Maoism

[Jallen]

Hi,
I'd like to know exactly what Maoism is.
What does it mean? What was it supposed to mean? How does it work?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, it doesn't work:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/defence-maoism-t123136/index.html

And here is an additional set of reasons why:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1594418&postcount=90

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1401000&postcount=76

My advice is: ignore it.

[Sasha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism isnt that bad for starters

[el_chavista]

Well, it doesn't work:

My advice is: ignore it.

Actually, it's hard to ignore the influential Maoist movements from Nepal and India. They seem to be so suited for those backward countries' objective and subjective conditions.

[Luisrah]

From what I've heard, one of it's main characteristics is the belief that a revolution in the 1st world countries will only come after a great part of the 3rd world countries have had one, since there is little revolutionary feeling in the 1st world's proletariat.
An inssurection in the third world is more probable, and it would set the way for 1st world countries, since the bourgeoisie in it would stop having it's cheap workforce and materials, and the wealth from their colonies.
This would lead to a depression in the economy of the 1st world countries, making it more possible for a revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El_C:


Actually, it's hard to ignore the influential Maoist movements from Nepal and India. They seem to be so suited for those backward countries' objective and subjective conditions.

Sure, but I said ignore Maoism. If the movements you mention are going to be successful, they will also need to ignore it.

[Rjevan]

The were quite a few thread about Maoism lately, additional to the one Rosa linked to you should take a look at those, the second one is about Mao Zedong and should help you to understand more:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoism-t121714/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

[bailey_187]

You should read this:
www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/049_CRpaper-Final.doc

Its about the Cultural Revolution in China, the best part about Maoism

[scarletghoul]

Maoism keeps coming up in Learning. Perhaps it's beacuse you've noticed that Maoism is by far the most actively revolutionary kind of Communism in the world today (There are huge Maoist movements in Nepal, India, Phillipines, and Peru, as well as smaller ones in many many other countries, and Maoist ideas have had a big influence on other big revolutionary movements (Chavez claims to be a Maoist, FARC are conducting a PPW, etc) ).

Maoism is a development of Marxism-Leninism, with new ideas aswell as development of old ideas.

As others have said, I advise you to read those other threads about Maoism. It's also worth reading the Red Book ( http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/index.htm ) as well as a history of the chinese revolution and the document bailey_187 linked to about the Cultural Revolution, which was the pinnacle of worldwide revolutionary struggle.

If you have any questions just ask.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^And part of the most failed tradition in socialism, too.

[Saorsa]

^ Lol no that would be Trotskyism lol. Maoism is like a kid learning to walk, it's fallen over a few times but it's making steady progress towards adulthood.

Trotskyism more closely resembles an aborted fetus.

Rosa is a bitter old Trot who sits around complaining about how awful various far away revolutionary movements are from her priviliged first world existence. All hail Rosa, shining example of everything wrong with the Western 'left'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CA:


Lol no that would be Trotskyism lol.

Well, Trotskyism hasn't yet presided over the failure of a dozen or more 'socialist' states, but it did predict their failure.


Maoism is like a kid learning to walk, it's fallen over a few times but it's making steady progress towards adulthood

More like a Frankenstein monster lurching from failure to failure.


Rosa is a bitter old Trot who sits around complaining about how awful various far away revolutionary movements are from her priviliged first world existence. All hail Rosa, shining example of everything wrong with the Western 'left'.

Once more, we can trade insults till we both tire, but one thing is for sure: every single ML-state has failed, and has adopted some form of capitalism -- as predicted.

[RHIZOMES]

CA:



Well, Trotskyism hasn't yet presided over the failure of a dozen or more 'socialist' states, but it did predict their failure.



More like a Frankenstein moster lurching from failure to failure.



Once more, we can trade insults till we both tire, but one thing is for sure: every single ML-state has failed, and has adopted some form of capitalism -- as predicted.

Yeah okay just ignore everything the Trots got wrong.

The anti-revisionists predicted there would be a decline after Khruschev took power, does that make them just a s correct?

[Saorsa]

Well, Trotskyism hasn't yet presided over the failure of a dozen or more 'socialist' states, but it did predict their failure.

Fortune teller says to man: you'll be wearing this pair of shoes when you meet your true love. Man wears said pair of shoes every day for rest of life. OF COURSE HE'S WEARING THOSE SHOES WHEN HE MEETS HIS TRUE LOVE

Of course Trotskyism 'predicted' the failure of the revolutions in Russia, China and elsewhere. It's pessimism, cynicism and defeatism all merged together, sprinkled with idealism and utopianism, lightly buttered with economism and blended together into something that then gets served on a plate with a wee label claiming the meal to be somehow similar to 'Marxism'.

^ What a lot of isms btw!


More like a Frankenstein moster lurching from failure to failure.

Oh you

[scarletghoul]

deleted pic of dead trotsky

"wake me when my ideas start to make sense"

you know that this kind of posting (trolling) pictures is not allowed, espiacelly in learning.
Infraction to scarletghoul.

also verball warnings to Rosa Lichtenstein, comrade allistair and arizona bay for flaming/flamebaiting, continue and PM's and infractions will be handed out.

psycho

[h0m0revolutionary]

God you people are boring.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona:


Yeah okay just ignore everything the Trots got wrong.

So, who is perfect? But we have yet to preside over the failure of at least twelve allegedly 'socialist' states, unlike you 'highly successful' ML-ers.


The anti-revisionists predicted there would be a decline after Khruschev took power, does that make them just a s correct?

Depends on the theory behind the prediction.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Alastair:


Fortune teller says to man: you'll be wearing this pair of shoes when you meet your true love. Man wears said pair of shoes every day for rest of life. OF COURSE HE'S WEARING THOSE SHOES WHEN HE MEETS HIS TRUE LOVE

This is just Kayser Soso's post hoc ergo propter hoc objection, which I have answered in the Defending Maoism thread.


Of course Trotskyism 'predicted' the failure of the revolutions in Russia, China and elsewhere. It's pessimism, cynicism and defeatism all merged together, sprinkled with idealism and utopianism, lightly buttered with economism and blended together into something that then gets served on a plate with a wee label claiming the meal to be somehow similar to 'Marxism'.

It is only 'pessimistic' when the revolution is hi-jacked by a counter-revolutionary, bureaucratic elite, which then tries to impose 'socialism' from above; it isn't 'pessimistic' over a genuine workers' revolution, or over the introduction of socialism from below.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


"wake me when my ideas start to make sense"

I think you'll remain in that coma for good.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

homorevolutionary:


God you people are boring.

Only to the easily bored...

[Sasha]

Rosa: i hope you missed my verbal warning just now, to be sure PM warning...
keep it on topic and civil.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I certainly did miss it; but I am no more 'off-topic' than other comrades are. Nor am I any less civil than the others.

Have you warned them?

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

I have now seen it, and will, naturally, concur with your wise judgement.:)

[Sand Castle]

Well, for starters, let's start with the reading. At least check out the summaries of these if you want to learn about Maoism.

Read The Little Red Book (also known as quotations from Chairman Mao). Also read "On New Democracy" and A Critique of Soviet Economics. Then follow it up with The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution. I'm a pretty hardcore Maoist. Feel free to private message me with any questions you have about Maoism.

[Comrade Martin]

If you're a Communist and you're in the "first world" - Maoism is sort of like advocating for the return of kings, queens, and divine right in your country...

It's anachronistic.

That won't stop people from doing it, of course... but it will prevent normal people from listening to you.

And what good will that do us?

:cool:

[Sand Castle]

If you're a Communist and you're in the "first world" - Maoism is sort of like advocating for the return of kings, queens, and divine right in your country...

It's anachronistic.

That won't stop people from doing it, of course... but it will prevent normal people from listening to you.

And what good will that do us?

:cool:

What a petty oversimplification. You people act like Mao just redistributed land and stopped. Many philosophical parts can be applied universally. Also, there were industrialized areas in China when the communists took over. Work was done there. Check out Mao's "Critique of Soviet Economics." You'd be surprised.

I find it quite annoying that a lot of Marxist-Leninists, and I'm not trying to guess anybody's ideology here. I'm just speaking in general. But a lot of orthodox Leninists say that Maoism is anachronistic, but they completely overlook that Russia was quite backwards when the Bolsheviks took over.

[Comrade Martin]

What a petty oversimplification. You people act like Mao just redistributed land and stopped.

You're right; he also transformed many peasants into proletarians under his system of party-managed state wage-slavery, centralizing production in to the hands of an elite and instigating several policies (some tragic failures, others marginal successes) that laid the groundwork for a developed Capitalist economy.

Progress for mid-20th century China... Anachronistic for us.

Unless you live in a place where Feudalism still plays a major role in your life, of course... Here in America, the closest I come to Feudal property relations is... well, E-Bay!



Many philosophical parts can be applied universally.Like what? Turning pots in to lumps of metal?

Mao was just a "political edition" of Confucius. Wise? Sure. Communist? Don't be silly!


Also, there were industrialized areas in China when the communists took over. Work was done there. Check out Mao's "Critique of Soviet Economics." You'd be surprised.I have and, oddly enough, I wasn't.

Mao "said" lots of stuff... what matters to Communists is what was "really going on."

I like to look at Mao (as I do Lenin, Trotsky, and other variants of the same) as someone who was genuinely interested in Marxism... but kind of like how someone who really liked Jules Verne was interested in space travel in the 1800's.

To them, its a fascinating idea with marvelous implications... but they lack the tools to make the tools to make the spacecraft, and with no existing data, are speculating on something far in the future... with no "scientific grasp" on how to get there.

Their practice reflected their material limitations... and thus Feudal Russia and Feudal China became: Capitalist Russia and Capitalist China!

Odd how "both sides" of "revisionism" turned out exactly the same way in the end, eh?

If we applied our minds to this question logically, we'd see the 30+ examples of State-Capitalism of the Leninist variety all transitioning to Capitalism to be indicative of something...

I wonder what?

Maybe that's what they were bound to do by objective, material conditions... Just maybe.


I find it quite annoying that a lot of Marxist-Leninists, and I'm not trying to guess anybody's ideology here. I'm just speaking in general. But a lot of orthodox Leninists say that Maoism is anachronistic, but they completely overlook that Russia was quite backwards when the Bolsheviks took over.

I don't.

In fact, I think that's a great basis on which to question whether or not Leninism is anachronistic as well!

:cool:

[Saorsa]

Aah, Martin. I remember the glory days of the NSCP, when you actually had something of an impact on me becoming a Marxist-Leninist and abandoning the muddled mix of social-democracy and Trotskyism I had going on. How times have changed :(

Good to see you again though, I'm sure we'll have some interesting discussions now we're finally on the same forum again.

[Comrade Martin]

I love ya, Alastair! And its great to see you.

I just hope I can keep you on the "path forward" and get you off of that Leninist garbage! :D

[redwinter]

If you want to learn more about Maoist theory I would recommend:

Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, a Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.
http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html


(side note: Martin are you RS2K's kid or something? How many more ideological changes are you going to go through before the new year? Quit your nonsensical attacks and go back to your one-man organization/website.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Neither Trotskyism nor Maoism managed to organize the working class in advanced countries like the pre-war SPD did in Germany with its Bebel-Kautskyan combination of building political support and establishing "alternative culture."

However, Maoism does seem to have an edge over "tred-iunion heavy" Trotskyism in the Third World.

[Sendo]

I think the power of Maoism can be shown by the efforts of the Left Communists to keep the curious from even reading it. Obvious they fear something....namely it's appeal and application in the world today.

[BobKKKindle$]

Their practice reflected their material limitations

The necessary conclusion of this kind of argument is that China wasn't ready for a socialist revolution in the 1920s and 30s and therefore needed to have a revolution against feudalism and undergo a long period of capitalist development before socialism was possible. Not only does this argument remind us of the views that were being put forward by the Mensheviks and other forces who adopted a mechanistic conception of Marxism, it is also flatly contradicted by the fact that the Chinese working class demonstrated its ability to take power on several occasions during the 1920s, most notably in the form of the May 30th Movement in 1925 and the creation of the Shanghai Commune in 1927, and, despite the confidence of the working class having been undermined by the experience of the KMT government and the industrial policies adopted by the CPC in the 1930s, there were also signs that a socialist revolution was possible in 1949 as well, if only the working class had been able to break away from the bureaucratic leadership of Mao and his supporters. The view that you are adopting is chauvinist in that it assumes that workers in underdeveloped countries have no choice but to wait and suffer under capitalism, and has been used historically to justify the class-collaborationist tactic that is the popular front.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You conveniently forget that there were two or more factions in the KMT. Opposing the Jiang Jieshi faction was a "socialist" faction that, like "Arab socialism" and other non-Marxist national-socialisms, probably had this kind of program consistent with Sun Yat-sen's Third Principle of Minsheng (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Principles_of_the_People#The_Principle_of_M. C3.ADnsh.C4.93ng):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mere-democracy-economic-t120765/index.html



For me, a measure becomes transitional if and only if it cannot be fulfilled under the most "socially democratic" bourgeois order that can be logically conceived. What are some of the features of this peculiar bourgeois order?

1) “Public ownership of basic economic infrastructure, natural monopolies (including the banking system) and the land itself” (Marxist-turned-Left-Georgist Michael Hudson: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12418) – I would also add Hudson’s musings on the broadcast spectrum: http://www.counterpunch.org/schaefer02142004.html (his sympathies towards his limited definition of “socialism” are more radical than either Henry George on land or Hyman Minsky on banks, and his sympathies towards the working class are greater than the elitism of John Maynard Keynes himself).

2) Economic rent should be taxed at optimal levels (land value taxation even if the land is publicly owned, for example).

3) The country’s entire tax burden is on the shoulders of rentiers (landlords, financial speculators, etc.), “industrialists” (Hudson’s description of entrepreneurial capitalists), and perhaps unproductive labour (many self-employed who cheat on their tax returns), as well. This means that productive labour has no tax burden, whether directly (payroll taxes, lotteries, etc.) or indirectly (consumer goods and services, including flat monthly premiums charged by Western governments for public health insurance). Contemporarily speaking, calls for a Tobin tax on financial speculation are cheap compared to Keynes's “substantial Government transfer tax on all transactions.”

4) A more prominent role for co-ops in the capitalist economy, which can only come by means of public assistance (Lassalle).

5) Typical welfare state benefits and perhaps more, both economically and politically (living wages, shorter workweeks, “right to the city” stuff).

Also prioritized above the welfare state are "public, anti-inheritance appropriations of not some but all the relevant productive or other non-possessive properties (that would otherwise be immediately inherited through legal will or through gifting and other loopholes) towards exclusively public purposes" and "confiscatory, despotic measures against all capital flight of wealth, whether such wealth belongs to economic rebels on the domestic front or to foreign profiteers." Together, these coincide more or less with the first six allegedly "transitional" measures in the Communist Manifesto.

A continued communitarian populist front superstructure (along Paris Commune lines) coalesced around the CPC and this particular faction in the Guomindang might have been necessary to carry out this program.

[BobKKKindle$]

JR, what a load of rambling nonsense. If you have a point to make, make it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You really have no idea what a political program entails, do you?

[BobKKKindle$]

You really have no idea what a political program entails, do you?

The only thing that's apparent to me is that you made a bizarre statement about a historical organization (the KMT) with no aim other than to promote what you regard as your original ideas but which the rest of us recognize as a load of nonsense, expressed in language that you've made up in order to appear intelligent. Honestly, how can you possibly assert that a Tobin tax, for example, is relevant to a discussion on political forces in China in the 1940s, let alone that there was a faction inside the KMT supporting demands like that, or that a Tobin tax would have been implemented if this alleged left-wing faction of the KMT had somehow allied with the CPC. The absurdity of most of your posts is apparent to everyone except you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The only thing that's apparent to me is that you made a bizarre statement about a historical organization (the KMT) with no aim other than to promote what you regard as your original ideas but which the rest of us recognize as a load of nonsense, expressed in language that you've made up in order to appear intelligent.

Those weren't my ideas, by the way, but a look at history and what was proposed.


Honestly, how can you possibly assert that a Tobin tax, for example, is relevant to a discussion on political forces in China in the 1940s

I said "contemporarily speaking," since the quoted post has a different context. I wanted to emphasize Keynes over Tobin. The point remains that earlier social-democrats prioritized a total and pro-labour shift in a country's tax burden over welfare state schemes (because there was no welfare state back then). Sun Yat-sen was a big supporter of the land value tax, which he prioritized over any sort of welfare state.

I'll wait until you can at least come up with a response on land value taxation, ending sales taxation, anti-inheritance measures, etc.

[Madvillainy]

Maoism is a nationalist and vehemently anti-working class ideology that calls on the proletariat to die for the interests of the so called 'national' bourgeoisie.

They don't even try and hide it:

“Can a communist internationalist also be a patriot? He not only can be, he must be (...) In wars of national liberation, patriotism is the application of the internationalist principle (...) We are both internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is: ‘struggle against the aggressor to defend the fatherland" - Mao

[Die Neue Zeit]

Madvillainy, I don't know why you repped BK's post above when I wasn't talking about Maoism, but about the KMT. I would stress that the petit-bourgeois left faction of the KMT which had the above program was more revolutionary than Mao, simply by going head-to-head against the "national bourgeoisie."

[Comrade Martin]

(side note: Martin are you RS2K's kid or something? How many more ideological changes are you going to go through before the new year? Quit your nonsensical attacks and go back to your one-man organization/website.)

*Yawns.*

You mean there are still RCP people out there? Do I know you?

I thought you guys "died off" or something... not that your "child" organization of Kasama has done much to improve themselves... rebellious children though they may be!

Funny story - try coming to Philadelphia and finding out where "things are happening." I'll give you a hint: it will be "my" organization... which you obviously know nothing about.

[Ismail]

On a non-Trotskyist/Left-Communist critique of Maoism, see Enver Hoxha's 1978 book Imperialism and the Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/toc.htm), specifically this chapter: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm

For example:

Mao Tsetung did not base himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory which teaches us that the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie in general, is vacillating. Of course, the poor and middle peasantry play an important role in the revolution and must become the close ally of the proletariat. But the peasant class, the petty-bourgeoisie, cannot lead the proletariat in the revolution. To think and preach the opposite means to be against Marxism-Leninism. Herein lies one of the main sources of the anti-Marxist views of Mao Tsetung, which have had a negative influence on the whole Chinese revolution. The Communist Party of China has not been clear in theory about the basic revolutionary guiding principle of the hegemonic role of the proletariat in the revolution, and consequently it did not apply it in practice properly and consistently. Experience shows that the peasantry can play its revolutionary role only if it acts in alliance with the proletariat and under its leadership. This was proved in our country during the National Liberation War.

The Albanian peasantry was the main force of our revolution, however it was the working class, despite its very small numbers, which led the peasantry, because the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ideology of the proletariat, embodied in the Communist Party, today the Party of Labour, the vanguard of the working class, was the leadership of the revolution. That is why we triumphed not only in the National Liberation War, but also in the construction of socialism....

The negation by "Mao Tsetung thought" of the leading role of the proletariat was precisely one of the causes that the Chinese revolution remained a bourgeois-democratic revolution and did not develop into a socialist revolution. In his article "New Democracy," Mao Tsetung preached that after the triumph of the revolution in China a regime would be established which would be based on the alliance of the "democratic classes," in which, besides the peasantry and the proletariat, he also included the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. "Just as everyone should share what food there is," he writes, "so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class." This idea has also been reflected in the national flag of the People's Republic of China, with four stars which represent four classes: the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie....

Capitalist rent has not been abolished by law in China, because the Chinese leadership has adhered to the strategy of the bourgeois-democratic revolution formulated in 1935 by Mao Tsetung, who said at that time: "The labour laws of the people's republic... will not prevent the national bourgeoisie from making profits ... " In conformity with the Policy of the equal right to land," the kulak stratum, in the forms which have existed in China, has retained great advantages and profits. Mao Tsetung himself gave orders that the kulaks must not be touched, because this might anger the national bourgeoisie with which the Communist Party of China had formed a common united front, politically, economically and organizationally.

All these things show that "Mao Tsetung thought" did not and could not guide China on the genuine road to socialism. Indeed, as Chou En-lai declared in 1949, when secretly applying to the American government to help China, neither Mao Tsetung nor his chief supporters were for the socialist road. "China," wrote Chou En-lai, "is not yet a communist country, and if the policy of Mao Tsetung is implemented properly, it will not become a communist country for a long time." (Internationale Herald Tribune, August 14, 1978)

[red cat]

Maoism is a nationalist and vehemently anti-working class ideology that calls on the proletariat to die for the interests of the so called 'national' bourgeoisie.

They don't even try and hide it:

“Can a communist internationalist also be a patriot? He not only can be, he must be (...) In wars of national liberation, patriotism is the application of the internationalist principle (...) We are both internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is: ‘struggle against the aggressor to defend the fatherland" - Mao
I wish that left-communists were there to lead the Chinese proletariat back then. Or did they get wiped out by "Maoist-repression"?

[Plagueround]

I think perhaps I should change the title of this forum from Learning to Squabbling and Petty Bickering.