What is it...

[Nolan]

...with Maoism and anarchism? There's some odd link between the two. I've noticed on Revleft, Youtube, and elsewhere that a lot of Maoists have respect for anarchism and some were former anarchists and vice versa. What's up with that? Or am I the only one to have noticed this? :confused:

[GracchusBabeuf]

Mao was originally an anarchist, as were many of the Chinese communists. Go figure.:D

[jake williams]

...with Maoism and anarchism? There's some odd link between the two. I've noticed on Revleft, Youtube, and elsewhere that a lot of Maoists have respect for anarchism and some were former anarchists and vice versa. What's up with that? Or am I the only one to have noticed this? :confused:
I don't want to start a tendency war, so I'll try to put this diplomatically, but I feel like they both tend to discount the role of the organized working class in fighting and winning revolutions.

[Nolan]

I don't want to start a tendency war, so I'll try to put this diplomatically, but I feel like they both tend to discount the role of the organized working class in fighting and winning revolutions.

How so?

And yay, a shitstorm! :D

[GracchusBabeuf]

I don't want to start a tendency war, so I'll try to put this diplomatically, but I feel like they both tend to discount the role of the organized working class in fighting and winning revolutions.You mean by emphasizing the role of the worker-peasant alliance in countries where the working class is not numerically strong, Maoists discount the role of the working class in those countries? Strange argument, but do you suppose if one went looking for a pure working class revolution in countries economically dominated by agriculture and the peasant class, one would be very successful? The working class needs the alliance of other toiling classes for the revolution.

Not only that, Maoists have been the most successful among all other "communists" in organizing workers and peasants for revolution today.

[jake williams]

You mean by emphasizing the role of the worker-peasant alliance in countries where the working class is not numerically strong, Maoists discount the role of the working class in those countries?
Perhaps "discount" is not the right word, but my point, which I think generally would be clear, is that different emphases are placed on different classes within both Maoism and anarchism.


but do you suppose if one went looking for a pure working class revolution in countries economically dominated by agriculture and the peasant class, one would be very successful?
I didn't have the time when I posted that to go into it a lot, and even then I thought about mentioning this, but I thought it went without saying. Clearly Mao was responding to different conditions than one would find in an advanced industrial country, and that it would have been impossible to have a revolution whose base was the urban industrial proletariat in a large country with a small such proletariat. Now, there's a question about whether or not Mao was actually successful in the grand scheme of things, but let's say he was, certainly there were extremely important advances.

I didn't make a value judgment, or at least if I did, that wasn't my main point. My main point was that there are analogous differences in emphasis on the working class between Maoism and anarchism - especially in their American variations, where a sort of mutant "Maoism" is used to appeal to the American lumpenproletariat which is also seen as, and often is, a basic support base of some types of anarchism.


The working class needs the alliance of other toiling classes for the revolution.
No one's denying that.

[bcbm]

do you suppose if one went looking for a pure working class revolution in countries economically dominated by agriculture and the peasant class, one would be very successful?

wasn't the russian revolution basically that?

[GracchusBabeuf]

wasn't the russian revolution basically that?Then only Russian time machines can save us.:(

[bcbm]

well we're fucked

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

As an anarchist, I have no enthusiasm towards Maoism.

[jake williams]

As an anarchist, I have no enthusiasm towards Maoism.
It's certainly a phenomenon that occurs with particular strains of Maoism and particular strains of anarchism. And it tends to happen mostly, as far as I know, with Americans (and Canadians), I'm thinking of for example the RCP.

[which doctor]

I was under the impression that this weird blend of Maoism and Anarchism originated from '68 in France, though I really don't know much about it.

[Sentinel]

I don't want to start a tendency war, so I'll try to put this diplomatically, but I feel like they both tend to discount the role of the organized working class in fighting and winning revolutions.

Do you somehow not consider anarcho-syndicalists anarchists then? The only alternative would be that you had never even heard about us, but I find that very hard to believe as you've been a member for so long and all.

[jake williams]

Do you somehow not consider anarcho-syndicalists anarchists then? The only alternative would be that you had never even heard about us, but I find that very hard to believe as you've been a member for so long and all.
As I said later, it's only a phenomenon that occurs between particular branches of either.

[Sentinel]

Okay then, I agree with that actually.

[revolution inaction]

...with Maoism and anarchism? There's some odd link between the two. I've noticed on Revleft, Youtube, and elsewhere that a lot of Maoists have respect for anarchism and some were former anarchists and vice versa. What's up with that? Or am I the only one to have noticed this? :confused:

its probably because we are awesome :thumbup1:

[Sasha]

or its because maoist and anarchist tend to actualy do usefull shit and that creates respect while most trotskyst are busy selling newspapers and having sectarianshitfests and the MLs are only building THE party by trying to lure an 6th or maybe even 7th member in. (my shitstorm contribution).

and probably more importantly, most anarchist are 1st world based and most maoist 2nd or 3th so there is no actual contact, wich makes it a lot more easy to like each other.

[revolution inaction]

and probably more importantly, most anarchist are 1st world based and most maoist 2nd or 3th so there is no actual contact, wich makes it a lot more easy to like each other.

are there any anarchists that like maoists? i've never come across one.

[Chambered Word]

or its because maoist and anarchist tend to actualy do usefull shit and that creates respect while most trotskyst are busy selling newspapers and having sectarianshitfests and the MLs are only building THE party by trying to lure an 6th or maybe even 7th member in. (my shitstorm contribution).

and probably more importantly, most anarchist are 1st world based and most maoist 2nd or 3th so there is no actual contact, wich makes it a lot more easy to like each other.

That's a very broad generalization of ideologies, but there's alot of truth to this. I think it's also the appeal of armed struggle, I might be wrong though.

[AK]

Maybe it's because Maoists love fucking massive class wars and anarchists love to riot and fuck shit up?

[Chimurenga.]

anarchist tend to actualy do usefull shit

:confused:

[Crusade]

:confused:

He said "anarchists tend to actually do useful shit". Which means, Anarchists tend to actually do useful shit, as opposed to useless shit. I hope that helps.

[Chimurenga.]

He said "anarchists tend to actually do useful shit". Which means, Anarchists tend to actually do useful shit, as opposed to useless shit. I hope that helps.

Hah, I knew what it meant. I was just being sectarian.

[ed miliband]

I've often wondered this too!

I saw this Ian Bone interview with this bloke called Martin Wright who said that in London in May '68 the only group other than the anarchists that appealed to him were the Maoists 'cos they were up for a fight whenever, wherever, or something.

Also Mao was apparently an anarchist, apparently.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

...with Maoism and anarchism? There's some odd link between the two. I've noticed on Revleft, Youtube, and elsewhere that a lot of Maoists have respect for anarchism and some were former anarchists and vice versa. What's up with that? Or am I the only one to have noticed this? :confused:
First of all, without wishing to sound too elitist, I think it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of people on Revleft/the internets in general are pretty new to it all and don't necessarily have that much experience or knowledge of what these movements mean IRL. That probably helps to some degree.

I've often wondered this too!

I saw this Ian Bone interview with this bloke called Martin Wright who said that in London in May '68 the only group other than the anarchists that appealed to him were the Maoists 'cos they were up for a fight whenever, wherever, or something.

Yeah, I suppose they do both favour pretty militant tactics - at one of the big Vietnam demos in 1968, the one after the first one where it all kicked off, the Trots favoured avoiding the US embassy and going to listen to a rally, and the Maoists and anarchists were up for attempting to storm the embassy again. I suppose there's also some pretty clear parallels between the urban guerrilla wing of Maoism and the "propaganda of the deed" tendency of the 19th/early 20th c anarchists. But I think propaganda of the deed and urban guerrillaism are both pretty counter-productive and have little if anything to do with working-class self-organisation, so I still don't have any particular respect for Maoism (for the record, I don't particularly disrespect them either, since you have to pay attention to something to disrespect it, and they're pretty much totally irrelevant in a British context).
I suppose it might be easier for a Maoist to respect anarchism than vice versa, since I suppose they'd see us as sincere and well-meaning but misguided comrades, whereas we see them as part of capitalism's defence mechanisms, and people who have at times been responsible for state repression against the working class.