On Maoism

[btpound]

I know that a lot of people are probably tired of discussing this, but I genuinely want to learn. I don't know very much about Maoism. I was wondering A) What are the main points of Maoism, B) How does Maoism differ from Marxist-Leninism (if at all), C) How does Maoism differ from so-called Trotskyism, D) What are some good books to read for someone to be introduced to Maoism.

Also, I don't know much about Mao's policy after coming to power in China. Everything I've read is from bourgeoois sources calling him a mass murderer (that old trick). Maybe he was, I don't know. Before the opposition speaks up, I would like to point out that, although I am not a Maoist, Maoism is a popular front supported by the people all over the world, like in Nepal and Peru. To go against that, is to go against the means by which the working class has chosen to liberate themselves. Thanks you to anyone with a reply.

[Искра]

Here is Mao's archive: http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/Index.html

[red cat]

I know that a lot of people are probably tired of discussing this, but I genuinely want to learn. I don't know very much about Maoism. I was wondering A) What are the main points of Maoism, B) How does Maoism differ from Marxist-Leninism (if at all), C) How does Maoism differ from so-called Trotskyism, D) What are some good books to read for someone to be introduced to Maoism.

Also, I don't know much about Mao's policy after coming to power in China. Everything I've read is from bourgeoois sources calling him a mass murderer (that old trick). Maybe he was, I don't know. Before the opposition speaks up, I would like to point out that, although I am not a Maoist, Maoism is a popular front supported by the people all over the world, like in Nepal and Peru. To go against that, is to go against the means by which the working class has chosen to liberate themselves. Thanks you to anyone with a reply.

Maoism is the qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism based on the historical achievements of the CPC, and mainly summarized by Mao.
The previous qualitative development was summarized mainly by Lenin, and at that time communists had no experience in leading a revolution in a semi feudal- semi colonial country, or in developing socialism anywhere.

The new-democratic revolution in China saw the development of the theory of protracted peoples' war and the concept of the united front of four classes defeating feudalism, comprador-capitalism and imperialism.

Many quantitative contributions regarding the development and consolidation of socialism were made by Stalin. But the CPC observed a very important phenomenon in the class struggle continuing in the USSR under socialism; the re-emergence of the bourgeoisie and its techniques for conducting counter-revolution.

The state-machinery which was once used by the proletariat was very easily used against it in the USSR. At a point of time, even the CPC was infiltrated with bourgeois agents and many of them were former communists. Learning from the Soviet experience, the Chinese communists then extended the Leninist mass-line to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. This is considered the greatest component of Maoism, and despite its several technical defects, had managed to fight the counter revolutionary forces successfully for a decade.

There are many parties and organizations claiming themselves Maoists. However, the portion that consists of the organizations which uphold the ongoing peoples' wars, have roughly the following historical line concerning the later half of the last century:

1) Counter-revolution had taken place in the USSR after Stalin's death.

2) Albania abandoned socialism somewhere in the early 70s.

3) Counter-revolution had taken place in China after Mao's death, and in North Korea and Vietnam at around the same time.

4) Cuba had succumbed to Soviet social imperialism.

This is only a rough sketch and many revolutionary factions might still be debating on the above points. Also, the Maoist parties have enriched Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with their international experience since the 70s and based on that and some of them are in disagreement with some points such as cult of personality, two models for revolution, universality of peoples' war, three-worlds theory etc.

[Spawn of Stalin]

One of the main focal points of Maoism is the People's War, the majority rising up against the exploiters, the theory is that if everyone gets involved in revolutionary activity, everyone will learn and be better people for it. Maoism differs from traditional Marxism-Leninism in that it places special emphasis on rural areas and the peasantry, it's not the same as agrarian socialism but they do share a lot of characteristics.

If you haven't already, read Mao's Little Red Book, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, it's on MIA but if you can get a hard copy all the better. Carry it with you and read a bit every time you get a few moments spare, you can actually learn a lot from it. There is a good book by Edgar Snow called Red Star Over China, it's basically the Ten Days That Shook the World of China so it isn't about Maoism as such, but you can gain great insight into the actions of the CPC from it. MIA has a great deal of Mao's writings as does Marx2Mao, slowly work your way through the archives and you'll be an expert by the time you're done.

[BobKKKindle$]

Maoism needs to be understood in historical context, as it was not just something that dropped out of the sky. Rather, it was a product of the defeat of the Chinese working class in 1927, when, having subordinated itself to the KMT for the whole of the 1920s, as a result of the policy imposed by the Comintern, thousands of the CPC's activists and trade unions were butchered by Chiang Kai-shek. This resulted in the CPC's losing its base in the working class and forced its surviving leaders to flee to the countryside, where they remained and attempted to construct rural bases until the party came to power without the support or intervention of the working class in 1949, and it was in these conditions that the CPC developed an ideology based on nationalism and class collaborationism that we call Maoism. The class-collaborationist nature of Maoism is best expressed through the ideas of New Democracy, which advocates that workers ally with the national bourgeoisie as part of a four-class alliance and that before socialism is introduced it is necessary for workers to subordinate their interests by allowing that section of the bourgeoisie to retain its property and continue to exploit the working class, alongside the continued presence of inequality in the countryside.

This (http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm) is a very good discussion of Maoism and China.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

If you'd like a brief summary and rough sketch of what was accomplished in China under Mao, I'd actually recommend this blog entry (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=588) I did...not too long ago. But of course further reading is definitely a must. If you're temporarily too lazy to read, I personally would recommend the famous 7 Talks by Bob Avakian (http://www.bobavakian.net/audio.html) (Chairman of the revolutionary Maoist RCP USA), which cover an extensive array of material and details related to Maoism as he (IMO correctly) synthesizes it.

I think Red Cat and Red Son have hit on a lot of the important points (though barely skimming the surface) of Maoism, but would also like to add that I don't think Maoism applies in exactly the same way everywhere. For example, the core essence of the block of four classes Mao formulated as a match for China's conditions is the principle of uniting all who can be united around a decisive political line that's consistent with the historical goals and tasks of the proletariat. As just one example.

Short (but overly simplistic) Hand: Basic Components of Maoism
-The mass line. ("Learning while leading and leading while learning.")
-Uniting all who can be united under a decisive, revolutionary political line.
-Protracted people's war as correct revolutionary strategy for oppressed, feudal nations.
-New democratic revolution as the necessary transition stage into socialism for oppressed, feudal nations.
-World proletarian revolution will consume an entire historical epoch, largely (as a result of the law of uneven development) taking place in a country-by-country way.
-It's both possible and sometimes necessary to begin seriously building socialism in a single country without waiting around for more favorable conditions to develop abroad.
-The necessity of overall self-sufficiency for socialist countries.
-The recognition that class struggle continues under socialism.
-The necessity of continuing the revolution under socialism.
-The need for revolutions within the revolution.

[scarletghoul]

A) Mass Line, Peoples' War, Cultural Revolution, New Democracy, among other things. Maoists generally place emphasis on forming and mobilising a mass movement and creating support for the Communist Party among the people, as well as getting the people to rise up and become revolutionaries themselves. There's also a thing about making sure the people have ultimate power ("political power flows from the barrel of a gun" "without a people's army the people have nothing"). This approach, mass mobilisation and empowerment of the people, is the key to the success of Maoist movements.
B) Most Maoists see it as a more developed form of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
C) I don't know much about Trotskyism (never seemed relevent enough for me to study in detail), but one clear differance is that Maoists are leading the world revolution while Trotskyists do not seem to have any presence. This is probably due to the fact that many Trotskyists are intellectualists who debate history and theory and stuff that most people don't understand or care about, while Maoist groups tend to base their policies around the people, and not some historical theoretical debate.
D) The Red Book is the classic, and a good intro to the general flavour of Maoism. you can find it here - http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/index.htm . Other than that, I guess a biography of Mao would be worth reading, or a history of the chinese revolution. (note : theres a danger these books could be bourgeois propaganda though, like the godawful Mao: The Unknown Story).

As for Mao after coming to power, that went on for 27 turmultuous years, but I'll attempt to sum it up. For the first few years the CPC under Mao developed China's economy hugely, with Soviet aid. It grew at levels similar to the levels China is growing today. They done a load of the things most commie countries do: hugely increase education, healthcare, life expectancy, womens rights, etc. In the mid 50s Mao initiated the Hundred Flowers Campaign, where people were encouraged complete freedom of speech and debate, including criticism of the government. But this had to be called off, due to pressure from more bureaucratic and revisionist elements in the party, who wanted China to be just like the USSR. This conflict, between fresh maoist socialism, and boring stale USSRism, would go on until Mao's death. Most of the death toll attributed to Mao is from the Great Leap Forward, a huge economic plan that despite having some successes in areas resulted in a big famine, killing millions of people. This famine occured due to a series of natural disasters, bureaucratic mismanagement (something Mao fought against relentlessly), as well as the Sino-Soviet split. Mao fell out with the USSR when Khruschevite 'revisionism' took over and everything. The USSR withdrew its aid to China, with disasterous consequences. After the famine, Mao was forced to step down from the leading role in the CPC, and Liu and Deng took over. They started moving China to the 'capitalist road' of development, after socialist development in the Great Leap Forward had been so costly. But Mao, and the people, who supported his socialist line, bounced back. The Maoists initiated the Cultural Revolution in 1966, encouraging the people to rebel against bourgeois ideology and actions, especially those in the Communist Party taking the capitalist road. This was a huge mass movement, and in my opinion the pinnacle of revolutionary struggle. No other communist leader has encouraged class struggle on such a scale against their own party. Mao was revolutionary right to the death, as he wanted the Chinese revolution to stay fresh. Mao died in 1976. After his death, the capitalist-roaders headed by Deng took power, the Cultural Revolution ended, and china turned capitalist.

[Pogue]

A) Mass Line, Peoples' War, Cultural Revolution, New Democracy, among other things. Maoists generally place emphasis on forming and mobilising a mass movement and creating support for the Communist Party among the people, as well as getting the people to rise up and become revolutionaries themselves. There's also a thing about making sure the people have ultimate power ("political power flows from the barrel of a gun" "without a people's army the people have nothing"). This approach, mass mobilisation and empowerment of the people, is the key to the success of Maoist movements.
B) Most Maoists see it as a more developed form of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
C) I don't know much about Trotskyism (never seemed relevent enough for me to study in detail), but one clear differance is that Maoists are leading the world revolution while Trotskyists do not seem to have any presence. This is probably due to the fact that many Trotskyists are intellectualists who debate history and theory and stuff that most people don't understand or care about, while Maoist groups tend to base their policies around the people, and not some historical theoretical debate.
D) The Red Book is the classic, and a good intro to the general flavour of Maoism. you can find it here - http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/index.htm . Other than that, I guess a biography of Mao would be worth reading, or a history of the chinese revolution. (note : theres a danger these books could be bourgeois propaganda though, like the godawful Mao: The Unknown Story).

As for Mao after coming to power, that went on for 27 turmultuous years, but I'll attempt to sum it up. For the first few years the CPC under Mao developed China's economy hugely, with Soviet aid. It grew at levels similar to the levels China is growing today. They done a load of the things most commie countries do: hugely increase education, healthcare, life expectancy, womens rights, etc. In the mid 50s Mao initiated the Hundred Flowers Campaign, where people were encouraged complete freedom of speech and debate, including criticism of the government. But this had to be called off, due to pressure from more bureaucratic and revisionist elements in the party, who wanted China to be just like the USSR. This conflict, between fresh maoist socialism, and boring stale USSRism, would go on until Mao's death. Most of the death toll attributed to Mao is from the Great Leap Forward, a huge economic plan that despite having some successes in areas resulted in a big famine, killing millions of people. This famine occured due to a series of natural disasters, bureaucratic mismanagement (something Mao fought against relentlessly), as well as the Sino-Soviet split. Mao fell out with the USSR when Khruschevite 'revisionism' took over and everything. The USSR withdrew its aid to China, with disasterous consequences. After the famine, Mao was forced to step down from the leading role in the CPC, and Liu and Deng took over. They started moving China to the 'capitalist road' of development, after socialist development in the Great Leap Forward had been so costly. But Mao, and the people, who supported his socialist line, bounced back. The Maoists initiated the Cultural Revolution in 1966, encouraging the people to rebel against bourgeois ideology and actions, especially those in the Communist Party taking the capitalist road. This was a huge mass movement, and in my opinion the pinnacle of revolutionary struggle. No other communist leader has encouraged class struggle on such a scale against their own party. Mao was revolutionary right to the death, as he wanted the Chinese revolution to stay fresh. Mao died in 1976. After his death, the capitalist-roaders headed by Deng took power, the Cultural Revolution ended, and china turned capitalist.

Leading the world revolution ey :lol:

[scarletghoul]

Surely there's some rule against perpetual stupid posts that offer nothing to discussions... ?

[red cat]

I think Red Cat and Red Son have hit on a lot of the important points (though barely skimming the surface) of Maoism, but would also like to add that I don't think Maoism applies in exactly the same way everywhere. For example, the core essence of the block of four classes Mao formulated as a match for China's conditions is the principle of uniting all who can be united around a decisive political line that's consistent with the historical goals and tasks of the proletariat. As just one example.



Yes, strategies and tactics might vary greatly.

For example, today, most of the oppressed nations have a proletarian population percentage of around twice that of pre 1949 China. So some cities will probably experience liberation early. Also, the proletarian leadership will be stronger.

In the Philippines, Maoist guerrilla warfare in its middle stage was not applicable in its classical form, because the land was essentially an archipelago(a standard joke was that the Filipino red army would go for a "long swim" instead of a long march). They solved this problem by having unusually large mass bases and developing many other techniques.

In India, the central government is very strong, and playing off parliamentary parties one against the other is not enough to sustain a liberated zone. That is why the Indian Maoists concentrated on creating huge "zones on influence" and actually started fully liberating areas only after the Indian red army had grown very strong.

In Nepal, Maoists probably took the time to reorganize and recruit while they very cleverly entered the government and halted direct imperialist military intervention. It will be very interesting to observe the future strategies of conducting revolution in such a small, land-locked and vulnerable country.

Also, the ongoing revolutions, unlike the former CPC, do not have the support of already existing socialist blocs. so the PPWs will be even more protracted.

[Pogue]

Surely there's some rule against perpetual stupid posts that offer nothing to discussions... ?

Stop trolling. I was disputing your claim, thats all.

[Labor Shall Rule]

btpound,

Mao utilized Marxist theory to approach the concrete conditions and circumstances of the revolutionary worker's and peasant's movement in China. As he said, "only socialism could save China"-despite his maneuvering and moderation (as mentioned by bob as "class collaboration"), he stayed true to his goal of constructing a socialist society and eventually communism.

He also argued for massive political involvement from the "masses" (i.e. workers, peasants, shop owners, anyone interested in maintainability of socialist ownership of the productive forces) in all institutions of power, in order to stay on the socialist road. In introspect, his insistence on not using institutional means in rectifying mistakes in policies or in habitual economic activity that challenge the socialist system makes him a true revolutionary democrat.

[spiltteeth]

from Wiki


The basic tenets of Maoism include revolutionary struggle of the vast majority of people against the exploiting classes and their state structures, termed aPeople's War. Usually involving peasants, its military strategies have involvedguerrilla war tactics focused on surrounding the cities from the countryside, with a heavy emphasis on political transformation through the mass involvement of the basic people of the society.

Maoism departs from conventional European-inspired Marxism in that its focus is on the agrarian countryside, rather than the industrial urban forces. This is known as Agrarian socialism. Notably, Maoist parties in Peru, Nepal and Philippines have adopted equal stresses on urban and rural areas, depending on the country's level of development.


So the proletariat is not seen as the only revolutionary class. Other oppressed groups like the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat have the potential to become revolutionary. Maoism is fundamentally an adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to specific cultural conditions. The main works of Mao's which lay out numerous key tenets of Maoism include his "On Contradiction" and "On Practice".

It also asserts that class struggle continues even if the proletariat has already overthrown the bourgeoisie, and there are capitalist restorationist elements within the Communist Party itself, so a "permanent revolution" must be enacted to keep weeding out capitalist inroaders.

Maoism is particularly useful in long protracted people's war.

Additionally, with Maoism there was a heavy focus on the mass line.

from http://www.massline.info/

The mass line is the primary method of revolutionary leadership of the masses, which is employed by the most conscious and best organized section of the masses, the proletarian party. It is a reiterative method, applied over and over again, which step by step advances the interests of the masses, and in particular their central interest within bourgeois society, namely, advancing towards proletarian revolution. Each iteration may be viewed as a three step process: 1) gathering the diverse ideas of the masses; 2) processing or concentrating these ideas from the perspective of revolutionary Marxism, in light of the long-term, ultimate interests of the masses (which the masses themselves may sometimes only dimly perceive), and in light of a scientific analysis of the objective situation; and 3) returning these concentrated ideas to the masses in the form of a political line which will actually advance the mass struggle toward revolution. Because the mass line starts with the diverse ideas of the masses, and returns the concentrated ideas to the masses, it is also known as the method of “from the masses, to the masses”. Though implicit in Marxism from the beginning, the mass line was raised to the level of conscious theory primarily by Mao Zedong.


Right now, I think we need an entirely new formulation of how to apply Marxism to today's world, while still keeping what's good.

The Kasama website, operated by Mike Ely and friends is the best site to explore how Maoism might apply to 1st world nations like USA. Their very open and still looking for answers.

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/

There's also Post-Maoism it just says lets keep what's basic and good in Marxism-Leninism-Moaism, such as the vanguard party, a marxist interpretaion of capitalism, and a new state; but be open and be ready to completely rethink theory.

There is also a more radical Post-Maoism, such as Alain Badiou's, who thinks we need an entirely new strategy, and that class analysis should be with a more ideological/psychological theory of revolution.
He says :

There were two great lessons: It's my conviction today that political action has to be a process which is a process of principles, convictions, and not of a majority. So there is a practical dimension. And secondly, there is the necessity of direct relations between intellectuals and workers.

That was the beginning, the subjective beginning. In the political field, the correlation with ideologies --Marxism, Cultural Revolution, Maoism and so on -- is subordinate to the subjective conviction that you have to do politics directly, to organize, to be with others, to find a way for principles to exist practically.

But, it's all pretty open and free at this moment. Hope this helps.

[btpound]

Many thanks to everyone who contributed, this is a great thread. More questions tho! lol

If I many be honest, without being antagonistic, the one thing I don't like about Maoism is that it supports so-called "new democracy", i.e. capitalism. Does this mean then that they reject Trotsky's theory of the Permanent Revolution? I would like to hear more specific criticism of Trotsky.

[red cat]

Many thanks to everyone who contributed, this is a great thread. More questions tho! lol

If I many be honest, without being antagonistic, the one thing I don't like about Maoism is that it supports so-called "new democracy", i.e. capitalism.

New democracy is not the same as capitalism. USSR also implemented NEP for a certain period of time.



Does this mean then that they reject Trotsky's theory of the Permanent Revolution?

There is something in that theory about the bourgeoisie not being able to complete its revolution. Maoists consider this a Leninist conclusion and they follow this part.

However, the part about socialism in one stage is opposed by all Maoists.


I would like to hear more specific criticism of Trotsky.

The Stalin versus Trotsky threads on this forum are more than enough for this. :lol:

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

YaY, not counting Scarletghoul's sarcastic response to Pogue's...blah, my earlier one is the most thanked post thus far! :blushing::lol: So to continue on providing my oh-so-useful insights...;)

On New Democratic Revolution

The new democratic revolution was necessary under China's conditions at the time for a number of reasons, but fundamentally because China was an oppressed, feudal country. Much of the world today, under the conditions many countries are presently facing, will probably have to undergo such a transition stage into socialism as well. The purpose of new democratic revolution, however, shouldn't be forgotten: It's purpose is to open the door to socialism, not to capitalism. It accomplishes this in a unified process under common, revolutionary leadership.

Red Cat is also right to point out that a not-so-different approach wound up proving necessary in the Soviet Union as well. In order to rebuild the economy after the civil war (which was necessary), Lenin led the way in implementing a temporary economic policy that wasn't immediately socialist. That was part of changing the objective situation in such a way as to create the basis for more sustainable socialism.

On the Nepalese "Maoists"

I disagree with the prevailing view here that the Nepalese "Maoists" haven't turned to revisionism, but are simply pursuing a new way of making revolution. In fact, in an overall sense, I think the question of the situation in Nepal is probably the most divisive issue in Maoist circles today. My view of the matter is as follows:

In 2005, the CPN(M) adopted a very wrong approach to resolving internal disputes: eclecticism. This new methodology, which is tantamount to avoiding line struggle, has led them (now the UCPN(M)) out of a revolutionary people's war in which they had liberated 70 percent of the country to the position they occupy today. "Very cleverly" becoming the representatives of the Nepalese ruling class, which is itself subordinate in so many ways to foreign interests and imperialism, is not a revolutionary "tactic", but the revisionist result of eclecticism. The RCP, USA has summed this whole matter up quite well I think. You can read their polemic here (http://www.demarcations-journal.org/issue01/nepal_article.html).

Much more inspiring examples of Maoist-led revolutionary struggles in today's world are to be found methinks in India, Turkey, Peru, and (to an extent) the Philippines. I think it's worth noting that the Maoist parties leading these revolutions are all either members of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM for short) or are supported by the RIM. The RIM is obviously divided over the question of the Nepalese "Maoists".

On Trotskyism

Truthfully, I get very tired of discussing Trotsky on these forums. I rarely find occasion to bring up Stalin, let alone Trotsky, in real life, personally. Trotskyism is pretty much a non-issue to me, being completely irrelevant in the world today. It's just a nagging annoyance more than anything at this point. Way too many people here take it way too seriously (on both sides) I think. Fundamentally, Trotskyism is not serious. I think that's the best and kindest way to accurately sum it up.

The permanent revolution theory, in all its unique components, is simply sectarian defeatism. The famous 1920s debate in the Soviet Union was essentially over whether or not, under unexpectedly difficult conditions, you could build a socialist economy or whether you basically now had to just give up on that idea. Bukharin plainly embraced the latter position. Trotsky, in a different way, did as well. He argued that all you could really do at that point, in light of the defeat of the German revolutionaries, was restructure the economy to function like a military and just sort of hope for the best. He based this conclusion on the idea that the revolutionary united front is merely a limited-use tactic for making revolution, not a long-run strategy for getting to communism. He simply didn't have any coherent plan of action to offer, but just the notion that the economy should be socialist in some way.

Much as Stalin is (often legitimately) criticized in a great many areas and much as his understanding of what socialism actually was/is was very limited and flawed, the truth is that, in this debate, only Stalin really had anything resembling a coherent program for going forward in a socialist way to offer.

Neither do Trotsky's adherents have any sort of real program. They mainly just spend their time nagging at "Stalinists" (both real and imagined). They can be a pain in the ass, but that's about it. Trotskyists keep insisting that all this mounting evidence is piling up in support of their position. When Khrushchev instituted De-Stalinization in the Soviet Union, there was evidence that Trotsky was right all along. When the Soviet Union collapsed, that was absolute proof! Yet despite all this ostensible evidence of their historical correctness, they just keep falling further and further into political oblivion regardless.

[red cat]

On the Nepalese "Maoists"

I disagree with the prevailing view here that the Nepalese "Maoists" haven't turned to revisionism, but are simply pursuing a new way of making revolution. In fact, in an overall sense, I think the question of the situation in Nepal is probably the most divisive issue in Maoist circles today. My view of the matter is as follows:

In 2005, the CPN(M) adopted a very wrong approach to resolving internal disputes: eclecticism. This new methodology, which is tantamount to avoiding line struggle, has led them (now the UCPN(M)) out of a revolutionary people's war in which they had liberated 70 percent of the country to the position they occupy today. "Very cleverly" becoming the representatives of the Nepalese ruling class, which is itself subordinate in so many ways to foreign interests and imperialism, is not a revolutionary "tactic", but the revisionist result of eclecticism. The RCP, USA has summed this whole matter up quite well I think. You can read their polemic here.



The revolution in Nepal is in such a stage that the PPW can be resumed without much loss. Also, considering that the revolutionary organization of the UCPN(M) is still intact, even if a majority of the CC leaders turn revisionist, a minority of the CC can use this organization to reconstruct the CC itself.

For the last few years, in many ways the official decisions of the UCPN(M) seemed unconventional. There had been a decision to return land to the big land-owners, but in practice that was effectively stopped by the party cadres. A few months ago, the Red Star had rejoiced the appointment of Mao's grandson to a high post in the Chinese government. Now the UCPN(M) has declared that the CPC is revisionist. The proposal of merging the two armies is much debated within the CC. Also, now it seems that at least a section of the UCPN(M) had always maintained contact with the CPI(Maoist).

What I want to point out that it is not that the whole party has turned revisionist; they are effectively fighting back revisionism. The CPI(Maoist)'s line concerning the UCPN(M) has been the best so far. They firmly criticized what they thought the UCPN(M) was doing wrong and warned of the possible future dangers, and yet upheld the revolution.



Much more inspiring examples of Maoist-led revolutionary struggles in today's world are to be found methinks in India, Turkey, Peru, and (to an extent) the Philippines. I think it's worth noting that the Maoist parties leading these revolutions are all either members of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM for short) or are supported by the RIM. The RIM is obviously divided over the question of the Nepalese "Maoists".


The Filipino Maoist struggle is highly developed. More then that of Peru and perhaps even India. The TKP(ML) and PKP participate in the ICMLPO(M), and the PCP has formally broken with the RCP and RIM. The CPI(Maoist) is a member of the CCOMPOSA.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Without transforming this topic entirely into a debate on Nepal or straying too far elsewhere, I would like to point out that, in respect to Turkey, I wasn't speaking of the Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist), but rather of the Maoist Communist Party (Turkey), which is RIM-aligned.

In defense of the RIM, it is, unlike the ICMLPO, united around a Maoist position, not around Leninism. The ICMLPO seems to achieve unity through, if you will, "setting aside differences" rather than through line struggle, which yes should apply to the communist movement on an international level as well.

[btpound]

Again great responses all around. And again, more questions.

I hate to keep beating the dead Trotsky-Horse, but i have a good friend how I discuss Marxism with who is a Trotskyist, although he hates that word. He has this story he tells about a Maoist who he met at a rally. He walked up to him and said, "What does your group stand for?" To which he replied, "REVOLUTION!"

"Um, okay? How do you plan to acheive it?"
"SMASHING THE bOURGEOISIES!"

But to remain on topic, I think that both Maoism and Trotsyism has valuable thoeries to offer, that have both been succesful. Anyone who has read Teamster Rebellion would know that struggles have been fought and won with Trotskist tacticts.

So what kind of measures would a Maoist party in, say, America advocate? Cetainly not this New Democracy in a country that has already established capitalism?

PS. I know that the Maoist story is one person at one time, I don't mean to castigate all Maoists, I just wanted to use it as an example of where I am coming form as to my perspective on Maoists. Obviously I take them seriously since I started the thread.

[red cat]

In defense of the RIM, it is, unlike the ICMLPO, united around a Maoist position, not around Leninism. The ICMLPO seems to achieve unity through, if you will, "setting aside differences" rather than through line struggle, which yes should apply to the communist movement on an international level as well.

In spite of our greatest efforts, revisionist parties will try to infiltrate these organizations again and again. More than once have such parties participated and presented their counter-revolutonary ideas in the ICMLPO(M).In fact, RIM had two members from Nepal. After CPN(M) started the PPW, the other party actually opposed it and was expelled from the RIM.


Since we hold that theory and practice go hand in hand, the basis for development of present-day Maoism is the revolutionary armed struggle waged by communist parties of certain countries in the third world. These countries are relatively few in number. For other countries we cannot predict which parties will actually turn out to be revolutionary ones. Hence our various international organizations are no more than platforms in which Maoist parties can discuss and learn from each others' experience. They are just the possible embryonic centers for building true communist internationals in future, and they themselves acknowledge that.

[Labor Shall Rule]

So what kind of measures would a Maoist party in, say, America advocate? Cetainly not this New Democracy in a country that has already established capitalism?

I've been involved in the living wage, immigrant rights, anti-war and anti-recruitment, health care reform, and oppressed nationality movements. A 'measure' that we typically demand is socialism, and even though we demand a high social wage (i.e., more social welfare programs) as part of our day-to-day work with people, a 'Maoist' would be dedicated to revolutionary politics.

[red cat]

I've been involved in the living wage, immigrant rights, anti-war and anti-recruitment, health care reform, and oppressed nationality movements. A 'measure' that we typically demand is socialism, and even though we demand a high social wage (i.e., more social welfare programs) as part of our day-to-day work with people, a 'Maoist' would be dedicated to revolutionary politics.

In developed capitalist countries, a labour aristocracy exists which stands in the way of communists organising the proletariat. This labour aristocracy can be destroyed only by revolutions in the third-world, whereby the source of imperialist plunder can be cut off.

The model for revolution in developed countries is generally taken to be city insurrections followed by seizure of power in the countryside.

The general strategy for revolution is to start from the lowest strata in the the society and liberating them, which results in the belt of exploitation moving above, turning the vast majority of the masses revolutionary. In the US, the black proletarian community is an ideal place to start organizing.

Also, there are ethnic groups of the original inhabitants of America, who are exploited more. They can be organized in the first stages and a PPW can be made possible in some areas.

Edit: Also, another target can be the heavily exploited workers who come from Mexico.

[Invincible Summer]

To sort of play Devil's Advocate/ask a question:

With the "Mass Line," how do Maoists take into account the diverse "identities" that exist in the modern world today? What I mean is that how would Maoists be able to create a mass line for different ethnicities/cultures (e.g. Mainland chinese immigrants have diff material circumstances than Hong Kong Chinese, generally), as well as sex and race?

Surely it is extremely difficult to try and create a mass line that appeals to the Mainland Chinese and White American equally, and just as equally to the female and LGBT members of each.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A better question to ask about the 'mass line' is why it was called the 'mass line' to begin with, since the masses had no part to play in drawing it up. So, it wasn't 'from the people to the people', but 'from the party to the people, whether they like it or not'.

On that, see here:

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