Maoism in First-World countries.

[Lolshevik]

I have a question for all our Maoist comrades on here who are in the "industrialized" countries.

How do first-world Maoists apply the protracted peoples' war in their country? Is it seen as something that only applies to neo-colonial countries? And, if it doesn't apply (as I suspect it doesn't) then how do their tactics differ from other anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists?

[pierrotlefou]

i hope to hear a good answer to this as I was going to ask something similar. There seems to be a lot of romanticism with maoism that bourgeois western youth really get into.

[Invincible Summer]

Would the Weather Underground be an example?

[Tablo]

Would the Weather Underground be an example?
I don't think they would count as they did nothing, but blow up a bunch of buildings.

[Lolshevik]

No takers?

I'm not trying to Mao-bash here. I've come to learn.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't think they would count as they did nothing, but blow up a bunch of buildings.

I probably don't have a good definition of "People's War" then. I always took it to mean a specific sort of violent guerilla-style class warfare.. iuno. Like I said, I don't have a good definition. I'd like to learn as well.

[Tatarin]

In a way, it could be a future situation, when the working class is so oppressed that any industrialized country could be considered a third world country with all that it means.

[Spawn of Stalin]

If the Weathermen had gained enough support they would have been able to achieve something, the same with the Panthers. Both were influenced by Mao and Maoism.

[Lolshevik]

I don't know much at all about the Weathermen. But I am familiar with the Panthers and I have heard from different sources things ranging from "they were a Maoist party" to "they were influenced by Maoism."

But what did that influence amount to? How did being influenced by Maoism affect their tactics & politics versus if they were just a "regular" Marxist-Leninist group?

[scarletghoul]

They worked extensively establishing a mass base in the black community, mostly by serving and organising the people. They were trying to become the revolutionary vanguard of black america, raising the conciousness and organising people at the grassroots level. Regular ML parties do not tend to do this, and its a characteristic of Maoism that makes it such an effective and powerful force. I also can't think of any other regular ML parties that patrol police with guns in order to defend the blacks from pig brutality. (this of course was a part of serving the people).

Read the red book if you havent, cuz it gives a nice outline of maoist ideas

A vital part of this organising the people is giving them armed force (a People's Army), to defend themselves and to eventually overthrow their oppressors. But of course the form and actions of this Army will have to be differant in differant countries. The Panthers done a kinda community defence militia, but never started a proper peoples war because modern urban america is a lot more difficult than old rural china for that kind of thing, and they were never strong enough. (there was a Black Liberation Army which tried, but they were'nt very successful).
:mad:
It would be pretty hard to establish a People's Army in the UK right now as guns are banned and the state has tight control everywhere. My personal opinion is that we should start building a mass base through legal means (revolutionary culture/propaganda, and serving the people) then when we're big enough we can start arming ourselves and the workers. Thats just my view though, there is no universal maoist line on this

I'm still a bit drunk but I hope I answered your 2 questions alright there.

[Pogue]

They worked extensively establishing a mass base in the black community, mostly by serving and organising the people. They were trying to become the revolutionary vanguard of black america, raising the conciousness and organising people at the grassroots level. Regular ML parties do not tend to do this, and its a characteristic of Maoism that makes it such an effective and powerful force. I also can't think of any other regular ML parties that patrol police with guns in order to defend the blacks from pig brutality. (this of course was a part of serving the people).

Read the red book if you havent, cuz it gives a nice outline of maoist ideas

A vital part of this organising the people is giving them armed force (a People's Army), to defend themselves and to eventually overthrow their oppressors. But of course the form and actions of this Army will have to be differant in differant countries. The Panthers done a kinda community defence militia, but never started a proper peoples war because modern urban america is a lot more difficult than old rural china for that kind of thing, and they were never strong enough. (there was a Black Liberation Army which tried, but they were'nt very successful).
:mad:
It would be pretty hard to establish a People's Army in the UK right now as guns are banned and the state has tight control everywhere. My personal opinion is that we should start building a mass base through legal means (revolutionary culture/propaganda, and serving the people) then when we're big enough we can start arming ourselves and the workers. Thats just my view though, there is no universal maoist line on this

I'm still a bit drunk but I hope I answered your 2 questions alright there.

Why on earth would Maoists only focus on Black people in the states? How can you have a revolution, a working class one, through only organising black people? Hell, I thought the socialist movement got developed a solid notion of proletarian internationalism in the early 20th century...

[chegitz guevara]

Would the Weather Underground be an example?

No, their model was more groups like the Tupamaro in Uruguay or the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo (People's Revolutionary Army) in Argentina. They were urban guerrillas who considered themselves Guevaraists.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't know much at all about the Weathermen. But I am familiar with the Panthers and I have heard from different sources things ranging from "they were a Maoist party" to "they were influenced by Maoism."

But what did that influence amount to? How did being influenced by Maoism affect their tactics & politics versus if they were just a "regular" Marxist-Leninist group?

It really depends. Some Panthers, like Fred Hampton, took the revolutionary rhetoric seriously, and were dedicated communists. Some, like Bobby Seale, saw it as a way to gain caché and make money. My understanding is the association started when the Panthers started importing cheap books from China to sell for money. The Mao books sold like hotcakes, and so that's where the Panthers went.

Ultimately the problem with an organization like the Panthers is that "Serve the People" efforts were at cross purposes with their revolutionary aspirations. In order to keep getting money for their efforts to help the community they had to start downplaying their revolutionary aspect. And, COINTELPRO killing and imprisoning their most radical leaders didn't help, either.

[Lolshevik]

I don't see why the need to raise money for community work would necessarily work against having a revolutionary line.

[scarletghoul]

Why on earth would Maoists only focus on Black people in the states? How can you have a revolution, a working class one, through only organising black people? Hell, I thought the socialist movement got developed a solid notion of proletarian internationalism in the early 20th century...
http://blurredproductions.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sisko-facepalm.jpg

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why on earth would Maoists only focus on Black people in the states? How can you have a revolution, a working class one, through only organising black people? Hell, I thought the socialist movement got developed a solid notion of proletarian internationalism in the early 20th century...
That's where you went wrong, we're talking about Maoism, not socialism or proletarian internationalism.

[spiltteeth]

Check out Kasama, which isn't Maoist, but have alot of Maoist comrades coming up with new ways to apply Maoism to todays situation in 1st worlds nations.

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/

[scarletghoul]

Kasama is not Maoist??

edit: and yes check it out OP kasama is great

[Lolshevik]

I'm familiar with Kasama; it's what sparked my interest in Maoism initially. Well, that and the fact that we have living revolutions currently developing that are led by Maoist parties. (Nepal primarily, but the Naxalites as well.) Kasama to me looks pretty explicitly Maoist, just not dogmatic.

what I'm interested in is learning the fundamentals of Maoism. Things like the Chinese Revolution - do Maoists believe that it produced a democratic workers' state, for instance?

[Pogue]

http://blurredproductions.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sisko-facepalm.jpg

Maybe you could answer the question? I know a big part of Maoism is self hatred and the desire to do sweet fuck all and make white working class people (or just any first world working class people for that matter) feel guilty about something or other but I would have thought in the intervening period between you doing fuck all real life political work and you making inane revleft posts you could have developed an answer.

[scarletghoul]

Fine, I'll answer u.

The Black Panther Party was not a Communist Party designed to create world socialism, it was a Black liberation organisation, with communist leadership and a lot of MLM theoretical influence. I'm guessing because youre a wanka that you're against national liberation movements, or anything short of overnight statelessness, but to most logical thinking leftists the emancipation of Black America is a vital step in the global revolutionary movement. Your criticising the Black Panthers for only working in the Black community (which isn't completely true, as they did do a lot of work with other revolutionary organisations btw), is as stupid as saying "why do the british communists only work to liberate the british workers?? thats racism and anti-internationalist!".

[Pogue]

Fine, I'll answer u.

The Black Panther Party was not a Communist Party designed to create world socialism, it was a Black liberation organisation, with communist leadership and a lot of MLM theoretical influence. I'm guessing because youre a wanka that you're against national liberation movements, or anything short of overnight statelessness, but to most logical thinking leftists the emancipation of Black America is a vital step in the global revolutionary movement. Your criticising the Black Panthers for only working in the Black community (which isn't completely true, as they did do a lot of work with other revolutionary organisations btw), is as stupid as saying "why do the british communists only work to liberate the british workers?? thats racism and anti-internationalist!".

So they weren't Maoists then, i.e. socialists? I've said I think the black panthers were great as a self defence organisation but I am saying why would they, as Maoists, only care about black people. But if your saying they aint maoist thats fair enough. I asked cos i thought u were implying what they did was consistent with maoism.

[Olerud]

Maybe you could answer the question? I know a big part of Maoism is self hatred and the desire to do sweet fuck all and make white working class people (or just any first world working class people for that matter) feel guilty about something or other but I would have thought in the intervening period between you doing fuck all real life political work and you making inane revleft posts you could have developed an answer.

http://www.dembot.net/images/facepalm/double_presidential_facepalm.jpg

[Pogue]

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/fa/24217/0/

nice image hosting there chap, you didnt totally just fuck that one up now did you

[Olerud]

nice image hosting there chap, you didnt totally just fuck that one up now did you

Look again you little cock beetle :)

[scarletghoul]

I'm familiar with Kasama; it's what sparked my interest in Maoism initially. Well, that and the fact that we have living revolutions currently developing that are led by Maoist parties. (Nepal primarily, but the Naxalites as well.) Kasama to me looks pretty explicitly Maoist, just not dogmatic.

what I'm interested in is learning the fundamentals of Maoism. Things like the Chinese Revolution - do Maoists believe that it produced a democratic workers' state, for instance?
The answer to that is kinda complicated. There was intense class struggle going on in China even after the establishment of the PRC, with some elements in the communist party steering the country towards state-capitalism (as happened with the USSR), and others trying to deepen the socialist revolution. This culminated in the Cultural Revolution, which was the most extraordinary example of class struggle in a socialist state. In some areas and at some times there was true democratic workers' control of things, in other places there was not. But certainly the Maoists went the furtherist towards creating a true democratic workers' state. It was a constant struggle which the Maoists lost, and that's why China is now state-capitalist

[scarletghoul]

So they weren't Maoists then, i.e. socialists? I've said I think the black panthers were great as a self defence organisation but I am saying why would they, as Maoists, only care about black people. But if your saying they aint maoist thats fair enough. I asked cos i thought u were implying what they did was consistent with maoism.
There were Maoists/socialists/communists, and they were all about liberating their own community, the black american community. They didn't "only care about black people"; as anyone who's researched them will know they were highly internationalist, its just that they were from the black community which desperately needs liberating. In addition to black liberation, they played a significant role in the general american revolutionary scene of the time, but yeah.

[scarletghoul]

Well, that and the fact that we have living revolutions currently developing that are led by Maoist parties. (Nepal primarily, but the Naxalites as well.)Don't forget the Phillipines :cool:
But yes its true, Maoism is the major revolutionary current worldwide right now. Its still pretty fresh and modern too

[Pogue]

There were Maoists/socialists/communists, and they were all about liberating their own community, the black american community. They didn't "only care about black people"; as anyone who's researched them will know they were highly internationalist, its just that they were from the black community which desperately needs liberating. In addition to black liberation, they played a significant role in the general american revolutionary scene of the time, but yeah.

alright, fair enough, see, it all helps when we just explain ourselves doesn't it?

[Pogue]

Look again you little cock beetle :)

better luck next time ey?

[chegitz guevara]

I don't see why the need to raise money for community work would necessarily work against having a revolutionary line.

Because you have to tone down your politics in order to get money, especially once the revolutionary wave had passed. Maybe it's not explicitly necessary, but it seems to be an historical necessity, as it happens to almost every single group who tries to do both.

Put yourself in that situation. You can get money to feed 5 more families or you can be overt about your revolutionary politics? Are you really selfish enough to deny those families food just so you can exercise your right to free speech?

I think there is a way to do it, but I'm not sure how. My guess would be to separate the projects and use political names in order to be able to do both. That can lead to a kind of political schizophrenia (I've done the "underground" organizing thing when I was in Spark--the American affiliate of Lutte Ouvriere). It's not easy. If it were, we'd have figured out how to do it.

[chegitz guevara]

Kasama to me looks pretty explicitly Maoist, just not dogmatic.

Kasama is not explicitly Maoist. Most of the comrades involved are Maoists, but not all of us are. I come out of the Trotskyist "tradition," and though I no longer consider myself a Trot, I still have a lot of Trotskyist politics. Another comrade comes out of the anarchist tradition. We've a few comrades who don't come out of any particular tradition as well.

What unites us is not Maoism, but the recognition that the old ways of politics have become stiff, ossified, and don't reflect the challenges facing us today. That problem faces the whole revolutionary left, not just Maoism, not just Trotskyism. We're not looking for a synthesis of various trends of Marxism, but overthrowing the whole lot of it and creating a Marxism that can deal with the tasks we face here and now.

[scarletghoul]

And it just so happens that Maoists are the best at doing that :cool:

[chegitz guevara]

Maybe, and only some. A lot of ex-Trots, Louis Proyect, for example, have been doing this kind of rethinking for years. Proyect is as responsible for my being an ex-Trot as Mike Ely is. And there are still plenty of inflexible Maoists.

I don't think what is important is which tendency is doing the rethinking. I think what is important is that it is being done. Ideally, Maoism, Trotskyism, Luxeumburgism, should all be overthrown. We should learn from all who led us before and we should simply be communists.

[Pogue]

Maoists also seem pretty good at fucking up the working class and leaving them to starve, or just blindly patronising them and using them as tools for the advacnement of their own ends, the tossers.

[red cat]

Maybe, and only some. A lot of ex-Trots, Louis Proyect, for example, have been doing this kind of rethinking for years. Proyect is as responsible for my being an ex-Trot as Mike Ely is. And there are still plenty of inflexible Maoists.

I don't think what is important is which tendency is doing the rethinking. I think what is important is that it is being done. Ideally, Maoism, Trotskyism, Luxeumburgism, should all be overthrown. We should learn from all who led us before and we should simply be communists.

We Maoists learn from the positive and negative contributions of everyone who preceded us. We name our tendency after those who qualitatively developed communist theory, i.e., Marx, Lenin and Mao, and we uphold only those who had more positive than negative contributions towards developing the same.

Also, our theory is particularly based on our revolutionary practice, from which we never detach ourselves. And we use the term "Maoist" or "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" to refer to our tendency because many other tendencies claim to be communists as well. Actually we believe that our line is the only communist one. It is not that comrades belonging to other tendencies have anti-communist intentions; those who persist in their journey to revolution will gradually grasp MLM.

[Lyev]

Maoists also seem pretty good at fucking up the working class and leaving them to starve, or just blindly patronising them and using them as tools for the advacnement of their own ends, the tossers.

I think perhaps I agree with Pogue to an extent here. When Maoism talks about a People's War isn't that one of the basic tenants of classical Marxism anyway? ('the movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority'.) As I understand it a People's War is mass support of the people for fighting against the ruling classes (a small minority). But, when Mao fought the old Chinese government his force had just a little less 250,000 soldiers in 1932. Out of a population of roughly a billion how come he didn't have more supporters? This kind of leads onto to my other question to Maoists, is it right for a minority to force their will on the rest of society? I'm probably wrong in places here, I'm only asking question, so please don't bollock me.

[scarletghoul]

I think perhaps I agree with Pogue to an extent here.What is it you agree with him on? his posts are an incomprehensable joke and its shocking that some people take them seriously, let alone agree with them

When Maoism talks about a People's War isn't that one of the basic tenants of classical Marxism anyway? ('the movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority'.) As I understand it a People's War is mass support of the people for fighting against the ruling classes (a small minority). The mass movement of the working class is of course at the core of all marxism. Protracted People's War is a particular method for doing this, it's a strategic line developed in the Chinese Revolution, involving a People's Army defeating the ruling classes in military combat.


But, when Mao fought the old Chinese government his force had just a little less 250,000 soldiers in 1932. Out of a population of roughly a billion how come he didn't have more supporters?First, the Chinese population wasn't that big back then. It was about 400 million. Anyway the Red Army was only a part of the revolution (an important part tho); there were 100000000s of other people taking part that werent soldiers in the Red Army. Much of the peasant population supported the Red Army and the Communists, without actively joining them.


This kind of leads onto to my other question to Maoists, is it right for a minority to force their will on the rest of society?Haha, I don't see why this is a question for Maoists. There's no doubt that the Communists had the support of the majority of the population when they seized power in 1949. The strategy of People's War rests entirely on mass support from the people. Without that support, the Communists could never have won the war. I mean, the red army was poorly equipped, outnumberd for much of the war, while the enemy had american backing and superior weapons. The reason the Reds won was (apart from genius guerilla tactics) because they had the mass support of the people, while the old government did not.

Hope that cleared some things up :)

[fidzboi]

This culminated in the Cultural Revolution, which was the most extraordinary example of class struggle in a socialist state.

Really? Really, really???

As time passes, more and more information concerning 'class struggle in socialist states' is being found. There was a fascinating article on libcom a few years back about working class struggles in 30's Russia. Sabotage, strikes, secret groups ... all very exciting, all very 'extraordinary'. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution - say that three times standing on your head! :lol: - by contrast, had at its heart factional conflicts between leadership cliques.

I think outside of 'Maoist' circles you'll find few people who think this was an 'extraordinary' event, and to think it was 'the extraordinary example of class struggle in a socialist state' (emphasis mine) seems very, very blinkered. Working class rule was not articulated and presented as a programme in any significant way, certainly not in the way it was presented in many of the other historic class conflicts of the old Sino-Soviet world, making it nothing special at all.


In some areas and at some times there was true democratic workers' control of things

What does 'false' workers' control look like? :blink:


But certainly the Maoists went the furtherist towards creating a true democratic workers' state.

You say yourself that in China, and indeed only during the period surrounding the 'Cultural Revolution', was there working class control, and even then you proffer that it was limited: 'at some times there was true democratic workers' control of things, in other places there was not. (Emphasis mine.)

In the first year(s) after the Russian revolution we saw significant workers' control, as we did in anarchist controlled Barcelona, Hungary in 1956, St. Louis in 1877, and any more. All involved the working class overthrowing their rulers, in China their rulers initiated a 'Cultural Revolution' which even you admit only led to workers' control in parts, which didn't overthrow the ruling class, - after all Deng came from somewhere now didn't he? - and which therefore pales in comparison with some of the genuine working class revolutionary actions we have seen.

The 'working class' in China - primarily middle class students, the 'Red Guards' - didn't so much approach the question of class rule, they just waddled along behind Mao, his fat ass and his cronies. If that's what it means to be an emancipated worker, I think I'd prefer to go back to my day job! ;)
_ _ _ _ _

As for the original question, I don't really see any merit in the question itself. There's never going to be a 'protracted peoples' war' in a modern nation state. And 'Maoism', a theory of peasant revolt, is rapidly becoming the Marxist equivalent to anarchisms 'lifestylism'. 'Maoist' conventions likely look like straight edge concerts - and are probably as much fun! :lol:

[BobKKKindle$]

The mass movement of the working class is of course at the core of all marxismDefinitely, which raises the question of why the CPC has, throughout its history, consistently restrained the working class. Let's look at the civil war first of all, from an essay of mine.

The working class and the membership of the CPC:

The most immediate measure of the role of the working class in 1949 is the social composition of the CPC, and in this area, the evidence suggests that by the time the CPC came to power, the working class played almost no role whatsoever within the organization, and was absent from the leadership, with a small number of exceptions. According to Harris, in late 1944, it was estimated that 93% of party members had joined since the outbreak of war, and 90% of the recruits were of peasant origin, whilst the leadership was comprised almost solely of intellectuals, and merchants, amongst other privileged sectors, although it should be noted that a significant section of this leadership could trace their history of political activity back to their experiences as worker-students in France and other European countries during the first decade of the century, where, according to Li Lisan's account, students frequently came into contact with Marxist ideas, having initially traveled to Europe in order to educate themselves in accordance with Li Shizeng's principles but later being forced to become employees in order to sustain themselves or pay for their tuition, with many eventually being deported by the authorities when strikes and demonstrations were organized in defense of their rights. The shared personal background of many of the CPC's leadership in 1949 is relevant to this essay because it supports the notion that the revolution was fundamentally about attaining national independence, deriving its goals and organization from the intelligentsia. Harris goes on to assert that the central cadre of the party was small by the time it took power, as, according to Mao's own estimates, only 800 members survived from the early 1930s to 1945, out of a total party membership of 1.2 million in the latter year.

Mao's statement and the policies of the CPC/PLA:

Mao's own statements and the policies that were adopted by the CPC in the process of seizing the cities also give a clear indication of the absence of working-class participation, especially the 'Proclamation of the Chinese People's Liberation Army', released in April 1949, in which Mao hoped that “workers and employees in all occupations will maintain production as usual and that all shops will remain open as usual” and called on the various officials of the former government to “stay at their posts” and promised that they would not be humiliated or denied employment “so long as they do not offer armed resistance or plot sabotage”. Subsequently, in a Peking Radio broadcast on the 4th of June, 1949, Mao stated that workers should "co-operate with the capitalists, so that maximum production can be attained", and in the same year, party leaders condemned the Labour Maintenance Law of October 1945 on the grounds that it had set wages too high, and introduced "excessive" welfare measures, with the same leaders subsequently complaining that, given widespread unemployment, too many people were employed, at excessively high wages, and cadres were promoting themselves to management positions despite having no experience or competence in production. The general message to cadres as the CPC moved into urban areas, Harris contends, was not to promote what Mao termed a “relief standpoint”, which consisted of a desire to “uphold workers' welfare” but ultimately “impairs the cause of the people's revolution”, and on this basis Harris concludes that the revolution did not involve activity on the part of the working class, and was not carried out in the interests of that class, despite “great excitement and hopes” in the cities.

Workers not rising to take power as the PLA approached:

Bianco accepts the inactivity of Chinese workers by citing the city of Tianjin, as, during the Sixth Congress of the Pan-Chinese General Union, representing some 2,660,000 workers in both the White and Liberated areas, under the control of the CPC, and covering all sectors of the economy, the city was experiencing an acute slump with major factories being closed, including 54 soap factories and 36 oil refineries in January 1948, with these closures deriving primarily from a government decision to limit the city's share of national imports to 7.8% of the total, despite having accounted for between 18% and 20% prior to the Second World War. At this point the Communist armies were between 30 and 40 miles to the north of the city, and Bianco notes that the government decision was designed to weaken North China as the CPC extended its hold, and yet, in spite of all these factors, the working class remained still, not even pursuing its interests through the government-sponsored unions, which had as their sole role the negotiation of incremental improvements.

Workers taking power in the factories and then having it taken away:

Brugger, however, notes that when the city itself was occupied, prior to the siege of Beijing, worker organizations took advantage of the situation by “taking over factory management themselves” and causing “a considerable amount of confusion”. To explain this in light of the party's proclamations, Teiwes suggests a division between the cadres and the leadership in terms of the attitude of each group towards the working class, as cadres retained “notions of mobilizing the downtrodden” and initially put their sentiments into action by spreading themselves throughout residential areas and small-scale enterprises, backing workers against management, despite orders from the leadership not to extend class struggle to the cities. This practice reportedly came to a halt only in April in May 1949, beginning with Tianjin, when Liu Shaoqi relocated deviant cadres to the administrative and educational sectors, or to larger state enterprises where they could be supervised properly, as well as centralizing political organization, with training and supervision being further tightened from 1951 onwards, due to the tensions between new and old cadres.

Trade unionism during the war, and the CPC's approach to it:

An additional specific instance of urban class struggle, from earlier in the civil war, is the city of Chongqing, where, according to Howard, during the period October 1945 to the end of 1946, there were at least 426 labour disputes, including 80 strikes, involving around 100,000 workers, who were employed at over 560 factories, occurring in all sectors of the economy, but especially in the armaments sector, and industrial plants. In the case of the Dadukou steel mill, workers who were demanding the right to unionize took a militant stance by first forcing the power station to shut off power in order to stop all work, and then threatening to use hand grenades if the station was surrounded by guards, with oral histories from the 1950s showing that workers organized a union independently of management whilst they were on strike, led by 46 elected representatives, and demanded that these representatives all be present at meetings with management. However, Howard goes on to note that, despite the enthusiastic support given by Xinhua ribao, and the decision of the Southern Bureau to establish a labour movement leadership cell in order to coordinate economic struggles, Du Yangqing, in his report to the the party centre in early 1947, accused the participants of being too militant, and Howard cites this as evidence of a divergence of interests between radical workers and the CPC.

Industrial management after 1949:

Thus, when urban class struggle did emerge, the leadership, both local and national, was not likely to give full support In addition to the party's approach to struggles, the subordination of the working class to the goal of economic development manifested itself concretely in the early economic policy of the CPC as it proceeded to establish itself as the new government. When the expropriation of the property of bureaucratic and comprador capitalists was carried out, it was initially placed under the control of KMT officials and CPC officials, who took an inventory, before being passed to a triple alliance, consisting of party-military personnel, representatives of mass organizations such as the worker pickets, and retained personnel from the old regime, especially in the south, where these officials had been concentrated before the advance of the PLA and were not removed by the government, with the manager of the factory frequently acting as president of this alliance, and workers being given a consultative role only, as well as being forced to enter into arbitration when industrial disputes presented themselves. As such, workers were not given power, and neither did they take it for themselves, in spite of China's proud history of working-class struggle.

Let's look at the Cultural Revolution as well, from a discussion that I wanted to start, but which Maoists never got involved in, me initially responding to one of Hiero's posts:


Gao actually distinguishes a difference between Red Gaurds and Rebels (2008, p.132). The former were member loyal to party bureaucrats, the later were loyal to Mao.This is an important distinction, and one of the many good things about Gao's work (Walder in Joseph, Wong, Zweig HUP 1991 makes the same observation and describes the Red Rebels and their allies as "dissident radicalism" in contrast to "orthodox radicalism" and "heterodox radicalism") but I don't know if it's accurate to characterize the Red Rebels as being loyal to Mao. The Red Rebels were distinguished from the Red Guards not only by the fact that they were more likely to come from working-class and peasant backgrounds but also in that, whereas the Red Guards wanted to limit the revolution to the removal of certain officials, whom they deemed "capitalist roaders", whilst maintaining the basic political structure, including the leadership of the CPC, the Red Rebels argued that the problem was the structure of Chinese politics and society, and for that reason they aimed to overthrow the bureaucratic state, and replace it with a state based on the Paris Commune, involving instant recall, democratic control of the means of production, and so on - in other words, they wanted to carry out a socialist revolution. The logic of this position meant that even if these groups gave lip service to Mao in their proclamations (in the case of Sheng-wu-lien, discussed below, the activists were not openly critical of Mao when they published their manifesto, and Cliff speculates that this may have been necessary to avoid censorship) they were ultimately oppossed to the class interests of the bureaucracy, of which Mao was a member, and it's for this reason that they oppossed the creation of revolutionary committees under the control of the PLA, and were frequently the major targets of army repression, as occurred during the campaigns to "cleanse the class ranks" and remove "May 16 Elements" during the period 1968-1970. The most outstanding of the "dissident radicals" was the organization Sheng-wu-lien, comprised of 20 smaller organizations, which used the term "red capitalists" to refer to the bureaucracy, and was publicly denounced by Zhou Enlai, Jiang Qing, Chen Boda, and Kang Sheng on January 26th 1968 at a rally of 100,000 people in Changsha, capital of Hunan, where the group was based, as a "counter-revolutionary organization" on the grounds that it had challenged Mao personally by attacking the revolutionary committees as an attempt to limit the scope of the revolution. Their manifesto can be read here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.de/china/sheng/whither.htm). Interestingly, Kang Sheng also asserted in a speech two days before the mass rally that the organization had received some of Trotsky's works, and on the same day as the rally, Hunan Daily published an editorial entitled 'Thoroughly Smash Sheng-wu-lien, a Counter-Revolutionary Big Hotch-Potch', and, on February 8th, Zhou Enlai personally instructed the Southern Daily (Nanfang Ribao) to reproduce the editorial. This suggests that the organization was viewed as a serious threat, at the highest levels of the Chinese state. The fact that the organization came under attack from Mao's closest allies indicates that whilst Mao may have been subjectively in favour of radicalism, his membership of the bureaucracy meant that he was ultimately forced to clamp down on a genuinely revolutionary force like Sheng-wu-lien in order to ensure that his class interests were not threatened. This same dynamic can also be observed in a number of other events, specifically Mao's decision to abolish the Shanghai People's Commune in 1967, and to initiate the Up to the Mountains, Down to the Villages campaign in 1968. For me, as a Trotskyist and history student who is interested in working-class radicalism during the Cultural Revolution, Sheng-wu-lien and other cases of radicalism occurred in spite of Mao, not because of him, and indicate that the Cultural Revolution moved beyond the purposes for which it had originally been designed, and only stopped short of challenging the bureaucracy because Mao and the Gang of Four turned to the PLA and authoritarian measures to control its participants.

Also read the chapter on economism in Perry's book Proletarian Power if you have time, to understand the response of the CPC to the strike wave that shook Shanghai in 1966/7.

**********

Now, everyone, watch - not a single Maoist is going to be able to respond to any of the stuff I wrote/pasted above, because they don't know much about Chinese history.

[scarletghoul]

Im sorry Bob but your walls of text are too long and I have poor attention span. I'd be happy to debate if you could maybe just not write so much so i could read it

[BobKKKindle$]

There you go SG, I've divided it up into neat sections so people like yourself who have never studied that country that their political tradition is supposed to come from can learn about the CPC.

[scarletghoul]

Thanks but can't you just make a point in a few lines? If not ill try n read it later but yeah. I honestly think the reason you dont get that many responses to your posts is not because they pwn but because they are too long.

[BobKKKindle$]

Thanks but can't you just make a point in a few lines?

No, you can't, because the crimes and betrayals of the CPC are so extensive and horrific, and the ignorance and arrogance of Maoists so impenetrable, that these things need explanation.

[LeninBalls]

No, you can't, because the crimes and betrayals of the CPC are so extensive and horrific, and the ignorance and arrogance of Maoists so impenetrable, that these things need explanation.

See, you just did it there in one line. Easy.

[Paul Cockshott]

It would be pretty hard to establish a People's Army in the UK right now as guns are banned and the state has tight control everywhere. .

Indeed very hard.
In forming a sober assessment of this you have of course to think about the history of the IRA.

[BobKKKindle$]

See, you just did it there in one line. Easy.

Er yeah, but you see, as a serious Marxist, if someone said something like that to me, like "Lenin was just an evil dictator", I would demand evidence of the sort that I've provided in this thread, and which SG apparently can't read. If throwaway comments like the one in my last post are enough to convince Maoists that they're wrong, that's fine though, and I'm happy that you've all now been convinced.

[scarletghoul]

No, you can't, because the crimes and betrayals of the CPC are so extensive and horrific, and the ignorance and arrogance of Maoists so impenetrable, that these things need explanation.In that case I appreciate you tailoring these walls of text to suit the unique conditions of us Maoists. I thought it was just like that because of the Trotskyite tradition of long annoying writing that no one but intellectualist wankfaces cares about, but I guess I was wrong. Thanks bro. I'll respond later :)

[Zeus the Moose]

Are there really some people on this thread arguing that one tendency or another is really better at thinking beyond previously held dogmas?

Fail. Really, hard fail.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

The differences in how Maoism is properly applied in the First World, in my view, include the following:

1. There is no need for a new democratic stage. Socialism (or at least should be) is the immediate goal of First World Maoists.

2. Protracted people's war doesn't apply to industrialized nations because the enemy has sophisticated means of communication at their disposal and so on and thus can easily crush any small-scale rebellion that doesn't quickly spread. Rather, urban-based insurrection is the appropriate strategy for making revolution here in imperialist countries. This means that the task of making revolution in countries like these will be far more difficult because we'll have to have huge numbers of people with us in advance. I think the details on this subject are decently laid out here (http://www.revolutiontalk.net/films/) in Session Three (the third video down from the top).

3. I'm sure this will get plenty of disagreement, but I also say that, despite the existence of many nations within say the United States and while respecting their rights to secede and become independent, the preferable goal of the American Maoist should be a multi-national revolution that encompasses the entire country because that provides the basis for the strongest possible socialist country to be built and is thus the best scenario for all nations therein.

4. Of course the way socialism develops has to reflect the conditions of the individual country. We won't be continuing to dominate other countries as part of propping up our own, so one may reasonably expect that certain challenges will be posed immediately in countries like this under socialism. Namely, resulting from the combined effects of what I just pointed out and the destruction resulting from revolutionary warfare, there will probably initially be considerably more poverty than there presently is. The living standards of many middle strata people may have to go down somewhat in particular. We'll have to quickly overcome this situation if we're to keep the revolution. That will be one particular challenge that will be posed immediately, I think.

[Lyev]

I think it works quite well for any newly-established, post-revolution government, like the PRC, once they've established a reasonably comfortable place of power, to quickly label themselves 'true socialists', because then they can do whatever they like because it's in the name of 'socialism'. They simply label someone counter-revolutionary or revisionist and then they're executed. It's irrelevant if things like Zhen Fan, The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution fail, or get innocent people involved. I think sometimes, in the turmoil just after a revolution or in a civil war, it's very easy for a guy like Mao to execute people because propaganda says there's always a promise of a better future, once you're 'out of the woods', so to speak.

[chegitz guevara]

There you go SG, I've divided it up into neat sections so people like yourself who have never studied that country that their political tradition is supposed to come from can learn about the CPC.


Not the whole thing.

Seriously Bob, the main reason I don't read most of what you write is because you can't bother to use paragraphs. Sometimes I agree with you, too.