What do Maoists do politically?

[Q]

I'm curious to know.

[Muzk]

They fight hard. They are taking over nepal and india. They (Mao) has contributed a lot to marxist philosophy.

Ragetrolling? They made a thread about Trotskies and now you make one about Maos?


Childish.

Did I mention they are taking over Nepal and India?

[Q]

They fight hard. They are taking over nepal.
Where's the workers democracy in Nepal so far?


They (Mao) has contributed a lot to marxist philosophy.
You mean theory? Perhaps, but I'm not really interested in that.


Ragetrolling? They made a thread about Trotskies and now you make one about Maos?

Childish.
You may bite me.

[Muzk]

Where's the workers democracy in Nepal so far?Where's the workers democracy in ... oh wait.


You mean theory? Perhaps, but I'm not really interested in that.

Not interested in theory? Then why do you love calling socialist countries state capitalist? That's a theory too, y'know.

Or maybe you are only interested in one side of the coin -

Q, this thread is really low

[Kléber]

why do you love calling socialist countries state capitalist? That's a theory too, y'know.
Yes, a theory of Lenin.
"State capitalism is not money but social relations. If we pay 2,000 in accordance with the railway decree, that is state capitalism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

Wage inequality remained virtually the same, from 1918 to 1938, although more privileges appeared for bureaucrats like special stores and restaurants from which workers were banned from entering (unless they were employees). Yet, in 1938, after all rival socialist theorists had been executed for "treason," Stalin declared "socialist construction victorious in the USSR." By revising the definition of socialism, Stalin tied a blindfold around the eyes of the international socialist movement.

[pierrotlefou]

Where's the workers democracy in Nepal so far?


they're not there yet. their fight is still young.

[Raúl Duke]

I want to know what 1st world Maoists do...

[Muzk]

I want to know what 1st world Maoists do... They open senseless threads asking what trotskyists do

What first world trots do? They react to online provocation.

[fatboy]

As Muzk said we are leading revolutions in Nepal and India. We are not trying to be Social-Democrats like some Trotskyists are. I know Trotskyists lead such great revo... wait a minute.

[Q]

Q, this thread is really low
So, let me get this right. When you're trolling it's cool and stuff, yet an equal reply is "childish" and "low"? Amazing.

But this isn't really about just raging. I am actually interested in what the leading revolutionary nation of Nepal has achieved so far. Are there workers councils? What has been done to better workers living conditions?

Also, what have Maoists in other countries been doing? I'm interested in western examples, if you can provide them, as I'm living in the west.

[pierrotlefou]

I want to know what 1st world Maoists do...
Well they don't wage war against the capitalist system I'll tell you that. At least not with arms like Mao would have wanted. It's probably even harder for US maoists, if they exist.

[Q]

Maoism in the west has a tendency to degenerate to social-democracy. In the Netherlands for example the Dutch SP was once Maoist and later on Marxist-Leninist. There are many examples of this.

Could you explain why this is? Is it inherent of Maoism to degenerate?

[fatboy]

Well they don't wage war against the capitalist system I'll tell you that. At least not with arms like Mao would have wanted. It's probably even harder for US maoists, if they exist.
Many 1st world Maoists have a hard time because people are brainwashed about communism. It is much harder in a country where people think communism is just totalitarianism. That does not mean we don not try however.

[swirling_vortex]

Not interested in theory? Then why do you love calling socialist countries state capitalist? That's a theory too, y'know.
Not quite. There is truth to the state capitalist argument, especially when you see what Lenin's intentions were.

yQsceZ9skQI

[Muzk]

So, let me get this right. When you're trolling it's cool and stuff, yet an equal reply is "childish" and "low"? Amazing.

I apologize; yet you have to understand that it's a pretty obvious reaction to the earlier thread about trotskyists. You should have stated your full question in the starting post.


Well they don't wage war against the capitalist system I'll tell you that. At least not with arms like Mao would have wanted. It's probably even harder for US maoists, if they exist.How are you going to wage war against a system with ~1000 people when there are millions of reactionaries with guns against you? But Maos might do this, just as much as every other sect; they are preparing for revolutions, as I've said in the earlier thread about trotskies. Trying to get more members, trying to speak to a large audience, trying to get in contact with workers who have recently become unemployed, etc.

I think that's how you prepare "workers democracy", since overthrowing the state with a bunch of people while the majority of the people stays reactionary seems pretty stupid to me. (And impossible)

What people here tend to do is, point with a finger at some other group, criticising them without any points backing their claim. It's something we should all, as marxists, oppose: Critique without arguments.


Maoism in the west has a tendency to degenerate to social-democracy. In the Netherlands for example the Dutch SP was once Maoist and later on Marxist-Leninist. There are many examples of this.How the hell is Marxism-Leninism equal to social democracy? Or did they further degenerate from Leninism to SD?
Besides; degeneration can always happen; if the parties leadership isn't "strong" enough, as in number of members, democracy inside of the party etc., even the strongest parties fell to the evil that is inner beaurocracy

The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; only mobilizing the masses and relying on them can wage it.
They wouldn't be maoists if they tried to storm the governmental buildings and institutions with a small group. They'd actually be more like the RAF

[RotStern]

They do Maoist stuff.

[Winter]

Well they don't wage war against the capitalist system I'll tell you that. At least not with arms like Mao would have wanted. It's probably even harder for US maoists, if they exist.

Of course not. No Marxist would at this point.

The conditions for a revolution are not here yet in the U.S. Much progress must be done in third world countries before we can get to that point. But in the mean time, first world Maoist participate in the same activites other first world Marxists do. Distributing information about not only workers struggle, but third world revolutions as well. The Naxalites in India and Maobadi in Nepal are absolutely necessary. Have you seen the conditions the poor and working class have to live through in India? Do you understand the progress the Maobadi made in Nepal by overthrowing the monarchy? That's extremely significant, not just for those countries but for first world countries as well. Just because first world media chooses to ignore these revolutions does not mean they are not important. In fact, they are the most important events to happen in this present day. They inspire the downtrodden in first world countries to take a stand themselves, that's why we must spread the news that yes, revolution for a new world is indeed possible.

Learn more here: http://kasamaproject.org/

As for Mao wanting war everywhere at all times, this is what he has to say about that:

"War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, betweeen classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes."

[gorillafuck]

Both of these threads are fucking stupid.

[bailey_187]

Wave red books, kill people, you know, usual stuff

[I Can Has Communism]

the Dutch SP was once Maoist and later on Marxist-Leninist. There are many examples of this.You give one example and claim there are "many examples".

Maoism in the west has a tendency to degenerate to social-democracy.
That seems to be making a rule of an exception, while all Trotskyist parties in the west are by definition social democrats with revolutionary rhetoric (not judging, just stating the facts).

[Kassad]

My favorite part about Trotskyists, especially the more opportunist and elitist types, is their immediate decreeing of a lack of 'workers democracy' when it comes to developing revolutions. Assuming that workers democracy must come fucking immediately for a revolution to be successful or socialist in character.

"So like, there's like, a pretty big movement formulating in (insert country here). They've taken a couple of factories and are rallying a lot of support, which could potentially--"

"IT HAZ WORKERZ DEMOCRASY?"

"Um, well, their struggle is just getting underway and it's hard to tell--"

"STALINIST!"

Sorry, but this is why Trotskyists usually wind up on the sidelines when it comes to leading revolutionary struggles. When you taken an opportunistic line and generally, an elitist, Westernized view of workers struggles, you tend to alienate class conscious proletarians. I can't believe I'm standing up for Maoists right now, but that's about how it is.

[Uncle Hank]

As Muzk said we are leading revolutions in Nepal and India. We are not trying to be Social-Democrats like some Trotskyists are. I know Trotskyists lead such great revo... wait a minute.
"We"? What part exactly are you taking in all of this? I could be mistaken but from what I know you have fuck-all to do with what's going on in Nepal and India.

[Uncle Hank]

My favorite part about Trotskyists, especially the more opportunist and elitist types, is their immediate decreeing of a lack of 'workers democracy' when it comes to developing revolutions. Assuming that workers democracy must come fucking immediately for a revolution to be successful or socialist in character.

"So like, there's like, a pretty big movement formulating in (insert country here). They've taken a couple of factories and are rallying a lot of support, which could potentially--"

"IT HAZ WORKERZ DEMOCRASY?"

"Um, well, their struggle is just getting underway and it's hard to tell--"

"STALINIST!"

Sorry, but this is why Trotskyists usually wind up on the sidelines when it comes to leading revolutionary struggles. When you taken an opportunistic line and generally, an elitist, Westernized view of workers struggles, you tend to alienate class conscious proletarians. I can't believe I'm standing up for Maoists right now, but that's about how it is.
I'm not sure how Marxist it is to say considering workers democracy in revolutionary struggle is opportunist and elitist.

[fatboy]

"We"? What part exactly are you taking in all of this? I could be mistaken but from what I know you have fuck-all to do with what's going on in Nepal and India.
I am using "we" in place of Maoist. It is this crazy thing in the English language called a pronoun. If I could I would help the revolutionaries in Nepal
and India but sadly I cannot. Now why don't you go split and form another party because we all know Trotskyists are good at it.

[The Red Next Door]

They want to turn the whole program into a Stalinist one.

[fatboy]

They want to turn the who program into a Stalinist one.
Jesus Christ like we have not heard that one before. What is your obsession with everything that does not fit your narrow political mind-sight automatically "Stalinist"? And also could please define Stalinism for me while you are at it.

[Uncle Hank]

I am using "we" in place of Maoist. It is this crazy thing in the English language called a pronoun. If I could I would help the revolutionaries in Nepal
and India but sadly I cannot. Now why don't you go split and form another party because we all know Trotskyists are good at it.
I'm not quite sure how it's my fault that you make it seem like you're so delusional to think that you're part of the struggle. All I was asking for was a response showing how you were or weren't part of the struggle. Unfortunately you saw fit to deliver a sarcasm-bloated whopper of a response, making you seem like the asshole you now obviously are. Good job, Flamebait McGee.

[red cat]

My favorite part about Trotskyists, especially the more opportunist and elitist types, is their immediate decreeing of a lack of 'workers democracy' when it comes to developing revolutions. Assuming that workers democracy must come fucking immediately for a revolution to be successful or socialist in character.

"So like, there's like, a pretty big movement formulating in (insert country here). They've taken a couple of factories and are rallying a lot of support, which could potentially--"

"IT HAZ WORKERZ DEMOCRASY?"

"Um, well, their struggle is just getting underway and it's hard to tell--"

"STALINIST!"

Sorry, but this is why Trotskyists usually wind up on the sidelines when it comes to leading revolutionary struggles. When you taken an opportunistic line and generally, an elitist, Westernized view of workers struggles, you tend to alienate class conscious proletarians. I can't believe I'm standing up for Maoists right now, but that's about how it is.

Actually embryonic forms of "workers' democracy" do exist in Maoist bases. For example, in the Bastar region of India, all decisions concerning the villages are taken in public meetings where the villagers debate and vote by show of hands. In these places, in spite of the tremendous state-repression, collectivization of land and livestock has begun.

[fatboy]

I'm not quite sure how it's my fault that you make it seem like you're so delusional to think that you're part of the struggle. All I was asking for was a response showing how you were or weren't part of the struggle. Unfortunately you saw fit to deliver a sarcasm-bloated whopper of a response, making you seem like the asshole you now obviously are. Good job, Flamebait McGee.
Why thank you for kind response my dear sir. Fighting bourgeoisie oppression is a internationalist struggle. No I am not directly involved in the struggle. There is that better.

[black magick hustla]

in the west they form vanguard parties that consist of two male friends and their respective pets

[fatboy]

in the west they form vanguard parties that consist of two male friends and their respective pets
And what is it that left communists do then?

[Comrade_Stalin]

Yes, a theory of Lenin.
"State capitalism is not money but social relations. If we pay 2,000 in accordance with the railway decree, that is state capitalism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

Wage inequality remained virtually the same, from 1918 to 1938, although more privileges appeared for bureaucrats like special stores and restaurants from which workers were banned from entering (unless they were employees). Yet, in 1938, after all rival socialist theorists had been executed for "treason," Stalin declared "socialist construction victorious in the USSR." By revising the definition of socialism, Stalin tied a blindfold around the eyes of the international socialist movement.

No, State capitalism comes from Marx. State Monopoly Capitalsim comes from Lenin. You are mixing the two of them up.

State capiatlism



By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.

State Monopoly capitalsim, is were the monopoly own the state.

[black magick hustla]

And what is it that left communists do then?

what is in our means. but do not say we are the "vanguard party". that would be a quiet ridiculous statement

[fatboy]

what is in our means. but do not say we are the "vanguard party". that would be a quiet ridiculous statement
What is in your means?

[Kassad]

I'm not sure how Marxist it is to say considering workers democracy in revolutionary struggle is opportunist and elitist.

I'm not sure how you managed to read my post and completely miss my point. Workers democracy is, of course, essential, but when a class conscious proletariat has overthrown the shackles of the bourgeois state, the bourgeoisie doesn't just say 'shit happens' and go away. As shown by many examples of socialist revolutions, the ruling class fights back to regain the means of production. That's why capitalism isn't just magically vaporized by a magical rainbow that spreads across the countrysides and cities. It is destroyed by the organized working class, but the entire concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it will suppress the capitalist class and keep it from regaining power. If you think you can just magically create a workers state out of thin air and manage to have perfect democracy, you're the exact kind of opportunist I'm fighting against.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs:, we leaflet, we intervene in our respective contexts? again it depends. some of us have been in nationwide strikes, others like me are just 20something physics students. others send material support to new burgeoning left communist grouplets. we try to create a culture of discussion. nothing great, but we never claimed we where "great" either

[fatboy]

:shrugs:, we leaflet, we intervene in our respective contexts? again it depends. some of us have been in nationwide strikes, others like me are just 20something physics students. others send material support to new burgeoning left communist grouplets. we try to create a culture of discussion. nothing great, but we never claimed we where "great" either
Fair enough. Fair enough.

[RED DAVE]

The conditions for a revolution are not here yet in the U.S. Much progress must be done in third world countries before we can get to that point. But in the mean time, first world Maoist participate in the same activites other first world Marxists do. Distributing information about not only workers struggle, but third world revolutions as well.(1) Are you saying that revolution in the "first world" needs to wait for victory in the "third world"?

(2) Are you saying that what first world Maoists do is "[d]istributing information about not only workers struggle, but thirld world revolutions as well"? I assure you, that "other first world Marxists" do a good deal more than that.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

What a silly question, Q. Have you not seen the million or so threads on the ongoing revolutions around the world led by Maoists ?

[scarletghoul]

(1) Are you saying that revolution in the "first world" needs to wait for victory in the "third world"?

(2) Are you saying that what first world Maoists do is "[d]istributing information about not only workers struggle, but thirld world revolutions as well"? I assure you, that "other first world Marxists" do a good deal more than that.

RED DAVE
He's saying that conditions are not yet ripe for revolution in the US and many other first world countries, and that revolutionary communists in these countries should be supporting the revolutions that are already going on (mostly these are in third world countries), as well as laying the groundwork for revolution in our own countries, Hastening while awaiting our own revolutionary situation.

I don't really see what your problem is with this approach ?

[Uncle Hank]

I'm not sure how you managed to read my post and completely miss my point. Workers democracy is, of course, essential, but when a class conscious proletariat has overthrown the shackles of the bourgeois state, the bourgeoisie doesn't just say 'shit happens' and go away. As shown by many examples of socialist revolutions, the ruling class fights back to regain the means of production. That's why capitalism isn't just magically vaporized by a magical rainbow that spreads across the countrysides and cities. It is destroyed by the organized working class, but the entire concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it will suppress the capitalist class and keep it from regaining power. If you think you can just magically create a workers state out of thin air and manage to have perfect democracy, you're the exact kind of opportunist I'm fighting against.
Why do you expect people do get your point when you were seemingly just taking a shot at people? I mean that's what I got out of your original post, just a 'look at these ridiculous people' sort of line. There also shouldn't be a contradiction between workers democracy and dictatorship of the proletariat.


Why thank you for kind response my dear sir. Fighting bourgeoisie oppression is a internationalist struggle. No I am not directly involved in the struggle. There is that better.
Could use some work but you're getting there.

[The Red Next Door]

Jesus Christ like we have not heard that one before. What is your obsession with everything that does not fit your narrow political mind-sight automatically "Stalinist"? And also could please define Stalinism for me while you are at it.
What is with your obsession with labeling everyone who do not agree with you especially on North Korea's government a bourgeoisie?

[RED DAVE]

He's saying that conditions are not yet ripe for revolution in the US and many other first world countries, and that revolutionary communists in these countries should be supporting the revolutions that are already going on (mostly these are in third world countries), as well as laying the groundwork for revolution in our own countries, Hastening while awaiting our own revolutionary situation.

I don't really see what your problem is with this approach ?Neither do I, but that's not what Winter said. He said nothing about "laying the groundwork for revolution in our own countries," except something about "[d]istributing information."

Frankly, I have yet to see Maoists present a working program for relating to the working class of the "first world" countries.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

Ah I see. Well obviously 'distributing information' is just one part of it (and its become a pretty major part as the revolutions in Nepal and India get bigger and bigger). In fact Maoists have been doing other stuff too. There's not a lot of Maoists in the UK, and no proper party yet (the WPRM and RCG are Maoist, but they are mostly just 'distributing information'). When we get a proper Maoist party started, I'm sure some cool stuff will be done. Watch this space.

In America for example, Maoist groups like the RCP have been doing some organising in communities. The RCP has a lot of flaws, but they do seem to put a lot of effort into organising people and have done a lot of theoretical work putting together ideas for what needs to be done. The heavily maoist-influenced Black liberation struggle has also produced a lot of theory relating to the organisation of the people in modern Amerika. I don't know much about Amerikan Maoism, but certainly the focus seems to be on the people of the USA, and not just the third world movements.

[fatboy]

What is with your obsession with labeling everyone who do not agree with you especially on North Korea's government a bourgeoisie?
I am not a big fan of the DPRK's government. They are a Monarchy although their original revolution had communist intentions.

[Chambered Word]

My favorite part about Trotskyists, especially the more opportunist and elitist types, is their immediate decreeing of a lack of 'workers democracy' when it comes to developing revolutions. Assuming that workers democracy must come fucking immediately for a revolution to be successful or socialist in character.

"So like, there's like, a pretty big movement formulating in (insert country here). They've taken a couple of factories and are rallying a lot of support, which could potentially--"

"IT HAZ WORKERZ DEMOCRASY?"

"Um, well, their struggle is just getting underway and it's hard to tell--"

"STALINIST!"

Since when do Trots do this? You would certainly be justified in criticizing some for this.

[RED DAVE]

I have also explained what new-democracy is.Could you please explain this again in more detail.

RED DAVE

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Muzk:


They (Mao) has contributed a lot to marxist philosophy.

Except, as I have show in the Mao thread, and elsewhere, this contribution is totally worthless.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

[red cat]

Muzk:



Except, as I have show in the Mao thread, and elsewhere, this contribution is totally worthless.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

No you haven't .

And now we all know how you escape from debates when we ask for rigorous proofs.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-dialectics-and-t128235/index.html

[red cat]

Could you please explain this again in more detail.

RED DAVE

It is better to read Mao's own work on this.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

This might help too.

http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Founding/StrategyTactics-pamphlet.pdf

There was an online version of a more recent formulation by the PKP but unfortunately I cannot find it now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


No you haven't .

Well, you can't respond effectively to my detailed demolition of his 'theory'; you just post one-liners that rehearse hastily thought-up objections, which I have actually answered in the post you are responding to with such one-liners.


And now we all know how you escape from debates when we ask for rigorous proofs.

Your attention span is that of a nervous cat; you can't even cope with non-rigorous proofs.:lol:

And:

We are still waiting for your evidence that a Maoist or a Leninist has ever interpreted Mao the way you do.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Well, you can't respond effectively to my detailed demolition of his 'theory'; you just post one-liners that rehearse hastily thought-up objections, which I have actually answered in the post you are responding to with such one-liners.



Your attention span is that of a nervous cat; you can't even cope with non-rigorous proofs.:lol:

And:

We are still waiting for your evidence that a Maoist or a Leninist has ever interpreted Mao the way you do.

Your non rigorous proofs are nothing but word-play. If you have enough strength to back up your tall claims, please come up with a mathematical negation of Cantor's theorem.

I have already proved that my interpretation is correct, but you are engaging in further word-play. Since you cannot do this in mathematics, you escape from the thread concerned. :lol:

And:

GIVE US ONE EXAMPLE OF AN ONGOING ARMED STRUGGLE ORGANIZED BY TROTS OR TROTSKYITES OR TROTSKYISTS. http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/progress.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Your non rigorous proofs are nothing but word-play.

See what I mean about one-liners!

What is word play about this (my latest reply to you in the Mao thread, which you have not responded to, not even with a one-liner)?


Red Cat:


Aren't you the one who should provide the conditions for transformation ?

I am in fact asking you where this goes wrong. If you are incapable of investigating Mao's unworkable theory for yourself, but are content to sit there open mouthed and accept whatever you are told, that's your problem.


I am not bringing up these absurd examples like dead cats changing into live ones.

Cats dying is not absurd, it happens all the time, every day -- or did you not know? It's only that Mao's theory has absurd consequences.

And we can see why: chose any natural process in the entire universe, when change occurs, which you, as dialectics-groupie, must admit happens, Mao's theory implies it can't happen.

So, even you have to admit that cat's die.

Let's take an example of when this often happens. A cat gets run over by a car, and is thereby turned into a dead, flat cat.

But, Mao tells us that when this happens, which it often does, and I have given you an every day scenario in which this often occurs, it can only happen because of a struggle. Mao tells us that under such circumstances, this is without exception, and takes place everywhere, in every sort of change in the entire universe.

So:

1) Cats exist, and they change. [Even you can't deny this.]

2) All cats die. Some are run over, and flattened. [With me so far?]

3) Mao says that when these things happen, it is because of a struggle between opposites, and that such objects and processes all change into their opposites. [Ok, so far?]

4) This is exceptionless. It takes place everywhere and governs all change in the entire universe. [Can you deny Mao says this?]

5) But, the cat was killed by a car. So, it was turned from a cat into a flat cat. [Even you can't deny this is what happens all the time.]

6) And yet, if it turned into a flat cat, and everything turns into its opposite, that flat cat must be the opposite of the live cat it used to be.

7) But, we are told, by Mao, it got that way by struggling with this opposite, since this is what happens without exception under these conditions. Hence, live cats must struggle with the flat cats that they turn into. [Is this correct?]

8) This must mean that the flat cat that the live cat turns into must [i]already exist, or the live cat could not struggle with it, and thus change. [Where does this go wrong, if it does?]

9) If so, then the live cat cannot change into the flat cat, since it already exists!

10) Hence, live cats, when they are run over by cars, something you cannot deny happens all the time, cannot in fact change, since the flat cat that they 'turn' into must already exist.

So, Mao's theory implies that cats, when they are run over by cars, and under these conditions, cannot die.

Alternatively, Mao's theory implies that when cats are run over by cars, the cars do not kill them, the flat cat they are struggling with does that, under these conditions.

So, there must be loads of flat cats around that cause such conditional changes. But, where are they? If there are none, then cats cannot be killed by cars (in this way, under these conditions).

What applies to cats applies to anything that is run over by a car (which you also cannot deny happens all the time). So, pedestrian P was not killed by the car that flattened him, but by the flat pedestrian, FP, he turned into, which must already exist so that P can struggle with it in order to be flattened (under these conditions).

If so why do we blame careless motorists for killing pedestrians?

Mao's theory implies we have got it all wrong. We should blame the FPs that cause this, not drunken or careless drivers!

There are other absurd consequences of Mao's theory, too.

He tells us that when things change, they change into whatever they are struggling with.

In that case, if wrestler W(1) is in a fight with wrestler W(2), then (under these condition, which occur all the time -- unless you want to deny there are wrestling matches!) W(1) must change into W(2), and vice versa!

Do we ever witness such odd wrestling bouts?

Now, all of these are perfectly ordinary events that take place every day (under conditions I have specified), but Mao's theory implies they either can't happen, or that some very odd things, which we have hitherto failed to notice, must be happening: such as live cats struggling with flat cats when they are run over, and wrestlers changing onto one another.

So, where does the above go wrong/misrepresent Mao?

And don't say "It's conditional", since I have given you the conditions under which these occur every day, countless times, and which you know occur.


And in case you thought that I would be diverted:

Never for one moment thought you would, but, as I have said many times, I will respond to your challenge when you respond, adequately, to my earlier challenge:

We are still waiting for evidence that a single Maoist or Leninist has ever interpreted Mao in the way you have.

You:


If you have enough strength to back up your tall claims, please come up with a mathematical negation of Cantor's theorem.

What has this got to do with this thread?

As you have been told, what makes you think I want to share hard-won, original ideas with a dissembler like you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


GIVE US ONE EXAMPLE OF AN ONGOING ARMED STRUGGLE ORGANIZED BY TROTS OR TROTSKYITES OR TROTSKYISTS.

Once more, I will just as soon as you respond effectively to my prior challenge to you, repeated in my previous post.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



See what I mean about one-liners!

What is word play about this (my latest reply to you in the Mao thread, which you have not responded to, not even with a one-liner)?



You:



What has this got to do with this thread?

As you have been told, what makes you think I want to share hard-won, original ideas with a dissembler like you?

I will reply to that disgustingly colossal post of yours as soon as I build up enough patience to read it.

By the way, even if you conclude that I am a dissembler, why do you deprive the rest of the posters of your intellectual wonder? Aren't there any other revlefters who might be interested in reading your proof?



Once more, I will just as soon as you respond effectively to my prior challenge to you, repeated in my previous post. Why does my response(which I have already given) have to be a pre-condition for this? Will your armed struggles sprout up in different corners of the world as soon as I respond(assuming that I already haven't) ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


I will reply to that disgustingly colossal post of yours as soon as I build up enough patience to read it.

1) Make sure you manage to focus for more than ten seconds.

2) It's far shorter than many of my other posts which you have skim-read, and have then responded to with one-liners.

So, why is this one "disgusting"?

Unless I make things painfully clear to you, you wriggle out with a spurious objection. Which is why you have been called a dissembler.


By the way, even if you conclude that I am a dissembler, why do you deprive the rest of the posters of your intellectual wonder? Aren't there any other revlefters who might be interested in reading your proof?

1) Because you have asked for it, and I ignore such requests from dissemblers.

2) Because it was your thread, not mine. If and when I want to publish my disproof of Cantor's Diagonal argument, I will do it in my own time, not when you throw a tantrum because I am ignoring you.


Why does my response(which I have already given) have to be a pre-condition for this? Will your armed struggles sprout up in different corners of the world as soon as I respond(assuming that I already haven't) ?

It doesn't have to be a pre-condition, but it is: I will only respond when you have replied to my challenge effectively, which you have yet to do:

We are still waiting for evidence that a single Maoist or Leninist has ever interpreted Mao in the way you have.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



1) Make sure you manage to focus for more than ten seconds.

2) It's far shorter than many of my other posts which you have skim-read, and have then responded to with one-liners.

So, why is this one "disgusting"?

Unless I make things painfully clear to you, you wriggle out with a spurious objection. Which is why you have been called a dissembler.



1) Because you have asked for it, and I ignore such requests from dissemblers.

2) Because it was your thread, not mine. If and when I want to publish my disproof of Cantor's Diagonal argument, I will do it in my own time, not when you throw a tantrum because I am ignoring you.




So why don't you make this proof of yours "painfully clear to me" ?

Interesting to see even after concluding that I am a "dissembler", you argue with me in one debate, but escape from another.

Where is your arrogance now which prompted you to label Cantor's construction as "rubbish"? Now you are trying to hide behind childish arguments such as you will not answer because I have asked for your proof. :lol:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1529585&postcount=116

Another childish argument:



It doesn't have to be a pre-condition, but it is: I will only respond when you have replied to my challenge effectively, which you have yet to do:

We are still waiting for evidence that a single Maoist or Leninist has ever interpreted Mao in the way you have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


So why don't you make this proof of yours "painfully clear to me" ?

I have already told you:


what makes you think I want to share hard-won, original ideas with a dissembler like you?

If you need to be told another fifty times, so be it...


Interesting to see even after concluding that I am a "dissembler", you argue with me in one debate, but escape from another.

You are very easily 'interested'.

And, I am still in that other debate; you are the one who left.


Where is your arrogance now which prompted you to label Cantor's construction as "rubbish"? .

Not so much arrogance, as accurate.


Now you are trying to hide behind childish arguments such as you will not answer because I have asked for your proof

You are the one throwing a tantrum, not me.


Another childish argument:

Nearly as childish as yours (Do you give lessons? I need to catch you up); here it is again:


It doesn't have to be a pre-condition, but it is: I will only respond when you have replied to my challenge effectively, which you have yet to do:

We are still waiting for evidence that a single Maoist or Leninist has ever interpreted Mao in the way you have.

And we all know why you are ducking my challenge: you have no evidence.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



I have already told you:



If you need to be told another fifty times, so be it...



You are very easily 'interested'.

And, I am still in that other debate; you are the one who left.



Not so much arrogance, as accurate.



You are the one throwing a tantrum, not me.



Nearly as childish as yours (Do you give lessons? I need to catch you up); here it is again:



And we all know why you are ducking my challenge: you have no evidence.

See what I mean by word-play ? You refused to give your proof. That means you quit the debate. Now whatever you post there is invalid. Instead of going through so much trouble, you could have simply admitted that you don't have a proof.

Ducking your challenge? I have already quoted Mao. Let us see you at least mentioning some armed struggle of yours. Here, again, you won't admit that your tendency doesn't have one.

[Hit The North]

I can't see how this thread of inter-red baiting belongs in Learning. Moved to Politics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


See what I mean by word-play ?

Yes, and stop doing it.


You refused to give your proof. That means you quit the debate. Now whatever you post there is invalid. Instead of going through so much trouble, you could have simply admitted that you don't have a proof.

But the debate is why I refused, which I am happy to continue debating -- you have sloped off in a huff.


Ducking your challenge? I have already quoted Mao. Let us see you at least mentioning some armed struggle of yours. Here, again, you won't admit that your tendency doesn't have one.

As I pointed out, Mao did not interpet Mao, so you haven't responded to this challenge:

We are still waiting for evidence that a single Maoist or Leninist has ever interpreted Mao in the way you have.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Yes, and stop doing it.



But the debate is why I refused, which I am happy to continue debating -- you have sloped off in a huff.



As I pointed out, Mao did not interpet Mao, so you haven't responded to this challenge:

We are still waiting for evidence that a single Maoist or Leninist has ever interpreted Mao in the way you have.


No, the original debate was about Cantor's theorem. You failed to provide its negation, therefore you lost the debate. I am not interested in why you did not provide a proof. That is your personal decision. Similarly, if you don't provide an example of Trotskyist armed struggle, you automatically lose that part of the debate.

[OCMO]

In Portugal, maoists have the party PCPT/MRPP wich is the largest party without representation in the assembly. Personally, i don't like them very much because they aren't interested to have a united left against the right. In fact, after the Carnation Revolution they joined the right to fight the Portuguese Communist Party because it wasn't the socialist path they wanted. Seems they prefered no socialism at all. They don't celebrate the Carnation Revolution, i guess they don't give a damn about the end of fascism and the decolonization.

The most famous ex-member and leader of this party is the current President of the European Commission and former Prime-Minister for the Social-Democrats (liberal conservatives), Durão Barroso. The current most famous figure of the party is one of the best lawyers of the country especialized in labour laws and often defends workers rights in court.

[Hit The North]

Apart from some hero worship of Mao and occasional displays of gun fetishism, what does being a Maoist mean in the context of living in the first world?

Mao's revolutionary tactics and theoretical adaptation of Marxism, whether you consider it legitimate or not, was surely an off-spring of the conditions prevailing in China in the middle decades of the twentieth century.

The guerrilla model of insurrection (which is not exclusive to Maoism or even the Left) is inappropriate in the conditions of liberal democracies where the great mass of the population is found in the working class. I can kind of understand the Black Panthers, extolling the armed struggle when they were confronted by an armed and murderous police state. However, they stand testimony to a heroic failure.

The theory of the mass line was merely an adaptation of socialist notions of mass democracy, but ensuring that the Party had control over the process. It is certainly inferior to the conception of workers democracy mapped out by Lenin in State and Revolution - which, incidentally, is also more adapted to the condition we find ourselves in the first world.

Meanwhile, Mao's venture into dialectics is perhaps interesting, but Rosa is correct when she says it is next to useless to the international working class. I mean, any theory which is promulgated by a State is likely to be of use to the State itself, rather than the population it rules over. I think the history of Marxist "innovation" under the regimes of Stalin and Mao prove the point.

Really, the only activity I can envisage a first world Maoist doing is acting as a cheerleader for various third world resistance movements. A hunch which is confirmed by this thread.

[ls]

In Portugal, maoists have the party PCPT/MRPP wich is the largest party without representation in the assembly. Personally, i don't like them very much because they aren't interested to have a united left against the right. In fact, after the Carnation Revolution they joined the right to fight the Portuguese Communist Party because it wasn't the socialist path they wanted. Seems they prefered no socialism at all. They don't celebrate the Carnation Revolution, i guess they don't give a damn about the end of fascism and the decolonization.

The most famous ex-member and leader of this party is the current President of the European Commission and former Prime-Minister for the Social-Democrats (liberal conservatives), Durão Barroso. The current most famous figure of the party is one of the best lawyers of the country especialized in labour laws and often defends workers rights in court.

I might not support the Maoists, but the PRP-SP-PCP got attacked by the left-wing of the communist movement in Portugal too after the Carnation revolution

Not content with just another faceless communist party bureaucracy, the workers decided to continue their fight for equality and gave your beloved party almost as hard a time as Salazar.

[RED DAVE]

So, Trots are not currently involved in armed struggle in the Third World but are involved in action in and with the working class in the First World.

Maoists are engaged in armed struggle in the Third World but are not involved in action in and with the working class in the First World.

Okay? Not precisely true, but let's go on from there.

Now, with regard to Maoist armed struggle in the Third World, would some Maoist please inform me why Prachanda, the leader of the Nepalese Maoist party accepted the position of Prime Minister in the newly-formed federal (bourgeois) republic in Nepal?

This is, of course, exactly what Kerensky did after the February Revolution in Russia. Kerensky, let us remember, was a socialist and vice-chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Not only did Lenin condemn Kerensky et al., but he condemned those Bolsheviks, including Stalin, who were supporting that regime.

Instead of involving the Bolsheviks with the February regime, which was the Russian version of a bourgeois republic, Lenin called for the revolutionary overthrow of that regime and the establishment of a workers and peasants government based, primarily, on the soviets.

It seems to me that the Nepalese Maosists are following down the path of the Chinese Maoists, which means that, in a few years, we will see a Nepalese version of China, Russia, Vietnam and other such pillars of world capitalism, for which the Maoists will have to accept a huge amount of responsibility.

RED DAVE

[OCMO]

I might not support the Maoists, but the PRP-SP-PCP got attacked by the left-wing of the communist movement in Portugal too after the Carnation revolution

Not content with just another faceless communist party bureaucracy, the workers decided to continue their fight for equality and gave your beloved party almost as hard a time as Salazar.
Why do you put PRP, PS and PCP in the same spot? They weren't an alliance. The Socialist Party joined the right-wing after the revolution together with maoists and other pseudo-intelectuals leftists that just wanted 15m of fame.

And workers only voted only for the Socialist Party in the election because they said they wanted socialism (lie!) and slandered together with the right the same bs about communists as fascists did. The Social-Democrat Party who presented themselves as centre-left (another lie) had the vote from the people of the north who owned small portions of land and tought commies would steal those tiny things from them. Workers were brainwashed and voted for people who didn't protect them. But prior to the elections, a civil war was about to happen, but the revolutionaries on the left (including PCP) didn't wanted a bloodbath and surrender to the military that was backed-up by the socialists and the social-democrats who showed to be more agressive than leftists.

The agrarian reform was work of the PCP, the nacionalisations of major entreprises and banks was work of the PCP, the strengh of the unions is work of the PCP, the most leftist constituition of the West until 1986 was work of the PCP and so on.

Btw, Salazar only faced resistance by the PCP and students movements organized by the PCP. The revolution itself was only to stop the colonial war, it was the people who wanted change and the ones who worked for decades to bring that chance was the PCP.

Since the revolution, many people who supported fascism were and are in several governments jobs including Prime-Minister and President of Republic. Prior to the world crisis, maintaining a job here and be respected by the employer was more dificult than under fascism. If the PCP wanted to implement a party bereaucracy (and they didn't), I would prefer to this bs of a country I live in.

P.S.: Sorry for the off-topic. Sorry also about the text being unorganized, i'm not accustomed to write in english.

[RED DAVE]

Maoist principles according to red cat:


Maoists are no[t] heroes. They are the working class.
My point is that when two parties present two versions of history that contradict each other, we prefer to accept the party which has been more successful in waging revolutionary war[.]
I don't know exactly about Europe 150 years ago, but it seems that it was already capitalist and so the best (and probably only) option would be to go for city insurrections.

However, today in the third world, the situation is different. Here the most oppressed portion is the countryside, and there is no scope of any democratic movement. Also, the government forces tend to be weak initially in the countryside. So rural guerrilla warfare is the way to start the movement here.
In fact, Maoist armed struggles involve not only mass-democratic backing, but also mass participation in the armed struggle itself. For us, the masses are always deep water.RED DAVE

[chegitz guevara]

The RCP has a lot of flaws,

Like the fact that they are a fucking cult. The RCP may have done some interesting stuff in the past, but they are irrelevant now, and in a terminal death spiral.

American Maoism, as an organized movement. The best American Maoists are now in the Kasama Project, and that is not organized as a Maoist organization, the Maoism does heavily influence it, being as it's mostly made up of RCP refugees. Of course, there are also freaks like me, who were never Maoists.

[chegitz guevara]

Now, with regard to Maoist armed struggle in the Third World, would some Maoist please inform me why Prachanda, the leader of the Nepalese Maoist party accepted the position of Prime Minister in the newly-formed federal (bourgeois) republic in Nepal?

This is, of course, exactly what Kerensky did after the February Revolution in Russia. Kerensky, let us remember, was a socialist and vice-chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Not only did Lenin condemn Kerensky et al., but he condemned those Bolsheviks, including Stalin, who were supporting that regime.

Instead of involving the Bolsheviks with the February regime, which was the Russian version of a bourgeois republic, Lenin called for the revolutionary overthrow of that regime and the establishment of a workers and peasants government based, primarily, on the soviets.

Lenin also said there is no blueprint for the revolution. In other words, every people has to make its own path for the revolution. The major flaw of nearly every Trotskyist I've ever met (including myself when I was still a Trot) is the belief we need to copy the Russian Revolution. No, I need to make the American revolution, which will have its own characteristics. You can be sure, that when we overthrow the United States, and we are building a workers republic, there will be Trots and Maoists and Left Communists and anarchists all telling us that we didn't do it right, that we are betraying the revolution, etc.

Why did the Maoists agree to form a government in a bourgeois state? Two reasons. One, it allowed them to show to the people of Nepal that this was not a real path forward. They had to exhaust all available opportunities in order to build a mass movement in the urban centers of Nepal. That has, in fact, happened. The masses of Nepalese people appear to be behind the UCPN.

In addition, the material conditions for a socialist revolution did not exist in Nepal. Even when the bourgeois state is swept away, (which I expect will happen this year), they will not be able to move forward to socialism. They do not have the capital to build an industrialized workers republic. Why is it that Trotskyists, who are always telling everyone, "You can't build socialism in one country," always attacking the Nepalese comrades for not doing just that, attempting to build socialism in one country?

What the workers of the world need is not another failed attempt at revolution. If we never had another martyr, we'd have too many. What we need is a success. The comrades in Nepal are experimenting, trying new things. Maybe they will fail. Probably they will fail. Making revolution isn't easy. But maybe they will succeed. And they are going to need all the help they can get from their comrades in the First World. We can be critical, but they're making a revolution. We're still just taking about it.

[red cat]

The Maoists' analysis differ a bit. They do not claim the state to be bourgeois. The new democratic revolution is still incomplete. This is in accordance with their characterization of all the other parliamentary parties as agents of imperialism.

In future, if the UCPN(M) manages to seize power by completely driving away feudalism and imperialism, that will not be socialism. It will be the completion of the NDR and hence only the first step towards socialism.

[chegitz guevara]

A state is inherently a class instrument. You cannot have a state that is does not reflect the interests of a particular class. A state is either bourgeois or feudal or slave holder or proletarian or peasant. The New Democratic State never existed, except in theory.

[red cat]

A state is inherently a class instrument. You cannot have a state that is does not reflect the interests of a particular class. A state is either bourgeois or feudal or slave holder or proletarian or peasant. The New Democratic State never existed, except in theory.

Things are not that simple nowadays. For example, India, Nepal, Bhutan etc. are semi feudal - semi colonial.

[Искра]

I'm personally not interested in India, Nepal or Bhutan. Also, I doubt that some Maoist kids from Western Europe or North America could explain me what are those Maoists doing etc. and I would never ask you for that or believe you, since I doubt that you can think with your head. No offence, that's just attitude I got from experience on this forum.

But, I'm interested in one thing and I think that we should lead discussion in this way. What are Maoists doing in West Europe or North America? To me that's crucial question.

Arguments like: it's hard to explain what's communism are shit. I'm living in Croatia which is ex-Yugoslavian country and I have more problem with that then someone from Belgium, England or USA. I don't buy that argument. I'm more interested to who are you explaining what?? Are you explaining? What are Maoistst doing anyway in Western World? Do you only discuss "issues" on forums and watch youtube links made by Nepali Maoists?

I hope that here are some Maoists who can answer to these questions in mature way.

[RED DAVE]

Now, with regard to Maoist armed struggle in the Third World, would some Maoist please inform me why Prachanda, the leader of the Nepalese Maoist party accepted the position of Prime Minister in the newly-formed federal (bourgeois) republic in Nepal?

This is, of course, exactly what Kerensky did after the February Revolution in Russia. Kerensky, let us remember, was a socialist and vice-chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Not only did Lenin condemn Kerensky et al., but he condemned those Bolsheviks, including Stalin, who were supporting that regime.

Instead of involving the Bolsheviks with the February regime, which was the Russian version of a bourgeois republic, Lenin called for the revolutionary overthrow of that regime and the establishment of a workers and peasants government based, primarily, on the soviets.
Lenin also said there is no blueprint for the revolution.Okay, but he never said that we should abandon the class nature of socialism, which Maoists have done.


In other words, every people has to make its own path for the revolution.That is not so. In the establishment of socialism, we are committed to the rule of the working class. Any abandoning of this principle is the abandoning of socialism.


The major flaw of nearly every Trotskyist I've ever met (including myself when I was still a Trot)Here comes ...


is the belief we need to copy the Russian Revolution.The bullshit.

I don't know where, when or how you were a Trot, but having been in and around the Trotskyist movement for more years then I want to admit, I have never heard anyone in any Trotskyist tendency assert this. Quite the contrary.


No, I need to make the American revolution, which will have its own characteristics.That depends on what you call "characteristics." If you, like most supporters of Maoism I have met, deny in practice the leading role of the working class in the establishing of socialism, you are adopting a "characteristic" that puts you outside of Marxism.


You can be sure, that when we overthrow the United States, and we are building a workers republic, there will be Trots and Maoists and Left Communists and anarchists all telling us that we didn't do it right, that we are betraying the revolution, etc.There are always fools around. But if "do it right" involves abandoning the class nature of the revolution, which is to establish the rule of the working class, which seems to be Maoist practice, then you are doing it wrong.


Why did the Maoists agree to form a government in a bourgeois state? Two reasons. One, it allowed them to show to the people of Nepal that this was not a real path forward.In other words, by committing a serious historical blunder, they taught a political lesson. Considering that this lesson was already contained in Lenin's April Theses in 1917, someone in Nepal needs to learn to read.

By the way, and this is crucial. Can you show us, in documents of the Nepalese Maoists, that this was their purpose? My reading of what of seen is that their practice was full of illusions.

Here's what the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have said about their action.


Gaining experience of a very new front to drive the new democratic revolution forward against feudalism and imperialism, this party has already led a nine months long people-elected first government of the Republic of Nepal. Certainly, these are the achievements that have far-reaching importance in the context of Nepali democratic revolution. True proletarians must have high evaluation and regard to these achievements.

But in spite of aforesaid achievements, there has been no basic change in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial condition of the country. The fundamental problems of the country and people related with nationhood, democracy and people's livelihood are not basically solved. There is no basic change in the class character of the state. Even today, there is a sole control of comprador, bureaucrat and feudal classes in the state. Seizing the achievements of great people's war and historic mass movement or by means of counterrevolution this class wants to retract into status quo. Certainly, these challenges clarify the reality that Nepalese democratic revolution has not yet been accomplished rather its final completion along with decisive struggle still remains waiting. True revolutionaries must take these challenges and realities seriously.http://cpnmintl.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:latest-party-document&catid=35:article-national

It is clear from this that the Nepalese Maoists took responsibility for a bourgeois state that they had no illusions was a bourgeois state. So, every injustice that has taken place since they assumed government power can be laid at their feet. They did not and still have not called for the working class to raise up its own organs of power (soviets or the like), nor did they or have they called on the peasants to seize the land. And they were in power!

Again, they have done precisely what Lenin insisted the Bolsheviks not do. The bourgeois state is perfectly capable of exposing itself. It doesn't need help from revolutionaries.


They had to exhaust all available opportunities in order to build a mass movement in the urban centers of Nepal.Nonsense. The bougeois state would have exposed itself by its own practice. What the Nepalese Maoists have done is mislead the masses and crippled themselves as a party.


That has, in fact, happened. The masses of Nepalese people appear to be behind the UCPN.What is your source for this statement?


In addition, the material conditions for a socialist revolution did not exist in Nepal.Neither did they exist in Russia in 1917. This did not stop the Bolsheviks from calling for and leading the overthrow of the bourgeois state. They did not use the underdevelopment of Russia as an excuse to support, let alone enter, let alone lead, a bourgeois government.


Even when the bourgeois state is swept away, (which I expect will happen this year), With all due respect Comrade, don't hold your breath.


they will not be able to move forward to socialism.So, if that's true, why make a revolution. Was the purpose just to enlist the proletariat in accomplishing the historical task of the bourgeoisie? This seems to be what the Stalinists did in Russia, and the Maoists did in China.


They do not have the capital to build an industrialized workers republic.True. Neither did Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks still didn't support the bourgeois regime as the Nepalese Maoists have done.


Why is it that Trotskyists, who are always telling everyone, "You can't build socialism in one country," always attacking the Nepalese comrades for not doing just that, attempting to build socialism in one country?Because our criticism is not over the issue of building socialism in one country. The issue is [i]entering into a bourgeois government and supporting a ourgeois state.

This is where the theory of permanent revolution comes in as an alternative to the stalinist/maoist tactic of building state capitalism.


Permanent Revolution is a term within Marxist theory, which was first used by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels between 1845 and 1850,[citation needed] but has since become most closely associated with Leon Trotsky. The use of the term by different theorists is not identical. Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society.

Trotsky put forward his conception of 'permanent revolution' as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Part of his theory is the impossibility of 'socialism in one country' - a view also held by Marx, but not integrated into his conception of permanent revolution. Trotsky's theory also argues, first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution


What the workers of the world need is not another failed attempt at revolution.Indeed, which is what the Nepalese Maoists are preparing for. Either they will follow their Maoist forbears into the building of state capitalist, which will collapse into private capitalism, or they will take a shortcut and go as quickly as they can to private enterprise as is happening in Vietnam.

So long as the Nepalese Maoists are involved with the bourgeois state, they will be complicit in this process.

And, if they are not intending to be complicit in the bourgeois state, why are they merging their own armed forces into that state? Recipe for disaster.


If we never had another martyr, we'd have too many. What we need is a success.Nice rhetoric, but what does it mean?


The comrades in Nepal are experimenting, trying new things. Maybe they will fail. Probably they will fail. Making revolution isn't easy. But maybe they will succeed. And they are going to need all the help they can get from their comrades in the First World. We can be critical, but they're making a revolution. We're still just taking about it.The first piece of advice we can give them is that of Lenin in in the April Theses, in very backward Russia:


3) No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government.

4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist-Revolutionaries down to the Organising Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.

The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.(emph added) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm

RED DAVE

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

One thing I find weird about 1st world Maoists, is that according to their own allegeded "Marxism", they shouldn't exist in any great numbers, because there damn well isn't any "peasantry" or super exploited workers in the first world.

So do you Mao fans consider yourself class traitors like Engles or Lenin? Excepting of course that Lenin and Engles then joined in the struggle of the working class, wheras you guys seem to stay in 1st world countries, cheerleading guys in Nepal, and earning high wages off super exploitation?

I mean, I suppose you could advocate that the (aristocratic) proletariat in the west leaves all the third world workers alone, but then that would hardly be a marxist demand, because according to your beliefs its in the intrest of the western workers to support the exploitation of the workers of the third world, so unless you want to take an anti Marxist position, and argue that you can convince first world workers to put aside their own class intrests, do you guys go around campaigning against BOTH the working class AND the bourgeois in the west? But to get who's support? Certainly not the third world workers, because they aren't even in the same country! :confused:

[Crux]

There is no maoist group in sweden although the Communist Party, formerly Communist Party Marxist-Leninists (The Revolutionaries), might have a few maoist-influnced people. All the former maoists, that were maoists back in 1960's and 70's, with one exception, are rightwingers today. And usually pretty crazy neocon right style. I guess the petit-bourguise hodge podge of "ultra-revolutionary" slogans and opportunism only ever appealed to students. Which reminds me, we do have a tiny group of Sendeiro Luminoso supporters although it's been put in doubt whetever they actually ahve any contact with the peru organization. Completes loons anyway who have been accused of violently threatening ex members and broke into physical fights with itself when a split happened in sendiero luminoso in peru.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


No, the original debate was about Cantor's theorem. You failed to provide its negation, therefore you lost the debate. I am not interested in why you did not provide a proof. That is your personal decision.

But, you, not me, changed that debate into one centred on my proof, and I have responded to that change of yours.

And it's not true that you are not interested in my reasons; you have become obsessed with them.


Similarly, if you don't provide an example of Trotskyist armed struggle, you automatically lose that part of the debate

Again, wrong; I challenged you before you copied me with a challenge of your own, and I have repeatdly told you I will respond to your challenge when you repond adequately to mine.

Since you have failed to do that, you are the defaulter here, not me.

[pranabjyoti]

The problem of most of the people here that they just mix up Maoism with the existing conditions of the third world countries, where the remains of feudalism exist badly. As a citizen of third world country, I can say that sweeping of the remains of the feudalism and establishing even a bourgeoisie democracy IS PROGRESS in the context of world history. Why? That semi-feudal countries of third world are an essential condition of imperialism, whenever even a bourgeoisie democracy will be established in a third world country like India, Nepal or Bhutan, that too will bring more competitors of imperialism in world market which at the end will quicken the destruction of capitalism.
People in the 1st world rarely understand that fact, because that was done long by their bourgeoisie class. At present, the third world bourgeoisie are basically comprador BUSTARDS, they even don't have the capability to establish a bourgeoisie democracy in a third world country and for that the responsibility of the establishing a bourgeoisie democracy has been dumped on the shoulders of revolutionist proletariat.
AS A PART OF THE WORLD PROLETARIAT (IF WE THINK WE ARE), WE CAN NOT AVOID AND SKIP THIS TUSK.
When you are doing armchair criticism, you can criticize absolutely everybody, but when you are on the process of doing something, then you can face the real problems, Can anybody, with their real activity show how to establish socialism i.e. class less society in third world countries like India, Nepal other than the way the struggle is going on there?

[Devrim]

Because our criticism is not over the issue of building socialism in one country. The issue is entering into a bourgeois government and supporting a bourgeois state.

This is where the theory of permanent revolution comes in as an alternative to the stalinist/maoist tactic of building state capitalism.


Indeed, which is what the Nepalese Maoists are preparing for. Either they will follow their Maoist forbears into the building of state capitalist, which will collapse into private capitalism, or they will take a shortcut and go as quickly as they can to private enterprise as is happening in Vietnam.

So long as the Nepalese Maoists are involved with the bourgeois state, they will be complicit in this process.

So would you characterise the Maoists as a socialist current or a bourgeois one?

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

So would you characterise the Maoists as a socialist current or a bourgeois one?
Devrim
Better say in a progressive term. Even bourgeoisie is a progressive class in a semi-feudal environment. From feudalism, both are going towards future. The question of difference will only arise when a full scale bourgeoisie democracy will be established.

[Devrim]

Better say in a progressive term. Even bourgeoisie is a progressive class in a semi-feudal environment. From feudalism, both are going towards future. The question of difference will only arise when a full scale bourgeoisie democracy will be established.

I suppose that depends on whether you think that places like Nepal are 'semi-feudal' or not. I don't. I think that the world economy is now capitalist and though there may be some remnants of other forms, the capitalist forms are now dominant world wide. With this the bourgeoisie is no longer in any way a progressive class, and all of its factions are equally reactionary.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

The point is that as mass democratic backing is necessary for armed struggle, armed struggle is necessary for mass democratic backing too. Otherwise, without arms, the masses cannot protect themselves. So, in the third world, you cannot really talk of building the mass democratic base and then beginning armed struggle. Both have to be done simultaneously.Are you saying that in the third world it is impossible to build a revolutionary movement without armed struggle from he beginning?

And what would be the role of the urban proletariat in such a struggle?

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

I suppose that depends on whether you think that places like Nepal are 'semi-feudal' or not. I don't. I think that the world economy is now capitalist and though there may be some remnants of other forms, the capitalist forms are now dominant world wide. With this the bourgeoisie is no longer in any way a progressive class, and all of its factions are equally reactionary.

Devrim
What you don't understand that this kind of semi-feudal states are a necessary condition for the Resistance of imperialism. The longer those countries remain in this state, the better for imperialism.
Whether those states are semi-feudal or not, to understand that you have to be a citizen of those countries and have to spent most part of your life there. Do you know, in the state of Hariyana, a state of India nor far away from the capital New Delhi, the Panchayat, some kind of village committee ordered a married couple to live as brother and sister, because they belong to the same "gotra", some kind of old order group. PLEASE, DON'T JUST DENY THOSE THINGS AS STRAY INCIDENTS.

[RED DAVE]

The "bloc of four classes" is necessary for new-democracy, not socialism.Once more, would you please define "new-democracy"?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Red Cat:



But, you, not me, changed that debate into one centred on my proof, and I have responded to that change of yours.

And it's not true that you are not interested in my reasons; you have become obsessed with them.



Again, wrong; I challenged you before you copied me with a challenge of your own, and I have repeatdly told you I will respond to your challenge when you repond adequately to mine.

Since you have failed to do that, you are the defaulter here, not me.

I merely highlighted the fact that you were quitting the debate by refusing to give a proof. That does not shift the topic of debate. If you want to continue that debate, please give us your proof.

And I have told you that me giving an example of a Maoist socialist country is not a pre-condition to you responding to my challenge. In fact, I have already said that PRC had achieved socialism. But you didn't give any example of your tendency conducting an ongoing armed struggle.

[red cat]

Are you saying that in the third world it is impossible to build a revolutionary movement without armed struggle from he beginning?

And what would be the role of the urban proletariat in such a struggle?

RED DAVE

Here I am not considering students and teachers as urban proletariat.

In the factories, the urban proletariat can build trade union movements which will ultimately supply cadres to villages, raise the question of seizure of power by the working class, and train the urban proletariat to create red-guards.


Once more, would you please define "new-democracy"?

New-democratic revolution is the stage where the proletariat leads a united front of four classes to defeat feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism.

During and after this, the vast majority of the peasantry converts itself into the proletariat. Then the proletariat must establish its dictatorship in order to achieve socialism.

[Devrim]

What you don't understand that this kind of semi-feudal states are a necessary condition for the Resistance of imperialism. The longer those countries remain in this state, the better for imperialism.
Whether those states are semi-feudal or not, to understand that you have to be a citizen of those countries and have to spent most part of your life there.

You don't have to be a citizen of any particular country to understand that the dominant economic relations in the world today are market, i.e. capitalist, ones, and that capitalism is a world system.


Do you know, in the state of Hariyana, a state of India nor far away from the capital New Delhi, the Panchayat, some kind of village committee ordered a married couple to live as brother and sister, because they belong to the same "gotra", some kind of old order group. PLEASE, DON'T JUST DENY THOSE THINGS AS STRAY INCIDENTS.

Do you know that in Turkey last week, a sixteen year old girl was buried alive by her parents for talking to boys? Do you know that 200 of these honour killings happen every year, which is more than one every other day, certainly not isolated incidents?

The fact that some remnants of previous systems still exist in social life does not alter the fundemental economic relationships in a country. These sort of things do not stop Turkey or India being capitalist countries.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

Are you saying that in the third world it is impossible to build a revolutionary movement without armed struggle from he beginning?

And what would be the role of the urban proletariat in such a struggle?


Here I am not considering students and teachers as urban proletariat.That’s because you don’t understand the urban proletariat. As I’ve stated elsewhere, students are not part of the proletariat but generally are part of the classes of their parents. However, it is safe, in general, to consider them part of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Teachers, on the other hand, are part of the urban proletariat. I find it amazing that you do not understand this. As an example, teachers played a huge role in the uprising in Oaxaca, in Mexico, in 2008.


In the factories, the urban proletariat can build trade union movements which will ultimately supply cadres to villages, raise the question of seizure of power by the working class, and train the urban proletariat to create red-guards.And here we have it comrades. This is terrific.


In the factories, the urban proletariat can build trade union movementsNo mention of already existing trade unions. No mention of workers in transportation, communication, etc.

But, and this is crucial, no role for the urban proletariat as an urban proletariat. No mention of strikes, mass demonstrations, organization for the seizure of power. No call for the workers to form soviets to prepare for the seizure of power and workers control of industry. This is about as unmarxist a program as can be imagined.

And it exactly follows what Mao and the CCP did. What this is is a recipe for state capitalism. It is, by the way, the same recipe currently being carried out in Vietnam. And it seems to be echoed in the actions of the Nepalese Maoists.

No independent role for the working class. Instead:


... which will ultimately supply cadres to villages, raise the question of seizure of power by the working class, and train the urban proletariat to create red-guards.Translation: the role of the urgan working class is the support the rural revolt, which is, of course, under the control of the Maoist party.

No role for the working class as a working class.


Once more, would you please define "new-democracy"?
New-democratic revolution is the stage where the proletariat leads a united front of four classes to defeat feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism.Note that this is in contradiction to what red cat wrote above, where it is extremely obvious that the working class is not to be in a leadership position. Marxist rhetoric is being used here to cover up a very different class approach.

In addition, this is in direct contradiction to Lenin’s concepts and Bolshevik practice in a country that was, in 1917, approximately 90% peasantry and had a history of peasant revolts. The Bolsheviks explicitly rejected the notion of basing the revolution, not even the first stage of the revolution, on the rural peasantry or the bourgeoisie. They relied on the proletariat to carry out both the bourgeois and proletarian stages of the revolution.

Basing the revolution on the peasantry was basically the position of the Social Revolutionary party, of which Kerensky was a member, and whose practice was rejected by Lenin at every stage of his career and by the Bolshevik Party.


During and after this, the vast majority of the peasantry converts itself into the proletariat.Now you are just throwing out words. How is the peasantry going to do this? Are you considering some fantasy where the peasantry builds steel furnaces in their backyards like the Maoists did and becomes proletariats?

This is nonsense. The only way the peasantry is converted into a working class under capitalism is the destruction of it as a class through the consolidation of small holdings into large holdings (kulakization), its resulting urbanization and the growth of urban industry.


the majority of the peasantry converts itself in to the proletariat.Comrade, with remarks like that, you need to take up a career as a standup comic.


Then the proletariat must establish its dictatorship in order to achieve socialism.So, according to this schema, the proletariat engages in support for a rural revolution, which consists of four classes, including the national bourgeoisie. Wow. Lenin would have loved this!

Then, having achieved this victory, this bloc establishes “new democracy” (an entirely new category in Marxists theory). Actually, since there are no changes in the fundamental relations of production, the working class is not in control of production, what has been established is capitalism.

And, since in third world countries, the national brougeoisie is so weak that it can’t even carry out its own bourgeois revolution, it will require assistance from the newly established multi-class state. And then we have, as in Russia by the late 1920s, China, Vietnam, state fucking capitalism.

Comrades, the Maoist program is a program for state capitalism..

RED DAVE

[red cat]

That’s because you don’t understand the urban proletariat. As I’ve stated elsewhere, students are not part of the proletariat but generally are part of the classes of their parents. However, it is safe, in general, to consider them part of the petit-bourgeoisie.

Teachers, on the other hand, are part of the urban proletariat. I find it amazing that you do not understand this. As an example, teachers played a huge role in the uprising in Oaxaca, in Mexico, in 2008.

And here we have it comrades. This is terrific.

No mention of already existing trade unions. No mention of workers in transportation, communication, etc.

But, and this is crucial, no role for the urban proletariat as an urban proletariat. No mention of strikes, mass demonstrations, organization for the seizure of power. No call for the workers to form soviets to prepare for the seizure of power and workers control of industry. This is about as unmarxist a program as can be imagined.

And it exactly follows what Mao and the CCP did. What this is is a recipe for state capitalism. It is, by the way, the same recipe currently being carried out in Vietnam. And it seems to be echoed in the actions of the Nepalese Maoists.

No independent role for the working class. Instead:

Translation: the role of the urgan working class is the support the rural revolt, which is, of course, under the control of the Maoist party.

No role for the working class as a working class.

Note that this is in contradiction to what red cat wrote above, where it is extremely obvious that the working class is not to be in a leadership position. Marxist rhetoric is being used here to cover up a very different class approach.

In addition, this is in direct contradiction to Lenin’s concepts and Bolshevik practice in a country that was, in 1917, approximately 90% peasantry and had a history of peasant revolts. The Bolsheviks explicitly rejected the notion of basing the revolution, not even the first stage of the revolution, on the rural peasantry or the bourgeoisie. They relied on the proletariat to carry out both the bourgeois and proletarian stages of the revolution.

Basing the revolution on the peasantry was basically the position of the Social Revolutionary party, of which Kerensky was a member, and whose practice was rejected by Lenin at every stage of his career and by the Bolshevik Party.

Now you are just throwing out words. How is the peasantry going to do this? Are you considering some fantasy where the peasantry builds steel furnaces in their backyards like the Maoists did and becomes proletariats?

This is nonsense. The only way the peasantry is converted into a working class under capitalism is the destruction of it as a class through the consolidation of small holdings into large holdings (kulakization), its resulting urbanization and the growth of urban industry.

Comrade, with remarks like that, you need to take up a career as a standup comic.

So, according to this schema, the proletariat engages in support for a rural revolution, which consists of four classes, including the national bourgeoisie. Wow. Lenin would have loved this!

Then, having achieved this victory, this bloc establishes “new democracy” (an entirely new category in Marxists theory). Actually, since there are no changes in the fundamental relations of production, the working class is not in control of production, what has been established is capitalism.

And, since in third world countries, the national brougeoisie is so weak that it can’t even carry out its own bourgeois revolution, it will require assistance from the newly established multi-class state. And then we have, as in Russia by the late 1920s, China, Vietnam, state fucking capitalism.

Comrades, the Maoist program is a program for state capitalism..

RED DAVE

Wow ! For a moment I forgot what most posters in revleft intend to do to real revolutionary communist movements, and the result is this. :lol:

Here is the detailed programme of the CPI(Maoist) for urban areas:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659330&postcount=445

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659332&postcount=446

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659340&postcount=447

I see what idea you have in mind for the peasantry. As far as I know, the peasantry are a bit reluctant to be oppressed under capitalism in order to be converted into the working class. What they would rather go for is the Maoist programme of collectivization where they will directly be integrated into the liberated working class. So, whatever your tendency is, it has no hope here in the third-world.

You have also made a lot of other allegations about our theory and practice. I will not take the pain of negating them again, as myself and others have done it in many previous posts. The only thing I want to make clear to you is that no matter how much you try to desperately prove that Maoists are anti-working class, the working class is going to make revolution and crush all revisionist tendencies, first in the third world and then in other imperialist countries, and all that is going to happen under the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

[RED DAVE]

You have also made a lot of other allegations about our theory and practice. I will not take the pain of negating them again ... . .Transllation: I've demonstrated that Maoist practice is not Marxist practice, and he can't refute it. He has not answered one single point that I made because he can't, and he's exposed by his own words.

Here's the discussion, comrades. You decide.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Just one more point: Why are the Nepalese Marxists dissolving their revolutionary armed forces into the Nepalese national army, which (a) is under the control of the Nepalese capitalist state, (b) which fought against the revolution and (c) which actually helped to force Prachanda, the Maoist leader, out of the prime ministerhip a year ago?

If the armed forces of the insurrection are necessary for defending the interests of the working class, or are the working clas, or something, why is that force being liquidated into the bourgeois state?

This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the Bolsheviks did. Even though, by the time Russia pulled out of WWI, the Bolsheviks controlled large parts of the Russian Army, they liquidated that army and reformed it into the Red Army.

RED DAVE

[bailey_187]

One thing I find weird about 1st world Maoists, is that according to their own allegeded "Marxism", they shouldn't exist in any great numbers, because there damn well isn't any "peasantry" or super exploited workers in the first world.

So do you Mao fans consider yourself class traitors like Engles or Lenin? Excepting of course that Lenin and Engles then joined in the struggle of the working class, wheras you guys seem to stay in 1st world countries, cheerleading guys in Nepal, and earning high wages off super exploitation?

I mean, I suppose you could advocate that the (aristocratic) proletariat in the west leaves all the third world workers alone, but then that would hardly be a marxist demand, because according to your beliefs its in the intrest of the western workers to support the exploitation of the workers of the third world, so unless you want to take an anti Marxist position, and argue that you can convince first world workers to put aside their own class intrests, do you guys go around campaigning against BOTH the working class AND the bourgeois in the west? But to get who's support? Certainly not the third world workers, because they aren't even in the same country! :confused:

er...you seem to be confusing Maoism-third worldism with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Try again.

[red cat]

Originally Posted by red cat http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1667733#post1667733)
You have also made a lot of other allegations about our theory and practice. I will not take the pain of negating them again ... . .Transllation: I've demonstrated that Maoist practice is not Marxist practice, and he can't refute it. He has not answered one single point that I made because he can't, and he's exposed by his own words.

Here's the discussion, comrades. You decide.

RED DAVE

Why are you quoting incomplete sentences? Does that help you a lot in falsifying things ?

Your questions have been answered in the links. That is why I posted them. Did you even care to click on them? The practice of our revolutionary parties speaks for us.

And your comrades don't need this discussion to be convinced that Maoists are anti-worker. They already have that falsehood drilled into their brains by their armchair-revolutionary leaders. If your comrades are that good in Marxism then where are their movements in Nepal or India?

[RED DAVE]

Why are you quoting incomplete sentences? Does that help you a lot in falsifying things ?

Your questions have been answered in the links. That is why I posted them. Did you even care to click on them? The practice of our revolutionary parties speaks for us.

And your comrades don't need this discussion to be convinced that Maoists are anti-worker. They already have that falsehood drilled into their brains by their armchair-revolutionary leaders. If your comrades are that good in Marxism then where are their movements in Nepal or India?Comrade red cat. I have made political points. I have used specific links to make these points, and I have quoted from these links. I have also analyzed Maoist practice as you have described it and as the Nepalese Maoists have carried it out.

I have taken your posts very seriously. Please do the same with mine. Politcal cursing is not appropriate and will not suffice in this discussion.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Comrade red cat. I have made political points. I have used specific links to make these points, and I have quoted from these links. I have also analyzed Maoist practice as you have described it and as the Nepalese Maoists have carried it out.

I have taken your posts very seriously. Please do the same with mine. Politcal cursing is not appropriate and will not suffice in this discussion.

RED DAVE

Please go through the urban programme of the CPI(Maoist) to get detailed information about the general third-world Maoist line on cities.

Production relations are the most important tools to identify the class characteristics of people associated with any occupation, but other factors should also be kept in mind. I have explained here why we do not consider teachers as a part of the proletariat:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1665610&postcount=143

Russia had already undergone a bourgeois revolution in early 1917. So it will be wrong to equate it with third world countries of today.

I will not comment on your version of history. That contradicts ours.

The basic change brought about in relations of production by NDR are the abolition of feudal relations of production in the whole of the country, and collectivization of land and establishment of workers' control of the means of production in the long-standing bases ( since there the proletariat has had enough time to learn the basic technical details ).

[RED DAVE]

Comrade red cat. I have made political points. I have used specific links to make these points, and I have quoted from these links. I have also analyzed Maoist practice as you have described it and as the Nepalese Maoists have carried it out.
I have taken your posts very seriously. Please do the same with mine. Politcal cursing is not appropriate and will not suffice in this discussion.
Please go through the urban programme of the CPI(Maoist) to get detailed information about the general third-world Maoist line on cities.I'm not debating them. I’m debating you. I have read their program, and other things they’ve written, and I’ve quoted from them. Now it’s your turn to use both those programs and your own words to reply to my points.

I am a teacher. When a student asks a question I do not, in general, say, “Go read the textbook.” It’s insulting to the student and an abandonment of my role as a teacher. And I haven't done that to you.


Production relations are the most important tools to identify the class characteristics of people associated with any occupation, but other factors should also be kept in mind. I have explained here why we do not consider teachers as a part of the proletariat:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=143 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.p...&postcount=143%5B/quote%5DAnd)And youou are dead wrong. i have demonstrated that teachers in theird world countries play an active role in political and even revolutionary activities.


Russia had already undergone a bourgeois revolution in early 1917. So it will be wrong to equate it with third world countries of today.Comrade that is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

It is precisely the role of the the revolutionary party in the two stages of the revolution in places like Russia, China and Nepal that we are discussing.

What we are dealing with is the role of the revolutionary party in the period before the bourgeois phase of the revolution, during it and after it. In each case, the behavior of the Bolshevik Party was completely different from that of the Chinese or Nepalese parties. They relied on the working class, and advocated a revolutionary alliance with the peasantry, not some kind of bullshit bloc of four classes including the national bourgeousie. You have not addressed this.


I will not comment on your version of history. That contradicts ours.What you are saying is that I kicked your ass, and you can’t answer me. The Maoist bloc of four classes in an undeveloped country specifically contradicts what the Boksheviks did in an undeveloped country.

If you have any integrity, you will answer the points I made in my long post 66 of this thread.


The basic change brought about in relations of production by NDR are the abolition of feudal relations of production in the whole of the countryYou have not documented this.

In fact, this is explicitly contradicted by a statement by the UCPn(M) in a statement of 1/28/10:


But in spite of aforesaid achievements, there has been no basic change in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial condition of the country. The fundamental problems of the country and people related with nationhood, democracy and people's livelihood are not basically solved. There is no basic change in the class character of the state. Even today, there is a sole control of comprador, bureaucrat and feudal classes in the state. Seizing the achievements of great people's war and historic mass movement or by means of counterrevolution this class wants to retract into status quo. Certainly, these challenges clarify the reality that Nepalese democratic revolution has not yet been accomplished rather its final completion along with decisive struggle still remains waiting. True revolutionaries must take these challenges and realities seriously.(emph added)

http://cpnmintl.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:latest-party-document&catid=35:article-national


and collectivization of land and establishment of workers' control of the means of production in the long-standing bases ( since there the proletariat has had enough time to learn the basic technical details. You have not demonstrated that the land has been distributed or the workers control the means of production in the “long-standing bases.” There is no reference to any of this in the above-referenced document. Please give a source.

It’s also fabulous that you think that workers control of industry requires time for the workers to “learn the basic technical details.” The workers, as a class, already have “learn[ed] the basic technical details” of control of industry in their day-to-day work. Your attitude reeks of bureaucracy.

One more time, please reply to the points I made in my post 66. I am taking for posts serious. Please do the same with mine.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

I'm not debating them. I’m debating you. I have read their program, and other things they’ve written, and I’ve quoted from them. Now it’s your turn to use both those programs and your own words to reply to my points.

I am a teacher. When a student asks a question I do not, in general, say, “Go read the textbook.” It’s insulting to the student and an abandonment of my role as a teacher. And I haven't done that to you.

And youou are dead wrong. i have demonstrated that teachers in theird world countries play an active role in political and even revolutionary activities.

Comrade that is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever posted.

It is precisely the role of the the revolutionary party in the two stages of the revolution in places like Russia, China and Nepal that we are discussing.

What we are dealing with is the role of the revolutionary party in the period before the bourgeois phase of the revolution, during it and after it. In each case, the behavior of the Bolshevik Party was completely different from that of the Chinese or Nepalese parties. They relied on the working class, and advocated a revolutionary alliance with the peasantry, not some kind of bullshit bloc of four classes including the national bourgeousie. You have not addressed this.

What you are saying is that I kicked your ass, and you can’t answer me. The Maoist bloc of four classes in an undeveloped country specifically contradicts what the Boksheviks did in an undeveloped country.

If you have any integrity, you will answer the points I made in my long post 66 of this thread.

You have not documented this.

In fact, this is explicitly contradicted by a statement by the UCPn(M) in a statement of 1/28/10:

(emph added)

http://cpnmintl.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:latest-party-document&catid=35:article-national

You have not demonstrated that the land has been distributed or the workers control the means of production in the “long-standing bases.” There is no reference to any of this in the above-referenced document. Please give a source.

It’s also fabulous that you think that workers control of industry requires time for the workers to “learn the basic technical details.” The workers, as a class, already have “learn[ed] the basic technical details” of control of industry in their day-to-day work. Your attitude reeks of bureaucracy.

One more time, please reply to the points I made in my post 66. I am taking for posts serious. Please do the same with mine.

RED DAVE

I would like you to summarize once more in a point-wise manner your questions from all your posts related to this. When you quote any of our parties etc please provide the associated link too. And one more thing, here we find many of your slangs which might be of common usage in English, extremely offending. I hope you will try not to use these while debating anyone from other countries in future. Not every other culture should conform to that of yours.

[Saorsa]

I'll start off Dave by saying tht while I respect your opinions and your experience in the struggle, I think your approach is symptomatic of the problems with Trotskyism, particularly first world Trotskyism (i.e. 99.9% of Trotskyism). You state what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did in 1917 in Russia, note that Prachanda and the Maoists are not doing exactly this in 2010 in Nepal, and use that to somehow 'prove' that the Maoists are no revolutionary. Well, actions speak louder than words, and anyone who has followed closely the actions (and the words) of the UCPN (M) over the past few years will have seen more than enough concrete evidence to prove to them that the Maoists are struggling to overturn the backward, feudal society that currently oppresses the people of Nepal. And most importantly of all, the Nepali masses are confident of this. The Maoists have the largest popular vote in the Constituent Assembly, are the only party capable of calling the kind of massive demonstrations we've seen from them in the past few months, and they have cadre in every village and every district across Nepal. Their strategy since 2006 has been working, and the moment of a decisive confrontation is, by their own admission, fast approaching. With this in mind, we can get down to debating the specifics that have been raised here.

Incidentally, I'd support splitting the Nepal debate off into a seperate thread.


That is not so. In the establishment of socialism, we are committed to the rule of the working class. Any abandoning of this principle is the abandoning of socialism.


If you, like most supporters of Maoism I have met, deny in practice the leading role of the working class in the establishing of socialism, you are adopting a "characteristic" that puts you outside of Marxism.


There are always fools around. But if "do[ing] it right" involves abandoning the class nature of the revolution, which is to establish the rule of the working class, which seems to be Maoist practice, then you are doing it wrong.

Actually, Lenin was quite clear that Russia following the Bolshevik capture of state power was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasants. To call for 'workers power' in a society where the vast majority of people are peasants living in feudal conditions in the countryside, and where the working class barely exists as we know it, is frankly quite ridiculous. The principal contradiction to be resolved in a country like Nepal is that of the peasants vs the landlords, the struggle against feudal property relations and feudal ideas, and to base your strategy solely on the urban proletariat is a recipe for disaster. To seize power in what amounts to a coup by revolutionaries in the urban areas that is then forced down the throats of the countryside, without waiting to win over the bulk of the peasantry, will require you to hold power by pointing the gun at the people themselves. Maoists believe that the only way to legitimise a political action is to patiently win over the people to supporting it, and only then carry it out. This is the whole basis of revolutionary democracy.

It is a fatal flaw to view revolution in a country like Nepal as a PROLETARIAN revolution. It isn't, never has been and never will be. The Nepali proletariat lives in India, Dubai and Malaysia. There is fuck all in the way of an industrial economy in Nepal, and there really isn't much of an industrial working class. Nepalis go overseas to find work because there just isn't any at home. To call for a proletarian revolution, for working class power, in a country like Nepal is just ludicrous. The revolution will inevitably be mostly carried out by peasants, as most people in Nepal are peasants and the Maoists are a nationwide movement! The contradictions they will face are those that face the peasants, i.e. land reform and so on. The revolution will face different challenges to resolve in the cities, but even there, there is precious little to nationalise in Nepal, and very little industry to take state control over. It will be a revolution carried out by a bloc of classes, by anyone willing to struggle for a new nepal free from imperialist domination, feudal backwardness and anyone who has a vision of a better, socialist world.

If the owner of some medicine shop in a village in Rolpa can be won over to supporting the revolution, he should be welcomed. If students can be won over, and heaps have been, they should be welcomed. Lawyers should be welcomed. What about peddlers, hawkers, small merchants selling trinkets and whatever they can find to sell, just to stay alive because they can't find work of a proper proletarian character? Should they be told to get fucked because they're 'petit-bourgeois'? The Maoists don't think so, and it's this realistic approach based on facing and beating the challenges that real life throws at them that has brought their movement such success. Maoists identify the main enemy (which in Nepal up until 2006 was the monarchy), and attempt to 'unite all who can be united' in order to defeat this threat. Once this contraditcion has been resolved, one splits into two. The former allies break apart, new contradictions arise, a new principal threat must be identified and once again the task is to unite all who can be united against it.

The Maoists have been quite clear about the fact that now, the principal contradiction is between the revolutionary forces (i.e. the workers, peasants, and their Maoist party) and, as they put it, the 'status quoist' forces, the bourgeois parties and the state. The period of an alliance between the bourgeois parties and the Maoists to defeat the monarchy is over. The goals the Maoists set were succesfully accomplished, and a new phase of struggle has opened up. They are now fighting against what they percieve as the main threat to the people of Nepal - Indian expansionism and it's puppets i.e. the bourgeois parties. They see the fight for national liberation and the fight for social revolution as inseperable.

But the real point here we need to adress is the mistaken idea you seem to have that the UCPN (M), and Maoists in general, ignore the working class, and leave it to be conquered by peasant armies later. There have been elements of this in Maoist practice before, true, right back to China and right up to places like India and Peru more recently. But the ironic thing here is that the Maoists in Nepal have taken the exact opposite approach. The reason they have not seized power yet is because they do not want to launch a revolt prematurely. They want to have the support of the masses both for their party and specifically for their revolt before they carry it out, so they don't end up in a situation like the one in Russia where they have to hold power by pointing the gun at the people. And more specifically, their entire strategy since 2006 has been based on winning support in the URBAN AREAS. They did not feel they had enough. They felt that while if it came to it, they could well be able to take the cities, the cost would be so high and the risks so great that it was better to prepare more efefctively. They signed the peace treaty, and that has allowed their cadres to organise EVERYWHERE, aboveground, which they couldn't do before. They have gone from a military stalemate with the ruling class to a political offensive against it, without surrendering any of the gains they made in the war.

Since 2006, the YCL has become a major force. The Young Communist League is present across the country as the youth wing (some would say the paramilitary wing) of the UCPN (M), and it outnumbers and in many ways outclasses the police. People go to the YCL to solve their problems rather than the police, it acts as both a political activist group and as an enforcer of revolutionary order. Maoist trade unions have been formed left right and centre, have been carrying out strikes left right and centre, and have been recruiting workers (including from unions affiliated to other parties!) left right and centre. The Maoists have control of heaps of student unions. And anyone who has seen photos or videos of the recent protests in Kathmandu can see for themselves the level of support the Maoists have in the urban areas. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE URBAN WORKING CLASS. Their entire revolutionary strategy has rested upon winning the support of the urban toilers. How does this in any way ignore the importance of the proletariat?

Base your criticisms on facts Dave. Critique the specific and concrete strategies and tactics the Maoists have employed on the basis of whether you think they are going to succeed or not, don't just critique them for not doing what Lenin did.


I don't know where, when or how you were a Trot, but having been in and around the Trotskyist movement for more years then I want to admit, I have never heard anyone in any Trotskyist tendency assert this. Quite the contrary.

Just quick question on Trotskyism. If socialism in one country is impossible, why are revolutionaries who only have the ability to topple the ruling class in one country condemned for not immediately bringing about socialism?


In other words, by committing a serious historical blunder, they taught a political lesson. Considering that this lesson was already contained in Lenin's April Theses in 1917, someone in Nepal needs to learn to read.

How was this a 'blunder'? There is no evidence to suggest it has harmed the Maoist movement in any way. All it has done is dispell illusions the people had in the possibility of peaceful change, and allowed the Maoists to completely set the agenda for what's being discussed politically. For the past year, Nepal has been dominated by the struggle for 'civilian supremacy', a demand that the Maoists raised following the Presidential coup that blocked them from asserting control over the military. They have chosen the issues, and they have chosen how they were discussed. They have the numbers and the strength to do this - nobody else does.

And your second sentence, apart from being highly arrogant and condescending, reveals more about the flaws in your political thinking than it does any flaws in the strategy of the UCPN (M). Despite your experience in the communist movement Dave, you have never been part of a revolutionary mass movement. I doubt anyone on this site has been. You have no clue what that is like, and how a movement of millions of people can grasp radical ideas. This is clear from the frankly quite ridiculous thing you just said. Yes Dave, there are a LOT of people in Nepal that need to learn to read. Millions of them in fact. Poor peasants and slum dwellers who have never been educated, and without a succesful revolution never will be. So when you go over to Kathmandu waving your translated copy of the April Theses, I'm sure you'll realise fairly quickly how stupid what you just said was. How can Lenin's writings from 1917 possibly allow illiterate people to grasp the fact that revolution cannot advance peacefully through parliament? The Maoists analysed this question, as they HAD to, and decided to take to the greatest stage Nepal has and act out, in the eyes of everyone, a play which tells the story of revolutionary change being blocked by military supremacists, feudalist and royalist elements and reactionary bourgeois politicians. And there are a shitload of illiterate people in Nepal, to whom the papers you wave in their face would mean nothing, who now understand the issue. And we saw them on the streets of Kathmandu with clenched fists held high.


By the way, and this is crucial. Can you show us, in documents of the Nepalese Maoists, that this was their purpose? My reading of what of seen is that their practice was full of illusions.

We can infer it from various documents, but no, it's largey speculation based on analysis of the facts. The Maoists, for what should be very obvious reasons, cannot lay out all their plans for everyone to see. And the situation in Nepal is very different to that in Petrograd in 1917. The Bolsheviks had, through winning the support of the soldiers with their demands for peace and justice, made the PG powerless. Even if not every soldier supported them, enough did to make it possible for them to act in a very daring and open way without fear of the PG simply crushing them. Nepal is not like that. There is no world war to allow the Maoists to easily win over the soldiers of the reactionary army, and while the ruling class and the state has been substantially weakened and does not have the power to simply crush the Maoists, they still must move carefully. Unlike the situation for people like you and me, if the Maoist leaders fuck up they die. If they make a mistake at this point in their strategy, they will be killed along with countless cadre and supporters. So I find it kinda ridiculous for Western leftists to expect them to lay out all their plans for us to read and make sectarian critiques of, seeing as how we could do so safely but for them it could mean disaster.

And if your analysis of what they're up to is based solely on your 'readings' of their writings, of course you can easily spot illusions. That's a terribly onesided approach.


Here's what the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have said about their action.

http://cpnmintl.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:latest-party-document&catid=35:article-national

It is clear from this that the Nepalese Maoists took responsibility for a bourgeois state that they had no illusions was a bourgeois state.

They won the elections. The people had given them a mandate to govern. Who were they to ignore the will of the people? I have explained what I believe the evidence suggests the Maoists went into government for. There are also other reasons, as Baburab Bhattarai helpfully explained recently;

For the time being we cooperated with the interim government also, because by participating in that coalition government we thought we could work within the bureaucracy, within the army, within the police and within the judiciary, in order to build our support base through those state structures, which would help us for future revolutionary activities. (http://kasamaproject.org/2009/12/12/interview-with-nepals-bhattarai/)

They were attempting to undermine the state from within, to place charges at key points so a future bombardment from without could easily reduce it to rubble. And as well as this, it has often occured to me that the experience was a very useful training exercise for the Maoist leaders in what the mechanics of running a state are like. This experience will come in handy in the future.


So, every injustice that has taken place since they assumed government power can be laid at their feet.

Erm, why? I'm yet to see any evidence the workers and peasants in Nepal see it this way, but go on.


They did not and still have not called for the working class to raise up its own organs of power (soviets or the like),

They have recently formed 13 autonomous governments around the country. There is a major struggle in Nepal over the issue of federalism, which means granting self-determination and autonomy to the many oppressed nationalities of Nepal who have suffered under it's unitary state structure. No consensus has been reached on this matter, so the Maoists unilaterally declared a Madhesh state, a Limbuwan state, a Kochila state, a Sherpa state etc. Prachanda has repeatedly said that if the constitution writing process and the peace process are thwarted by reaction, these states will be raised to the level of parallel governments as part of the people's revolt the Maoists will launch. The states mirror those set up during the People's War, and this is a major issue that resonates deeply with the oppressed nationalities. These parallel governments involve far more oppressed people than any urban soviets would.

In the recent policy document you linked to, there was a very significant line which said this in reference to the development of these autonomous states;

"-- Take initiative to organize without delay the local bodies in accordance with the spirit of interim constitution."

Since 2006, there have been no local body governments in Nepal. The Maoists were demanding either proportional representation in these based on the votes in the last election (which would give them 40% in every council in Nepal), or fresh elections. The other parties agreed to neither, as they knew that if fresh elections were held the Maoist's vote would probably increase! So there's a total void at that level, which seems to have been filled by a combination of traditional authority structures and forces like the YCL. What the Maoists are saying here is that will organise, without delay, the formation of local governments to turn these autonomous states into concrete realities exercising political power. They are going to organise parallel states.


nor did they or have they called on the peasants to seize the land. And they were in power!

Firstly. When the Maoists were in government, they made a very public effort to form a "scientific land reform commission" to redistribute land. This was blocked by the other parties. So again, this fits into their strategy of using the government as a stage to reveal the failings of the bourgeois parliamentary process.

Secondly. Your statement here is completely false. I have spent the past year posting reports at the very least every few weeks of Maoist-led land seizures. There was a major wave only a few weeks ago. They have never returned any of the land they seized, despite promising to do so in the peace accords. If you ask me to, I'll go and collect a whole heap of links proving this to you, but come on. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and I'd avise a wee bit of humility and research before you start throwing around bullshit claims like this one.

Incidentally, you may find this report (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/) interesting. During the Maoist-led government, workers in Maoist unions were seizing control of their workplaces and running them under their own control.


Again, they have done precisely what Lenin insisted the Bolsheviks not do. The bourgeois state is perfectly capable of exposing itself. It doesn't need help from revolutionaries.

This is an assertion, not a fact. The Maoists have analysed the situation differently, and as far as I can see the tactics they have employed as a result of this analysis have brought them nothing but success. Lenin is not Jesus. We do not have to do everything he said forever.


Nonsense. The bougeois state would have exposed itself by its own practice. What the Nepalese Maoists have done is mislead the masses and crippled themselves as a party.

Please provide me with what I'm sure will be FASCINATING evidence that the Maoist party has been 'cripplied'.


Neither did they exist in Russia in 1917. This did not stop the Bolsheviks from calling for and leading the overthrow of the bourgeois state. They did not use the underdevelopment of Russia as an excuse to support, let alone enter, let alone lead, a bourgeois government.

*sighs*

Perhaps I'm getting jaded in my old age, but I'm getting increasingly sick and tired of people commenting when they clearly know nothing about the situation. The Maoists do NOT support the bourgeois government, and they do NOT support the bourgeois state. They have been quite clear in party documents that their struggle is against both for a 'people's federal democratic republic'. And you may have noticed that for almost a year now, they've been disrupting parliament, calling general strikes, organising massive demonstrations, all as part of a campaign against the bourgeois government. They are calling for it's overthrow. They are not supporting it.


So, if that's true, why make a revolution. Was the purpose just to enlist the proletariat in accomplishing the historical task of the bourgeoisie? This seems to be what the Stalinists did in Russia, and the Maoists did in China.

No. The proletariat must accomplish both it's own tasks AND the tasks of the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, being no longer a vibrant and new class, is incapable of carrying out the democratic revolution. Nowhere is this more true than Nepal.


True. Neither did Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks still didn't support the bourgeois regime as the Nepalese Maoists have done.

How have the Maoists supported the bourgeois regime?


Indeed, which is what the Nepalese Maoists are preparing for. Either they will follow their Maoist forbears into the building of state capitalist, which will collapse into private capitalism, or they will take a shortcut and go as quickly as they can to private enterprise as is happening in Vietnam.

The new democratic revolution will involve the development of capitalist property relations, yes. The slogan of 'land to the tiller' is a thoroughly capitalistic one, a call for individual peasants and peasant families to own the land they work on, thus sowing the seeds for the development of capitalistic property relations in the countryside. Revolutionaries know this and raise the demand anyway, because it's a transitional step between the current feudal state of affairs and a socialist system of rural communes and collectivisation. Which incidentally, the Maoists have been developing all over the place for years.

Anyway, isn't socialism impossible in one country?


And, if they are not intending to be complicit in the bourgeois state, why are they merging their own armed forces into that state? Recipe for disaster.

The demand for army integration is a complex one, and a very new one. There are a few things to keep in mind here. The most important one is that the Maoists entered the peace process from a position of strength. They controlled the rural areas, and signed the peace accords so they could win over the urban areas. Their demand for army integration is in no way part of a surrender, it is a deliberate part of their strategy to undermine and topple the state. Prachanda said in his secret speech to the PLA troops in the cantonments that they believe it would only take 4,000 PLA fighters to totally take over the Nepali army. Think about this concretely for a bit. How hard would it be for the Nepal army to carry out a coup if it's ranks are suddenly filled with tens of thousands of passionate, dedicated revolutionaries who have spent every day since entering the cantonments undergoing political education and studying the works of Lenin, Marx, Mao, Prachanda and others? And if PLA commanders were suddenly part of the army leadership? The PLA fighters are commited cadre who will support the Maoist party wherever they go, including into the ranks of the national army, and if the national army is neutralised as a threat, what does that leave? The police? The YCL could sweep them aside in an hour.

If army integration represented a surrender by the Maoists, if it truly weakened their power, the Nepali ruling class would support it, indeed welcome it. But army integration has been the single thorniest issue since the peace accords, and is the underlyng reason for all the struggles that have followed. The main reason the Maoist-led government moved to dismiss General Katawal, chief of the army, was because he had publicly refused to allow "ideologically indoctrinated" PLA fighters into the Nepal Army. The struggle for civilian supremacy stems from this confrontation. The Maoists seek to 'democratise' the Nepal Army by flooding it's ranks with revolutionary cadre who can appeal to the rank and file soldiers and win them over. They are, after all, class brothers and sisters. The Bolsheviks pulled this off in Russia when they flooded the ranks of the army with Bolshevik cadre, and while the situation is different, there's no reason to view it as impossible.

The final point to keep in mind here is that the Maoists have stated all along they will not integrate the PLA into the Nepal Army before the constitution is written. The deadline for that is in a couple of months, and it doesn't look like it'll happen. They do not have any intention of surrendering their army before the reactionaries have been defeated. They have not, did not and never will surrender.

PS The Maoists have a position that Nepal should not even have a standing army, and instead the masses should recieve military training and organise militias of their own. Considering Nepal's extreme poverty, a military of 200,000 is just insane, the country can't afford it. So they do not want to dissolve their forces into the NA - they want to dissolve the NA.

Lal salam

[Saorsa]

Incidentally, I agree with Dave and disagree with red cat on the issue of teachers. Teachers are totally working class, and historically there have been heaps of revolutionaries who have come out of that profession... Such as Prachanda, leader of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). See Dave, you and him have more in common than you thought! :P

[red cat]

Incidentally, I agree with Dave and disagree with red cat on the issue of teachers. Teachers are totally working class, and historically there have been heaps of revolutionaries who have come out of that profession... Such as Prachanda, leader of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). See Dave, you and him have more in common than you thought! :P

Comrade, your analysis might be appropriate with respect to your own country, but here in the third-world things are different.



The petty bourgeoisie. Included in this category are the owner-peasants, the master handicraftsmen, the lower levels of the intellectuals--students, primary and secondary school teachers, lower government functionaries, office clerks, small lawyers--and the small traders. Both because of its size and class character, this class deserves very close attention. ---Mao




http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm

See? :)

[Saorsa]

Well, I would argue that teachers in the third world are stil workers. They would generally be part of a privileged layer of the working class, and one with a tendency towards a petit-bourgeois consciousness, but the objective facts are that they sell their ability to work to an employer. Thus, they're working class.

My dad is actually a good example of this. He's a doctor, and is technically working class in that he sells his labour power to the state etc. But he's part of a layer of the class so distant from the rest of it, so much better off than most of it, that his consiousness is fairly bourgeois.

Anyway, that's really a discussion for another thread!

[ls]

Comrade, your analysis might be appropriate with respect to your own country, but here in the third-world things are different.



http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm

See? :)

See what? The simplistic assertion by Mao, without any evidence or anything at all to support his case?

[Glenn Beck]

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

[Saorsa]

GB, there's actually a lot of very valuable debate in this thread.

[Glenn Beck]

GB, there's actually a lot of very valuable debate in this thread.

Oh, well, carry on then. :lol:

[Saorsa]

Take your bloody 'humour' somewhere else you counterrevolutionary cossack

[Saorsa]

For Dave and all the other people curious about the relationship the Maoists have with the working class, this just in.

Maoists force closure of 26 restaurants in Kathmandu

PTI

Twenty six restaurants operating under three chains in Kathmandu have been shut down after the Maoists affiliated union exerted pressure to fulfil their demands of hiking pay and perks.

Restaurants operating under the chains of Nepal Dairy’s, Hot Bread and The Bakery Cafe have shut down their outlays in Kathmandu since Sunday following the Maoists’ pressure, according to Restaurant and Bar Association Nepal (RABAN).

The decision to close down the restaurant outlays was taken after the Maoist workers obstructed operation for eight hours on Saturday to press for their demands.

Although the restaurant owners and labour union had earlier agreed to review their pay and perks in every three years during previous agreement, the pro-Maoist workers obstructed the operation of restaurant one year before the agreement expires, one of the owners said. We will review their salary next year as it was increased just two years ago, he pointed out.

The pro-Maoist trade union has demanded 40 per cent pay hike and 100 per cent increment in allowances. More than 600 employees were working in these 26 restaurants which have closed their operation since Sunday.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/intern...icle102815.ece
__________________

[Devrim]

Then, having achieved this victory, this bloc establishes “new democracy” (an entirely new category in Marxists theory). Actually, since there are no changes in the fundamental relations of production, the working class is not in control of production, what has been established is capitalism.

And, since in third world countries, the national brougeoisie is so weak that it can’t even carry out its own bourgeois revolution, it will require assistance from the newly established multi-class state. And then we have, as in Russia by the late 1920s, China, Vietnam, state fucking capitalism.

Comrades, the Maoist program is a program for state capitalism..

I agree with the majority of your argument, but I think this depends on your view of State capitalism. Cliff's view has it as a particular, and superior, form of capitalism that was practised in the Soviet sphere. We see it more a a general tendency in all countries, and that in those it went further.

Following from this analysis the Maoist programme is simply capitalist, and they are bourgeois parties, nothing more, nothing less.

Devrim

[Sendo]

I agree with the majority of your argument, but I think this depends on your view of State capitalism. Cliff's view has it as a particular, and superior, form of capitalism that was practised in the Soviet sphere. We see it more a a general tendency in all countries, and that in those it went further.

Following from this analysis the Maoist programme is simply capitalist, and they are bourgeois parties, nothing more, nothing less.

Devrim

"So spaketh the Lord." (Please stop wasting space to sign your messages when your avatar lets us now who you are. It comes off as egotistical.

Anyhow, Left Communists seem to conflate socialism and communism. Obviously the conditions in the USSR were never fully classless, never stateless, and so never communist. But they were on the socialist road with socialist security, they had not-for-private-profit planning (Stalin didn't open factories to fatten his wallet or that of his shareholders), and everything of note was in state hands. And before Khrushchev's revision, the road they were on was one towards eventual freedom of association and plenty and all the other bounties of modern communism.

Marx neglected to discuss the mechanics of transitioning, but the fundamental issue for you, Devrim, seems to be a rejection of transition. But, if you're a communist, and a leftist, then shouldn't a socialist road party dictatorship (I'll concede party dictatorship for the sake of argument) be better than a bourgeois dictatorship?

And isn't an anti-colonial dictatorship better than a colonized dictatorship? I know your thought is that to the workers that the new boss is the old boss. I get that. But doesn't a local bourgeois dictatorship make the MATERIAL CONDITIONS for socialist revolution? What resources do you have to share among the workers when your nation, for example, is exporting the vitality of its soil with cash crops and is completely dependent on a mercantile mother to supply consumer products, let alone industrial capital?

The Maoists shift alliances to go through the stages to socialism. At first there's an anti-imperialist alliance, then an anti-monarchy alliance, then an anti-bourgeois alliance, then probably an anti-petty bourgeois movement, then heavy socialism, then spreading revolution, then communism.

[Saorsa]

Well, to answer the first question, I don't think the work most Maoists do in the first world is that markedly different to the work Trotskyists do in similar places. Intervening in, supporting and potentially leading class struggles where and when we can, and generally struggling to build a revolutionary movement against imperialism and to topple our own ruling class. Winning people to our ideas, holding public talks, selling papers, doing poster runs, political graffiti, publishing leaflets and pamphlets, etc etc

The Maoist strategy of revolution, in my opinion, is a uniquely third world strategy uniquely suited to third world conditions. That is, after all, where it emerged and where it has been succesfully applied around the world, unlike Trotskyism. However, it is difficult to seperate Maoism from it's most important component, the strategy of protracted people's war surrounding the cities from the countryside and displacing the state from ever growing liberated zones. If I went into the New Zealand countryside with a .22 and knocked on some farmers door asking him to join my struggle, he'd probably shoot me. At the very least he'd call the cops.

I live in an imperialist country - there is neither any need nor (and this is crucial) any potential to form tactical alliances with progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie.

So while Mao was a great revolutionary leader, theoretician and writer, and somebody whose contributions to Marxism and actual practice should be studied and learned from, Maoism is not really something that applies to industrially advanced, imperialist countries like New Zealand. I'd see myself as a Marxist-Leninist and supporter of Maoism and Maoist movements, as to call myself a Maoist without Maoist theory and strategy guiding my practical work would be a bit ludicrous.

The real difference between Maoism and other tendencies such as Trotskyism or 'Left' Communism lies in the more materialist and, as a result, realistic and practical approach that Maoism takes to building revolutionary worker and peasant power in the countries where such power is really possible.

There are no mass revolutionary parties in the West today. There are sects that are bigger than others, but there is not a single case today where the working class is in any way looking likely to throw off it's shackles any time soon, let alone do so with the active participation and leadership of a Marxist organisation. So let's be honest, whethere we have 10 members or 1000 members, relative sizes of groups or general ideological groupings are quite irrelevant. As I've said before, I'd much rather join a group like the WPRM in the UK (which has about a dozen members as far as I'm aware) than an ideologically shit and practically useless group like the SWP or SPEW.

There are only a handful of places on the planet today with mass revolutionary communist parties challenging the power of the ruling class. And of these, the only place I'd say has any likelihood of seeing a revolution any time soon is Nepal. I don't believe it's a coincidence that the Maoist banner is flying high in the third world, and I think it speaks for the fundamental correctness of the Maoist political line in those conditions.

As for our work in the West, all of us Marxists have to just keep doing whatever we can to hasten while awaiting a revolutionary situation. Or in many countries, even a situation where the class struggle has pulled out of it's downturn, which I assure you it is very much in here in New Zealand. Perhaps with some isolated flareups happening more frequently of late (which bodes well for the future), but definitely without much general class struggle or even class consciousness at all.

We do what we can. We can't do any more than that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, it is difficult to seperate Maoism from it's most important component, the strategy of protracted people's war surrounding the cities from the countryside and displacing the state from ever growing liberated zones. If I went into the New Zealand countryside with a .22 and knocked on some farmers door asking him to join my struggle, he'd probably shoot me. At the very least he'd call the cops.

I live in an imperialist country - there is neither any need nor (and this is crucial) any potential to form tactical alliances with progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie.

That farmer (assuming he owns his farm) you mentioned wasn't part of the "national" bourgeoisie. Assuming he owns his own farm, and if he joined you, he'd be "national petit-bourgeois."

I just don't see any role in the Third World for nationalist industrialists, nationalist bankers, etc. So did Lenin. So did the revolutionary democrats of the Second International. Why continue appealing to them, when it's the "national petit-bourgeois" under your noses fighting the people's war?

[pranabjyoti]

But, all of you kindly remember that the petty-bourgeoisie hass a tendency to be bourgeoisie. The problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that, whenever his conditions are deteriorating, he swings towards proletariat and when his conditions improve, he swings towards bourgeoisie. Mao himself, in an interview with Edgar Snow, clearly mentioned that every peasant is dreaming of to be a capitalist. In the 20th century, in most of the cases, you can observe that the petty-bourgeoisie make a front with proletariat to fight capitalism, so that the main obstacle in their way to be capitalists, the old capitalists can be removed. In my opinion, the only solution is rapid mechanization of agriculture, in a scale more rapid and automated than the collectivization that was done in USSR during the 30s. Actually, I myself prefer development and rapid spreading of technologies like hydroponics or similar kind of technics, where we need very land, practically zero land for agriculture and which is just impossible to copy by individual farmers.

[red cat]

But, all of you kindly remember that the petty-bourgeoisie hass a tendency to be bourgeoisie. The problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that, whenever his conditions are deteriorating, he swings towards proletariat and when his conditions improve, he swings towards bourgeoisie. Mao himself, in an interview with Edgar Snow, clearly mentioned that every peasant is dreaming of to be a capitalist. In the 20th century, in most of the cases, you can observe that the petty-bourgeoisie make a front with proletariat to fight capitalism, so that the main obstacle in their way to be capitalists, the old capitalists can be removed. In my opinion, the only solution is rapid mechanization of agriculture, in a scale more rapid and automated than the collectivization that was done in USSR during the 30s. Actually, I myself prefer development and rapid spreading of technologies like hydroponics or similar kind of technics, where we need very land, practically zero land for agriculture and which is just impossible to copy by individual farmers.

I am doubtful whether only technological development is the solution. Learning from and educating the masses, organizing them in continuous class war against the newly emerging bourgeoisie, involving them in decision making and military processes are necessary measures to be taken.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=red cat;maomaomaomaommaommeow meow{/quote]

are you kidding me. teachers are workers, and some of the most militant ones too.

[pranabjyoti]

[QUOTE=red cat;maomaomaomaommaommeow meow{/quote]

are you kidding me. teachers are workers, and some of the most militant ones too.
A teacher sells his power to teach to the school authority and in turn get a salary at the end of the month. At least, red cat's saying isn't contradictory Marxian definition or worker.

[black magick hustla]

[QUOTE=dada;1669718]
A teacher sells his power to teach to the school authority and in turn get a salary at the end of the month. At least, red cat's saying isn't contradictory Marxian definition or worker.

considering that a big chunk of workers in modern capitalism work for the state whatever is red cats definition, whether "marxist" or not is completely worthless.

[red cat]

A teacher sells his power to teach to the school authority and in turn get a salary at the end of the month. At least, red cat's saying isn't contradictory Marxian definition or worker.

Comrade, you have not understood my stand due to dada's joke. I had claimed that teacher's are petit-bourgeois. This is because in the third world, even full primary education is a luxury, and even the lowest paid teacher earns more than an average factory-worker. As a result, the whole spectrum of people with this occupation shows both bourgeois and proletarian tendencies depending upon many other factors. As a whole, they are not as revolutionary as what we call the working class. This is in accordance with Mao's class analysis of China and the stand of the main Maoist CPs of today.

[black magick hustla]

Comrade, you have not understood my stand due to dada's joke. I had claimed that teacher's are petit-bourgeois. This is because in the third world, even full primary education is a luxury, and even the lowest paid teacher earns more than an average factory-worker. As a result, the whole spectrum of people with this occupation shows both bourgeois and proletarian tendencies depending upon many other factors. As a whole, they are not as revolutionary as what we call the working class. This is in accordance with Mao's class analysis of China and the stand of the main Maoist CPs of today.

you might as well divide between skilled and unskilled workers too. a mexican teacher makes about as much as a skilled wielder.

[Sendo]

you might as well divide between skilled and unskilled workers too. a mexican teacher makes about as much as a skilled wielder.

Red Cat's critique wasn't specifically towards Mexico's teachers. It is pretty much open knowledge, even briefly got some press in the 1990s in the US, how militant they are.

There is something to be said of "employees" who are employed as result of, or benefit enormously from the bourgeois, got to their position of skill and prestige from bourgeois backgrounds, and espouse bourgeois ideology.

Enemy workers in my eyes:
Blackwater security (the owners of Blackwater/Xe certainly profit from their work)
White House Treasury and Federal Reserve chiefs/chairs/etc
Lobbyists

Potentially friendly petit-bourgeoisie:
Street vendors
Independent plumbers, carpenters, building contractors
small scale businesses (kept in check to keep from overtaking state industry)

It's not always so cut-and-dry. I think we need to look at all material aspects, especially if their money comes from personal productive labor (that would include middle peasants, poor peasants, family farmers, for example), as well as their function (officer soldiers of an imperial state are obviously enemies) and their ideology since those who don't fall into the proletariat/capital dichotomy can swing either way.

******

As far as the whole state capitalism thing, I don't think it's necessary to take every letter by every leader as wholly writ to be infallible, but rather the direction of the movement. Though Trotsky himself declared the USSR to be a deformed workers' state, the movement in practice and in theory now emphasizes "state capitalism" and won't discuss the USSR beyond the 30s, discuss Cuba, discuss PRC, DPRK, etc. I have different views on all of them, and I strongly disagree with the RCP's line on Cuba never being socialist but merely a social colony of the USSR, but at least MLs and MLMs discuss them.

Trots spend more time trying to make a case to dismiss the USSR after 1927(9?) than they would if they just examined the pros and cons.

[pranabjyoti]

I am doubtful whether only technological development is the solution. Learning from and educating the masses, organizing them in continuous class war against the newly emerging bourgeoisie, involving them in decision making and military processes are necessary measures to be taken.
The "newly emerging bourgeoisie" will emerge from the petty-bourgeoisie section, a huge part of the population which will take part in the revolution. Actually, technological development will be a "must" after the revolution if we want to keep up the revolution. Without proper technological advancement, you just can not able to keep up the revolutionary spirit.

[Crux]

Though Trotsky himself declared the USSR to be a deformed workers' state, the movement in practice and in theory now emphasizes "state capitalism" and won't discuss the USSR beyond the 30s, discuss Cuba, discuss PRC, DPRK, etc. I have different views on all of them, and I strongly disagree with the RCP's line on Cuba never being socialist but merely a social colony of the USSR, but at least MLs and MLMs discuss them.

Trots spend more time trying to make a case to dismiss the USSR after 1927(9?) than they would if they just examined the pros and cons.
As far as I am aware only one Trotskyist group puts forwards the theory of State capitalism.
And the trotskyist movement certainly hasn't been void of discussions on Cuba, the USSR, Yugoslavia, China etc etc.

[Kléber]

Trots spend more time trying to make a case to dismiss the USSR after 1927(9?) than they would if they just examined the pros and cons.Dismissing revisionism is not dismissing the USSR. Trotsky did not ask to leave the USSR and the fact that the Left Opposition were suppressed and he was exiled is more than a "con" it was an affront to the principles of democratic centralism, a big step toward 1937 and the death of party democracy altogether.


Though Trotsky himself declared the USSR to be a deformed workers' state, the movement in practice and in theory now emphasizes "state capitalism" and won't discuss the USSR beyond the 30sThat deformed worker's state assassinated him before he could analyze the USSR past the 1930's so in a direct discussion of his works and theory it is impossible to go further without extrapolation. So basically you are blaming Trotsky for being assassinated.

As for the state capitalism thing, he did agree that the industrial economy could be described as state capitalist, but he didn't feel that was an adequate term to describe the USSR as a whole because he hoped that the working class might be able to use what social and political capital it had left to outmaneuver the revisionist bureaucracy, prevent outright capitalist restoration, and put the USSR back on a course toward socialism.

What's funny is that many forum Stalinists are actually closer to Zinoviev/Kamenev or Bukharin than to Stalin himself politically, yet, like them, adamantly defend the clique's unrestricted power and revisions to the very end.

[red cat]

The "newly emerging bourgeoisie" will emerge from the petty-bourgeoisie section, a huge part of the population which will take part in the revolution. Actually, technological development will be a "must" after the revolution if we want to keep up the revolution. Without proper technological advancement, you just can not able to keep up the revolutionary spirit.

I contradicted your opinion in your previous post only at a single point; that technological advancement is not the only solution. While it is a "must" for building socialism in third-world countries, it is far from a sufficient condition.

The bourgeoisie will emerge not only from sections of the petite bourgeoisie, but also from some CP members with proletarian backgrounds. So a continuous class-struggle is necessary to prevent any capitalist takeover both from inside and outside the CP.

[pranabjyoti]

I contradicted your opinion in your previous post only at a single point; that technological advancement is not the only solution. While it is a "must" for building socialism in third-world countries, it is far from a sufficient condition.

The bourgeoisie will emerge not only from sections of the petite bourgeoisie, but also from some CP members with proletarian backgrounds. So a continuous class-struggle is necessary to prevent any capitalist takeover both from inside and outside the CP.
This kind of stray examples are and would be available in near future. Actually I want to say that the petty-bourgeoisie section is the class basis of the newly emerged bourgeoisie. With the support of the petty-bourgeoisie, the "traitor" CP members can not have any basis of their action.