Trotskyist Opinions of Maoism

[Montes]

I got a book today that has selected works from Mao, so before I started reading it, I thought I'd ask Trotskyist (or for that matter, any tendency) for their opinions on Maoism; what the Maoists have that the Trots agree with, what they don't, etc. The reason I ask specifically for Trots is because I think I am more compatible with Trotskyist thought that others, but hell, maybe that'll change? All opinions are welcome.

Thanks in advance.

[Weezer]

I like (some theories) Maoism in theory, but not in practice. Tends to lead to degenerated worker's states.

[red cat]

I like (some theories) Maoism in theory, but not in practice. Tends to lead to degenerated worker's states.

The OP might be looking for a little more details of which parts of Maoism you do or don't like.

[Palingenisis]

Well wasnt Trotsky's main accusation against "Stalinism" was that it was reformist?

You cant exactly call Maoism that.

[red cat]

Well wasnt Trotsky's main accusation against "Stalinism" was that it was reformist?

You cant exactly call Maoism that.

Maoism supports most of Stalin's actions.

EDIT: Perhaps a little more descriptive post outlining why Trotsky called "Stalinism" reformist would be more useful.

[Palingenisis]

Maoism supports most of Stalin's actions.

I realise that...I was pointing out the hypocracy of the Trots.

[Weezer]

I realise that...I was pointing out the hypocracy of the Trots.

Hypocracy= government by hippos?

[Montes]

The OP might be looking for a little more details of which parts of Maoism you do or don't like.

Precisely that. I'm new to trying to understand revolutionary theory and I'm trying to get a better understanding of it. As far as I know (which is little and if it's even true it's probably oversimplified), is that Maoism proposed the union of the peasantry and the proletariat for the revolution and that Maoism sought to find it's base in third-world nationalist uprisings. Or something along those lines?

EDIT: Oh! And something about a "New Democracy"?

[Palingenisis]

Maoism supports most of Stalin's actions.

EDIT: Perhaps a little more descriptive post outlining why Trotsky called "Stalinism" reformist would be more useful.

I saw an argument between Maoist or someone at least sympathtic to Maoism and a Trotskyite on another forum ages of ages ago...If you would really like to see it I can try to dig it up.

Basically the Trot accused Maoism of all sorts of compromises and betrayals of the revolution and than dismissed the armed struggles of the Shining Path and the Naxalites as ultra-leftist.

As the USAans would say...Go figure.

[Bolshevism1917]

Trotsky wrote a great deal on the Chinese Revolution (especially in The Third International After Lenin) so if you haven't read that already I really suggest you check it out - Trotsky's arguments are mainly concerned with the 1920s and 30s and are directed against the Comintern's line in China. Most importantly, Trotsky argues that feudal conditions had basically been eliminated in China as a result of capitalist development and that it was therefore possible for the working class to lead a socialist revolution, which would immediately follow the completion of bourgeois-democratic tasks like land reform and the elimination of the unequal treaties, these tasks also being completed under the leadership of the working class in cooperation with the peasantry due to the weakness of the colonial bourgeoisie - in other words, Trotsky argues that the theory of permanent revolution was applicable to China and that the Comintern's position that the bourgeoisie was capable of playing a progressive role and that there would have to be an interval between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the conquest of power by the proletariat (with the proletariat surrendering its political independence through the "bloc within" policy whilst the bourgeois-democratic revolution was taking place) was a wrong policy that had much more in common with Menshevism than revolutionary Marxism. Mao complied with the Comintern policy when it was being executed whilst also later criticizing Stalin for not allowing the CPC to develop its own policy based on its understanding of Chinese conditions but there are still elements of Mao's thought which are similar to the Comintern's analysis and therefore susceptible to Trotsky's arguments - Mao also believed that China was still "semi-feudal" and attributed a progressive role not to the bourgeoisie as a whole but to the national bourgeoisie, such that, in Mao's view, the completion of bourgeois-democratic tasks would take place through a New Democratic revolution in which four classes (the national bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie, the peasantry, and the working class) would participate, with this revolution marking the beginning of a prolonged period of capitalist development, rather than being part of an uninterrupted transition to socialist revolution, as in Trotsky's thought. It seems, then, that in spite of there being some differences Mao and the Comintern both shared a commitment to a stageist view of revolution and downplayed the possibility of socialist revolution, these views being rooted in an optimistic analysis of the character of the colonial bourgeoisie.

I would say as a Trotskyist myself that the biggest flaw of Maoism is precisely Mao's rejection of the theory of permanent revolution but at the same time we celebrate the Chinese Revolution due to it being a step forward for China's rural producers (the land reform process was possibly the largest-ever single transfer of wealth in human history) and a major defeat for imperialism.

[Palingenisis]

Mao led a sucessful revolution that overthrew feudalism and went some way at least towards socialism. If he can be accussed of anything it would be "ultra-leftism"..Straining the bow to far during the cultural revolution so that it broke.

[Bolshevism1917]

Mao led a sucessful revolution that overthrew feudalism and went some way at least towards socialism.

In what way was China feudal before 1949, and in what way did the Chinese Revolution move towards socialism?

[Muzk]

I'm the doctor of RevLeft, and I must say that this thread has a high chance of dying due to trolling. Actions must be taken immediatly, all further trolling in you have to be stopped. You must break your relationship with red cat as well as any other person infected with "Trolloby".

[Kléber]

Mao took Stalin's side on all the Comintern debates (in public anyway), and the PRC was developed on Soviet lines, with Soviet industrial advisors, from 1949 onward although private industry continued until the late 1950's when it was nationalized and "socialism" declared. By the Trotskyist definition, the PRC was never socialist, it began as a bourgeois republic but modeled its party dictatorship on the deformed workers' state in the USSR, and has since abandoned that and moved back toward private capitalism. Even at the most egalitarian periods of the PRC, though, an elite of Communist Party leaders lived in secluded residences with staff, limousines, access to special services and commodities, not to mention hefty salaries, etc. and these people exercised a political dictatorship over the working class, who had very limited democratic power over local affairs through the danwei and municipal government, but no freedom to politically oppose the Party line (except for brief periods immediately after 1949, in 1956-7, and 1966-8).

Mao said a couple things that led the USSR and others to accuse him of being "Trotskyist," he brought out the idea that restoration could come from within the Communist Party, whereas Stalin and Bukharin had implied that only imperialist forces could bring about restoration. Mao said that the group that would cause this was the "bureaucratic capitalist class," but he later dropped that term and called them "capitalist roaders in positions of authority." He also proclaimed his support for the Marxist theory of permanent revolution but didn't write much on the subject. Those comments were made in the context of the Sino-Soviet split.

However, it's important to note that during this period, such Trotskyists as actually could be found in China had been executed, were sitting in jail, or had fled to Hong Kong or elsewhere. (Fleeing to imperialist controlled port cities was how Chinese revolutionaries had been saving their own lives for decades, and the Chinese Trotskyists engaged in revolutionary agitation against the British colonial government). They had joined Mao's mass organizations after the PRC was founded, but were accused of being GMD spies and purged from unions and mass groups. Some Trotskyists had also been with Mao in the early days, as guerrilla fighters, but were purged on Comintern orders.

Also, Mao encouraged democratic freedom of thought and discussion in 1956, with the Hundred Flowers Campaign, but this led to a strike wave and widespread working class unrest in 1957, so they began the "Anti-Rightist" Campaign (which mostly targeted left-wing authors), cracked down on the strikes and purged dissenters, although there weren't many executions. Later, in 1966, Mao began encouraging youth groups to form as political paramilitaries to use against rival leaders. Some "rebel" groups took to extremes with ultraleft Maoist phrases like "bomb the party headquarters" or resurrected his ideas about the "bureaucratic capitalist class;" (http://www.marxists.de/china/sheng/index.htm) in Shanghai they even created a short-lived "Shanghai Commune" in 1967. However, the more radical developments alarmed Mao's clique and they deployed army units throughout the country to restore order, officially ending the Cultural Revolution, and thousands of the "leftists" met a bloody fate. Later everything was retroactively blamed on a real or spurious "Lin Biao clique." Spectacular purges against Mao's opponents, always dressed up as spontaneous actions of the revolutionary people, continued until shortly after his death, so some people say the Cultural Revolution continued until 1976. After that people generally agree began the restoration of capitalism.. but Trotskyists still diss Mao as a "sectarian" for aligning the PRC with the US in the cold war from 1972 onwards.

Trotsky on China (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/china/index.htm)

Trotskyism in China (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/china.htm)

Peng Shuzi archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/peng/index.htm)

Chen Bilan archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/chen/index.htm)

[red cat]

I saw an argument between Maoist or someone at least sympathtic to Maoism and a Trotskyite on another forum ages of ages ago...If you would really like to see it I can try to dig it up.

Basically the Trot accused Maoism of all sorts of compromises and betrayals of the revolution and than dismissed the armed struggles of the Shining Path and the Naxalites as ultra-leftist.

As the USAans would say...Go figure.

Can you link to the posts ?

[red cat]

Precisely that. I'm new to trying to understand revolutionary theory and I'm trying to get a better understanding of it. As far as I know (which is little and if it's even true it's probably oversimplified), is that Maoism proposed the union of the peasantry and the proletariat for the revolution and that Maoism sought to find it's base in third-world nationalist uprisings. Or something along those lines?

EDIT: Oh! And something about a "New Democracy"?

A nationalist uprising is different from a national liberation movement. Leninism states that today no nationalist movement can be successful; a national liberation movement led by the proletariat is the only movement that can defeat imperialism. This is what Maoists are carrying out in various third world countries.

New democracy is the dictatorship of the united front of four classes led by the proletariat over the former ruling classes.

EDIT: I have some work now. I will let Trots discuss about Maoism and possibly of me trolling this thread . I will later return to purge them and elaborate my points. :lol:

[Bolshevism1917]

Leninism states that today no nationalist movement can be successful; a national liberation movement led by the proletariat is the only movement that can defeat imperialismYet the Comintern policy in China in the 1920s was premised on the assumption that the task of national independence (which, in China, meant primarily unification and eliminating the unequal treaties) would fall to the bourgeoisie and that the working class had no choice but to subordinate itself to bourgeois political forces until the democratic revolution had been completed - are you saying then that Stalin and the Comintern's policy was a betrayal of Leninism, and that Trotsky had the right line? As a Trotskyist I naturally agree that only the proletariat is capable of completing the task of national independence and the other tasks which comprise the bourgeois-democratic revolution simply because the colonial bourgeoisie always has close ties to the imperialist powers and recognizes that mass movements against imperialism have the potential to challenge their own class power as well, and I would argue in relation to China that precisely because the revolution was not proletarian, or even under the leadership of the working class, the task of national independence was completed in only a partial way, and the bourgeois-democratic revolution as a whole left un-completed - Taiwan is still under the control of the imperialists, Hong Kong and Macau were under imperialist control throughout the Maoist period, and the gains of the revolution were only extended to Tibet in the 1950s. The inability of the Maoists to wage a consistent struggle against imperialism can also be seen in the PRC's foreign policy as at various points and in different countries the Chinese government sought to constrain more militant anti-imperialist forces in order to avoid a regional conflict - for example, when the PRC put pressure on the Vietnamese to accept the Geneva Accords in 1954.

[Weezer]

The OP might be looking for a little more details of which parts of Maoism you do or don't like.

Fine, I'll go into detail. Alright it goes.

First off, I have only actively indulged myself in Marxist theory for about maybe 4 or 5 months, and I'm new to Marxist theory and it's 'spinoffs' in general.

I'll start off with the positive. First off, out of most "anti-revisionist" theories and schools, such as Stalinism and Hoxhaism, I find Maoism most appealing out of those three. Although I identify as mostly Trotskyist, I'm not an orthodox Trotskyist and do not dogmatically worship any collected set of ideas, be it a philosophy, religion, whatever. I believe in the Maoist theories of Mass Line and somewhat Social Imperialism.
I support the Nepalese Maoists.

And the negative sides? I believe Maoism, without Permanent Revolution, will eventually lead to capitalism, as all Anti-Revisionist countries have proved this point, and have all came back to capitalism. I don't think Cultural Revolution is practical, because if capitalism really had a strong enough force to stand up to a socialist government, there is something wrong with the revolution, and rather than purging, the PRC should have self-examined itself, and maybe consider the fact that they were wrong.

I'm not sure about other Maoist theories, but the Three Worlds Theory has it's own cult. I don't believe that the "First World" proletariat is incapable of
revolution, we just need to spread class consciousness. New Democracy is a "combination of bourgeois democracy and socialism." Bourgeois democracy has no place in socialism. We need the antithesis of bourgeois democracy, direct democratic councils.

Maoism, in my opinion, is a meh ideology.

[Bolshevism1917]

Social Imperialism especially speaks out to me as a Trotskyist, as I view the post-Lenin Soviet Union as Imperialist, due to it's actions with other actions and controlling other nations as puppets

The Maoist theory of social imperialism only identifies the USSR as imperialist from the late 1950s onwards, however, and Mao himself supported the invasion of Hungary in 1956.

[Weezer]

The Maoist theory of social imperialism only identifies the USSR as imperialist from the late 1950s onwards, however, and Mao himself supported the invasion of Hungary in 1956.

I still think it has a good point to it. Even after Stalin, it was still imperialist.

[Bolshevism1917]

I still think it has a good point to it. Even after Stalin, it was still imperialist.

Yes, I agree that the post-Stalin Soviet Union was also an imperialist power but the point is that Maoists argue that it only became imperialist at that point, having been a socialist country under Stalin. Given that this is different from the Trotskyist perspective (especially Trotsky's critique of the Comintern) and that the idea of "social imperialism" as used by Maoists does not actually represent any kind of theoretical advance when compared to the theory of imperialism as developed by Marxists like Lenin and Luxmeburg I don't see any reason to praise Maoism solely because Maoists accused the Soviet Union of suddenly becoming an imperialist power after Stalin's death. If Maoists actually had an explanation for why it was possible for the Soviet Union to go from being a socialist country to an imperialist and capitalist power within less than a decade then their analysis might be a bit more impressive but Maoists have never been able to provide that kind of explanation - instead they always rest on the assumption that there were shadowy "revisionists" operating within the CPSU and that Khrushchev coming to power was enough to eliminate socialism without there being any form of resistance on the part of Soviet workers.

[Weezer]

Yes, I agree that the post-Stalin Soviet Union was also an imperialist power but the point is that Maoists argue that it only became imperialist at that point, having been a socialist country under Stalin. Given that this is different from the Trotskyist perspective (especially Trotsky's critique of the Comintern) and that the idea of "social imperialism" as used by Maoists does not actually represent any kind of theoretical advance when compared to the theory of imperialism as developed by Marxists like Lenin and Luxmeburg I don't see any reason to praise Maoism solely because Maoists accused the Soviet Union of suddenly becoming an imperialist power after Stalin's death. If Maoists actually had an explanation for why it was possible for the Soviet Union to go from being a socialist country to an imperialist and capitalist power within less than a decade then their analysis might be a bit more impressive but Maoists have never been able to provide that kind of explanation - instead they always rest on the assumption that there were shadowy "revisionists" operating within the CPSU and that Khrushchev coming to power was enough to eliminate socialism without there being any form of resistance on the part of Soviet workers.

I guess I had Wikipedia's description of Social Imperialism wrong then.

[Bolshevism1917]

If fact, I would argue that not only did Mao not improve on the classical theories of imperialism in any way, imperialism was actually robbed of any theoretical content by the CPC, in that Mao and his comrades described countries as imperialist or not depending on what was needed to rationalize policies, that is, in an entirely subjective way, as oppossed to seeking to understand the objective position of specific states and their ruling classes in the imperialist world-system, in terms of "profound economic causes", in Lenin's words. In the 1970s, for example, Mao and his supporters argued that US imperialism was in decline and the Soviet Union becoming the dominant imperialist power without any apparent justification and at a time when the US was continuing to bomb Vietnam simply in order to justify their policy of moving closer to the United States. Similarly, if we look at Chinese policy towards Japan, we find that, in 1971, the People's Daily felt capable of asserting that "[l]ook at the past of Japanese imperialism, and you can tell its present; look at its past and present, and you can tell its future", and yet, when Prime Minister Tanaka visited China in 1972, only a year later, the Chinese government was apparently happy to agree to a joint communique in which it was stated that "[t]he two peoples [of China and Japan] ardently wish to end the abnormal state of affairs that has hitherto existed between the two countries”. In this sense the "analysis" of Mao and the CPC when it comes to imperialism is the same as their "analysis" when it comes to classes in that in the latter area as well the main emphasis is on attitude and political orientation at a given point in time (you can see this most clearly during the Cultural Revolution when terms like "proletarian" and "capitalist roader" were applied to any official who did not share the same line as the Maoist leadership regardless of their class background or economic position) rather than someone's objective relationship to the means of production.


Wrong. Trotskyists uphold the Soviet Union as a "deformed workers state" from the time of Stalin till GorbachevFirstly, the Trotskyists you are referring to view the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state up to its demise in 1991, which is not the same as saying that the Soviet Union was a socialist country at any point in time, much less a "socialist workers state", whatever that means - if Trotskyists viewed the Soviet Union as socialist then it wouldn't make much sense to say that socialism can't exist in one country. Secondly, the Trotskyists who do maintain this analysis would not say that the Soviet Union was imperialist even after Stalin's death because a country needs to be capitalist in order to be an imperialist power. Thirdly, there are many Trotskyists who have rejected Trotsky's own analysis of the Soviet Union and the analysis of figures like Mandel and Pablo after WW2 and now argue that the Soviet Union was capitalist, the same being true of countries like the PRC, and it seems that me and the other poster are part of this camp because both of us apparently believe that the Soviet Union was imperialist at some point in time - which, as I've already mentioned, would only make sense if we also thought the Soviet Union was capitalist.


Mao had his own criticisms of the Comintern and opposed its meddling for most of the time. Not enough to actually object in the 1920s, it seems. That role was left to people like Chen Duxiu who later become part of the International Left Opposition.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I got a book today that has selected works from Mao, so before I started reading it, I thought I'd ask Trotskyist (or for that matter, any tendency) for their opinions on Maoism; what the Maoists have that the Trots agree with, what they don't, etc. The reason I ask specifically for Trots is because I think I am more compatible with Trotskyist thought that others, but hell, maybe that'll change? All opinions are welcome.

Thanks in advance.

The answer to this will change with who you ask, I have noted that people even in the smae group have different views on the same subject. Stalinist normal have a postive view on Maoism, mainly because Maoism has a postive view on Stalinism.

[red cat]

Too much Trot propaganda and false history has been posted already.

I will stress on the fact that in spite of the many Trot criticisms of Maoists, Trots themselves are yet to contribute significantly to the modern movements against imperialism. There must be some reason to this. :)

[Muzk]

Hey guys you know what would be funny? I could call myself a maoist and say "show us where the trot revolutions are" too! Red Cat & co would heavily thank my posts on top of that! *Stalinist brofist*

In fact they even did that while I had my stalinist phase. Honestly, this shit is trolling,

[red cat]

Hey guys you know what would be funny? I could call myself a maoist and say "show us where the trot revolutions are" too! Red Cat & co would heavily thank my posts on top of that! *Stalinist brofist*

In fact I even did that while I had my stalinist phase. Honestly, this shit is trolling,

I hereby declare that I won't thank your posts even if you do all of the above. Happy? :lol:

[RED DAVE]

I will stress on the fact that in spite of the many Trot criticisms of Maoists, Trots themselves are yet to contribute significantly to the modern movements against imperialism. There must be some reason to this. :)Considering that Trotskyist groups were part of the politiical spine for the movements against the War in Vietnam (while Chairman Mao was making nice-nice with Nixon), the US intervention in Nicaragua and are active in the struggle against the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you are falsifying history.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

By the way, red cat, you have said that you live in a third world country. I have a pretty good idea of what the Trots I know are doing in the US. What are you doing to "make the revolution" in your back yard?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Considering that Trotskyist groups were part of the politiical spine for the movements against the War in Vietnam (while Chairman Mao was making nice-nice with Nixon), the US intervention in Nicaragua and are active in the struggle against the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you are falsifying history.

RED DAVE

As far as I know, the war against American imperialism in Vietnam was led by Maoists.

[red cat]

By the way, red cat, you have said that you live in a third world country. I have a pretty good idea of what the Trots I know are doing in the US. What are you doing to "make the revolution" in your back yard?

RED DAVE

If "you" means specifically me, then I will not answer this question.

If "you" means Maoists, or rather partisan Maoists in general, then it will be sufficient for you to know that the country I live in has a Maoist peoples' war of its own.

[Uncle Hank]

Too much Trot propaganda and false history has been posted already.
I know I'm about to contribute in pretty much the same way you do in the threads you post in by adding pretty much nothing, but as rich white kids who think being impoverished and oppressed is cool (i.e. Vanilla Ice) would say, 'back your shit down'. Either that or at least point to evidence of this false history and 'propaganda' (considering nearly everything you disagree with would fall under one or more of those two categories it shouldn't be hard).

[Lyev]

It's not so much Maoism itself that I don't like, but Maoists that are active in the first world. As you can understand, before the '49 revolution China was a huge and backward country. The working class proletariat class were a dot swimming (or perhaps drowning) in a sea of peasantry. I can't remember the exact statistic, but I recently read that the urban, working class population of 1949 China was something like 1.8%. Admittedly Russia in 1917 had a very high peasant population, with relatively little proles, but Lenin, Trotsky, and even Stalin realised that a socialist revolution simply cannot be build almost entirely on the peasantry. In Russia the question was; "will peasants collaborate with us, the working class?" whilst in China the question seemed to be "will the proletarians collaborate with us, the peasantry"?

Now, I'm not saying that the peasantry cannot be involved in a Marxist revolutionary movement, full-stop, but you must realise they role they play, and their relation to the means of production. I think I'm right in saying that the peasant owns his own tiny strip of land, and gives any surplus to the landlord, baron etc. This is what was in China (I'm not 100% that this was how the peasantry worked in China - if I'm wrong, could someone clarify that point?) What Marx persistently and astutely pointed out, was that the proletarian is totally divorced from the means of production, and so must sell the only the commodity she/he has; labour-power. A revolution means the property-less proletariat-based movement rising up against the bourgeoisie and expropriated the means of production. A peasant cannot expropriate from him/herself.

Mao said that it was the peasants struggle "that constituted the real motive force of historical development in Chinese feudal society"; to an extent I think this quote is fair enough - who else, but peasants will bring about change in feudal society? - but the bottom line is peasants don't have the same material relations to bourgeoisie as proles do. If a peasant takes part in an uprising that has a strong Marxist or socialist current, then they are not a revolutionary; they are simply a soldier. Their relation to the means of production is still the same. Having said this, (as I mentioned right at the start of my post) there are many strong Maoist movements in Asia at the moment, like the UCPN in Nepal and (some) of the Maoists in India. In these countries, due the uneven development of capitalism, there's still a very big peasant population. A sizable Maoist current in these countries is justifiable because of the peasantry, but I really fail to understand Maoists in the first world. Anyway, that's just my two cents, I may have some stuff wrong.

[RED DAVE]

By the way, red cat, you have said that you live in a third world country. I have a pretty good idea of what the Trots I know are doing in the US. What are you doing to "make the revolution" in your back yard?
If "you" means specifically me, then I will not answer this question.This, of course, could mean that you are anything from a key revolutionary to a bourgeois in a condo somewhere.


If "you" means Maoists, or rather partisan Maoists in general, then it will be sufficient for you to know that the country I live in has a Maoist peoples' war of its own.Cool.

RED DAVE

[scarletghoul]

Its important to recognise that Trotskyite criticisms are almost always opportunistic. One minute we're 'reformist', the next we're 'ultra leftist'. Its easy to criticise a revolution from the sidelines, which is why Trots can find so much sympathy (especially among first world middle class students and the like).


Considering that Trotskyist groups were part of the politiical spine for the movements against the War in Vietnam (while Chairman Mao was making nice-nice with Nixon), the US intervention in Nicaragua and are active in the struggle against the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you are falsifying history.A great example of opportunistic bullshit criticism. In fact not only was the Vietnamese movement hugely influenced and supported by Maoism, but there were also Maoist elements in the FSLN in Nicaragua, there are active Maoists in Afghanistan and Maoist soldiers in the philipines have found themselves directly fighting American troops on occasion. Honestly I have no idea why you would try such a crazy backwards argument.

As for the OP's questions i cant answer properly not being a trot. But I would like to say that there is a little truth to the 'degenerated workers state' idea. Who could deny that the USSR degenerated in some way ? But I think the way Trotsky and co expressed that idea and elaborated on it was opportunistic and needlessly devisive. Mao recognised that the state was indeed going revisionist but instead of just whining like a dick with stupid beard and tiny glasses, he led the masses in correcting the system, the corrupted politicians and cadres, and keeping the revolution fresh. At the same time he still upheld the general legacy of Stalinism. So here you have two approaches to correcting a problem: the trotskyite method of criticising everything while doing nothing and just being annoying, or the maoist method of mass participation and correcting bad elements while retaining good ones and constantly striving to bring the revolution forward without forgetting the advances already made.

[RED DAVE]

Its important to recognise that Trotskyite criticisms are almost always opportunistic. One minute we're 'reformist', the next we're 'ultra leftist'. Its easy to criticise a revolution from the sidelines, which is why Trots can find so much sympathy (especially among first world middle class students and the like).Considering that the Maoists groups in the US, where my experience comes from, have never even gotten a toehold in the working class, your criticism of Trots is bullshit. It's standard stalinist/maoist crap. The French CP tried the same shit against the movement in '68 in an attempt to sabotage any alliance with the non-stalinist left and the workers.


A great example of opportunistic bullshit criticism. In fact not only was the Vietnamese movement was hugely influenced and supported by MaoismThe Maoists were certainly present in the anti-Vietnam War movement, but their political influence in the movement was minimal due to their emphasis on working in SDS. Yes, their people were present at the mass demonstrations, along with everyone else.

I was present at several national and regional antiwar meetings and the Maoist presence there was minimal.


but there were also Maoist elements in the FSLN in Nicaragua, there are active Maoists in Afghanistan and Maoist soldiers in the philipines have found themselves directly fighting American troops on occasion. Honestly I have no idea why you would try such a crazy backwards argument.Read what I posted. I was talking about their presence in the movement in the US.

RED DAVE

[Kléber]

Mao's regime still entered into a tacit alliance with US imperialism in 1972 (subtle overtures had been made since 1971), while North Vietnam was still being bombed. Let's not even start on the history of Vietnamese Trotskyists, who were stabbed in the back by the ICP central clique while organizing resistance to the French invaders in 1945, and continued to loyally serve in the Viet Minh despite fratricidal purges against them into the 1950's, which almost completely wiped them out.

There were Trotskyist revolutionaries in Nicaragua too. A good comrade of mine fought against the Contras. Nobody here is against anti-imperialist struggles. You don't have to act like someone is a heretic for going beyond the evasive "mistakes were made, all humans make mistakes" excuse and naming actual policies or actions they disagree with. As for the FSLN, it's pro-ALBA but still a capitalist party, that bans abortion and has close links with the church.

[bailey_187]

I really fail to understand Maoists in the first world.

Because you fail to understand Maoism. Maoism is not just Marxism with peasents replacing the workers.

Maoists in the first world, concering the first world mainly accept the mass line and the need to advance socialism and carry on the class struggle with cultural revolution. And view China between 1966-76 as the furthest advance towards Communism ever.

What is not to understand about that?

[RED DAVE]

Maoists in the first world, concering the first world mainly accept the mass line and the need to advance socialism and carry on the class struggle with cultural revolution.(1) What is the mass line for first world countries? Concrete examples, please.

(2) What specifically do Maoists do to "advance socialism and carry out the class struggle" in the first world countries? Concrete examples, please.

(3) What does cultural revolution mean in the first world countries?

RED DAVE

[bailey_187]

Mao's regime still entered into a tacit alliance with US imperialism in 1972 (subtle overtures had been made since 1971), while North Vietnam was still being bombed.

According to Martin McCauley, the USA benefited in no way from the reaproachment. This doesnt excuse it and IMO it shouldnt have happened, but the way you say that it seems as if China was helping the USA and Imperialism. China benefited from it by the USA telling the Soviets they will respond to any attacks on China (which was a real probability) and

An ally?
a. A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes
b. A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alliance

Definition A certainly does not apply. Definition B could, but you yourself admitted that the reaproachment was tacit, therefore not formal.

[Kléber]

Even prior to that, Republican policymakers in the US had mused about the possibilities of exploiting the Sino-Soviet split in order to use the PRC against the USSR. Mao's government had legitimate grievances against the Soviet state, but nevertheless, they armed and funded guerrilla movements that were fighting against pro-Soviet regimes in Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, deliberately taking the side of the US against the USSR in cold war hotspots, which helped stall the Soviets' international endeavors and must have played a major role in forcing the eventual Soviet capitulation to US imperialism.

Also, in 1971, during the Bangladeshi Liberation War, the PRC and the US jointly supported the genocidal actions of the Pakistani army under Yahya Khan which killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Bangladeshi civilians. Despite betrayal by Mao himself, Maoists were victims of this too; the Bangladeshi Maoists suffered brutal repression from both the Soviet- and Indian-backed Awami League and the US- and Chinese-backed and -armed Pakistani forces.

[red cat]

Even prior to that, Republican policymakers in the US had mused about the possibilities of exploiting the Sino-Soviet split in order to use the PRC against the USSR. Mao's government had legitimate grievances against the Soviet state, but nevertheless, they armed and funded guerrilla movements that were fighting against pro-Soviet regimes in Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, deliberately taking the side of the US against the USSR in cold war hotspots, which helped stall the Soviets' international endeavors and must have played a major role in forcing the eventual Soviet capitulation to US imperialism.

Also, in 1971, during the Bangladeshi Liberation War, the PRC and the US jointly supported the genocidal actions of the Pakistani army under Yahya Khan which killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Bangladeshi civilians. Despite betrayal by Mao himself, Maoists were victims of this too; the Bangladeshi Maoists suffered brutal repression from both the Soviet- and Indian-backed Awami League and the US- and Chinese-backed and -armed Pakistani forces.

It is interesting to note that the Maoist CPs of Bangladesh uphold the line of both the then CPC and CPI(ML). Also, a defeat of the so called liberation movement would probably have been better for them because the Awami League, after the war, was successful in liquidating the revolutionary zeal of the masses and destroying the Maoist movement through intense military operations.

[Kléber]

Partly true, I deeply respect the heroic resolve of those Maoists for carrying on their struggle even though they were abandoned by Mao himself. But surely things would have gone better if the PRC had been providing guns and planes to Maoist forces instead of Pakistani generals. It also had a directly negative effect, demoralizing comrades and leading to splits. Even Satyajit Ray initially had some Maoist sympathies but after that he said "China is the most cold and calculating power in the world."

[red cat]

Partly true, I deeply respect the heroic resolve of those Maoists for carrying on their struggle even though they were abandoned by Mao himself.

The CPC always stood as a political guide for all revolutionary Maoist parties.



But surely things would have gone better if the PRC had been providing guns and planes to Maoist forces instead of Pakistani generals.

I think that the Maoists in Bangladesh are capable of a better analysis of China's support to their movement than anybody else is.



It also had a directly negative effect, demoralizing comrades and leading to splits. Even Satyajit Ray initially had some Maoist sympathies but after that he said "China is the most cold and calculating power in the world."

How do you know that Satyajit Ray had Maoist sympathies ?

[Lyev]

Something else I found; Apparently Mao wanted to ally himself with the petit-bourgeois. "Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie." And also; "The People's democratic dictatorship is based on the alliance of the working class, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie". Both of these are from Mao's Red Book. Why on earth the petit-bourgeoisie?

On the "mass line", (i.e. "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history." from On Coalition Government by Mao) isn't this something that Marx expounded anyway? We all know the famous quote "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself". This is a fundamental of Marxism; history, and changes from one epoch to another, can generally be accounted for by the actions of the masses. It's not "great men", acting in a vacuum, that make history. This was something Marx said right from the start, nor was it something that Mao discovered, by any stretch of the imagination. By the way, sorry if these discussions get a bit trolly, I much prefer it when we just discuss and learn from one another.

[Kléber]

How do you know that Satyajit Ray had Maoist sympathies ?
I don't have the book it was in with me so I can't find the quote, but I think he said something like, "How could anyone in India not be impressed by the Chinese Revolution?" He obviously ended up as a liberal, but Pratidwandi was clearly the work of a declassed intellectual who had flirted with Maoism.

[Lyev]

So is no one going to pick up on my point, up ^ there? Why did Mao have a penchant for the petit-bourgeoisie?

[The Grey Blur]

So is no one going to pick up on my point, up ^ there? Why did Mao have a penchant for the petit-bourgeoisie?
Actually I think it's a widely-held marxist view that at least a significant portion of the middle classes and petit-bourgeoisie (the small shop-owners, farmers, smaller businessmen) must be won to a socialist perspective. I think Trotsky's writings on the rise of fascism in Germany actually allude to this. The failure of the Stalinists to give any sort of leadership to the middle classes saw the petit-bourgeoisie vacillating from left to right and eventually culminating in their overwhelming support for the Nazis. Yes, the petit-bourgeoisie are a class of the past but their own interests lie in socialism - monopoly capitalism eradicates them whereas one of the first actions of a socialist state would be an extension of credit to smaller businesses.

Where I feel marxism/bolshevism departs from maoism is that Mao, and the comintern of that period support him in this, viewed an alliance with the national bourgeoisie in 'backward' nations to be necessary. The fact there wasn't much of a working class is because the maoists consistently allowed them to be massacred by the KMT! In essence it's a menshevik outlook.

[red cat]

So is no one going to pick up on my point, up ^ there? Why did Mao have a penchant for the petit-bourgeoisie?

The Maoist notion of petite-bourgeoisie is different from the classical Marxist one. Among others, it includes primary and secondary school teachers, lower government functionaries, office clerks etc. who are considered to be proletarian by other tendencies. So it should be clear why they are revolutionary.

There are others too; owner peasants, master craftsmen, students, small traders etc. It so happens that due to imperialist oppression and specially during the escalation of class struggle, a section of this class undergoes a huge deterioration in their standard of living and is on the verge of joining the proletariat in this aspect. This constitutes the left wing of the petite bourgeoisie and is an ally of the revolution. Parts from the upper levels of the petite-bourgeoisie may also join the revolution, but they will not do so until the revolutionary forces grow significantly strong.

[Lyev]

Actually I think it's a widely-held marxist view that at least a significant portion of the middle classes and petit-bourgeoisie (the small shop-owners, farmers, smaller businessmen) must be won to a socialist perspective. I think Trotsky's writings on the rise of fascism in Germany actually allude to this. The failure of the Stalinists to give any sort of leadership to the middle classes saw the petit-bourgeoisie vacillating from left to right and eventually culminating in their overwhelming support for the Nazis. Yes, the petit-bourgeoisie are a class of the past but their own interests lie in socialism - monopoly capitalism eradicates them whereas one of the first actions of a socialist state would be an extension of credit to smaller businesses.

Where I feel marxism/bolshevism departs from maoism is that Mao, and the comintern of that period support him in this, viewed an alliance with the national bourgeoisie in 'backward' nations to be necessary. The fact there wasn't much of a working class is because the maoists consistently allowed them to be massacred by the KMT! In essence it's a menshevik outlook.
Thanks for that. I think I was a bit too dogmatic/impulsive in airing my views. Marx always seemed pretty begrudging of the small shop-owner. I remember a letter (think it was a letter) that he wrote to Engels where he mentioned something like "there's nothing worse than petit-bourgeoisie claiming his reward" when the butcher came to his house for payment and Karl had no money. Back in the days of Marx (before competition and monopoly had got rid of a large section of the small businessman) I think the proletarian/petit-bourgeoisie dynamic was somewhat different than it is today. Today we see certain professions that were previously considered quite middle class - something like a nurse or teacher - that have been "proletarianized", and the pay and conditions of these jobs have decreased. Therefore, the petit-bourgeois has been forced to adopt a similar materialist, class-based interest to the proletarian, at least to an extent.

EDIT:
The Maoist notion of petite-bourgeoisie is different from the classical Marxist one. Among others, it includes primary and secondary school teachers, lower government functionaries, office clerks etc. who are considered to be proletarian by other tendencies. So it should be clear why they are revolutionary.

There are others too; owner peasants, master craftsmen, students, small traders etc. It so happens that due to imperialist oppression and specially during the escalation of class struggle, a section of this class undergoes a huge deterioration in their standard of living and is on the verge of joining the proletariat in this aspect. This constitutes the left wing of the petite bourgeoisie and is an ally of the revolution. Parts from the upper levels of the petite-bourgeoisie may also join the revolution, but they will not do so until the revolutionary forces grow significantly strong.
I definitely think that some sort of alliance or agreement with the petit-bourgeoisie is something most Marxists - whether they be Trots or Maoists - can agree on. Like I mentioned, there's lots of things today that will force the "middle class"* to choose between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

*this is quite a loose term.

[Bolshevism1917]

(I'm not 100% that this was how the peasantry worked in China - if I'm wrong, could someone clarify that point?)The CPC developed their own method of categorizing and analyzing the Chinese rural population whereby they divided the category "peasantry" up into a number of sub-divisions (rich, poor, and middle peasants) defined in terms of whether families were in debt or not, whether they were forced to hire land from a rich peasant or landlord in addition to using the land they owned themselves, what kind of means of production they owned, and other criteria, with the CPC's general strategy being to unite the poor and middle peasants (who comprised a majority of the rural population, given that those without any land at all always accounted for only a small proportion of the total population in any given community and were rightly seen as part of the rural proletariat rather than the peasantry) whilst excluding the rich peasants and landlords, who were seen to derive their income from the exploitation of labour and tenants respectively. What was happening in the Chinese countryside in from the late Qing to the Chinese Revolution is a matter of intense academic debate in terms of whether living conditions for the majority were getting better or worse (and whether there was such a thing as a moral economy before the advent of capitalism in the countryside - this in particular is a very interesting debate) and whether whatever poverty existed was the result of social relations or a lack of technology (or other factors such as overpopulation) but there does seem to be a general consensus that patterns of land ownership became drastically more unequal from the early 1930s onwards and that we should always be wary of making comments about China in general, due to there being very different social arrangements in different locations - tenancy, for example, was much more common in southern China and in the major river valleys whereas in areas like Manchuria more peasants were independent, and then in Tibet we see the continued existence of pre-capitalist social formations such as feudalism and collective ownership of land by religious institutions. It really is a mistake to treat China as a single society (the different patterns of land ownership were paralleled by other differences such as different kinds of crops being grown and different forms of marriage etc.) and I think that's true today as well.


In these countries, due the uneven development of capitalism, there's still a very big peasant population. A sizable Maoist current in these countries is justifiable because of the peasantry,The value of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is that it demonstrates how the potential for revolution is determined not by the numerical strength of the working class within any particular country but by the development of capitalism on a world scale, and that countries such as China are where revolution is most likely to break out, due to the unique conditions created through the process of imperialist penetration. If you accept that a large peasantry means that the working class can't seize power or that the bourgeoisie is capable of playing a progressive role in oppressed nations like China then you are instantly compelled to accept the stageist politics (according to which the working class has no choice but to subordinate itself to other political forces or to endure a long period of capitalist development under the bourgeoisie before seeking to take power) that Stalinist organizations have always advanced in order to justify their opportunist policies, and you have no business calling yourself a Trotskyist. The possibility of China undergoing a socialist revolution was made clear during the period 1925-7 when there was a situation of dual power and the bourgeoisie was showing its inability to resist imperialism or carry out the agrarian revolution.

It's hard, of course, to expect someone from a reactionary pro-imperialist organization like the SP to have a good knowledge of Trotsky's own theories.


One minute we're 'reformist', the next we're 'ultra leftist'I don't think most Trotskyist criticisms of Maoism do involve accusations of ultra-leftism but if they did this wouldn't be evidence of the Trotskyist critique being internally incoherent because constant and rapid movement between positions that appear to be oppossed to one another (but are ultimately both reactionary) is one of the defining characteristics of Stalinist politics. In China, for example, the Comintern's policy of forcing the CPC to subordinate itself to the KMT for the first half of the 1920s was an opportunist policy by any measure because it was designed to obtain gains in the short term whilst leaving the CPC vulnerable to attack and forcing it to surrender its political independence when the opportunity for revolution presented itself, but it was rapidly followed by an ultra-left policy that was possibly even more destructive, in that after the tragic defeat of 1927 and the subsequent failure of the Wuhan strategy the CPC was basically forced to carry out a number of insurrections, both in the countryside and in cities such as Nanchang and Canton, despite the working class being in no position to overthrow capitalism, or even to seize power at a local level - the Canton Soviet, for example, was not a Soviet at all, but a body that had been bureaucratically imposed from above without the mass involvement or even the knowledge of the city's workers, such that its leaders were basically appointed, and it lasted for only a short period of time being being destroyed by local KMT forces - the result being that the party's defeat was intensified and its urban cadre further weakened. The switch from the theory of social-fascism as deployed in Germany in the pre-1933 period to the policy of the popular front is an additional and more general example of the tendency of Stalinist policy to fluctuate (as a reflection of the changing class interests of the bureaucracy and the internal instability of the Soviet Union in the 1930s) without ever being objectively revolutionary.


In fact not only was the Vietnamese movement hugely influenced and supported by MaoismThis is true insofar as the VWP/ICP drew on the Maoist conception of revolutionary war as moving through three stages of withdrawal, equilibrium, and general offensive, but you seem to ignore firstly the crucial role played by the PRC in forcing the Vietnamese revolutionaries to abandon their liberation struggle and allow the United States to take the place of the French through the 1954 Geneva Accords and secondly that from the early 1960s onwards the Vietnamese developed their economic and political ties with the Soviet Union and identified with the 1966 proposal from the JCP for an "anti-imperialist international united front" including both the PRC and the Soviet Union - the refusal of the Vietnamese revolutionaries to accept the PRC's position on the Soviet Union was ultimately one of the factors which led to the PRC withdrawing much of the military aid they had initially provided to the Vietnamese by the early 1970s as well as the military conflict that erupted between the two countries (with all its links to China's historic domination of Vietnam) after liberation in 1976. I hardly think Maoists can take credit for the Vietnamese victory when Vietnam was part of the Soviet camp and a source of regional opposition to the PRC.

In fact, it seems most self-professed Maoists on this forum either aren't aware of what Mao thought about the Soviet Union (that it was a capitalist, fascist, and imperialist power, and not just a socialist country that had problems) or aren't willing to accept the analysis...which leads me to wonder why they call themselves Maoists.


Who could deny that the USSR degenerated in some way ?Yet you can't provide a materialist explanation of what resulted in the USSR degenerating (and make no mistake - Mao asserted that capitalism had been restored and justified his alliance with the United States by claiming that the USSR had been an imperialist power since the restoration of capitalism and was becoming the dominant imperialist force in the 1970s, with the power of the United States supposedly declining) or what caused the restoration of capitalism in the PRC in 1976-8 - you have to rely on conspiracy theories about "revisionism".

[Lyev]

The value of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is that it demonstrates how the potential for revolution is determined not by the numerical strength of the working class within any particular country but by the development of capitalism on a world scale, and that countries such as China are where revolution is most likely to break out, due to the unique conditions created through the process of imperialist penetration. If you accept that a large peasantry means that the working class can't seize power or that the bourgeoisie is capable of playing a progressive role in oppressed nations like China then you are instantly compelled to accept the stageist politics (according to which the working class has no choice but to subordinate itself to other political forces or to endure a long period of capitalist development under the bourgeoisie before seeking to take power) that Stalinist organizations have always advanced in order to justify their opportunist policies, and you have no business calling yourself a Trotskyist. The possibility of China undergoing a socialist revolution was made clear during the period 1925-7 when there was a situation of dual power and the bourgeoisie was showing its inability to resist imperialism or carry out the agrarian revolution.

It's hard, of course, to expect someone from a reactionary pro-imperialist organization like the SP to have a good knowledge of Trotsky's own theories.
You're taking an awful lot of meaning from not very much there. Where on earth did I say the bourgeoisie are "progressive" or that the working class need to "subordinate" themselves before a revolution? Where have I said that the the working class can't seize power if the peasantry is too big?

[Chambered Word]

@OP

In short, we believe in the workers controlling the means of production directly, not through a party that claims to uphold the rights of the workers. As Marx would agree, only the working class can emancipate itself. A society with a heirarchical power structure is capitalist, no matter how much living standards are improved in that society. That is what distinguishes our ideology from Stalinist trends.

[red cat]

@OP

In short, we believe in the workers controlling the means of production directly, not through a party that claims to uphold the rights of the workers. As Marx would agree, only the working class can emancipate itself. A society with a heirarchical power structure is capitalist, no matter how much living standards are improved in that society. That is what distinguishes our ideology from Stalinist trends.

What is your opinion on democratic centralism ?

[bailey_187]

@OP

In short, we believe in the workers controlling the means of production directly, not through a party that claims to uphold the rights of the workers. As Marx would agree, only the working class can emancipate itself. A society with a heirarchical power structure is capitalist, no matter how much living standards are improved in that society. That is what distinguishes our ideology from Stalinist trends.

No.

[bailey_187]

Yet you can't provide a materialist explanation of what resulted in the USSR degenerating (and make no mistake - Mao asserted that capitalism had been restored and justified his alliance with the United States by claiming that the USSR had been an imperialist power since the restoration of capitalism and was becoming the dominant imperialist force in the 1970s, with the power of the United States supposedly declining) or what caused the restoration of capitalism in the PRC in 1976-8 - you have to rely on conspiracy theories about "revisionism".

The Maoists say in the lower stage of communism, where money etc may still exists there still exists the social basis for capitalists as remnants of capitalism still exist. These will follow their class interests and restore capitalism. How is that not materialist?

Forgot the term "revisionism". Capitalist-roaders is the correct name.

[Uncle Hank]

No.
Yes. Ooh aren't I clever. Care explain, or are you just gonna hide behind something shorter and thinner than a one liner.