What was the intellectual level of Mao Tse-Tung?

[CesareBorgia]

As I understand it, he only spoke one language and only traveled outside of China twice in his life, and those were trips to the Soviet Union, when Mao was well over 55.

A lot of his ideas remind me of pre-Marxist socialist ideas.

I unfortunately am unable to read Chinese. Judging from the translations I have read, Mao's works, and especially his theoretical writings, seem lumpish and jejune; in comparison even Stalin gives the impression of a powerful theorist.

I say this cautiously, as I do not know Chinese and only have a rudimentary grasp of Chinese culture and history.

I would like a discussion on this subject. And I also have a few additional questions concerning Mao Tse-Tung;

1. Which dialect of Chinese did Mao speak, if more than one, please explain and provide a timeline.

2. Is there any interesting accounts of Mao's meeting with people of his era you can recommend? Not having to do with Nixon though, more interested in Che, Ho, African and Asian leaders, his two month stay in the USSR etc. Also, how come a meeting between Mao and Hoxha never occurred?

3. What is Mao's record in the third world? It seems he supported some reactionary movements.

4. Do you consider the Chinese revolution a socialist revolution in the Marxist sense?

5. What relevancy, if any, does Mao Tse-Tung and 'Maoism' have in the modern world?

6. Did Lin Biao plan to stage a coup? any good sources on this matter, please.

7. Do you believe Mao had any serious knowledge of Marxism on par with Lenin?



Thank you very much.

[caramelpence]

1. Which dialect of Chinese did Mao speak, if more than one, please explain and provide a timeline.

He famously spoke with a heavy Hunan accent, but the actual language he spoke was Mandarin Chinese. As an aside, it's probably not helpful to see Cantonese and Mandarin (for example) as separate dialects, the same being true of provincial and local languages like Shanghaiese, because the differences are more radical than those we normally associate with the concept of a dialect.

****

Mao was doubtless a very intelligent man - as you know if you've read through some of his works he was well-read in the classics of Chinese history and literature because he often drew on classical allusions in order to make political arguments, so in a literary sense at least he was probably more sophisticated than other Marxist theorists such as Lenin. He was also a brilliant strategist both in terms of military decision-making (for example, the decision to push for the establishment of the base area in Yenan rather than supporting Zhang Guotao's plan to establish a base in Sichuan where the CPC would be surrounded by hostile national minorities) and also in terms of politics - one can argue with some credibility that, during the War of Liberation, it was Mao's leadership that was decisive, as he repeatedly emphasized the importance of creating a broad front that would draw on the support of middle and rich peasants as well as urban elites (like students and pro-Communist capitalists) rather than pursuing radical egalitarianism in the countryside, which would have narrowed the CPC's support base, and in fact did, during a radical and destructive episode in 1947, during which some cadres pushed for the expropriation of rich and middle peasant property in order to obtain a perfectly equal distribution of agrarian property. However, was he a Marxist theorist or a philosopher? I doubt it. The availability of Marxist texts was highly limited in China during the May 4th period, which was when Marxism first became influential amongst intellectuals. He was more a romantic populist revolutionary whose thought was underpinned by a mixture of Chinese nationalism and anarchism. There were much more sophisticated Chinese Marxists that we should be proud of - Chen Duxiu, Wang Fanxi, and Peng Shuzi, for example.

Incidentally, "Mao Tse-Tung" is a very archaic way of writing Mao's name. In pinyin, the current and most effective way of transliterating Chinese, it's Mao Zedong. Liu Shaoqi, not Liu Shao-chi, Deng Xiaoping, not Teng Xiao-ping, and so on.

[red cat]

This thread is expected to start a tendency war in no time. :)


A lot of his ideas remind me of pre-Marxist socialist ideas.

I unfortunately am unable to read Chinese. Judging from the translations I have read, Mao's works, and especially his theoretical writings, seem lumpish and jejune; in comparison even Stalin gives the impression of a powerful theorist.

:lol:

Which works of Mao have you read ? You have realized only half the facts. Stalin was a powerful theoretician, only next to Lenin. Mao was an even more powerful one.



2. Is there any interesting accounts of Mao's meeting with people of his era you can recommend? Not having to do with Nixon though, more interested in Che, Ho, African and Asian leaders, his two month stay in the USSR etc. Also, how come a meeting between Mao and Hoxha never occurred?Mao did meet Hoxha.



5. What relevancy, if any, does Mao Tse-Tung and 'Maoism' have in the modern world?
All of the other leftist tendencies combined are numerically dwarfed by Maoists. Also, a vast majority of the revolutionary armed struggles and liberated zones of today are Maoist. Does that answer your question ?


7. Do you believe Mao had any serious knowledge of Marxism on par with Lenin?

:lol:

[CesareBorgia]

All of the other leftist tendencies combined are numerically dwarfed by Maoists. Also, a vast majority of the revolutionary armed struggles and liberated zones of today are Maoist. Does that answer your question ?
:lol:


What do you mean by "leftist tendencies?" Can you state some facts and comparative numbers of the tendencies?


Tell me more about the 'liberated zones' I assume you mean Nepal, the Philippines?

Also, what do Mao's theories offer the countries that aren't backward? Even Colombia, a country often associated with insurgency and 'liberated zones' is today 80% urban.

[Rooster]

All of the other leftist tendencies combined are numerically dwarfed by Maoists.

I don't think that line of reasoning is particularly solid. Should the Bolsheviks have been ignored because they were a minority party?

[red cat]

What do you mean by "leftist tendencies?" Can you state some facts and comparative numbers of the tendencies?

Hoxhaists, anarchists, MLs, Trotskyites etc. Not hardcore Dengists. Basically any group that at least theoretically upholds the idea of a proletarian revolution against capitalism.

From what I hear about various non-Maoist leftist movements all over the world, I doubt whether their number exceeds a few hundred thousands. Among these, the FARC is several thousands, Zapatistas probably a few thousands too, and same with certain big anarchist groups in Greece and western Europe.

The total number of Maoists is unknown, but local militia gatherings in the order of tens of thousands are pretty common in south Asia. So the total number should be well above hundred times of that.


Tell me more about the 'liberated zones' I assume you mean Nepal, the Philippines?I don't know very well about the Philippines, and the current status of those in Nepal. So we can look at the ones in India instead.


Also, what do Mao's theories offer the countries that aren't backward? Even Colombia, a country often associated with insurgency and 'liberated zones' is today 80% urban.Mao's theory for developed countries is mainly Leninism along with the continuation of class struggle within socialism, and the fight against the bourgeoisie in all fronts.

[red cat]

I don't think that line of reasoning is particularly solid. Should the Bolsheviks have been ignored because they were a minority party?

For how long were they a minority party, considering their groundwork among the state military and urban proletariat?

[CesareBorgia]

Mao's theory for developed countries is mainly Leninism along with the continuation of class struggle within socialism, and the fight against the bourgeoisie in all fronts.

What is a 'fight against the bourgeoisie on all fronts?"

And isn't a "continuation of the class struggle within socialism" something Stalin came up with to justify his own repressive power years after classes had officially been eliminated?

Is there not a huge divergence between the ideas of Marx/ Lenin and this theory?

[CesareBorgia]

For how long were they a minority party, considering their groundwork among the state military and urban proletariat?

They never had more than a few thousand members between 1903-1917 as I understand.

And Lenin's idea of a party was a small group of professional revolutionaries, not a 20million man party of bureaucrats.

Quality > Quantity

[Lord Testicles]

What was the intellectual level of Mao Tse-Tung?

I think the important question is; What was the theoretical level of Mao Tse-Tung?

[CesareBorgia]

I think the important question is; What was the theoretical level of Mao Tse-Tung?

Read the op please.

[red cat]

What is a 'fight against the bourgeoisie on all fronts?"

And isn't a "continuation of the class struggle within socialism" something Stalin came up with to justify his own repressive power years after classes had officially been eliminated?

Is there not a huge divergence between the ideas of Marx/ Lenin and this theory?

Prior to the USSR, the international proletariat had no experience of running a socialist state. Even the dynamics of conducting a full-fledged insurrection to overthrow a capitalist state and maintain power were largely unknown, let alone the contradictions that would arise in a socialist society. After the old bourgeoisie was wiped out, the concept of struggle during Stalin's time was at best removing some rogue elements from the CP. As Stalin himself stated in 1936:


Unlike bourgeois constitutions, the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. proceeds from the fact that there are no longer any antagonistic classes in society; that society consists of two friendly classes, of workers and peasants; that it is these classes, the labouring classes, that are in power; that the guidance of society by the state (the dictatorship) is in the hands of the working class, the most advanced class in society, that a constitution is needed for the purpose of consolidating a social order desired by, and beneficial to, the working people.

- Stalin,
On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R

This was an erroneous and suicidal conclusion on Stalin's part. As Mao noted, after cleansing the society of the old capitalists, new capitalists emerge right inside the CP. This is because, due to unequal development, the initial stages of socialism are state capitalism working for the proletariat. Therefore the members of the CP or state machinery who work against the proletariat are actually state-capitalists who try to sabotage the revolution.

The USSR had concentrated on making economic advancements alone and aiding external revolutions, while the state machinery was used to deal with reactionaries. So the new bourgeoisie as a class got ample opportunity to first infest the superstructure and then reverse the whole socialist process to ultimately bring back the capitalist infrastructure. Mao realized this and deduced that the working class must wage struggle against the new bourgeoisie in all fronts; the political, cultural, military and economic fields. Only then can socialism be successfully defended.


They never had more than a few thousand members between 1903-1917 as I understand.

Still, they were the majority group in terms of influence among the urban proletariat. That is why they were called Bolsheviks. Also, a revolutionary group rapidly increases its size, just like the Bolsheviks did. The smaller so-called leftist groups that have remained that way for many years are evidently alienated from the working class.


And Lenin's idea of a party was a small group of professional revolutionaries, not a 20million man party of bureaucrats.

Quality > Quantity

20 million party of bureaucrats means almost everyone in the society is a bureaucrat. :lol:

A small group of professional revolutionaries can turn very quickly into a dictatorial reactionary center. A bigger party consisting of professional revolutionaries and a large number of part-timers from the working class favours class struggle inside the party.

[CesareBorgia]

Still, they were the majority group in terms of influence among the urban proletariat. That is why they were called Bolsheviks.

They were called 'Bolsheviks' because of a split in the bigger social-democratic party. Most delegates at a meeting in 1903 voted for Lenin's view on a certain subject. How you translate this to influence among the urban proletariat, idk.



20 million party of bureaucrats means almost everyone in the society is a bureaucrat. :lol:

A small group of professional revolutionaries can turn very quickly into a dictatorial reactionary center. A bigger party consisting of professional revolutionaries and a large number of part-timers from the working class favours class struggle inside the party.

This is a repudiation of Lenins view of the party. Is it not?

And I didnt quote the part but how does Stalins 'theory' of "Aggravation of class struggle under socialism" differ from Mao's?

[red cat]

They were called 'Bolsheviks' because of a split in the bigger social-democratic party. Most delegates at a meeting in 1903 voted for Lenin's view on a certain subject. How you translate this to influence among the urban proletariat, idk.

My bad there, sorry. However, Bolsheviks did increase in number very rapidly due to their revolutionary activities.


This is a repudiation of Lenins view of the party. Is it not?

Yes. Maoism differs from the theories of Marx and Lenin on more than one question.


And I didnt quote the part but how does Stalins 'theory' of "Aggravation of class struggle under socialism" differ from Mao's?

Quoting the part will help.

[CesareBorgia]

]

Quoting the part will help.

How does Stalins 'theory' of "Aggravation of class struggle under socialism" differ from Mao's "continuation of the class struggle within socialism?"

[red cat]

How does Stalins 'theory' of "Aggravation of class struggle under socialism" differ from Mao's "continuation of the class struggle within socialism?"

I am losing you here. I thought you would quote some work of Stalin. Anyways, two major points are that Maoists recognize the existence of antagonistic classes in socialism, and that the masses challenging and rebelling against the CP and state apparatus under socialism is a valid form of class struggle as well.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

In passing, Mao was also an extraordinarily skillful calligrapher - something that in traditional Chinese culture has a much wider political and intellectual resonance than it would elsewhere.

[caramelpence]

In passing, Mao was also an extraordinarily skillful calligrapher - something that in traditional Chinese culture has a much wider political and intellectual resonance than it would elsewhere.

Indeed - and it's interesting that Maoists outside of China and especially in Western Europe often cited his poetry as one of the most attractive things about him, above and beyond his more political output, let alone official propaganda publications like Peking Review!

[RedStarOverChina]

This isn't a very intelligent question, I'm afraid.

Regardless whether you agree with Mao's ideas (I don't), there's no denying that Mao was a brilliant man, possibly the most brilliant of all Chinese statesmen. Of course, that is not the same as saying he's infallible or even always just.

Mao's literary prowess (as well as calligraphy) puts all his contemporary literati to shame, yet he could also communicate and connect with ordinary peasants from all over China and they would instantly realize that this man understands their situation and wants to help. That alone is more than I can say of any other politician I can think of.

He led a couple thousand of a defeated peasant rebels through the Long March and difficulties that are hard to imagine, nervermind endure. Then he led his ragtag peasant army to an astonishing victory against the most colossal military force in the world--an army that was armed first by the Germans and then by the Americans.

Politically he and his party unified China and pretty much modernized a post-war country in utter ruins, despite his many cunning and powerful rivals both within and outside the party.

Despite Mao's limitations, one has to admit that nobody gets to play that kind of role in history just by being extremely lucky.


If you take Mao for a simpleton just because much of what he wrote seemed "lumpish and jejune" (who on Earth uses words like that??) then perhaps it is you who exhibit signs of immaturity, as well as elitist self-importance.

Much of what Mao wrote were targeted towards the less-educated masses. Around 93% of the Chinese population was illiterate at the time, you see. He always paid careful attention to make sure that his writings are as accessible to the as many people as possible.

His military strategies and orders, for example, are carefully written to be easily understood and remembered by the often ill-educated lower ranking cadres. Whenever he used a idiom or an anecdote in his writings, he always explained the meaning and historic significance to his readers, who may likely be less educated.

Often times it does feel like he treats his readers like children, but his strategy worked. His writings were widely circulated and appreciated by a wide range of audience.

[caramelpence]

Mao's literary prowess (as well as calligraphy) puts all his contemporary literati to shame

Uh, I wouldn't go that far, non-CPC-member Lu Xun, Mao Dun, and Hu Shi were all pretty good.


He led a couple thousand of a defeated peasant rebels through the Long March and difficulties that are hard to imagine, nervermind endure. Then he led his ragtag peasant army to an astonishing victory

Well, not quite. Whatever the original social composition of the PLA, one of the interesting things about the army as it fought during the War of Liberation was that it certainly was not a peasant army, despite that being the first characterization that we would go for - the conduct of land reform was actually counter-productive in terms of peasant recruitment because the fact that peasants had access to their own land (or land that was sufficient to support themselves without having to also be tenants) for the first time (even in Manchuria, where patterns of land ownership tended more towards independent small-holding rather than widespread tenancy) meant that they were less likely to want to join the war as combatants except out of idealism or when subject to pressure by the village authorities. It was for this reason that the PLA was quite heterogenous in its composition - whilst based in Manchuria, the party recruited from amongst the adherents of local strongmen and bandit chiefs, as had been the case throughout their military experience, as well as amongst people who had been displaced by the war, and after the KMT suffered military defeats in the North a substantial number of the soldiers who had been taken prisoner, injured, or left behind by their officers also joined the PLA. In fact, according to some estimates, by late 1948 almost half of those serving with the PLA armies had, at some point, been fighting on the opposite side, but had defected, not only because the PLA provided better conditions, but also because they were likely to be punished if they went back to the KMT.

The party's military strategy was also based much more around massive forms of warfare, supported by modern weaponry, and the supply of whole armies rather than guerilla groups, so the War of Liberation shouldn't be romanticized as a guerilla conflict either. Which brings us onto:


against the most colossal military force in the world--an army that was armed first by the Germans and then by the Americans.

Really? You overstate the importance of the KMT's foreign military training. At the beginning of the War of Resistance, Chiang had two million troops but only 300,000 of those had been equipped with German weapons and of those only 80,000 had the training that was needed to make the weapons effective - and much of the training that they did receive was in WW1-era tactics. As for the Americans, during the War of Resistance, Lend Lease for China never accounted for more than 5% of all Lend Lease expenditure, which gives some indication of how much importance the US attributed to China, and, whilst the KMT did receive more weapons during the War of Liberation, many of those weapons found their way into the hands of the PLA, and the Soviet Union also passed on captured Japanese weapons to the CPC, so the military disparity was not as great as you make out. The KMT was really not "the most colossal military force in the world" as throughout the War of Resistance there were serious problems of political interference and coordination in the armies (as indicated by the number of generals who eventually defected to the Japanese) and the conditions of the troops were such that they were generally not in a position to fight - I'm sure you're aware of the details, but one anecdote that comes up and which demonstrates what conditions were like in the KMT armies quite well is that KMT soldiers were likely to receive less meat than the dogs that American soldiers kept in their barracks in the pacific theatre.

This, combined with the problems that the KMT inherited as they returned to the cities and their ineptitude in dealing with those problems, means that, as important as the Chinese Revolution was, it really wasn't that surprising that the CPC won the civil war.

[Patchd]

Intellectual level of mao +2

[RED DAVE]

This is because, due to unequal development, the initial stages of socialism are state capitalism working for the proletariat.This is a justification for what the Maoists are doing in Nepal, which is esablishing a bourgeois state whose purpose it is to carrying on a nonproletarian regime. And it is there same thing they did in China.


Therefore the members of the CP or state machinery who work against the proletariat are actually state-capitalists who try to sabotage the revolution.How do you distinguish between the state capitalists within the party and the real revolutionaries? Are they the same?

If there are actually forces within the Nepalese Maoist party that are for capitalism, why aren't the Marxists within the party either trying to get them expelled or splitting to for a real Marxist party.

And, by the way, if this is your line red cat, why is it that you are not denouncing the pro-capitalists within the Maoists? Why weren't you denouncing them a year or so ago when it was clear that, for example, the so-called Prachandra Path in Nepal was headed straight for state capitalism?

Do you really believe that the role of a Marxist party in, say, Nepal, is to build capitalism?

RED DAVE

[red cat]

This is a justification for what the Maoists are doing in Nepal, which is esablishing a bourgeois state whose purpose it is to carrying on a nonproletarian regime. And it is there same thing they did in China.

In that case Lenin must have foreseen the future and decided to justify the actions of Maoists.

How do you distinguish between the state capitalists within the party and the real revolutionaries? Are they the same?Those who want to halt the development of the revolution towards communism by subordinating the interests of workers to that of the bureaucracy or remnants of the bourgeoisie are state-capitalists. But those who see state capitalism only as a stage required for the working class to gain direct control of the means of production, and hence use state-capitalism to move towards communism, are revolutionaries.


If there are actually forces within the Nepalese Maoist party that are for capitalism, why aren't the Marxists within the party either trying to get them expelled or splitting to for a real Marxist party. How do you know what they are trying and what they aren't?


And, by the way, if this is your line red cat, why is it that you are not denouncing the pro-capitalists within the Maoists?Communists denouncing or criticizing a line follow processes other than making half-educated comments about it in a public forum.


Why weren't you denouncing them a year or so ago when it was clear that, for example, the so-called Prachandra Path in Nepal was headed straight for state capitalism?It was even clearer that which direction a portion of the leadership was taking after they said that Trotskyism was more relevant than Stalin's works. But that didn't change the norm that we primarily defend a revolutionary CP and oppose its line in the correct places.


Do you really believe that the role of a Marxist party in, say, Nepal, is to build capitalism?

RED DAVECapitalism and new democracy are two different things.

[black magick hustla]

Bordiga thought that mao zedong was one of the last "romantic bourgeois revolutionaries", and I think he said that positively. Mao was a brilliant man and I don't think it is productive to attack his intellect. He was almost completely self-taught and he was well read in chinese classics etc.

Was he a marxist theorist? I don't think so. Maoism is probably more similar to some of the less "marxist" wings of anarchist thought because that where it has its roots, and popular nationalism.

[RedSunRising]

Maoism is probably more similar to some of the less "marxist" wings of anarchist thought because that where it has its roots, and popular nationalism.

Where do you see the anarchism in Mao's thought?

[Ocean Seal]

Regardless of what you think of his writings Mao took a pre-industrialized, imperialized nation and turned it into an industrialized, socialist nation. He brought rural healthcare to hundreds of millions of peasants, and created what would become one of the most influential theories in the developing countries worldwide. The man's vision, I would say was on parallel with Marx. Now as for what Mao would have scored on the IQ test (otherwise known as the semen value test) or the SAT's, that I cannot tell you. But did the man understand Marxism, and in his actions was he very intelligent. Absolutely.

[Rooster]

Regardless of what you think of his writings Mao took a pre-industrialized, imperialized nation and turned it into an industrialized, socialist nation. He brought rural healthcare to hundreds of millions of peasants, and created what would become one of the most influential theories in the developing countries worldwide. The man's vision, I would say was on parallel with Marx. Now as for what Mao would have scored on the IQ test (otherwise known as the semen value test) or the SAT's, that I cannot tell you. But did the man understand Marxism, and in his actions was he very intelligent. Absolutely.

Did most of that not happen after Mao lost power within the party?

[Revolutionair]

Capitalism and new democracy are two different things.

Which mode of production is used by 'new democracy'? If it the answer is: production for market-exchange, then 'new democracy' IS capitalist. Just like liberal democracies and fascist states are based on the capitalist mode of production.

[RedSunRising]

Which mode of production is used by 'new democracy'? If it the answer is: production for market-exchange, then 'new democracy' IS capitalist. Just like liberal democracies and fascist states are based on the capitalist mode of production.

I dont think societies are as simple as that, for instance you can have capitalist production side by side with feudalism, capitalist relations of course will exist under a "new democracy" but under proletarian control of the state and side by side with other forms of production. "New Democracy" though is essentially a fluid state and can either go towards full blown capitalism or towards communism (hence the violent nature of many of the struggles of the GPCR).

[Aspiring Humanist]

Should the Bolsheviks have been ignored because they were a minority party?


Bolshevik literally translates to "majority"

herp derp

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Regardless of what you think of his writings Mao took a pre-industrialized, imperialized nation and turned it into an industrialized, socialist nation. He brought rural healthcare to hundreds of millions of peasants, and created what would become one of the most influential theories in the developing countries worldwide. The man's vision, I would say was on parallel with Marx. Now as for what Mao would have scored on the IQ test (otherwise known as the semen value test) or the SAT's, that I cannot tell you. But did the man understand Marxism, and in his actions was he very intelligent. Absolutely.

yep, mao did all of this singlehandedly. he was 1000 feet tall, had laser beams that shot out of his eyes and just had a few peasants following sheepishly.

[Commissar Rykov]

yep, mao did all of this singlehandedly. he was 1000 feet tall, had laser beams that shot out of his eyes and just had a few peasants following sheepishly.

Tell me more about Mecha-Mao Comrade.

[Queercommie Girl]

In passing, Mao was also an extraordinarily skillful calligrapher - something that in traditional Chinese culture has a much wider political and intellectual resonance than it would elsewhere.

Not just in Chinese culture, but in East Asian culture in general this is true. Calligraphy is also an important art form in countries like Korea and Japan.

[Rooster]

herp derp

"The two factions were originally known as "hard" (Lenin's supporters) and "soft" (Martov's supporters). Soon, however, the terminology changed to "Bolsheviks" and "Mensheviks", from the Russian "bolshinstvo" (majority) and "menshinstvo" (minority), based on the fact that Lenin's supporters narrowly defeated Martov's supporters on the question of party membership. Neither Lenin nor Martov had a firm majority throughout the Congress as delegates left or switched sides. At the end, the Congress was evenly split between the two factions."

[Queercommie Girl]

What is a 'fight against the bourgeoisie on all fronts?"

And isn't a "continuation of the class struggle within socialism" something Stalin came up with to justify his own repressive power years after classes had officially been eliminated?

Is there not a huge divergence between the ideas of Marx/ Lenin and this theory?

What? Are you seriously saying that classes were completely eliminated in the USSR?

Sorry, but communism will never be a static "perfect world". There will always be the need for vigilance against reactionary elements.

The price of eternal vigilance is liberty; The price of eternal revolution is communism.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. The fact is that Soviet bureaucrats like Khruschev largely damped down the need for further class struggles in the USSR, since they were afraid that such movements would undermine their bureaucratic privileges.

[Queercommie Girl]

Did most of that not happen after Mao lost power within the party?

Nope. Most of China's industrial infrastructure was laid down in the Maoist years. Much of the current economic growth in China is either unsustainable or part of the bubble economy.

Also, Marxists put economic equality and worker's conditions before mere economic progress. The Ginni Index of Maoist China was around 0.18 - 0.2. The Ginni Index of China today is around 0.5. This would tell you something if you are a socialist.

[Queercommie Girl]

I unfortunately am unable to read Chinese. Judging from the translations I have read, Mao's works, and especially his theoretical writings, seem lumpish and jejune;


The "ultra-leftists" on RevLeft would argue that one reason Marxism remains inaccessible for many workers today is precisely because it is too abstract and intellectual, and indeed not "lumpish and jejune" enough.

[Queercommie Girl]

I dont think societies are as simple as that, for instance you can have capitalist production side by side with feudalism, capitalist relations of course will exist under a "new democracy" but under proletarian control of the state and side by side with other forms of production. "New Democracy" though is essentially a fluid state and can either go towards full blown capitalism or towards communism (hence the violent nature of many of the struggles of the GPCR).

Not to mention that strictly speaking socialism itself still retains many capitalist elements. Only communism would be completely non-capitalist.

[Ocean Seal]

yep, mao did all of this singlehandedly. he was 1000 feet tall, had laser beams that shot out of his eyes and just had a few peasants following sheepishly.
The question was: what was the intellectual level of Mao, and Mao did his part to make those things a realization which require his intellect.

Also Mao's power levels were over 9000, so I'll have to take your claims quite seriously.

[Queercommie Girl]

They never had more than a few thousand members between 1903-1917 as I understand.

And Lenin's idea of a party was a small group of professional revolutionaries, not a 20million man party of bureaucrats.

Quality > Quantity

Nope. Lenin's idea was a party that is firmed rooted in the various layers of the working class as a whole.

Frankly, a small group of elitist "professional" revolutionaries would be even more problematic, from the point of view of worker's democracy, than a party of 20 million largely low level bureaucrats and professional workers.

Quality > Quantity doesn't work in the long-term or in any ultimate sense if you consider worker's democracy to be central to genuine socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes. Maoism differs from the theories of Marx and Lenin on more than one question.


Maoism is technically a continuation of Marxism-Leninism, not its refutation in any way.

Lenin never had in mind the creation of some kind of small elitist party that is cut off from the working masses at large. What the OP is suggesting is anti-Lenin reactionary non-sense. The very idea of a socialist revolution as some kind of semi-secretive coup pulled off by a small armed elite is frankly completely reprehensible for genuine socialists, since such methods have more in common with the coups of right-wing military dictators like Pinochet.

The October Revolution led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks would certainly never have happened without mass working class support. The 1917 Revolution was certainly a democratic revolution in this sense. Only right-wing anti-Lenin historians like Figes would paint Lenin as some kind of "quasi-military dictator" who violently seized political power.

The OP's ideological views are very problematic. For me it's not that he is being critical of Maoism, it's that he is not even criticising Maoism from the right direction. Saying that Maoism is wrong because it wasn't under the absolute control of a small professional revolutionary elite? WTF?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Where do you see the anarchism in Mao's thought?


The distinguishing element of the Maoist approach to classes in the socialist period was that Mao and his supporters saw antagonistic class struggle resulting not merely from remnants of previously existing classes-as both the Stalinian problematic and that of Deng Xiaoping hold-but also from newly generated antagonistic, nonproletarian class elements.

I don't think it's hard to draw similarities between Mao's views regarding new, privileged elites and arrogant intellectuals (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_50.htm) arising in a so-called socialist society and the dangers that Bakunin wrote about, regarding "a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars". Perhaps one could also say that the Maoist program of mass participation and such was similar to what anarchists called for, but this is a more problematic comparison, seeing as how the mass line was intended to steer the party and such.

In any case, the Chinese anarchists who did live during that period like Ba Jin weren't exactly treated very well during the Maoist tenure.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think it's hard to draw similarities between Mao's views regarding new, privileged elites and arrogant intellectuals (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_50.htm) arising in a so-called socialist society and the dangers that Bakunin wrote about, regarding "a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars".


I don't know about Bakunin, but Mao's relationship with intellectuals is an interesting and double-sided (or "dialectical") one, because on the other hand he spoke a lot against many intellectuals, but on the other hand Mao was actually very intellectually accomplished in many ways himself, and indeed he kept long-term friendships with many Chinese scholars of worth.

I think Mao's argument against the intelligentsia is more against its more elitist, corrupt and reactionary layers rather than against them as a whole or in any intrinsic sense. But it's true that in the Chinese historical context, Trotskyism is actually a more intellectual tradition than Maoism is. Consider for instance that the founder of the Chinese Communist Party and the later leader of the Chinese Trotskyist Left Opposition, Chen Duxiu, was actually the Dean of Beijing University. (In other words, not just an intellectual, but a big intellectual) No wonder then that Mao labelled Chen Duxiu as a "right-leaning opportunist". (A point which I don't agree with personally)

(Of course Mao was also very anti-Confucian which is linked with his general views of the Chinese intelligentsia. Chen Duxiu on the other hand, had a much more balanced evaluation of Confucianism in his article Confucius and China)

So the stereotype of the "Trot nerds" may not be really applicable in the West, but it is quite applicable in China. Historically in China there had been a large number of petit-intellectuals, intellectuals and students involved in the Trotskyist movement in general. Most of the old Trots based in Hong Kong are from petit-intellectual layers rather than poor working class layers. Most Chinese Trots are indeed nerds. That's not a stereotype, but an objective fact. ("Nerd" is not to be taken in any negative way here)

[caramelpence]

No wonder then that Mao labelled Chen Duxiu as a "right-leaning opportunist".

Uh, that wasn't why Mao (and Zhou Enlai) characterized Chen Duxiu in those terms. After all, they didn't say the same thing about Li Dazhao (head librarian at Beida) or Cai Yuanpei (Chancellor) as far as I know. They did so on the basis of the slanderous lie that Chen Duxiu had supported the policies of the first united front, specifically the "bloc within" approach to allying with the KMT, when he didn't, and neither did any of the other founding members of the CPC.

[Queercommie Girl]

Uh, that wasn't why Mao (and Zhou Enlai) characterized Chen Duxiu in those terms. They did so on the basis of the slanderous lie that Chen Duxiu had supported the policies of the first united front, specifically the "bloc within" approach to allying with the KMT, when he didn't, and neither did any of the other founding members of the CPC.

However, Chen's class background would have been a factor too.

Incidentally Chen did collaborate with the KMT which led to the tragic defeat of the first Chinese Revolution in 1927. (Chen was still the leader of the CCP at the time) However, it wasn't really Chen's fault as such, since he was merely taking orders from Moscow at the time.

[caramelpence]

However, Chen's class background would have been a factor too

Whereas, what, Zhou Enlai was anything other than the son of the gentry? Mao himself was the son of a rich/middle peasant...there's no indication that Mao and Zhou called Chen Duxiu a "right-opportunist" for any reason other than their desire to slander him and cover up the domineering role of Stalin and the Comintern. They were liars who wanted to slander Chen Duxiu.


However, it wasn't really Chen's fault as such, since he was merely taking orders from Moscow at the time.

I know, probably in more detail than you to be honest. It wasn't Chen's fault at all, let alone "not really" or "as such". If we're going to be snarky about it, then technically the people that the CPC was made to take orders from were in China at the time - i.e. the Comintern representatives Maring and Borodin.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Not just in Chinese culture, but in East Asian culture in general this is true. Calligraphy is also an important art form in countries like Korea and Japan.

Calligraphy plays a specific role in Chinese POLITICAL culture, going back to the theories of Dong Qichang in the late Ming XVI-XVIIc and rooted in the application of Confucian theory to the training of the Chinese bureaucracy. So, the writing of a ruler was a window on his/her moral character.

When you find similar ideas, say, in Japanese culture (as in the theory of the "four accomplishments of a gentleman"), they're usually a pale reflection of Chinese theory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know about Bakunin, but Mao's relationship with intellectuals is an interesting and double-sided (or "dialectical") one, because on the other hand he spoke a lot against many intellectuals, but on the other hand Mao was actually very intellectually accomplished in many ways himself

Bakunin received a prestigious education as a child, could speak at least three languages fluently (French, Russian & German) and voraciously read, including the works of Rousseau, Hegel and his contemporaries like Marx and Lavrov. Wrong-headed on some issues he may have been, but a dummy he certainly wasn't.

Such is the irony of many "anti-intellectuals".

[Queercommie Girl]

Whereas, what, Zhou Enlai was anything other than the son of the gentry? Mao himself was the son of a rich/middle peasant...


Nope. Mao was actually from a relatively poor middle peasant family. Hardly kulak.

Also, just because one is not from a working class background doesn't mean one cannot be a genuine socialist. Neither Marx nor Engels were from working class backgrounds. But I don't think that's the point you are making here.



there's no indication that Mao and Zhou called Chen Duxiu a "right-opportunist" for any reason other than their desire to slander him and cover up the domineering role of Stalin and the Comintern.
I didn't say it was the explicit reason that was officially stated. However, later on many Maoists did comment on Chen's supposed elitist intellectual background to argue that he was never a genuine revolutionary to begin with.

Mao never completely rejected Chen Duxiu though. He generally thought that Chen Duxiu was partly good and partly bad. There isn't the kind of gap between Chen and Mao as there is between Trotsky and Stalin. The Chinese context is somewhat different from the Russian one.



I know, probably in more detail than you to be honest. If we're going to be snarky about it, then technically the people that the CPC was made to take orders from were in China at the time - i.e. the Comintern representatives Maring and Borodin.
I'm not "competing" with you here and I'm not being "snarky". :rolleyes:

I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't really Chen's fault, even though technically his collaboration with the KMT did lead to the failure of the revolution.

But apparently I'm not "Trot enough" for you on this matter. :rolleyes: This is partly why frankly both dogmatic Trotskyism and dogmatic Maoism annoys me. I'm more of a non-sectarian Marxist who likes synthesis between the various tendencies.

[Queercommie Girl]

Bakunin received a prestigious education as a child, could speak at least three languages fluently (French, Russian & German) and voraciously read, including the works of Rousseau, Hegel and his contemporaries like Marx and Lavrov. Wrong-headed on some issues he may have been, but a dummy he certainly wasn't.

Such is the irony of many "anti-intellectuals".


This is actually quite an interesting point.

[Queercommie Girl]

Calligraphy plays a specific role in Chinese POLITICAL culture, going back to the theories of Dong Qichang in the late Ming XVI-XVIIc and rooted in the application of Confucian theory to the training of the Chinese bureaucracy. So, the writing of a ruler was a window on his/her moral character.

When you find similar ideas, say, in Japanese culture (as in the theory of the "four accomplishments of a gentleman"), they're usually a pale reflection of Chinese theory.


It's true that calligraphy plays a political role in Neo-Confucian culture, which Japan wasn't, despite absorbing many things from China.

It isn't primarily a national thing. Korea also had a Neo-Confucian culture, even though much of its calligraphy was an imitation of Chinese styles. On the other hand, pre-Neo-Confucian China prior to the Song Dynasty also focussed less on literary pursuits like calligraphy and more on militaristic pursuits like horse-riding, e.g. during the Tang Dynasty.

There isn't a singular "Chinese" culture. When one talks about "traditional Chinese culture", mostly one is referring to the Neo-Confucian civilisation in China from the Song Dynasty onwards. China during the Zhou, Han and Tang Dynasties would be very different places, and indeed very different from each other too.

[caramelpence]

Nope. Mao was actually from a relatively poor middle peasant family. Hardly kulak.

Firstly, I didn't use the word "kulak", which shouldn't be wrenched from its Russian historical context. The Chinese countryside and more especially the countryside of Hunan during the final decades of the Qing was not the same as the Russian countryside under the NEP. Secondly, however much he may have embellished his past, when Mao was discussing his family conflicts with Edgar Snow (I pick this out only because I read it earlier today on Kasama - not for the first time of course) he refers to the fact that "the laborer" took the side of himself and his mother when he came into conflict with his father - the fact that his family was evidently secure enough to hire a laborer rather than having to rent themselves out as laborers or be partial or full tenants is itself evidence that Mao was from a rich or middle family, especially when you consider that, as a central rather than northern province, Hunan was characterized by more tenant farming as opposed to independent small-holding. This, combined with the fact that Mao was able to attend Hunan First Provincial Normal School during early adulthood is ample evidence that Mao was not from a poor background. Not that this matters for his revolutionary credentials or lack thereof, but you brought it up, so...


I didn't say it was the explicit reason that was officially stated. However, later on many Maoists did comment on Chen's supposed elitist intellectual background to argue that he was never a genuine revolutionary to begin with

Whatever "many Maoists" (who?) might have "later" said, unless you have any evidence that Mao or Zhou used the term "right-opportunist" because of Chen's class background, the only sensible conclusion is to accept the argument that is offered as the one that Mao wanted to put forward - namely Chen's alleged responsibility for the first united front.


The Chinese context is somewhat different from the Russian one.

Indeed - probably not a good idea to deny that Mao was a kulak then, as if that could ever be a relevant or meaningful term for China in the 1890s.


I'm merely pointing out that it wasn't really Chen's fault, even though technically his collaboration with the KMT did lead to the failure of the revolution.

"His collaboration" as you put it was the result of the CPC being forced to accept the "bloc within" policy that had been negotiated with Sun by Dalin. You know as well as I do that the CPC initially resisted cooperation with the KMT but was forced to accept the "bloc within" policy at the Hangzhou plenum in 1922 after the Second National Congress, and that it was put in that position against the wishes of the whole of the CEC due to Maring showing his instructions from the Comintern. If you're blaming Chen for not rejecting the Comintern at that moment then frankly that's absurd - the Comintern was a centralist organization that could direct the activities of its parties, and Marxism in China and the CPC were both highly underdeveloped at that point, in terms of the range of Marx texts that were available, the strength of homegrown Marxist thought, and the logistical resources of the party itself. There is no good basis for slandering Chen as a reactionary or opportunist or anything else. He was not, in my view, the best of the Chinese Trotskyists, but he is still an important and admirable figure in the history of heterodox Chinese Marxism.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

There isn't a singular "Chinese" culture.
You're missing the point. There's a single, centralizing, bureaucratic culture whose ethics are centered on writing ever since Qin Shi Huang.

[CesareBorgia]

What? Are you seriously saying that classes were completely eliminated in the USSR?

I'm not, Stalin did.

of·fi·cial·ly: In a formal and public way

[Queercommie Girl]

You're missing the point. There's a single, centralizing, bureaucratic culture whose ethics are centered on writing ever since Qin Shi Huang.


It's a mistake not to recognise the significant changes that occurred throughout Chinese history. Chinese civilisation maybe quantitatively more continuous than European civilisation in some ways, but it's not qualitatively so. It's Orientalist non-sense to think of ancient China as a stagnant society that has not changed for thousands of years. Just like you wouldn't simply equate ancient Rome with medieval Italy in Marco Polo's time, you shouldn't simply equate the Qin Dynasty with the Ming Dynasty either. Even the language underwent significant changes. Mandarin is as different from Old Chinese as modern Italian is from ancient spoken Latin.

[Queercommie Girl]

Firstly, I didn't use the word "kulak", which shouldn't be wrenched from its Russian historical context. The Chinese countryside and more especially the countryside of Hunan during the final decades of the Qing was not the same as the Russian countryside under the NEP. Secondly, however much he may have embellished his past, when Mao was discussing his family conflicts with Edgar Snow (I pick this out only because I read it earlier today on Kasama - not for the first time of course) he refers to the fact that "the laborer" took the side of himself and his mother when he came into conflict with his father - the fact that his family was evidently secure enough to hire a laborer rather than having to rent themselves out as laborers or be partial or full tenants is itself evidence that Mao was from a rich or middle family, especially when you consider that, as a central rather than northern province, Hunan was characterized by more tenant farming as opposed to independent small-holding. This, combined with the fact that Mao was able to attend Hunan First Provincial Normal School during early adulthood is ample evidence that Mao was not from a poor background. Not that this matters for his revolutionary credentials or lack thereof, but you brought it up, so...


No doubt Mao's family was better off than most of the poor peasants, but simply having the means to hire a labourer or two doesn't imply that one must be a "rich peasant". Mao's family never owned much land, and even though Mao was able to go to school, he was relatively poor compared with the kids from richer backgrounds there.



Whatever "many Maoists" (who?) might have "later" said, unless you have any evidence that Mao or Zhou used the term "right-opportunist" because of Chen's class background, the only sensible conclusion is to accept the argument that is offered as the one that Mao wanted to put forward - namely Chen's alleged responsibility for the first united front.


I didn't say I agree with either the allegations against Chen during to his class background or the official reason that he was responsible for the disaster of the 1927 revolution. I'm only pointing out some of the reasons that were given for his failure.



Indeed - probably not a good idea to deny that Mao was a kulak then, as if that could ever be a relevant or meaningful term for China in the 1890s.


My point is that there was never as much antagonism between Mao and Chen as there was between Stalin and Trotsky.



"His collaboration" as you put it was the result of the CPC being forced to accept the "bloc within" policy that had been negotiated with Sun by Dalin. You know as well as I do that the CPC initially resisted cooperation with the KMT but was forced to accept the "bloc within" policy at the Hangzhou plenum in 1922 after the Second National Congress, and that it was put in that position against the wishes of the whole of the CEC due to Maring showing his instructions from the Comintern. If you're blaming Chen for not rejecting the Comintern at that moment then frankly that's absurd - the Comintern was a centralist organization that could direct the activities of its parties, and Marxism in China and the CPC were both highly underdeveloped at that point, in terms of the range of Marx texts that were available, the strength of homegrown Marxist thought, and the logistical resources of the party itself. There is no good basis for slandering Chen as a reactionary or opportunist or anything else.


No I didn't say Chen Duxiu is explicitly to be blamed at all, so stop putting words into my mouth.

However, objectively it wasn't the ideal situation either - hypothetically Chen could have showed more independence and resistance to the Comintern over this issue. I know objectively it was difficult for this to happen, and therefore Chen cannot be morally blamed for what happened, but it doesn't change the fact that things could have turned out in a somewhat better way hypothetically.



He was not, in my view, the best of the Chinese Trotskyists, but he is still an important and admirable figure in the history of heterodox Chinese Marxism.


I think Chen was a Trotskyist who was somewhat "right-leaning". (There is also a relative "left" and a relative "right" within Trotskyism too)

But what do you mean by "heterodox"? Are you not a Trotskyist? Do you consider Trotskyism "heterodox" or just Chinese Trotskyism?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

It's a mistake not to recognise the significant changes that occurred throughout Chinese history. Chinese civilisation maybe quantitatively more continuous than European civilisation in some ways, but it's not qualitatively so. It's Orientalist non-sense to think of ancient China as a stagnant society that has not changed for thousands of years. Just like you wouldn't simply equate ancient Rome with medieval Italy in Marco Polo's time, you shouldn't simply equate the Qin Dynasty with the Ming Dynasty either. Even the language underwent significant changes. Mandarin is as different from Old Chinese as modern Italian is from ancient spoken Latin.

Throwing patronizing little memes out of some class you took is not answering a question, or even addressing the issues I raised.

[Queercommie Girl]

Throwing patronizing little memes out of some class you took is not answering a question, or even addressing the issues I raised.


You think calligraphy is unique to China's "national culture", which has not really changed ever since Qin Shihuang's time. I say that's BS.

Ancient China changed just as much as ancient Europe did, unless you follow the ridiculous theories of Wittfogel and his "oriental despotism".

I wasn't "patronizing" you, merely pointing out the objective facts. You are the one who is taking objective discussions personally, not me.

[caramelpence]

No doubt Mao's family was better off than most of the poor peasants, but simply having the means to hire a labourer or two doesn't imply that one must be a "rich peasant"

Indeed, which is why I described Mao's family as a middle/rich peasant. The fact is, Mao's family were not tenant farmers, they did not hire themselves out as laborers, but we don't know for sure on the basis of what Mao said and the other information about his background what the labour input of their hired laborers was versus the labour of the family itself - on those grounds, it seems sensible to accept that Mao's family were either middle or rich peasants. You, on the other hand, said that Mao's family might have been poor peasants, without any evidence to back it up.


I'm only pointing out some of the reasons that were given for his failure.

But you haven't pointed that out at all, you claimed that part of Mao's rationale for describing Chen Duxiu as a right-opportunist was his family background. Where is your evidence for this? This is a total assertion because the only public reasons that Mao or Zhou provided for their characterization of Chen was his role in the first united front. Why not just accept on the basis of the evidence that this was the reason for their allegation and that they slandered Chen Duxiu, without trying to make excuses on their behalf?


No I didn't say Chen Duxiu is explicitly to be blamed at all, so stop putting words into my mouth.

Right, we can both agree that Chen Duxiu was not to be blamed whatsoever then. So no need to use qualifying terms like saying "it wasn't really his fault" and he wasn't "technically" responsible.


Chen could have showed more independence and resistance to the Comintern over this issue.

He voiced his resistance again in March 1926 after Chiang's first coup, but even then the Comintern maintained support for the united front. The only way Chen could have done anything was by either breaking Comintern discipline or quitting the Comintern. I don't really blame him, as an inexperienced revolutionary at the head of a young party, for not doing either of those things.


But what do you mean by "heterodox"? Are you not a Trotskyist? Do you consider Trotskyism "heterodox" or just Chinese Trotskyism?

Heterodox merely in the sense of being located outside the CPC.

[Queercommie Girl]

Indeed, which is why I described Mao's family as a middle/rich peasant. The fact is, Mao's family were not tenant farmers, they did not hire themselves out as laborers, but we don't know for sure on the basis of what Mao said and the other information about his background what the labour input of their hired laborers was versus the labour of the family itself - on those grounds, it seems sensible to accept that Mao's family were either middle or rich peasants. You, on the other hand, said that Mao's family might have been poor peasants, without any evidence to back it up.


No I didn't say Mao's family were poor peasants, I said they were relatively poor middle peasants, not rich peasants. Perhaps you've underestimated the economic level of Chinese peasants in late 19th century Hunan, but most official sources label Mao as from a middle peasant background, not a rich peasant one.



But you haven't pointed that out at all, you claimed that part of Mao's rationale for describing Chen Duxiu as a right-opportunist was his family background. Where is your evidence for this? This is a total assertion because the only public reasons that Mao or Zhou provided for their characterization of Chen was his role in the first united front. Why not just accept on the basis of the evidence that this was the reason for their allegation and that they slandered Chen Duxiu, without trying to make excuses on their behalf?
Maybe I should have been more clear: 1) I meant to say that Maoists argued this way, not Mao personally; 2) I'm in no way trying to "make excuses" for Mao on this particular issue, since this is nothing more than an objective point.



Right, we can both agree that Chen Duxiu was not to be blamed whatsoever then. So no need to use qualifying terms like saying "it wasn't really his fault" and he wasn't "technically" responsible.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you. You might think I'm not "right enough" because I didn't use the term "what-so-ever". I said "it wasn't really his fault" because it is easy sometimes for people to put the blame on him (he was the leader of the CCP at the time after all) if they were not aware of the whole historical situation.

[chegitz guevara]

Lenin's idea of a party was a small group of professional revolutionaries,

Absolutely, completely, and in all ways false. In all of Lenin's writings, he advocates for a MASS party. NOWHERE does he call for a small group of professional revolutionaries. He referred to such notions as Jacobinism and said, we are not Blanquiists on several occasions. The term "professional revolutionary" is a mistranslation. Professional'nyi revoliutsioner (Профессиональный революционер) means "revolutionary by trade." The confusion is because Профессиональный is a cognate for professional, i.e., similar word which sounds the same. By which Lenin meant not people who were revolutionaries for a living, but people who were skilled in the art of organizing revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

BTW, calligraphy is also an important aspect of Islamic civilisation. As an art form it's hardly limited to China and East Asia at all.

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

Calligraphy is especially revered among Islamic arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art) since it was the primary means for the preservation of the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an). Suspicion of figurative art as idolatrous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taghut) led to calligraphy and abstract depictions becoming a major form of artistic expression in Islamic cultures, especially in religious contexts.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calligraphy#cite_note-2) The work of calligraphers was collected and appreciated.

Not everything "non-Chinese" is "European" or "Western"...

[caramelpence]

Perhaps you've underestimated the economic level of Chinese peasants in late 19th century Hunan

On the contrary, I think you're ignoring the fact that whereas Mao's family position might be normal or even below the average in northern provinces or regions such as Manchuria where independent small-holding was much more common, the central and coastal provinces in China were subject to commercialization to a much greater extent than the rest of the country, and this, combined with other historic factors such as higher population density, meant that, in those locations, tenant farming was the norm. The fact that Mao's family were not tenant farmers and made use of hired labor shows that they were above the average in their economic position.


1) I meant to say that Maoists argued this way, not Mao personally;

Again, who are these "Maoists"?