Useful ideas of Mao in the Western World?

[DDR]

I start this thread to learn a bit more about the Mao Tse-Tung Thought. I admire him because he was a great and succesful revolutionary but I fail to extrapolate his thought to the first world countries. For example the idea of the New Democracy applied to the western world is pure social democracy even thought in the third world is very revolutionary. So apart of his works in revisionism (wich clearly didn't work that well seeing the take over by Deng Xiaoping and how China is today), which political ideas from him are useful for the class struggle in the first world?

I must admit before that I haven't read him that much, mostly what others wrote about him and his ideas.

On a less serious note I woul like to point that he's also a pretty good source of awsome quotes.

[BIG BROTHER]

Mao was a badass writter and excelent Guerrilla warfare expert.

Other than that his theories are a betrayel to communism and a revisionist themselves.

"New Democracy" is nothing more than class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and a derail of that keeps workers and peasants from gaining power.

This is very similar to how the Mensheviks also thought the proletariat and the peasants could hold power in Russia while at the same time, they waited for the capitalists to develop Russia until it was ripe for Socialism...

[BIG BROTHER]

Mao was a badass writter and excelent Guerrilla warfare expert.

Other than that his theories are a betrayel to communism and a revisionist themselves.

"New Democracy" is nothing more than class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and a derail of that keeps workers and peasants from gaining power.

This is very similar to how the Mensheviks also thought the proletariat and the peasants could hold power in Russia while at the same time, they waited for the capitalists to develop Russia until it was ripe for Socialism...

[DaringMehring]

The Cultural Revolution is an interesting period to study, in that it is an example of what a political revolution in a deformed workers state might look like. Studying the Cultural Revolution and understanding why it was defeated, can help a communist anywhere, east or west.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As this thread shows:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nepali-maoist-s-t147416/index.html

Mao's ideas have been a disaster in the 'East', and, worse, offer nothing to the proleatariat of the 'West', or anywhere else, for that matter.

And that's no surprise, since his core theory makes no sense:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theory-change-t130879/index.html

[DDR]

Thanks for the responses (even I don't quite agree with some), but none with a maoist point of view want to add something?

[chegitz guevara]

Give it a little time.The Maoists probably haven't woken up yet. :)

[RED DAVE]

I start this thread to learn a bit more about the Mao Tse-Tung Thought. I admire him because he was a great and succesful revolutionary but I fail to extrapolate his thought to the first world countries. For example the idea of the New Democracy applied to the western world is pure social democracyYou are correct that Maoism in the first world is social democracy.


even thought in the third world is very revolutionary.Here is where you are wrong. If you look at the practice of Maoism in Nepal right now, you will see that the Maoists are aiming at a bourgeois revolution, which will institute state and private capitalism.


So apart of his works in revisionism (wich clearly didn't work that well seeing the take over by Deng Xiaoping and how China is today), which political ideas from him are useful for the class struggle in the first world?Fact is that what you call revisionism was emobodied in Maoism from the beginning in the guise of the mass line, the bloc of four class, etc. We know the results of these.

None of his ideas are useful for class struggle in the first world. Maoists in the US, for example, stay away from working organizing and stick to petit-bourgeois concepts like community organizing, which was revealed forty years ago as a blind alley politically.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Maoists in the US, for example, stay away from working organizing

:laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Revolutionary_Black_Workers

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/25/rank-and-file-rebellions-in-the-coalfields-1964-80/


Honesty, give it a try.

[scarletghoul]

:p

Good question OP.


For example the idea of the New Democracy applied to the western world is pure social democracy even thought in the third world is very revolutionary.You're correct. New Democracy doesn't apply to advanced capitalist countries.


So apart of his works in revisionism (wich clearly didn't work that well seeing the take over by Deng Xiaoping and how China is today),Its wrong to dismiss something just because it failed. If you're going to use that logic, you could say that the Paris Commune, the USSR, the entire works of Marx and Lenin, etc are useless because they failed and resulted in capitalist triumph..

which political ideas from him are useful for the class struggle in the first world?Heres what I think are the main things. other maoists have different views though, -

Mass Line- the communists should listen to the masses and address their problems, translating popular concerns into revolutionary actions. In China this meant confiscating property of greedy landlords etc. An example of this in this first world is the black panthers defending the community against police brutality

Mao's general approach of uniting all who can be united; in china this meant workers peasants national bourgeoisie and so on. In the modern first would it would mean workers, unemployed, ethnic minorities, maybe some sectors of lumpen, etc

The idea that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and that without a 'peoples army' the people have nothing. This doesnt mean we should form a guerilla insurgency right away, but we should certainly understand that force is necessary for a the people to take power. Again the Panthers are a great example.

Also Mao's philosophical works are of universal significance. Main points there are the integrating of theory and practice, the fact that everything is made of contradictions, and that correct ideas come from struggle.


On a less serious note I woul like to point that he's also a pretty good source of awsome quotes.:cool:
This is true. And awesome quotes are not to be underestimated.

More questions just ask

[DDR]

Thanks scarletghoul, very useful.

About the revisionism stuff I said because if you spent a great deal of time dealing on how to take it away, how come it came so powerful in China?

The Paris Commune was overthown in a military way. The USSR because of revisionism, but Stalin didn't concentrate as much as Mao on it, so it's undertandable IMO.

[RED DAVE]

:laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Revolutionary_Black_Workers

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/25/rank-and-file-rebellions-in-the-coalfields-1964-80/


Honesty, give it a try.If you think that work in Detroit and in the coalfields 30-35 years ago, which led to no permanent organizational continuity among the workers, is a good example of Maoism, welcome to it. Shit! During the same period, the IS built caucuses in auto, steel, telephone and post office. The caucuses in the Teamsters Union, which were built early enough to catch the wave of militancy in the mid-70s still exist.

RED DAVE

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Mass Line- the communists should listen to the masses and address their problems, translating popular concerns into revolutionary actions. In China this meant confiscating property of greedy landlords etc. An example of this in this first world is the black panthers defending the community against police brutality

Except, the 'mass line' was never 'from the people to the people', as we were told by Maoists, but 'from the party to the people, and who cares what the people think, they are all like children, anyway, and need us to teach them'.

So, in effect, it was a 'massive lie'.

That was established here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html

[scarletghoul]

As you can see DDR, Maoism is a magnet for opportunist criticism by those of useless tendencies that no one cares about

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


As you can see DDR, Maoism is a magnet for opportunist criticism by those of useless tendencies that no one cares about

Still can't show it was the 'mass line', I see.:lol:

[DDR]

As you can see DDR, Maoism is a magnet for opportunist criticism by those of useless tendencies that no one cares about

Yeah, I've seen that when someone sais or in this case asks about Mao ist pretty much a shitstorm. Some times is funny (bashing MRN), some times it's not (this case). To clearify, I'd like every one to participate but not in a Mao is a mass murderer degenerated stalinis or something like that. So, can we speak about the topic of useful thing of Maoism to the industrialized world?

[southernmissfan]

I don't see how an ideology focused on under developed nations and the peasantry has much relevancy for the industrialized world and the proletariat.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

The only thing I've read of Mao, was a piece on leadership. This pamphlet seemed completely reactionary in a modern context, in the sense that it was (what I would call) a blueprint for a 'Stalinist' style method of centralisation.

However, in the context of it's time in China, it was very revolutionary. Let us remember that China was a land that was decentralised and utterly backward, and didn't have a proletariat, let alone the means of production required to form a proletariat.

I would say that Mao's ideas are worthy only in 'third world' conditions, and that these theories of organization would only lead to capitalism in the long run. Maoism and even many aspects of Leninism only managed to create the means of production necessary for a proletariat to exist in the countries they were 'tested' in (i.e. backward nations, without a proletariat), where-as, Marx's theories were concerned with the proletariat taking 'control' of these means of production in lands where both the means of production and the revolutionary class existed in such a sense that a revolution could occur (in terms of what Marx says, in his writing on Britain etc. Did he ever really mention China? Or Vietnam? If not, was that because he missed them on the map or because they did not have the right conditions?).

In conclusion, with my analysis (which admittedly needs broadening, but I am trying to summarize it on an internet forum), Mao's ideas are not worthy in the western world, and are not even worthy in an anti-capitalist context. They are pro worker in the sense that they will create a working class in places that lack this necessary class, but in terms of their weight as an anti-capitalist set of theories, they do not go any further than the state being siezed by the liberating forces.

In shorter terms: Mao's theories did better to create the class that would overthrow capitalism rather than to overthrow capitalism itself, as a class system. Capitalism had not existed in the form that influential anti-capitalist theorists had understood it in the times that the state had been 'overthrown' by Maoist forces.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Mao was Chinese, it is to be expected that his ideas were always going to be geared towards China. A lot of people think that because Maoism has its roots firmly in the third world it has nothing to offer your average white worker. In terms of actual political work, the strategies of the 21st century European is very different to the Maoist, you won't find many revlefters hiding in a tree with a machine gun because most of us live in Europe or north America and that is not the strategy we are not pursuing right now.But some Maoist thought applies to every situation, for example during Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution the May 7th Cadre Schools went a long way towards rooting out bureaucratic elements in the Party, that's something which is important in the east and the west, after a revolution bureaucracy is a problem faced by everyone no matter what country you live in, and the May 7th schools worked pretty well far as I can tell, just one example. It's worth noting that Mao lived in a faraway land a pretty long time ago, so for most of us it's important to interpret Maoism correctly, instead of just reading his entire collected works then saying "right so I'm going to form an alliance with a peasant class which doesn't exist, and a national bourgeoisie which doesn't have its interests vested in Communism....lets go!"

Anyway Mao's philosophical works are just the greatest, 'On Practice' and 'On Contradiction' can be a little China-centric in places, but both are worth reading and even from a western viewpoint you can get a lot from them.

[RED DAVE]

China, it was very revolutionary. Let us remember that China was a land that was decentralised and utterly backward, and didn't have a proletariat, let alone the means of production required to form a proletariat.Dead wrong. China had a huge proletariat, in the cities, numbering in the millions. This proletariat had been betrayed by the Stalinists into an alliance with the Kuomintang in 1928, resulting in the massacre of thousands of the best proletarian fighters and setting the stage for a pseudo-Marxist theory that rejected the working class.

At the end of WWII, as the Maoists were moving towards power and bourgeois regime collapsed, workers all over China rose up. The mighty maoist motherfuckers told them to go back to work.


I would say that Mao's ideas are worthy only in 'third world' conditions, and that these theories of organization would only lead to capitalism in the long run. Maoism and even many aspects of Leninism only managed to create the means of production necessary for a proletariat to exist in the countries they were 'tested' in (i.e. backward nations, without a proletariat), where-as, Marx's theories were concerned with the proletariat taking 'control' of these means of production in lands where both the means of production and the revolutionary class existed in such a sense that a revolution could occur (in terms of what Marx says, in his writing on Britain etc. Did he ever really mention China? Or Vietnam? If not, was that because he missed them on the map or because they did not have the right conditions?).Mao's ideas are fine: if you want state capitalism leading to private capitalism, which is exactly what happened in China. One more time: there was plenty of capitalism in China and a proletariat quite big enough to be a revolutionary ruling class.


In conclusion, with my analysis (which admittedly needs broadening, but I am trying to summarize it on an internet forum), Mao's ideas are not worthy in the western worldRight.


and are not even worthy in an anti-capitalist context.Right again.


They are pro worker in the sense that they will create a working class in places that lack this necessary classWrong. There already are working classes in these places, like China or Nepal, but the Maoists shun them as the leading class in the revolution.


but in terms of their weight as an anti-capitalist set of theories, they do not go any further than the state being siezed by the liberating forces.And the subsequent state established by Maoists is a bourgeois state based on the exploitation, not the liberation, of labor.


In shorter terms: Mao's theories did better to create the class that would overthrow capitalism rather than to overthrow capitalism itself, as a class system. Capitalism had not existed in the form that influential anti-capitalist theorists had understood it in the times that the state had been 'overthrown' by Maoist forces.What you are saying is that Maoism is capitalism, and if you believe that the workers of the world, even in backward countries, are capable of overthrowing capitalism and moving towards socialism, you'll use your Little Red Book for what it's good for: toilet paper.

RED DAVE

[Magón]

I don't see how an ideology focused on under developed nations and the peasantry has much relevancy for the industrialized world and the proletariat.

Isn't that why we have Maoist Third-Worldists? And I believe they're restricted on these forums?

[Sixiang]

Heres what I think are the main things. other maoists have different views though, -

Mass Line- the communists should listen to the masses and address their problems, translating popular concerns into revolutionary actions. In China this meant confiscating property of greedy landlords etc. An example of this in this first world is the black panthers defending the community against police brutality

Mao's general approach of uniting all who can be united; in china this meant workers peasants national bourgeoisie and so on. In the modern first would it would mean workers, unemployed, ethnic minorities, maybe some sectors of lumpen, etc

The idea that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and that without a 'peoples army' the people have nothing. This doesnt mean we should form a guerilla insurgency right away, but we should certainly understand that force is necessary for a the people to take power. Again the Panthers are a great example.

Also Mao's philosophical works are of universal significance. Main points there are the integrating of theory and practice, the fact that everything is made of contradictions, and that correct ideas come from struggle.


Killed it, my friend.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spawn of Stalin:


Anyway Mao's philosophical works are just the greatest, 'On Practice' and 'On Contradiction' can be a little China-centric in places, but both are worth reading and even from a western viewpoint you can get a lot from them.

In fact, these works are every bit as poor as anything Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Plekhanov wrote of Philosophy.

To prove it, I have demolished Mao's 'theory' of change here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theory-change-t130879/index.html

[Paulappaul]

Mass Line- the communists should listen to the masses and address their problems, translating popular concerns into revolutionary actions. In China this meant confiscating property of greedy landlords etc. An example of this in this first world is the black panthers defending the community against police brutality

Mao's general approach of uniting all who can be united; in china this meant workers peasants national bourgeoisie and so on. In the modern first would it would mean workers, unemployed, ethnic minorities, maybe some sectors of lumpen, etc

The idea that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and that without a 'peoples army' the people have nothing. This doesnt mean we should form a guerilla insurgency right away, but we should certainly understand that force is necessary for a the people to take power. Again the Panthers are a great example.

Also Mao's philosophical works are of universal significance. Main points there are the integrating of theory and practice, the fact that everything is made of contradictions, and that correct ideas come from struggle.That doesn't seem like Rocket-Science to any Revolutionary Communist. I'm not familiar with Mao's contributions, but really if that's it in a nutshell, frankly, I'm not impressed.

Sounds like Mao just put words on what communist movements were already doing. For example the whole "uniting all who can be united" doesn't sound much different from the I.W.W.'s approach. Anybody can join the I.W.W. Students, Unemployed, Petty- Bourgeois, etc. And the same can be said for Party Politics in general. What made Mao's approach different was that he was still dealing in semi-feudal times and therefor had to incorporate the Peasants. In the west, as you've already said, this doesn't apply. Still the whole "uniting" isn't really different from "One Big Union" of Workers, or "One Big Party" of Workers.

Political Power grows from the barrel of a gun? I don't think you find much disagreement within the Communist Movement outside those Psuedo-Social Democrat Communists, like those of the CPUSA, who preach Non-Violence and Political Reform.

Theory and Practice, and back again (Mao's Dialectical Method) doesn't seem all to creative. Seems as old as the Communist movement itself, I've heard Anarchists and Marxists preach this. Today it seems a given. In the past, where most of Europe still reeked with the idea that we just except Theory as Truth, has been dumped. In places like China, where Mao grew up, I can see the need for this, most the population still tied to the traditions of Feudal Society, still pertain that Idea that Theory doesn't require evidence.

Theory requires substance now and you don't need to teach that to anyone anymore. It's common sense.

The Mass Line is really the whole thing I can see that could sorta be Creative. In Russia, during the October Revolution Lenin listened to the Proletariat's popular concerns and aspirations and stormed the Winter Palace. In that respect, I feel that the Mass Line was already being practiced.

The Problem with the Mass Line is that it isn't the Mass Line which is doing the job, it's those at the head of line doing the job. You've made Clear, that it's the revolutionaries doing the job, not the oppressed themselves'. The duty of any "Vanguard", "Revolutionary", or what ever term you prefer to wack off too, is too raise the level of the consciousness of the Proletariat towards its own level and higher. Authentic Movements teach the working class, to be autonomous.

[southernmissfan]

Mass Line- the communists should listen to the masses and address their problems, translating popular concerns into revolutionary actions. In China this meant confiscating property of greedy landlords etc. An example of this in this first world is the black panthers defending the community against police brutality

Well that just sounds like common sense. So Mao invented the practice of revolutionaries listening to the masses? But wait, aren't the masses supposed to be the revolutionaries? In the communist revolution I want, the masses will address their problems and not relay their desires to some ruling clique.


Mao's general approach of uniting all who can be united; in china this meant workers peasants national bourgeoisie and so on. In the modern first would it would mean workers, unemployed, ethnic minorities, maybe some sectors of lumpen, etc

Well first of all, Marx himself stated that sections of the bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, etc., would come over to our side. Again, it's common sense that a revolutionary movement will utilize all potential bases of support. The difference with Marxism and Maoism is that we seek a proletarian revolution. Gasp! I know, shocking isn't it?


The idea that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and that without a 'peoples army' the people have nothing. This doesnt mean we should form a guerilla insurgency right away, but we should certainly understand that force is necessary for a the people to take power. Again the Panthers are a great example.

Force is necessary for the people to take power. Right, pretty sure Marx stated that a century prior. Not to mention probably the majority of people who have ever addressed the nature of power.


Also Mao's philosophical works are of universal significance. Main points there are the integrating of theory and practice, the fact that everything is made of contradictions, and that correct ideas come from struggle.


To be honest, I am ignorant of Mao's philosophical contributions (though I get the impression I'm probably not missing much). I'm pretty sure I could have told you in middle school that for any meaningful movement you have to integrate theory and practice. And that the struggle itself will lead to change in theory.

Really, I don't see any application of Maoism to the proletariat. At least not in modern, capitalist nations. If you are in a "third-world", backwards nation, I could see where the ideology would be appealing. After all, it will probably modernize the country both structurally and socially. Essentially, it will build a modern capitalist nation with a more modern economy and culture. Essentially they play the role of a progressive bourgeois in a time and region where there is none due to imperialism. So if Maoists took power in Nepal or parts of India, would it be progressive? Yeah probably. I'm sure gains would be made that would not otherwise happen. Will it result in communism or even a "socialism" that we would wish to emulate? I don't think so.

[scarletghoul]

Anyway Mao's philosophical works are just the greatest, 'On Practice' and 'On Contradiction' can be a little China-centric in places, but both are worth reading and even from a western viewpoint you can get a lot from them.
One underrated and short work of his is Where do correct ideas come from. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_01.htm)

The only thing I've read of Mao, was a piece on leadership. This pamphlet seemed completely reactionary in a modern context, in the sense that it was (what I would call) a blueprint for a 'Stalinist' style method of centralisation.

However, in the context of it's time in China, it was very revolutionary. Let us remember that China was a land that was decentralised and utterly backward, and didn't have a proletariat, let alone the means of production required to form a proletariat.

I would say that Mao's ideas are worthy only in 'third world' conditions, and that these theories of organization would only lead to capitalism in the long run. Maoism and even many aspects of Leninism only managed to create the means of production necessary for a proletariat to exist in the countries they were 'tested' in (i.e. backward nations, without a proletariat), where-as, Marx's theories were concerned with the proletariat taking 'control' of these means of production in lands where both the means of production and the revolutionary class existed in such a sense that a revolution could occur (in terms of what Marx says, in his writing on Britain etc. Did he ever really mention China? Or Vietnam? If not, was that because he missed them on the map or because they did not have the right conditions?).

In conclusion, with my analysis (which admittedly needs broadening, but I am trying to summarize it on an internet forum), Mao's ideas are not worthy in the western world, and are not even worthy in an anti-capitalist context. They are pro worker in the sense that they will create a working class in places that lack this necessary class, but in terms of their weight as an anti-capitalist set of theories, they do not go any further than the state being siezed by the liberating forces.

In shorter terms: Mao's theories did better to create the class that would overthrow capitalism rather than to overthrow capitalism itself, as a class system. Capitalism had not existed in the form that influential anti-capitalist theorists had understood it in the times that the state had been 'overthrown' by Maoist forces.You admit that you've only read one thing by Mao and then go on to try and evaluate his entire lifes work..


I don't see how an ideology focused on under developed nations and the peasantry has much relevancy for the industrialized world and the proletariat.
Maybe you should try looking into what Maoism actually is, comrade. (hint: its not 'peasant communism')

[scarletghoul]

That doesn't seem like Rocket-Science to any Revolutionary Communist. I'm not familiar with Mao's contributions, but really if that's it in a nutshell, frankly, I'm not impressed.

Sounds like Mao just put words on what communist movements were already doing. For example the whole "uniting all who can be united" doesn't sound much different from the I.W.W.'s approach. Anybody can join the I.W.W. Students, Unemployed, Petty- Bourgeois, etc. And the same can be said for Party Politics in general.
Wait the IWW allows petty-bourgeoisie to join ?? Thats a bit weird..
Anyway the approach of Maoism is much more than opportunistic 'everyone can join!!!!', its based on a scientific evaluation of classes and strategically determining which classes are our enemies and which are our friends. It also doesnt just accept members from whatever social class; it actively organises these classes and mobilises them as classes.
I would not count the petty-bourgeoisie as a potentially revolutionary class in an advanced capitalist country.


Political Power grows from the barrel of a gun? I don't think you find much disagreement within the Communist Movement outside those Psuedo-Social Democrat Communists, like those of the CPUSA, who preach Non-Violence and Political Reform. Some people do need reminding. And even those who do agree to the necessity of a forceful revolution, they are often not willing to go ahead and empower the people when possible. Thats why the Panthers were so revolutionary compared to other leftist groups who just talked about revolution but were afraid to actively empower people


Theory and Practice, and back again (Mao's Dialectical Method) doesn't seem all to creative. Seems as old as the Communist movement itself, I've heard Anarchists and Marxists preach this. Today it seems a given. In the past, where most of Europe still reeked with the idea that we just except Theory as Truth, has been dumped. In places like China, where Mao grew up, I can see the need for this, most the population still tied to the traditions of Feudal Society, still pertain that Idea that Theory doesn't require evidence.Eh, judging from the state of the left today here I'd say most communists do not understand the need to unify theory and practice. Too many are just making speeches among themselves and stuff, instead of organising the people. Even if some agree to the unity of theory and practice in theory, they do not practice it :lol:


Theory requires substance now and you don't need to teach that to anyone anymore. It's common sense. when was the last time you saw communists organising in council estates or immigrant neighbourhoods, etc, or trying to empower the people in any way ? i dont know where you are but here in the UK it doesnt happen.


The Mass Line is really the whole thing I can see that could sorta be Creative. In Russia, during the October Revolution Lenin listened to the Proletariat's popular concerns and aspirations and stormed the Winter Palace. In that respect, I feel that the Mass Line was already being practiced.

The Problem with the Mass Line is that it isn't the Mass Line which is doing the job, it's those at the head of line doing the job. You've made Clear, that it's the revolutionaries doing the job, not the oppressed themselves'. Er, the oppressed become revolutionaries, obviously
If however you mean maoism places the party above ordinary people then youre profoundly mistaken. The party depends on the people. and it doesnt act in their place, it mobilises them.


Well first of all, Marx himself stated that sections of the bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, etc., would come over to our side. Again, it's common sense that a revolutionary movement will utilize all potential bases of support. The difference with Marxism and Maoism is that we seek a proletarian revolution. Gasp! I know, shocking isn't it? shut the fuck up you ignorant piece of shit. Mao constantly emphasised the need for proletarian leadership. The fact that he dared to mobilise a class that comprised 90% of china's population seems to be too much for dogmatic eurosupermarxists to understand
And yes there is always a few people from reactionary classes who side with the revolution, thats not the point at all. Mao is on about entire classes being allies. There were a few feudal lords and stuff who joined the communists, but their classes were considered enemies. If you dont understand the difference between a class alliance and the fact that some people of every class can be progressive, then you prove that its not just 'common sense'


Force is necessary for the people to take power. Right, pretty sure Marx stated that a century prior. Not to mention probably the majority of people who have ever addressed the nature of power.Tell that to the trots and revisionists who are scared of guns.


To be honest, I am ignorant of Mao's philosophical contributions surprise surprise

[southernmissfan]

shut the fuck up you ignorant piece of shit. Mao constantly emphasised the need for proletarian leadership. The fact that he dared to mobilise a class that comprised 90% of china's population seems to be too much for dogmatic eurosupermarxists to understand
And yes there is always a few people from reactionary classes who side with the revolution, thats not the point at all. Mao is on about entire classes being allies. There were a few feudal lords and stuff who joined the communists, but their classes were considered enemies. If you dont understand the difference between a class alliance and the fact that some people of every class can be progressive, then you prove that its not just 'common sense'

First of all, no need to start name calling. It's rude and uncalled for.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. The country was 90% peasant. Exactly how do you suppose to create communism (or even a lasting, meaningful socialism) in such conditions? I have nothing against Mao or Maoists personally. It's simply that they ignore Marxism and believe they can create communism in spite of the material conditions. I understand quite well that he dared to mobilize this huge population. I also understand that this huge population is peasantry, not proletariat. Not the revolutionary class.

Again, by stating how Maoism proposes entire class alliances you just prove why it is not relevant for the "first world" and how it goes against Marxism. The peasantry is NOT the revolutionary class. And really, I don't see how entire classes become allies will result in what we want.


Tell that to the trots and revisionists who are scared of guns.

Well on that I will agree that there is a large section of the "revolutionary" left who seems to have given up on revolution.


surprise surprise

And obviously you have no desire to enlighten me as you ignore the rest of my post.

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you (or any other Maoists for that matter). I simply feel that Maoism as an ideology is flawed because it will not produce communism. I am not doubting their sincerity or the gains they have made but that doesn't change the material conditions in which they operate. I just don't see how communism can take hold in a backwards, under developed country with a population that is 90% peasant. Marx seemed to agree with me.

Maoism is progressive to "third world" countries because it basically plays the role of the progressive bourgeoisie. I imagine they could do a lot of good in a place like Nepal. In Japan or France or Canada? I don't think so.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Southermissfan:


Well that just sounds like common sense. So Mao invented the practice of revolutionaries listening to the masses? But wait, aren't the masses supposed to be the revolutionaries? In the communist revolution I want, the masses will address their problems and not relay their desires to some ruling clique

But, he didn't 'listen to the masses' -- or if he did, there is no evidence that this ever took place:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html


Maoism is progressive to "third world" countries because it basically plays the role of the progressive bourgeoisie. I imagine they could do a lot of good in a place like Nepal.

And, Maoism isn't 'progressive' in the places you mention:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nepali-maoist-s-t147416/index.html

[Paulappaul]

Wait the IWW allows petty-bourgeoisie to join ?? ...
I would not count the petty-bourgeoisie as a potentially revolutionary class in an advanced capitalist country.It's worthwhile understanding what the Petty-Bourgeoisie is today. More then anything it's an ideology that most the working class pertains. It's the idea that if we work hard enough we can be Bourgeois too. If I buy 200 dollar shoes and eat at 5 star restaurants, I can be high class.

Economically, the Petty-Bourgeois are those laborers who in large part, are now wage laborers themselves. The Independent Farmer, teacher, doctor, etc. is gone.

There is no Social Revolution that can take place with just the traditional old working class. It will involve Students, unemployed and Petty-Bourgeois.


And even those who do agree to the necessity of a forceful revolution, they are often not willing to go ahead and empower the people when possible... Too many are just making speeches among themselves and stuff, instead of organising the people...That's easy for you to say for your computer. Fact of the matter is Socialists do alot to empower people in Reality, but you never hear about because there is little to no news of it. It's also to with the fact that there are so view Socialists, that of which are undereducated and undertrained, hence the need for internal education.


If however you mean maoism places the party above ordinary people then youre profoundly mistaken. The party depends on the people. and it doesnt act in their place, it mobilises them. Speaking of contradictions - "the communists should listen to the masses and address their problems, translating popular concerns into revolutionary actions. In China this meant confiscating property of greedy landlords etc"

[Sixiang]

One underrated and short work of his is Where do correct ideas come from. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_01.htm)

I just read it over. Wow. That was good. Of course, I was listening to epic orchestral music in the background, so I imagined Mao saying this in a dramatic and theatrical manner, but it was still pretty interesting despite that. If I can say anything about Mao, I think he was a pretty good writer. I enjoy his poetry and writing style quite a bit.


First of all, no need to start name calling. It's rude and uncalled for.

I agree, let's be nice people. :D I've seen way too many threads get totally derailed with sectarian bantering and name-calling.

[black magick hustla]

his stuff is good toilet paper

[scarletghoul]

First of all, no need to start name calling. It's rude and uncalled for.Yeah sorry about that, I got in a rage and was havin a terrible day.


I think you just hit the nail on the head. The country was 90% peasant. Exactly how do you suppose to create communism (or even a lasting, meaningful socialism) in such conditions? I have nothing against Mao or Maoists personally. It's simply that they ignore Marxism and believe they can create communism in spite of the material conditions. I understand quite well that he dared to mobilize this huge population. I also understand that this huge population is peasantry, not proletariat. Not the revolutionary class. It seems like you're taking a ridiculously rigid and dogmatic ultra-marxist approach to this, by saying that its impossible for a peasant country to achieve socialism/communism, and even saying that the peasantry can not be revolutionary.
What is your view of the worker-peasant alliance in the Russian revolution ? Sure the peasants played a smaller role than in China, but they were still a revolutionary class alongside the proletariat. Of course, a socialist revolution must have proletarian leadership and ideology, and that is a point ever-present in the works of Mao (see for example the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution). This proletarian leadership and ideology led the peasants of China to form communes, rather than go along the standard historical route of capitalist development. In other words, the peasantry is perfectly capable of revolutionary socialism/communism if it is guided by proletarian ideology.

The fact that peasants voluntarily made communes is itself proof, it shouldnt even need any more explaining..


Again, by stating how Maoism proposes entire class alliances you just prove why it is not relevant for the "first world" and how it goes against Marxism. The peasantry is NOT the revolutionary class. And really, I don't see how entire classes become allies will result in what we want. Not sure what you mean here.


And obviously you have no desire to enlighten me as you ignore the rest of my post.I didn't ignore it; i'd addressed the same kind of comments regarding the Mass Line in response to the other guy and didnt see the need to write it twice


I'm not trying to get a rise out of you (or any other Maoists for that matter). I simply feel that Maoism as an ideology is flawed because it will not produce communism. I am not doubting their sincerity or the gains they have made but that doesn't change the material conditions in which they operate. I just don't see how communism can take hold in a backwards, under developed country with a population that is 90% peasant. Marx seemed to agree with me.No country currently is capable of turning into a classless stateless society any time soon.. but if you mean the lower stage of communism/socialism then China certainly did achieve it. We should evaluate movements by the steps they make in developing towards communism, and in fact Red China went further along the communist road than any other country in history. Check out for example the Shanghai Commune.


Maoism is progressive to "third world" countries because it basically plays the role of the progressive bourgeoisie. I imagine they could do a lot of good in a place like Nepal. In Japan or France or Canada? I don't think so.Really you're getting way too hung up on the fact that China was mostly peasant, and ignoring all the other aspects of Maoism and the Chinese Revolution. It is much more than communism/antiimperialism for peasants. There are Maoist parties in countries where there is no peasantry, you're really focussing too much on one side of it

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


I didn't ignore it; i'd addressed the same kind of comments regarding the Mass Line in response to the other guy and didnt see the need to write it twice

You keep banging on about the 'mass line', but there was no mass line.

Or, rather, it should be re-named 'the massive lie'.

[scarletghoul]

Scarlet:



You keep banging on about the 'mass line', but there was no mass line.

Or, rather, it should be re-named 'the massive lie'.
Yes you've made that pun several times now.. its very funny.. well done ..

And I'm not going to spend time debating this because I remember you ended up arguing for pages about how the mass line must be a lie because they didnt go around doing paper surveys for everything, or something like that..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Yes you've made that pun several times now.. its very funny.. well done ..

Not nearly as many times as you have referred to the 'mass line'.


And I'm not going to spend time debating this because I remember you ended up arguing for pages about how the mass line must be a lie because they didnt go around doing paper surveys for everything, or something like that..

In fact, the point was to challenge you and your fellow Maoists to provide evidence that the CCP ever once tried to find out what the masses wanted.

None was forthcoming.

Perhaps you can do better?