New Chinese Film Suggests Mao became Capitalist

[RedSonRising]

I wasn't too ready to agree with some sentiments made in the later half of the article, but the news stuck me as something worth discussing.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1928956,00.html?xid=yahoo-feat

Excerpt (Intro):


It's early 1949, China's in the endgame of its civil war and Mao Zedong's communist forces are poised to take Beijing. Just south of the Yangtze, in Nanjing, Mao's archfoe, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, holds court as the leader of the Republic of China and its Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) government. But Mao believes that winning Beijing first will deal a mortal blow to the morale of the KMT. En route to what will be the future People's Republic's capital, he and his top lieutenants pause in a town that has been deserted by shopkeepers and merchants fleeing the revolution of the proletariat. As Mao laments being unable to buy even his favorite smokes, he soberly says to his comrades-in-arms: "We need the capitalists back."

[Revy]

Remember the Bloc of Four Classes, I have yet to see a sufficient Maoist response to the existence of that "theory". The four classes in Mao's envisioned bloc were the proletariat, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie. These four classes were part of his "revolution".

[pierrotlefou]

Capitalist propaganda.

[Tatarin]

I don't know, it sound like the current CPC is rewriting history to fit the current way China is going. I'm guessing they will add that this is what Marx's and Lenin's and every other revolutionary's vision really was.

I mean, it is pretty shaky when they say "it's socialism 'the Chinese way'"...

[RedSonRising]

Capitalist propaganda.


Could you specify what you think of the situation? Do you mean that the Chinese bourgeoisie is using such film content as propaganda, or that the United States bourgeoisie is simply generating propaganda against the Chinese State?

[khad]

Words cannot express my rage. I want to see them all burn.

[pierrotlefou]

Could you specify what you think of the situation? Do you mean that the Chinese bourgeoisie is using such film content as propaganda, or that the United States bourgeoisie is simply generating propaganda against the Chinese State?
The former. The article said it was state supported and since the Chinese govt is not communist, I think they're looking for ways to boost up the image of capitalism in China.

[Raúl Duke]

Remember the Bloc of Four Classes, I have yet to see a sufficient Maoist response to the existence of that "theory". The four classes in Mao's envisioned bloc were the proletariat, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie. These four classes were part of his "revolution".

I think this is a good point and discussion material.

Personally, and no personal disrespect to Maoists as people, but to me that theory is more like a good anti-imperialism ideology for movements in areas subjugated under imperialism but as an actual revolutionary theory that leads to communism I've yet to see any of that; in fact, the first nation to have a Maoist-influenced revolution (China) is heading towards capitalism quite rapidly (in comparison to say Cuba) under the aegis of its "Communist" party.

[heiss93]

Well with the exception of the Great Leap Forward, which is admittably a huge exception, the economic policies of 1949-1976 were fairly moderate. There was not attempt to expropriate the national bourgeoisie, and to the extent that state enterprises were set-up it was often done as joint-ventures. The Shanghai Textbook written by the Gang of Four, and Zhang on his work on the Proletarian Dictatorship, supported the idea of peasants having private plots they could sell for profit, after they had met their obligation to the state. This the source of "Dengism", approved at the height of the GPCR.

The period 1949-1957 was considered pre-socialist New Democracy, during which Mao did make comments close to "we need the capitalists for now".

[Jethro Tull]

hoxha was worse than mao.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah yeah and Mao was worse than Stalin, etc. We get it, nobody here likes anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism. Was there really any point in posting that? Other than to make a dig at one of the most successful revolutionary theories of all time?

[pranabjyoti]

I think this is a good point and discussion material.

Personally, and no personal disrespect to Maoists as people, but to me that theory is more like a good anti-imperialism ideology for movements in areas subjugated under imperialism but as an actual revolutionary theory that leads to communism I've yet to see any of that; in fact, the first nation to have a Maoist-influenced revolution (China) is heading towards capitalism quite rapidly (in comparison to say Cuba) under the aegis of its "Communist" party.
There are differences between Latin American and Asian countries. Cuba, like other Latin American countries don't have bear the burden of feudalism like China and other countries of Asia.
Historically, during the feudal era of human history, Asia was the most developed part of the world and feudalism had been developed at its height in Asia. Specially in China and India. I hope you know that inventions like paper, printing, gun powder and many more had been invented in China that later became the building blocks of capitalism in Europe. But, China, like other Asian countries remained submerged in feudalism for a long time. Therefore, the revolutionary forces in China, like most other part of Asia, had to fight not only capitalism by also feudalism. In Asian countries, feudalism and its legacies are much more prominent danger than capitalism.
On contrary, Cuba and other Latin American countries don't have to do the extra job of clearing the legacies of feudalism. Therefore, it can be easily understood that capitalism can get a foothold in China and other Asian countries after a revolution in a much more easier manner than a Latin American country.
This is the real condition of Asia still today and whenever you have to analyze any Asian country (including China), you have to keep this fact in your mind. Otherwise, this may lead you to wrong conclusion.

[Raúl Duke]

There are differences between Latin American and Asian countries. Cuba, like other Latin American countries don't have bear the burden of feudalism like China and other countries of Asia.
Historically, during the feudal era of human history, Asia was the most developed part of the world and feudalism had been developed at its height in Asia. Specially in China and India. I hope you know that inventions like paper, printing, gun powder and many more had been invented in China that later became the building blocks of capitalism in Europe. But, China, like other Asian countries remained submerged in feudalism for a long time. Therefore, the revolutionary forces in China, like most other part of Asia, had to fight not only capitalism by also feudalism. In Asian countries, feudalism and its legacies are much more prominent danger than capitalism.
On contrary, Cuba and other Latin American countries don't have to do the extra job of clearing the legacies of feudalism. Therefore, it can be easily understood that capitalism can get a foothold in China and other Asian countries after a revolution in a much more easier manner than a Latin American country.
This is the real condition of Asia still today and whenever you have to analyze any Asian country (including China), you have to keep this fact in your mind. Otherwise, this may lead you to wrong conclusion.

So, I'm not going against that.

I'm just referring to mostly 1st world Maoists who think their theory, which includes this bloc of 4 classes which is reactionary in the contexts of developed nations, is appropriate for countries that are far from feudalism.

[pranabjyoti]

So, I'm not going against that.

I'm just referring to mostly 1st world Maoists who think their theory, which includes this bloc of 4 classes which is reactionary in the contexts of developed nations, is appropriate for countries that are far from feudalism.
So far, I know, Maoism is totally limited for former colonies and practically it is best suited for Asian countries, which have both colonial and feudal legacies. The 1st world Maoists are mainly concentrating on ending feudal and colonial legacies in the third world, because without that revolution in the 1st world can not progress properly.