Mao Quote

[Rousedruminations]

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as4.gif Mao Zedong (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mao_zedong/)

What you guys think of this quote and his opinion ?

I think it might be true, but id like to hear the views of others ?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

He was pretty much saying that a revolution is a bloody and violent affair, which it has to be.

The ruling class will not hand over the means of production to the oppressed class simply because they have become conscious, so a revolution is not an easy, nor a temperate phenomenon; but as Mao here put it, "A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

Every real revolutionary had said this before Mao, I would say it is a fundamental truth in revolutionary class-struggle. I don't understand why you want to discuss this quote in the first place.

[Rousedruminations]

lol many people on the left who scream out revolution are not necessarily acting it out completely they do it half way and stop, this eventually undermines the ' whole left '. It is simple they are not radical enough. This discourages others who would want to be more revolutionary but look to their fellow comrades who have fallen by their side and given up. This creates disintegration when what we really need is solidarity. The revolutionary spirit is seriously lacking in most people who claim to be on the left. It is a violent class struggle. Those that do believe it is a violent class struggle compared to the rest on the left are a minority. Worker protests are effective and fine they adhere to a common aim and probably share the same values, but they are not revolutionary acts. I put up the quote to make a point and you have already highlighted it. Thank you.

[Hit The North]

There's no doubting that Mao is correct, if wholly unoriginal, in his observation that revolutions are violent affairs. This is an uncontroversial assertion among revolutionaries. However, I'd like to counterpose another article of revolutionary faith and that is that the liberation of the working classes must be the positive act of the workers themselves. From these two observations it becomes obvious that the "revolutionary violence" must be wielded by the working class itself and not some party of insurgent guerillas acting on their behalf.

So Rousedruminations, like so many Maoists, is incorrect in posing it as a problem of "revolutionaries" not being "radical enough". As ever, class consciousness lies at the heart of the question of whether revolutions are made or not made, not the radicalism of self-styled revolutionaries.

Rousdruminations also makes a fetish of violence as he is really equating radicalism with levels of violence. This is also a characteristic of Maoism.

[Marxist-Leftist]

For me Engels sums it up in his on Authority.

" Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

[Rousedruminations]

So Bobthebuilder, based on my recent posts do you think i am Maoist ?

' Not some party of insurgent guerillas acting on their behalf ' could be the working class turned into guerillas because of a revolutionary awakening !

[scarletghoul]

Like most Mao quotes, this sums up very well a point which is not understood enough by either the Left or the working class itself.

Whether you like Mao or not, you must admit that these are words people need to hear.

[Os Cangaceiros]

For me Engels sums it up in his on Authority.

" Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

A classic strawman (http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html) against Bakunin and the anarchists.

[pranabjyoti]

A classic strawman (http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html) against Bakunin and the anarchists.
What a comment about Engels, WITHOUT WHOM MARX HIMSELF IS INCOMPLETE. This kind of people called themselves MARXISTS? What a shame?

[pranabjyoti]

lol many people on the left who scream out revolution are not necessarily acting it out completely they do it half way and stop, this eventually undermines the ' whole left '. It is simple they are not radical enough. This discourages others who would want to be more revolutionary but look to their fellow comrades who have fallen by their side and give up. This creates disintegration when what we really need is solidarity. The revolutionary spirit is seriously lacking in most people who claim to be on the left. It is a violent class struggle. Those that do believe it is a violent class struggle compared to the rest on the left are a minority. Worker protests are effective and fine they adhere to a common aim and probably share the same values, but they are not revolutionary acts. I put up the quote to make a point and you have already highlighted it. Thank you.
Actually, this is the basic difference between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. The kind of people you are referring basically belongs to the petty-bourgeoisie class. I have discussed the nature of petty-bourgeoisie in many of my posts and I don't want to repeat it.

[Zanthorus]

A classic strawman (http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html) against Bakunin and the anarchists.

I don't see how it is a strawman. Bakunin is saying that he only recognises authority which he accepts out of some kind of natural necessity but Engels is saying that the bourgeoisie will not accept the rule of the proletariat as something natural and it will have to be forced on them.

I though Emma Goldman's reply that revolutionary violence is defensive was probably better:


The argument that destruction and terror are part of revolution I do not dispute. I know that in the past every great political and social change necessitated violence. America might still be under the British yoke but for the heroic colonists who dared to oppose British tyranny by force of arms. Black slavery might still be a legalized institution in the United States but for the militant spirit of the John Browns. I have never denied that violence is inevitable, nor do I gainsay it now. Yet it is one thing to employ violence in combat, as a means of defence. It is quite another thing to make a principle of terrorism, to institutionalize it, to assign it the most vital place in the social struggle. Such terrorism begets counter-revolution and in turn itself becomes counter-revolutionary.

[Invincible Summer]

So Rousedruminations, like so many Maoists, is incorrect in posing it as a problem of "revolutionaries" not being "radical enough". As ever, class consciousness lies at the heart of the question of whether revolutions are made or not made, not the radicalism of self-styled revolutionaries.

I don't think it's an either-or dichotomy. It really depends on the context of the society the revolution is being built in as well as what the revolutionaries feel is right. If the working class has consciousness and wants to take up arms for their struggle, can you really deny them that and tell them that they are "wrong" for choosing that path?




Rousdruminations also makes a fetish of violence as he is really equating radicalism with levels of violence. This is also a characteristic of Maoism.
As you know, Maoism is prevalent in the Third World. I don't think this is by accident. When you've got very few avenues of organization and communication between radicals, taking up arms probably sounds like a better way of getting people to notice that there is action going on