Is Maoism liberal? [Not my opinion]

[Die Neue Zeit]

i always had this pet theory about maoism. it seems to me that a lot of the stalinist derivatives, including maoism is just really violent liberalism on steroids. i mean, you have all these people speaking about the masses, democracy, stageist new democracy, etc that it is basically just a bunch of those godawful metaphysics that bordiga railed against so relentlesly in the early 20th century. i think this is an important point because the maoists love to talk about how they are not really liberals because they are violent gangsters but in reality the foundations of their thought is based on the same enlightment deadspeak as the 18th century enlightened petit bourgeoisie. namely, some really fuzzy references on democracy, opression, the masses, etc.

it is also important to point out how there is a tendency in maoism to treat the sheer will of a few militants as the drive behind a supposed, future societal change. so you have all these philosophy and sociology college dropouts forming armed gangs, which in turns lets to an isolation and warrior mentality that little by little gangsterizes them, to the point that they end up operating as a verage criminal gangs. the worst example is probably sendero luminoso.

maoism is also integrated to the discourse of international capital. the maoists always try to form policies for states and their relation to each other. communist speak about the destruction of the capitalist state and maoists always want to tell the state what to do - whether to get into international treaties, call for national liberation, etc

Since this was originally discussed in the Left-Com forum, I wanted to bring this up for Learning discussion.

I don't think Maoism is "violent liberalism on steroids" at all, unless one equates liberalism with Jacobin ideology.

[red cat]

Since this was originally discussed in the Left-Com forum, I wanted to bring this up for Learning discussion.

I don't think Maoism is "violent liberalism on steroids" at all, unless one equates liberalism with Jacobin ideology.

I don't have much to say. The places where the Maoist revolutions are most advanced, the direct participation of the masses in the revolution and the organs of peoples' power themselves speak out for MLM.

Left communists will be pamphleting in Maoist strongholds soon. Let's see how many join them, as opposed to the millions of Maoist sympathizers.

[black magick hustla]

I don't have much to say. The places where the Maoist revolutions are most advanced, the direct participation of the masses in the revolution and the organs of peoples' power themselves speak out for MLM.

Left communists will be pamphleting in Maoist strongholds soon. Let's see how many join them, as opposed to the millions of Maoist sympathizers.

the history of mlm speaks really well about its politics. i think we have different versions of that history though

[black magick hustla]

Since this was originally discussed in the Left-Com forum, I wanted to bring this up for Learning discussion.

I don't think Maoism is "violent liberalism on steroids" at all, unless one equates liberalism with Jacobin ideology.

jacobinism is a more extreme version of liberalism. both of them have as source enlightment ideas on democracy, freedom, civil equality, the nation state, etc

[The Douche]

jacobinism is a more extreme version of liberalism. both of them have as source enlightment ideas on democracy, freedom, civil equality, the nation state, etc

My understanding of Jacobinism seems different than yours. Are the communards not in the Jacobin tradition, and are they not socialist? I think jacobinism was more diverse than you suggest, though yes, institutionally it was liberal.

[black magick hustla]

My understanding of Jacobinism seems different than yours. Are the communards not in the Jacobin tradition, and are they not socialist? I think jacobinism was more diverse than you suggest, though yes, institutionally it was liberal.

the communards were jacobins. i am not necessarily stating jacobinism is wrong. it had a role historically, in the same sense the left wing of 19th century republicanism had. or the millinearian christian traditions. i think liberalism today is mostly deadweight though/

[red cat]

the history of mlm speaks really well about its politics. i think we have different versions of that history though

But we seem to have the same version of the history of left communism, don't we ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

My understanding of Jacobinism seems different than yours. Are the communards not in the Jacobin tradition, and are they not socialist? I think jacobinism was more diverse than you suggest, though yes, institutionally it was liberal.

When I think of the word "liberal," the first thing that comes to mind is the British-Continental divide. Liberalism is a British and not Continental political philosophy.

Fraternite is not the same thing as "national sovereignty" or mere "patriotism," because it also did one thing that liberalism didn't do: mass-organize the sans culottes (what liberals would call "the mob"). Moreover, liberalism did not produce either the Revolutionary Calendar or the metric system.

[The Vegan Marxist]

the history of mlm speaks really well about its politics. i think we have different versions of that history though

You're right. We do have a different sense of history. Though, I'm guessing these differences lay around the fact that you're either taking the word of the people, or the word of those that oppose such groups or even ideology. When it comes to the Maoist groups that are taking place now, we've had eye-witnesses who's written books about how well advanced these guerrillas are how they've done everything for the working class & peasant people. Yet, if you go by the government's word, then you might have this view of them as drunken terrorists who have condoms in their pockets for the use of raping innocent villagers. Of course, the choice is up to you on who you believe.

[black magick hustla]

When I think of the word "liberal," the first thing that comes to mind is the British-Continental divide. Liberalism is a British and not Continental political philosophy.

Fraternite is not the same thing as "national sovereignty" or mere "patriotism." Liberalism did not produce either the Revolutionary Calendar or the metric system.
I don't think this is true. I think you would be hardpressed to not call someone like Montesquieu anything but a theorist on liberal democracy. Liberal democracy today is based both on frnech and and english enlightment thinkers. You made me google my assertion though, but it seems there are quite few people who consider the french revolution a liberal revolution.

Montesqieu was already calling for patriotism way before the french revolution.

[The Douche]

the communards were jacobins. i am not necessarily stating jacobinism is wrong. it had a role historically, in the same sense the left wing of 19th century republicanism had. or the millinearian christian traditions. i think liberalism today is mostly deadweight though/

But clearly the communards, and by extensions, parts of the jacobin movement, were socialists, not liberals. I don't think we should abandon the jacobins, just recognize that it was a diverse movement, with both socialists and those influenced by liberalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think this is true. I think you would be hardpressed to not call someone like Montesquieu anything but a theorist on liberal democracy. Liberal democracy today is based both on french and and english enlightment thinkers. You made me google my assertion though, but it seems there are quite few people who consider the french revolution a liberal revolution.

Montesqieu was already calling for patriotism way before the french revolution.

I don't think Montesquieu is considered as "French" by the French as Rousseau is.

The Jacobins preferred the General Will over Montesquieu's "separation of powers" (in the liberal sense and not the boldly anti-soviet/council socioeconomic sense I write of here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/material-separation-state-t120151/index.html) :)) and especially an independent judiciary. One of the key components of liberal "democracy" is the latter.

I added in my post above:

Fraternite is not the same thing as "national sovereignty" or mere "patriotism," because it also did one thing that liberalism didn't do: mass-organize the sans culottes (what liberals would call "the mob").