Maoist ideology

[El Rojo]

sorry if this has been put up before, but what are the ideological differences between maoism and conventional marxism? Is it related to 3rd worldism?

[fatboy]

Conventional Marxism is what I consider left communism. Left communism does not believe in a vanguard party or anything Bolshevik for that matter. Essentialy very strict adherence to marx writings. Maoism is based off the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Witch is Marxism with Lenins contributions such as vanguard party because the working class can not carry out the revolution by themselves. Maoism believes Peasants can also take part in this revolution. Mass involvement of the people in the revolution aka Peoples War is also considered important. And by 3 world ism are your referring to Mao 3 worlds theory?

[bailey_187]

Maoism also sees the class struggle continuing under Socialism as under Socialism there still exists the social basis for a new bourgeois to arise and return it back to Capitalism.

[Invincible Summer]

Here's what I basically understand:

Maoism has an emphasis on
- the continuation of class struggle even during the revolutionary period (basically a 'weeding out' of reactionaries);
- the unity of the majority of people (lumpen, proletariat, peasantry, I believe even revolutionary petit-bourgeois) to further revolution
- the above is done with the use of the "Mass Line": this is basically the revolutionaries taking the concerns, etc of the masses, applying revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory to these concerns to attempt to create solutions, then bringing these "revised" ideas back to the masses to radicalize them

I believe that the reason Maoism focuses on the peasantry is simply because China at the time was primarily composed of peasants, not an urban proletariat like the industrialized West. Maoism basically promotes the idea that the peasantry can carry out both the bourgeois and socialist revolutions, contrary to more traditional Leninist thought.

[fatboy]

Here's what I basically understand:

Maoism has an emphasis on
- the continuation of class struggle even during the revolutionary period (basically a 'weeding out' of reactionaries);
- the unity of the majority of people (lumpen, proletariat, peasantry, I believe even revolutionary petit-bourgeois) to further revolution
- the above is done with the use of the "Mass Line": this is basically the revolutionaries taking the concerns, etc of the masses, applying revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory to these concerns to attempt to create solutions, then bringing these "revised" ideas back to the masses to radicalize them

I believe that the reason Maoism focuses on the peasantry is simply because China at the time was primarily composed of peasants, not an urban proletariat like the industrialized West. Maoism basically promotes the idea that the peasantry can carry out both the bourgeois and socialist revolutions, contrary to more traditional Leninist thought.

But some concepts of Maoism can still be applied to Modern urban proletarian situations .

[Kléber]

As theorist Mao replaced "democratic centralism" with the "Mass Line." This might have made sense in 1935 when the entire party was running for its life across China and couldn't sit down to have conferences. After 1949 though it kept power in the hands of a small clique of old men, who by 1959 had become so cut off from the people that its top-heavy policies led to a famine (huge food shortages went unreported or over-reported as surpluses for because of the Great Leap Forward drive and the total lack of democracy in "socialist" China) that killed 15-30 million people.

The Mass Line is the idea that, instead of having conferences and voting, the leadership will regulate itself and "learn from the masses," the responsibility is on the leadership to keep itself accountable.

At least, that's what I can figure out from reading about the "Mass Line." The Maoist definition of the term is a bit more.. mystical and confusing.

Mao also advocated "New Democracy," which is a nice way of saying "Bourgeois Democracy." This was more or less a return to the stagism advocated by the Mensheviks (and briefly supported by the Bolsheviks while Kamenev and Stalin were running the party before Lenin's return from exile), which held that communists in must support the initial transformation to capitalism through provisional bourgeois revolutionary governments. Indeed the CCP remained officially open to a coalition with the GMD until virtually the end of the Chinese Civil War. Mao believed that New Democracy should be done through a "Bloc of Four Classes," with the workers in charge but the property rights of "patriotic capitalists" respected. How could the workers be in charge while respecting capitalist property rights? Easy, the workers weren't in charge, the Party was in charge for them and built up capitalism, then nationalized the industry and turned it into state capitalism while maintaining gross political and economic inequality. There was never a period of direct working class dictatorship prior to the Party dictatorship like there had been in Russia. There was no democratic mandate from the majority of the Chinese workers for a temporary Party dictatorship like there had been for a Bolshevik dictatorship from the soviets.

I do like Mao's term "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" to describe Chinese society at the time he wrote.

Mao also apparently did not think there was any problem with the PRC entering an effective alliance with the USA under Richard Nixon in 1972, even while North Vietnam was still being bombed. The subsequent trade and political links with the US probably contributed to the regrowth and dominance of market capitalism in China.

He addressed the problem of bureaucracy and inequality with ultra-left rhetoric to try and head off social unrest, but his solutions to the problem never went beyond the Stalinist "purge a bunch of people" model. He only ever toyed with the idea of expanding political freedom in China and scrapped the Hundred Flowers Campaign when the working class started to get involved, protest and gain consciousness. His regime executed Trotskyists while keeping "capitalist-roaders" like Deng Xiaoping alive to restore market capitalism later when conditions were safer.

Essentially, Maoism is GREAT if you are trying to do a bourgeois revolution in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country. He was an innovative theorist who used Marxist class dialectics for the purpose of a bourgeois revolution, and what a bourgeois state it established. But maybe Maoism is not so helpful if you are trying to do a socialist revolution in a capitalist country, like the PRC right now.

[Winter]

Maoism basically promotes the idea that the peasantry can carry out both the bourgeois and socialist revolutions, contrary to more traditional Leninist thought.

Not the peasantry alone.

The first priority in Maoism is to oust imperialistic invaders and/or influences. The enenmies consist of feudal landlords, monarchists, international bourgeois industries, and all reactionaries who side with them. The allies are led by the proletarian ( even if they may be few ). The peasants and petit-bourgeoisie follow the proletarian in an anti-imperialistic peoples war.

After these influences are done away with, New Democracy can begin to help modernize the country without the burden of invaders and reactionaries in control. The bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are restrained by the party and the proletariat. Their powers are limited. At all times, the people get involved to make sure reactionary influences do not enter the party and society.

[fatboy]

As theorist Mao replaced "democratic centralism" with the "Mass Line." This might have made sense in 1935 when the entire party was running for its life across China and couldn't sit down to have conferences. After 1949 though it kept power in the hands of a small clique of old men, who by 1959 had become so cut off from the people that its top-heavy policies led to a famine (huge food shortages went unreported or over-reported as surpluses for because of the Great Leap Forward drive and the total lack of democracy in "socialist" China) that killed 15-30 million people.

The Mass Line is the idea that, instead of having conferences and voting, the leadership will regulate itself and "learn from the masses," the responsibility is on the leadership to keep itself accountable.

At least, that's what I can figure out from reading about the "Mass Line." The Maoist definition of the term is a bit more.. mystical and confusing.

Mao also advocated "New Democracy," which is a nice way of saying "Bourgeois Democracy." This was more or less a return to the stagism advocated by the Mensheviks (and briefly supported by the Bolsheviks while Kamenev and Stalin were running the party before Lenin's return from exile), which held that communists in must support the initial transformation to capitalism through provisional bourgeois revolutionary governments. Indeed the CCP remained officially open to a coalition with the GMD until virtually the end of the Chinese Civil War. Mao believed that New Democracy should be done through a "Bloc of Four Classes," with the workers in charge but the property rights of "patriotic capitalists" respected. How could the workers be in charge while respecting capitalist property rights? Easy, the workers weren't in charge, the Party was in charge for them and built up capitalism, then nationalized the industry and turned it into state capitalism while maintaining gross political and economic inequality.

I do like Mao's term "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" to describe Chinese society at the time he wrote.

Mao also apparently did not think there was any problem with the PRC entering an effective alliance with the USA under Richard Nixon in 1972, even while North Vietnam was still being bombed. The subsequent trade and political links with the US probably contributed to the rebirth and dominance of market capitalism in China.

He addressed the problem of bureaucracy and inequality with ultra-left rhetoric to try and head off social unrest, but his solutions to the problem never went beyond the Stalinist "purge a bunch of people" model. He only ever toyed with the idea of expanding political freedom in China and scrapped the Hundred Flowers Campaign when the working class started to get involved, protest and gain consciousness. His regime executed Trotskyists while keeping "capitalist-roaders" like Deng Xiaoping alive to restore market capitalism later when conditions were safer.

Essentially, Maoism is GREAT if you are trying to do a bourgeois revolution in a semi-feudal semi-colonial country. He was an innovative theorist who used Marxist class dialectics for the purpose of a bourgeois revolution, and what a bourgeois state it established. But maybe Maoism is not so helpful if you are trying to do a socialist revolution in a capitalist country, like the PRC right now.
If you truly want a understanding of new democracy the read On New Democracy by Mao. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm)

[Devrim]

Conventional Marxism is what I consider left communism. Left communism does not believe in a vanguard party or anything Bolshevik for that matter.

What is commonly referred to as left communism is very far from what is generally considered to be 'conventional Marxism'. Also it does believe in a vanguard party, and in Russia the people who became the left communists were all members of the Bolshevik party.

Devrim

[fatboy]

What is commonly referred to as left communism is very far from what is generally considered to be 'conventional Marxism'. Also it does believe in a vanguard party, and in Russia the people who became the left communists were all members of the Bolshevik party.

Devrim
Well that was always my understanding of left communism. Would like to further elaborate on left communism?

[Devrim]

Well that was always my understanding of left communism. Would like to further elaborate on left communism?Lest communism is the current descend from the left wing of the communist parties in the Third International. They are the people that Lenin criticised in 'Left-wing communism-an infantile disorder'.

I think the Wiki page on it is OK.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Conventional Marxism is what I consider left communism. Left communism does not believe in a vanguard party or anything Bolshevik for that matter

Not necessarily. Bordiga characterized the October Revolution as a proletarian revolution, for example.

[RED DAVE]

After these influences are done away with, New Democracy can begin to help modernize the country without the burden of invaders and reactionaries in control. The bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are restrained by the party and the proletariat. Their powers are limited. At all times, the people get involved to make sure reactionary influences do not enter the party and society.Nice idea, but it didn't happen. What did happen was, eventually, the bougeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie took power. In fact, the proletariat was never involved in "restraining" these classes: the party allegedly did the job, and the result was that these classes took over the party and took over China, which is now going its merry way as the world's largest capitalist society.

Thanks, Mao.

Maoism was never a belief system centering around the seizure of power by the working class. It used, and still uses, Marxist rhetoric to cover up the establishment of state capitalism, which, as we have seen, morphs into corporate capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Lyev]

Well as I see it, the theoretical leap between urban proletariat and rural peasantry is somewhat tenuous. At the time of revolution in '49, China's urban, working-class population was less than 2%. I can't remember the exact percentage (something like 1.8%) but at any rate that is a tiny percentage. Peasantry simply don't have the relations to the means of production and to capital as the proletariat.

[bailey_187]

Peasantry simply don't have the relations to the means of production and to capital as the proletariat.

So basicaly they are an unwanted element left over from a past economic system and should just sit around and starve until the Western Leftists save them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html) thread shows, Marxism works but Maoism doesn't.

So, no wonder history has refuted it.

[bailey_187]

As this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html) thread shows, Marxism works but Maoism doesn't.

So, no wonder history has refuted it.

Please fuck off, you just post inchorent rubbish. You are mental

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Baby:


Please fuck off,

Abuse only means you have lost the argument.


you just post inchorent rubbish.

Yes, I've been reading far too much Mao. Sorry. :(


You are mental

Nearly as much as you seem to be.:)

I blame dialectics...

[Muzk]

I blame dialectics...

As always.

Why do you reduce Maoism to something Mao wrote while being affected by dialectical nonsense? It's like comparing idealism with the real world...


As this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../mao-zedong-t121784/index.html) thread shows, Marxism works but Maoism doesn't.

So, no wonder history has refuted it. How can history possibly refute something? How can you measure "success" on something as complicated and out of reach for every human like the almost endless factors in reality?

Anyways, if you only pick 1 small thing that some leader/founder of maoism wrote, and refute it because it's nonsense, does it really mean the whole theory/ideology is wrong?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Muzk:


As always.

You seem not to have heard of irony.


Why do you reduce Maoism to something Mao wrote while being affected by dialectical nonsense? It's like comparing idealism with the real world

Because he believed it governed everything in the entire universe and in human thought. Of course, if he was wrong there too, I can live with that.


How can history possible refute something?

It's an alternative way of pointing out that practice has refuted all forms of Dialectical Marxism -- but if I kept saying that, you'd probably complain about that too -- so I vary it from time to time.


How can you measure "success" on something as complicated and out of reach for every human like the almost endless factors in reality?

Then how can you possibly decide if any theory has worked in practice? If there is no way to measure things (although I do not prefer that word, it is one you used), then there is no way to decide if Maosim is correct.

In fact, since it is integral to Maoism that theory is proven in practice, then if it can't be proven this way, Maoism is defective by default.

Either way, Maoism is refuted...

[Lyev]

So basicaly they are an unwanted element left over from a past economic system and should just sit around and starve until the Western Leftists save them.
No that's not what I said. The undeniable fact remains though: when a peasant stops to work, they don't threaten the capitalist in the same, direct way that a proletarian does. I think I'm right in saying that peasants own their own means of production, and have their own, private land (correct me if I'm wrong). When a worker strikes they are revolutionary, but peasants can only really abet and ameliorate the revolutionary upheaval. The peasantry aren't unwanted either; the left should take any supporters that it can get.

[fatboy]

Muzk:
In fact, since it is integral to Maoism that theory is proven in practice, then if it can't be proven this way, Maoism is defective by default.

Either way, Maoism is refuted...
Rosa, Maoism has worked in China. Mao's theories turned around the Chinese economy into a industrial nation. And before you say anything Mao's Great Leap Forward did not kill 30 million as some would have you believe. The death tolls are based on projected population growth compared to actual population. But that population will not always go up right after a revolutionary period. Much of the famine associated with the great leap forward was caused by 2 things. The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy. Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.

[bailey_187]

No that's not what I said. The undeniable fact remains though: when a peasant stops to work, they don't threaten the capitalist in the same, direct way that a proletarian does. I think I'm right in saying that peasants own their own means of production, and have their own, private land (correct me if I'm wrong). When a worker strikes they are revolutionary, but peasants can only really abet and ameliorate the revolutionary upheaval. The peasantry aren't unwanted either; the left should take any supporters that it can get.

We can see from the experience of China,Africa in the 20th century , India now that the Peasentry IS willing to fight for Socialism. So Marx said they wouldnt. Or what BobKKKindles calls "Classical Marxism" says the peasentry wont fight for Socialism - well Marx was wrong, the Peasents did and are. Marxism is a science, if part of this science is shown to be the wrong we change it. The SWP etc all think that Petrograd 1917 will just repeat itself in the UK - have fun waiting.

Sure, they cant go on strike like workers and bring the economy to a stand still, but they can take up guns.

[bailey_187]

Rosa, Maoism has worked in China. Mao's theories turned around the Chinese economy into a industrial nation. And before you say anything Mao's Great Leap Forward did not kill 30 million as some would have you believe. The death tolls are based on projected population growth compared to actual population. But that population will not always go up right after a revolutionary period. Much of the famine associated with the great leap forward was caused by 2 things. The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy. Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.

Seriously, dont even bother, Rosa is mental and wont respond to your points and you will just feel like :cursing::confused:

[fatboy]

We can see from the experience of China,Africa in the 20th century , India now that the Peasentry IS willing to fight for Socialism. So Marx said they wouldnt. Or what BobKKKindles calls "Classical Marxism" says the peasentry wont fight for Socialism - well Marx was wrong, the Peasents did and are. Marxism is a science, if part of this science is shown to be the wrong we change it. The SWP etc all think that Petrograd 1917 will just repeat itself in the UK - have fun waiting.

Sure, they cant go on strike like workers and bring the economy to a stand still, but they can take up guns.
You are absolutely right bailey. You have to apply the theories of Marx Lenin and Mao to fit your countries conditions.

[fatboy]

Seriously, dont even bother, Rosa is mental and wont respond to your points and you will just feel like :cursing::confused:
It is worth a shot though.

[red cat]

Rosa, Maoism has worked in China. Mao's theories turned around the Chinese economy into a industrial nation. And before you say anything Mao's Great Leap Forward did not kill 30 million as some would have you believe. The death tolls are based on projected population growth compared to actual population. But that population will not always go up right after a revolutionary period. Much of the famine associated with the great leap forward was caused by 2 things. The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy. Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.

The point to note is that MLM has been progressing step by step since the Paris Commune.

In the Paris Commune, we could hold power only for a few months. In Russia, we went forward to establishing socialism. In case of China, we liberated a country that was not even capitalist, and went on to establish socialism there. We even got some success in preventing capitalist restoration for a decade in spite of the CP being almost engulfed by revisionists.

Of course, not a single revolution stands intact now. But this is true for all other tendencies too. The fact that except a few Guevarist and may be Hoxhaist armed struggles ( I am not sure whether the Hoxhaist ones exist now), and anarchists practicing small-scale armed movements ( like in Israel ), the whole spectrum of leftist revolutionaries conducting war on the present system is Maoist, says a lot for Maoism.

[RadioRaheem84]

The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy. Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.

What about the other things associated with Mao and repression like the purge? Where is the documented evidence that says that the famine was due to a flood and the Soviet Union?

Just what is true of Mao and what is not? Myth and facts, real quick. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

fatboy:


Rosa, Maoism has worked in China. Mao's theories turned around the Chinese economy into a industrial nation. And before you say anything Mao's Great Leap Forward did not kill 30 million as some would have you believe. The death tolls are based on projected population growth compared to actual population. But that population will not always go up right after a revolutionary period. Much of the famine associated with the great leap forward was caused by 2 things. The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy. Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.

You reply seems to be saying: "It worked if you ignore the fact that it didin't".

Which is why it has now been abandoned, and a bureaucratic form of capitalism put in its place.

[fatboy]

The point to note is that MLM has been progressing step by step since the Paris Commune.

In the Paris Commune, we could hold power only for a few months. In Russia, we went forward to establishing socialism. In case of China, we liberated a country that was not even capitalist, and went on to establish socialism there. We even got some success in preventing capitalist restoration for a decade in spite of the CP being almost engulfed by revisionists.

Of course, not a single revolution stands intact now. But this is true for all other tendencies too. The fact that except a few Guevarist and may be Hoxhaist armed struggles ( I am not sure whether the Hoxhaist ones exist now), and anarchists practicing small-scale armed movements ( like in Israel ), the whole spectrum of leftist revolutionaries conducting war on the present system is Maoist, says a lot for Maoism.
Hopefully soon we will have the whole world. India and Nepal are both look promising. And once we have h wle world we can progress into communism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


Seriously, dont even bother, Rosa is mental and wont respond to your points and you will just feel like

What 'points' do I not respond to?:confused:

[fatboy]

What about the other things associated with Mao and repression like the purge? Where is the documented evidence that says that the famine was due to a flood and the Soviet Union?

Just what is true of Mao and what is not? Myth and facts, real quick. :)
What I said was common sense. Sorry I don't have a detailed accurate report of what I read every time I post.

[fatboy]

fatboy:



You reply seems to be saying: "It worked if you ignore the fact that it didin't".

Which is why it has now been abandoned, and a bureaucratic form of capitalism put in its place.
Where did I imply that?

[bailey_187]

What about the other things associated with Mao and repression like the purge? Where is the documented evidence that says that the famine was due to a flood and the Soviet Union?

Just what is true of Mao and what is not? Myth and facts, real quick. :)

From Dongping Han:


Severe whether conditions in 1959, 1960 and 1961 only made things worse. Jimo County, one of the worst hit places in the whole country, suffered spring draft and summer floods for three consecutive years. On June 30, 1958, a ten-hour rainstorm with a precipitation of 249 mm caused 22 rivers to overflow and wrecked 69 dams and reservoirs. On June 15, 1959, intense rain damaged 75,900 mu crops, wrecked 4,629 houses and killed 8 persons. In summer of 1959, there was a locust breakout in five communes that ruined 18,584 mu crops.[1] On May 27, 1959, a hailstorm ruined 31,000 mu crops of five communes in west of Jimo County, causing an estimated grain loss of 1.35 million kilos. On July 27, 1960, a hurricane attacked the whole county, ruining 777,000 mu of crops. On August 17, 1961 a rain storm with a precipitation of 230 mm in three hours flooded 280,000 mu crops.[2] On top of that, there were also other minor natural disasters.[3] These natural disasters, compounded by other problems, caused severe grain shortages in Jimo County.
[1] Jimo County Gazettes 41
[2] Ibid, 42-43
[3] Ibid, 132-141
http://chinastudygroup.net/2003/04/the-great-leap-famine-the-cultural-revolution-and-post-mao-rural-reform-the-lessons-of-rural-development-in-contemporary-china/

[Lyev]

We can see from the experience of China,Africa in the 20th century , India now that the Peasentry IS willing to fight for Socialism. So Marx said they wouldnt. Or what BobKKKindles calls "Classical Marxism" says the peasentry wont fight for Socialism - well Marx was wrong, the Peasents did and are. Marxism is a science, if part of this science is shown to be the wrong we change it. The SWP etc all think that Petrograd 1917 will just repeat itself in the UK - have fun waiting.

Sure, they cant go on strike like workers and bring the economy to a stand still, but they can take up guns.
Of course peasants can fight along side socialists and proletarians. This doesn't change the way they sit in society though. Their place in society doesn't really affect at all their willingness to fight for socialism. But you must realise that it's objective and the only class that can truly threaten to do away with the relationship between capital and labour is the labourer him/herself. Capitalism is wholly based upon the exploitation of the propertyless, the wage-labourer, the person that has nothing left to sell but their labour. They toil on someone else's private property, with someone else's means of production. Abolition of capitalism and the wages system means expropriating the expropriaters. Peasants just can't "expropriate the expropriaters" in the same way that the proletariat can, yet this isn't to say that the worker will refuse the peasants (or anyone else's) help.

[bailey_187]

Of course peasants can fight along side socialists and proletarians. This doesn't change the way they sit in society though. Their place in society doesn't really affect at all their willingness to fight for socialism. But you must realise that it's objective and the only class that can truly threaten to do away with the relationship between capital and labour is the labourer him/herself. Capitalism is wholly based upon the exploitation of the propertyless, the wage-labourer, the person that has nothing left to sell but their labour. They toil on someone else's private property, with someone else's means of production. Abolition of capitalism and the wages system means expropriating the expropriaters. Peasants just can't "expropriate the expropriaters" in the same way that the proletariat can, yet this isn't to say that the worker will refuse the peasants (or anyone else's) help.

But the peasents did in Cuba, China, tried to in Africa and are in India. You can repeat the same old mantra, but reality is working out different.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FatBoy:


Where did I imply that?

Here:


Much of the famine associated with the great leap forward was caused by 2 things. The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy. Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.

And you ignored the fact that China has now booted his 'theories' into touch, so useless were they.

[bailey_187]

And you ignored the fact that China has now booted his 'theories' into touch, so useless were they.

Could say that the USSR booted Trotskys 'theories' into touch, so useless were they

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey, now no longer igoring me:


Could say that the USSR booted Trotskys 'theories' into touch, so useless were they

I can live with that, if you accept what I alleged.:)

[RadioRaheem84]

From Dongping Han:
[/FONT][/SIZE]
http://chinastudygroup.net/2003/04/the-great-leap-famine-the-cultural-revolution-and-post-mao-rural-reform-the-lessons-of-rural-development-in-contemporary-china/

Wouldn't the bourgeois use this as an attack on Maoism though? That the ideology didn't bring anything to withstand famines and an economic blockade from the Soviet Union? By how much was the thirty million number inflated? How then do you excuse the purges from the Party and political repression? There are just some things that still don't add up minus the the propaganda against Mao.

[bailey_187]

Wouldn't the bourgeois use this as an attack on Maoism though? That the ideology didn't bring anything to withstand famines and an economic blockade from the Soviet Union? By how much was the thirty million number inflated? How then do you excuse the purges from the Party and political repression? There are just some things that still don't add up minus the the propaganda against Mao.

That article also notes how the response to the famine was (IIRC) the quickest in chinese history.

The ideology did in the end, end hunger, which had until Socialism plagued China (sorry for different fonts/sizes, i am copy and pasting from different Word documents i have saved):

In speaking of agricultural performance in the Third World, agronomist and Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug observed: "China is the one country which has solved its food problems." Cited in Han Suyin, Wind in the Tower (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976), p. 24.




“Few people are aware of the visit to China in the summer of 1974, during the Cultural Revolution, by a delegation of agronomists. They travelled widely and were amazed by what they observed, as described in an article in the New York Times (September 24, 1974). The delegation was composed of ten scientists who were “experienced crop observers with wide experience in Asia”. As Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug put it, “You had to look hard to find a bad field. Everything was green and nice everywhere we travelled. I felt the progress had been much more remarkable than what I expected”. The head of the delegation, Sterling Wortman….described the rice crop as “..really first rate. There was just field after field that was as good as anything you can see”. They were also impressed with increased skill levels of the farmers on the Communes. Wortman said “They’re all being brought up to the skill level of the best people. They all share the available inputs”. A detailed description of their observations on agriculture in China was published in the prestigious journal Science in 1975 (vol.188:549-555) by Dr. Sprague. Much of the progress in China’s agriculture after the Cultural Revolution was made possible by advances in that period. Even the increase in fertilizer use that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s was made possible by the factories that were contracted for by China in 1973.”
-Fred Magdoff’s Preface to Dongping Han’s The Unknown Cultural Revolution (Monthly Review Press: 2008)


Agriculture grew by some 3 percent a year, slightly exceeding population growth. By 1970, the problem of adequately feeding China's population had been solved. This was accomplished through integrated economic planning, a system of collective agriculture that promoted grass-roots mobilization, flood control, steady investment in rural infrastructure, and the equitable distribution of food to peasants and rationing of essential foods so that all people were guaranteed their minimal requirements See Harry Harding, China's Second Revolution: Reform After Mao (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1987), p. 30; Robert F. Dernberger, ed., China's Development Experience in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), chapters 3 and 9; Jan Prybyla, The Chinese Economy (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978), chapter 3; and Mobo C.F. Gao, Gao Village: Rural Life in Modern China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999).

[bailey_187]

By how much was the thirty million number inflated? .

I dont know. Theres not point denying it though, the number is high.

But, although the famine caused an unacceptable number of deaths, and this should not be ignored, the number of deaths should be put in perspective. The crude death rate in China in 1958 was 11.98 deaths per 1000. The famine then caused this rate to rise to 14.59 in 1959 then peaking at 25.43 in 1960, then declining to 14.24 in 1961. The great rise in death rates is surely a stain on the CCP’s record and on Mao’s too; however, it should be noted that in 1936 the crude death rate per 1000 was 28 – a number that not even the worst year of the Great Leap Forward famine reached


How then do you excuse the purges from the Party .

You want corrupt bureacrats in the party? People who made China how it is today?




and political repression?

Look here to see Mao's views on freespeech:
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1970/haijung.htm


It was not as free as it should have been IMO, but still rather free:


When we returned to Peking…we entered a dramatic and colorful world that had become a political festival of the masses….[T]he campus was almost deserted after ten o’clock in the morning as students and teachers disappeared into their intense study sessions, organizational meetings, and perusal of Cultural Revolution editorials and documents. Everywhere on the walls of buildings, thousands of big-character posters stared out at us. We were now to live amid a sea of language, a lively world of large blue, red, and yellow ideographs… And it was not only the students who participated in this orgy of writing and reading. Shop clerks, workers, office employees, and bus drivers somehow carried on their work while following the same basic routine as the students. It was a most impressive sight—the population of a country which only twenty years before had been 80 per cent illiterate conducting a national debate through the written word…The formidable organization of the Chinese Communist Party, built up methodically over the decades, had been suddenly overturned and replaced by a communications and organizational network which embraced millions of ordinary citizens in a decision-making apparatus of their own. In the evenings, thousands of mass meetings occurred simultaneously throughout the capital. There the latest political developments were discussed, analyzed, and acted upon.
Nancy and David Milton, The Wind Will Not Subside: Years in Revolutionary China—1964-1969, 1976, p. 148
.



Myriad forms of journalism, official and unofficial alike, sprouted during the Cultural Revolution. There were 542 official magazines and journals and 182 newspapers in circulation throughout China. More than 10,000 unofficial newspapers and pamphlets were published by the “laobaixing,” with 900 publications in Beijing alone.
Source: Mobo Gao, “Debating the Cultural Revolution: Do We Only Know What We Believe?” Critical Asian Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2002, p. 428.



According to a woman who lived in Shanghai during the Cultural Revolution, her neighborhood library had a variety of literature from the West. Recent editions of books had brief introductions which provided a political context and discussion of the author’s viewpoint. Feudal literature was on the shelves in order to help readers learn about the old society.
Some of Us; Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era, eds. Xueping Zhong, Wang Zheng and Bai Di, 2001 pg.171


I dont think Mao's China was perfect, far from, but there were many good aspects that we can learn from.

[bailey_187]

Again, sorry for the fucked up fonts. If you wish to know more about Maoist China and my views on it just ask, Raheem.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fred Magdoff?! Excellent. I love his work!

Despite the political repression in these nations, they consistently showed that socialism works. In both the USSR and Mao's China, it must've been amazing to see largely agricultural nations go from near feudalism to industrial powerhouses in a short span of time (something that took centuries for capitalist nations to do). Something that even the US supported Chiang Kai Shek couldn't do.


Bailey you're a treasure trove on info man!

[bailey_187]

Again though, the only thing that plagues these countries; why the repression? Why the political subjugation?

Threats, both real and imagined. Some was justfied, some was not.

[RED DAVE]

You want corrupt bureacrats in the party? People who made China how it is today?A powerful capitalist country busily engaged in exploitation of its working class. What Maoism did was was the same as Stalinism: super-exploit th working class and peasantry and then hand the country over to capitalism.

We'll see how well you do organizing inside the working class in the advanced capitalist countries like the US.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

A powerful capitalist country busily engaged in exploitation of its working class. What Maoism did was was the same as Stalinism: super-exploit th working class and peasantry and then hand the country over to capitalism.

We'll see how well you do organizing inside the working class in the advanced capitalist countries like the US.

RED DAVE

The big expansion and industrialization of both the USSR and the PRC came from super exploitation and state capitalism.

[FSL]

The big expansion and industrialization of both the USSR and the PRC came from super exploitation and state capitalism.


It came because socialism is superior.

[RadioRaheem84]

It came because socialism is superior.

Well yes but that doesn't explain away the forced labor and repression. The UAE likewise built itself out of the desert and into the 20th century in a short span and it is largely capitalist (and largely speculative). It also uses a repressed labor force.

[Hit The North]

Could say that the USSR booted Trotskys 'theories' into touch, so useless were they

It's not the point whether this theory or that theory prevails, but the actual material conditions which explain the course of events. The sooner you realise this, the closer you will get to Marxism.

Apart from the reasons already outlined by Expropriate, Rosa and Red Dave, as to why the peasantry cannot build socialism, I'll add this:

The first task of any revolution which takes place in a largely peasant economy is to set about the urgent requirement of transforming those peasants into proletarians. Now, given that socialism is concerned with achieving the abolition of the condition of being a proletarian, it stands to reason that neither the Chinese nor Cuban revolutions could be socialist in character.

[black magick hustla]

maoism is the ideology of the counterrevolution. stalinism came after the defeat of the workers movement. the working class in china was defeated in 1927 when the KMT liquidated the shanghai rebellion with mao approving

[RED DAVE]

The big expansion and industrialization of both the USSR and the PRC came from super exploitation and state capitalism.
It came because socialism is superior.Superior to what? The bourgeoisie in England managed to industrialize that country from, basically, an agricultural country to an industrialized one in 50 years, and it had never been done before.

What Chinese and Russian "socialism," Maoism and Stalinism, did was do the dirty work for the capitalists, and now it has stepped aside to let private capitalism have its fun.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

What Chinese and Russian "socialism," Maoism and Stalinism, did was do the dirty work for the capitalists, and now it has stepped aside to let private capitalism have its fun.

Credited response.

[Kléber]

The revisionist scum Khrushchev withdrew all support from China nearly halting the economy.Not quite. The CPSU had been criticizing the Great Leap Forward and being unfriendly, but it was the CCP's decision to cut off all economic ties and immediately repay all loans to the USSR, as a forceful diplomatic move to show China's independence, when the split happened. The payment for those loans required heavy depletion of Chinese grain reserves, but this wasn't viewed as a problem, because local party officials had reported a record harvest..


Another cause for famine was flooding nearly destroyed half of China's farmland.Yes, a record harvest was reported because of the "over-reporting wind" which was encouraged by Mao's policies, but the actual conditions were much different. 1959 had been a very bad year for crop growing and most Chinese farm land was either parched or flooded.

The famine was also worsened by some destructive policies taken by the state, such as encouraging peasants to melt down all their metal wares - pots and pans - to increase national steel output, and politically forcing peasants to abandon farming activities in order to engage in too many mass infrastructure construction projects, based on the Maoist idea that China could catch up to the USSR and the West with skillful reapplication of its mass amount of peasant labor.

The absolute worst example of a ruinous GLF policy has to be the "Sputnik fields." The mad theories of Lysenko were applied to Chinese agriculture, these included the idea that agricultural output could be increased tremendously if seeds were planted as close together as possible, which became official Party policy despite the muffled protests of some agricultural experts. People who criticized the unfulfillable production quotas based on "Sputnik field" claims were slandered as rightists. Unfulfillable quotas were justified with voluntarist slogans like "There is no low-yield farmland, only low-yield thinking." The only way many party officials could actually fulfill their quotas was to over-report, that is, lie. How could such a crazy situation go on? It didn't, it had to stop somewhere. It stopped with 14-30 million people starving to death.

No less than 14 million cases of "excess mortality" due to food shortage happened during those "three bad years." The famine was particularly bad in areas with particularly bad crop failures, or that had been over-zealous in their application of shortsighted GLF policies.

Although it was only 10 years old, by 1959 the PRC had already set up a system to redistribute food to troubled districts to relieve local shortages. This had prevented starvation before 1959, but once the PRC paid off all its loans to the USSR in food, there was simply not enough food left to redistribute when the country was hit by massive crop shortages. By the end of the three bad years the PRC had become an importer of American grain.

General Peng Dehuai, hero of the civil war and Korean war, after coming back from his home province where he saw starving people, was purged for criticizing Mao's handling of the situation. There were other Communists like Peng who realized that the over-reporting might cause problems, but they started to correct the over-reporting when it was already too late.

How did such a terrible mistake happen? How was there so little accountability that officials could over-report to improve their own position, while callously exploiting the peasants and starving them to death, and anyone in the Party who criticized the ruinous line could be purged, in a society ruled by workers and peasants? The answer is quite simple: China and the CCP were run by an unelected military-bureaucratic clique, not by the workers and peasants.

[FSL]

Well yes but that doesn't explain away the forced labor and repression. The UAE likewise built itself out of the desert and into the 20th century in a short span and it is largely capitalist (and largely speculative). It also uses a repressed labor force.


Labor was "forced" in the sense that he who wasn't working, would not eat. Not in the sense you 'd want it to be.




Superior to what? The bourgeoisie in England managed to industrialize that country from, basically, an agricultural country to an industrialized one in 50 years, and it had never been done before.

What Chinese and Russian "socialism," Maoism and Stalinism, did was do the dirty work for the capitalists, and now it has stepped aside to let private capitalism have its fun.




Superior to capitalism. If you don't think it is, you should probably stop considering yourself a leftist, no?

Your analysis is overwhelmingly deep and profound.

[Chambered Word]

Superior to capitalism.

I think he was making the point that it was just another form of capitalism.

Socialism =/= collectivization + planned economy. :rolleyes:

[FSL]

I think he was making the point that it was just another form of capitalism.

Socialism =/= collectivization + planned economy. :rolleyes:


Socialism = appropriation of the appropriators (done) and an economy planned by workers so as to best satisfy their needs (done).

He didn't make any points other than saying Stalin or Mao were paving the way for capitalists, when it was people like Trotsky or Bukharin in the Soviet Union and Deng in China who were opposing their appropriation.

All in all, the working class proved strong enough in the Soviet Union to liquidate the exploiting classes and start building socialism, which is why there could be huge advances in every sphere of life.

[Chambered Word]

The economy was managed by the state in the USSR and China. The working class had little control over the political system and so the bureaucratic elite became the new exploiting class. You can say all you like about Stalin and Mao having 'good intentions' but if the workers do not have control over their lives and the products of their own labour then they are living under some form of exploitation. Socialism is the abolition of class and exploitation, which is why undemocratic systems are not socialist. :rolleyes:

[FSL]

The economy was managed by the state in the USSR and China.

So, that 5 year plans were discussed in local soviets and had to be ratified by the supreme one to come into effect doesn't point to a state were people were involved in planning its economy?



so the bureaucratic elite became the new exploiting class.


It's like an infestation. Can't you at least adopt Trotsky's stance on the matter as he's less of an idiot than his successors? (or rather very smart)

[Chambered Word]

So, that 5 year plans were discussed in local soviets and had to be ratified by the supreme one to come into effect doesn't point to a state were people were involved in planning its economy?

IIRC by the time Stalin was in power the soviets pretty much gave the rubber stamp of approval to whatever was shoved under their noses. I personally wouldn't consider opposing him when I could be purged quicker than you can say 'NKVD'.


It's like an infestation. Can't you at least adopt Trotsky's stance on the matter as he's less of an idiot than his successors? (or rather very smart)

I'm not some jerk-off who adopts a particular theorist's political views because they like how their moustache looks.

[FSL]

IIRC by the time Stalin was in power the soviets pretty much gave the rubber stamp of approval to whatever was shoved under their noses. I personally wouldn't consider opposing him when I could be purged quicker than you can say 'NKVD'.

No one can help you if you're that afraid to the point of being delusional. As history shows there were many people that opposed Stalin in the 30s so it's reasonable to assume that people in the Soviets expressed their opinions as well, no? Of course, workers could have the wrong opinion on something as the result of their slim theoretical knowledge or low cultural level when in the party debates, it was more often a conscious effort to undermine socialism. And you also seem to fully ignore another debate in the soviet society and within the party between the so called "tovarniki" and the anti-tovarniki" in the late 40s and early 50s.
I'm sorry but if you think workers had any legitimate reason of being afraid to speak in a soviet in say 1930 you'd better explain why. Lots of people spoke saying the most unsocialist of things and yet they were answered to in the same tone. Still, whenever a Ryutin or a Trotsky called for an overthrow of the regime and for "peace" with the "peasants", it is hardly the worker's state's job to sit idle and watch.




I'm not some jerk-off who adopts a particular theorist's political views because they like how their moustache looks.


I said you should adopt Trotsky's views because he actually has a brain, unlike, say, Cliff.

And Stalin's moustache does look cute as hell, doesn't it?

[Chambered Word]

No one can help you if you're that afraid to the point of being delusional. As history shows there were many people that opposed Stalin in the 30s so it's reasonable to assume that people in the Soviets expressed their opinions as well, no?

Oh? Which people in particular?


I said you should adopt Trotsky's views because he actually has a brain, unlike, say, Cliff.

I'll have whatever views I like.


And Stalin's moustache does look cute as hell, doesn't it?

Apparently Stalin only lies when his lips are moving, not that you can tell. :lol: