Was Mao revisionist?

[Uppercut]

This has been something that has been bothering me for a while. For the longest time, I've described myself as marxist-leninist-maoist, but I'm starting to fear that Mao himself was revisionist, insofar as his "radical" criticisms of Stalin, siding with Mobuto and Pinochet, allowing the bourgeoisie to maintain important positions in industry and management, and the concept of New Democracy. Lenin stated that there should be as little time as possible between the bourgeoise democratic and the socialist revolution. However, Mao extended this period of time and it is questionable if New Democracy even ended before Mao died. And as for siding with the U.S against the U.S.S.R, I always considered that a move of geo-strategic importance, seeing as the Soviets were lining up armed forces along China's borders.

I've been attempting to find answers to these questions, but I haven't found any solid evidence one way or another. Could any educated Marxists provide me with a reason to reaffirm my belief in Maoism?

[RadioRaheem84]

but I'm starting to fear that Mao himself was revisionist, insofar as his "radical" criticisms of Stalin, siding with Mobuto and Pinochet


say what?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well Mao made some real mistakes for sure, but errors I don't equate to revisionism. Revisionism means that you abandon revolution either in principle or in practice.

I think here it would be easier to re-post a section from a comment I left on one of my blog entries for your consideration, as it seems pretty directly relevant to the topic at hand. I provided some of my original views on Soviet history (including at what point I think the USSR became a capitalist country) and on what went wrong during the Cultural Revolution:


The RCP views the adoption of Khrushchev's "peaceful coexistence" and "peaceful transition" concepts as marking the point at which revisionist leadership had come to power in the USSR. That conclusion is basically just dogmatically carried over from Mao's 1962 conclusions (which came in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis) that the Soviet Union had at some point become capitalist under Khrushchev. (In 1965, Lin Biao expanded on this concept to develop the theory of social-imperialism.) That was actually a fairly new recognition at the time. Up to that point, the overwhelming majority of the world communist movement had believed that counterrevolution couldn't occur from within in a socialist country, given that you had expropriated the means of production and thus theoretically eliminated the capitalist class. Mao had been making the point, however, that new bourgeois forces could and inevitably would arise under socialism and become concentrated in the party and the state. But Mao never really thoroughly did a retrospective taking that concept into account, I don't think. He had examined what he viewed as simply "mistakes" that Stalin had made, but I think we need to be more fully willing to recognize the point that socialism (in the political sense, that is) is correctly defined as a process of revolutionary transition into communism. Hence the society that abandons revolution, either in principle or in practice, has effectively abandoned socialism, the alternative to which is capitalism. In 1935 the Comintern leadership adopted a line that I think clearly was revisionist in this way: that of the "united front against fascism". Subsequent to that decision, pretty much everything about Soviet politics moved in a right wing direction, with I think the "Great Purge" being the consolidation of that de facto counterrevolution. Traditionally, Maoists have regarded these things as "mistakes". I instead think they're pretty fundamental. In the context of this understanding, we can see that Khrushchev's inception simply represented a liberalization of Soviet social-imperialism based on the achievement of superpower status.

I'll add that I also have more or less original thinking regarding what went wrong during the Cultural Revolution and why ultimately it was turned back. I'm a proponent of ditching traditional democratic centralism for the inclusion of factions in the party, based on the recognition that, historically speaking, factions have consistently been a characteristic of all parties, including communist parties, regardless of whether they were officially acknowledged or not. I think denying this reality is superficially glossing over a certain reality that's inevitable. By recognizing it, we can at least identify more clearly who is and is not a revisionist, for example. I'm also a supporter of Lin Biao's conclusions regarding his opposition to reconstituting the party during the Cultural Revolution. I think the correct approach, when revisionists have come to power under socialism (such as had clearly occurred in China by 1965) is that a complete political revolution is thereby made necessary: the old party cannot be reformed under new leadership, but rather has to be completely abolished and replaced by a whole new party of revolutionaries. As for my less original thinking on this same subject, I also agree Bob Avakian's view that socialist society must be characterized permanently by a 100 Flowers Campaign style embrace of the thinking of intellectuals, not JUST that of the youth. This kind of societal openness helps us get at the truth of things better, which is key to scientific problem-solving. I also support the conclusion of Avakian's new synthesis that we need to resume the principle of at least applying the bulk of our resources under socialism to the international arena, not the domestic one. (Without, of course, adopting the Trotskyist model of what I call bailout socialism, wherein the socialist country is absolutely crippled by lack of any serious attention to domestic economics and relies on other, possibly 'future', socialist countries to bail it out of the consequential mess. Socialist countries should be basically self-sustaining economically, even yes while strongly internationalist.)

Full comment in original context. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1074)

[ContrarianLemming]

Instead of getting a bunch of sectarian nonsense, heres one for ya: Why does it matter?

[Zanthorus]

If by "revisionism" we understand distortions of Marxism and class collaborationist policies then "Official communism" throughout most of it's history has been revisionist. The comintern line on the Kuomintang during the mid-20's was pretty "revisionist" as was the popular front policy.

[Chimurenga.]

The comintern line on the Kuomintang during the mid-20's was pretty "revisionist"

Wasn't this before the slaughter of Communists in the Kuomintang? Also, if I recall correctly, Stalin criticized himself openly on this later.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Well, not to defend what was clearly a mistake, but it's also worth pointing out that the Comintern was defining the KMT's political position correctly at first as a party of nationalist opponents of foreign domination. It was as Chiang Kai-shek rose to power that the KMT became an organ of U.S. and British imperialism. There were those arguing for a rupture with the KMT at the right moment, and unfortunately they were ignored by the Comintern's leadership. Regardless, however, the underlying point is that it wouldn't have made a fundamental difference even if the Communist had broken it off with the KMT at the right time. Their whole revolutionary strategy was flawed at a basic level at that stage. As the subsequent history showed, it didn't truly matter whether they were united with the KMT toward the aim of seizing power or not; they were going to get slaughtered until they adopted the new strategy that Mao brought forward, which we know as people's war.

[Nolan]

Instead of getting a bunch of sectarian nonsense, heres one for ya: Why does it matter?

Because we concern ourselves with things that actually matter in the history of socialism, so we can learn from it.

Yes, Mao was revisionist, as were other Maoists like Pol Pot. I can tell what kind of person you are by what kind of friends you keep.

[Chimurenga.]

Maoists like Pol Pot.

How do you figure? Also, Pol Pot never claimed to be a Maoist until Mao had already passed.

[Thirsty Crow]

If by "revisionism" we understand distortions of Marxism and class collaborationist policies then "Official communism" throughout most of it's history has been revisionist.But what is this "Marxism" that is being distorted by revisionist theories and practice? Who gets ti decide what is Marxist and what is not?

This issue of authority in constituting the "true" Marxism has always been a major problem for me. And thus the question of revisionism becomes a hell of a blur. It seems to me that the term becomes a mere "big word" used for indictment of any movement that does not live up to someone's standards.

However, I think that the second part of your definition (class collborationism) is valid.

[Nolan]

It's not really a question of the "true way" that reactionaries and anti-Leninist tools like to portray it. Revisionism is a dilution of our ideals while still claiming them, such as class collaboration and peaceful coexistence to name two, not simply claiming one ideology is superior to another. We don't call Gorbie a revisionist because we disagree with his "marxism," (although it often takes that form with Brezhnevites) we call him a revisionist because he was a capitalist roader that smeared socialism and implemented capitalist reforms.

Mao, for instance, claimed to have "additions" to Leninism. His class alliance theory is openly revisionist among other things.


Who gets ti decide what is Marxist and what is not?I could imagine Hu Jintao saying something like this.