Mao Tse-Tung

[Burn A Flag]

Lately I've been wondering about Mao Tse-Tung. I read some literature about him (though it was written by a reactionary), and I think the estimated figure of people that "he killed" is around 80 million. I read that he almost joined the Nationalist Party and that he was ideologically bankrupt.

I'm not saying any of that is true, but I would like to hear from people on here if Mao should be considered an apropriate ideological model. I guess my question is if Mao was China's Stalin, or if Mao was a good leader.

I know Mao did do some good things like provide guaranteed employment though. Just not sure if he is someone who is a good ideological model.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I will try to be short and clear about Mao.

He was a great military strategic, he led the brave soldiers in the peoples liberation army towards victory against the reactionary nationalists and the japanesse imperialists. The long march was a hell of a "project".

The great leap forward was a failure.

The cultural revolution went mad, the whole idea of purify society frome reactionary elements by destroying old art and killing bow makers is not socialistic.

During his time at the power the average living age dubbled in China, infant mortality was halfed, women got equal rights, the famines that used to come at regular intervals ended, free education, his model of peoples commune was successful and made life much safer for the average workers theire lifes where planed so that there would allways be a hospital near them and if the farming land or the factory (depending on wich profession they had) was to far frome theire home the goverment would provide them with a bicycle ore a buss.

Frome 1949-1976 the population grew with 400 million people. China would become a hughe inspiration for many people in the developing world (and still are).

After Maos death Deng Xiaoping took the power and started to drift the country deeper into capitalism.

[RED DAVE]

Father of State Capitalism in China.

RED DAVE

[Burn A Flag]

Thanks Mike, so basically I now gather that Mao was a sucessful anti-imperialist and drastically improved life for the workers and peasants. However, he got carried away with his purge of the old society.

So basically other than the Cultural Revolution purge, Mao was decent ideologically.

[RED DAVE]

Thanks Mike, so basically I now gather that Mao was a sucessful anti-imperialist and drastically improved life for the workers and peasants.This is true up to a point. Mao had no trouble making nice with Richard Nixon, political leader of world imperialism. And the improved life of the workers and peasants of China was done on a state capitalist basis: they produced the commodities that led to improvements, but they had no control of the products of their labor. Eventually, this system morphed into private capitalism.


However, he got carried away with his purge of the old society.It would be difficult to make more mistakes in so few words. The essence of Maoism was the rejection of the working class as the leading class in the Chinese Revolution. In the aftermath of WWII, China was ripe for proletarian revolution, which the Maoists rejected.


So basically other than the Cultural Revolution purge, Mao was decent ideologically.Far fucking from it.

RED DAVE

[Burn A Flag]

I guess i'd better read more about his ideology specifically then.

[Blackscare]

Mao was better at conducting revolution than building a revolutionary society, to put it too simply.

[The Red Next Door]

He is all right and maoism is not as bad as people make it out to be.

[chegitz guevara]

It's impossible to know how many people died because of Mao's policies, because everyone has an axe to grind.

The best bet is around twenty million died in the Great Leap Forward. There's a consistent dip in the demographic data. As Chinese society ages, that missing chunk of population ages. Even in China, twenty million is a lot of people to simply write off officially. How could you plan your society?

Of course, they could be keeping two sets of books, but inconsistencies would show up somewhere. Too much spending in some areas without good reason. Plus, bureaucrats are lazy, and I doubt they would have considered aging that hole in society.

But I'm just guessing.

[Chimurenga.]

I would recommend reading Mobo Gao's Battle For China's Past. I can supply a download link if you private message me and if I get the go ahead, I'll post it here.

Also, Check out this documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRkKKRdiTBc) for an idea of how things were before Mao and the Chinese Revolution.

[this is an invasion]

I will try to be short and clear about Mao.

He was a great military strategic, he led the brave soldiers in the peoples liberation army towards victory against the reactionary nationalists and the japanesse imperialists. The long march was a hell of a "project".

The great leap forward was a failure.

The cultural revolution went mad, the whole idea of purify society frome reactionary elements by destroying old art and killing bow makers is not socialistic.

During his time at the power the average living age dubbled in China, infant mortality was halfed, women got equal rights, the famines that used to come at regular intervals ended, free education, his model of peoples commune was successful and made life much safer for the average workers theire lifes where planed so that there would allways be a hospital near them and if the farming land or the factory (depending on wich profession they had) was to far frome theire home the goverment would provide them with a bicycle ore a buss.

Frome 1949-1976 the population grew with 400 million people. China would become a hughe inspiration for many people in the developing world (and still are).

After Maos death Deng Xiaoping took the power and started to drift the country deeper into capitalism.
A lot of this stuff seems to be fairly positive . However, the problem is if the success of a revolution depends on one man, then it is not a working class revolution.

So either China was already headed towards capitalism, or Maoism as an ideology and strategy for communism is a failure.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Im no maoist, but i think that you cant ignore the hughe amounts of progress China made during Maos time at the power, and ofcourse that wasnt the result of one single man it was the result of the effort of the cinesse people.

@ Trotskystrevolution; your welcome:)

[RED DAVE]

Im no maoist, but i think that you cant ignore the hughe amounts of progress China made during Maos time at the power, and ofcourse that wasnt the result of one single man it was the result of the effort of the cinesse people.

@ Trotskystrevolution; your welcome:)But on what basis was this progress done? It was done on a state capitalist basis. Are you a supporter of a form of capitalism: a system that exploits the working class?

RED DAVE

[Tavarisch_Mike]

But on what basis was this progress done? It was done on a state capitalist basis. Are you a supporter of a form of capitalism: a system that exploits the working class?

RED DAVE


Yeah ofcourse im for capitalism, thats why im registrated on this forum (irony), please keep the bull shit accusations for yourself.

Unfortunately all attempts to build socialism starts with state capitalism (exept the anarchist communes in Spain during the civil war wich where very successful and are very intresting to study). I know it sound very contradicting but state capitalism with socialist ambitions tend to be quite good, why? Because it improves the life and standard for the working class.

[Norseman]

It can improve living conditions, but the improvement is temporary. With state capitalism, you still have capitalism, just it's capitalism where the capitalists are also bureaucrats. Immediately after a revolution, you can't leave people in a condition worse than before the revolution. You still have an entire generation of people who are trained, armed, and ready to kill and die to end their own exploitation. If you don't improve conditions at least a little bit, you're going to have another revolution on your hands, and this time you'll be up against the wall. It's natural that any state capitalists smart enough to successfully carry out a revolution and put themselves into power will also be smart enough to keep their power by throwing some money at the workers (or to massacre dissidents, if there's not enough money to keep the workers happy).

However, after one or two generations, you get to the point where the revolutionaries are mostly dead or dying, and their children have been raised by the state-capitalists to obey. With state-run schools and media, they get quite solidly indoctrinated. Also, at this point, the state capitalists have the appearance of legitimacy for having lasted so long. Once this point is reached, the rate of exploitation can be increased to levels that reach or exceed the level of exploitation in capitalism.

There are other complicating factors, of course, and I've oversimplified this greatly, but that's the gist of the idea. It's possible to see improvement in earnings with state capitalism, but the same is true of capitalism, and it has nothing to do with exploitation. Once you get into late stage state capitalism, the development is basically the same sort of development you see as with capitalism, although it's done through a centralized government.

This has the advantage of economy of scale, but the disadvantage that governments tend to be somewhat more wasteful and economically ignorant than private capitalist corporations. Ideally, you'll get development which occurs a little bit faster than in capitalism because of economy of scale (single buyer economics and so forth), though in practice, mismanagement can negate this benefit.

However, this has nothing to do with communism or anarchism. Sure, the conditions of workers will improve under regulated capitalism, provided that the extent of exploitation can be kept in check. That does not justify having one group of people who do the work, and another group of people who take the products of the first group, keep some for themselves, and then 'generously' allow the workers to get the rest of their work back.

[RED DAVE]

Unfortunately all attempts to build socialism starts with state capitalism (exept the anarchist communes in Spain during the civil war wich where very successful and are very intresting to study). I know it sound very contradicting but state capitalism with socialist ambitions tend to be quite good, why? Because it improves the life and standard for the working class.So, you're a supporter of state capitalism. Why deny it? Why bother with the socialist trappings at all? Fact is, Russia and China are two of the most aggressively disgusting capitalist countries in the world. And the preconditions for this private capitalism were set up by supporters of state capitalism who operated under the guise of being Marxists.

You can say that liberalism "improves the life and standard for the working class." Or at least at did until the 1970s. Did Marxists go into alliance with liberals? Well, the Stalinists in the US certainly did (and they're doing it now). Is that what you want?

RED DAVE

[Tavarisch_Mike]

So, you're a supporter of state capitalism. Why deny it? Why bother with the socialist trappings at all? Fact is, Russia and China are two of the most aggressively disgusting capitalist countries in the world. And the preconditions for this private capitalism were set up by supporters of state capitalism who operated under the guise of being Marxists.

You can say that liberalism "improves the life and standard for the working class." Or at least at did until the 1970s. Did Marxists go into alliance with liberals? Well, the Stalinists in the US certainly did (and they're doing it now). Is that what you want?

RED DAVE

Ok maybe you have missunderstanded me very hard Ore youre just trying to provocate for some reason and dont want to have a serious discussion. Why do you put words in my mouth? I have never said that im supporting the current systems in China and Russia, why do you say that? I deffently dont support liberalism and about the improved living conditions for people in the U.S. until the 70s wasnt that the result of class struggle?

No i dont support state capitalism, my point is that it wasnt theire intention be be like that emmediatly when they took the power in China (and many other places), sadly it developed in that way because of different factors. You se the world isnt black and white i dont support state capitalism but if it brings really good things, like the difference betwen having a expected living age of 68 years instead of living just 35 and thats the only option then im forced to walk the on the first road so to speak.

[Saorsa]

Below is a post I wrote in response to the dogmatic, anti-communist attacks on the Chinese Revolution made by Dave and others in a different thread. It gives a brief overview of what happened in China and some of the discussion surrounding how the revolution was defeated, despite the staunch attempts by Mao and others to continue and consolidate it.

I'd recommend reading the entire thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-democracy-t136648/index5.html)


China was under the control of a revolutionary state apparatus controlled by the Communist Party of China, a revolutionary organisation created, built and led by the workers and poor peasants. An organisation formed in the class struggle of the Chinese cities, which gradually extended its influence into the countryside and sunk deep roots amongst hundreds of millions of struggling peasants. An organisation which waged a revolutionary armed struggle for decades, which became a movement of hundreds of millions of people consciously and creatively seizing history and changing China's path towards socialism and ultimately communism.

The Communist Party was under the control of the masses from it's beginnings right up to 1949 and beyond. In the decades that followed the revolution, class struggle was reflected inside the Communist Party - large sections of the cadres and the leadership became seperated from the masses and hostile to their interests. These people sought to consolidate the bourgeois revolution and defer the socialist revolution until some indefinite later point. They represented the forces of the counter-revolution, the Thermidor, the capitalist restoration.

Opposed to them were Mao, the Four, and the hundreds of millions of workers, peasants, and young people who threw themselves into the greatest mass movement in history - the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Arguing that there was no going back, that the masses of working people were in control and that this had to be developed and consolidated in new ways, they sought to destroy the counter-revolutionary forces in society and create a new generation of committed revolutionary communists who could carry on this struggle indefinitely.

Communist Party branches across China were dissolved and replaced with new, younger and radical branches. Cadres of the party and state employees had to face the criticism of the ordinary working people in mass meetings, and those who did not satisfy the people were driven from their posts. Three in one committees were formed, where workers elected representatives to administrate the workplace, shop floor workers were involved in every step of the decision making process and everyone was involved in both shop floor work AND administrative work.

This struggle, of course, did not proceed evenly across China. In some areas it was blocked from happening at all, where the capitalist forces were strongest. In some areas counter-revolutionary elements in the party, representing the interests of the emerging new bourgeoisie, pretended to be supporters of the GPCR and formed 'Red Guard' groups of their own, which clashed with genuine Red Guard forces. In some areas, despite Mao's calls not to do this, intellectuals, cadres and state employees were subjected to violence and unnecessarily harsh treatment by the revolutionaries. But revolutions are messy by their very nature - they do not proceed smoothly or in a straight line.

Another great problem with GPCR, perhaps its main problem, was that the decision was made to leave the PLA out of it. There were grave problems with bourgeois forces controlling the military, and particularly with the emergence of a privileged, unelected officer corps that lorded it over the ordinary soldiers. Had the GPCR been extended to the army, had the ordinary soldiers waged a struggle to identify, expose and throw out the reactionary elements in their ranks and in particular among their officers, history could have played out completely differently. But at a time when the USSR was massing troops on China's borders and threatening it with nuclear weapons, and at a time when China was surrounded by imperialist threats on all sides, the decision was made that China could not afford to weaken its military and introduce the chaos of the GPCR to the PLA - it would have made China ripe for invasion.

This decision was probably wrong, although (contrary to the amusingly ridiculous Trotskyist approach) history is far too simple to just single out a handful of factors that led to a counter-revolution and then claim they are universal. But when Mao died, and the reactionary elements moved against the Four and the revolutionary movement they represented, the PLA had been turned into a top down army where the soldiers obeyed the officers without question, and the workers, peasants and students who resisted the revisionist coup were shot down like dogs.

Arrogant, mostly white and almost universally Western Trotskyists like to think they can tell the naive, stupid, sheeplike workers of the Third World how their revolution 'must' be carried out. And, of course, it must be carried out exactly like the revolution in Russia was - coincidentally enough, the only Marxist revolution which has taken place in a mostly white country and coincidentally enough, the only Marxist revolution which has taken place in a country that is even close to being part of the Western imperialist states. Trotskyists like those posting in this thread have nothing but contempt for the workers and peasants of the Third World, and dismiss the ability of these workers and peasants to construct their own Communist Party's, their own vehicles of liberation, and to do so in a manner that fits the unique conditions of their particular countries.

That's what happened in China. A massive, revolutionary party emerged from the struggles of hundreds of millions of people, and led a revolutionary process that spanned almost 80 years, from the formation of the party in 1921 to the counter-revolution in the mid-to-late 70s. This revolution destroyed the power of the bourgeoisie and the landlords, and drove out foreign imperialism. It then went through the tortuous process of building a new kind of society, a society which could not and should never have replicated what was done in Russia as it is clear to everyone that did not work!

The model of urban soviets did not stop counter-revolution. A parasitic bureaucracy, a new bourgeoisie emerged FROM the soviets as well as from the party, and the explanations for this provided by Trotskyists - Stalin was evil plus the revolution failed to spread - simply provide an excuse for inevitabilistic and deterministic thinking. Trotskyists say the revolution was inevitably doomed to fail because it didn't spread fast enough - they do not offer solutions to struggling people who have seized power in their own country without it spreading internationally. It's no coincidence that Trotskyism is rejected and laughed at by the vast majority of the world's people who have had any contact with Marxism - it's the preserve of privileged people in the imperialist countries, so much wiser and more special than their counterparts in the neo-colonies with their backward ideas.

The Chinese revolution failed, like every other revolution to this point. Most revolutions fail even to seize state power, and nowhere has it been successfully held against the threat of counter-revolution afterwards. But the Chinese experience, and in particular the GPCR, offers a rich set of lessons for revolutionaries to learn from around the world, and around the world that is exactly what's happening, particularly in the revolutions emerging right now in South Asia.

From this moment until the very last moments of capitalism, as revolution finally sweeps the globe, there will continue to be Trots like Dave and Lenina quoting from their religious textbooks and doing imperialism's job for it by attacking revolutionary movements from the 'left'. As revolutions struggle for power in Nepal and India, and in other countries across the globe, they need an internationalist communist movement that can extend them political and material support. But this, tragically, will not happen. Why? Because throughout the First World, what little in the way of a communist movement that exists is dominated by Trotskyist groups, who for all their talk of the importance of international revolution are for the most part not doing their fucking jobs. They prefer to denounce from afar, rather than try to build solidarity, and it's made the international situation far more difficult than it has to be.

This will change. As the 21st century revolutions happen, either in Nepal and India or somewhere else (these revolutions may well be defeated), as imperialism suffers defeats around the world, a new communist movement will emerge in response to this and I am hopeful and confident that it will not have anything to do with the kind of sectarian, dogmatic, imperialist running dog bullshit that sums up most of the Trotskyist movement today.

[Saorsa]

Oh, and as for the great leap forward... it never ceases to amaze me how many 'leftists' uncritically swallow the lies and distortions of the bourgeoisie. I know it makes life easier for you, giving you the opportunity to be on the same side as right wing reactionaries and offering you a way to find common ground with bourgeois liberals rather than actually arguing against their bullshit, but surely it bothers you every so often? If you believe the lies told about Mao, why do you dismiss the lies told about Lenin? After all, there's plenty of 'evidence'.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

[Barry Lyndon]

Oh, and as for the great leap forward... it never ceases to amaze me how many 'leftists' uncritically swallow the lies and distortions of the bourgeoisie. I know it makes life easier for you, giving you the opportunity to be on the same side as right wing reactionaries and offering you a way to find common ground with bourgeois liberals rather than actually arguing against their bullshit, but surely it bothers you every so often? If you believe the lies told about Mao, why do you dismiss the lies told about Lenin? After all, there's plenty of 'evidence'.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm

I think that criticism of the failures and indeed crimes of past leaders(Stalin, Pol Pot, Menghitsu) who have called themselves "socialists' is called for, if we are to learn from the past and do better. However, I have learned to presume anything I hear from the mainstream media or academia about a given communist leader to be a lie or at least a huge exaggeration unless I see evidence to the contrary. It is beyond reprehensible when leftists eagerly embrace capitalist propaganda so they can use it as a sectarian smear weapon against another tendency they dont like.

[The Hong Se Sun]

The essence of Maoism was the rejection of the working class as the leading class in the Chinese Revolution. In the aftermath of WWII, China was ripe for proletarian revolution, which the Maoists rejected.

Far fucking from it.

RED DAVE


I'm going to say you need to learn way more about the conditions in China at that time. most of the working class and the unions were a part of the nationalist party. There was no rejection of the working class that is silly.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Chairman Mao was a fearless leader of the proletariat. He lead the chinise people to victory against the semi fuedal society, and defeated the japenese and other foregin imperialists and domestic capitialists and brought the working class to power.

Mao made important contibutions to the theory and application of revolutionary warfare.

Mao was a Internationalist who provided aid to communist and socialists pursuing revolution in other countries.

Mao made great contributions to marxist-lenninst teachings, and writings such as on practice and on controdictions are now communist classics.

Mao understood that the revolution had to be led by the people, from the bottom up, and revolutionary cadres were but servants of the masses.

Because his writings and actions are such a threat to international capitialism, the bourgiouse have pursued an unrelenting smear campaign against him, saying he was unsound on theory, that he stood over genocide etc. its all western propaganda.

Look at the world today, it is no coincidence that the areas where maoist teachings are being followed, are also the areas that are having the most success in winning in proletarian revolution.

I would suggest anyone interested in Mao and his teachings should start with the little red book, which brings together a comprehensive study on the teachings of mao on a number of important subjects using the chairmans own words: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/

[Dave B]

Mao Tse-tung on immediately introducing state capitalism;




THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
September 7, 1953





The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism.

1. In the last three years or so we have done some work on this, but as we were otherwise occupied, we didn't exert ourselves enough. From now on we should make a bigger effort.

2. With more than three years of experience behind us, we can say with certainty that accomplishing the socialist transformation of private industry and commerce by means of state capitalism is a relatively sound policy and method.

3. The policy laid down in Article 31 of the Common Programme should now be clearly understood and concretely applied step by step. "Clearly understood" means that people in positions of leadership at the central and local levels should first of all have the firm conviction that state capitalism is the only road for the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce and for the gradual completion of the transition to socialism. So far this has not been the case either with members of the Communist Party or with democratic personages. The present meeting is being held to achieve that end.

4. Make steady progress and avoid being too hasty. It will take at least three to five years to lead the country's private industry and commerce basically onto the path of state capitalism, so there should be no cause for alarm or uneasiness.



http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TC53.html

...