why do people idealize Mao?

[DuracellBunny97]

why does any leftist consider Mao Tse-Tung a hero? how is he a good representetive of communism, he himself said "Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy", perhaps there are some militant communists who would agree with this quote, but I think it sends the wrong message about communism. At best he was not a villain, but a failed leader, milions died under him, admittedly I don't know much about him, but can someone please explain why anybody still upholds Maoist ideologies? How is he any different from Stalin?

[Widerstand]

How is he any different from Stalin?

Most people who uphold Mao uphold Stalin as well.

[Diello]

He was good at turning out quotable quotes; that can't have hurt him.

[Widerstand]

He was good at turning out quotable quotes; that can't have hurt him.

Ah yes, the little Red Book is a glorious example of this. Just look at the wisdom of these quotes:

"A revolution is not a dinner party." - Mao
"In waking a tiger, use a long stick." - Mao
"The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the United States reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't. " - Mao

Mao clearly was a man that knew what he was talking about. :thumbup1:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If, as a party, not as individuals, you are going to oppress and exploit systematically your own working class (peasants and proles) then you are going to need a quasi-religious set of dogmas and a 'charismatic' leader to help rationalise and 'justify' it.

Hence the cult of Stalin and Mao (and Kim Jong Il, and Ho Chi Mihn, and Castro, and...).

Hence too -- dare I say it? -- dialectics...:lol:

[Tablo]

Over Mao's lifetime his politics gradually got worse and worse. Maoism I think has something to offer to class warfare, but Mao himself turned into a corrupt loser.

[hatzel]

I guess because he was pretty cute...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_PYwD5LFdsr4/R3SZMTwb4fI/AAAAAAAACKk/3518lHP3m90/greatleader.jpeg

Oh, wait, wrong guy...hmm...well, Mao clearly thought Mao was a good idea, and I don't see why we would have reason to think he was unique in that respect. Truth is that you'll never find a single individual in the history of mankind who wouldn't be looked upon favourably by at least one other person...whatever their ideas...but still this does not excuse rabid hating on Mao and Maoists...even though some of us would probably rather consult that cat for political advice than the (chair)man himself...

[SERIOUS POINT ALERT] There's also the possibility, I should mention, that perhaps Mao himself wasn't actually a particularly good 'realised' Maoist, so judging his ideas by the actions of the Chinese leadership might not be entirely fair...

:thumbup1:

[RED DAVE]

Maoism I think has something to offer to class warfare[.] What? There has never been a serious Maoist party that I know of in an advanced industrial country.

RED DAVE

[Imposter Marxist]

What? There has never been a serious Maoist party that I know of in an advanced industrial country.

RED DAVE

There has never been a serious Trotskyist party -ever- :laugh:

[Black Sheep]

There has never been a serious Trotskyist party -ever- :laugh:
I lol'd.

[Palingenisis]

Most people who uphold Mao uphold Stalin as well.

I wish that were completely true....But the Kasama Project, the RCP-USA (if they can be considered anymore than a bizzare personality cult these days for space cadet U$Aans) have a rather Trotskyite reading on Comrade Stalin.

[chegitz guevara]

Mao was a snappy dresser and had a friendly smile.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

DuracellBunny97 wrote:
How is [Mao] any different from Stalin?

Elsewhere I have come up with a list of 10 distinguishing characteristics/principles of Maoism that set it apart from other 'Marxist' perspectives. I will re-post that list below:


1. The people's war strategy, i.e. a strategy of protracted, mass-based guerilla war principally relying on the exploited social base leading to the encirclement of the more developed areas that profit from the exploitation of that social base. If warfare is not the principal form of struggle for power, it is not a people's war.

2. The mass line, which encompasses three main points: a) learn from the people while leading them, b) rely on the people while leading them, and c) practice leadership mainly in the form of guidance rather than commands.

3. The philosophical, strategic, and tactical approach of identifying the contextual principal contradiction and attacking the contextual main enemy. (Divide and conquer, in other words.)

4. Overall self-reliance on the part of the communist movements of different countries as a general principle.

5. New democratic revolution and the corresponding strategic block of four classes as the path to sustainable socialism for feudal countries.

6. The political line of the communist party as a decisive factor. And, in keeping with this understanding, the understanding that theories of state capitalism and social-imperialism can be valid. As in the idea that it is possible for even consolidated socialist states and communist parties to become capitalist and even imperialist states and revisionist parties respectively through relatively peaceful internal counterrevolution (as in one not requiring a civil war) and without *officially* renouncing socialism, state ownership, or economic planning in general. Hence continual line struggle within the communist party and worldwide communist movement is necessary.

7. Permanent (i.e. uninterrupted) revolution, as contrasted with Stalin's theory of productive forces.

8. The collectivization of life as the bridge between state socialism and communism.

9. The economic approach of all-around development, including the simultaneous development of light and heavy industry, as well as the simultaneous development of the cities and the countryside.

10. Political and cultural revolutions within the proletarian revolution as occasionally necessary.

Not that Maoists oppose Stalin fundamentally or anything. But there are qualitative differences between the Maoist perspective and Stalin's.


DuracellBunny97 wrote:
At best [Mao] was not a villain, but a failed leader, milions died under him, admittedly I don't know much about him, but can someone please explain why anybody still upholds Maoist ideologies?

Then perhaps you should try something novel like refraining from passing judgment in the absence of knowledge.


Winderstand wrote:
Ah yes, the little Red Book is a glorious example of this. Just look at the wisdom of these quotes...

Now see were you to grasp the context of these quotes (or even try), you might understand their intelligence. Take for example the quote you highlighted about the atomic bombs of the imperialists as being "paper tigers": the quote is part of the theme of the surrounding entries highlighting the central role of people power in Maoist thought. It was the contention of the Chinese Maoists that, as one put it, "the spiritual atom bomb which the people possess is far mightier than the physical atom bomb". In other words, the imperialists may have a technological advantage as yet, but the communist side relies on a far more powerful weapon: the masses. This theme borrows from their experience in making revolution, wherein they were at a major technological disadvantage most of the time, yet, rallying and relying on the Chinese masses, they were able to win anyway, despite the seemingly impossible odds. The mass line constitutes a fundamental break with the hitherto prevailing theory of productive forces, which contended that, in warfare, in essence "whoever has the most tanks and planes will win". Mao was saying that the mass line (learn from the people, rely on the people, lead the people mainly through guidance) could be applied at the global level in the quote highlighted.

Just as an example.


DuracellBunny97 wrote:
why does any leftist consider Mao Tse-Tung a hero?

Because what principally were his distinctive ideas and his leadership led to emancipation of one-fourth of humanity (China) from the shackles of the capitalist-imperialist system for one thing. And also because his contributions to Marxist theory and his revolutionary leadership also played a big role in yielding the greatest advance toward communism yet seen in history: I speak of China's Cultural Revolution.

"Tens of millions died" under Mao, you say? I know for a fact you can't substantiate that claim without relying on such BS sources as The Black Book of Communism...and that does not count as real substantiation. What, however, can be substantiated about the legacy of the 1949-76 period in China's history is the following, among many other things:

-Life expectancy more than doubled, rising from 32 years to 65 years.
-Literacy rose from 15% to about 85%.
-By 1970, starvation was wiped out for the first time in China's history.
-Industry grew at an average rate of 10% a year.
-Agriculture grew at an average rate of 3% a year.
-Women entered the workforce in earnest and gained an equal 50% representation therein.
-Child labor was abolished.
-Prostitution was abolished.
-Arranged marriages, foot binding, and child brides were all practices swept aside.
-Women gained the right to divorce.
-Tens of millions overcame their addiction to opium, previously sold to them by the imperialists.
-Agriculture was collectivized.
-Communes gave the rural masses relative autonomy in administering their own affairs within collectivization.
-Urban industry was brought under the administration of the socialist state.
-The wealth gap diminished to a fraction of its former (and subsequent) size.

What a horrible disaster. What monstrous tyranny!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Monkey:


2. The mass line, which encompasses three main points: a) learn from the people while leading them, b) rely on the people while leading them, and c) practice leadership mainly in the form of guidance rather than commands.

Except, as we discovered here a while back, there is no way this is a 'mass line' -- more like a 'mass lie'.

It was never "From the people to the people", but "From the party to the people, whether the people like it or not -- but who wants to ask them anyway...?"

[bots]

Stuff.

I have tended to disregard you as a loon, but this was actually a very informative and well put post.

[Sixiang]

Informative stuff...

Pow! Great post.

Mao isn't a god. He was a human just like the rest of us. Thus, as many people on this site have said before about many other famous communists, "he made mistakes." I suggest reading more about him before passing too much judgment.

[DuracellBunny97]

thanks, I'll read up on Mao some more I guess, I probably won't wear a Mao t-shirt, but I'll at least learn why people justify him

[scarletghoul]

What? There has never been a serious Maoist party that I know of in an advanced industrial country.

RED DAVE
Black Panther Party were heavily influenced by MLM

Also are saying that a movement doesnt matter unless its in advanced industrial countries ? I thought these backwards ideas were long gone..

[Zanthorus]

Elsewhere I have come up with a list of 10 distinguishing characteristics/principles of Maoism that set it apart from other 'Marxist' perspectives. I will re-post that list below:

Haha, this is brilliant. You're boasting of the fact that your tendency actually advocates the struggle taking the form of armed warfare. And what's this:


Overall self-reliance on the part of the communist movements of different countries as a general principle.

Since it's birth capitalism has been a system which has tended to transcend beyond national barriers and bring all parts of the world under it's domination. It was on this basis that even as far back as 1847 Marx and Engels supported the centralisation of the Communist movement on an international scale in the form of the Communist League. One of the key characterising points of the First International was that workers' not only organised but acted in solidarity with each other on an international scale. Marx criticised the Lassalleans for wittling down Internationalism to merely some fictional 'brotherhood of people's' which would exist far in the future and ignoring the international action of the working-class and the corresponding international organisation:


And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" -- a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie -- which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries -- and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples". But it also does something to make trade international and by no means contents itself with the consciousness that all people are carrying on trade at home.- Critique of the Gotha Programme

We can see how right Marx was with the fall of the Second International. The SI's 'internationalism' also amounted to hypocritical phrases without any actual international centralisation, and the national workers' parties ended up tying the workers and themselves to their own national states during the Imperialist bloodshed, with all the resolutions on opposing war made at various international conferences simply ignored. This is why Lenin and Trotsky concieved of the Communist International not as a merely formal union of national workers' parties but as the international party of the proletariat:


The present War signalizes the collapse of the national states. The Socialist parties of the epoch now concluded were national parties. They had become ingrained in the national states with all the different branches of their organizations, with all their activities and with their psyology. In the face of the solemn declarations at their congresses they rose to the defense of the conservative state, when imperialisrn, grown big on the national soil, began to demolish the antiquated national barriers. And in their historic crash the national states have pulled down with them the national Socialist parties also.- Trotsky, War and the International


Let us repeat, the Communist International is not an arithmetical sum of national workers’ parties. It is the Communist Party of the international proletariat. The German Communists have the right and the obligation to raise pointblank the question: on what grounds is Turati a member of their party? In reviewing the question of the entry of the Independent German Social Democrats and of the French Socialist Party into the Third International, the Russian Communists have the right and the obligation to pose such conditions as would, from their viewpoint, secure our international party against dilution and disintegration. Every organization entering the ranks of the Communist International acquires in its turn the right and the opportunity to actively influence the theory and practice of Russian Bolsheviks, German Spartacists, etc., etc.- Trotsky, On the Coming Congress of the Comintern

Now our Maoists come about parading how in contrast to other Marxists they focus on their own narrow national tasks and pay lipservice to internationalism. This is not quite correct in fact, the Kautsky's and Scheidmann's of the world were certainly more interested in the self-reliance of their parties than submitting to international organisation and discipline. Despite Mao's pseudo-revolutionary phraseology then, it appears our Maoists are nought but the most brazen nationalists and opportunists.

[gorillafuck]

I wish that were completely true....But the Kasama Project, the RCP-USA (if they can be considered anymore than a bizzare personality cult these days for space cadet U$Aans) have a rather Trotskyite reading on Comrade Stalin.
.....space cadet U$Aans?

Please explain this intriguing new term.

[727Goon]

Black Panther Party were heavily influenced by MLM

I'd say that the BPP were more influenced by the Black nationalist/Black Power movement than Maoism. It's true that the leadership were generally Maoists, but the ideology of the rank and file members was all over the place, and the MLM influence came more from the leadership and the students in the organization and became even more prevalent when white people started getting involved.

[Diello]

Ah yes, the little Red Book is a glorious example of this. Just look at the wisdom of these quotes:

"A revolution is not a dinner party." - Mao
"In waking a tiger, use a long stick." - Mao
"The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the United States reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't. " - Mao

Mao clearly was a man that knew what he was talking about. :thumbup1:

XD I guess I'd only heard the good ones up until now.

[hatzel]

XD I guess I'd only heard the good ones up until now.

Well, the first is clearly true (though we could substitute almost any word for 'dinner party' and it would be equally true) and the second is sound advice. If one only has a selection of sticks of different lengths. I'd throw a stone, though, personally, but then I'm not Mao, so my 'in waking a tiger, throw a stone' soundbite probably won't get quite the exposure Mao's effort has. Shame, really...

[Amphictyonis]

Why do people idolize anyone? We should all be little egoist communists like Emma Goldman :)

[Diello]

Well, the first is clearly true (though we could substitute almost any word for 'dinner party' and it would be equally true) and the second is sound advice. If one only has a selection of sticks of different lengths. I'd throw a stone, though, personally, but then I'm not Mao, so my 'in waking a tiger, throw a stone' soundbite probably won't get quite the exposure Mao's effort has. Shame, really...

True? Yes. Quotable? Not in my opinion. In fact, I think that truth-value is almost completely irrelevant to quotability. The Bible, for instance, is immensely quotable.

[RED DAVE]

Black Panther Party were heavily influenced by MLMThe Panthers, who I was involved with fairly heavily for a time, were influenced by many factors. If Maoists want to claim that a movement that ended giving up on the working class and focusing on the lumpen-proletariat and discredited strategies of community organizing is one of their legacies, welcome to it.

When dealing with the Panthers, a critical approach is necessary. Eveyone knows how they were persecuted, hunted down and killed, yes. But what must also be admitted is how they, rhetoric aside, eschewed Marxism.


Also are saying that a movement doesnt matter unless its in advanced industrial countries ? I thought these backwards ideas were long gone..No, I'm not saying that. But what I am saying is that it's telling is that the Maoists have never come up with any kind of Marxist strategy in the West.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

1. The people's war strategy, i.e. a strategy of protracted, mass-based guerilla war principally relying on the exploited social base leading to the encirclement of the more developed areas that profit from the exploitation of that social base. If warfare is not the principal form of struggle for power, it is not a people's war.

2. The mass line, which encompasses three main points: a) learn from the people while leading them, b) rely on the people while leading them, and c) practice leadership mainly in the form of guidance rather than commands.

3. The philosophical, strategic, and tactical approach of identifying the contextual principal contradiction and attacking the contextual main enemy. (Divide and conquer, in other words.)

4. Overall self-reliance on the part of the communist movements of different countries as a general principle.

5. New democratic revolution and the corresponding strategic block of four classes as the path to sustainable socialism for feudal countries.

6. The political line of the communist party as a decisive factor. And, in keeping with this understanding, the understanding that theories of state capitalism and social-imperialism can be valid. As in the idea that it is possible for even consolidated socialist states and communist parties to become capitalist and even imperialist states and revisionist parties respectively through relatively peaceful internal counterrevolution (as in one not requiring a civil war) and without *officially* renouncing socialism, state ownership, or economic planning in general. Hence continual line struggle within the communist party and worldwide communist movement is necessary.

7. Permanent (i.e. uninterrupted) revolution, as contrasted with Stalin's theory of productive forces.

8. The collectivization of life as the bridge between state socialism and communism.

9. The economic approach of all-around development, including the simultaneous development of light and heavy industry, as well as the simultaneous development of the cities and the countryside.

10. Political and cultural revolutions within the proletarian revolution as occasionally necessary.I love it!

A Marxist program that doesn't mention the working class an active agent in its own liberation or the liberation of mankind!

RED DAVE

[Lobotomy]

-Arranged marriages, foot binding, and child brides were all practices swept aside.

Great post, just a question about this bit since I am ignorant of this as well. When you say "swept aside", does that mean abolished by authoritarian means, or rendered defunct by the enlightenment of the general population?

[Rusty Shackleford]

I probably won't wear a Mao t-shirt,
good.

i feel odd enough as it is that i happened to have a ushanka which i wear when its raining.

[DuracellBunny97]

dude, ushankas are fucking badass

[Rusty Shackleford]

they are, but when you are an actual communist, it puts off a weird vibe.

[mosfeld]

I love it!

A Marxist program that doesn't mention the working class an active agent in its own liberation or the liberation of mankind!

RED DAVE

This is not a "program" but MRD explaining the distinctive features of Maoism.

For the BPP discussion: Take a look at this (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bpp/index.html) and notice the BPP's constant mentioning of Mao, People's War, Soviet Revisionism, etc.

[Diello]

they are, but when you are an actual communist, it puts off a weird vibe.

See, I'm experiencing that now-- I've owned one for years, but now that I'm traveling leftward I know I'm going to come off as some sort of Hot Topic commie fanboy by wearing it.

Not that that will stop me from wearing it, but still.

[DuracellBunny97]

yes, it's like buying Che merchandise, it's apparently so ironic and stupid because I'm buying it in a capitalist system, well how the fuck else am I supposed to buy it? plus I come of as someone who's just into communism for the fashion rather than the actual idea

[RED DAVE]

What, however, can be substantiated about the legacy of the 1949-76 period in China's history is the following, among many other things:

-Life expectancy more than doubled, rising from 32 years to 65 years.
-Literacy rose from 15% to about 85%.
-By 1970, starvation was wiped out for the first time in China's history.
-Industry grew at an average rate of 10% a year.
-Agriculture grew at an average rate of 3% a year.
-Women entered the workforce in earnest and gained an equal 50% representation therein.
-Child labor was abolished.
-Prostitution was abolished.
-Arranged marriages, foot binding, and child brides were all practices swept aside.
-Women gained the right to divorce.
-Tens of millions overcame their addiction to opium, previously sold to them by the imperialists.
-Agriculture was collectivized.
-Communes gave the rural masses relative autonomy in administering their own affairs within collectivization.
-Urban industry was brought under the administration of the socialist state.
-The wealth gap diminished to a fraction of its former (and subsequent) size.

What a horrible disaster. What monstrous tyranny!All of which confirms that the Maoists were engaged in a bourgeois revolution. Any one of these can and has been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in other countries.

Marxism is about the power of the working class, not a series of reforms that makes state capitalism or private capitalism more bearable. Reforms for a Marxist are a way of continually placing demands on capitalism, stretching it to its limit, until it snaps. Maoists, not being Marxists, believe in reforms for their own sake.

And by the way, if all this was so terrific, why didn't the Chinese working class rise up against the evil plotters and revisionists in the Maoism and secure the gains of socialism?

RED DAVE

[Palingenisis]

.....space cadet U$Aans?

Please explain this intriguing new term.

Okay...Well its a bit weird calling people from the USA Americans because Brazilians are Americans too yet we refer to them as Brazilians and not Americans because when you say Americans people automatically think someone from the USA...So the term USAan makes more sense for people from the USA.

And space cadets are obviously people off in lala land flying around it in psychological Star Ship Enterprises.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

why does any leftist consider Mao Tse-Tung a hero? how is he a good representetive of communism, he himself said "Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy", perhaps there are some militant communists who would agree with this quote, but I think it sends the wrong message about communism. At best he was not a villain, but a failed leader, milions died under him, admittedly I don't know much about him, but can someone please explain why anybody still upholds Maoist ideologies? How is he any different from Stalin?
Stalin was Georgian, Mao was Chinese. There's your difference.

On a serious note you should read "The Battle for China's Past" and "Another View of Stalin" to learn the truth about the great men who were Stalin and Mao, and not the capitalist caricatures that are promoted here in the west.

[DuracellBunny97]

Stalin was not a great man, It's undeniable that he achieved amazing things, but it was at the expense of the people communism should be meant to bennefit. ultimately I'm of the opinion that Mao was better than Stalin, but I still can't think of him as a hero either, I've come to understand both sides of the argument when it comes to Mao, but people who defend Stalin just seem to focus on him making Russia into a super-power without considering the price this came at.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Stalin was not a great man, It's undeniable that he achieved amazing things, but it was at the expense of the people communism should be meant to bennefit. ultimately I'm of the opinion that Mao was better than Stalin, but I still can't think of him as a hero either, I've come to understand both sides of the argument when it comes to Mao, but people who defend Stalin just seem to focus on him making Russia into a super-power without considering the price this came at.
We don't defend him because he made the USSR into a superpower, read the introduction of Another View for why we defend him and his work, and read the rest for a refutation of all the stuff about him " purposefully killing millions" - http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/index.html

As for "The Battle for China's Past", unfortunately I can't find a link, so you'll have to find that one for yourself.

[DuracellBunny97]

You're sincere, so I will read those books to see where you're coming from

[DuracellBunny97]

Accidentally responded twice

[Aurora]

All of which confirms that the Maoists were engaged in a bourgeois revolution. Any one of these can and has been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in other countries.
A bourgeois revolution.. really, how could that possibly have been the case?

Im not sure if i even want an answer to that, it might make my head explode.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hence too -- dare I say it? -- dialectics...:lol:Putting aside the question of the usefulness/unusefulness of dialectic thought, I don't know if this is the best argument against dialectics. Afterall, dialectics were used to justify Stalinist craziness, but then again Evolution was used by capitalists to justify inequality (survival of the social fittest). Also Marx and Lenin were made into "revolutionary icons" to justify repression in the USSR, China, etc too. Hell, Raul Castro is using Marxist economic jargon to try and justify cutbacks on the Cuban working class.


why does any leftist consider Mao Tse-Tung a hero?From what I understand, Maoism in the US gained popularity and became the big tendency of the left for a short time following the black power and student movements in the 60s/70s. There are probably many reasons for this, but I think some of the main factors were probably:

A) The decline of the Stalinist CPUSA after the 40s - it had been the dominant left group, but their own bad politics, McCarthyism and information coming out about the USSR as well as the USSR using the military to crush protests made that tendency a shell of its former self.

B) Maoism was seen as an alternative to Stalinism that had a few zeitgeist-y things going for it. The post-war decline in militant unionism and long boom where unions were given a bigger slice of the pie caused many intellectuals and leftists to write-off the working class. At the same time the revolutionary activity that was happening was a wave of national liberation struggles which took on a Maoist, Arab Nationalist, or African Socialist shape.

C) Since Maoism and the ideas of people like Che favored the role of non-workers in socialist revolution, it appealed and made sense to a lot of people who were radicalizing from an anti-war or anti-oppression (the black power movement) perspective but did not have much experience with (or expectation of) militant working class action.

Also from what I've heard and read, Maoist groups from this time (but not solely Maoist) were responcible for some pretty messed-up things in regards to both their own members as well as to other groups. Part of this is just the strangeness of some Maoist ideas at the time (cultural revolution, wild swings in Chinese politics, Alliance with the US - Nixon no less) but also because these groups really thought they were on the cusp of a revolution and when it didn't happen, the movement cannibalized itself in some ugly ways.


...can someone please explain why anybody still upholds Maoist ideologies?Good question! :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JH:


Putting aside the question of the usefulness/unusefulness of dialectic thought, I don't know if this is the best argument against dialectics. Afterall, dialectics were used to justify Stalinist craziness, but then again Evolution was used by capitalists to justify inequality (survival of the social fittest). Also Marx and Lenin were made into "revolutionary icons" to justify repression in the USSR, China, etc too. Hell, Raul Castro is using Marxist economic jargon to try and justify cutbacks on the Cuban working class.

I do not want to derail this thread, but you are right, it's not the best argument. [Fortunately, I have better (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm).]

The point is that no 'theory' (other than Zen Buddhism, if you can call that a theory) glories in contradiction, and so no other theory (which is also accepted by Marxist cadres) can be used to 'justify' anything you like, and its opposite, often in the same breath -- as Stalin and Mao (and Trotsky) regularly did. You can find the sordid details here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to skip to Section 7) Case Studies.

[RED DAVE]

On a serious note you should read "The Battle for China's Past" and "Another View of Stalin" to learn the truth about the great men who were Stalin and Mao, and not the capitalist caricatures that are promoted here in the west.On a real note, tell that to the Chinese and Russian working classes who got state capitalism and private capitalism instead of socialism.

RED DAVE

[Rooster]

Hence too -- dare I say it? -- dialectics...:lol:

Mao's dialectics are weird. Mao thought the negation of the negation was wrong. Everything he saw was in a cosmic scale where there was no negation of negation. Just cause and effect. One idea leading to another idea, leading to another idea (big fish eating little fish). He insisted that there was no synthesis.

[bots]

All of which confirms that the Maoists were engaged in a bourgeois revolution. Any one of these can and has been accomplished by the bourgeoisie in other countries.

I think you're giving the bourgeoisie too much credit here. In the capitalist countries it has always been the working class that has pushed for universal suffrage, education, social justice, etc. If it was up to the bourgeoisie we'd all still be living in shit slums working 16 hour days for subsistence wages. This is my problem with Maoism-Third Worldism. I find that MTWists have a dogmatic view of the first world proletariat and tend to de-emphasize or disparage the huge sacrifices and struggles the organized working class has endured to lay the defensive groundwork.

[scarletghoul]

I'd say that the BPP were more influenced by the Black nationalist/Black Power movement than Maoism. It's true that the leadership were generally Maoists, but the ideology of the rank and file members was all over the place, and the MLM influence came more from the leadership and the students in the organization and became even more prevalent when white people started getting involved.
True, the rank and file was not as Maoist as the leadership, but don't forget its the leadership that decides the overall direction of the party. It was the use of Maoist ideas like Mass Line, Serve the People, Peoples Army, the unity of theory and practice, etc, which played an important part in the Party's success.

The Panthers, who I was involved with fairly heavily for a time, were influenced by many factors. If Maoists want to claim that a movement that ended giving up on the working class and focusing on the lumpen-proletariat and discredited strategies of community organizing is one of their legacies, welcome to it.

When dealing with the Panthers, a critical approach is necessary. Eveyone knows how they were persecuted, hunted down and killed, yes. But what must also be admitted is how they, rhetoric aside, eschewed Marxism.Lenin and Mao also 'eschewed Marxism', as did any other successful revolutionary. What you're really talking about is challenging dogmatic interpretations of old Marxist ideas and not being afraid to update methods with a dialectical analysis.Yes the Panthers did make severe mistakes (they were wrong to think the lumpen as the new vanguard class, although they were correct in tapping its revolutionary potential) but when you consider their successes and innovations (one of the greatest revolutionary mass movements in the modern first world) its clear that theyre a great party which we must all learn from

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


What you're really talking about is challenging dogmatic interpretations of old Marxist ideas and not being afraid to update methods with a dialectical analysis.

But, if anyone else does that, we hear cries of 'Revisionism!'

[RED DAVE]

True, the rank and file [of the Panthers] was not as Maoist as the leadership[.]Rhetoric aside, there is no evidence that that membership or the leadership was Maoist in any significant way.


ut don't forget its the leadership that decides the overall direction of the party.Fabulous. Whatever happened to intraparty democracy? Oh, I forgot: Maoists don't particularly believe in it.


It was the use of Maoist ideas like Mass Line, Serve the People, Peoples Army, the unity of theory and practice, etc, which played an important part in the Party's success.All of these "principles" are so vague that they can mean almost anything, especially when dealing with the Panthers. And by the way, the "success" of the Party was largely in its rhetoric: it managed to popularize a certain "style." But in terms of concrete action, the Panthers did little. Their paper was widely read, but the quality of its articles was not particularly high. Don't confuse volume for clarity.


Lenin and Mao also 'eschewed Marxism'As to Mao, no argument there: he advocated "the bloc of four classes," which is as unMarxist a concept as you can come up with. As to Lenin, you don't know what you're talking about.


as did any other successful revolutionary.Oh really? Care to elaborate?


What you're really talking about is challenging dogmatic interpretations of old Marxist ideasLike the working class as the leading class of the revolution.


and not being afraid to update methods with a dialectical analysis.If you think that Mao's mystic bullshit it dialectics, you need to start rereading your Marx and Lenin.


Yes the Panthers did make severe mistakes (they were wrong to think the lumpen as the new vanguard classComrade, that's not a "mistake." That's the conscious and deliberate abandonment of Marxism.


although they were correct in tapping its revolutionary potential)The revolutionary potential of the lumpen-proletariat is transitory at best and can just as easily be used against the working class or be expended in inchoate activity with little direction or purpose.


but when you consider their successes and innovations (one of the greatest revolutionary mass movements in the modern first world) its clear that theyre a great party which we must all learn fromWhat were their successes and innovations? And, by the way, they were never a "mass revolutionary party." I doubt they ever had an active membership of a thousand.

And, horribly, they were totally infiltrated by the pigs and then suppressed.

[B]RED DAVE

[727Goon]

True, the rank and file was not as Maoist as the leadership, but don't forget its the leadership that decides the overall direction of the party. It was the use of Maoist ideas like Mass Line, Serve the People, Peoples Army, the unity of theory and practice, etc, which played an important part in the Party's success.

Maybe in Maoist theory it's the leadership who decide the overall direction of the party, and it's true that the panthers werent as democratic as they should have been but there were plenty of examples of regular Panthers taking the initiative and getting shit done independent of the leadership. I dont see that Maoism had much of an effect on the Panthers except for in their ideology. Most of their actions and even a lot of their politics were more related to black power than anything else. Most niggas on the street dont have time to care much about Marxist or Maoist theory.

[Sixiang]

Scarlet:



But, if anyone else does that, we hear cries of 'Revisionism!'

I sadly find this to be generally true...

[The Red Next Door]

There has never been a serious Trotskyist party -ever- :laugh:
cough.....ma..cough..ss..cough camp..ign. cough..of.cough...labor....cough....need...to....t ake .....cough....union.....cough......that ..cough....kick....cough....out...cough...communis t before.....cough. :laugh::rolleyes::lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Whereas the Maoists and Stalinists are repsonsible for murdering/imprisoning more Bolsheviks and workers than the Nazis ever managed.

If that's the behaviour of 'serious parties', then let's hope us Trotskyists remain flippant.

[The Red Next Door]

Okay...Well its a bit weird calling people from the USA Americans because Brazilians are Americans too yet we refer to them as Brazilians and not Americans because when you say Americans people automatically think someone from the USA...So the term USAan makes more sense for people from the USA.

And space cadets are obviously people off in lala land flying around it in psychological Star Ship Enterprises.

I think Yankee doodle would be better.:)

[Rooster]

JH:



I do not want to derail this thread, but you are right, it's not the best argument. [Fortunately, I have better (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm).]

The point is that no 'theory' (other than Zen Buddhism, if you can call that a theory) glories in contradiction, and so no other theory (which is also accepted by Marxist cadres) can be used to 'justify' anything you like, and its opposite, often in the same breath -- as Stalin and Mao (and Trotsky) regularly did. You can find the sordid details here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to skip to Section 7) Case Studies.

You're plainly wrong and it's perfectly legitimate to talk about dialectics when talking about Mao as he wrote about them. Marxism is founded on the idea of dialectics, that history has a goal. Look at what's written on his tombstone "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it". Fundamental to Marx's thought was the idea that the world was a philosophical puzzle where you have to solve the alienation of man against man. His solution to this problem, instead of just talking about and describing it, was to change the world so that the puzzle solves itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rooster:


You're plainly wrong

If i am 'plainly' wrong, you should find it easy to say where I slip up.


and it's perfectly legitimate to talk about dialectics when talking about Mao as he wrote about them.

Where did I say otherwise?

In fact, I am on record here saying that Mao's Collected Works (and Stalin's) are on my reading list, just below the entire Tokyo Telephone Directory.


Marxism is founded on the idea of dialectics,

So you say, but Marx had a totally different understanding of 'dialectics' to that of Mao (and Lenin, and Plekhanov, and Stalin, and Trotsky, and Engels...):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html


that history has a goal.

Then you are an Idealist.


Look at what's written on his tombstone "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it".

So?


Fundamental to Marx's thought was the idea that the world was a philosophical puzzle where you have to solve the alienation of man against man.

In fact, he said the following (this comes from an earlier thread on Marx and Philosophy, here in Learning):


Ok, here are a few of Marx's negative comments on Philosophy.

Philosophy is based on distorted language:


"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

We must "leave Philosophy aside" since it is akin to Onanism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/onanism):


"One has to “leave philosophy aside” (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love." [Ibid., p.103. Collected Works, Volume 5, p.236.

Philosophy is based on empty abstractions


"The mystery of critical presentation…is the mystery of speculative, of Hegelian construction….

"If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea 'Fruit', if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea 'Fruit', derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then -- in the language of speculative philosophy –- I am declaring that 'Fruit' is the 'Substance' of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea -– 'Fruit'…. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is 'the substance' -– 'Fruit'….

"Having reduced the different real fruits to the one 'fruit' of abstraction -– 'the Fruit', speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from 'the Fruit', from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea 'the Fruit' as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction….

"The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of 'the Fruit', this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind…. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, 'the Fruit', to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of 'the Fruit' in all the manifestations of its life…that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each of them 'the Fruit' realizes itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of 'the Absolute Fruit'.

"The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind 'the Fruit'….

"It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, 'the Fruit.'

"In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method." [Marx and Engels (1975) The Holy Family, pp.72-75.]


"Is it surprising that everything, in the final abstraction…presents itself as a logical category? Is it surprising that, if you let drop little by little all that constitutes the individuality of a house, leaving out first of all the materials of which it is composed, then the form that distinguishes it, you end up with nothing but a body; that if you leave out of account the limits of this body, you soon have nothing but a space -– that if, finally, you leave out of account the dimensions of this space, there is absolutely nothing left but pure quantity, the logical category? If we abstract thus from every subject all the alleged accidents, animate or inanimate, men or things, we are right in saying that in the final abstraction the only substance left is the logical categories. Thus the metaphysicians, who in making these abstractions, think they are making analyses, and who, the more they detach themselves from things, imagine themselves to be getting all the nearer to the point of penetrating to their core…." [Marx (1978) The Poverty of Philosophy, p.99.]

And, as Hegel noted, all traditional philosophy is idealism:


"Every philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is carried out." [Hegel (1999) The Science of Logic, pp.154-55; § 316.]

I have explained in detail why this is so, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-anti-philosophyi-t144875/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924628&postcount=12


His solution to this problem, instead of just talking about and describing it, was to change the world so that the puzzle solves itself.

I agree that the point is to change the world, but philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with this -- since the entire discipline is non-sensical, and based on distorted language, as Marx indicated.

[Rafiq]

What? There has never been a serious Maoist party that I know of in an advanced industrial country.

RED DAVE

I'm against Maoism, however, if you are going to base Idea's off of how predominantly 'serious' or 'popular' they are, you may as well join the Tea party.

[Rafiq]

Black Panther Party were heavily influenced by MLM

Also are saying that a movement doesnt matter unless its in advanced industrial countries ? I thought these backwards ideas were long gone..

Just like to point out, movements are more important in Imperialist countries rather than third world countries.

Revolution in an Imperialist country... Is more significant than Maoist tactics in third world countries, such as "Aligning with the national bourgeoisie".

[hardlinecommunist]

What? There has never been a serious Maoist party that I know of in an advanced industrial country.

RED DAVE
Yes there was you had The Revolutionary Action Movement Ram and The Black Panther Party based in Oakland CA which was led and founded by Huey P Newton who was one of the greatest Maoists thinkers and leaders in the history of North America

[Spawn of Stalin]

Just like to point out, movements are more important in Imperialist countries rather than third world countries.

Revolution in an Imperialist country... Is more significant than Maoist tactics in third world countries, such as "Aligning with the national bourgeoisie".
For what reason? It may well be true that it is more significant for the workers of an imperialist country to become class conscious, but that's only because capitalism provides us with relatively good lives. It is much easier and more plausible for police and military in third world countries to quell uprisings, plus they have tools of the imperialists that are supporting them at their immediate disposal. I suggest you go live in Africa or south Asia for a while before making such silly remarks, when you come back you can tell us all about how our own emancipation is much more important than the emancipation of those who don't have things like schools, hospitals, the eight hour day, or the minimum wage.

[Rooster]

Rooster:



If i am 'plainly' wrong, you should find it easy to say where I slip up.



Where did I say otherwise?

In fact, I am on record here saying that Mao's Collected Works (and Stalin's) are on my reading list, just below the entire Tokyo Telephone Directory.



So you say, but Marx had a totally different understanding of 'dialectics' to that of Mao (and Lenin, and Plekhanov, and Stalin, and Trotsky, and Engels...):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html



Then you are an Idealist.



So?



In fact, he said the following (this comes from an earlier thread on Marx and Philosophy, here in Learning):



http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-anti-philosophyi-t144875/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924628&postcount=12



I agree that the point is to change the world, but philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with this -- since the entire discipline is non-sensical, and based on distorted language, as Marx indicated.


You're right. I completely recant everything. My eyes have been open.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hardline Communist:


Very Good Post Comrade Maoism is really needed now more then ever in order to push The World Proletarian Revolution forward and that is what people really need to realize

In fact, all they are doing is 'pushing' the creation of yet more capatalist economies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rooster:


You're right. I completely recant everything. My eyes have been open.

Why do I suspect no little sarcasm here?

[hardlinecommunist]

Hardline Communist:



In fact, all they are doing is 'pushing' the creation of yet more capatalist economies.
Who is pushing for the creation of more capitalist economies who are you talking about here with this statement

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^The Maoists.

I thought that was pretty obvious from what I said?

[jediknight36]

they are, but when you are an actual communist, it puts off a weird vibe.

Nah! I take the badge off the Texas and its cool. In Seattle, I put it back on!

In solidarity and peace

[hardlinecommunist]

^^^The Maoists.

I thought that was pretty obvious from what I said?
Which Maoists are you talking about do you mean The Nepalese Maoists or do you mean all Maoists worldwide

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yo dog if that is a picture of you I would seriously take it down, security culture and all.

Apologies for the off topic post

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

hardline:


Which Maoists are you talking about do you mean The Nepalese Maoists or do you mean all Maoists worldwide

Both.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-allying-national-t147108/index.html

[MarxSchmarx]

Mao gets a lot of slack for the famines, keeping stalinism alive and the like. And sure, he could have put a stop to it but didn't do enough to do so. But ultimately Mao only ever really gave vague pronouncements and encouraged (or at least didn't prevent) over-zealous sycophants from telling him what he wanted to hear. He lived a sheltered life, and the day to day governing of his empire was done by numerous functionaries each trying to outdo the other in their adherence to "the Chairman".

Ultimately, though, these are failures of leadership and perhaps personality. By the mid 50s Mao had consolidated enough power that he was effectively living in retirement ever since. He encouraged what he saw as genuinely popular movements - like the cultural revolution - not because he had a sinister vision of destroying China or was a sadist, but because he thought the party had become ossified and was concerned about the bureaucrats taking over. It didn't help that those around him flamed the flames for their own purposes, suppressed reports about the extent of the damage, and Mao is rightfully criticized for being lazy and generally wanting to hear only news that accorded to his world view. But especially in his later years he was being used by opportunists (and arguably unwittingly).

Don't get me wrong, I think it is silly to uphold the "ideology" of a guy who spent his days floating down rivers, dancing with mistresses, and reading books on ancient china as some sort of guide for serious social change. Most of what he says consists of vague platitudes and basically rehash century-old ideas. But at the same time, singling out Mao for the economic disasters and repression of mid-20th century China is unfair and historically negligent. Mao was ultimately merely complicit in the horrors of things like the great leap forward, rather than being the driving force behind it.


Yo dog if that is a picture of you I would seriously take it down, security culture and all.

Apologies for the off topic post

Yup. We have (I guess unenforceable, unless someone knows how you look like) rules against that sort of stuff, jediknight36.

[jediknight36]

SORRY! Still new here. Fixed.

[Rafiq]

For what reason? It may well be true that it is more significant for the workers of an imperialist country to become class conscious, but that's only because capitalism provides us with relatively good lives. It is much easier and more plausible for police and military in third world countries to quell uprisings, plus they have tools of the imperialists that are supporting them at their immediate disposal. I suggest you go live in Africa or south Asia for a while before making such silly remarks, when you come back you can tell us all about how our own emancipation is much more important than the emancipation of those who don't have things like schools, hospitals, the eight hour day, or the minimum wage.

If a revolution were to occur in Imperialist countries, there would be no need for anti imperialist movements in third world nations.

Anti-Imperialist movements do not pose a threat to Imperialism itself.

You're arguing with a straw man.

The 'emancipation' in first world countries will in fact be the end of Imperialism as a whole.

So, what do you think is more significant, Anti Imperialist movements, using Maoist tactics to brush off a big Imperialist power, to fight another day, or movements with in the Imperialist nation, ending Imperialism from the heart?

[Spawn of Stalin]

It's not a question of which is more significant, significance depends on the circumstances and they are all significant, it's pointless arguing over which is more significant. My point is that you were actually arguing against a point raised by scarletghoul: "Also are saying that a movement doesnt matter unless its in advanced industrial countries ?", downplaying the role of the proletariat and the peasantry in third world countries, places where the oppression is very real, not like the oppression you or I know, the "well yeah, our bosses rip us off every time we come into work and there is virtually no social safety net but at least I've got food to eat and a roof over my head" kind of oppression. Your view is that first world movements are more important than third world movements, that is what I completely disagree with. If a revolution could be successfully carried out in an imperialist country - let's say the United States because that is the only place where it would make a real difference, revolution in Germany, the UK, etc. would weaken imperialism, but would not bring it to its knees - then it should be viewed as "more important", but it's not going to happen now is it? 10, 20, maybe 50 other nations will have revolutions before the United States does. The idealist in me agrees with you, get rid of Europe and north America and most of the world's population are already free, but I don't see something as being top priority - no matter how attractive it may be - unless it is feasible. Anti-imperialist movements are the only realistic way of weakening the ruling class in any country.

[jediknight36]

Is there really a "more important" movement? I think that if either "world" were to loose itself, the other would early follow. Maybe even more so if the top of the world did first. But is there a more important one? I doubt it.

In solidarity and peace

[Spawn of Stalin]

No, there is not, but there should be strategic priorities, if the collapse of global capitalism relies on the victory of anti-imperialist fighters in the third world, then yes, they can be viewed as "more important", but only for the time being.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^However, as the thread I linked to above showed, all that has in fact happened, and all that will ever happen with such strategies is that each economy will sooner or later have to subordinate itself to international capital. That's what happens if one allies with the 'national bourgeoisie' and ignores the proletariat.

[TC]

They idolize Mao because they don't listen to him:

Mao against book worship:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm

"
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.


The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.


How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation."\




The idolization of Mao, of Chairman Bob, Tony Cliff, of Trotsky, of Lenin - and also the idolization of Marx - and the idolization of their writing - is all counter productive - it is all anti-scientific.


So is however, the idolization of abstract ideals like Anarchism - and the idolization of abstracted, reified concepts like 'The Working Class' or "the international proletarian" - where abstract idealized groups/classes/categories stand in for real people with individuated experiences and class and power relations.

Everything needs to be examined critically and nothing can be taken for granted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^And of course, the man who wrote that ignored it himself.

His 'On Contradiction' is a classic example of bookish dogmatism.

[hardlinecommunist]

^^^And of course, the man who wrote that ignored it himself.

His 'On Contradiction' is a classic example of bookish dogmatism.
No it is not on Contradiction by Comrade Mao Zedong is the exact opposite of bookish dogmatism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC:


The idolization of Mao, of Chairman Bob, Tony Cliff, of Trotsky, of Lenin - and also the idolization of Marx - and the idolization of their writing - is all counter productive - it is all anti-scientific.

Perhaps you can show us where anyone has in fact idolised Tony Cliff?


So is however, the idolization of abstract ideals like Anarchism - and the idolization of abstracted, reified concepts like 'The Working Class' or "the international proletarian" - where abstract idealized groups/classes/categories stand in for real people with individuated experiences and class and power relations.

Everything needs to be examined critically and nothing can be taken for granted.

This sounds a bit abstract to me...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HardlineCommunist:


Contradiction by Comrade Mao Zedong is the exact opposite of bookish dogmatism

Here are a few dogmatic passages for you to ponder:


As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes. Thus materialist dialectics effectively combats the theory of external causes, or of an external motive force, advanced by metaphysical mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism. It is evident that purely external causes can only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale or quantity, but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways and why one thing changes into another. As a matter of fact, even mechanical motion under external force occurs through the internal contradictoriness of things. Simple growth in plants and animals, their quantitative development, is likewise chiefly the result of their internal contradictions. Similarly, social development is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes. Countries with almost the same geographical and climatic conditions display great diversity and unevenness in their development. Moreover, great social changes may take place in one and the same country although its geography and climate remain unchanged. Imperialist Russia changed into the socialist Soviet Union, and feudal Japan, which had locked its doors against the world, changed into imperialist Japan, although no change occurred in the geography and climate of either country. Long dominated by feudalism, China has undergone great changes in the last hundred years and is now changing in the direction of a new China, liberated and-free, and yet no change has occurred in her geography and climate. Changes do take place in the geography and climate of the earth as a whole and in every part of it, but they are insignificant when compared with changes in society; geographical and climatic changes manifest themselves in terms of tens of thousands of years, while social changes manifest themselves in thousands, hundreds or tens of years, and even in a few years or months in times of revolution. According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new. Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis. There is constant interaction between the peoples of different countries. In the era of capitalism, and especially in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the interaction and mutual impact of different countries in the political, economic and cultural spheres are extremely great. The October Socialist Revolution ushered in a new epoch in world history as well as in Russian history. It exerted influence on internal changes in the other countries in the world and, similarly and in a particularly profound way, on internal changes in China. These changes, however, were effected through the inner laws of development of these countries, China included. In battle, one army is victorious and the other is defeated, both the victory and the defeat are determined by internal causes The one is victorious either because it is strong or because of its competent generalship, the other is vanquished either because it is weak or because of its incompetent generalship; it is through internal causes that external causes become operative. In China in 1927, the defeat of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie came about through the opportunism then to be found within the Chinese proletariat itself (inside the Chinese Communist Party). When we liquidated this opportunism, the Chinese revolution resumed its advance. Later, the Chinese revolution again suffered severe setbacks at the hands of the enemy, because adventurism had risen within our Party. When we liquidated this adventurism, our cause advanced once again. Thus it can be seen that to lead the revolution to victory, a political party must depend on the correctness of its own political line and the solidity of its own organization.[pp.312-13.]

The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.

Engels said, "Motion itself is a contradiction." Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as "the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)". Are these ideas correct? Yes, they are. The interdependence of the contradictory aspects present in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine the life of all things and push their development forward. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist.

Contradiction is the basis of the simple forms of motion (for instance, mechanical motion) and still more so of the complex forms of motion. [p.316.]

Every difference in men's concepts should be regarded as reflecting an objective contradiction. Objective contradictions are reflected in subjective thinking, and this process constitutes the contradictory movement of concepts, pushes forward the development of thought, and ceaselessly solves problems in man's thinking....

Thus it is already clear that contradiction exists universally and in all processes, whether in the simple or in the complex forms of motion, whether in objective phenomena or ideological phenomena. But does contradiction also exist at the initial stage of each process? [p.317.]

This school does not understand that each and every difference already contains contradiction and that difference itself is contradiction.... The question is one of different kinds of contradiction, not of the presence or absence of contradiction. Contradiction is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all things and permeates every process from beginning to end. [p.318.]

Contradiction is present in the process of development of all things; it permeates the process of development of each thing from beginning to end. This is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction which we have discussed above. Now let us discuss the particularity and relativity of contradiction. [p.319.]

First, the contradiction in each form of motion of matter has its particularity. Man's knowledge of matter is knowledge of its forms of motion, because there is nothing in this world except matter in motion and this motion must assume certain forms. In considering each form of motion of matter, we must observe the points which it has in common with other forms of motion. But what is especially important and necessary, constituting as it does the foundation of our knowledge of a thing, is to observe what is particular to this form of motion of matter, namely, to observe the qualitative difference between this form of motion and other forms. Only when we have done so can we distinguish between things. Every form of motion contains within itself its own particular contradiction. This particular contradiction constitutes the particular essence which distinguishes one thing from another. It is the internal cause or, as it may be called, the basis for the immense variety of things in the world. There are many forms of motion in nature, mechanical motion, sound, light, heat, electricity, dissociation, combination, and so on. All these forms are interdependent, but in its essence each is different from the others. The particular essence of each form of motion is determined by its own particular contradiction. This holds true not only for nature but also for social and ideological phenomena. Every form of society, every form of ideology, has its own particular contradiction and particular essence. [pp.319-20.]

The sciences are differentiated precisely on the basis of the particular contradictions inherent in their respective objects of study. Thus the contradiction peculiar to a certain field of phenomena constitutes the object of study for a specific branch of science. For example, positive and negative numbers in mathematics; action and reaction in mechanics; positive and negative electricity in physics; dissociation and combination in chemistry; forces of production and relations of production, classes and class struggle, in social science; offence and defence in military science; idealism and materialism, the metaphysical outlook and the dialectical outlook, in philosophy; and so on--all these are the objects of study of different branches of science precisely because each branch has its own particular contradiction and particular essence. Of course, unless we understand the universality of contradiction, we have no way of discovering the universal cause or universal basis for the movement or development of things; however, unless we study the particularity of contradiction, we have no way of determining the particular essence of a thing which differentiates it from other things, no way of discovering the particular cause or particular basis for the movement or development of a thing, and no way of distinguishing one thing from another or of demarcating the fields of science. [p.320.]

For all objective things are actually interconnected and are governed by inner laws, but instead of undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really are some people only look at things one-sidedly or superficially and who know neither their interconnections nor their inner laws, and so their method is subjectivist. [p.324.]

The fundamental contradiction in the process of development of a thing and the essence of the process determined by this fundamental contradiction will not disappear until the process is completed; but in a lengthy process the conditions usually differ at each stage. The reason is that, although the nature of the fundamental contradiction in the process of development of a thing and the essence of the process remain unchanged, the fundamental contradiction becomes more and more intensified as it passes from one stage to another in the lengthy process. In addition, among the numerous major and minor contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental contradiction, some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially resolved or mitigated, and some new ones emerge; hence the process is marked by stages. If people do not pay attention to the stages in the process of development of a thing, they cannot deal with its contradictions properly. [p.325.]

It can thus be seen that in studying the particularity of any kind of contradiction--the contradiction in each form of motion of matter, the contradiction in each of its processes of development, the two aspects of the contradiction in each process, the contradiction at each stage of a process, and the two aspects of the contradiction at each stage--in studying the particularity of all these contradictions, we must not be subjective and arbitrary but must analyse it concretely. Without concrete analysis there can be no knowledge of the particularity of any contradiction. We must always remember Lenin's words, the concrete analysis of concrete conditions.

When Marx and Engels applied the law of contradiction in things to the study of the socio-historical process, they discovered the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, they discovered the contradiction between the exploiting and exploited classes and also the resultant contradiction between the economic base and its superstructure (politics, ideology, etc.), and they discovered how these contradictions inevitably lead to different kinds of social revolution in different kinds of class society.[p.328.]

Since the particular is united with the universal and since the universality as well as the particularity of contradiction is inherent in everything, universality residing in particularity, we should, when studying an object, try to discover both the particular and the universal and their interconnection, to discover both particularity and universality and also their interconnection within the object itself, and to discover the interconnections of this object with the many objects outside it. [p.329.]

The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception. Hence the general character, the absoluteness of contradiction. But this general character is contained in every individual character; without individual character there can be no general character. If all individual character were removed, what general character would remain? It is because each contradiction is particular that individual character arises. All individual character exists conditionally and temporarily, and hence is relative. [p.330.]

Hence, if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to funding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved. This is the method Marx taught us in his study of capitalist society. Likewise Lenin and Stalin taught us this method when they studied imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism and when they studied the Soviet economy. There are thousands of scholars and men of action who do not understand it, and the result is that, lost in a fog, they are unable to get to the heart of a problem and naturally cannot find a way to resolve its contradictions. [p.332.]

As we have said, one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being equal but must distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions, and pay special attention to grasping the principal one. But, in any given contradiction, whether principal or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects be treated as equal? Again, no. In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.

But this situation is not static; the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction transform themselves into each other and the nature of the thing changes accordingly. In a given process or at a given stage in the development of a contradiction, A is the principal aspect and B is the non-principal aspect; at another stage or in another process the roles are reversed--a change determined by the extent of the increase or decrease in the force of each aspect in its struggle against the other in the course of the development of a thing.

We often speak of "the new superseding the old". The supersession of the old by the new is a general, eternal and inviolable law of the universe. The transformation of one thing into another, through leaps of different forms in accordance with its essence and external conditions--this is the process of the new superseding the old. In each thing there is contradiction between its new and its old aspects, and this gives rise to a series of struggles with many twists and turns. As a result of these struggles, the new aspect changes from being minor to being major and rises to predominance, while the old aspect changes from being major to being minor and gradually dies out. And the moment the new aspect gains dominance over the old, the old thing changes qualitatively into a new thing. It can thus be seen that the nature of a thing is mainly determined by the principal aspect of the contradiction, the aspect which has gained predominance. When the principal aspect which has gained predominance changes, the nature of a thing changes accordingly. [p.333.]

The contradictory aspects in every process exclude each other, struggle with each other and are in opposition to each other. Without exception, they are contained in the process of development of all things and in all human thought. A simple process contains only a single pair of opposites, while a complex process contains more. And in turn, the pairs of opposites are in contradiction to one another.)

That is how all things in the objective world and all human thought are constituted and how they are set in motion. [p.337-38.]

The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without "above", there would be no "below") without "below", there would be no "above". Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, these would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty) without difficulty, there would be no facility. Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semicolonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and interdependent, and this character is described as identity. In given conditions, all contradictory aspects possess the character of non-identity and hence are described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies "how opposites can be ... identical". How then can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence. This is the first meaning of identity. [p.338.]

But is it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition for the other's existence, that there is identity between them and that consequently they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with their dependence on each other for their existence; what is more important is their transformation into each other. That is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.[p.338.]

The Kuomintang, which played a certain positive role at a certain stage in modern Chinese history, became a counter-revolutionary party after 1927 because of its inherent class nature and because of imperialist blandishments (these being the conditions); but it has been compelled to agree to resist Japan because of the sharpening of the contradiction between China and Japan and because of the Communist Party's policy of the united front (these being the conditions). Things in contradiction change into one another, and herein lies a definite identity.[p.339.]

All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed "how they happen to be (how they become) identical--under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another". [p.340.]

Why is it that "the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another"? [Mao is quoting Lenin here -- RL.] Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite. Reflected in man's thinking, this becomes the Marxist world outlook of materialist dialectics. It is only the reactionary ruling classes of the past and present and the metaphysicians in their service who regard opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule. The task of Communists is to expose the fallacies of the reactionaries and metaphysicians, to propagate the dialectics inherent in things, and so accelerate the transformation of things and achieve the goal of revolution.

In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another. There are innumerable transformations in mythology, for instance, Kua Fu's race with the sun in Shan Hai Ching, Yi's shooting down of nine suns in Huai Nan Tzu, the Monkey King's seventy-two metamorphoses in Hsi Yu Chi, the numerous episodes of ghosts and foxes metamorphosed into human beings in the Strange Tales of Liao Chai, etc. But these legendary transformations of opposites are not concrete changes reflecting concrete contradictions. They are naive, imaginary, subjectively conceived transformations conjured up in men's minds by innumerable real and complex transformations of opposites into one another. Marx said, "All mythology masters and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in and through the imagination; hence it disappears as soon as man gains mastery over the forces of nature." The myriads of changes in mythology (and also in nursery tales) delight people because they imaginatively picture man's conquest of the forces of nature, and the best myths possess "eternal charm", as Marx put it; but myths are not built out of the concrete contradictions existing in given conditions and therefore are not a scientific reflection of reality. That is to say, in myths or nursery tales the aspects constituting a contradiction have only an imaginary identity, not a concrete identity. The scientific reflection of the identity in real transformations is Marxist dialectics. [pp.340-41.]

All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute. [p.342.]

There are two states of motion in all things, that of relative rest and that of conspicuous change. Both are caused by the struggle between the two contradictory elements contained in a thing. When the thing is in the first state of motion, it is undergoing only quantitative and not qualitative change and consequently presents the outward appearance of being at rest. When the thing is in the second state of motion, the quantitative change of the first state has already reached a culminating point and gives rise to the dissolution of the thing as an entity and thereupon a qualitative change ensues, hence the appearance of a conspicuous change. Such unity, solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity, attraction, etc., as we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution of unity, that is, the destruction of this solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity and attraction, and the change of each into its opposite are all the appearances of things in the state of qualitative change, the transformation of one process into another. Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

When we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we were speaking of conditionality, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the absence of these conditions, they cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot coexist in the same entity and cannot transform themselves into one another. It is because the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things. [pp.342-43.]

We may now say a few words to sum up. The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. Each contradiction and each of its aspects have their respective characteristics; this is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. In studying the particularity and relativity of contradiction, we must give attention to the distinction between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions and to the distinction between the principal aspect and the non-principal aspect of a contradiction; in studying the universality of contradiction and the struggle of opposites in contradiction, we must give attention to the distinction between the different forms of struggle. Otherwise we shall make mistakes. If, through study, we achieve a real understanding of the essentials explained above, we shall be able to demolish dogmatist ideas which are contrary to the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and detrimental to our revolutionary cause, and our comrades with practical experience will be able to organize their experience into principles and avoid repeating empiricist errors. These are a few simple conclusions from our study of the law of contradiction. [pp.345-46.]

Bold added.

Here, Mao's only authority is that of Marx, Engels and Lenin, but he is quite happy to impose these dogmatic ideas on all of nature and society, for all of time, based on a few trite observations.

Anyone who has studied or practiced genuine science knows the great care and attention to detail that has to be devoted by researchers, often over many years or decades, if they want to add to, or alter, even relatively minor areas of current knowledge, let alone establish a new law. This was the case in Mao's day, just as it is the case today. Moreover, the concepts used by scientists have to be precise and analytically sound. The use of primary data is essential (or at least it has to be reviewed or referenced by scientists) and supporting evidence has to be extensive, meticulously recorded and subject not only to public scrutiny, but peer review.

In contrast, the sort of Mickey Mouse Science one finds in Creationist literature is rightly the target of derision by scientists and Marxists alike. And yet, when it comes to Mao's writings on dialectics, we find little other than Mickey Mouse Science. Mao supplied no original data, and what little evidence he presented in support of his 'laws' would have been rejected as amateurish in the extreme if it had appeared in a lower school science paper, let alone in a research document --, even in his day! It is salutary, therefore, to compare Mao's approach to scientific proof with that of Darwin, whose classic work is a model of clarity and original research. Darwin presented the scientific community with extensive evidence, which has been added to greatly in the last 150 years.

So, yes, Mao was an Olympic Standard dogmatist, who relied on books published by Marx, Engels and Lenin.