I get a lot of flack..

[skizzy]

One of the people a read a lot about and enjoy is Mao. I noticed he gets a lot of crap on here. He isn't the only person I learn from and read about, I just think his ideas and history is severely interesting.
( I know there are like ten thread on this, sorry)
I'm no Maoist but I personally think his works are very good. I don't agree on everything he did or wrote, but if you agree 100 percent with anything you read youre brainwashed. I just want to know a few peoples views on why he gets so much crap.

Yes a lot of people died under his rule. Im not justifying this, but as Iv read, most of this was from putting too much into industrializing and not in to working crops and making food.

So im just curious, is he a negative icon in the leftist movement?

Thank you for your time.

[red cat]

One of the people a read a lot about and enjoy is Mao. I noticed he gets a lot of crap on here. He isn't the only person I learn from and read about, I just think his ideas and history is severely interesting.
( I know there are like ten thread on this, sorry)
I'm no Maoist but I personally think his works are very good. I don't agree on everything he did or wrote, but if you agree 100 percent with anything you read youre brainwashed. I just want to know a few peoples views on why he gets so much crap.

Yes a lot of people died under his rule. Im not justifying this, but as Iv read, most of this was from putting too much into industrializing and not in to working crops and making food.

So im just curious, is he a negative icon in the leftist movement?

Thank you for your time.

On the contrary, the vast majority of leftists, as well as revolutionary communist movements today affiliate to Maoism.

As you have realized yourself, no one ever was 100 percent correct and therefore we always need to evaluate and re-evaluate their works while applying revolutionary criticism. So I suggest that you evaluate Mao in light of the ongoing revolutions, instead of studying his theoretical works alone or falling for the pseudo-communist anti-Maoist propaganda very common in Revleft.

[HalPhilipWalker]

Mao is undeniably one of the iconic figures of communism. While some people might being critical, there are going to be very few communist who are expressly anti-Mao.

[Broletariat]

Mao is undeniably one of the iconic figures of communism. While some people might being critical, there are going to be very few communist who are expressly anti-Mao.

Basically every Left-Communist and Anarchist is going to be anti-state capitalist.

[Lyev]

The first two posts after the OP are composed mostly of hyperbole and falsehoods.
Mao did not grasp class politics, that is for sure. Granted conditions in China were hard - and actually Trotsky commented extensively on the Chinese situation in this period - with a working class population of just under roughly 2%, but peasant-lead guerrilla war is in no tantamount to communism.
As early as 1926 in his selling out of striking workers to the bourgeois Kuomintang; his repression of the Shanghai commune and the class-collaborationism clearly inherent in the theory of 'New Democracy' all vindicate this claim.

[red cat]

The first two posts after the OP are composed mostly of hyperbole and falsehoods.

Please show clearly which portion of my post is composed of falsehood.



Mao did not grasp class politics, that is for sure. Granted conditions in China were hard - and actually Trotsky commented extensively on the Chinese situation in this period - with a working class population of just under roughly 2%, but peasant-lead guerrilla war is in no tantamount to communism.

Commenting was all Trotsky ever did after he was thrown out of the Soviet CP. Why didn't he and his followers actually take care to implement whatever revolutionary action-plan they had for China ?


As early as 1926 in his selling out of striking workers to the bourgeois Kuomintang; his repression of the Shanghai commune and the class-collaborationism clearly inherent in the theory of 'New Democracy' all vindicate this claim.

Who was heading the CPC during this alleged "sellout"? And with which class do south Asian Trotskyites collaborate through practical inactivity and selective propaganda?

[Zanthorus]

Who was heading the CPC during this alleged "sellout"? And with which class do south Asian Trotskyites collaborate through practical inactivity and selective propaganda?

Well, the orders to ally with the Kuomintang actually came from Moscow, but Mao was certainly complicit in the whole deal. According to my notes, at one point during the whole CPC-KMT debacle he even considered abandoning the Communist party and working as a Left-Nationalist within the KMT.

[red cat]

Well, the orders to ally with the Kuomintang actually came from Moscow, but Mao was certainly complicit in the whole deal.

The CPC was not under the leadership of Mao during that period. Mao later criticized the USSR's line on the Chinese revolution.


According to my notes, at one point during the whole CPC-KMT debacle he even considered abandoning the Communist party and working as a Left-Nationalist within the KMT.

During the CPC-GMD alliance, sometimes communists held posts in the GMD. How does this amount to "abandoning" the CP, specially when they led the struggle against the GMD in later years ?

[bricolage]

As you have realized yourself, no one ever was 100 percent correct and therefore we always need to evaluate and re-evaluate their works while applying revolutionary criticism.
What re-evaluation or 'revolutionary criticism' have you done of Mao?

[red cat]

What re-evaluation or 'revolutionary criticism' have you done of Mao?

There are various Maoist criticisms of Mao and the parts PRC line in general. But that is a topic for a different thread.

[Zanthorus]

The CPC was not under the leadership of Mao during that period. Mao later criticized the USSR's line on the Chinese revolution.

What I've got here in front of me (The notes are from Mao by Jonathan Clements, for the record) says that Mao had become a member of the CPC Central Committee.


How does this amount to "abandoning" the CP, specially when they led the struggle against the GMD in later years ?

It wasn't that he simply joined the nationalists, it was that temporarily he declared himself a nationalist rather than a Communist. I supposed I'll just quote the passage I'm relying on here so you can see for yourself:


His successes as a protestor and negotiator gained the apporval of his Communist associates, and he became one of the nine members of the Central Committee of the Commmunist Party... he was soon forced to maintain a dual role by taking part in an attempt to combine Communist aims with those of Sun Yatsen's Nationalists. Like many other Communists, Mao also joined the Nationalists, hoping to pursue revolutionary aims from within... Temporarily, he all but gave up on the Communists, instead declaring himself to the left wing of the Nationalists.(From pages 42-43)

[red cat]

What I've got here in front of me (The notes are from Mao by Jonathan Clements, for the record) says that Mao had become a member of the CPC Central Committee.

He was a CC member, but he was not the main leader. After rightist and leftist deviations in the party, Mao's line was adopted by the CP only in the mid 30s.


It wasn't that he simply joined the nationalists, it was that temporarily he declared himself a nationalist rather than a Communist. I supposed I'll just quote the passage I'm relying on here so you can see for yourself:

(From pages 42-43)

Thanks. But I think that if he really did that, he would definitely write it somewhere in his works in that period.

[skizzy]

From what i'v gathered on both ends. A lot of people want to make up things to credit and discredit him. Iv done a lot of my own research, and I guess I like the see it as hes a great man that made a lot of great mistakes. He is human, I don't expect him to make every right decision. It seems like this community is really split on how to see him, since a lot of "facts" are hard to prove one way or another.

[Broletariat]

From what i'v gathered on both ends. A lot of people want to make up things to credit and discredit him. Iv done a lot of my own research, and I guess I like the see it as hes a great man that made a lot of great mistakes. He is human, I don't expect him to make every right decision. It seems like this community is really split on how to see him, since a lot of "facts" are hard to prove one way or another.

Certain members of the bourgeoisie could be considered a "great man that made a lot of great mistakes." Does this mean we should politically look up to them as a sort of teacher?

[skizzy]

Certain members of the bourgeoisie could be considered a "great man that made a lot of great mistakes." Does this mean we should politically look up to them as a sort of teacher?

Kind of a silly remark. I mean you can take any leader from any view point and say the same thing. I wasn't referring to any member of the bourgeoisie. I was referring to Mao. If you want to condemn someone who makes mistakes , then you really couldn't listen to anyone.

I don't "look up" to him. But having symbols and people to listen to in a movement is a good thing, and all I want to gather is if he is a positive or negative one. Either way, I'm still going to think hes an interesting person.

[Kléber]

Thanks. But I think that if he really did that, he would definitely write it somewhere in his works in that period.
If Mao really opposed the Comintern's line in 1927, then there would be evidence for it in his works of the period. Instead, his writings from the 20's indicate that he followed a rightist line of support for the GMD and lack of faith in the proletariat, right up until the White Terror purge began. The only evidence that Mao opposed the GMD before the purge is from his own statements, years after the fact, when he was leading the party and in a position to cover his tracks.

[RedHal]

I take it you're living in the first world, so of course you're gonna encounter hostilities towards Maoism. The same applies to the make up of revleft. Now if you look at the situation in the real world, what revolutionary leftist groups have been making the ruling classes tremble? Time and time again the most oppressed ppl in the world have taken the banner of Maoism for their liberation.

FFS, Trotskyism is such a threat to the bourgeoisie that they make a teen comedy out of it:laugh:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1295072/

[#FF0000]

I take it you're living in the first world, so of course you're gonna encounter hostilities towards Maoism. The same applies to the make up of revleft. Now if you look at the situation in the real world, what revolutionary leftist groups have been making the ruling classes tremble? Time and time again the most oppressed ppl in the world have taken the banner of Maoism for their liberation.

FFS, Trotskyism is such a threat to the bourgeoisie that they make a teen comedy out of it:laugh:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1295072/

tbh i don't think most of the ruling class give too much of a fuck about maoists in Nepal.

I don't want to bash people doing things and making things happen (however wrong they may be) but honestly, socialists are still barely considered a threat in much of the world and even if someone reps socialism and scares some suits, it doesn't mean they're right.

C'mon, son.

[Amphictyonis]

Mao is dead as are the conditions in China during his lifetime. What do you think the likelihood of the third world overthrowing the first is? Advanced capitalist nations/regions are key to building global communism and the advanced capitalist nations (which now includes China) arent going to convert unless the people in the advanced capitalist nations/regions do so. It won't happen via some war between nation states.

[#FF0000]

Mao is dead as are the conditions in China during his lifetime. What do you think the likelihood of the third world overthrowing the first is? Advanced capitalist nations/regions are key to building global communism and the west isn't going to convert unless the people in the west do so. It won't happen via some war between nation states.

clearly you are a privileged first world labor aristocrat hurf durf

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

clearly you are a privileged first world labor aristocrat hurf durf
Best Mod is Best.

[#FF0000]

Best Mod is Best.

Thanks.

But I don't want to malign Maoists. I disagree with them, greatly, but it's whatever.

The whole "OF COURSE FIRST WORLD PARASITES HATE MAOISM HEH" nonsense is so ridiculous though.

[Scary Monster]

The whole "OF COURSE FIRST WORLD PARASITES HATE MAOISM HEH" nonsense is so ridiculous though.

Thats my first thought after reading the first few posts. Ive never seen anything about Mao which is considered Leftist or pro-working class. Sweatshops, absolutely no workers control in the economy, military alliances with the west (in africa and afghanistan for instance) and several massacres of working class folks. Very Marxist.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I must confess my ignorance regarding Mao and mostly know about him through osmosis. I have heard he's considered a pretty good writer and an excellent guerilla tactician. On the other hand, everything I've read says the Great Leap Forward was disastrous, that it killed 30 million people even, and the Cultural Revolution did a lot of damage as well. I'd be quite interested in hearing what supporters of Mao think of those events.

[Kléber]

FFS, Trotskyism is such a threat to the bourgeoisie that they make a teen comedy out of it:laugh:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1295072/
I thought that was Maoism ;p
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061473/

[red cat]

If Mao really opposed the Comintern's line in 1927, then there would be evidence for it in his works of the period. Instead, his writings from the 20's indicate that he followed a rightist line of support for the GMD and lack of faith in the proletariat, right up until the White Terror purge began. The only evidence that Mao opposed the GMD before the purge is from his own statements, years after the fact, when he was leading the party and in a position to cover his tracks.

While this might have some logic behind it as far as the broad Soviet line is concerned, Mao identifying himself as a nationalist rather than a communist is a claim that definitely requires direct references to Mao's works.

Moreover, as I mentioned before, Mao is not to be held mainly responsible for the CPC following the Soviet line. Neither were his supporters the majority nor was he the de-facto leader of the CC when this rightist deviation took place.

[Kléber]

While this might have some logic behind it as far as the broad Soviet line is concerned, Mao identifying himself as a nationalist rather than a communist is a claim that definitely requires direct references to Mao's works.
I was arguing against the position that Mao opposed both Chen Duxiu and Stalin in 1927. But he certainly adopted facets of bourgeois nationalism into his eclectic ideology; how else do you explain "New Democracy," the "Bloc of Four Classes" and an alliance with the "patriotic bourgeoisie?" Furthermore, Mao's party used white terror against the revolutionary people, time and time again. Just look at the end of the Cultural Revolution, hundreds of thousands of leftist workers and farmers were slain by the rightist officers and bureaucrats with the approval and encouragement of Mao and Lin Biao.


Moreover, as I mentioned before, Mao is not to be held mainly responsible for the CPC following the Soviet line. Neither were his supporters the majority nor was he the de-facto leader of the CC when this rightist deviation took place.Of course not. Actually, Mao's leadership may well have saved the desperate militarized remnants of CPC after the Zunyi Conference whereas Otto Braun and Zhang Guotao may have led it to destruction. But his claim to have resisted the rightist line in 1927 was absolutely false.

[red cat]

I was arguing against the position that Mao opposed both Chen Duxiu and Stalin in 1927. But he certainly adopted facets of bourgeois nationalism into his eclectic ideology; how else do you explain "New Democracy," the "Bloc of Four Classes" and an alliance with the "patriotic bourgeoisie?"

Those theories do not represent bourgeois nationalism but rather an accurate analysis of classes in an average semi-feudal semi-colonial country.


Furthermore, Mao's party used white terror against the revolutionary people, time and time again. Just look at the end of the Cultural Revolution, hundreds of thousands of leftist workers and farmers were slain by the rightist officers and bureaucrats with the approval and encouragement of Mao and Lin Biao.Some convincing proof of these, please ?


Of course not. Actually, Mao's leadership may well have saved the desperate militarized remnants of CPC after the Zunyi Conference whereas Otto Braun and Zhang Guotao may have led it to destruction. But his claim to have resisted the rightist line in 1927 was absolutely false.While there is no work of Mao directly against the rightist line before the initial defeat, his analysis of classes in China clearly stated the presence of extreme right wing elements within the GMD and that only the proletariat could lead a successful revolution while the role of the national bourgeoisie would be limited to that of a vacillating ally.