Criticism

[scarletghoul]

Forty years ago, the Black Panther Community News Service published an article relating to criticism of Cuba from the Left. I can't find it online and can't be arsed to type all of it up, but here's the opening paragraph which I think is pretty cool.

"There are two types of criticism, revolutionary criticism and reactionary criticism. Revolutionary criticism is done on a principled basis, at the proper time, when the objective and subjective conditions are right, and it is given to reach a higher level of unity and to strengthen the revolutionary camp. Reactionary criticism generally takes the form of a personal attack because of some personal grievence. It is generally one-sided criticism based on a subjective analysis not having looked at a situation on all sides and reactionary criticism only served the interest of the fascist and imperialist."

The article then goes on to defend Cuba and her revolution against fools on the Left who one-sidedly criticise Cuba for the remnents of racism, without taking in the bigger picture. ( Some comrades will be reminded of this thread, where an almost identicle argument is going on - http://www.revleft.com/vb/racism-cuba-t127910/index.html ).

Anyway I think it's important for us to look at the way we criticise things and to try to approach everything from a revolutionary standpoint, in order to advance everyone's understanding and to promote unity and improvement in the socialist movement. We should always be on guard against reactionary criticism, in all tendencies and all people including ourselves. Reactionary criticism sometimes touches on real problems that need to be discussed and solved, but it touches on them from the angle of the bourgeoisie, the angle of counterrevolution, and it just causes trouble and disunity without helping to solve them. "Unity - criticism - unity" yeah.

There's a lot of reactionary criticism around so this is important.

Mao got it right on in his On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People when he said "Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but instead the effort should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic criticism settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds of whatever kind, but eve must carefully distinguish between what is really a poisonous weed and what is really a fragrant flower. Together with the masses of the people, we must learn to differentiate carefully between the two and use correct methods to fight the poisonous weeds. "

Many reactionary criticisms are based on liberal premises aswell as being subjective and one-sided, so this is directly related to the need to combat liberalism among the left.

So yeah I think we have to make sure that we
1- analyse every situation objectively before criticising even one part of it
2- scrutinise all criticisms before adopting them as our own (making sure that they are factually correct, not from bourgeois view but proletarian, free from liberalism and such, etc)
3- think of the effects of your criticism (ie don't waste energy on criticism of small issues that will just cause disunity and weaken the socialist movement, while ignoring the more important issues)
4- make sure all our criticisms are constructive rather than just unhelpful insults. ("curing the sickness to save the patient")

then our conversations will be much better. What are your views on this?

[ChrisK]

Anyway I think it's important for us to look at the way we criticise things and to try to approach everything from a revolutionary standpoint, in order to advance everyone's understanding and to promote unity and improvement in the socialist movement. We should always be on guard against reactionary criticism, in all tendencies and all people including ourselves. Reactionary criticism sometimes touches on real problems that need to be discussed and solved, but it touches on them from the angle of the bourgeoisie, the angle of counterrevolution, and it just causes trouble and disunity without helping to solve them. "Unity - criticism - unity" yeah.


Well then, what is revolutionary criticism exactly? Is it reactionary to use irony and sarcasm to make a point? Can you give us an example of good criticism?


Mao got it right on in his On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People when he said "Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but instead the effort should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic criticism settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds of whatever kind, but eve must carefully distinguish between what is really a poisonous weed and what is really a fragrant flower. Together with the masses of the people, we must learn to differentiate carefully between the two and use correct methods to fight the poisonous weeds."

So is the only right method of criticism the dialectical method? What about using historical materialism? Also, how are dialectics not metaphysical?


So yeah I think we have to make sure that we
1- analyse every situation objectively before criticising even one part of it
2- scrutinise all criticisms before adopting them as our own (making sure that they are factually correct, not from bourgeois view but proletarian, free from liberalism and such, etc)
3- think of the effects of your criticism (ie don't waste energy on criticism of small issues that will just cause disunity and weaken the socialist movement, while ignoring the more important issues)
4- make sure all our criticisms are constructive rather than just unhelpful insults. ("curing the sickness to save the patient")

then our conversations will be much better. What are your views on this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but criticizing Maoist China as being State-capitalist would be reactionary by your definition.

[red cat]

Forty years ago, the Black Panther Community News Service published an article relating to criticism of Cuba from the Left. I can't find it online and can't be arsed to type all of it up, but here's the opening paragraph which I think is pretty cool.

"There are two types of criticism, revolutionary criticism and reactionary criticism. Revolutionary criticism is done on a principled basis, at the proper time, when the objective and subjective conditions are right, and it is given to reach a higher level of unity and to strengthen the revolutionary camp. Reactionary criticism generally takes the form of a personal attack because of some personal grievence. It is generally one-sided criticism based on a subjective analysis not having looked at a situation on all sides and reactionary criticism only served the interest of the fascist and imperialist."

The article then goes on to defend Cuba and her revolution against fools on the Left who one-sidedly criticise Cuba for the remnents of racism, without taking in the bigger picture. ( Some comrades will be reminded of this thread, where an almost identicle argument is going on - http://www.revleft.com/vb/racism-cuba-t127910/index.html ).

Anyway I think it's important for us to look at the way we criticise things and to try to approach everything from a revolutionary standpoint, in order to advance everyone's understanding and to promote unity and improvement in the socialist movement. We should always be on guard against reactionary criticism, in all tendencies and all people including ourselves. Reactionary criticism sometimes touches on real problems that need to be discussed and solved, but it touches on them from the angle of the bourgeoisie, the angle of counterrevolution, and it just causes trouble and disunity without helping to solve them. "Unity - criticism - unity" yeah.

There's a lot of reactionary criticism around so this is important.

Mao got it right on in his On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People when he said "Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but instead the effort should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic criticism settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds of whatever kind, but eve must carefully distinguish between what is really a poisonous weed and what is really a fragrant flower. Together with the masses of the people, we must learn to differentiate carefully between the two and use correct methods to fight the poisonous weeds. "

Many reactionary criticisms are based on liberal premises aswell as being subjective and one-sided, so this is directly related to the need to combat liberalism among the left.

So yeah I think we have to make sure that we
1- analyse every situation objectively before criticising even one part of it
2- scrutinise all criticisms before adopting them as our own (making sure that they are factually correct, not from bourgeois view but proletarian, free from liberalism and such, etc)
3- think of the effects of your criticism (ie don't waste energy on criticism of small issues that will just cause disunity and weaken the socialist movement, while ignoring the more important issues)
4- make sure all our criticisms are constructive rather than just unhelpful insults. ("curing the sickness to save the patient")

then our conversations will be much better. What are your views on this?

First of all, to uphold and practice the methods of revolutionary criticism, this forum needed to be revolutionary, which it is not.

Secondly, even if some members of this forum might by chance happen to be partisan communists engaged in actual struggle, not being directly involved with them in the field leaves us with only one option: to uphold the line of our fraternal CPs in their respective nations, until we are a part of some other communist group in that nation.

What forms the very base of revolutionary criticism is revolutionary struggle itself, and the success or failure of a line in it decides whether it is right or wrong, and where and to what extent it should be criticized. So, the best we Maoists can do here is learn from each others' experiences and tirelessly defend our own political and historical line. Do not expect any other tendency to uphold these revolutionary norms.

[RED DAVE]

Formula for the absence of criticism:


First of all, to uphold and practice the methods of revolutionary criticism, this forum needed to be revolutionary, which it is not.Thus speaketh the Maoist.


Secondly, even if some members of this forum might by chance happen to be partisan communists engaged in actual struggle, not being directly involved with them in the field leaves us with only one option: to uphold the line of our fraternal CPs in their respective nations, until we are a part of some other communist group in that nation.This is a formula for credibility and ass kissing, not criticism. This is how Stalinists and Maoists bought/buy lies for decades.


What forms the very base of revolutionary criticism is revolutionary struggle itself, and the success or failure of a line in it decides whether it is right or wrong, and where and to what extent it should be criticized.In that event, since Maoism/Stalnism has always led to the establishment of state capitalism, you should be mercilessly criticizing your own line.


So, the best we Maoists can do here is learn from each others' experiences and tirelessly defend our own political and historical line. Do not expect any other tendency to uphold these revolutionary norms.This is a formula for dogmatism and the refusal to learn from experience.

RED DAVE

[Agnapostate]

I found this online version (http://books.google.com/books?id=_Qjo7CZf0fMC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=&f=false) in an archived collection called The Black Panthers speak. Is there more?

[ChrisK]

First of all, to uphold and practice the methods of revolutionary criticism, this forum needed to be revolutionary, which it is not.

How so?


Secondly, even if some members of this forum might by chance happen to be partisan communists engaged in actual struggle, not being directly involved with them in the field leaves us with only one option: to uphold the line of our fraternal CPs in their respective nations, until we are a part of some other communist group in that nation.

Not too sure what this has to do with criticism.


What forms the very base of revolutionary criticism is revolutionary struggle itself, and the success or failure of a line in it decides whether it is right or wrong, and where and to what extent it should be criticized. So, the best we Maoists can do here is learn from each others' experiences and tirelessly defend our own political and historical line. Do not expect any other tendency to uphold these revolutionary norms.

Bold mine. If what you say is true, then all criticisms of Maoism work because Maoist China failed. Also, tirelessly defending your historical line implies you are willing to learn from the mistakes of the past, which you say you do before that.

[red cat]

How so?


Too many Trots and left communists.



Not too sure what this has to do with criticism. A correct criticism has to be based on analysis of correct data. When several versions of data are available, we naturally choose the one presented by the group waging revolutionary war.




Bold mine. If what you say is true, then all criticisms of Maoism work because Maoist China failed. Also, tirelessly defending your historical line implies you are willing to learn from the mistakes of the past, which you say you do before that.Read the full sentence. It also determines where and to what extent it should be criticized. The line of the CPC, with its technical mistakes and the late application of GPCR, was indeed partially wrong. Present day Maoists try to rectify the technical mistakes and start applying the GPCR from the first stages of the revolutionary war.

[ChrisK]

Too many Trots and left communists.

Aren't you the one who's always whining that we aren't supporting our fellow revolutionaries?


A correct criticism has to be based on analysis of correct data. When several versions of data are available, we naturally choose the one presented by the group waging revolutionary war.

But what if its a reactionary group pretending to be revolutionary? Or, what if the group is filled with guys who see things poorly?


Read the full sentence. It also determines where and to what extent it should be criticized. The line of the CPC, with its technical mistakes and the late application of GPCR, was indeed partially wrong. Present day Maoists try to rectify the technical mistakes and start applying the GPCR from the first stages of the revolutionary war.

Does it work now? Or does everything become capitalist again?

[red cat]

Aren't you the one who's always whining that we aren't supporting our fellow revolutionaries?



Don't you get the logic ? You denounce our revolutions => we denounce you.



But what if its a reactionary group pretending to be revolutionary? Or, what if the group is filled with guys who see things poorly? Then send a team from your party to observe their activities.




Does it work now? Or does everything become capitalist again?We cannot say that until a big country has defended its NDR successfully against imperialism, and has had socialism for a long time. The first stage is in near future, though.

However, we have some evidence indicating that the present line is far stronger than that of China.

[ChrisK]

Don't you get the logic ? You denounce our revolutions => we denounce you.

Okay, I disagree with your interpretation of a revolution and disagree with its strategies, then you call me a revisionist Trot. Boy that seem a wee bit dogmatic.


We cannot say that until a big country has defended its NDR successfully against imperialism, and has had socialism for a long time. The first stage is in near future, though.

However, we have some evidence indicating that the present line is far stronger than that of China.

What evidence?

[red cat]

Okay, I disagree with your interpretation of a revolution and disagree with its strategies, then you call me a revisionist Trot. Boy that seem a wee bit dogmatic.



What evidence?

Since you disagree with our interpretation of a revolution, it is useless to give you any evidence. Just know this much that we have CPs that have regenerated even after the whole CC and most of the higher committees were either annihilated or turned revisionists, and we have CPs more than 95% of whose cadres, including those in the higher committees , are workers or lower peasants. Here I exclude teachers from the working class. Otherwise it would be 100%.

[ChrisK]

Since you disagree with our interpretation of a revolution, it is useless to give you any evidence. Just know this much that we have CPs that have regenerated even after the whole CC and most of the higher committees were either annihilated or turned revisionists, and we have CPs more than 95% of whose cadres, including those in the higher committees , are workers or lower peasants. Here I exclude teachers from the working class. Otherwise it would be 100%.

How about some proof of this.

[red cat]

How about some proof of this.

Why should I prove this to you ? Will you suddenly become a Maoist if I do? And what sort of proof do you want? This is not mathematics. Here you can always argue that the sources are biased. Also, some of the information I have gathered is from the workers coming here from other countries. So there may not be any documentary evidence.

[ChrisK]

Why should I prove this to you ? Will you suddenly become a Maoist if I do? And what sort of proof do you want? This is not mathematics. Here you can always argue that the sources are biased. Also, some of the information I have gathered is from the workers coming here from other countries. So there may not be any documentary evidence.

Documents about the size and strength of the parties would suffice for this claim.

[red cat]

Documents about the size and strength of the parties would suffice for this claim.

Are you aware of the fact that no third world Maoist CP generally reveals its size and strength before it enters the strategic-equilibrium or more preferably completes the NDR ?

[ChrisK]

Are you aware of the fact that no third world Maoist CP generally reveals its size and strength before it enters the strategic-equilibrium or more preferably completes the NDR ?

So basically your talking out of your ass and don't want to admit it.

[red cat]

So basically your talking out of your ass and don't want to admit it.

Please explain why you think this. Point by point.

[ChrisK]

Please explain why you think this. Point by point.

Provide some sort of source and then we'll talk.

[red cat]

Provide some sort of source and then we'll talk.

Our CPs are waging revolutionary wars in the third world. They do not enjoy the privilege of being legal like your organizations and spreading false information about revolutionary movements. If you are so eager to gather information about them then go to some country where a PPW is going on, work for the Maoist CP for a couple of years, then they will tell you.

EDIT: Or if you want an example close to what I said, study what is available of the history of the CPI(Maoist).

[ChrisK]

Our CPs are waging revolutionary wars in the third world. They do not enjoy the privilege of being legal like your organizations and spreading false information about revolutionary movements. If you are so eager to gather information about them then go to some country where a PPW is going on, work for the Maoist CP for a couple of years, then they will tell you.

Sorry, I don't have the privellage of being able to get all the way to Nepal. But how about some secondary source of what you said.


EDIT: Or if you want an example close to what I said, study what is available of the history of the CPI(Maoist).

Will do. Any suggestions?

[red cat]

Sorry, I don't have the privellage of being able to get all the way to Nepal. But how about some secondary source of what you said.



Will do. Any suggestions?

Here are some links. I will try to find more.

http://venus.unive.it/asiamed/eventi/schede/naxalbari.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/nm2/History-of-Naxalism/225549/Article1-6545.aspx
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2221/stories/20051021008801000.htm
http://venus.unive.it/asiamed/eventi/schede/naxalbari.html
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM2007-12.pdf

[cmdrdeathguts]

Forty years ago, the Black Panther Community News Service published an article relating to criticism of Cuba from the Left. I can't find it online and can't be arsed to type all of it up, but here's the opening paragraph which I think is pretty cool.

"There are two types of criticism, revolutionary criticism and reactionary criticism. Revolutionary criticism is done on a principled basis, at the proper time, when the objective and subjective conditions are right, and it is given to reach a higher level of unity and to strengthen the revolutionary camp. Reactionary criticism generally takes the form of a personal attack because of some personal grievence. It is generally one-sided criticism based on a subjective analysis not having looked at a situation on all sides and reactionary criticism only served the interest of the fascist and imperialist."

The article then goes on to defend Cuba and her revolution against fools on the Left who one-sidedly criticise Cuba for the remnents of racism, without taking in the bigger picture. ( Some comrades will be reminded of this thread, where an almost identicle argument is going on - http://www.revleft.com/vb/racism-cuba-t127910/index.html ).

Anyway I think it's important for us to look at the way we criticise things and to try to approach everything from a revolutionary standpoint, in order to advance everyone's understanding and to promote unity and improvement in the socialist movement. We should always be on guard against reactionary criticism, in all tendencies and all people including ourselves. Reactionary criticism sometimes touches on real problems that need to be discussed and solved, but it touches on them from the angle of the bourgeoisie, the angle of counterrevolution, and it just causes trouble and disunity without helping to solve them. "Unity - criticism - unity" yeah.

There's a lot of reactionary criticism around so this is important.

Mao got it right on in his On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People when he said "Mistakes must be criticized and poisonous weeds fought wherever they crop up. However, such criticism should not be dogmatic, and the metaphysical method should not be used, but instead the effort should be made to apply the dialectical method. What is needed is scientific analysis and convincing argument. Dogmatic criticism settles nothing. We are against poisonous weeds of whatever kind, but eve must carefully distinguish between what is really a poisonous weed and what is really a fragrant flower. Together with the masses of the people, we must learn to differentiate carefully between the two and use correct methods to fight the poisonous weeds. "

Many reactionary criticisms are based on liberal premises aswell as being subjective and one-sided, so this is directly related to the need to combat liberalism among the left.

So yeah I think we have to make sure that we
1- analyse every situation objectively before criticising even one part of it
2- scrutinise all criticisms before adopting them as our own (making sure that they are factually correct, not from bourgeois view but proletarian, free from liberalism and such, etc)
3- think of the effects of your criticism (ie don't waste energy on criticism of small issues that will just cause disunity and weaken the socialist movement, while ignoring the more important issues)
4- make sure all our criticisms are constructive rather than just unhelpful insults. ("curing the sickness to save the patient")

then our conversations will be much better. What are your views on this?

This post doesn't really say anything. Are there any left 'critics' alive who would consider themselves exempt from objective analysis, would consider their criticisms ad hoc and off the cuff, would not direct that criticism at a particular effect, or consider that effect a positive and 'constructuve' change in the world? An appeal to 'reactionary' critics on this basis has no traction, because it's all mom and apple pie stuff - the problem in fact becomes one of, you know, deciding if criticisms are correct or not.

Cuba's a good example - from the anti-Castroite position, it appears that the Cuban bureaucracy is an immense pair of arse-cheeks pressing down on the initiative of the masses. It is that stifled initiative which means that the 'Cuban revolution' as presently constituted is condemned to failure. The anti-Castroite can cite a lot of evidence for that - the strict party control on so-called popular organs of power in Cuba, and as far as the consequences go, the long-term edging down the 'Chinese road', especially under Raul. This is an analysis of the objective situation (I have obviously only sketched in two sentences a theory of a hundred different variants in hundreds of books and articles), motivated by revolutionary principles, directed at a clear and revolutionary aim and constructive with regard to the revolution (provided the latter is not identified with the Cuban bureaucracy).

The Castroite is free to dispute this in whatever terms he or she likes - in other words, to turn criticism on criticism. What you can't do is declare, by fiat, particular arguments to be objectively reactionary simply because they are wrong; this is simply tautological, since all incorrect ideas are harmful anyways, and undialectical, because it assumes that wrong ideas have no role to play in the production of truth. In the end it amounts to an attempt to police debate - especially the vagaries about 'correct timing', which could easily slip into the standard Stalinist/apologist line that criticising anything means allying with its more prestigious enemies. Lesson #1 of the workers movement: making revolution means the ruthless criticism of all that exists. Lesson #2: there is nothing 'critical' about the police.

[ChrisK]

Here are some links. I will try to find more.

http://venus.unive.it/asiamed/eventi/schede/naxalbari.html (http://venus.unive.it/asiamed/eventi/schede/naxalbari.html)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/nm2/History-of-Naxalism/225549/Article1-6545.aspx (http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/nm2/History-of-Naxalism/225549/Article1-6545.aspx)
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2221/stories/20051021008801000.htm (http://www.flonnet.com/fl2221/stories/20051021008801000.htm)
http://venus.unive.it/asiamed/eventi/schede/naxalbari.html (http://venus.unive.it/asiamed/eventi/schede/naxalbari.html)
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM2007-12.pdf (http://www.bannedthought.net/India/PeoplesMarch/PM2007-12.pdf)

Okay, I've read these documents and I have a few things I'd like to bring up.



While the Indian countryside saw extensive guerilla actions, Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in West Bengal, became the center of Naxalite urban violence from the beginning of the 1970s. Young cadres of the CPI(M-L) targeted police personnel and political rivals. They planned to build up an arsenal by mass scale snatching of arms and ammunition from police stations. These youth were mainly middle class Bengali students who had been inspired by the Naxalite ideology of agrarian revolution. Some went to the villages, lived and worked with the rural poor among whom they propagated the Naxalite ideology, fought shoulder to shoulder with them against the police, and laid down their lives. Those who remained in Calcutta hoped to supplement the rural movement with such violent urban actions that would keep the police and para-military forces fully bogged down in Calcutta, and thus cripple their capacity to intervene in the rural areas. But they underestimated the military strength of the Indian state.

It indicates here that at least a sizable part of the cadres were middle class and not workers or peasants. Granted they fought along with peasants (thus are strong allies), but the party should be made up of workers because it is the workers who are taking over, not the middle class students.

Also, the People’s March article indicates that the Naxalite’s were mostly middle class students.



It should be pointed out however that despite their survival for almost four decades, the Naxalites do not yet control any large area comparable to the `liberated zone' that the Chinese Communists could establish in Yenan within a decade or so in the 1930-40 period, or the sizable tract that the Maoists occupy in neighbouring Nepal today. They have not been able to reach out to the masses of the peasantry in the vast countryside of other parts of India, and have expanded only to a few isolated pockets and stretches of areas inhabited mainly by tribal and landless poor. Closeted in their rural underground shelters, the Naxalite leaders have ignored the task of setting up bases among the large number of workers both in the organized industrial and the unorganized sectors. They have also failed to build up a regular army like the Chinese People's Liberation Army, or the Vietnamese military organization – that helped both the Chinese and the Vietnamese to effectively fight their enemies.

What is the Maoist view on organizing workers? Also, this implies that they aren’t trying to build a socialist government, which requires an organized working class to lead the state.



The merits and relevance of this political line may still be debatable but its organisational advancement was marked by anything but cohesion. Right from its early stages, the movement was characterised by severe internal differences and conflicts over ideological issues, tactical positions and, above all, personal egotism of the leaders. Such was the intensity of these internal squabbles that the movement split repeatedly, particularly during the first two decades of its existence. There was a time when as many as two dozen naxalite outfits were operating in the country, all claiming to be the real inheritors of the legacy of Naxalbari, and even indulging in annihilation of members of other groups branding them "class enemies". To paraphrase the figurative expression that was used to describe the movement in its initial days, the "peal of spring thunder" had, in reality, turned out to be a babel of voices.

How do we know which one’s truly initiated it? I also have a great deal of trouble with the idea of revolutionaries killing each other over something as small as who started the uprising. Additionally, this supports the idea that cadres were dogmatically following their leaders interpretation of events.



On a side note two questions.

1. What is the role of the party run state in Maoist societies?

2. Considering that the Bolsheviks did not have the privilege of being legal in Russia and they created a Revolution without engaging

[red cat]

Okay, I've read these documents and I have a few things I'd like to bring up.



It indicates here that at least a sizable part of the cadres were middle class and not workers or peasants. Granted they fought along with peasants (thus are strong allies), but the party should be made up of workers because it is the workers who are taking over, not the middle class students.

Also, the People’s March article indicates that the Naxalite’s were mostly middle class students.

Middle-class as in their parents would be mostly teachers and lower or middle category government employees ( troops excluded ). In some other threads some Trots have convinced me that you consider people with these occupation to be working class. So you should not complain.
So I think that it is also not necessary to explain here what programmes the CPI(ML) undertook to turn these elements into what Maoists mean by "working class".




What is the Maoist view on organizing workers? Also, this implies that they aren’t trying to build a socialist government, which requires an organized working class to lead the state.

The Asia Media is not a revolutionary source. Hence it is expected to be biased against the Maoists, while presenting a bit of correct information here and there.

Here are some links to answer your questions:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659330&postcount=404
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659332&postcount=405
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659340&postcount=406

Besides this, the main thread on Maoists contains reports of mass actions.

Maoists are presently trying to build new-democracy. However, in the areas liberated for decades, the new democratic phase has matured and socialist forms of government are coming up.


How do we know which one’s truly initiated it? I also have a great deal of trouble with the idea of revolutionaries killing each other over something as small as who started the uprising. Additionally, this supports the idea that cadres were dogmatically following their leaders interpretation of events.

Actually each group contained people who were present in the original movement. However, most of them turned revisionists. The CPs that stuck to practicing and developing the MLM line grew and later unified to form the CPI(Maoist). There were clashes between cadres of revolutionary CPs, but these were caused due to revisionists sabotaging the party line, miscommunication and misidentification. But most of the incidents were that of revolutionary cadres eliminating former revolutionaries who had later turned into police-spies.




On a side note two questions.

1. What is the role of the party run state in Maoist societies?

2. Considering that the Bolsheviks did not have the privilege of being legal in Russia and they created a Revolution without engaging

In Maoist societies the state is mass run.

Please explain what you mean by the second point.

[ls]

I'm not sure the conclusions, when taken to the furthest extreme in the article are correct, but it's an interesting read nonetheless


Too many Trots and left communists.

There's maybe 4 leftcoms who post frequently on here compared to loads and loads of MLs and Trots, it's funny how you portray things completely the way you want to though rather than how they are.

[which doctor]

And which reason is that?

[ChrisK]

Middle-class as in their parents would be mostly teachers and lower or middle category government employees ( troops excluded ). In some other threads some Trots have convinced me that you consider people with these occupation to be working class. So you should not complain.
So I think that it is also not necessary to explain here what programmes the CPI(ML) undertook to turn these elements into what Maoists mean by "working class".

Thanks


The Asia Media is not a revolutionary source. Hence it is expected to be biased against the Maoists, while presenting a bit of correct information here and there.

Here are some links to answer your questions:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659330&postcount=404
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659332&postcount=405
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1659340&postcount=406

Besides this, the main thread on Maoists contains reports of mass actions.

Maoists are presently trying to build new-democracy. However, in the areas liberated for decades, the new democratic phase has matured and socialist forms of government are coming up.

And what is New Democracy?



In Maoist societies the state is mass run.

How was this done in places like China?


Please explain what you mean by the second point.

Major typo there. It was supposed to say how is it that the bolsheviks created a revolution without engaging in Protracted Peoples War?

[ls]

Educating beginners and fence sitters about fundamental theoretical and practical mistakes. Another example is Lenin's critiques of ultraleft infantilism.

Actually, no. It was Mao who first used the term 'ultra-left' and in fact coined it, Lenin just called them left-wing communists along with added slander, the funny part is he considered Bukharin, Trotsky, Pyatakov and others as allies the majority of the time he was alive, but feel free to revise history as you like. :thumbup1:

[bayano]

Criticise after dinner. As Marx said "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves..... Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to."

[ls]

where have I revised history? When did Mao coin the term "Ultra-left"?

How typical, you know nothing about the historical use and the emergence of the word you use so often.


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_left)

Wiki doesn't say that Lenin coined the term. :rolleyes:


Cool story bro. Trotsky was a Menshevik till 1917.

Point being? Show me Lenin specifically attacking him after he joined the Bolsheviks (and don't use selective quoting, quote the whole thing you're gonna quote). Should be interesting really. I don't particularly support Trotsky, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept your crap about "what Lenin wanted", because it's evident you don't know what you're talking about.

[ls]

Again, show me evidence that it was Mao who coined the term.

Lenin could not have considered Trotsky "as allies the majority of the time he was alive", as Trotsky was not a Bolshevik for most of this time.

You've dug yourself a very deep hole indeed with the latter point, but keep digging all you want, you are supposed to know your history but you don't so congrats I guess. The term 'ultra-left' was used a lot by the CPC and I'm fairly sure it was coined by Mao, but it was used in Russia too especially by Stalin.

[scarletghoul]

Does it really matter who coined the term ? The point is ultra-leftism has always existed in the movement.

[red cat]

Thanks



And what is New Democracy?


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



How was this done in places like China?


I don't know what they did in China exactly. But considering that what we know as Maoism had been completed theoretically only during the GPCR, perhaps the modern Maoist bases will be better examples of this.




Major typo there. It was supposed to say how is it that the bolsheviks created a revolution without engaging in Protracted Peoples War?

That was a capitalist country. So they did not need to make the PW protracted.

[ls]

Read and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky). Lenin attacked Trotsky in several places. Examples: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm and http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm.

Whereas he never criticised anyone else? Incidentally, he says that the party naturally corrects mistakes from below, especially in his 1921 polemic and points out where Trotsky is correct too so I would like to see you prove that he hated Trotsky to the core and most of the time, considered him as a Menshevik, as you keep making out.

I don't think you can because it's not true, he saw mistakes in everyone within the party, because no one is perfect, including Lenin himself, especially on the question of the trade unions.


It must be true since you believe it. Again, provide the evidence or withdraw your false claim.

http://www.marxists.de/china/sheng/

[black magick hustla]

Educating beginners and fence sitters about fundamental theoretical and practical mistakes. Another example is Lenin's critiques of ultraleft infantilism.

of course, when lenin criticized the left, the left was actually massive. so that is a bad example.

tiny groups are not sects.

[ls]

Where did I say "hated to the core"? Anyway, Trotsky himself considered himself to be a Menshevik or at least a non-Bolshevik till 1917.

He considered himself, as you said a "non-factional social-democrat" and his 'interdistrict' committee stood outside the Bolshevik-Menshevik struggle unless you've been taught some fake history. Also, you might be an idiot but other people understand that the RSDLP (Russian social-democratic labour party) was called that to issue a kind of illusion, not to mention that social-democracy was considered completely different with the context of the time.


This is what Lenin wrote about Trotsky:
“In my opinion, our main task is to guard against getting entangled in foolish attempts at ‘unity’ with the social-patriots (or, what is still more dangerous, with the wavering ones, like . . . Trotsky and Co.) and to continue the work of our own party in a consistently internationalist spirit.” (V. I. Lenin, The Revolution of 1917, Vol. I, English edition, p. 21.)


“Even if the ‘new tasks and methods’ had been pointed out by Trotsky just as highly correctly as in reality they have been pointed out incorrectly throughout, . . . by such an approach alone Trotsky would have caused injury both to himself, to the Party, to the union movement, to the education of millions of members of the labor unions, and to the Republic.” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXVI, Russian edition, p. 116.)


So he was very critical of party members, as lots of brilliant revolutionaries have been, nothing surprising here really - do you honestly think he'd have later praised Trotsky so highly, or even let him become head of the Red Army and lead the Bolsheviks against Kerensky if he was so disliked as you are trying to insinuate? Even Stalin, prior to his attempts to punish people for "Trotskyism" greatly admired him.


All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky.



..I think that from this standpoint the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split, which could be avoided, and this purpose, in my opinion, would be served, among other things, by increasing the number of C.C. members to 50 or 100.

Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work...

[ChrisK]

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

Well if we take what Mao says to be this, then New Democracy is out of date and can't be set up anywhere.





Thus the numerous types of state system in the world can be reduced to three basic kinds according to the class character of their political power: (1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship; (2) republics under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes.

The first kind comprises the old democratic states. Today, after the outbreak of the second imperialist war, there is hardly a trace of democracy in many of the capitalist countries, which have come or are coming under the bloody militarist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Certain countries under the joint dictatorship of the landlords and the bourgeoisie can be grouped with this kind.

The second kind exists in the Soviet Union, and the conditions for its birth are ripening in capitalist countries. In the future, it will be the dominant form throughout the world for a certain period.
The third kind is the transitional form of state to be adopted in the revolutions of the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Each of these revolutions will necessarily have specific characteristics of its own, but these will be minor variations on a general theme. So long as they are revolutions in colonial or semi-colonial countries, their state and governmental structure will of necessity be basically the same, i.e., a new-democratic state under the joint dictatorship of several anti-imperialist classes. In present-day China, the anti-Japanese united front represents the new-democratic form of state. It is anti-Japanese and anti-imperialist; it is also a united front, an alliance of several revolutionary classes. But unfortunately, despite the fact that the war has been going on for so long, the work of introducing democracy has hardly started in most of the country outside the democratic anti-Japanese base areas under the leadership of the Communist Party, and the Japanese imperialists have exploited this fundamental weakness to stride into our country. If nothing is done about it, our national future will be gravely imperilled.

According to Mao, New Democracy is for colonial and semi-colonial countries. There are none anymore. In fact, during the whole early part of the article, Mao argues that since China is under semi-Colonial control, they cannot use the Soviet Union's type of state, but only a new type. He claims that any other countries would use that sort of state, not a New Democracy.


I don't know what they did in China exactly. But considering that what we know as Maoism had been completed theoretically only during the GPCR, perhaps the modern Maoist bases will be better examples of this.

How are the people involved?


That was a capitalist country. So they did not need to make the PW protracted.

It very much wasn't. It was about as capitalist as China was. Some proletariats and bourgeosise in major cities with extreme feudal class relations in the area of agriculutre. My question still stands.

[ls]

I'm not insinuating anything. The facts are out there. Let the people judge for themselves.

You're so full of crap, I don't even like defending Trotsky but seriously, when people come out with BS like:


Cool story bro. Trotsky was a Menshevik till 1917.

Then you certainly are 'insinuating' something, in fact you were proven wrong on most counts so far, so I don't know why you are still posting?

[ls]

Are you saying he was a Bolshevik from 1905 to 1917?

Fail at reading comprehension. You said he was Menshevik all the way up until 1917 which is clearly wrong, now you're trying to worm your way out of it, but it won't work, we can see you have no idea what you're talking about so just please give it up.

[ls]

Yeah, but Mensheviks and non-Bolshevik social democrats had several things in common, so I had them confused. Apologies.

Wow, so there can be more than two factions in a party, surprising. :rolleyes: Nonetheless, please highlight what they've got in common if you're so smart? I really wonder if you can highlight anything at all.

[red cat]

Well if we take what Mao says to be this, then New Democracy is out of date and can't be set up anywhere.


Why ?



According to Mao, New Democracy is for colonial and semi-colonial countries. There are none anymore. In fact, during the whole early part of the article, Mao argues that since China is under semi-Colonial control, they cannot use the Soviet Union's type of state, but only a new type. He claims that any other countries would use that sort of state, not a New Democracy.


Third world countries are semi-feudal semi-colonial even now. To find out how imperialism enforces feudalism on the third-world masses, follow the thread on Indian Maoists from the beginning.


How are the people involved?


In general they participate at least in the base force ( peoples' militia). The non-technical aspects of guerrilla actions are decided by village-meetings. Decisions concerning developmental plans are also taken here. People vote by show of hands. After this, committees are elected to execute these plans. In general the peasants and workers take turns to be members of these committees. These are the basic features of mass-involvement.



It very much wasn't. It was about as capitalist as China was. Some proletariats and bourgeosise in major cities with extreme feudal class relations in the area of agriculutre. My question still stands.

Russia was experiencing capitalist development. After Russia became imperialist, the capitalists had become so powerful that they actually staged a revolution and totally destroyed feudal power. On the other hand, China (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm) was a semi-colony.

[ls]

You mean Mensheviks and non-Bolshevik social-democrats? Umm................ they were not Bolsheviks and they were counterrevolutionaries.

So basically an ahistorical non-answer? Thanks for proving you have no idea what you're talking about, best luck next time.

[ChrisK]

Why ?

Third world countries are semi-feudal semi-colonial even now. To find out how imperialism enforces feudalism on the third-world masses, follow the thread on Indian Maoists from the beginning.

If thats the case, then you must admit that New Democracy isn't a working class movement. Don't take my word for it, take Chairman Mao's:



Therefore, the proletariat, the peasantry, the intelligentsia and the other sections of the petty bourgeoisie undoubtedly constitute the basic forces determining China's fate. These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the state and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force. The Chinese democratic republic which we desire to establish now must be a democratic republic under the joint dictatorship of all anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people led by the proletariat, that is, a new-democratic republic, a republic of the genuinely revolutionary new Three People's Principles with their Three Great Policies.

Mao writes here that he wants to unite the whole movement as proletariats, peasants and petty bourgeoisie. He admits that a New Democracy will be made up of ALL these classes.


In general they participate at least in the base force ( peoples' militia). The non-technical aspects of guerrilla actions are decided by village-meetings. Decisions concerning developmental plans are also taken here. People vote by show of hands. After this, committees are elected to execute these plans. In general the peasants and workers take turns to be members of these committees. These are the basic features of mass-involvement.

I meant in the Maoist States. Not during the revolution.


Russia was experiencing capitalist development. After Russia became imperialist, the capitalists had become so powerful that they actually staged a revolution and totally destroyed feudal power. On the other hand, China (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm) was a semi-colony.

But so was China. Mao says so when he speaks of proletariats who only exist in capitalist regions.

[red cat]

If thats the case, then you must admit that New Democracy isn't a working class movement. Don't take my word for it, take Chairman Mao's:



These classes, some already awakened and others in the process of awakening, will necessarily become the basic components of the state and governmental structure in the democratic republic of China, with the proletariat as the leading force.


The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat.............

-Mao Dze Dong

It is a movement led by the working class.




Mao writes here that he wants to unite the whole movement as proletariats, peasants and petty bourgeoisie. He admits that a New Democracy will be made up of ALL these classes.

True. But it has to be led by the proletariat. Otherwise it cannot overthrow all forms of imperialism.




I meant in the Maoist States. Not during the revolution.



Considering the fact that post-GPCR Maoism aims for a chain of revolutions until communism is established, the society will keep having revolutions until it becomes completely classless.



But so was China. Mao says so when he speaks of proletariats who only exist in capitalist regions.

Please quote the relevant paragraph.

[ls]

babbling

Enough pointless posts, either address the point or quit posting troll. I showed you where the CPC used the term ultra-left (and you can see for yourself they used it a lot) and I guess I was slightly wrong about Mao actually coining the term, but regardless, the history of a meaningless word used to generalise revolutionaries pales in comparison, in comparison to you pricelessly saying that Trotsky was a member of the Menshevik faction up until 1917, saying that anything other than Bolshevism is Menshevism and finally, refusing to show us how that's so.

[ls]

LOL. You just linked to a Trotskyist pamphlet, which proves nothing. In fact, Mao is frequently accused of being ultra-left by many Marxist-Leninists. This goes to shows you know zero about Mao except for mindless anti-communist propaganda.

How is what I linked Trotskyist propaganda? :confused: Yes, the term ultra-left is frequently used by everyone against everyone, but we're focusing on one thing here. I for one would never call a Maoist an "ultra-leftist" because it would demonstrate profound political illiteracy.


Where did I say that? In every thread, you left communists are experts at twisting your opponents words. I even apologized for calling Trotsky a Menshevik and I said Mensheviks and other non-Bolsheviks had many things in common, which included opposing the Bolsheviks, which is vastly different from how you're twistedly putting it.

Would you like to show us the differences in how they opposed the Bolsheviks or are you going to continue to lump them all together, obviously they opposed the Bolsheviks to some extent or they would not exist. They opposed each other too. Also, I'm not twisting anything, you came out with a load of crap and now you're beginning to back down because you know you're wrong.

[ls]

Do your own research. I cannot be your teacher every time.
Maybe its the anti-communism making your brain stop working, but any idiot can see that I demonstrated how you twisted my words.

More dodging the questions and more strawmen. I'm sure you're proud of your grasp on revolutionary politics.

[ChrisK]

It is a movement led by the working class.

True. But it has to be led by the proletariat. Otherwise it cannot overthrow all forms of imperialism.

But you always say that revisionists and others can never be a part of the party or state. Mao here says that the petty-bourgeosie should be.


Considering the fact that post-GPCR Maoism aims for a chain of revolutions until communism is established, the society will keep having revolutions until it becomes completely classless.

That still doesn't show how the people run the show in Maoist states.


Please quote the relevant paragraph.

Its the first one I posted


Thus the numerous types of state system in the world can be reduced to three basic kinds according to the class character of their political power: (1) republics under bourgeois dictatorship; (2) republics under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and (3) republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes.

The first kind comprises the old democratic states. Today, after the outbreak of the second imperialist war, there is hardly a trace of democracy in many of the capitalist countries, which have come or are coming under the bloody militarist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Certain countries under the joint dictatorship of the landlords and the bourgeoisie can be grouped with this kind.

The second kind exists in the Soviet Union, and the conditions for its birth are ripening in capitalist countries. In the future, it will be the dominant form throughout the world for a certain period.
The third kind is the transitional form of state to be adopted in the revolutions of the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Each of these revolutions will necessarily have specific characteristics of its own, but these will be minor variations on a general theme. So long as they are revolutions in colonial or semi-colonial countries, their state and governmental structure will of necessity be basically the same, i.e., a new-democratic state under the joint dictatorship of several anti-imperialist classes. In present-day China, the anti-Japanese united front represents the new-democratic form of state. It is anti-Japanese and anti-imperialist; it is also a united front, an alliance of several revolutionary classes. But unfortunately, despite the fact that the war has been going on for so long, the work of introducing democracy has hardly started in most of the country outside the democratic anti-Japanese base areas under the leadership of the Communist Party, and the Japanese imperialists have exploited this fundamental weakness to stride into our country. If nothing is done about it, our national future will be gravely imperilled.

It clearly indicates that Dictatorships of the Proletariat are to exist in places like Russia, which was a semi-fuedal society.

[red cat]

But you always say that revisionists and others can never be a part of the party or state. Mao here says that the petty-bourgeosie should be.

In a semi feudal - semi colonial country, the petite-bourgeoisie is a revolutionary class and a chunk of it transforms into the proletariat during the course of the revolution. Here it is worth noticing that what the Maoists identify as lower sections of the petite bourgeoisie coincides with what you call portions of the working class.



That still doesn't show how the people run the show in Maoist states.



The masses take part in the revolution. They debate and take decisions in mass meetings.




Its the first one I posted



It clearly indicates that Dictatorships of the Proletariat are to exist in places like Russia, which was a semi-fuedal society.

No, Russia was capitalist before the revolution.

[Kléber]

First of all, to uphold and practice the methods of revolutionary criticism, this forum needed to be revolutionary, which it is not.

How so?

Too many Trots and left communists.
So "revolutionary criticism" is possible only when you take out the criticism :lol:

[ChrisK]

In a semi feudal - semi colonial country, the petite-bourgeoisie is a revolutionary class and a chunk of it transforms into the proletariat during the course of the revolution. Here it is worth noticing that what the Maoists identify as lower sections of the petite bourgeoisie coincides with what you call portions of the working class.

What makes the petite-bougeoisie of semi-colonial societies so revolutionary? Why not just class allies?


The masses take part in the revolution. They debate and take decisions in mass meetings.

When did this ever happen in a Maoist state? When were the people consulted and their will enforced?


No, Russia was capitalist before the revolution.

You should read up on the Russian Revolution before you talk about. It was overwhelmingly feudel with capitalist relations in only the largest cities in the western section of russia.

[red cat]

What makes the petite-bougeoisie of semi-colonial societies so revolutionary? Why not just class allies?
Because the oppression is so tremendous that a whole section of the petite-bourgeoisie continues to oscillate between proletarian and petit-bourgeois states, gradually tending to become proletarians.



When did this ever happen in a Maoist state? When were the people consulted and their will enforced?


It was always there in China to a certain extent. It was increased during the GPCR.



You should read up on the Russian Revolution before you talk about. It was overwhelmingly feudel with capitalist relations in only the largest cities in the western section of russia.

The capitalist class was in power. Capitalist relations, to the extent that they were present, were enough for the proletariat to stage urban insurrections.

[red cat]

So "revolutionary criticism" is possible only when you take out the criticism :lol:

What Trots do is not exactly "criticism". :)

[Kléber]

What Trots do is not exactly "criticism". :)
What you do is not exactly wage immediate armed war against the state.


It was increased during the GPCR.
And then everything given to the workers was taken away (even literally with the guns) when the "three-in-one combination" subordinated the "revolutionary elements" to the bureaucracy and the army..

[red cat]

What you do is not exactly wage immediate armed war against the state.

Then what is it ?



And then everything given to the workers was taken away (even literally with the guns) when the "three-in-one combination" subordinated the "revolutionary elements" to the bureaucracy and the army..

Nice to see that someone is trying to play Bobkindles, but alas, you need to have hysteria to do that successfully. :lol:

[ChrisK]

Because the oppression is so tremendous that a whole section of the petite-bourgeoisie continues to oscillate between proletarian and petit-bourgeois states, gradually tending to become proletarians.

How do they transform into proletariats? How do they transform back and forth?


It was always there in China to a certain extent. It was increased during the GPCR.

Any evidence of this?


The capitalist class was in power. Capitalist relations, to the extent that they were present, were enough for the proletariat to stage urban insurrections.

If this were enough to make russia capitalist, then by Mao's own admission, China was capitalist.

[red cat]

How do they transform into proletariats? How do they transform back and forth?

They have to sell whatever means of production they might own, and take up jobs as workers. At some point of time there conditions might improve so that they become petit bourgeois again.



Any evidence of this?


I am not that much into history. But I think some works of Mao indicate this.


If this were enough to make russia capitalist, then by Mao's own admission, China was capitalist.

If China was capitalist, then there couldn't have been imperialist powers occupying chunks of its territory and powerful warlords cooperating with one or the other to maintain and increase their zones of influence.

[ChrisK]

They have to sell whatever means of production they might own, and take up jobs as workers. At some point of time there conditions might improve so that they become petit bourgeois again.

How is this any different from a full capitalist society? My thesis still stands that Mao advocated a government with petite-bougeosie in a position of power.


I am not that much into history. But I think some works of Mao indicate this.

Why should I trust Mao on this? I think he might be a wee bit biased.


If China was capitalist, then there couldn't have been imperialist powers occupying chunks of its territory and powerful warlords cooperating with one or the other to maintain and increase their zones of influence.

If thats the case, then Russia couldn't have been capitalist either, considering the Kulaks were still held a degree of power, feudal land lords held a great deal of power and the Cossaks maintained a sphere of influence.

[red cat]

How is this any different from a full capitalist society? My thesis still stands that Mao advocated a government with petite-bougeosie in a position of power.


The fact that Maoists consider teachers as petit-bourgeois is enough to negate your thesis, because you consider them to be proletarian.


Why should I trust Mao on this? I think he might be a wee bit biased.



May be. But we Maoists maintain that Mao's version of history is true, looking at how our big CPs involve the masses.



If thats the case, then Russia couldn't have been capitalist either, considering the Kulaks were still held a degree of power, feudal land lords held a great deal of power and the Cossaks maintained a sphere of influence.

I am sure there would have been many differences between China and Russia, but let us concentrate on the action of imperialism on both of these countries. China was a semi-colony, unlike Russia.

[ChrisK]

The fact that Maoists consider teachers as petit-bourgeois is enough to negate your thesis, because you consider them to be proletarian.

No, not at all. You claim that they will transform to proletariats and back to petit-bourgeosise. Teachers can't do that, they are one or the other by our definitions. The only one's who can do that are shopkeeps and the like. So Mao was advocating a government with the self empolyed who exploit other's labor, on the off chance that they transform back into proletariats.


May be. But we Maoists maintain that Mao's version of history is true, looking at how our big CPs involve the masses.

So you accept what he says without question. That sounds alot like idol worship to me.


I am sure there would have been many differences between China and Russia, but let us concentrate on the action of imperialism on both of these countries. China was a semi-colony, unlike Russia.

But not enough to make a difference in how their revolutions would needed to have been fought.

[red cat]

No, not at all. You claim that they will transform to proletariats and back to petit-bourgeosise. Teachers can't do that, they are one or the other by our definitions. The only one's who can do that are shopkeeps and the like. So Mao was advocating a government with the self empolyed who exploit other's labor, on the off chance that they transform back into proletariats.


When does a teacher exploit others' labour ? Maoists take into account three factors while analyzing a class:

1) Production relations involved.

2) Social position of the class with respect to other classes.

3) Its attitude towards the revolution.

You cannot accuse the whole of the petite-bourgeoisie to exploit others' labour when you take into account what Maoists consider to be the petite-bourgeoisie.


So you accept what he says without question. That sounds alot like idol worship to me.But we have overwhelming evidence of what Maoists do. They are making revolutions in our very own countries.




But not enough to make a difference in how their revolutions would needed to have been fought.In Russian cities at least bourgeois production relations were present. In Russia we never saw, for example, mass-enslavement of women, or beheading of innocent citizens etc.

[ChrisK]

When does a teacher exploit others' labour ? Maoists take into account three factors while analyzing a class:

1) Production relations involved.

2) Social position of the class with respect to other classes.

3) Its attitude towards the revolution.

You cannot accuse the whole of the petite-bourgeoisie to exploit others' labour when you take into account what Maoists consider to be the petite-bourgeoisie.

Except that I'm not. I'm very open to certain members of the petite-bourgeoisie being class allies, but Mao openly advocated a government with the class as a whole. That includes the exploiters.


But we have overwhelming evidence of what Maoists do. They are making revolutions in our very own countries.

What proof do you have of them working together?


In Russian cities at least bourgeois production relations were present. In Russia we never saw, for example, mass-enslavement of women, or beheading of innocent citizens etc.

Ah, but the article by Mao you had me read says that there were bourgeois production relations in China. And while you didn't see beheadings, you certainly saw the deaths of innocent citizens.

[red cat]

Except that I'm not. I'm very open to certain members of the petite-bourgeoisie being class allies, but Mao openly advocated a government with the class as a whole. That includes the exploiters.


Alliance with a class means alliance with most of the people belonging to that class. The uppermost part of the petite-bourgeoisie allies itself with the ruling class. They are enemies of the revolution. However, small shops etc are allowed to continue in a new democracy, and every such business is nationalized as soon as it grows big enough.


What proof do you have of them working together?
Refer to the threads on Indian or Nepali Maoists for details.



Ah, but the article by Mao you had me read says that there were bourgeois production relations in China. Please quote the relevant paragraph. A weak national bourgeoisie subdued by a comprador bourgeoisie cannot give rise to bourgeois relations of productions beyond a very small extent, as far as I know.


And while you didn't see beheadings, you certainly saw the deaths of innocent citizens.

In every oppressive system the state attacks its opponents. The examples I gave outline the social conditions prevailing in China at that time.