Trotzkysm vs. Maoism

[il Commy]

What are the diffrences? As I understood, Mao warned just like Trotzky from the rebuilding of the burgeois in the workers' state in the form of bureaucracy.

Did Mao supported 'one country socialism' or a 'permanent revolution'? Did Mao objected standing in election under any circumstances? Did Trotzky had different views than the 'Cultural Revolution' and the 'Great Leap Forward'? Did they had different ideas about fighting imperialism? Did they referred to the agriculture differently? Did they refered to the imperilist land's working class differently (I know some Maoist say the white workers in America are not exploited)?



Expand my knowledge.

[TXsocialist]

They're totally different -

Maoism is a peasants' ideology

Trotsky didn't wish to give in to the peasant small capitalists in the revolution, like stalin did

[stonerboi]

I used to consider myself a Maoist. I still support the people's wars and Maoist guerrilla groups in Nepal, India, Turkey, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Philipenes but I do NOT support the Shining Path (in Peru) as they have been corrupted and now kill the innocent so I support the MTRA (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) who are Castroist.

However ideologically the only Maoist concepts I support are a peoples militia with no officer rank (as opposed to Stalinist USSR professional army) and I also support communes (the Shangai communes for one).

But other than that I am now a Trotskyist and believe Trotsky's theories to be the natural continiations of Lenin's.

[elijahcraig]

On the Shining Path:

I talked to a girl from Peru about them. She said that they are unorganized and more like terrorists. Though they still kill government officials occasionally. This is due to their leaders being wiped out.

She said, "Without their leaders, they are nothing."

I still support them, I just wish they would get their act together and organize better. But from what the girl tells me...it's pretty much like a dictatorship down their. She's also Hugo Blanco's niece.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 06:57 PM
I used to consider myself a Maoist. I still support the people's wars and Maoist guerrilla groups in Nepal, India, Turkey, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Philipenes but I do NOT support the Shining Path (in Peru) as they have been corrupted and now kill the innocent so I support the MTRA (Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement) who are Castroist.

However ideologically the only Maoist concepts I support are a peoples militia with no officer rank (as opposed to Stalinist USSR professional army) and I also support communes (the Shangai communes for one).

But other than that I am now a Trotskyist and believe Trotsky's theories to be the natural continiations of Lenin's.
Funny, last week you were a Maoist. The week prior to that a Trot. Now a Trot again. Goodness me Stonerboi, what are you going to be next week?

[Rastafari]

see, thats why I consider myself a learner. I don't think many (some of the vets certainly know whats going on) people are really qualified on here to consider themselves much of anything but Socialists who are learning and thinking cognitavely.

[Morpheus]

Trotsky viewed the USSR as a "degenerate workers state." He claimed that as a result of the objective material circumstances the Russian Revolution was in the workers state developed bureaucratic deformations. The rise of Stalin was supposidly a result of this deformation. Trotskyists are anti-Stalin and accuse him of betraying the revolution. They criticize him for suppressing all opossition, killing many workers, etc. and point to the early years of the USSR (when Lenin & Trotsky suppressed all opposition, killed many workers, etc.) as a better model. They argue that the USSR would have needed an internal rebellion against the bureaucracy and also a revolution in the other capitalist states to establish a non-degenerate workers state.

Maoists disagree with this theory. They are generally favorable towards Stalin, although they often claim that he made a few mistakes. In the 1950s the USSR & Mao's China had a fallout and eventually became quite hostile towards each other. This, IMO, was basically a power struggle between the two, each wanted to rule the Leninist world & emerging Leninist movements worldwide. For a while it was not implausible to talk of war between the two countries. Mao came to the conclusion that the USSR had undergone a counter-revolution after Stalin's death and was now a state-capitalist society. He claimed that both the USSR and US were imperialist powers and that Revolutionaries would have to struggle against both powers. Maoists advocate revolution in the form of a guerilla war waged against the capitalists & imperialists. They invert the traditional Marxist focus on the proletariat and instead see the peasantry in "third world" countries as being the most revolutionary force. If your'e going to make revolution in peasant countries like China you basically have to focus on the peasants. "First World" workers are basically seen as hopeless sellouts - the real revolution is in the "third wolrd."

Trotskyists keep the traditional Marxist focus on the proletariat and do not focus so much on the "third world." They don't really view the revolution as being a guerilla war but want to imitate the October Revolution in the rest of the world, as opposed to the Maoists who want to imitate the Chinese revolution in the rest of the world.

There is a Maoism FAQ at http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/
and a Trotskyism FAQ at http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp

[il Commy]

Thank you Morpheus, until now I had only small pieces of information about the differences between those ideologies, but you put it all together.

[Urban Rubble]

"see, thats why I consider myself a learner. I don't think many (some of the vets certainly know whats going on) people are really qualified on here to consider themselves much of anything but Socialists who are learning and thinking cognitavely."


YA RASTA !! Me too. I agree %100 percent. I am also a "learner". I cannot even begin to say what ideology I follow because I am still learning about them all. I can name about 5-10 people (that regularly post) on here that are educated enough to call themselves one particular thing. And no, ElijahCraig, you are not one of them.

As of now we can call ourselves "Learnerists". Or "Still Readingists".

[Vinny Rafarino]

In my many yeas of membership in the communist party including my many years of schooling, I can be considered an "expert" on this subject. As many people in the new era are beginning to finally review history in an unbiased and educated fashion it is now absolutely clear;




Chaiman Mao's tiger style kung-fu is too much for Trotsky as he spends too much time arguing with himself over what faction of kung-fu will best defend the crafty and clever tiger style of Mao Zedong.

[elijahcraig]

And no, ElijahCraig, you are not one of them.

Why don't we just fuck and get it over with. You've been stalking me with your dick in your hand for the last week. :lol:

[stonerboi]

Why don't we just fuck and get it over with. You've been stalking me with your dick in your hand for the last week.

Ohh. This debate is turning kinky.

What next online forum sex??? :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 07:11 PM

Why don't we just fuck and get it over with. You've been stalking me with your dick in your hand for the last week.

Ohh. This debate is turning kinky.

What next online forum sex??? :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:
i'm wearing a very sexy thong, i'm sucking your toes.... :D

Yeah, i'm still learning too. I consider all communists marxists, i call myself a marxist, but simply in the sense that i am a communist without being a member of a particular faction. Joining a communist faction too soon will make one a sectarian early on, which will result in incomplete understanding and biased knowledge. It's important to consider all ideologies before deeming one of them western propaganda or Trostkyist garbage (ahem...elijahcraig)

[elijahcraig]

(ahem...elijahcraig)

I see you are joining in on the orgy as well...you can be my *****, bend over. :lol:

Thanks for the advice, *****.

:lol:

[Rastafari]

dumbasses turn serious threads into dick-waving competitions because they lack the knowledge or patience to enter in to the conversation.
Except you Victorcommie, you are still cool in my book

[Urban Rubble]

Was that directed at me Rasta ? (insert stupid smily guy here, I don't know how to use those)

Anyway, Elijah, I'm just fucking with you, even though I'm serious. It'll be O.K, wipe your tears buddy. I still love you (no, I don't want to fuck).

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 03:39 AM

(ahem...elijahcraig)

I see you are joining in on the orgy as well...you can be my *****, bend over. :lol:

Thanks for the advice, *****.

:lol:
It's time to calm down comrade Elijah.

It is also time for everyone to stop breaking Elijah's balls for his change in perception regarding Stalin.

[il Commy]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 7 2003, 11:50 PM
Chaiman Mao's tiger style kung-fu is too much for Trotsky as he spends too much time arguing with himself over what faction of kung-fu will best defend the crafty and clever tiger style of Mao Zedong.
Tiger style? Kug-fu? Are we talking about Socialism or WWF?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Just a little joke. I reckon my sense of humour blows since no one laughed.


I've seen so many of these same debates so many times over the years, I just wanted to add a bit of spice.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 8 2003, 12:58 AM
Was that directed at me Rasta ? (insert stupid smily guy here, I don't know how to use those)

Anyway, Elijah, I'm just fucking with you, even though I'm serious. It'll be O.K, wipe your tears buddy. I still love you (no, I don't want to fuck).
first off, to Comrade RAF, aahahahahaahaa! :lol: :P :) :D
thats the funniest thing I've ever heard!!!. No, but good try though


secondly, fuck no, Rubble

[2ndinternational]

Maoists disagree with this theory. They are generally favorable towards Stalin, although they often claim that he made a few mistakes. In the 1950s the USSR & Mao's China had a fallout and eventually became quite hostile towards each other. This, IMO, was basically a power struggle between the two, each wanted to rule the Leninist world & emerging Leninist movements worldwide. For a while it was not implausible to talk of war between the two countries. Mao came to the conclusion that the USSR had undergone a counter-revolution after Stalin's death and was now a state-capitalist society. He claimed that both the USSR and US were imperialist powers and that Revolutionaries would have to struggle against both powers. Maoists advocate revolution in the form of a guerilla war waged against the capitalists & imperialists. They invert the traditional Marxist focus on the proletariat and instead see the peasantry in "third world" countries as being the most revolutionary force. If your'e going to make revolution in peasant countries like China you basically have to focus on the peasants. "First World" workers are basically seen as hopeless sellouts - the real revolution is in the "third wolrd."

The path that a maoist follows depends on the particular conditions. In China the correct path was to concentrate on the peasantry and guerrilla warfare. This was based upon a dialectical analysis of the particular conditions in China at the time. This does not mean, nor does maoism hold, that these same tactics would be used in every country. Maoism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic and therefore every situation must be grasped in its particularity. This means that there are no rules beyond the general truths of dialectics and marxian materialism.

further reading on mao: http://marx2mao.org/Mao/OC37.html

http://marx2mao.org/Mao/OP37.html

http://marx2mao.org/Mao/QCML43.html

I also recommend reading "Fanshen"