Maoism - what is it?

[AK]

Sorry to be such a noob, especially since I've been on RL for a while now, but what exactly is Maoism, what are it's core principles and how does it differ from orthodox Marxism?

[red cat]

Maoism is the latest qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism.

Its main features are:

1) Protracted peoples' war

2) New democratic revolution

3) Mass line

4) Cultural revolution

The first two are applicable only to semi feudal - semi colonial countries, while the last to are necessary to make and defend revolutions anywhere.

This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoism-t121714/index.html) threads gives it in more details.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah. Mao also emphasised peoples power in general through things such as Peoples Army. His ideas on practice and contradictions are also important.

This is like the millionth 'what is maoism' thread. we should make a sticky or something

[cb9's_unity]

How do Maoists explain that their revolution has far from been defended and has actually been hijacked by capitalists?

[Tablo]

How do Maoists explain that their revolution has far from been defended and has actually been hijacked by capitalists?
I'm not sure what you mean, but since the death of Mao, China has gone largely Capitalist.

The Maoist movement is still largely alive in India and Nepal and many countries around the world maintain Maoist parties.

[Invincible Summer]

How do Maoists explain that their revolution has far from been defended and has actually been hijacked by capitalists?

Unlike other non-Maoist revolutions, right?

Degradation into capitalism isn't inherent to Maoism.

[red cat]

How do Maoists explain that their revolution has far from been defended and has actually been hijacked by capitalists?

This is the case with every revolution so far. All past attempts of anarchists, old Marxists and Bolsheviks, Hoxhaists, Guevarists have met with either military defeat, or capitalist coup from within the party.

Maoists claim that they have developed the theory and practice of mass line and cultural revolution to such an extent now, that in future some Maoist CPs are likely to prevent capitalist restoration. The fact that even after the bourgeoisie has learned very well how to infiltrate communist parties, Maoist armed struggles are increasing in number and have even established some base areas, is some evidence for this.

[cb9's_unity]

I'm disappointing that your arguments have largely amounted to "well your ideology failed too". Your skirting around my initial question.

Why did the four additions to Marxism-Leninism fail to lead to a result that was any different than old marxist revolutions or Leninist revolutions? Why did Mao's additions to M-L theory fail to stop Deng?

EDIT: I'd also like to ask why I've gotten such a hostile response. I've done nothing but state the facts, its undeniable that china is now capitalist.

Also I don't mean this to be a criticism of the movements in Nepal or India. I'm not entirely knowledgeable on either and thus my questions about China are about China alone and don't imply anything about the legitimacy or strength of the current Maoist movements. The fact that there is massive Maoist gains and agitation in Nepal and India are to be absolutely commended, and I'm sincere in hoping that Maoists have in fact figured out a way to stop the type of counter-revolution that happened in China from happening in Nepal in India. My question isn't about agitation or organization; its about preservation.

[red cat]

I'm disappointing that your arguments have largely amounted to "well your ideology failed too". Your skirting around my initial question.

Class struggle is a huge and complex process, where the various classes learn by both analysis and trial-and-error. The reason behind pointing out that other revolutions failed too is that there is a possibility that only a century of experience was not enough for the proletariat to develop and practice a correct theory to finally defeat the bourgeoisie. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism forms the upper bound of what the proletariat could learn and achieve so far.


Why did the four additions to Marxism-Leninism fail to lead to a result that was any different than old marxist revolutions or Leninist revolutions? Why did Mao's additions to M-L theory fail to stop Deng?

The CPC had many errors in its practice. What exactly are the minutes of conducting the GPCR correctly was yet to be realized by Maoists. Moreover, the CPC was largely infiltrated by the time Maoism was qualitatively complete.


EDIT: I'd also like to ask why I've gotten such a hostile response. I've done nothing but state the facts, its undeniable that china is now capitalist.

Also I don't mean this to be a criticism of the movements in Nepal or India. I'm not entirely knowledgeable on either and thus my questions about China are about China alone and don't imply anything about the legitimacy or strength of the current Maoist movements. The fact that there is massive Maoist gains and agitation in Nepal and India are to be absolutely commended, and I'm sincere in hoping that Maoists have in fact figured out a way to stop the type of counter-revolution that happened in China from happening in Nepal in India. My question isn't about agitation or organization; its about preservation.

We don't yet know whether there are more qualitative or important quantitative developments of MLM that await us in future and are necessary for preserving socialism and establishing communism. Our only solution is to intensify our practice.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm disappointing that your arguments have largely amounted to "well your ideology failed too". Your skirting around my initial question.

I apologize for not giving a longer response, and thus appearing as if I was trying to avoid your question. I made the post in haste and wanted to get a reply in.

As Red Cat pointed out, the reason in stating the failure of other revolutions is not to throw up a smokescreen. It is to highlight the fact that achieving communism is a trial-and-error process with no guaranteed results. It is not the fault of any one tendency that capitalism had infiltrated.


Why did the four additions to Marxism-Leninism fail to lead to a result that was any different than old marxist revolutions or Leninist revolutions? Why did Mao's additions to M-L theory fail to stop Deng?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "four additions."

Also, Deng was pretty much on Mao's good side until near the end of Mao's life, which is why he wasn't rid of during the GPCR. Once Deng came into power, he allowed the bourgeoisie to join the CPC. Mao was dead, so he couldn't stop it, and really, this is a sore spot for all communist theory. How can we stop opportunists and revisionists from ruining things? Theory is just that - theory. There has to be something institutionalized that prevents one person or a group within a party from turning things on their head.


EDIT: I'd also like to ask why I've gotten such a hostile response. I've done nothing but state the facts, its undeniable that china is now capitalist.
Sorry. There's just been a lot of Mao-baiting lately, and it's tiring. From your other posts I know you're not really one of those people, so I apologize for being snappish.

[red cat]

Also, Deng was pretty much on Mao's good side until near the end of Mao's life, which is why he wasn't rid of during the GPCR.

Actually he was labeled as a "never-repenting capitalist roader" right in the beginning of the GPCR. The threat he posed to the revolution was realized only much later, which is why he did not meet the same fate as Liu Shaoqi. However, by the time the extent of his counter revolutionary potential was realized, it was too late and the Maoists were already weak. That is why he could come back so easily after he was purged the second time.

[Kléber]

The reason behind pointing out that other revolutions failed too is that there is a possibility that only a century of experience was not enough for the proletariat to develop and practice a correct theory to finally defeat the bourgeoisie.
But what experience has been gained? If you see Mao as infallible, and justify the execution of dissidents who did offer theories on how to develop a socialist society, how can anything be learned from the example of the Chinese Revolution? Now that Prachanda has come out in support of Dengist "Special Economic Zones," telling people to "wait and see" does not sound very convincing.


The threat he posed to the revolution was realized only much later, which is why he did not meet the same fate as Liu Shaoqi.
So was Liu murdered or what?

[red cat]

But what experience has been gained? If you see Mao as infallible, and justify the execution of dissidents who did offer theories on how to develop a socialist society, how can anything be learned from the example of the Chinese Revolution? Now that Prachanda has come out in support of Dengist "Special Economic Zones," telling people to "wait and see" does not sound very convincing.

How is this related to my claim ?



So was Liu murdered or what?

No.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We have already seen that 'the mass line' was misnamed: it should in fact be called 'the mass lie', here:

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

And we have also seen that Mao's 'theory' contains a fatal flaw, here:

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

No wonder, then, that all that Maoists have ever succeeded in producing are yet more capitalist states!:(

[cb9's_unity]

I apologize for not giving a longer response, and thus appearing as if I was trying to avoid your question. I made the post in haste and wanted to get a reply in.

As Red Cat pointed out, the reason in stating the failure of other revolutions is not to throw up a smokescreen. It is to highlight the fact that achieving communism is a trial-and-error process with no guaranteed results. It is not the fault of any one tendency that capitalism had infiltrated.

Understood, things can get heated on this site. In all honesty, I have totally formulated my opinion about how we should organize going forward. I just want to better understand the field around me and question their tendency's failures just as much as I question mine.



I'm not sure what you mean by the "four additions."

Also, Deng was pretty much on Mao's good side until near the end of Mao's life, which is why he wasn't rid of during the GPCR. Once Deng came into power, he allowed the bourgeoisie to join the CPC. Mao was dead, so he couldn't stop it, and really, this is a sore spot for all communist theory. How can we stop opportunists and revisionists from ruining things? Theory is just that - theory. There has to be something institutionalized that prevents one person or a group within a party from turning things on their head.

Earlier in the thread Red Cat made reference to the four additions MLM had to M-L.

The goal of a revolutionary party should be to build a structure that can survive its founders. To my knowledge, it believes like the Leninists do that a party must start as a somewhat small group of advanced revolutionary's and then build into a group that is dominated by the working class itself. However we seem to see that once the original core group of revolutionary's die away, the working class does not replace them with members of their own ranks. Unfortunately what we see is party bureaucrats take power and lead the country into capitalism, it has happened in both Leninist and Maoist country's.

With that basis, what specifically caused the failure of the working class to stop Deng from taking power and reverting China to capitalism. What specifically should be changed in either Maoist theory or Maoist party structure to avoid the end result of China.

[red cat]

However we seem to see that once the original core group of revolutionary's die away, the working class does not replace them with members of their own ranks.

The first generation of revolutionaries in the CPI(Maoist) is dead. They have been replaced adequately.

[cb9's_unity]

The first generation of revolutionaries in the CPI(Maoist) is dead. They have been replaced adequately.

We don't know that they have been replaced adequately until the revolution is totally in power in is being successfully maintained from one generation to another. But I really didn't enter this thread to debate Nepal or India.

And don't think I came in here to try to out smart the Maoists, I know relatively little about your ideology and am in no position to defeat you in an argument about it.

I want to talk about the one example where Maoists did take complete control of a country and try to maintain the revolution. A few 'great men' aren't supposed to destroy a revolution. There must have been structural or ideological faults that caused Deng to gain power. What were they?

[red cat]

We don't know that they have been replaced adequately until the revolution is totally in power in is being successfully maintained from one generation to another. But I really didn't enter this thread to debate Nepal or India.


The point is that the Indian CP is doing better with the present leadership.



And don't think I came in here to try to out smart the Maoists, I know relatively little about your ideology and am in no position to defeat you in an argument about it.

I want to talk about the one example where Maoists did take complete control of a country and try to maintain the revolution. A few 'great men' aren't supposed to destroy a revolution. There must have been structural or ideological faults that caused Deng to gain power. What were they?

The many technical errors in implementing the GPCR and mass line must have included structural and ideological faults, of course.