 'beginner' and an endless argument built on your advanced knowledge of Maoism will not help them...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC, we have had many debates here on this sort of thing in the past, and no one complained.

Even so, I am quite happy for this to be moved to Philosophy, if you prefer.

[TC]

Hi guys,
I am Chinese, and now live in America. I want to understand what exactly is the difference between Mao Zedong Thought ( in China we call it this, but I know a lot of you call it Maoism ) and Marxism, Leninism, Stalinist, and all the rest.

Thanks guys, really looking forward.


I'm afraid the quality of this forum is such that you are unlikely to get a reliable answer. The vast majority here have no idea what they're talking about with regards to Maoism (or, it should be said, 'the rest of communism') but are happy to give an opinion because in the west Mao, as one of the most successful revolutionaries whose ideology shook western imperialism to the core in a way no other has, has been totally demonized in the west...and instead of questioning this demonization, they basically accept it and instead look to differentiate their own political sect from Mao and Mao Zedong Thought. Its sad, but its true.

The reality is that the meaning of all of these terms is subject to a great deal of debate and the definitions of marxism, leninism, trotskyism, maoism etc are all highly subject to debate. I'm not even sure that the western concept of 'Maoism' tallys well with the concept of 'mao zedong thought' as understood in china. All of these terms have complex interrelated meanings that are not easily well captured in an internet message board thread like this one.

If you want reliable, genuine information about the 'rest of communism' the place to look for it is not here, but at http://www.marxists.org/ which contains the writing of all prominant Marxist figures. Take the time to educate yourself from reliable sources.

[scarletghoul]

Unfortunately MIA is quite trot-and-eurocentric and doesnt have much maoist material. But its good for understanding Rest of Communism.

And don't bother reading any of Rosa's stuff its usually long boring and irrelevent.


In a nutshell: Maoism is Marxism with peasants. Make of that what you will
Umm, no. How do you explain that there have been Maoist movements/parties in urban areas of China as well as industrialised countries with little or no peasentry?
Maybe you should read more about Maoism to get a better understanding.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

There are a few key ideas in Maoism that don't exist in other forms, one of the most important is the Mass Line.

Chairman Mao writes:

"In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses, to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital, and richter each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC:


I'm afraid the quality of this forum is such that you are unlikely to get a reliable answer. The vast majority here have no idea what they're talking about with regards to Maoism (or, it should be said, 'the rest of communism') but are happy to give an opinion because in the west Mao, as one of the most successful revolutionaries whose ideology shook western imperialism to the core in a way no other has, has been totally demonized in the west...and instead of questioning this demonization, they basically accept it and instead look to differentiate their own political sect from Mao and Mao Zedong Thought. Its sad, but its true.

Too bad his 'theory' of change, and those of Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin... do not work -- unless, that is, you can show where my refutation goes wrong.

[But we already know you can't, otherwise you would have done so by now.]

And few here dispute the fact that he was a very successful revolutionary; the point is that he wasn't a socialist revolutionary -- as well you know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Culture of a... (quoting Mao):


"In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses, to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital, and richter each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge."

Unfortunately for you and other Mao worhippers here, I have already shown that this move wasn't 'from the people to the people' but more like: 'from the elite in the CCP to the people, like it or not'.

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html

[Watch closely as Rawthenic implodes...]

[Rawthentic]

haha

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Told you...

[heiss93]

Well Mao himself claimed he was only applying the universal ideas of Marxism-Leninism to Chinese conditions. And there are no self-declared "Stalinists", those who support Stalin argue he only continued Leninist policies. So of the ideologies you listed the only divergence is with Trotskyism, and that has its historical disputes in the original split in Russia. In Mao's lifetime and in China today, they made the point of saying Mao Zedong Thought instead of Maoism, because they were still in the Leninist epoch of Imperialism. In the West and South Asia many now use the term Maoism and claim that Mao did usher in a new socialist stage.

You might want to check out wengewang.org which is a Chinese language history archive of the Maoist period with a large English section as well.

http://www.wengewang.org/thread.php?fid=61

http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/history/01.htm


29. Mao Zedong Thought is wide-ranging in content. It is an original theory which has enriched and developed Marxism-Leninism in the following respects:
1) On the new-democratic revolution. Proceeding from China’s historical and social conditions, Comrade Mao Zedong made a profound study of the characteristics and laws of the Chinese revolution, applied and developed the Marxist-Leninist thesis of the leadership of the proletariat in the democratic revolution, and established the theory of new-democratic revolution — a revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism waged by the masses of the people on the basis of the worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the proletariat. His main works on this subject include: Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire, Introducing “The Communist", On New Democracy, On Coalition Government and The Present Situation and Our Tasks. The basic points of this theory are: i) China’s bourgeoisie consisted of two sections, the big bourgeoisie (that is, the comprador bourgeoisie, or the bureaucrat-bourgeoisie) which was dependent on imperialism, and the national bourgeoisie which had revolutionary leanings but wavered. The proletariat should endeavour to get the national bourgeoisie to join in the united front under its leadership and in special circumstances to include even part of the big bourgeoisie in the united front, so as to isolate the main enemy to the greatest possible extent. When forming a united front with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must preserve its own independence and pursue the policy of “unity, struggle, unity through struggle"; when forced to split with the bourgeoisie, chiefly the big bourgeoisie, it should have the courage and ability to wage a resolute armed struggle against the big bourgeoisie, while continuing to win the sympathy of the national bourgeoisie or keep it neutral. ii) Since there was no bourgeois democracy in China and the reactionary ruling classes enforced their terroristic dictatorship over the people by armed force, the revolution could not but essentially take the form of protracted armed struggle. China’s armed struggle was a revolutionary war led by the proletariat with the peasants as the principal force. The peasantry was the most reliable ally of the proletariat. Through its vanguard, it was possible and necessary for the proletariat, with its progressive ideology and its sense of organization and discipline, to raise the political consciousness of the peasant masses, establish rural base areas, wage a protracted revolutionary war and build up and expand the revolutionary forces. Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out that “the united front and armed struggle are the two basic weapons for defeating the enemy". Together with Party building, they constituted the “three magic weapons” of the revolution. They were the essential basis which enabled the Chinese Communist Party to become the core of leadership of the whole nation and to chart the course of encircling the cities from the countryside and finally winning countrywide victory.
2) On the socialist revolution and socialist construction. On the basis of the economic and political conditions for the transition to socialism ensuing on victory in the new-democratic revolution, Comrade Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party followed the path of effecting socialist industrialization simultaneously with socialist transformation and adopted concrete policies for the gradual transformation of the private ownership of the means of production, thereby providing a theoretical as well as practical solution to the difficult task of building socialism in a large country such as China, a country which was economically and culturally backward, with a population accounting for nearly one-fourth of the world’s total. By putting forward the thesis that the combination of democracy for the people and dictatorship over the reactionaries constitutes the people’s democratic dictatorship, Comrade Mao Zedong enriched the Marxist-Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the establishment of the socialist system, Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out that, under socialism, the people had the same fundamental interests, but that all kinds of contradictions still existed among them, and that contradictions between the enemy and the people and contradictions among the people should be strictly distinguished from each other and correctly handled. He proposed that among the people we should follow a set of correct policies. We should follow the policy of “unity — criticism — unity” in political matters, the policy of “long-term coexistence and mutual supervision” in the Party’s relations with the democratic parties, the policy of “let a hundred flowers blossom, let a hundred schools of thought contend” in science and culture, and, in the economic sphere the policy of over-all arrangement with regard to the different strata in town and country and of consideration for the interests of the state, the collective and the individual, all three. He repeatedly stressed that we should not mechanically transplant the experience of foreign countries, but should find our own way to industrialization, a way suited to China’s conditions, by proceeding from the fact that China is a large agricultural country, taking agriculture as the foundation of the economy, correctly handling the relationship between heavy industry on the one hand and agriculture and light industry on the other, and attaching due importance to the development of the latter. He stressed that in socialist construction we should properly handle the relationships between economic construction and building up defence, between large-scale enterprises and small and medium scale enterprises, between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities, between the coastal regions and the interior, between the central and the local authorities, and between self-reliance and learning from foreign countries, and that we should properly handle the relationship between accumulation and consumption and pay attention to over-all balance. Moreover, he stressed that the workers were the masters of their enterprises and that cadres must take part in physical labour and workers in management, that irrational rules and regulations must be reformed and that the three-in-one combination of technical personnel, workers and cadres must be effected. And he formulated the strategic idea of bringing all positive factors into play and turning negative factors into positive ones so as to unite the whole Chinese people and build a powerful socialist country. The important ideas of Comrade Mao Zedong concerning the socialist revolution and socialist construction are mainly contained in such major works as Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship, On the Ten Major Relationships, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People and Talk at an Enlarged Work Conference Convened by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
3) On the building of the revolutionary army and military strategy. Comrade Mao Zedong methodically solved he problem of how to turn a revolutionary army chiefly made up of peasants into a new type of people’s army which is proletarian in character, observes strict discipline and forms close ties with the masses. He laid it down that the sole purpose of the people’s army is to serve the people whole-heartedly, he put forward the principle that the Party commands the gun and not the other way round, he advanced the Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention and stressed the practice of political, economic and military democracy and the principles of the unity of officers and soldiers, the unity of army and people and the disintegration of the enemy forces, thus formulating by way of summation a set of policies and methods concerning political work in the army. In his military writings such as On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War, Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan, On Protracted War and Problems of War and Strategy, Comrade Mao Zedong summed up the experience of China’s protracted revolutionary wars and advanced the comprehensive concept of building a people’s army and of building rural base areas and waging people’s war by employing the people’s army as the main force and relying on the masses. Raising guerrilla war to the strategic plane, he maintained that guerrilla warfare and mobile warfare of a guerrilla character would for a long time be the main forms of operation in China’s revolutionary wars. He explained that it would be necessary to effect an appropriate change in military strategy simultaneously with the changing balance of forces between the enemy and ourselves and with the progress of the war. He worked out a set of strategies and tactics for the revolutionary army to wage people’s war in conditions when the enemy was strong and we were weak. These strategies and tactics include fighting a protracted war strategically and campaigns and battles of quick decision, turning strategic inferiority into superiority in campaigns and battles and concentrating a superior force to destroy the enemy forces one by one. During the War of Liberation, he formulated the celebrated ten major principles of operation. All these ideas constitute Comrade Mao Zedong’s outstanding contribution to the military theory of Marxism-Leninism.
After the founding of the People’s Republic, he put forward the important guideline that we must strengthen our national defence and build modern revolutionary armed forces (including the navy, the air force and technical branches) and develop modern defence technology (including the making of nuclear weapons for self-defence).
4) On policy and tactics. Comrade Mao Zedong penetratingly elucidated the vital importance of policy and tactics in revolutionary struggles. He pointed out that policy and tactics were the life of the Party, that they were both the starting-point and the end-result of all the practical activities of a revolutionary party and that the Party must formulate its policies in the light of the existing political situation, class relations, actual circumstances and the changes in them, combining principle and flexibility. He made many valuable suggestions concerning policy and tactics in the struggle against the enemy, in the united front and other questions. He pointed out among other things: that, under changing subjective and objective conditions, a weak revolutionary force could ultimately defeat a strong reactionary force; that we should despise the enemy strategically and take him seriously tactically; that we should keep our eyes on the main target of struggle and not hit out in all directions; that we should differentiate between and disintegrate our enemies, and adopt the tactic of making use of contradictions, winning over the many, opposing the few and crushing our enemies one by one; that in areas under reactionary rule, we should combine legal and illegal struggle and, organizationally, adopt the policy of assigning picked cadres to work underground; that, as for members of the defeated reactionary classes and reactionary elements, we should give them a chance to earn a living and to become working people living by their own labour, so long as they did not rebel or create trouble; and that the proletariat and its party must fulfill two conditions in order to exercise leadership over their allies: (a) Lead their followers in waging resolute struggles against the common enemy and achieving victories; (b) Bring material benefits to their followers or at least avoid damaging their interests and at the same time give them political education. These ideas of Comrade Mao Zedong’s concerning policy and tactics are embodied in many of his writings, particularly in such works as Current Problems of Tactics in the Anti-Japanese United Front, On Policy, Conclusions on the Repulse of the Second Anti-Communist Onslaught, On Some Important Problems of the Party’s Present Policy, Don’t Hit Out in All Directions and On the Question of Whether Imperialism and All Reactionaries Are Real Tigers.
5) On ideological and political work and cultural work. In his On New Democracy, Comrade Mao Zedong stated: Any given culture (as an ideological form) is a reflection of the politics and economics of a given society, and the former in turn has a tremendous influence and effect upon the latter; economics is the base and politics the concentrated expression of economics. In accordance with this basic view, he put forward many important ideas of far-reaching and long-term significance. For instance, the theses that ideological and political work is the life-blood of economic and all other work and that it is necessary to unite politics and economics and to unite politics and professional skills, and to be both red and expert; the policy of developing a national, scientific and mass culture and of letting a hundred flowers blossom, weeding through the old to bring forth the new, and making the past serve the present and foreign things serve China; and the thesis that intellectuals have an important role to play in revolution and construction, that intellectuals should identify themselves with the workers and peasants and that they should acquire the proletarian world outlook by studying Marxism-Leninism, by studying society and through practical work. He pointed out that “this question of `for whom?’ is fundamental; it is a question of principle” and stressed that we should serve the people whole-heartedly, be highly responsible in revolutionary work, wage arduous struggle and fear no sacrifice. Many notable works written by Comrade Mao Zedong on ideology, politics and culture, such as The Orientation of the Youth Movement, Recruit Large Numbers of Intellectuals, Talks at the Yan’an Forum of Literature and Art, In Memory of Norman Bethune, Serve the People and The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains, are of tremendous significance even today.
6) On Party building. It was a most difficult task to build a Marxist, proletarian Party of a mass character in a country where the peasantry and other sections of the petty bourgeoisie constituted the majority of the population, while the proletariat was small in number yet strong in combat effectiveness. Comrade Mao Zedong’s theory on Party building provided a successful solution to this question. His main works in this area include Combat Liberalism, The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War, Reform Our Study, Rectify the Party’s Style of Work, Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing, Our Study and the Current Situation, On Strengthening the Party Committee System and Methods of Work of Party Committees. He laid particular stress on building the Party ideologically, saying that a Party member should join the Party not only organizationally but also ideologically and should constantly try to reform his non-proletarian ideas and replace them with proletarian ideas. He indicated that the style of work which entailed integrating theory with practice, forging close links with the masses and practising self-criticism was the hallmark distinguishing the Chinese Communist Party from all other political parties in China. To counter the erroneous “Left” policy of “ruthless struggle and merciless blows” once followed in inner-Party struggle, he proposed the correct policy of “learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones and curing the sickness to save the patient", emphasizing the need to achieve the objective of clarity in ideology and unity among comrades in inner-Party struggle. He initiated the rectification campaign as a form of ideological education in Marxism-Leninism throughout the Party, which applied the method of criticism and self-criticism. In view of the fact that our Party was about to become and then became a party in power leading the whole country, Comrade Mao Zedong urged time and again, first on the eve of the founding of the People’s Republic and then later, that we should remain modest and prudent, guard against arrogance and rashness and keep to plain living and hard struggle in our style of work, and that we should be on the lookout against the corrosive influence of bourgeois ideology and should oppose bureaucratism which would alienate us from the masses.

30. The living soul of Mao Zedong Thought is the stand, viewpoint and method embodied in its component parts mentioned above. This stand, viewpoint and method boil down to three basic points: to seek truth from facts, the mass line, and independence. Comrade Mao Zedong applied dialectical and historical materialism to the entire work of the proletarian party, giving shape to this stand, viewpoint and method so characteristic of Chinese Communists in the course of the Chinese revolution and its arduous, protracted struggles and thus enriching Marxism-Leninism. They find expression not only in such important works as Oppose Book Worship, On Practice, On Contradiction, Pre face and Postscript to “Rural Surveys", Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership and Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? but also in all his scientific writings and in the revolutionary activities of the Chinese Communists.
1) Seeking truth from facts. This means proceeding from reality and combining theory with practice, that is, integrating the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. Comrade Mao Zedong was always against studying Marxism in isolation from the realities of Chinese society and the Chinese revolution. As early as 1930, he opposed blind book worship by emphasizing that investigation and study is the first step in all work and that one has no right to speak without investigation. On the eve of the rectification movement in Yan’an, he affirmed that subjectivism is a formidable enemy of the Communist Party, a manifestation of impurity in Party spirit. These brilliant theses helped people break through the shackles of dogmatism and greatly emancipate their minds. While summarizing the experience and lessons of the Chinese revolution in his philosophical works and many other works rich in philosophical content, Comrade Mao Zedong showed great profundity in expounding and enriching the Marxist theory of knowledge and dialectics. He stressed that the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge is the dynamic, revolutionary theory of reflection and that full scope should be given to man’s conscious dynamic role, when it is based on and is in conformity with objective reality. Basing himself or social practice, he comprehensively and systematically elaborated the dialectical materialist theory on the sources, the process and the purpose of knowledge and on the criterion of truth. He said that as a rule, correct knowledge can be arrived at and developed only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter, that is, leading from practice to knowledge and then back to practice. He pointed out that truth exists by contrast with falsehood and grows in struggle with it, that truth is inexhaustible and that the truth of any piece of knowledge, namely, whether it corresponds to objective reality, can ultimately be decided only through social practice. He further elaborated the law of the unity of opposites, the nucleus of Marxist dialectics. He indicated that we should not only study the universality of contradiction in objective existence, but, what is more important, we should study the particularity of contradiction, and that we should resolve contradictions which are different in nature by different methods. Therefore, dialectics should not be viewed as a formula to be learned by rote and applied mechanically, but should be closely linked with practice and with investigation and study and should be applied flexibly. He forged philosophy into a sharp weapon in the hands of the proletariat and the people for knowing and changing the world. His distinguished works on China’s revolutionary war, in particular, provide outstandingly shining examples of applying and developing the Marxist theory of knowledge and dialectics in practice. Our Party must always adhere to the above ideological line formulated by Comrade Mao Zedong.
2) The mass line means everything for the masses, reliance on the masses in everything, and “from the masses, to the masses". The Party’s mass line in all its work has come into being through the systematic application in all its activities of the Marxist-Leninist principle that the people are the makers of history. It is a summation of our Party’s invaluable historical experience in conducting revolutionary activities over the years under difficult circumstances in which the enemy’s strength far outstripped ours. Comrade Mao Zedong stressed time and again that as long as we rely on the people, believe firmly in the inexhaustible creative power of the masses and hence trust and identify ourselves with them, no enemy can crush us while we can eventually crush every enemy and overcome every difficulty. He also pointed out that in leading the masses in all practical work, the leadership can form its correct ideas only by adopting the method of “from the masses, to the masses” and by combining the leadership with the masses and the general call with particular guidance. This means concentrating the ideas of the masses and turning them into systematic ideas, then going to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through, and testing the correctness of these ideas in the practice of the masses. And this process goes on, over and over again, so that the understanding of the leadership becomes more correct, keener and richer each time. This is how Comrade Mao Zedong united the Marxist theory of knowledge with the Party’s mass line. As the vanguard of the proletariat, the Party exists and fights for the interests of the people. But it always constitutes only a small part of the people, so that isolation from the people will render all the Party’s struggles and ideals devoid of content as well as impossible of success. To persevere in the revolution and advance the socialist cause, our Party must uphold the mass line.
3) Independence and self-reliance are the inevitable corollary of carrying out the Chinese revolution and construction by proceeding from Chinese reality and relying on the masses. The proletarian revolution is an internationalist cause which calls for the mutual support of the proletariats of different countries. But for the cause to triumph, each proletariat should primarily base itself on its own country’s realities, rely on the efforts of its own masses and revolutionary fortes, integrate the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of its own revolution and thus achieve victory. Comrade Mao Zedong always stressed that our policy should rest on our own strength and that we should find our own road of advance in accordance with our own conditions. In a vast country like China, it is all the more imperative for us to rely mainly on our own efforts to promote the revolution and construction. We must be determined to carry the struggle through to the end and must have faith in the hundreds of millions of Chinese people and rely on their wisdom and strength; otherwise, it will be impossible for our revolution and construction to succeed or to be consolidated even if success is won. Of course, China’s revolution and national construction are not and cannot be carried on in isolation from the rest of the world. It is always necessary for us to try to win foreign aid and, in particular, to learn all that is advanced and beneficial from other countries. The closed-door policy, blind opposition to everything foreign and any theory or practice of great-nation chauvinism are all entirely wrong. At the same time, although China is still comparatively backward economically and culturally, we must maintain our own national dignity and confidence, and there must be no slavishness or submissiveness in any form in dealing with big, powerful or rich countries. Under the leadership of the Party and Comrade Mao Zedong, no matter what difficulty we encountered, we never wavered, whether before or after the founding of New China, in our determination to remain independent and self-reliant and, we never submitted to any pressure from outside; we showed the dauntless and heroic spirit of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people. We stand for the peaceful co-existence of the people of all countries and their mutual assistance on an equal footing. While upholding our own independence, we respect other people’s right to independence. The road of revolution and construction suited to the characteristics of a country has to be explored, decided on and blazed by its own people. No one has the right to impose his views on others. Only under these conditions can there be genuine internationalism. Otherwise, there can only be hegemonism. We will always adhere to this principled stand in our international relations.

31. Mao Zedong Thought is the valuable spiritual asset of our Party. It will be our guide to action for a long time to come. The Party leaders and the large group of cadres nurtured by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought were the backbone fortes in winning great victories for our cause; they are and will remain our treasured mainstay in the cause of socialist modernization. While many of Comrade Mao Zedong’s important works were written during the periods of new-democratic revolution and of socialist transformation, we must still constantly study them. This is not only because one cannot cut the past off from the present and failure to understand the past will hamper our understanding of present-day problems, but also because many of the basic theories, principles and scientific approaches set forth in these works are of universal significance and provide us with invaluable guidance now and will continue to do so in the future. Therefore, we must continue to uphold Mao Zedong Thought, study it in earnest and apply its stand, viewpoint and method in studying the new situation and solving the new problems arising in the course of practice. Mao Zedong Thought has added much that is new to the treasure-house of Marxist-Leninist theory. We must combine our study of the scientific works of Comrade Mao Zedong with that of the scientific writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. It is entirely wrong to try to negate the scientific value of Mao Zedong Thought and to deny its guiding role in our revolution and construction just because Comrade Mao Zedong made mistakes in his later years. And it is likewise entirely wrong to adopt a dogmatic attitude towards the sayings of Comrade Mao Zedong, to regard whatever he said as the immutable truth which must be mechanically applied everywhere, and to be unwilling to admit honestly that he made mistakes in his later years, and even try to stick to them in our new activities. Both these attitudes fail to make a distinction between Mao Zedong Thought — a scientific theory formed and tested over a long period of time — and the mistakes Comrade Mao Zedong made in his later years. And it is absolutely necessary that this distinction should be made. We must treasure all the positive experience obtained in the course of integrating the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of China’s revolution and construction over fifty years or so, apply and carry forward this experience in our new work and enrich and develop Party theory with new principles and new conclusions corresponding to reality, so as to ensure the continued progress of our cause along the scientific course of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

[LeninKobaMao]

Maoism is essentially Marxism-Leninism adapted to rural areas.

[scarletghoul]

No its not, there are maoist ideas which can should and have been applied to urban areas and developed countries. The Black Panthers were a maoist organisation based in urban america, using maoist ideas in first world context.
Also a cultural revolution is something much needed here..

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Culture of a... (quoting Mao):



Unfortunately for you and other Mao worhippers here, I have already shown that this move wasn't 'from the people to the people' but more like: 'from the elite in the CCP to the people, like it or not'.

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html

[Watch closely as Rawthenic implodes...]

Whoa, pause... When did I become a Mao worshipper? I pull political influence from a lot of tendencies, I just happen to agree with more Maoism than anything else. I like some ideas from the Situationists, left communists, etc. too.

And I checked the thread, the first page was pretty much you trying to claim that "masses" meant every single person living in that society at the time, and you wanted physical data showing that the CCP interviewed and personally exchanged ideas with every single person in society. It's not realistic to expect that at all, we both know that. I'm not arguing that it couldn't have been applied to society more effectively, but what I'm arguing is that it was used well most of the time, and it is a fundamentally solid principle. We are arguing here about what makes "Mao Tsetung Thought" different from the rest of communism, not what makes the practice of revolutionary China different. There are plenty of threads discussing the ideas in practice in China, if you want to argue about that, visit those threads.

And to back up Rawthentic on the Black Panthers using the Mass Line, if you were to read "Revolutionary Suicide" by Huey P. Newton, you would learn that the 10 Point Program was actually developed after Huey went door to door in Oakland asking people about their struggles and things they wanted to see. He then synthesized the ideas into a revolutionary program. Mass. Line.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Culture of...:


When did I become a Mao worshipper?

If you haven't, I am glad to hear it.


And I checked the thread, the first page was pretty much you trying to claim that "masses" meant every single person living in that society at the time, and you wanted physical data showing that the CCP interviewed and personally exchanged ideas with every single person in society. It's not realistic to expect that at all, we both know that. I'm not arguing that it couldn't have been applied to society more effectively, but what I'm arguing is that it was used well most of the time, and it is a fundamentally solid principle. We are arguing here about what makes "Mao Tsetung Thought" different from the rest of communism, not what makes the practice of revolutionary China different. There are plenty of threads discussing the ideas in practice in China, if you want to argue about that, visit those threads.

In other words, just like Rawthentic and several other Mao-clones, you do not have any evidence that this was 'from the masses', but are quite happy to read and thus believe official claims that it was.

And, by 'the masses' I certainly did not mean every single person, for I also said that a representative sample would do. You haven't even got that!


And to back up Rawthentic on the Black Panthers using the Mass Line, if you were to read "Revolutionary Suicide" by Huey P. Newton, you would learn that the 10 Point Program was actually developed after Huey went door to door in Oakland asking people about their struggles and things they wanted to see. He then synthesized the ideas into a revolutionary program. Mass. Line.

So, you can produce Huey's original data, can you?

No, thought not.

Mass. Con.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heiss, quoting someone else:


30. The living soul of Mao Zedong Thought is the stand, viewpoint and method embodied in its component parts mentioned above. This stand, viewpoint and method boil down to three basic points: to seek truth from facts, the mass line, and independence. Comrade Mao Zedong applied dialectical and historical materialism to the entire work of the proletarian party, giving shape to this stand, viewpoint and method so characteristic of Chinese Communists in the course of the Chinese revolution and its arduous, protracted struggles and thus enriching Marxism-Leninism. They find expression not only in such important works as Oppose Book Worship, On Practice, On Contradiction, Pre face and Postscript to “Rural Surveys", Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership and Where Do Correct Ideas Come From? but also in all his scientific writings and in the revolutionary activities of the Chinese Communists.

1) Seeking truth from facts. This means proceeding from reality and combining theory with practice, that is, integrating the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. Comrade Mao Zedong was always against studying Marxism in isolation from the realities of Chinese society and the Chinese revolution. As early as 1930, he opposed blind book worship by emphasizing that investigation and study is the first step in all work and that one has no right to speak without investigation. On the eve of the rectification movement in Yan’an, he affirmed that subjectivism is a formidable enemy of the Communist Party, a manifestation of impurity in Party spirit. These brilliant theses helped people break through the shackles of dogmatism and greatly emancipate their minds. While summarizing the experience and lessons of the Chinese revolution in his philosophical works and many other works rich in philosophical content, Comrade Mao Zedong showed great profundity in expounding and enriching the Marxist theory of knowledge and dialectics. He stressed that the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge is the dynamic, revolutionary theory of reflection and that full scope should be given to man’s conscious dynamic role, when it is based on and is in conformity with objective reality. Basing himself or social practice, he comprehensively and systematically elaborated the dialectical materialist theory on the sources, the process and the purpose of knowledge and on the criterion of truth. He said that as a rule, correct knowledge can be arrived at and developed only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter, that is, leading from practice to knowledge and then back to practice. He pointed out that truth exists by contrast with falsehood and grows in struggle with it, that truth is inexhaustible and that the truth of any piece of knowledge, namely, whether it corresponds to objective reality, can ultimately be decided only through social practice. He further elaborated the law of the unity of opposites, the nucleus of Marxist dialectics. He indicated that we should not only study the universality of contradiction in objective existence, but, what is more important, we should study the particularity of contradiction, and that we should resolve contradictions which are different in nature by different methods. Therefore, dialectics should not be viewed as a formula to be learned by rote and applied mechanically, but should be closely linked with practice and with investigation and study and should be applied flexibly. He forged philosophy into a sharp weapon in the hands of the proletariat and the people for knowing and changing the world. His distinguished works on China’s revolutionary war, in particular, provide outstandingly shining examples of applying and developing the Marxist theory of knowledge and dialectics in practice. Our Party must always adhere to the above ideological line formulated by Comrade Mao Zedong.

Bold added.

But, we already know that Mao's 'theory' of change does not work, meaning that 'dialectics' is a useless theory:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

And we now know that "from the masses to the masses" should in fact read "from the party to the masses"

[Howard509]

Is there a biography sympathetic of Mao worth reading?

[Luís Henrique]

Huey went door to door in Oakland asking people about their struggles and things they wanted to see. He then synthesized the ideas into a revolutionary program. Mass. Line.

You mean he interviewed them personally, in their homes? Instead of discussing with them in an organised way, in a context of struggle?

Sorry, but this is not Mass. Line. Or marxism in any meaningful way.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^ Good point, LH!

[scarletghoul]

This is ridiculous. You sit there with your philosophical bullshit about anti-dialectics and shit criticising people like Huey P Newton. Huey got shit done, he organised the black americans with a coordinated revolutionary program, armed self defence, survival programs etc, based on the needs and feelings of black america, forming one of the most successful first world marxist organisations in history. When you achieve something with your life, instead of writing boring fucking useless articles on anti-dialectics that no one cares about, then maybe you will have the authority to criticize someone like Huey P Newton. So what if he didnt investigate the views of every single black american "in an organised way". It was just him and Bobby Seale, they needed to lay down the Party's founding principles to get it started. And it turns out they did a pretty good job, considering the community's response to them and the rapid growth of the Party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet-face:


This is ridiculous. You sit there with your philosophical bullshit about anti-dialectics and shit criticising people like Huey P Newton. Huey got shit done, he organised the black americans with a coordinated revolutionary program, armed self defence, survival programs etc, based on the needs and feelings of black america, forming one of the most successful first world marxist organisations in history. When you achieve something with your life, instead of writing boring fucking useless articles on anti-dialectics that no one cares about, then maybe you will have the authority to criticize someone like Huey P Newton. So what if he didnt investigate the views of every single black american "in an organised way". It was just him and Bobby Seale, they needed to lay down the Party's founding principles to get it started. And it turns out they did a pretty good job, considering the community's response to them and the rapid growth of the Party.

Ah, yet another mystic incapable of defending 'his' 'theory' without descending into abuse and scatological vituperation.

So, you too have no evidence that the alleged 'from the masses to the masses' was indeed 'from the masses', even though you try to disguise that fact by going scarlet-in-the-face (just like Rawthentic and others have done).

'Mass lie' more like...

[scarletghoul]

You're just jealous because I beat you in that dialectics debate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet-Face:


You're just jealous because I beat you in that dialectics debate.

And which 'debate' was that? The one where you posted a single one-liner while I was away, and could not reply?

But, even if you were right, you still have no evidence that the 'mass line' is indceed, 'from the masses'.

Anyway, nice try deflecting attention from your plight.

[Howard509]

I'm really interested in reading a book or seeing a documentary that is favorable to Mao. Even a well written article would be nice.

[JimmyJazz]

^^^Told you...

yes, 'haha' is quite a meltdown :rolleyes:


Anyway, I'm no expert in "Mao Zedong Thought", but I thought that Prairie Fire made good points in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/little-red-book-t96261/index.html?t=96261). A lot of Mao's "thought" is more like Marxist proverbs than sophisticated, empirical social theory (a la Marx and Engels). That's not to say it all is, however.

[spiltteeth]

I'm really interested in reading a book or seeing a documentary that is favorable to Mao. Even a well written article would be nice.

'The Passion Of The Mao' is a good doc that you can rent or probably watch on you-tube.

The Morning Sun is another good Doc - http://www.morningsun.org/about/ (http://www.morningsun.org/about/)

Kasama is a goos site on Maoism

[Howard509]

The Passion of the Mao is not available for download, though I wish it was.

[Rawthentic]

Listen, it's simply useless to argue with Rosa.

Her arguments are so superficial and narrow, that she has to...narrow everything to the most pettiest things, always overlooking the ACTUAL political line questions involved (questions which she's proven to be unable to respond to at all). She has no real substance to her arguments beyond her cave in the philosophy forum.

Reducing the incredibly important question of the mass line to whether the revolutionaries in China produced questionnaires? Come on now.

[spiltteeth]

Mao is the sound Kitties make.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jimmy Jaz:


A lot of Mao's "thought" is more like Marxist proverbs than sophisticated, empirical social theory (a la Marx and Engels). That's not to say it all is, however.

Yes, a sort of lefty version of the sayings of several Indian Yogis.

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

RawNerves:


Listen, it's simply useless to argue with Rosa.

I gracefully accept your surrender.


Her arguments are so superficial and narrow, that she has to...narrow everything to the most pettiest things, always overlooking the ACTUAL political line questions involved (questions which she's proven to be unable to respond to at all). She has no real substance to her arguments beyond her cave in the philosophy forum.

So, you still haven't found the original data upon which the alleged 'mass line' was built? And you've had nearly a year to find it. Come on, this really isn't good enough!

May I suggest therefore that you spend your time more wisely, and instead of moaning about your incapacity to answer my criticisms, that you re-double your efforts to locate the hundreds of millions of lost data sheets we are all sure must exist somewhere...


Reducing the incredibly important question of the mass line to whether the revolutionaries in China produced questionnaires? Come on now.

Oh dear, so you admit there is no primary data!

How disappointing, and we were so relying on you. :(

I guess it really is the 'mass lie', then.

[scarletghoul]

The Passion of the Mao is not available for download, though I wish it was.

As you know I have a copy and uploaded it.
Maybe I should put it on youtube?

[scarletghoul]

Rosa, I really think there's something wrong with you. You get so focussed on proving yourself right on these small technicalities which are not really important, that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The success of the Black Panthers within the black community, and the mass peasent support for and participation in chinese maoism, this is adequate evidence that the mass line did indeed tap into the feelings of the masses. But you dismiss all this because they didn't use questionaires n stuff. I'm not trying to insult you, but this is a serious problem you have. You focus on the pieces of paper and miss the revolution.

It's like your bizzarre obsession with dialectics. You spend all your effort arguing about dialectics and you blame it for the failure of world socialism. Personally I don't know if dialectics is right or wrong (I was trolling when I pretended to argue with you about it), but it's obvious even to me that dialectics is not the most important thing in the history of socialism.

I just think you should try and take a better approach to things, rather than focussing on proving yourself right over unimportant technicalities all the time.

[RHIZOMES]

Listen, it's simply useless to argue with Rosa.

Her arguments are so superficial and narrow, that she has to...narrow everything to the most pettiest things, always overlooking the ACTUAL political line questions involved (questions which she's proven to be unable to respond to at all). She has no real substance to her arguments beyond her cave in the philosophy forum.

Reducing the incredibly important question of the mass line to whether the revolutionaries in China produced questionnaires? Come on now.

This was basically my thought process in reading this debate: "Wow, Culture made a really good and clearly well-read response, this will be interesting to see what Rosa will say... oh".

[Rawthentic]

jimmy:

Mao's method of using pithy phrases has a deeper purpose than what you give it. Not only because Mao is known within the international communist movement for his support and use of "concrete investigation of concrete conditions" (and anti dogmatism) but because those phrases represented and called for much more than what they literally appeared to do.

"Serve the people", "unity-struggle-unity", "combat liberalism", etc., were important in popularizing revolutionary ideas and strategies. Remember the Black Panther Party and THEIR use of such phrases? Wasn't there real value to them?

No revolution has ever began or succeeded without the renaming of things (in the process of renaming reality). When the Panthers began calling police "pigs", it was powerful in restructuring the relationship between oppressed people and the armed enforcers of their oppression.

Not that we should REPLACE these phrases for dynamic analysis. Nah. Of course not. But they are very valuable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ScarletFace (still incapable of responding to my demolition of his pet 'theory', and more content to distract attention from that fact by indulging personal abuse):


Rosa, I really think there's something wrong with you. You get so focussed on proving yourself right on these small technicalities which are not really important, that you lose sight of the bigger picture. The success of the Black Panthers within the black community, and the mass peasent support for and participation in chinese maoism, this is adequate evidence that the mass line did indeed tap into the feelings of the masses. But you dismiss all this because they didn't use questionaires n stuff. I'm not trying to insult you, but this is a serious problem you have. You focus on the pieces of paper and miss the revolution.

It's like your bizzarre obsession with dialectics. You spend all your effort arguing about dialectics and you blame it for the failure of world socialism. Personally I don't know if dialectics is right or wrong (I was trolling when I pretended to argue with you about it), but it's obvious even to me that dialectics is not the most important thing in the history of socialism.

I just think you should try and take a better approach to things, rather than focussing on proving yourself right over unimportant technicalities all the time.

Yes, you are the sort of numpty who would have said the following to Marx in, say, the 1870s:


Herr Marx, I really think there's something wrong with you...like your bizzarre obsession with capitalism.

Anyway, we at least have further confirmation that you, along with the other rather emotive Mao-worshippers here, have no proof that the 'mass line' was indeed 'from the masses to the masses'.

So, my contention that this was indeed a 'mass lie' still stands.

And where exactly have I ever claimed/done this:


You spend all your effort arguing about dialectics and you blame it for the failure of world socialism.

Nowhere, that's where -- since I do not believe it, nor have I ever said it, or anything like it.

But, we already know that you Mao-oholics like to make stuff up, just as you have done in relation to the 'mass lie'.


but it's obvious even to me that dialectics is not the most important thing in the history of socialism.

Not according to Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky...


I just think you should try and take a better approach to things, rather than focussing on proving yourself right over unimportant technicalities all the time.

Just as I think that you should give RawNerve a hand in finding all those lost data sheets that the CCP used to identify the 'mass line' (but rather carelessly failed to archive), even if only to prove us Mao-haters wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RawNerve:


Mao's method of using pithy phrases has a deeper purpose than what you give it. Not only because Mao is known within the international communist movement for his support and use of "concrete investigation of concrete conditions" (and anti dogmatism) but because those phrases represented and called for much more than what they literally appeared to do.

However, he was quite happy to impose dialectics dogmatically on reality, without adequate, or even very much, supporting evidence.

Same with the 'mass lie'...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona Bay:


This was basically my thought process in reading this debate: "Wow, Culture made a really good and clearly well-read response, this will be interesting to see what Rosa will say... oh".

'Good, clear and well-read', maybe, or maybe not, but the problem is that 'he', like the other Mao-clones here, neglected to provide the original data upon which the 'mass lie' was based. [In fact, we now rightly suspect it was all made up.]

In that case, a more appropriate description of 'his' reply here would be 'waffle'.

[Rawthentic]

I hope we can all focus on the political questions here.

Lets try to ignore Rosa's trolling and focus on the issues. Yeah?

[DecDoom]

But, we already know that you Mao-oholics like to make stuff up, just as you have done in relation to the 'mass lie'.

Hey, do you mind if I borrow that title? Thanks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RawNerves:


Lets try to ignore Rosa's trolling and focus on the issues.

Translated, this reads: 'Let's wave a white flag...'

So: 'mass lie' it is.

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

DeclinedDoomed -- sure, no problem.

[scarletghoul]

Alright Rosa, time for debate.

ScarletFace (still incapable of responding to my demolition of his pet 'theory', and more content to distract attention from that fact by indulging personal abuse):
Apart from the fact that you personally abuse me in the same sentance as you condemn me for "indulging in personal abuse", you still seem to think that I was serious when I trolled you about dialectics. This is despite that fact that in my previous post I admitted to trolling. I was shocked that you couldn't see through such blatant trolling at first, but I never expected you to still fall for it after I told you I was trolling.


Yes, you are the sort of numpty who would have said the following to Marx in, say, the 1870s:
The differance between capitalism and dialectics is that capitalism is a whole socio-economic system, and we can see manifestations of it everywhere and affects all of our lives. No one seriously disputes that capitalism exists. Dialectics on the other hand is just a theory, that may or not be true. If you are right that dialectics doesn't exist, then it really is irrelevent because something nonexistant can not have a significent effect on people (unless loads of them believe in it, like with God. But the masses of the people have never had a firm belief in dialectics, most of them don't know what it is, it's only the marxist leaders and interlectuals who have been active believers in the dialectic theory, thus making it irrelevent).


Anyway, we at least have further confirmation that you, along with the other rather emotive Mao-worshippers here, have no proof that the 'mass line' was indeed 'from the masses to the masses'.
Why do you think the chinese people participated in maoist policy so enthusiastically if it wasn't determined by their own needs and feelings? Were they all brainwashed into serving Mao? Did the 100000s of Black Panther supporters just do as Huey P Newton told them to? It's pretty obvious looking at the policies of both Red China and the BPP (the 2 examples of this thread), and the people's willingness to carry them out, that these policies came from people. That and its well documented that party members went out and regularly talked to the chinese/black people, even if they didn't write everything down.


So, my contention that this was indeed a 'mass lie' still stands.
As long as you're happy thats ok i guess


And where exactly have I ever claimed/done this:

Nowhere, that's where -- since I do not believe it, nor have I ever said it, or anything like it.
Well you certainly do seem to attatch a great importance to it, equating it with capitalism and whatnot.
And maybe I misinterpreted this old quote from your glorious NTL Homepage:
These are just three examples of the thoroughly malignant effect this Hermetic theory has had on our movement. There are many more. Is it any wonder then that since at least the 1920s, Marxism has been to success what George W Bush has been to intellectual achievement?
Either you are suggesting the dialectic theory has caused the failure of Marxism, or you are... I dunno what. The GWB referance doesn't make any sense otherwise.


But, we already know that you Mao-oholics like to make stuff up, just as you have done in relation to the 'mass lie'.
What is Mao-ohol?


Not according to Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky...Are you saying that it is the most important thing because those people said it is? The abstract thought process (after all, if you are right then it is nothing more than that) of one person really doesn't have that much importance. It is the actions of the movements of the people that determine history. As Mao said, "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history". Coincidentially, this quote also contradicts your idea that Mao thought dialectics was the most important thing. He used it as a method of thinking and explaining things, that's all.


Just as I think that you should give RawNerve a hand in finding all those lost data sheets that the CCP used to identify the 'mass line' (but rather carelessly failed to archive), even if only to prove us Mao-haters wrong.
http://www.bingegamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/double-facepalm.jpg

[scarletghoul]

'Good, clear and well-read', maybe, or maybe not, but the problem is that 'he', like the other Mao-clones here
Whoa wait, I'm a Mao clone? :O
As if your username puns weren't painful enough, your insults towards Maoists really do establish you as a poor creator of insults. Mao-oholic... and now this? It doesn't even make sense as it suggests we are all like Mao, rather than worshippers or drinkers of Mao as your previous insults suggested.


, neglected to provide the original data upon which the 'mass lie' was based. [In fact, we now rightly suspect it was all made up.]
Are you seriously saying that it was all made up? That no cadres ever went to spend time with the peasants to assess their situation? This is a ridiculous assertion. You can debate the success of the mass line, but denying that it ever happened, saying that it was all made up, is kinda weird.


In that case, a more appropriate description of 'his' reply here would be 'waffle'.
coughyourntlhomepagecough

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ScaletFace:


Apart from the fact that you personally abuse me in the same sentence as you condemn me for "indulging in personal abuse", you still seem to think that I was serious when I trolled you about dialectics. This is despite that fact that in my previous post I admitted to trolling. I was shocked that you couldn't see through such blatant trolling at first, but I never expected you to still fall for it after I told you I was trolling.

The difference between us is that you just abuse me; whereas I offer evidence and argument.

And, you only admit now to your alleged 'trolling' when it has become obvious that you are clearly out of your depth.


The difference between capitalism and dialectics is that capitalism is a whole socio-economic system, and we can see manifestations of it everywhere and affects all of our lives. No one seriously disputes that capitalism exists. Dialectics on the other hand is just a theory, that may or not be true. If you are right that dialectics doesn't exist, then it really is irrelevant because something nonexistent can not have a significant effect on people (unless loads of them believe in it, like with God. But the masses of the people have never had a firm belief in dialectics, most of them don't know what it is, it's only the marxist leaders and intellectuals who have been active believers in the dialectic theory, thus making it irrelevant).

Sure, that's one difference; but the similarity I alluded to still remains: you are the sort of numpty who would have said that of Marx.

And were have I said that dialectics does not exist?

Or are you trying to prove that my accusation that you Mao-Moaners are not just strangers to the truth, you are seasoned fabulists, too.


Why do you think the chinese people participated in maoist policy so enthusiastically if it wasn't determined by their own needs and feelings? Were they all brainwashed into serving Mao? Did the 100000s of Black Panther supporters just do as Huey P Newton told them to? It's pretty obvious looking at the policies of both Red China and the BPP (the 2 examples of this thread), and the people's willingness to carry them out, that these policies came from people. That and its well documented that party members went out and regularly talked to the chinese/black people, even if they didn't write everything down.

Well, you Mao-clones keep telling us this, but you have yet to provide the evidence. And I have no doubt that the Black Panther faithful worshipped at the feet of Huey Newton, but what has that got to do with the 'mass lie'?

You tell us that "these policies came from people" (several hundred, perhaps?), and that "its well documented that party members went out and regularly talked to the chinese/black people" -- even though you haven't produced the original data upon which this myth was built.

Now, you may be naive enough to fall for such state propaganda, but many of us aren't.


As long as you're happy that's ok i guess

The only thing I am happy about (in this context) is the desperate plight of you Mao-clones thrashing about trying to hide the fact that you can't show that this mass lie charade was 'from the masses to the masses', and was not, in reality, 'from a party minority to the masses'.

Anymore of this and I'll be ecstatic.


Well you certainly do seem to attach a great importance to it, equating it with capitalism and whatnot.

Where do I equate dialectics with capitalism?

What are you on?


And maybe I misinterpreted this old quote from your glorious NTL Homepage:

Quoting my site:


These are just three examples of the thoroughly malignant effect this Hermetic theory has had on our movement. There are many more. Is it any wonder then that since at least the 1920s, Marxism has been to success what George W Bush has been to intellectual achievement?

Either you are suggesting the dialectic theory has caused the failure of Marxism, or you are... I dunno what. The GWB reference doesn't make any sense otherwise.


Not so; if you actually researched your smears more thoroughly you would have see these warnings (repeated several times at my site):

(1) It is important to emphasise from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Marxism solely on the acceptance of the Hermetic ideas dialecticians inherited from Hegel.

It is worth repeating this since I still encounter comments on Internet discussion boards, and still receive e-mails from those who claim to have read the above words, who still think I am blaming all our woes on dialectics. I am not.

However, no matter how many times I repeat this caveat, the message will not sink in (and this is after several years of continually making this very point!).

It seems that this is one part of the universe over which the Heraclitean Flux has no power!

What is being claimed, however, is that adherence to this 'theory' is one of the subjective reasons why Dialectical Marxism has become a bye-word for failure.

There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs this planet, but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, this 'theory' must take some of the blame.

So, it is alleged here that dialectics has been an important contributory factor.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

And:


It is important to add that I am not blaming this 'theory' for all our problems, only for some of them; however, no matter how many times I repeat this, I still encounter comrades on internet discussion boards who claim the opposite, that I am blaming dialectics for all our woes. Why they do this will be revealed below.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm


What is Mao-ohol?

Check in the mirror.


Are you saying that it is the most important thing because those people said it is? The abstract thought process (after all, if you are right then it is nothing more than that) of one person really doesn't have that much importance. It is the actions of the movements of the people that determine history. As Mao said, "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history". Coincidentally, this quote also contradicts your idea that Mao thought dialectics was the most important thing. He used it as a method of thinking and explaining things, that's all.

I am saying that according to these leading figures it is; if, however, you deny it is, then, unless you are a leading theorist, or leading revolutionary, I think it would be wise to ignore you.

Now, I agree with you that the input of the masses is far more important, but since leading Marxists, and every Marxist party I am aware of, puts dialectics at the centre of its theory -- and because they also emphasise the unity of theory and practice they thus also put it at the centre of practice --, it has been central to Dialectical Marxism for well over a hundred years.

This of course means that the input of the masses has been placed second (or even lower down the list), despite what Mao and others might have said. It certainly has been a key ideological component in the rationalisation of substitutionism.


He used it as a method of thinking and explaining things, that's all.

But, since dialectics was a theory about how the entire universe worked, and for all of time, it could not be other than centrally important. That's why he made such a big fuss about it (in 'On Contradiction' among other writings):


The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics. Lenin said, "Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects." [1] Lenin often called this law the essence of dialectics; he also called it the kernel of dialectics. [2] In studying this law, therefore, we cannot but touch upon a variety of questions, upon a number of philosophical problems. If we can become clear on all these problems, we shall arrive at a fundamental understanding of materialist dialectics. The problems are: the two world outlooks, the universality of contradiction, the particularity of contradiction, the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction, the identity and struggle of the aspects of a contradiction, and the place of antagonism in contradiction....

Throughout the history of human knowledge, there have been two conceptions concerning the law of development of the universe, the metaphysical conception and the dialectical conception, which form two opposing world outlooks. Lenin said:


The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

Here Lenin was referring to these two different world outlooks....

As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes. Thus materialist dialectics effectively combats the theory of external causes, or of an external motive force, advanced by metaphysical mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism. It is evident that purely external causes can only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale or quantity, but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways and why one thing changes into another. As a matter of fact, even mechanical motion under external force occurs through the internal contradictoriness of things. Simple growth in plants and animals, their quantitative development, is likewise chiefly the result of their internal contradictions. Similarly, social development is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes. Countries with almost the same geographical and climatic conditions display great diversity and unevenness in their development. Moreover, great social changes may take place in one and the same country although its geography and climate remain unchanged. Imperialist Russia changed into the socialist Soviet Union, and feudal Japan, which had locked its doors against the world, changed into imperialist Japan, although no change occurred in the geography and climate of either country. Long dominated by feudalism, China has undergone great changes in the last hundred years and is now changing in the direction of a new China, liberated and-free, and yet no change has occurred in her geography and climate. Changes do take place in the geography and climate of the earth as a whole and in every part of it, but they are insignificant when compared with changes in society; geographical and climatic changes manifest themselves in terms of tens of thousands of years, while social changes manifest themselves in thousands, hundreds or tens of years, and even in a few years or months in times of revolution. According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new....
If, through study, we achieve a real understanding of the essentials explained above, we shall be able to demolish dogmatist ideas which are contrary to the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and detrimental to our revolutionary cause, and our comrades with practical experience will be able to organize their experience into principles and avoid repeating empiricist errors. These are a few simple conclusions from our study of the law of contradiction.

Bold added.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

Looks pretty important to Mao.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ScarletFace:


Whoa wait, I'm a Mao clone?

We have yet to see.


As if your username puns weren't painful enough, your insults towards Maoists really do establish you as a poor creator of insults. Mao-oholic... and now this? It doesn't even make sense as it suggests we are all like Mao, rather than worshippers or drinkers of Mao as your previous insults suggested.

You used scatological language to describe my work, so you can hardly complain if I indulge in mild abuse in return.


Are you seriously saying that it was all made up? That no cadres ever went to spend time with the peasants to assess their situation? This is a ridiculous assertion. You can debate the success of the mass line, but denying that it ever happened, saying that it was all made up, is kinda weird.

If it is to be described as the 'mass line', and 'from the masses to the masses' then the vast bulk of the chinese population must have had an input, and until we see the original data upon which the term 'mass line' is based, we have every right to question the accuracy of those descriptors.

Moreover, the emnotive way that you Mao-Moaners have responded to my allegations, suggests strongly that even you suspect something is wrong here, in that you lot have swallowed this myth uncritically, and it took little old me to point this out to you.

Indeed, you lot must feel like the crowd who witnessed the little boy who said 'The emperor has no clothes...'

Why, even RawNerves has skulked off in a huff.


coughyourntlhomepagecough

Growing incoherent, now, I see.

So, 'mass lie', then?

[Luís Henrique]

We should be not interested in discussing the "dialectical" aspect of Mao's thought. After all, Rosa agrees that Lenin was, a) a dialectical "mystic", and, b) the greatest revolutionary of the XX century. Dialectics, therefore, do not seem to seriously harm one's efforts towards revolution.

********************

What is Maoism? In what does it actually innovate regarding Marxism or Leninism? Does it have a different, or newer class analysis? Does it have a different, or newer, theory of revolution? Does it, as some say, rely in a different appreciation of the peasantry role in revolution? Is it an attempt to adapt Marxism to the precise conditions of China (or of the Far East as a whole)? If so, what does it have to say about those precise conditions (what are, according to Mao, those conditions?) Is it valid? Is it in any way appliable, or does it provide a different, useful insight to the class relations, class struggle, or revolution in the First World, or in the Third World appart from China/Far East?

What did it achieve, different from Leninism? Was revolutionary China a different society, compared to revolutionary Russia? Why has it (up to now, at least) to survive the wave of insurrections that put an end to European Stalinism, and is such survival to be more than a two or three decades spasm? What has it devolved into, as the survival of the regime seems to be coupled by increasing conforming to capitalist norms?

Or is Maoism, more restrictly, a military theory of a precise kind of insurrection (the Protracted Popular War)? What is this theory? Is it appliable beyond the conditions of the XX Century Far East? Particularly, is it appliable to conditions of industrialised (even if dependent) societies? Moreover, was it adequate, even to the conditions of China? What did it precisely achieve?

These are discussions that would be interesting to undertake regarding Maoism; if we could discuss this, without too much simplifications of the "Deng was a traitor" or "Mao was a power-hungry tyrant", we would perhaps achieve a better understandment of what Maoism was, what its remnants are, what it did achieve, what were its limitations, etc.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


We should be not interested in discussing the "dialectical" aspect of Mao's thought. After all, Rosa agrees that Lenin was, a) a dialectical "mystic", and, b) the greatest revolutionary of the XX century. Dialectics, therefore, do not seem to seriously harm one's efforts towards revolution.

And yet, it failed.

[Hit The North]

LH:

And yet, it failed.

But not because of Lenin's dialectical materialism.

[Luís Henrique]

So, can we now discuss Maoism?

What are the Maoists' opinions on the questions I raised?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


But not because of Lenin's dialectical materialism.

How can you say in one breath that dialectics regards everything in society (or in nature if you are a dialectical materialist -- and you have yet to make your mind up on that one) as interconnected, and then argue in the next that there is no connection between 'our' core theory (dialectics) and the failure of the revolution? That is just not credible.

I argue that this theory is partially responsible for our failure; you are welcome, once again, to ignore my evidence and argumnent here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

[Hit The North]

BTB:
I argue that this theory is partially responsible for our failure;


Then it is up to you to present empirical evidence as to how Lenin's dm contributed to the factors which led to the defeat of the revolution, or how, jettisoning dm would have averted certain events which befell the revolution.

Of course, you won't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Then it is up to you to present empirical evidence as to how Lenin's dm contributed to the factors which led to the defeat of the revolution, or how, jettisoning dm would have averted certain events which befell the revolution.

Done it, but you refuse to read it.

Anyway, we already 'know' from your own 'theory' that everything is interconnected. So you already believe (if you are consistent -- ha!) that there is a connection between 'our' core theory and the failure of Dialectical Marxism. So, according to your 'theory', not mine, there is such a connection -- so no wonder I can, and have found such evidence.

Natually, if you want to abandon that particular dialectical thesis, I can live wth that too.


Of course, you won't.

Wrong again.

It must be quite disconcerting for you never to get anything right...

[Luís Henrique]

Darnit, where are the Maoists when you need one?

Or do they prefer to argue "am not, r 2" instead of discussing Maoism?

Luís Henrique

[cb9's_unity]

I am also disappointing that the Maoists wanted to get back on topic yet when Luís Henrique gave them a perfect platform on which to express their ideals they have been silent.

By no means am I an expert on Mao but this thread has not done anything to put the man into a positive light. Rosa has repeatedly asked for evidence and yet the maoists have twisted her words. They say she only demands questionnaires when she is simply asking for any evidence at all.

I hope to explore more Mao but it seems as though he is a perfect example of socialism from above. The party 'supposedly' seeks the people for guidance, and then rationalizes what the people said and make that party doctrine. Socialism below would clearly not need this as people are electing who they feel share there same beliefs. A mass line would not be needed as the people would make their line clear through elections and votes.

This is what I have at least drawn from this thread. Of course the Maoists could do themselves some good by answering LH's questions and giving me a clear and concise idea about Mao's thoughts and actions.

[scarletghoul]

OK I suck at explaining things but I will try to answer questions

What is Maoism? In what does it actually innovate regarding Marxism or Leninism?

Well there are a few aspects of Maoism, and several ideas.

Many of these ideas only fully developed after the CCP had ruled China or parts of China for a while. Marx never ruled a country, and Lenin didn't for long, so neither of them were able to fully develop the correct ideas for running a socialist country. However Mao and the CCP were in charge for a long time, and they had to find ways to solve certain problems that emerged that are unique to a ruling Party, like hyperbureaucracy, alienation of the Party from the people, pro-capitalist elements within the Party etc. Mao and the Maoists moved to combat these problems through cutting bureaucracy, giving more peoples' control, encouraging people to speak out against bad party members etc in policies like the Mass Line, Hundred Flowers and eventually Cultural Revolution.

And of course China was in a differant situation to Russia or Europe, so ideas were required to deal with China's particular conditions as a very poor country subject to fuedalism and colonialism. This included ideas such as Peoples' War with mobilisation of the peasantry, the national liberation element of Maoism (which gave rise the the Three Worlds Theory and Maoism Third Worldism), and some methods of developing a highly poor backwards country through socialism. These gave rise to the idea of New Democracy. Some of these ideas have been adopted and adapted by movements in countries with similar conditions to what China had. But it's not just third world countries. The Panthers used some Maoist ideas in a first world country, and they saw themselves as a national liberation movement.

So Maoism arose from unique conditions, developing Marxism-Leninism to suit these conditions and at the same time further enriching the theory and practice of it. That's not to say Maoism is only suitable for these conditions. Many of the ideas are good to be used universally.


Does it have a different, or newer class analysis? Does it have a different, or newer, theory of revolution? Does it, as some say, rely in a different appreciation of the peasantry role in revolution? Is it an attempt to adapt Marxism to the precise conditions of China (or of the Far East as a whole)? If so, what does it have to say about those precise conditions (what are, according to Mao, those conditions?)

A good piece to read for information on this is one of Mao's first ever articles, Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society. http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
Mao still used Marxist class analysis, however the class situation of China was very differant and this had to be taken into account in the and planning and strategy for revolution which was obviously differant to traditional European style communist revolution. But this doesn't replace the original marxist or leninist theories on this. Maoists still uphold these, and you wouldn't get any (sensible) maoists using maoist tactics and strategy that were developed for chinese conditions in a country with completely differant conditions. Like in the UK obviously traditional proletarian uprising would make more sense than mobilising the peasantry.


Is it valid? Is it in any way appliable, or does it provide a different, useful insight to the class relations, class struggle, or revolution in the First World, or in the Third World appart from China/Far East?

As I said before, some ideas are good to be used in all countries and conditions, but some are only good for certain conditions.


What did it achieve, different from Leninism? Was revolutionary China a different society, compared to revolutionary Russia?
Without a doubt. The first stages of revolution were differant due to the differant class situation, but also through the 50s 60s and some of the 70s revolutionary China was very unique because of the Maoist ideas and methods and focus on mass movement. Mao understood the power of the masses, and understood that they must be the driving force of revolution, rather than the state. One of his criticisms of Stalin was that he did not trust the masses enough. Looking at China under Mao it's clear that the masses of people were moving the revolution forward of their own free will, sometimes rebelling against the state and Party. It's difficult to imagine something like the Cultural Revolution, a mass grassroots movement of the people against Party bureaucracy and oppressive elements of old culture, in Stalin Russia.


Why has it (up to now, at least) to survive the wave of insurrections that put an end to European Stalinism, and is such survival to be more than a two or three decades spasm? What has it devolved into, as the survival of the regime seems to be coupled by increasing conforming to capitalist norms?
China isn't Maoist anymore. The Party still officially has Mao Zedong Thought in its constitution, but the vast majority of Maoist policies have been reversed. The capitalist reforms are something Maoists directed a lot of energy to combat, and the Party is very rigid and bureaucratic, which is also obviously counter to Maoism. China is now state-capitalist in the truest sense of the word, with an economy based on capitalists exploiting the workers, all under the umbrella guidance/ownership of the state.


Or is Maoism, more restrictly, a military theory of a precise kind of insurrection (the Protracted Popular War)?
Peoples' War is one part of Maoism but not the whole thing.

What is this theory? Is it appliable beyond the conditions of the XX Century Far East?
You can see examples of Peoples' War in India, Nepal, and the Phillipines. All of these are pretty successful. It seems to work best in poor countries with large rural areas.


Particularly, is it appliable to conditions of industrialised (even if dependent) societies?
It's never really been tried, but it might probably be possible to adapt the traditional style peoples war to suit an industrialised country. But yeah its hard to answer that question without real life examples.
However the general Maoist principle that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and therefore that the people should control the gun/army, is appliable to all countries and all conditions. Again the Panthers were a cool first world example of this.


Moreover, was it adequate, even to the conditions of China? What did it precisely achieve?
Peoples War achieved the chinese revolution, the CCP taking over China.

So main things about maoism are the new methods and policies that Mao had, as well as and because of the emphasis on the masses/people as well as military power.

I'm not too good at explaining things and don't write big posts like this much, but I hope at least a few of your questions were answered ok.

Any more questions I'll try and answer but as you can see this isn't my kind of thing.

[scarletghoul]

By no means am I an expert on Mao but this thread has not done anything to put the man into a positive light. Rosa has repeatedly asked for evidence and yet the maoists have twisted her words. They say she only demands questionnaires when she is simply asking for any evidence at all.
Well if you want evidence that the communist party did consult the people on issues then this is well documented and no one really doubts that it happened. Rosa wasn't debating whether or not the Mass Line was implemented, she was just saying that it wasn't from the masses because there are no detailed questionaires from all the masses. But Its well known that party members did indeed go into the countryside to talk to the peasants and get ideas on what should be done and stuff like that.


I hope to explore more Mao but it seems as though he is a perfect example of socialism from above.This is really wrong. Mao placed huge emphasis on the people, the masses, the grass roots, as the most important thing. He encouraged them to speak out against bad elements in the party, encouraged complete freedom of speach, eventually encouraged violent rebellion against corrupted capitalist bureaucrats (see cultural revolution). If anything Maoism is about socialism from below with reinforcement from above. He wanted the people to control the party and army.

Try looking up the Hundred Flowers Movement and the Cultural Revolution, theyre very interesting.

A great pro-Mao documentary to see is the Passion Of The Mao. I can give you link to download it if you like


The party 'supposedly' seeks the people for guidance, and then rationalizes what the people said and make that party doctrine. Socialism below would clearly not need this as people are electing who they feel share there same beliefs. A mass line would not be needed as the people would make their line clear through elections and votes.This isn't true. Electing an official doesnt mean they will have the same ideas as you. It's important for them to spend time with the people and serve them


This is what I have at least drawn from this thread. Of course the Maoists could do themselves some good by answering LH's questions and giving me a clear and concise idea about Mao's thoughts and actions.The best guide to Mao's thoughts is the little red book Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, which can be found here (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/index.htm). The actions of Mao are available by reading a biography (not Mao: the Untold Story) or seeing documentaries and stuff from Maoist China. As I said before Passion of the Mao is a good guide to Mao's life and deeds

[Rawthentic]

Luis Henrique:

I will contribute the great questions you posed either later today or tomorrow.

[Rawthentic]

I think Mao made a few important contributions to revolutionary theory. They are mostly within the realm of method, rather than actual strategy, which is subordinate to particularities.

For example, the concept of the mass line methodology. It as "from the masses, to the masses", where the revolutionaries served the people, learned from them, their conditions,etc., and synthesized all those understandings into a revolutionary theory and program which not only connects with the people and their desires, but puts forward a vision of a new society. During socialist china, this had a lot to do with the breaking down of the mental/manual labor division characteristic of capitalism, between those who think and those who work (and those who work supply those who think, ultimately). Education was radically changed and made available to people of working class or poor peasant origin, folk who otherwise wouldnt have the opportunity. Scientists and intellectuals and students were sent to the countryside to work and learn from the peasants as well as teach them. "Barefoot doctors" were sent to the countryside from the cities, to provide preventative medicine and overall medical care to peasants as a part of their medical training.

The other, which I think is the most important, is Mao's writings on the need or cultural revolution and the heightened continuation of class struggle within socialism. Because it's a society that is emerging out of the shell of the old, the behavior, attitudes, thinking, etc., are a strong influence on all of the people. This not only applies to the people in general, but also the cadre and officials within the highest centers of political power, whom begin to implement policies that objectively go against the tide of socialist transformation and begin to take it back to the old society. This struggle is an inevitability, due to the nature of line struggle and the nature of socialist society. The real issue lies in HOW to prevent those "capitalist roader" officials from implementing their policies. Stalin, who faced the similar and inevitable problem of reactionary (even if their intentions are socialist) officials and dissent amongst the people, used purges and overall violent police measures to ease this contradiction. He didnt understand the nature of class society under socialism (and heatened class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, not only in the form of foreign spies, invasion, dissenters and traitors, which Stalin saw as the problem, but ideologically (that is, the behaviors and attitudes which persist and reinforce the old, such as common individualist and bourgeois behaviors) and the need to mobilize the people themselves so that the direction of society becomes a mass social question that people take up. Without this use of continued revolutionary political mass mobilization, which raises the sights of the people and the leaders and maintains a country/world on the road of building socialism, communism is an impossibility. And we see, with the counterrevolution in the lates 1970s, what path China immediately began to take. It is a capitalist nation.

Another method, for example is unity-struggle-unity. I think that one speaks for itself, in a way. Which means uniting on the need for political unity (lol), struggling through the contradictions with debate, discussion, and (self-) criticism, and arriving at a unity on a new basis (and better prepared for political struggle).

I think these methods are universal, but not other strategies. The concept of peoples war is clearly one suited to some third world nations. Going against the grain of the Comintern in the 1930s, Mao sook to develop a revolutionary base in the countryside first, rather than the cities where the urban workers were. 80% of China lived in the rural areas, how could it be otherwise? Wouldnt the reactionaries regroup in the countryside if the revolutionaries didnt win it over?

Some of this may have been unclear and wordy, sorry.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^ Except, we now know that Mao made the 'mass line' up.

[Rawthentic]

:). Yup Rosa, he sure did. Darn Mao shouldn't have played that dirty trick. Of course the mass line was a lie. The people of China were magically won over to overthrow oppression and make a violent revolution, to put their lives on the line, to make land reform and cultural revolution, and advances in medicine and art. Hmm, Mao must have his magic book somewhere.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RawNerve:


Yup Rosa, he sure did. Darn Mao shouldn't have played that dirty trick. Of course the mass line was a lie. The people of China were magically won over to overthrow oppression and make a violent revolution, to put their lives on the line, to make land reform and cultural revolution, and advances in medicine and art. Hmm, Mao must have his magic book somewhere.

So, sarcasm, as opposed to providing the missing 'evidence', is your only response.

Not surprsing really...

[spiltteeth]

I think Rawthetnic and Rosa are actually the same person, working out some demons.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

spilteeth:


I think Rawthetnic and Rosa are actually the same person, working out some demons.

Ah, yet another comrade who accepts the 'law of identity'...

[cb9's_unity]

Well if you want evidence that the communist party did consult the people on issues then this is well documented and no one really doubts that it happened. Rosa wasn't debating whether or not the Mass Line was implemented, she was just saying that it wasn't from the masses because there are no detailed questionaires from all the masses. But Its well known that party members did indeed go into the countryside to talk to the peasants and get ideas on what should be done and stuff like that.

I think you aren't fully understanding what Rosa and myself for that matter are asking for. We want some actual sources, other than those of the chinese communist parties, that show some credible evidence that the peoples opinion in china really was seriously taken into account.

I apologize that everyone seems to be hanging on to this point but it is a rather large one that could be solved quite easily. Considering the size of china's population the information gathering part of Mass Line would have had to be huge in order to question even a small percentage of china's population. Something of that magnitude would be quite hard to cover up so finding information about it through a reliable source just shouldn't be difficult. And that is all we, or at least I, am asking for.

I would go on but as I began to write I realized I simply just do not know enough about the subject. I will try to look at some of those sources but I am still skeptical. Hopefully this discussion can continue and it will help me learn more about the subject.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^ Don't hold your breath waiting for it, comrade!

All you will get is prevarication and then personal abuse for even thinking to ask.

[Luís Henrique]

Well there are a few aspects of Maoism, and several ideas.

Point taken. Are those ideas independent of each others, or does accepting one of them imply accepting the others?


Many of these ideas only fully developed after the CCP had ruled China or parts of China for a while. Marx never ruled a country, and Lenin didn't for long, so neither of them were able to fully develop the correct ideas for running a socialist country. However Mao and the CCP were in charge for a long time, and they had to find ways to solve certain problems that emerged that are unique to a ruling Party, like hyperbureaucracy, alienation of the Party from the people, pro-capitalist elements within the Party etc.So part of Maoism is a theory on how to manage a post-revolutionary country. In this, it cannot, of course, as you point, be contrasted to Leninism or Marxism - or Trotskyism, for what is worth. But it can, and perhaps should, be contrasted to Stalinism, Titoism, or Khruschevism. What is the precise critique Maoism makes of those other "post-revolutionary management theories", especially of Stalinism and Khruschevism (since Titoism's relevance, anyway, was always very limited)? Particularly, is there, according to Mao, a difference between them (my impression is that Maoists tend to overestimate such differences)?

One very relevant problem in the Soviet Union during the 20's was the "scissor" question - the (increasing) difference in value between industrial and agricultural output; it lead to some critical clashes within the Bolsheviks, culminating in the brutal suppression of the "right" opposition led by Bukharin. Those problems do not seem to have been posed in the same acute way in China; I wonder why. Would you say that in this sence - dealing with the specific demands of the peasantry - Mao's position was closer to Bukharin's than to Stalin's?

On the other hand, Mao seems to have taken an "one Party" system as granted - something that is, historically, a Stalinist construction, of which no signs can be found in Lenin. Why is that, since Mao seemed to put more emphasys in contradiction than Stalin? Namely, how doesn't occur to Mao that, since class struggle is a manifestation of material contradictions in society, they cannot be suppressed, and so the inexistence of (legal, viable) opposition parties implies that class struggle will necessarily permeate the ruling party - "contaminating" it with bourgeois ideology?

How is the above related with what is perceived as a periodical alternance between liberalisation and repression in the Chinese regime?


Mao and the Maoists moved to combat these problems through cutting bureaucracy, giving more peoples' control, encouraging people to speak out against bad party members etc in policies like the Mass Line, Hundred Flowers and eventually Cultural Revolution.The great problem non-Maoists (be them anarchists, liberals or Trotskyists) have with those policies is that they do not seem actually authentic. Cultural Revolution, for instance, has repeatedly been characterised as the manipulation of mass movement to resolve internal party-politics; the abrupt end of CR when one of the factions within the CCP was clearly defeated seems to give some base to such accusation. In any way, again, there always seemed to exist a cyclic nature in such policies: bureaucracy grows -> an internal struggle follows -> the masses are unleashed against the "bureaucrats" -> internal dispute is suppressed -> mass pressure is dispensed -> bureacracy grows -> etc. Are Maoists aware of this, and how do they explain, or explain away, this cycle?


And of course China was in a differant situation to Russia or Europe, so ideas were required to deal with China's particular conditions as a very poor country subject to fuedalism and colonialism. This included ideas such as Peoples' War with mobilisation of the peasantry, the national liberation element of Maoism (which gave rise the the Three Worlds Theory and Maoism Third Worldism), and some methods of developing a highly poor backwards country through socialism.Well, here we are back to some issues of revolutionary strategy. Protracted People's War, namely, which is probably perceived by non-Maoists as the most important positive contribution of Mao to revolutionary theory. But as far as I am informed, the PPW is related to a particular appreciation of the political space, which is not that the "countryside" in a pre-capitalist economy occupies the "center" of the economic activity; on the contrary, the strategy is described as an "occupation of the empty spaces", leaving the "center" - the cities - to the enemy, and in practice asphyxiating the city-based State. As such, this theory invites its extension to other, different realities. There is, however, a key element in the success of the PPW in China (and Vietnam): the fact that in such economies, the peasantry was able to shift back into subsistence without massive losses in their lifestyle. Contrast this with Colombia, where the FARC's efforts to put up a PPW are frustrated, because the Colombian peasantry cannot sever its ties to the cities in a comparable way.

Moreover, Mao seems, very curiously, to align with the traditional (and eurocentric) characterisation of pre-revolutionary China as a feudal society. However, I find it quite doubtful that such characterisation is exact; the Chinese peasantry always enjoyed much more freedom than Western feudal peasantry, Chinese State bureaucracy was much more important than in the West (in fact, a characteristic of Western feudalism was the absence of a State bureaucracy), etc. And in fact, China as a "very poor country" was a creation of the XIX century - of Western imperialism, in fact. Up to the XVIII century China was not much poorer than Europe - and up to the XV Century it was arguably not only the richest portion of the world, but in fact the center of human civilisation.

This made a Chinese nationalism (and in the context of the oppression of China by Europe and Japan, a Chinese national-liberation idea) practically inevitable; but in many other Third-World countries, this was either not actually possible (such as in Brazil), or demanded very delusional ideological constructs (such as in Mexico).


These gave rise to the idea of New Democracy. Some of these ideas have been adopted and adapted by movements in countries with similar conditions to what China had. But it's not just third world countries. The Panthers used some Maoist ideas in a first world country, and they saw themselves as a national liberation movement.Which I tend to see as a problem, rather than an asset. Because, good or bad, Blacks in the United State do not constitute an oppressed nation; their issue - as that of other segments of the American working class - is not national liberation, but socialist revolution.


So Maoism arose from unique conditions, developing Marxism-Leninism to suit these conditions and at the same time further enriching the theory and practice of it. That's not to say Maoism is only suitable for these conditions. Many of the ideas are good to be used universally.Which brings back the question of what point they are actually separable, and if a movement that adopts some of them, but not others, actually qualifies as "Maoist".


A good piece to read for information on this is one of Mao's first ever articles, Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society. http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
Mao still used Marxist class analysis, however the class situation of China was very differant and this had to be taken into account in the and planning and strategy for revolution which was obviously differant to traditional European style communist revolution.Arguably so. In fact, a thorough knowledge of the social reality of one's country is basic for a proper discussion of a revolutionary strategy. Not for coincidence, one of Lenin's most important works was a thorough study of the Russian social formation. Was Mao's understanding of Chinese society comparable?


But this doesn't replace the original marxist or leninist theories on this. Maoists still uphold these, and you wouldn't get any (sensible) maoists using maoist tactics and strategy that were developed for chinese conditions in a country with completely differant conditions. Like in the UK obviously traditional proletarian uprising would make more sense than mobilising the peasantry.

As I said before, some ideas are good to be used in all countries and conditions, but some are only good for certain conditions.Well, of course. Does that mean that a British Maoism would have to adapt to entirely different conditions, or, more simply, that Maoism doesn't apply to the UK, which needs a different theory for a different revolution? In such conditions, what would be the actual differences between a British Maoism and a British Trotskyism?


Without a doubt. The first stages of revolution were differant due to the differant class situation, but also through the 50s 60s and some of the 70s revolutionary China was very unique because of the Maoist ideas and methods and focus on mass movement. Mao understood the power of the masses, and understood that they must be the driving force of revolution, rather than the state. One of his criticisms of Stalin was that he did not trust the masses enough. Looking at China under Mao it's clear that the masses of people were moving the revolution forward of their own free will, sometimes rebelling against the state and Party. It's difficult to imagine something like the Cultural Revolution, a mass grassroots movement of the people against Party bureaucracy and oppressive elements of old culture, in Stalin Russia.Okay. However, both seemed to systematically tend to the same end - a bureaucratic dictatorship over a (controlled) market economy. The fact that the Chinese were apparently more aware of this trend, and can argue they fought against it in a way the Russians didn't doesn't change this: in no way, in any of them, a socialist society able to reproduce itself was built; without constant conscious intervention, those societies systematically drifted towards "State capitalism" - whatever this means.


China isn't Maoist anymore. The Party still officially has Mao Zedong Thought in its constitution, but the vast majority of Maoist policies have been reversed. The capitalist reforms are something Maoists directed a lot of energy to combat, and the Party is very rigid and bureaucratic, which is also obviously counter to Maoism. China is now state-capitalist in the truest sense of the word, with an economy based on capitalists exploiting the workers, all under the umbrella guidance/ownership of the state.Yes, I gather so. The problem is to explain how was this possible; the common explanation I get (not only regarding China, but also the Soviet Union, etc) is that the Great Man (Mao in China, Stalin or Lenin in Russia) was no longer, and the petty people who came after were either incompetent or treacherous. Evidently such "explanations" are intellectually bankrupt; we fight for a socialist society that is able to stand for itself, regardless of its leaders being geniuses or idiots (like capitalism, with all its shortcomings, is able to do).


Peoples' War is one part of Maoism but not the whole thing.

You can see examples of Peoples' War in India, Nepal, and the Phillipines. All of these are pretty successful. It seems to work best in poor countries with large rural areas.It seems to work in a very lousy way in Colombia, and, in fact, to have degenerated into sheer criminality in Peru.


It's never really been tried, but it might probably be possible to adapt the traditional style peoples war to suit an industrialised country. But yeah its hard to answer that question without real life examples.Well, one problem I have found in real life is people (deliberately? unconsciously? does it make a difference?) misanalysing their own society to justify their adherence to theories (I remember back in 1975 a Maoist friend arguing that half of the Brazilian GNP was produced by the peasantry - a gross exaggeration even at that time).


However the general Maoist principle that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and therefore that the people should control the gun/army, is appliable to all countries and all conditions.However, even if admittedly military power is essential to power, it isn't ever enough (in fact, a better quip that I have read associated to Mao - though I suspect it was in fact by Bonaparte - goes that you can do anything with a bayonet - except sitting on it).


Again the Panthers were a cool first world example of this.Exactly how?


Peoples War achieved the chinese revolution, the CCP taking over China.The problem is, sixty years later China is a country in a clear route towards capitalism. This is a problem that cannot be dispelled easily. What went wrong - and merely saying that whatever went wrong happened after Mao's demise isn't enough; at the very least, the conclusion is that he was incompetent to ensure continuity of his policies after his dead - a sign of personalism, I would say.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

For example, the concept of the mass line methodology. It as "from the masses, to the masses", where the revolutionaries served the people, learned from them, their conditions,etc., and synthesized all those understandings into a revolutionary theory and program which not only connects with the people and their desires, but puts forward a vision of a new society.

This seems to place a big distance between revolutionaries and the masses. Maybe it is better than plain and simple top down bureaucratism in Stalin's style, but still, it seems to take for granted that the masses are unorganised, and, as such, incapable of expressing their own ideas and expectations.


During socialist china, this had a lot to do with the breaking down of the mental/manual labor division characteristic of capitalism, between those who think and those who work (and those who work supply those who think, ultimately).

Yet the mental/manual labour division was not broken in China.


Education was radically changed and made available to people of working class or poor peasant origin, folk who otherwise wouldnt have the opportunity.

Evidently this is a good thing.


Scientists and intellectuals and students were sent to the countryside to work and learn from the peasants as well as teach them.

Well. The Brazilian State has a program to that end, "Projeto Rondon" - if I correctly recall, it was an invention of the dictatorship. It is basically inocuous, I would say. To those participating it is usually a fine experience, much in a "social tourism" way. But then it is voluntary, and the terms are short. What exactly meant to "send intellectuals and students to the countryside"? What did they were actually able to teach and learn there? How were those students and intellectuals selected (were they eager to go, even competing among them for the honour, or were they trying to escape the experience)?


"Barefoot doctors" were sent to the countryside from the cities, to provide preventative medicine and overall medical care to peasants as a part of their medical training.

In an environment of brutal scarcity, this is probably a good measure; but let's face it, it is a heroic measure against overwhelming difficulties, not a role model - which would imply a professional and standing health system able to meet the demands of the countryside.


The other, which I think is the most important, is Mao's writings on the need or cultural revolution and the heightened continuation of class struggle within socialism.

Which is something we have learned to fear instead of idealise from the Soviet experience: there at least it served to silence opposition, to shatter working class democratic organisations, to substitute terror for enthusiasm, and to erect a mindless dictatorship not only over the masses, but over the party itself. Was it different in China? Why? I think we are all aware that the internal strife within the CCP tended to be more "civilised" than within the CPUS (under Stalin, at least), with public humiliation and "autocritiques" substituting for kangaroo trials and assassinations (why? does it have to do with Chinese/Russian cultures, with Mao/Stalin personalities, with Maoism/Stalinism as different doctrines?), which is certainly a lesser evil, but...


Because it's a society that is emerging out of the shell of the old, the behavior, attitudes, thinking, etc., are a strong influence on all of the people. This not only applies to the people in general, but also the cadre and officials within the highest centers of political power, whom begin to implement policies that objectively go against the tide of socialist transformation and begin to take it back to the old society.

But then this is due to the general unaccountability of such cadres and officials, which in turn is due to a structure that perpetuates the division between cadres and officials on one hand, and commoners in the other. It looks like the Maoist State gives back with one hand (via spasmodic surges of "mass activity") what it takes with the other (via suppression - or simple inability to implement, they might have never been there first place - of common, old fashioned, actually revolutionary work place democracy).


This struggle is an inevitability, due to the nature of line struggle and the nature of socialist society. The real issue lies in HOW to prevent those "capitalist roader" officials from implementing their policies. Stalin, who faced the similar and inevitable problem of reactionary (even if their intentions are socialist) officials and dissent amongst the people, used purges and overall violent police measures to ease this contradiction. He didnt understand the nature of class society under socialism (and heatened class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, not only in the form of foreign spies, invasion, dissenters and traitors, which Stalin saw as the problem, but ideologically (that is, the behaviors and attitudes which persist and reinforce the old, such as common individualist and bourgeois behaviors) and the need to mobilize the people themselves so that the direction of society becomes a mass social question that people take up.

I see. This would, at least in part, explain the difference in attitudes between the Stalinist State apparatus and the Maoist. Still, there remains the problem I pointed before, of the cyclic nature of such measures, which resemble outbursts of repressed energies against random targets much more than actually thought-out policies aimed at suppressing class divides and instating working class power over society.


Without this use of continued revolutionary political mass mobilization, which raises the sights of the people and the leaders and maintains a country/world on the road of building socialism, communism is an impossibility. And we see, with the counterrevolution in the lates 1970s, what path China immediately began to take. It is a capitalist nation.


Which seems to underline the inefficacy of the Maoist approach. The other possible conclusion would be that capitalism, not socialism, is in fact what people naturally tend to, which I think none of us wants to reach.


Another method, for example is unity-struggle-unity. I think that one speaks for itself, in a way. Which means uniting on the need for political unity (lol), struggling through the contradictions with debate, discussion, and (self-) criticism, and arriving at a unity on a new basis (and better prepared for political struggle).

The point here is exactly what method is used for discussion and debate, and whether these are actually free, with people being able to take positions without fear of what their ideas would entail.

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

This seems to place a big distance between revolutionaries and the masses. Maybe it is better than plain and simple top down bureaucratism in Stalin's style, but still, it seems to take for granted that the masses are unorganised, and, as such, incapable of expressing their own ideas and expectations.
Well, if the masses were able to come up with the ideas and programmes out of their own direct experiences that are necessary to make revolution, what need would there ever be for revolutionary leadership right? Because of the nature of division of labor under capitalism, the revolutionary leadership is in a sense "disconnected" from the masses, but the mass line is a method to "become one with the people," to paraphrase Paulo Freire. It isn't a paternalistic politics that seeks to "enlighten" the ignorant masses. Rather, it understands the need to first learn from the people (their conditions, thoughts, desires, etc) and bridge that into a revolutionary movement. It basically has to do with the relationship between perceptual and conceptual understandings. The role of revolutionaries is to bridge that gap between a perceptual understanding of reality (people know poverty, racism, sexism, exists) and a conceptual understanding (but do they know what that MEANS in a broad sense? What are its roots and how do you change them?).

It is very different from Stalin's bureaucratic methods. In fact, a lot of it has to do with breaking from those specific methods, where cadre and revolutionary officials used coercive and often violent means to persuade and convince the people.


Yet the mental/manual labour division was not broken in China.
No, of course not. I don't think thats possible until the social relations which maintain it are abolished (ie communism). And obviously, we have yet to reach communism. The point is, there were real political efforts aimed at alleviating this often times devastating division.


Well. The Brazilian State has a program to that end, "Projeto Rondon" - if I correctly recall, it was an invention of the dictatorship. It is basically inocuous, I would say. To those participating it is usually a fine experience, much in a "social tourism" way. But then it is voluntary, and the terms are short. What exactly meant to "send intellectuals and students to the countryside"? What did they were actually able to teach and learn there? How were those students and intellectuals selected (were they eager to go, even competing among them for the honour, or were they trying to escape the experience)?

Hmm, well I don't have the details on that, but I think it must have been a very complex experience for many. I don't doubt that many did it for personal gain and self-aggrandizement. But I also think that China (at the time) was gripped by a revolutionary spirit of "serve the people," and millions of youth and students and intellectuals were sent to the countryside to help with illiteracy, medical care, and other burning problems that were facing the countryside. The division between town and country, like that between mental and manual labor, is an unjust and unequal relationship. I think these methods were attempts at changing that.


Which seems to underline the inefficacy of the Maoist approach. The other possible conclusion would be that capitalism, not socialism, is in fact what people naturally tend to, which I think none of us wants to reach.

I think we'd agree that people don't naturally tend to capitalism. And I also think its deeper than the "inefficacy of the Maoist approach," because, ultimately, NO socialist society in ANY part of the world can mantain socialism without some form of cultural revolution and political mobilization that increasingly attacks the old while creating the conditions for the new. Socialism is about humanization and human development, more than the development of productive forces (and im not downplaying their role, either).

I think the fact that socialism was overthrown in the USSR and China with relatively little mass resistance points to real problems that revolutionaries today will need to grapple with.

A comrade pointed out recently (and I paraphrase him), "maybe the reason China and the Soviet Union had relatively little mass democratic participation and high levels of bureaucratism is because they were regions which never experienced a stage of bourgeois democracy."

And I think thats something to think through. Not only because it gets at the root of a major problem confronting socialism and the fact that socialism itself is not totalitarian, but because in a country like the US, due to its political history, the people would never tolerate a one-party style socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


Well, if the masses were able to come up with the ideas and programmes out of their own direct experiences that are necessary to make revolution, what need would there ever be for revolutionary leadership right?

Is this your belated admission that the 'mass line' was not after all 'from the masses to the masses', but 'from the party to the masses'?

I fear it is...

[Luís Henrique]

Well, if the masses were able to come up with the ideas and programmes out of their own direct experiences that are necessary to make revolution, what need would there ever be for revolutionary leadership right?

Ah, but the masses are able to come up with ideas and programmes... unless you consider the "vanguard" to be a deus ex machina. Or where else do the vanguards come from, except from the masses themselves?


Because of the nature of division of labor under capitalism, the revolutionary leadership is in a sense "disconnected" from the masses, but the mass line is a method to "become one with the people," to paraphrase Paulo Freire.I don't think so. The disconnection is mainly political, due to the political defeat of the masses. It is also social, in that part of the vanguards are of petty bourgeois origin and intent on preserving their distinction from the masses. And it is also ideological, in that the vanguards distinguish themselves from the masses for a series of reasons, not one of them connected with their revolutionary role.

A vanguard that is able to fulfill its role is politically connected to the struggle of the masses and does not exist out of them. It is also always critical of its petty bourgeois tendencies. And it does not consider itself as an element foreign to the masses; its position about such relationship is that proposed by Marx:


The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


It isn't a paternalistic politics that seeks to "enlighten" the ignorant masses. Rather, it understands the need to first learn from the people (their conditions, thoughts, desires, etc) and bridge that into a revolutionary movement. It basically has to do with the relationship between perceptual and conceptual understandings. The role of revolutionaries is to bridge that gap between a perceptual understanding of reality (people know poverty, racism, sexism, exists) and a conceptual understanding (but do they know what that MEANS in a broad sense? What are its roots and how do you change them?).That's fine, however I don't see how a proletarian vanguard needs "to learn" from the people; it is engaged in its struggles, so it should share the "perceptual understanding" of the masses. And its conceptual understanding exists not as opposed to the perceptual understanding of the masses, but as its logical conclusion; the ability to reach it comes, first of all, from the vanguard being part of the masses.


It is very different from Stalin's bureaucratic methods. In fact, a lot of it has to do with breaking from those specific methods, where cadre and revolutionary officials used coercive and often violent means to persuade and convince the people.Yes, this I gather is the intention. To what extent, however, was this actually implemented into political action?


No, of course not. I don't think thats possible until the social relations which maintain it are abolished (ie communism). And obviously, we have yet to reach communism. The point is, there were real political efforts aimed at alleviating this often times devastating division.Well, so, according to you, a real destruction of the intellectual/manual labour division cannot be accomplished under the conditions of socialism. Then exactly what would "alleviating" this division mean? Is it possible to "alleviate" it under the conditions of socialism? Is it useful?


Hmm, well I don't have the details on that, but I think it must have been a very complex experience for many. I don't doubt that many did it for personal gain and self-aggrandizement. But I also think that China (at the time) was gripped by a revolutionary spirit of "serve the people," and millions of youth and students and intellectuals were sent to the countryside to help with illiteracy, medical care, and other burning problems that were facing the countryside.Fine. The problem is, there is a general perception that, even if such "revolutionary spirit" was authentic in its origin, many people were swept by such spirit against their wishes, and were forcibly made to participate in things they didn't want or believe. Maybe such general perception is completely false, but we would be more reassured if the actual measures undertaken to avoid people emulating enthusiasm that they didn't feel (out of fear, out of opportunism, out of mass histery, whatever) where explained.


The division between town and country, like that between mental and manual labor, is an unjust and unequal relationship. I think these methods were attempts at changing that.Fair. I do agree that the division between urban and rural environments is not something good. I would then ask, like the intellectual/manual labour division, can it be suppressed before communism? What exactly attempts to suppress (or "alleviate") it when no material conditions exist for it entail (we do have accounts of a non-Maoist experience on "breaking" such divide - in Cambodia - that seems to have wreaked sheer havoc, with forcible relocations resulting in starvation and genocide)?


I think we'd agree that people don't naturally tend to capitalism.I don't think people naturally tend to capitalism. It is disturbing, and it certainly is ideologically useful to those who believe it, that all the XX centuries attempts to destroy and surpass capitalism have ended with capitalist restoration - and not like in the case of the commune, by barbaric repression by the capitalists and their allies and servants, but either by popular uprising against "socialism" or by the "socialist" parties themselves conducting the restoration.

More later.

Luís Henrique

[Random Precision]

I think Mao made a few important contributions to revolutionary theory. They are mostly within the realm of method, rather than actual strategy, which is subordinate to particularities.

For example, the concept of the mass line methodology. It as "from the masses, to the masses", where the revolutionaries served the people, learned from them, their conditions,etc., and synthesized all those understandings into a revolutionary theory and program which not only connects with the people and their desires, but puts forward a vision of a new society.

It has been a while since I've read Mao on the mass line, so you'll forgive me if I make any errors I hope, but what you have described seems like basically a vulgarization of the dialectical relationship between party and class that permeates all of Lenin's work, and indeed as Luís H pointed out, can be traced straight back to the Communist Manifesto. The party, being part of the class, learns from the class' struggles, adjusts their knowledge and tactics accordingly, with those adjustments points out to the rest of the class the limited nature of their struggles and encourages them to extend them, and so on. Except with Mao we have the working class replaced with "the masses", an abstract concept which I would argue is a deeply un-Marxist in that it tries to introduce the peasantry, petty-bourgeoisie etc. into working class consciousness.

Also we have a separation of "the masses" and those who are teaching them, presumably the communist party, which is not to be found in Lenin's work nor in the history of the revolution that he led. Sure, in Mao the revolutionaries exist "among the people", swim within them or whatever, but in Lenin the revolutionaries are actually part of the class, and take part in the day-to-day struggles that shape their consciousness, rather than simply observing and learning from them.

Anyway for the rest of your post I fully agree with Luís, I just wanted to point out that this segment of Mao's theory does not appear to be fully original.

[ChrisK]

Well if you want evidence that the communist party did consult the people on issues then this is well documented and no one really doubts that it happened. Rosa wasn't debating whether or not the Mass Line was implemented, she was just saying that it wasn't from the masses because there are no detailed questionaires from all the masses. But Its well known that party members did indeed go into the countryside to talk to the peasants and get ideas on what should be done and stuff like that.

No, whats know is that party members talked with peasants. We have no knowledge of what was said and if any of the policies in China were influenced by what peasants said. Thats why the burden of proof lies with you, its an unknown and to prove that they did anything, you need records of what peasants said and when and then comparing it to policies later. If you can't do that then I say its safe to assume that since they didn't make records of these talks that these talks had no affect on decisions.

[Luís Henrique]

And I also think its deeper than the "inefficacy of the Maoist approach," because, ultimately, NO socialist society in ANY part of the world can mantain socialism without some form of cultural revolution and political mobilization that increasingly attacks the old while creating the conditions for the new.

Yes, but this is part of the problem. If socialism is unable to reproduce itself, then it is, in a very important way, inferior to capitalist (which I think no one doubts is very able to reproduce). If political mobilisation is necessary to keep a society in a socialist path, then some material conditions for political mobilisation must be in place. Namely, it isn't to expect that people will be too much willing to insert political activities in their lives if their days are basically divided into 8 hours sleep, 8 hours work (in a "normal" modern capitalist countries; under other conditions this is known to have amounted up to 16 hours), and 8 hour everything else, including eating, bathing, loving, and having some kind of entertainment.

Otherwise, "political mobilisation" is very likely to become some kind of "civic duty" imposed on people ("Whaaaat? you didn't attend the latest local congress of the party??? What are you, some kind of traitor or foreign agent???), and, as such, a burden from which they will rightly feel liberated once the whole thing falls apart.

So, if any society is going to be socialist, then it absolutely must reduce working hours (and not to seven hours a day, but to four or less). But all countries that have tried a socialist alternative were also countries that lagged behind in intra-capitalist competition, and so have priorised production over everything else. This is, of course, absolutely incompatible with socialism. Socialist China is no exception, even if it can be argued that China avoided the typical Stalinist "industrialisation at all costs" (that's why, by the way, I have asked about Bukharin in a previous post).


I think the fact that socialism was overthrown in the USSR and China with relatively little mass resistance points to real problems that revolutionaries today will need to grapple with.

Quite certainly. Trotsky believed that a social counterrevolution would be needed to bring the Soviet Union back to capitalism; he was sorely proven wrong. Stalinist dictatorships fell like card castles, with no need of anything remotely similar to a revolution.


A comrade pointed out recently (and I paraphrase him), "maybe the reason China and the Soviet Union had relatively little mass democratic participation and high levels of bureaucratism is because they were regions which never experienced a stage of bourgeois democracy."

And I think thats something to think through. Not only because it gets at the root of a major problem confronting socialism and the fact that socialism itself is not totalitarian, but because in a country like the US, due to its political history, the people would never tolerate a one-party style socialism.

I think the comrade's reasoning is problematic. Should the democratic or undemocratic nature of socialism rely in the bourgeois past of a given society? Can't the working class build its own concept of democracy?

Anyway, how does it come that this idea of one-party socialism became so ingrained in leftist culture? This is something that cannot be found anywhere in Marx, Engels, Rosa Luxembourg, Trotsky, or Lenin. Other parties were forbidden in the Soviet Union due to the very specific circumstancies of a civil war (well, during similar circumstances people eat rats and leather; are we going to make those dishes part of the new "socialist cuisine"?) And then "suddenly" everybody, Stalin, Khrushchev, Tito, Hoxha, Mao, Castro, were acritically accepting the idea that socialism had necessarily to be coupled with a one-party regime? Why?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In Volume Three of Capital, Marx says this:


We have seen that the capitalist process of production is a historically determined form of the social process of production in general. The latter is as much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific historical and economic production relations, producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and their mutual relations, i.e., their particular socio-economic form. For the aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one another, and in which they produce, is precisely society, considered from the standpoint of its economic structure. Like all its predecessors, the capitalist process of production proceeds under definite material conditions, which are, however, simultaneously the bearers of definite social relations entered into by individuals in the process of reproducing their life. Those conditions, like these relations, are on the one hand prerequisites, on the other hand results and creations of the capitalist process of production; they are produced and reproduced by it. We saw also that capital — and the capitalist is merely capital personified and functions in the process of production solely as the agent of capital — in its corresponding social process of production, pumps a definite quantity of surplus-labour out of the direct producers, or labourers; capital obtains this surplus-labour without an equivalent, and in essence it always remains forced labour — no matter how much it may seem to result from free contractual agreement. This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the necessary labour-time = 3 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour = 100%. If the necessary labour = 9 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of surplus-labour only = 33⅓%. In that case, it depends upon the labour productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.

http://www.trotsky.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm

Which more-or-less underlines what Luis says above.

[spiltteeth]

For Rosa or anyone interested in how MASS LINE actually worked in China, I think this first hand account is especially relevant since it shows how the masses affected health care.
Its on the Kasama site.
Here:


The Mass Line

by Dr. Joshua Horn

[This is an edited version of a lecture given by Dr. Horn in New York in 1971. It is presented here in the form it took as the introductory essay in the pamphlet “Health Care in China” published in 1976 by the Anglo-Chinese Educational Institute.]
When I went to China I thought that I was going there to teach surgery and I suppose I did a little bit. But by far the greater part of what I did there was to learn, to learn about how to change the world, how to change people and how to build the society of the future.

Now, although the Chinese experience applies principally and first and foremost to China, nevertheless I think there are certain things in Chinese experience which have a worldwide relevance. And this is the reason why I am very happy to tell you about them.
Since I was first in China in 1936, for only a few weeks as a young ship’s doctor, there have been tremendous political and economic transformations. But far above these in long-term importance and durability is the transformation of the people. When I got back to China in 1954, I could see that the Chinese people were just as Chairman Mao had said. He said they had stood up. They stood up all right. They were walking upright, their heads up, purposeful; they knew what they were doing and why they were doing it and where they wanted to go.
And of all the transformations that I saw in China then, the one that struck me most forcibly was that of the position of women. Because women in old China were doubly oppressed. They not only had all the feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and everything else, but their inner, family relationships, the traditions of feudalism weighing heavily upon them with child-marriage, no rights, concubinage, all these things which reduced them to an extremely low and poor position in society. But now, they were standing up and walking about as if they owned the country, which of course they did. And do.
But I am not going on with generalities. I want to talk about some concrete things from my medical experience which try to show, to explain to some degree how all this was achieved.


First and foremost I must say that the prerequisite for all the achievements of People’s China was that in 1949 the Chinese labouring people took control of their own destiny. They seized power in the country and they have exercised power and never more firmly than today. They overthrew and utterly destroyed the old regime of the Emperors, of the feudal barons, and the mandarins and of the corrupt Chiang Kai-shek regime which was subservient to Imperialism. They established the rule of the labouring people, of the workers, the peasants. And that was the prerequisite for everything that came afterwards. And there was another method, and you will see this when I describe the medical experiences, another method which was also a key to opening many doors and overcoming many difficulties. And that was, what the Chinese call the mass line, which means, confidence that the mass of the ordinary people, given the right inspiration, drive, motivation and leadership, can accomplish miracles and can change everything. And change everything for the better. This is what the masses of the people can do.
Now, the word masses (of the people) I have discovered since I came back to the western world (the word “masses”) doesn’t always have a very good connotation. People think of masses as being, you know, mindless, blue ants, blue outside, yellow inside, just a mass of people, mindless, nameless, no individuality. But this is not what is meant by masses. Masses are the people who do the work, the ordinary people, whether they work as automobile workers, or as doctors, or as teachers or as clerks or as peasants, they are the masses. And we are the masses too.
The operation of the mass line has played a vital part in China’s advance. For example, in the old days, in China’s countryside there was no medical service. There was a sprinkling of traditional-type doctors, and virtually no modem-type doctors in China’s vast hinterland. One of the tasks that new China inherited was to provide a medical service where none existed. And to accomplish this, reliance was placed upon the mass line.
I’d like to tell you in concrete terms from my own limited personal experience how we, in my hospital, added our five cents worth. A mobile medical team was organised, consisting of a slice down the hospital staff. From directors, surgeons, professors, physicians, residents, junior doctors, nurses, cooks, bottle-washers, lavatory workers, administrators, gardeners, boilermen, laundry men, the lot: a slice of the hospital staff left the hospital and went to an area north of the Great Wall of China, to a very barren, mountainous, inhospitable terrain, where we remained for one year.
This was the mobile medical team, and I was privileged to form part of it. Now we had many tasks, but I’ll tell you about only one — training paramedical workers from among the peasants to fill the huge void which existed.
First of all, when we arrived in the area where we were going to work, we built a medical school. Nothing like Harvard Medical College, or Columbia or anything like that, we planned it ourselves. We, the members of the mobile team, together with the peasants we were working among, we dug the clay, we moulded the bricks, we fired them, we built the kiln, we cut the firewood to fire them, we cut the timber for the door frames, and the windows, and we built it. It wasn’t much of a building but it kept the wind and the rain and the cold out, and we built a number of hutments where we could accommodate twenty-five patients. And where we could open our medical school.
One day in November, when the weather was getting cold, the ground was freezing and farm work was coming to an end, we enrolled our first batch of thirty-two students. They were all young peasants, one each from the production brigades of the commune, among whom we were working. They had been selected by their production brigades, not on the basis of their scholastic standing (most of them had only had three or four years schooling), but on the basis of their attitude, their attitude to the collective — whether they were unselfish or selfish, whether they put the interests of the collective first or their own interests, whether they were bold in action or timid, hard-working or lazy. If they had these attributes and they wanted to go, then they were in line for selection.
A selection process was put into operation. Of course, there were many, many volunteers, but finally we landed up with 32, and we lived together with them in this medical school for the next four months, in the winter period.
I would not have believed it possible, that in four months we could learn, together with these young peasants, the rudiments of medicine. I was amazed at how much they learnt and I still am amazed. And when I look back, to the reasons why they learned so fast, it is clear that very important among these reasons was their strong motivation. They felt that an honour had been conferred upon them in being selected and they must live up to this honour. That a responsibility had been placed on their shoulders and that they must honour this responsibility. And so they studied very hard.
We had no electric light in that place and no running water, of course, but they studied until three, four or five in the morning. As long as there was a drop of oil in the oil lamp, and as long as we, who were teaching them, could remain awake, and talk with them, so they studied.
Perhaps another reason why they learnt very fast was that although the place was nothing to look at, it did have certain advantages. For example, we, their teachers, lived with them, and there was nothing separating us, no question of status or anything like that. We all did the work together, carrying the water, chopping the firewood, doing the cooking, cleaning, and everything else. And we were completely at their disposal. The books they used were only mimeographed, but we had written them for this purpose. They were tailor-made for the job, with simple line drawings, and so on.
We fused theory with practice at every stage of the course. In many countries, including my own, it is customary to erect a “Chinese wall” between the beginning and the end, or the beginning and the middle. In the beginning you do biochemistry, physiology and so on — basic sciences. And when you’ve got that into your head, quickly before you forget it, you start seeing patients.
This kind of Chinese wall does not exist in China. We learnt physiology and anatomy, we dissected pigs and chickens. But as we studied anatomy and physiology, so we applied it in practice. When a patient would come to our clinic with a lung disease, for example, we’d examine the lungs, we’d go and dissect the lungs again, see what they looked like, go over the physiology of the lungs, and then advance to the diseases of the lungs, and the treatment of these diseases and the diagnoses of these diseases. So then, knowledge advanced on a broad front, interest was maintained, all aspects of the education they were receiving seemed to be purposeful.
Then, in March, the land started to thaw, and they were needed back on their farms, not as doctors but as peasants. They went back, and they were peasants earning their living by the sweat of their brow, as they had done before. But with a difference, because now, if anyone got ill, or if any of their neighbours, their fellow workers, fellow villagers, had anything wrong with them, they would first consult these peasant doctors. With their medical bags, the basic minimum of drugs, and the basic minimum of dressings and instruments, they were able to cope with a lot of things. We in the mobile team used to go around our villages — our parish — at least once or twice a week, and see every village within our area. And when we reached a village we’d be met there by a peasant doctor who would tell us [of] all the patients he had seen. We’d discuss the problems together and say where we agreed, where we disagreed, what could have been better, and so on and so forth. In this way there was a continual raising of the medical knowledge.
Winter came, the same thing happened, they went back for a further course of full time study for four months in the medical school, back again for eight months. The next winter, back again, for a three year course. But at the end of this three year course, they did not get a piece of paper with some sealing wax and a bit of red ribbon on it, saying that old John was now a peasant doctor. They were peasants, they remained peasants, and they’ll be peasants all their lives. All it meant was that this man had now reached a certain level of proficiency and that in future his training would be along lines appropriate to that.
All this is new, all this is in the process of developing, but it is envisaged that throughout life they will raise their professional level, their technical skill.
In the first three years of the Cultural Revolution something like one million paramedical workers were trained to work in the countryside. This million includes peasant doctors, midwives, sanitary workers, birth control workers, and so on. In this way, China has, by relying on the masses of the people, coupling up upon the innate drive, ingenuity, intelligence of ordinary peasants, broken the back of this problem in a way that I think no other country in the world has done.
As well as this vast army of paramedical workers, many doctors from the urban hospitals responded to the call to serve the peasant population, uprooted themselves from the cities and voluntarily settled down, often in the hardest and most remote places, together with their wives and children, and are settling down there. This is a complete reversal of what you see almost all over the world. Speaking of my country, the movement of doctors is always from where the life is harder to where it is a bit softer, from where there’s less money to where there’s more money. So they go from the country to the towns, and then they go from the poorer towns to the richer towns, and then they go from the working class end of the town to the posher end of the town, and finally, they end up by going from the poorer country to the richer country.
So British doctors go to America, and Indian doctors come to England. This is the world-wide direction of medical personnel, except in China, where it is exactly the opposite. There the movement is from the towns, where life is relatively easy, to the countryside where it is hard.
Many people say, yes, you’ve got all these paramedical workers, but what kind of level have they got? What kind of doctors are they really? Do they really look after the health of the people? This raises very big questions, including the question of what attributes a doctor should have.
Some people think that the most important attributes are to have a lot of degrees, to have gone through a lot of specialist courses, to have a good bed-side manner, and so on. I’m not belittling the importance of professional skill, and mastery of modern techniques. But in my opinion, the most important attribute that any doctor can possibly have is the determination to put the interests of his patients before everything else, to devote his whole life to the service of his patients, of his fellow men. If he has this drive, if he has this motivation, he’s a good doctor. And if he doesn’t have it he falls short of being a good doctor no matter what his technical or professional level is.
Peasant doctors have this determination to be of service to their fellow men. To whatever degree their technical or professional knowledge falls short of the ideal, that can be put right in time. And will be put right in time. Because to have a sense of responsibility towards your patients means that you also have the determination to equip yourself with the knowledge and skills to serve their needs. It’s part of the same thing.
So I say to those good people who say, ah well, what kind of doctors are they? they don’t really count — I say they do count. I say this is the kind of doctor of the future — this is not an expedient, this is not just a stop-gap measure. This is how doctors of the future will be trained, rooted among the people. They will come from the people, they will be motivated by a desire to serve the people, they will not be separated from the people, by their income, their dress, their motor cars, where they live, or anything else. They’ll merge with the people and serve them to the best of their ability. And the whole state will help them to do this, by giving them the facilities for studying, for learning, for application of their knowledge and above all by making sure that they never lose their roots among the people. And these peasant doctors will always remain peasants.
And I’d like to give you another example of how the mass line operates in Chinese medicine. Venereal disease is a big problem in the western world today. A long time ago Ehrlich invented the first anti-syphilitic drug. When he did, many people were opposed to its use. Because, they said, if you put this drug on the market, it will eliminate syphilis and the result will be promiscuity. They needn’t have worried. And when a much more powerful drug, penicillin, came on the scene, the same arguments were advanced. I think every country in the world, in the western world, is facing a situation in which the venereal disease rate is by no means decreasing but is increasing.
In China, venereal disease has virtually been eliminated. For the last eight or nine years that I have spent in China, I did not see one case of infectious syphilis, active syphilis. Now, you might say, I was a surgeon, and it wasn’t my job to see such cases. But I had a good friend whose job it was. He worked in the Venereal Disease Institute. He hadn’t seen one either. And the reason why he hadn’t seen one is because there aren’t any. A whole generation of medical students is growing up not knowing what infectious venereal disease looks like. But it doesn’t matter, it’s gone and it will never come back. I say that my friend worked in the Venereal Disease Institute. He did, but he doesn’t now, because they have closed it down. There’s no more need for it.
All right, then, let’s ask the question, which I’m sure you are all asking anyway, how was it done? It was done by the application of the mass line and by the people seizing power. What are the sources of venereal disease? The sources of venereal disease are Imperialism, troops invading your country or your troops invading another country, civil war, brothels, prostitution, drug addiction, these are the main fertilizers of the soil in which venereal disease flourishes. When the Chinese people won power in 1949, they also were able to change this soil completely. First of all, no more imperialism, no more foreign soldiers or sailors came to China to spread venereal disease. Secondly, the exploitative system which permeated the whole of society and of which prostitution was a reflection, was abolished. Brothels were closed down.
The people didn’t even wait for the government to pass a law, although they did it fairly snappily, pass a law making brothels illegal — the people closed them down themselves. Because the people recognized that the exploitation of women in brothels was the crudest form of exploitation which they had fought for twenty long years to overthrow, for which hundreds of thousands of men and women had laid down their lives, and they weren’t going to continue it in the new society they were building. And then, the economic basis of prostitution was eliminated. Most of the girls who went into prostitution did not do so from their own choice. Either they’d been had by the landlord if they were pretty and when he got tired of them he sold them to a brothel; they had no choice, they were no better than slaves. Or they had to sell themselves as prostitutes to keep themselves alive or their families alive. So it was the economic pressure of this rotten old sick man of Asia society that drove the majority of women into prostitution.
The economic basis was eliminated, there was a way for everyone to earn a living, and to earn a living much more honourably, much more in tune with society than being a prostitute. And over and above that, the climate of public opinion had changed. This form of exploitation of women was seen as something abhorrent, something that had to be got rid of.
There still remained a big problem, once you had done that. You had the problem of finding the millions of cases of venereal disease which existed, and treating them. This is where the mass line came in. Because this task was way beyond the capability of the tiny, orthodox medical profession, they had to rely on the mass of the people. In every town, in every village, in every county of China, small groups of ordinary people, workers, peasants, clerks, teachers, were organized to tackle this job. They were given two or three weeks’ training in which venereal disease was explained to them — its nature, its diagnoses and its treatment. And then they went out. First they held propaganda meetings, they had to find the cases. And they’d hold meetings at which they’d explain “venereal disease belongs to feudalism, to capitalism, imperialism. We fought and died to overthrow these and we are building socialism and you can’t take syphilis into socialism. You have got to get rid of it. And so anybody who thinks he might have syphilis, might have gonorrhea, please come forward and we’ll check up”.
In this way a big net was thrown out into society and the great majority of sufferers of venereal disease were drawn in. A new method of diagnosis was devised — a very simple, quick method using a few drops of capillary blood, which anybody could carry out. Not 100 per cent accurate, but nothing in the world is 100 per cent accurate. It was well over 90 per cent accurate. And in this way the diagnosis was confirmed or disproved in the majority of cases.
Then there came the question of treatment. Of course the orthodox medical profession did not take to this kind of thing very kindly. They saw it as an encroachment upon their status, a sort of dilution of labour, though I don’t suppose they put it like that, but when it came to treatment they really put up a fight. They said, well, propaganda is all right, they can do that, they can even do the diagnoses, and send out these questionnaires, but giving injections, that’s our job and it’s not ethical if non-qualified people do it. Also it might be dangerous, they don’t really know how to do it. Well, the Chinese are always very bold in their conceptions and cautious in the application of the conception. And they were here. You see, the idea of eliminating venereal disease is a very bold conception. The idea of training a million paramedical workers is a very bold idea. But the way in which it is done is quite cautious. And so there was this resistance from the regular, orthodox profession, and so they said, alright, we’ll do a pilot scheme. They selected one county, a big one, a few million population, and they put these three-week shock-trained teams of ordinary workers to work, and they said you carry on and do the best you can. And when they had finished they invited the experts in to check up and they checked up very thoroughly and they found over 95 per cent of all the cases of venereal disease had been correctly diagnosed and adequately treated. Then the barriers were down. Training was done not in one county, but on a nationwide scale, because it was known that it was possible in this way to break the back of this enormous problem. The remaining 5 per cent could be dealt with by the regular medical profession, and they were. So we’ve come back to what I said at the beginning. Today venereal disease is virtually a thing of the past. And that is an enormous achievement due to the people’s power and the mass line.
I’ll give you another example. The treatment of burns, burns, you know, due to heat. In 1958 the Chinese had what they called the year of the Big Leap Forward. I know that in the west it was called by different names: the Year of the Big Flop, the Year of the Fall-on-the-Face, and so on and so forth. A lot of people laughed at the Big Leap. They said it was a big mistake, and wasteful. Well I was in China, and I think that it was a big leap forward. Because during that year industry, agriculture, art, science, culture, medicine, all made very big advances. Of course there were some mistakes and of course there was some waste. The only person who never makes any mistakes is the person who never does anything. The Chinese don’t believe in not doing nothing. I’m not sure if that is grammatically correct, but you know what I mean.
There were mistakes, for example, the steel campaign. I think that was a bit wasteful. We made steel in our hospital, and my wife who was teaching in school, made steel in her school, and my children, who were school-children at that time, made steel in their school. And I am prepared to believe that the steel that we made was not very good steel and did not make much of a contribution to the Chinese, to the overall Chinese economy. But there was one very big result from this, which is a permanent one, a permanent gain. And that is today every man, woman and child in China, knows the difference between iron and steel, and knows how to use reducing agents to convert one into the other. Knows how to find iron ore and smelt it to make pig iron and then go on to make steel. Now of course, the Chinese are a backward people, it’s a backward country, a poor country, largely rural and peasant, a lot of peasants. And America, for example, the United States of America, is the most advanced industrial country in the world. I sometimes wonder if this applies to all the American people. Whether they all know the difference between iron and steel. Well, the Chinese do and it might one day be very useful to them, because it means that wherever they are, whatever the situation, they’ll be able to make steel. And if you can make steel, you can make a lot of very useful things and this is one of the guarantees that China is invincible.
This is a bit of a digression. I didn’t mean to get on to the Big Leap Forward, but I was talking about burns. Because during this steel-making campaign, a steel-worker got burnt. And he sustained major burns covering nearly ninety per cent of the area of the body, and pretty deep. According to statistics from the most advanced medical centres in the world in the treatment of burns, his chance of survival was hardly worth talking about. But it was the year of the Big Leap. It was the year when all the bounds of the norms, the averages, were being smashed. Should the people of China, in this situation, in this heady period when everybody was surging forward, should they accept this as a fact, that he had no chance of survival and write him off, or should they say, to hell with that, we’re going to save him. And that’s what they said, we’re going to save him. And they saved him.
The fight for his life was a fight that involved the entire Chinese people. Everybody felt involved, the radio carried several bulletins a day describing what had been done to him and how he was reacting, what his condition was. Newspapers were full of it. Outside the hospital in Shanghai where he was being treated, there were crowds milling up and down, queueing up, offering blood, plasma, skin, anything that could be, or could conceivably be of some use. Inside the hospital there was a full mobilization of all the people, not just a handful of professional technical people, but everyone. Had it just been a question of saving this man’s life, that would have been important and it would have been an illustration of the way that all the people are involved in a problem, but it was much more than that. It was a question of disseminating knowledge throughout China. I well remember, before I ever heard about this case in Shanghai, I was in bed one night and the telephone rang and somebody said there was a big burn in Shanghai and would I be prepared to go down and help in its treatment. And I felt very proud. I felt, well now, they’ve really recognized my work and I’ve really arrived. Certainly I’ll be only too pleased to go along. So I went along to the airport and there I found forty or fifty other doctors who were also going down to Shanghai. And not only doctors, but nurses as well. And when we got to Shanghai, when we got to the hospital, I found there were three or four hundred of them. And we had been assembled from every part of China, and we all had two things in common. One is that we all knew a little bit about it. We could all put our five cents worth in, and make some kind of a contribution. And the other thing that we had was that we could all learn. And we all learnt, and we observed — we took far more than we gave. And we went back to our various hospitals. I went back to Peking and told my colleagues about what I had learnt. And we made plans for when we would receive a burn, and we built up a burns unit.
The position today is that China has a network of burns centres throughout the country, every sizeable city in China has a burns centre and the mortality rate in burns in China compares very favourably with that of any country in the world. Of course, I would not advise anybody to get burnt, but if you do get burnt, you’d be much better off to get burnt in China than anywhere else.
And all this dissemination of the knowledge, the experience, so that this exceptional thing becomes a commonplace thing, that’s part of the Chinese approach, part of the Chinese method. An advance in medicine, no matter what it is, must be put at the service of all the people, and not just at the service of the man who made the advance so that he gets the Nobel Prize or whatever.
More examples. For example, you may have heard that China is pretty good in reattaching severed limbs, and severed fingers. And this too, started in Shanghai, when a worker named Wang (it’s a very common name, a bit like Smith in England) was working in a factory on a power press and he put his hand where he shouldn’t have done and it got cut off above the wrist. A common enough injury all over the world. And what was done was the usual sort of thing up to that time. The stump was wrapped up in a sterile dressing and he set off to hospital. But the worker at the next bench looked on the floor and he saw the hand lying under the power press and he picked it up. It was still in its protective glove and he took the glove off and he could see that the fingers were intact. The skin was intact and still warm, the fingers mobile, and so he thought, “this is a waste,” and he took it along to the hospital to which the patient had been sent. And he went to see the surgeon and he gave him the hand and said, “Couldn’t you put it back on?”
It so happened that that surgeon only a short time before had done a stint of manual work in this factory. The Communist Party of China considers it is very important to narrow, and finally eliminate, the gap between those who work with their brains and those who work with their hands. Because first of all, they don’t believe that anybody works entirely with his hands without using his brain, and they don’t consider that anybody can work entirely with his brain and not use his hands. But there is a difference in status, which is inherited from the past. And to advance towards the society of the future, you’ve got to eliminate, you’ve got to bridge this difference between mental and manual workers. And one way of doing it is for intellectual workers, and that includes many doctors, to leave their surgeries or their offices or what have you, and go and do a stint of work on the farms or in the factories. And this surgeon had done so, in that very factory. And he’d got to know the workers there and he’d got to like them and they’d got to like him. And so it is quite reasonable that this old worker should pick up that hand and give it to him and say, “Couldn’t you put it back on?” And that was a challenge which he couldn’t in all conscience turn down. And so it was put back on. Very successfully. Very successfully.
Again the same thing happened. I was flown down to Shanghai and a lot of other people were flown down to Shanghai, all kinds. This time there was no question of contributing anything, because the job had been done. We went there to learn. And then went back to our hospitals and made plans, started operating on dogs for example, practising techniques of arterial and venous nastimosis, and then severing a dog’s leg and reattaching it. Finally we got pretty good at that. It wasn’t too difficult and then we went on to rabbits’ ears. That’s much more difficult, just a solitary vein, a solitary artery, very small in calibre, and most early attempts failed and there were a lot of one-eared rabbits around the place. But eventually we succeeded in that as well. And in the course of doing this we needed the armamentarium. We needed some apparatus that we didn’t have. For example, we needed a fibre for sewing up these fine blood vessels and the fibre had to be something very special; had to be very, very fine, but very strong, very smooth, very non-reactive with the tissues, and yet capable of tying them up. We didn’t have such a fibre. And as a matter of fact, I don’t think any country had got such a fibre, or had at that time. And so we went along to the synthetic fabric factory, making nylon shirts and plastic raincoats and what have you, and we told them the problem. And they produced a fibre for us. It didn’t take them long. They took off a whole section of their research and development staff to work on this problem and they produced a suitable fibre. Now, I couldn’t help thinking at the time, what would have happened if I had gone along to ICI in England or Du Pont in the United States? I can well imagine that they would have said, “Well now, that’s a very interesting project you’ve got there. But I’m sorry it doesn’t fit in with our production scheme for this year, or for next year either for that matter, and there would be no profit in it for us at all. The most you would want would be a couple of hundred yards — that would last you a lifetime. And while it’s very interesting, it’s just not rational.”
And now, that would have been a reasonable approach for Du Pont or for ICI. I don’t want to slander either of them. That would have been a reasonable response because they are concerned with making money and making profits. But this factory in Peking was not concerned with making money, it didn’t work for the profit motive. It had the same motive as we had, to serve the people. Whether you serve the people by providing them with nylon shirts or by re-attaching their severed limbs, it’s all part of the same thing. And so they considered it nothing out of the ordinary to take off a good part of their personnel to this one project. And they produced a very good fibre for us. The same thing happened at the needle factory, where we wanted a special kind of sewing needle. And at the optical instrument factory where we needed a special kind of operating microscope. And so we built up our skills, our knowledge, our armamentarium and in due course the cases started coming in.
The position when I left China was that well over a hundred cases of severed limbs and severed fingers had been successfully re-attached. The fingers are much more difficult to do than the limbs. And this is an achievement which is unparalleled in the world, I think. I was back in England on leave during that period and I went along to the Royal College of Surgeons to give a lecture on this. And it’s a kind of very snooty place. But they were interested and although they didn’t like to believe it, they had to believe the evidence of their eyes because there were photographs of all these cases from beginning to end. And after the lecture, they asked me quite a lot of questions. One question was, how is it that the Chinese can succeed in re-attaching these severed fingers and limbs whereas we can’t? Is it a question of eyesight, better eyesight, or more dexterity?
Does it come from all this wood carving tradition? And of course, it’s nothing to do with this. The real answer, which I didn’t give them, the real answer is that it is a question of politics. And that is what it really is. Because when you really come to think about it, to re-attach four fingers takes about seventeen or eighteen hours’ hard work. And when you’ve done the operation, it’s quite likely that one of the veins will block up and then you’ll have to get out of bed and do another four or five or six hours’ work. You’ve got to have tremendous tenacity, tremendous patience, tremendous confidence, a tremendous desire for it to succeed, in order to do it. Where does this come from? It doesn’t come from any conventional reward, because there isn’t any. Doctors in China are never paid by their patients. They get a fixed salary and you get the same whether or not you have re-attached severed limbs. That makes no difference. Neither is it fame. Because this is a teamwork job and no one person is singled out as the number one. So it’s not fame and it’s not fortune. So what is it? It’s a desire to serve the people. It’s a desire to build up socialist China. It’s a desire to transform the sick man of Asia into the most healthy man in the world. And that’s politics.
Now I’d like to leave the inner medical professional part of it and talk about the kind of relationships which you find in hospitals. I mentioned before that it’s considered wrong for there to be a difference in status, in privilege between mental workers and manual workers, and also between different levels, different grades of either of them. There’s an attempt to break down a hierarchy; a hierarchical system which exists in many institutions all over the world is being systematically demolished in China. For example, the wards in the hospital where I worked are run by a committee of three people, one is a nurse, one is a doctor and one is an orderly. They all serve the people, they all serve the patients, according to the best of their abilities which depends upon the kind of past and education and training that they’ve had. They meet together every day and they review the previous day’s work and they plan the next day’s work. If an operation is planned in the ward, a big operation, a potentially dangerous operation, that too is discussed by everyone in the ward, including the patients. Because with a big operation, it’s not only a question of where to make a cut, or technical things, it’s a question that involves many other things: teamwork, ethics, ethics comes into it very much, is it justifiable or not justifiable? I mean recently, in many countries in the world, there have been a lot of questions asked about the justifiability or the non-justifiability of this or that kind of procedure. And so the whole project is discussed by everybody. If you’ve got something to say you say it. If you haven’t, it’s best to keep quiet and not just to push yourself forward. But very often people have a little bit to contribute which can help quite a lot, even in the performance of the operation and certainly in the aftercare: what kinds of things could go wrong during or after the operation, how to prevent these things from going wrong, what to do if they do go wrong. So that in the post-operative period, for example, everybody in the ward is mentally prepared for all the eventualities and maturely prepared as well. So much about the ward.
In the hospital at large, the hospital administrator used to do manual work one day a week, either in the garden or the laundry or the boiler-house. Because it is believed in China that if you sit on your backside in an office with a lot of telephones and issue orders, you become a bureaucrat. And it doesn’t matter how good you are at heart, you know, how red you are and how firmly convinced you are of socialist principles, if that’s what you do, if you sit on your backside and issue orders, you become a bureaucrat in any country in the world. And one of the ways, not the only way, and maybe not the most important way, but one of the ways of overcoming this is to go and do the job yourself. And so when our hospital director used to go and work in the boilerhouse, he did so not to teach the boilerman how to stoke the boiler, but to learn from him how to stoke the boiler. Because another thing that Chairman Mao says is this, before you can be a teacher of the masses you’ve got to be a pupil of the masses.
This is the way in which the gap between the intellectual workers and the ordinary people of the country is consistently being broken down. And I don’t want to give an exaggerated idea, I don’t want to say that there is no difference in China between mental and manual work, between worker and peasant, between town and country. There is a difference, even quite a big difference. The point is, what is happening to the difference? Is it getting bigger or smaller? And the answer is, it’s getting smaller. And it’s getting smaller in some sectors very, very rapidly.
Of course, the hospital I’ve been speaking about is not only concerned with treating sickness, it’s primarily concerned with preventing disease. My hospital was responsible for the health of about seventy or eighty thousand people living in the northwestern corner of Peking. We had teams of doctors, nurses and sanitary workers and we used to go out and visit the people in their houses, see what their living conditions were, what the sanitary conditions were like, and so on, carry out innoculations of the children against poliomyelitis, whooping cough, diphtheria, make ante-natal examinations, generally be of service to them, looking after the health of the people. And then, if they were ever called out at night, a patient in the locality who could not come into hospital, it was perfectly all right to telephone the hospital and somebody would go out, and see the patient at home.
So the hospital was a community hospital. It was a regular standard practice of the hospital where I was working and this was part of the overall community work concerned with safeguarding the health of the Chinese people.
Now, I’ve only just skimmed over the surface, and that’s all it’s possible to do in this time, but I’m going to dry up now. If anybody has a question to ask, and I am capable of answering it, I’ll certainly do the best I can.
What I’m convinced of is this, that the ordinary people in every country in the world, including the United States of America, have basically got an inexhaustible enthusiasm for building a better life. That while they may go along with what they’ve got for quite a long time, while they may be deluded into thinking that what they’ve got is what they need and what they want, the contradictions exist in capitalist society which are going to lead, and maybe in not such a very long time ahead, the majority of the people to demand something better, and to create something better.
From a lecture by Joshua Horn, New York, 1971.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For Rosa or anyone interested in how MASS LINE actually worked in China, I think this first hand account is especially relevant since it shows how the masses affected health care.

Thanks for that Spilteeth; but, since there is no primary evidence that this was indeed 'from the masses', and until it is produced, we must, I'm afraid, re-name this:

The Mass Lie