Mao and his Ism

[Battlecat]

[This is my first post. Please be cool guys]

Hey, I've been lurking around on the forums for a bit reading up on all the different tendencies, out of which Maoism struck me as the most interesting.

I've just got a few questions about maoist ideology:

1. According to maoists, why did the PRC fail to become a worker's state and degenerate into state capitalism?
2. What are some key maoist texts that outline exactly what you guys stand for?
3. Are maoists supportive of stalin? If so, to what extent?
4. What does Maoism offer that other tendencies (e.g trotskyism, stalinism, luxemburgism) doesn't?
5. Are there any splinter ideologies in maoism?
5. And In what ways is maoism like leninism?


Sorry if I seem uneducated (I am) or if these questions are obvious/stupid (they probably are)

[ellipsis]

not stupid questions at all, that what this subforum is for, LEARNING!!!

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Actually very good questions! I'll wait for a Maoist to answer them though

[RedSunRising]

1. According to maoists, why did the PRC fail to become a worker's state and degenerate into state capitalism?


Basically to understand this you have to understand the "New Democratic" nature of the Chinese revolution which was won by an alliance of four classes under the leadership of the Communist Party born from the national liberation struggle against the Japanese, which made it uncertain which class would win out and which gave birth in time to the Cultural revolution era which was an at times violent struggle between different class forces over the future of China. Mao out of attempt to create order turned to the right in the early 70s allowing previously driven back capitalist roaders like Deng to reassert themselves.

[RedSunRising]

3. Are maoists supportive of stalin? If so, to what extent?

5. And In what ways is maoism like leninism?


Sorry if I seem uneducated (I am) or if these questions are obvious/stupid (they probably are)

As to the number 3 this varies, the Chinese Communist Party under said that Stalin was 70 per cent correct, most Maoists would pay lip service to this however in reality some who call themselves Maoist would have almost Trotskyite views on Stalin and some would consider 95 per cent correct. Personally I greatly admire Comrade Stalin.

Maoism upholds the need for a vanguard Party and the violent otherthrow of the capitalist state as well as upholding Lenin's views on Imperialism.

[Battlecat]

most Maoists would pay lip service to this however in reality some who call themselves Maoist would have almost Trotskyite views on Stalin.

So do maoists believe in permanent revolution, or socialism in one country? Or does it vary according to the individual?

[RedSunRising]

4. What does Maoism offer that other tendencies (e.g trotskyism, stalinism, luxemburgism) doesn't?
5. Are there any splinter ideologies in maoism?


The fact that Maoism came so close to overthrowing the Peruvian state, the sucesses in India and the over throw of the monarchy in Nepal. The seriousness of Maoist cadre across the world. Thats what makes Maoism better. We are not perfect though....Thats to answer number 4.

Hoxhaism could be considered a splinter off Maoism given the support of all the parties that became pro-Albania for the PRC until the coup against the gang of four. The RCP and the PLP came out of Maoism though they have degenerated into utopian socialism.

[Leftsolidarity]

While I'm not exactly a Maoist I do like him quite a bit.

2) I suggest reading Quotations. It's really the only thing of Mao's stuff that I've gotten around to reading but I've read it about 8 times. It is worth looking at.
3) It varies greatly. Most are fairly sympathetic towards him.
4) Mao focused more on the peasantry in revolution (because of China's conditions at the time) and I feel is a lot more in touch with the needs of the mass majority of the population over some other tendencies.
5) None that I know of.
6) It is basically just taking Leninism and adding upon it a focus on peasantry and the need to mold to what your situation needs.

Sorry if any hardcore Maoists think I misrepresented him right here but I think I got it pretty accurate.

[Alaz]

5. Are there any splinter ideologies in maoism?



Hoxhaism could be considered a splinter off Maoism given the support of all the parties that became pro-Albania for the PRC until the coup against the gang of four. The RCP and the PLP came out of Maoism though they have degenerated into utopian socialism.

What about Lin Biao's third worldism? Wasn't that a split which was denied by th Party itself, but still some Maoist organization continue defending it.

[RED DAVE]

Basically to understand this you have to understand the "New Democratic" nature of the Chinese revolutionWhich was a conscious and deliberate choice of the Maoists and in direct contradiction to the principles of Leninism.


which was won by an alliance of four classes under the leadership of the Communist Party born from the national liberation struggle against the JapaneseAnd which tied the working class to the bourgeoisie, again in direct contradiction to Leninism.


which made it uncertain which class would win outBecause the Maoists had chosen, in contradiction to Leninism, to make an alliance with the bourgeoisie.


and which gave birth in time to the Cultural revolution era which was an at times violent struggle between different class forces over the future of China.It's important to note that during the conflict, no faction of the Maoists appealed to the working clss or attempted to lead a working class revolution against the ascendant bourgeoisie.


Mao out of attempt to create order turned to the right in the early 70s allowing previously driven back capitalist roaders like Deng to reassert themselves.Mao was so far away from Marxism that he had no concept of appealing to the working class against the capitalists.

RED DAVE

[RedSunRising]

Which was a conscious and deliberate choice of the Maoists and in direct contradiction to the principles of Leninism.


Uh Lenin suggested to the Turkish Communist Party that they ally with the Kemalists against Imperialism, and even before the could they Kemalists turned around and butchered them. The New Demoncratic Front put into action by Mao held that the proletariat had to be central force...So if anything it was to the left of Lenin.

[Alaz]

6) It is basically just taking Leninism and adding upon it a focus on peasantry and the need to mold to what your situation needs.

I'm not a Maoist and my knowledge of "MLM" ideology is arguable.

But I don't think that your answer is quite adequate to recompense the difference between Maoism and Leninism.

As Mao quoted "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" would be a better answer to point out to the tool of the revolutionary struggle and the difference between "sovietic revolt" and "people's war".

Mostly in "Western Marxist" mentality there is this leaning to interpret Maoism as a stand against revisionism, rather than its methods of struggle and its projection in practise. I guess this is because of the fact that in Western countries, there are no subjective conditions that conform and fit to "people's war" but in India, Nepal, Kurdistan, Iran and many other countries the subjective conditions are available for such an act.

[RedSunRising]

It's important to note that during the conflict, no faction of the Maoists appealed to the working clss or attempted to lead a working class revolution against the ascendant bourgeoisie.

Mao was so far away from Marxism that he had no concept of appealing to the working class against the capitalists.


keep telling yourself that, your obessesion with Maoism would seem to suggest that you dont believe your own waffle.

[Agent Ducky]

I feel bad for OP, I think a tendency war just started...

[red cat]

I feel the same. Maoist comrades should ignore the trollish comments of Red Dave and concentrate on answering the OP. Please do not try to reply to posters who repeat the same clarified points again and again with no intention other than that of trolling; their motive is solely to disrupt the learning process of potential sympathizers of our revolutions.

[Spawn of Stalin]

2) I suggest reading Quotations. It's really the only thing of Mao's stuff that I've gotten around to reading but I've read it about 8 times. It is worth looking at.
If you enjoyed the Red Book, I would definitely recommend you seek out more of Mao's work. The PRC published a good English language edition in the late 1970s and there are still loads of sets out there so they are really easy to get hold of and cheap too. Five volumes. I bet the RCP's bookshops have some for sale.

Mao wasn't all about peasants with guns, he had some very interesting things to say. I know some of the Trot types are going to want to give me shit for this but I learned a lot more about the world reading five volumes of Mao than I did twelve volumes of Lenin. Definitely a wise man whether you are a Maoist or not.

[Battlecat]

Mostly in "Western Marxist" mentality there is this leaning to interpret Maoism as a stand against revisionism, rather than its methods of struggle and its projection in practise. I guess this is because of the fact that in Western countries, there are no subjective conditions that conform and fit to "people's war" but in India, Nepal, Kurdistan, Iran and many other countries the subjective conditions are available for such an act.

So is maoism a viable ideology in a developed western capitalist society? Or does it work best/only in a third world nation without a fully developed industrial proletariat?


2] I suggest reading Quotations. It's really the only thing of Mao's stuff that I've gotten around to reading but I've read it about 8 times. It is worth looking at.
Thanks, but I can't find an actual hard copy of it in any bookshops. I'll just order it online

[caramelpence]

To the OP, you should keep in mind that there is really no single ideological trend or body of analysis called "Maoism". Mao's own writings do not posses the degree of coherence over time exhibited by other theorists and many of the idioms that are repeated in his work and which we associate with events like the Cultural Revolution, such as "capitalist roader" and "revisionism", are grossly under-theorized, in that Mao never provided a reasoned account of where capitalist roaders actually come from, for example, in the sense of whether they are individuals who consciously and cynically seek to restore capitalism from inside a socialist society, or whether they are people who are subjectively supportive of socialism but, owing to a lack of consciousness or commitment, act in ways that facilitate the restoration of capitalism. The international Maoist movement as it emerged in the 1960s and 1970s did not involve anything like a Comintern body that could have guided the ideological evolution of parties in different countries and ensured some level of ideological coherence, in the same way that the original Comintern did. For that reason, one of the defining characteristics of international Maoism has always been the absence of a single Maoist paradigm and a proliferation of national Maoisms, as parties drew on the works of Mao and their visions of China in order to make arguments and put forward positions that reflected the particular national conditions and political cultures of their individual countries. There is a sharp contrast between the Maoism of disciplined and militarized cadre parties, for example, which is a fairly accurate description of Maoism in Germany, and the more egalitarian and anti-party Maoism that emerged in France after 1968, which came to be known as "Mao-spontex" and involved wide-ranging discussions of sexuality, despite Maoists (and Stalinists more generally) often taking very conservative positions on sex and other issues that came out of the counterculture.

The best-known study of Mao's thought is Stuart Schram's The Thought of Mao Tse-Tung. If you want some reading on Maoism as an international phenomenon then there is a growing literature - The Wind From The East by Richard Wolin is a great recent book on French Maoism.


the PRC until the coup against the gang of four.

In what way was there a "coup" against the Gang of Four?


The RCP and the PLP came out of Maoism though they have degenerated into utopian socialism.

I don't think "utopian socialism" is a meaningful description for either of these parties.

[RedSunRising]

What about Lin Biao's third worldism? Wasn't that a split which was denied by th Party itself, but still some Maoist organization continue defending it.

Well there is Lin Biao's "third worldism" the basic thrust of which is the revolutionary struggle would be waged first primarily in the third world slowing surrounding the Imperialist fortress of the first world and the "third worldism" of groups like the Maoist Internationalist Movement and its off shot the Leading Light Communist Organization who put forward the belief that the entire population of the first world is parasitical and in no way exploited. MIM and LLCO are based largely in the USA and are a product of conditions there. Many Maoists would uphold the first type of third worldism I mentioned without upholding the second. As far as Lin Biao himself is concerned Maoists differ in how they view him, but is falling out with the center based around Mao in the late 60s did not lead to a split in the International Communist Movement.

[gorillafuck]

Basically to understand this you have to understand the "New Democratic" nature of the Chinese revolution which was won by an alliance of four classes under the leadership of the Communist Party born from the national liberation struggle against the Japanese, which made it uncertain which class would win out and which gave birth in time to the Cultural revolution era which was an at times violent struggle between different class forces over the future of China.But the communists were in power after defeating the KMT. Which class did the CPC represent in your view? Because they had full power before the cultural revolution.

[RedSunRising]

But the communists were in power after defeating the KMT...

The Communist Party none the less contained bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements.

[caramelpence]

The Communist Party none the less contained bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements.

How could that have been the case when China was supposedly a socialist county after the Three- and Five-Anti campaigns in the early 1950s and the initiation of the First Five Year Plan in 1953? It makes sense to say that the CPC included members of the bourgeoisie in 1949 when they first came to power because they did make sustained efforts to appeal to important businessmen who might otherwise have fled to Hong Kong or supported the KMT but what sense does it make to say that there was a bourgeoisie or bourgeois elements when - according to Mao's own account - the means of production had been converted into state property? The only way you could sensibly argue that there was a bourgeoisie in China in the 1960s is either by critiquing Chinese socialism and arguing that state ownership is compatible with wage-labour and a ruling class (as I would argue) or by following Maoist mythology and arguing in terms of "capitalist roaders" lurking beneath the surface of an otherwise peaceful socialist polity, which entails defining class in subjective rather than objective terms (i.e. throwing out the Marxist approach to class) and explaining political events like the initiation of the reform period after Mao's death solely in terms of the conspiratorial behavior of individuals whose capitalist aims cannot be detected until it is too late.

[RED DAVE]

The Communist Party none the less contained bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements.But where did they come from?

(1) Were they present there prior to 1949, with the knowledge of Mao (as exemplar of the CCP leadership)?

or

(2) Were they present there prior to 1949, without the knowledge of Mao (as exemplar of the CCP leadership)?

or

(3) Did they develop there subsequent to 1949, with the knowledge of Mao (as exemplar of the CCP leadership)?

or

(4) Did they develop there subsequent to 1949, without the knowledge of Mao (as exemplar of the CCP leadership)?

or

(5) Something else?

RED DAVE

[hatzel]

I feel bad for OP, I think a tendency war just started...

To be honest I can't remember the last time there was a thread that had anything to do with anything to do with Maoism that didn't descend into a tendency war...I assume it's because Maoists seem particularly proud of their militancy, to the extent that they even implement it into their conversation style...

[RedSunRising]

To be honest I can't remember the last time there was a thread that had anything to do with anything to do with Maoism that didn't descend into a tendency war...I assume it's because Maoists seem particularly proud of their militancy, to the extent that they even implement it into their conversation style...

Its because Maoists are trolled the hardest on here and also people should consider the possibility that criticism and trolling of Maoism here is being orchestrated by enemy forces.

[Jose Gracchus]

Maoism is just nonsense, I'm afraid. There was nothing to Mao's theory in how the party actually came to power. Mao was an opportunist who survived the destruction of the working-class base in the party, and became another opponent in a bourgeois civil war. They won in 1949 without the mass participation of either peasants or workers, and basically by posing as the more populist and less corrupt (which they were) version of the Goumindang. They didn't "surround the cities", but Soviet support, war materiel in Manchuria, and the mass defection of KMT soldiers who were able to place the CCP in a position to fight a modern maneuver war against the tottering KMT regime, which they defeated in conventional forms. There was no 'revolution'. Once in power, there was a kind of 'revolution from above' as is typical with modernizing nationalist dictatorships.


Its because Maoists are trolled the hardest on here and also people should consider the possibility that criticism and trolling of Maoism here is being orchestrated by enemy forces.

Oh yes, we're "orchestrating". I think I despise Maoists because of how much even their Internet Tough Guy Wannabes sound like they're threatening mass purges at the drop of a hat in an internet board discussion.

[red cat]

Maoism is just nonsense, I'm afraid. There was nothing to Mao's theory in how the party actually came to power. Mao was an opportunist who survived the destruction of the working-class base in the party, and became another opponent in a bourgeois civil war. They won in 1949 without the mass participation of either peasants or workers, and basically by posing as the more populist and less corrupt (which they were) version of the Goumindang. They didn't "surround the cities", but Soviet support, war materiel in Manchuria, and the mass defection of KMT soldiers who were able to place the CCP in a position to fight a modern maneuver war against the tottering KMT regime, which they defeated in conventional forms. There was no 'revolution'. Once in power, there was a kind of 'revolution from above' as is typical with modernizing nationalist dictatorships.

This is new. :lol:

[twenty percent tip]

redcat is likeall the other wacko maorists. they say theytake proletarian position but they are like a middle class manager working somewere. i nevermet an actualmaoist who is working as proteliartat realjob. one time imet some buthewas sentin from some leftistgrou;p. when i workedthe post officewe didn't have nomaoists. we had some tortskyiosts. sorry if i orfend you

[twenty percent tip]

how can youtake a proletariat position. if you are not a proletariort? and then you told someguy working in afactory he is a petitboogrwa becaus he liked trotski better in the tortski vs. stalin battle royale ten hundred years ago? fuck

[Spawn of Stalin]

redcat is likeall the other wacko maorists. they say theytake proletarian position but they are like a middle class manager working somewere. i nevermet an actualmaoist who is working as proteliartat realjob.

Say hello to a Maoist sympathiser who works a real job

[Spawn of Stalin]

Oh and two other things.

1. twenty percent tip, are you drunk?
2. Can we possibly have a thread relating to Maoism without RED DAVE somebody coming in and ruining the learning aspect of things? If Maoism is so bad, the facts will speak for themselves, there is no need for you to be here.

[RED DAVE]

Its because Maoists are trolled the hardest on here and also people should consider the possibility that criticism and trolling of Maoism here is being orchestrated by enemy forces.OOOOOOOOOOOO

Enemy forces :cursing:

RED DAVE

[hatzel]

Can we possibly have a thread relating to Maoism without RED DAVE somebody coming in and ruining the learning aspect of things? If Maoism is so bad, the facts will speak for themselves, there is no need for you to be here.

Let's be honest for a second here...judging by the rhetoric Maoists seem to like to spout at each and every opportunity, it is vital that we have somebody here to say "yeah actually Maoism isn't necessarily the greatest ideology in the history of the universe, and maybe it isn't single-handedly dragging humanity to a brighter future"...I mean, if the Maoists are going to bring every thread to 'just look how great we are! We're the best!', it's only fair to introduce a dissenter (or, 'enemy forces'). Otherwise it's not 'the learning aspect' that's being ruined, it's the Maoist's self-indulgent propaganda aspects that are being somewhat upset, and there's literally nothing wrong with that. If any other ideology said "but can't we just tell you why we're great without anybody who doesn't agree with us criticising our ideas," they'd (rightly) be laughed out of the place...

[Jose Gracchus]

Its not my fault they compulsively and pathologically lie about history. I mean only a total moron could read the history of the Civil War 47-49 and conclude LOL YEA SURROUND DEM CITIES.

[caramelpence]

Its because Maoists are trolled the hardest on here and also people should consider the possibility that criticism and trolling of Maoism here is being orchestrated by enemy forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist–Leninist_Party_of_the_Netherlands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Biao#Attempted_coup_and_downfall

Guess Mao and Maoists don't have too great a history when it comes to identifying "enemy forces". On a more serious note, if you have any evidence whatsoever that any of the non-Maoists who have posted here are actually spying on behalf of the state or trying to serve the state by "provoking" people or whatever, as if any government would actually care about people who identify with far-off guerilla wars from their computers and nice apartments, then you had better put forward that evidence, because accusing someone on the left of working for the state is a pretty big deal in my book. If you have no evidence, you can shut the fuck up. In general, I wish Maoists here would cut the crap about "our movement" and "we" believing this and that. If you are doing some kind of concrete solidarity work for Maoists in India or the Philippines or Nepal then, fine, but somehow I doubt that Maoists on this forum are doing that, and ultimately they have no meaningful relationship with these movements, which makes it absurd to talk as if they are selflessly defending them on this internet forum. Moreover, it's pretty clear that most Maoists on here have no familiarity whatsoever with either Mao's texts or Maoism as it existed in developed countries in the 1960s and 70s. If they did have that knowledge, they would realize just how central anti-Sovietism was to both Mao as an individual and to Maoist activists, and how much Maoists in countries like Germany sympathized with the Khmer Rouge and other grisly political developments and figures.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Let's be honest for a second here...judging by the rhetoric Maoists seem to like to spout at each and every opportunity, it is vital that we have somebody here to say "yeah actually Maoism isn't necessarily the greatest ideology in the history of the universe, and maybe it isn't single-handedly dragging humanity to a brighter future"...I mean, if the Maoists are going to bring every thread to 'just look how great we are! We're the best!', it's only fair to introduce a dissenter (or, 'enemy forces'). Otherwise it's not 'the learning aspect' that's being ruined, it's the Maoist's self-indulgent propaganda aspects that are being somewhat upset, and there's literally nothing wrong with that. If any other ideology said "but can't we just tell you why we're great without anybody who doesn't agree with us criticising our ideas," they'd (rightly) be laughed out of the place...

Yeah that's absolutely fine, I'm not saying people don't have a right to counter each other's arguments at all. If you think a Maoist is talking shit then call them out on it. But recently revleft has been turning into a bit of a joke as far as Maoism is concerned, there are a few individuals who just jump on every opportunity they see to try to discredit the people's wars. There's a pretty fine line between healthy debate - which I am in favour of - and being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. In a topic entitled "Opinions on Maoism" I would expect lots of healthy debate, but some topics are not meant for opinions, let's take a look at the op's questions


1. According to maoists, why did the PRC fail to become a worker's state and degenerate into state capitalism?
2. What are some key maoist texts that outline exactly what you guys stand for?
3. Are maoists supportive of stalin? If so, to what extent?
4. What does Maoism offer that other tendencies (e.g trotskyism, stalinism, luxemburgism) doesn't?
5. Are there any splinter ideologies in maoism?
5. And In what ways is maoism like leninism?

This topic is clearly meant for Maoists to explain some features of Maoism, and people are clearly trying to stop the op from actually learning something by baiting Maoists. RED DAVE didn't even attempt to answer the questions, instead choosing to nitpick at someone else's answer.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Basically what I'm trying to say is there are some really immature people here who hide behind a mask of intellect. I don't go around screwing with all the anarchist or Trotskyite topics do I? If I did I would probably end up getting myself banned eventually.

[caramelpence]

Basically what I'm trying to say is there are some really immature people here who hide behind a mask of intellect. I don't go around screwing with all the anarchist or Trotskyite topics do I? If I did I would probably end up getting myself banned eventually.

Which non-Maoists have trolled in this thread? Also, do you say "Trotskyite" just to annoy people, or because you're so stupid you think it's a meaningful political term?


but some topics are not meant for opinions

Not surprising coming from a Stalinist. If people don't want their views challenged, they can send them via PM. Otherwise, they should expect people to critique them when they make baseless assertions.

[RED DAVE]

Which was a conscious and deliberate choice of the Maoists and in direct contradiction to the principles of Leninism.

Uh Lenin suggested to the Turkish Communist Party that they ally with the Kemalists against Imperialism, and even before the could they Kemalists turned around and butchered them. The New Demoncratic Front put into action by Mao held that the proletariat had to be central force...So if anything it was to the left of Lenin.(1) Lenin was wrong on collaboration with the Kemalists. And the Third International was wrong on the Guomintang.

(2) The proletariat was not the central focus of Maoism. If it had been, at least one of the factions of Maoism would have appealed to or led the working class during the Cultural Revolution, which never happened.

RED DAVE

[Spawn of Stalin]

Which non-Maoists have trolled in this thread?
I didn't say anyone trolled in this thread. I dare you to read what I wrote again.


Also, do you say "Trotskyite" just to annoy people, or because you're so stupid you think it's a meaningful political term?
I say it because I'm so stupid I think it's a meaningful political term.


Not surprising coming from a Stalinist.
Do you say "Stalinist" just to annoy people, or because you're so stupid you think it's a meaningful political term?


If people don't want their views challenged, they can send them via PM. Otherwise, they should expect people to critique them when they make baseless assertions.
You really are an idiot aren't you? Do you really need me to treat you like a five year old? I don't have an issue with people challenging each other's views, I encourage it. But read post #10 and tell me that that discussion belonged in a topic which somebody had started just so they could get some simple questions answered by Maoists. There is a time and a place to argue about whether or not Maoism is in direct contradiction to Leninism or how close it is to Marxism or did Mao really never read Capital, this isn't it. I will, again, quote the original questions posted, answer them, discuss the issues raised, or go to bed.


1. According to maoists, why did the PRC fail to become a worker's state and degenerate into state capitalism?
2. What are some key maoist texts that outline exactly what you guys stand for?
3. Are maoists supportive of stalin? If so, to what extent?
4. What does Maoism offer that other tendencies (e.g trotskyism, stalinism, luxemburgism) doesn't?
5. Are there any splinter ideologies in maoism?
5. And In what ways is maoism like leninism?

[caramelpence]

But read post #10 and tell me that that discussion belonged in a topic which somebody had started just so they could get some simple questions answered by Maoists

I see nothing wrong with that post. Another user had provided a highly propagandistic characterization of Maoism and RED DAVE was right to draw attention to the ways that Maoism has played out historically in terms of its relationship to the working class and orientation to radical social change. If the first post in response to the OP had been a strongly-worded critique of Maoism without any relation to the questions posed then that might be pretty bad form but it wouldn't be immature or trolling and the critical posts that have been posed by myself and others in this thread have been about picking up on points made by Maoists, rather than trying to pull the thread away from its original purpose. You yourself don't seem to have really considered the original questions because one of them was precisely about Maoism's relation to Leninism (question 5) in which case it seems entirely appropriate to discuss "whether or not Maoism is in direct contradiction to Leninism" amongst other critical themes.

[Spawn of Stalin]

As I said, RED DAVE made no attempt to answer the questions and sought only to discredit Maoism. You can try to understand me, go back and actually read post #10, or you can go to bed.

[RED DAVE]

But read post #10 and tell me that that discussion belonged in a topic which somebody had started just so they could get some simple questions answered by Maoists. There is a time and a place to argue about whether or not Maoism is in direct contradiction to Leninism or how close it is to Marxism or did Mao really never read Capital, this isn't it. I will, again, quote the original questions posted, answer them, discuss the issues raised, or go to bed.And when you give your answers, if people disagree with them, they will say so and, hopefully, elucidate their disagreements.

Do you expect something else?

RED DAVE

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yes and that is absolutely fine, as I have already stated many many times before. But instead of disagreeing all you did was respond to every point with "this is opposed to Leninism!", "this is opposed to Marxism!". Basically you responded to like six or seven different points, and all you really said was that Chinese Maoism was allied with the bourgeoisie and was not in the interests of the working class

[Spawn of Stalin]

Kind of pointless imo...but then, who cares?

[Pretty Flaco]

This thread became really funny, really quickly.

[milk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist–Leninist_Party_of_the_Netherlands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Biao#Attempted_coup_and_downfall

Guess Mao and Maoists don't have too great a history when it comes to identifying "enemy forces". On a more serious note, if you have any evidence whatsoever that any of the non-Maoists who have posted here are actually spying on behalf of the state or trying to serve the state by "provoking" people or whatever, as if any government would actually care about people who identify with far-off guerilla wars from their computers and nice apartments, then you had better put forward that evidence, because accusing someone on the left of working for the state is a pretty big deal in my book. If you have no evidence, you can shut the fuck up. In general, I wish Maoists here would cut the crap about "our movement" and "we" believing this and that. If you are doing some kind of concrete solidarity work for Maoists in India or the Philippines or Nepal then, fine, but somehow I doubt that Maoists on this forum are doing that, and ultimately they have no meaningful relationship with these movements, which makes it absurd to talk as if they are selflessly defending them on this internet forum. Moreover, it's pretty clear that most Maoists on here have no familiarity whatsoever with either Mao's texts or Maoism as it existed in developed countries in the 1960s and 70s. If they did have that knowledge, they would realize just how central anti-Sovietism was to both Mao as an individual and to Maoist activists, and how much Maoists in countries like Germany sympathized with the Khmer Rouge and other grisly political developments and figures.

Western Maoist organisations did sympathise or support Democratic Kampuchea, and some will have wrongly dropped their support for the CPK into a simplistic pre-fabricated schema of the Sino-Soviet split, with several of the small groups that did go and visit Democratic Kampuchea in 1978 being fraternal organisations of the CCP. It will have been this link that saw invitations given out to these groups by the DK government. For example the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) from the United States was one such group, and a laudatory booklet was produced by them, based on their visit. When the undeniable truth of what had been happening in DK came out, contradicting not only their Potemkin Village experience but dismissals of the horrors as mere western propaganda to discredit DK, it caused a crisis within the organisation, with several resigning and leaving left politics altogether. Daniel Burstein being one, who went on to become a New York-based venture capitalist. There were others from Europe, although not necessarily Maoist, like the Swede Gunnar Bergstrom, who went over there with a delegation of the Swedish-Cambodian Friendship Association, which had been formed out of the European protest movement against the Vietnam War. He, too, in later years came to realise just how naive he he had been, and recently donated his personal collection of photographs taken during the solidarity visit to the Documentation Center of Cambodia, which researches the Cambodian revolution and DK regime. A book of the photographs was also produced, titled Living Hell.

The below scan is a cover of Swedish magazine Folket i Bild/Kulturfront, which covered the visit to DK. Bergstrom is seen wearing the Chinese military cap. Jan Myrdal is on the far left.

http://upthebum.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/gunnar-bergstrom-78.jpg

As for the Khmer Communists themselves, we would need to determine with more specificity just how much Maoism (or not) influenced them. Their ideological background was from a complex mixture of factors in the Southeast Asian region of ex-Indochina. Indeed the DK experience was as much to do with outdated Stalinist doctrine filtered to the Cambodians by the Vietnamese, and then inappropriately and disastrously applied. Some of that doctrine was inappropriate too when applied in template form by the Vietnamese themselves.

If we were to generalise, and while knowing the problems of painting over nuances with big broad brush strokes, then Cambodian Communism and the models or political overlay of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, whether they were appropriate to Cambodian society or not at that time (they weren't), were both Soviet and Chinese derived. To outdo not only the Vietnamese Stalinists - from who they borrowed heavily in the formative years and after 1975 - and both Stalin and Mao themselves (the hubris of the Khmer Communists was breathtaking at times) with the building of socialism and the path to eventual communism. To outdo them at a revolution from above, and a great leap forward respectively. However, the infrastructural development undertaken by the DK government, as the first stage of a comprehensive economic plan, never formally launched, but sometimes referred to as the Super Great Leap Forward (that hubris again), should not be viewed in a linear fashion with the GLF in China. It diverges from it to a significant degree, despite the inspiration and rhetoric, and the Chinese experience shouldn't be ripped away from its specific historical context.

[hatzel]

But instead of disagreeing all you did was respond to every point with "this is opposed to Leninism!", "this is opposed to Marxism!".


5. And In what ways is maoism like leninism?

So thanks to Red Dave for answering that question for us :)

[RED DAVE]

Yes and that is absolutely fine as I have already stated many many times before.Let a hundred flowers bloom. :D


But instead of disagreeing all you did was respond to every point with "this is opposed to Leninism!", "this is opposed to Marxism!".What you are saying is that you didn't like my comments.


Basically you responded to like six or seven different points, and all you really said was that Chinese Maoism was allied with the bourgeoisie and was not in the interests of the working classThat's right. And history shows quite clearly that this is true.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The coy comment was made to Red Dave. He has a good grasp of all the material in the public eye, and what is necessarily secret even if we knew we wouldnt divulge on a board like this. I suspect that he could well be trying to coax sensitive information out of comrades.
Its because Maoists are trolled the hardest on here and also people should consider the possibility that criticism and trolling of Maoism here is being orchestrated by enemy forces.So since we're talking about isms, these are examples of how Maoists deal with criticism they can't cope with: by accusing others of being police agents or the like. This is part of the legacy of stalinism.

RED DAVE

[HEAD ICE]

Its because Maoists are trolled the hardest on here and also people should consider the possibility that criticism and trolling of Maoism here is being orchestrated by enemy forces.

I think this here confirms it, Maoists are nothing more than LARPers

[hatzel]

I think this here confirms it, Maoists are nothing more than LARPers

You trollin' Maoists, bro? :sneaky:

[L.A.P.]

The feudal landlords had to go before overthrowing the bourgeoisie, right? You can't really go from feudalism, skip capitalism, and straight to socialism. It's unfortunate that bourgeois elements were in the party but there had to be a revolution overthrowing the feudal aristocrats before you can expect to have worker's revolution against a bourgeois class that didn't even develop yet.

[Rooster]

The feudal landlords had to go before overthrowing the bourgeoisie, right? You can't really go from feudalism, skip capitalism, and straight to socialism. It's unfortunate that bourgeois elements were in the party but there had to be a revolution overthrowing the feudal aristocrats before you can expect to have worker's revolution against a bourgeois class that didn't even develop yet.

Have you ever heard of the Russian revolution? But that is besides the point, which is, the vast whole of human production right now is capitalistic. Any remnants of feudalism (and I really doubt if there is any real feudalism) is just an anomaly.

[caramelpence]

The feudal landlords had to go before overthrowing the bourgeoisie, right? You can't really go from feudalism, skip capitalism, and straight to socialism. It's unfortunate that bourgeois elements were in the party but there had to be a revolution overthrowing the feudal aristocrats before you can expect to have worker's revolution against a bourgeois class that didn't even develop yet.

This is a lovely story, but it doesn't bear much relation to reality. China was not a feudal society in the 1940s and it's actually doubtful that the term "feudalism" was ever fully applicable to China at any point in its history because China has never exhibited all of the economic and social phenomena that are associated with feudal societies in Europe. China in the 1940s (and the 1910s, 20s, and 30s...) exhibited the alienability of land in the countryside, growing inequality in the ownership of land and agricultural implements, the increasing payment of fixed cash rents rather than sharecropping or fixed rents in kind, cash loans and interest payments, the intersection of land ownership and industrial and financial capital, the destruction of traditional peasant handicrafts through imports and China's lack of tariff autonomy, the emergence of some new handicraft sectors whose products were based on Western imports, increasing susceptibility to changes in the prices of agricultural outputs in the world market, a shift to cash crops, sustained migration between rural and urban areas, the improvement of infrastructural links such as road and rail, and many other phenomena that point to China being fundamentally capitalist, due to production taking the form of commodities and the countryside being integrated into national and world markets. There were no feudal landlords in China during this period, let alone "feudal aristocrats", whatever that means, and there was certainly a vibrant bourgeoisie and there was also a powerful working class that was let down by the Comintern in the 1920s.

You see that long list of characteristics I provided? It's called evidence.

[Reznov]

not stupid questions at all, that what this subforum is for, LEARNING!!!

What the, you didn't answer his questions!

Wait, I didn't answer his questions either!

[L.A.P.]

You see that long list of characteristics I provided? It's called evidence.

No need to be a condescending prick.

[RedSunRising]

I think this here confirms it, Maoists are nothing more than LARPers

What exactly are LARPers?

How many martyrs in the struggle for Communism can the ICT claim over the last 50 years?

[caramelpence]

What exactly are LARPers?

Live action role-playing game fans, i.e. people who tend to make comments like this:

"How many martyrs in the struggle for Communism can the ICT claim over the last 50 years?"


No need to be a condescending prick.

Don't make baseless assertions then.


Western Maoist organisations did sympathise or support Democratic Kampuchea

Thank you for this post, it was very informative. My impression is that there were actually quite a lot of activists, Maoist and non-Maoist, who got to go to trips to Cambodia and Vietnam during the 1960s and 70s, and in particular it seems that there was an early SDS grouping in which Cathy Wilkerson (later WUO member) was involved that was invited to Vietnam but ended up spending their trip in Cambodia instead because US bombing raids on Hanoi had just been stepped-up and also because the NLF and DRV had liaison stations in Cambodia, which I wasn't aware of before some recent reading. It's especially interesting to see Myrdal in that photo as I'm aware of the influence of his book Report from a Chinese Village on pro-China activists and future Maoists in central and northern Europe. I don't know if you can read German but you might be interested in this issue of Roter Morgen, which was the newspaper of the KPD/ML, greeting the capture of Phnom Penh - http://www.mao-projekt.de/BRD/VLB/Roter_Morgen/RM_1975_16.shtml It's quite clear from the extent of their rhetoric even as compared to other articles from European and North American Maoist newspapers and publications during this period that they actually knew very little about the situation on the ground or the historical background behind the Khmer Rouge and it's interesting that Maoists were also forced to take stock of their early enthusiasm when detailed reports were first published in the early 1970s concerning the full extent of the violence and arbitrary persecution that had occurred during the first three years of the Cultural Revolution - so I suppose the changing feelings that Maoists had for countries like China and Cambodia was at least partly dependent on how much detailed information was available and that it was precisely because there was initially so little information available that it was possible for Maoists to be so enthusiastic about these countries and to imagine whatever they liked about them, in the sense of using them to fulfill their own political aspirations and dreams. In that sense, and as I've written elsewhere, they were in a long line of Western thinkers going back to Montesquieu who have used the distance between their own societies and other societies like China and Persia as a political resource.

[RedSunRising]

Live action role-playing game fans, i.e. people who tend to make comments like this:

"How many martyrs in the struggle for Communism can the ICT claim over the last 50 years?"



Funny how both of you knew that nick name for such a childish past time.

And its a valid question to ask, how much blood has the ICT given over the last 50 years in the stuggle for Communism and human liberation in general, how much has Maoism given? I think the answer will show the seriousness of both tendencies.

[L.A.P.]

Don't make baseless assertions then.

Did you get personally offended or just in a pissy mood?

[RedSunRising]

Thank you for this post, it was very informative. My impression is that there were actually quite a lot of activists, Maoist and non-Maoist, who got to go to trips to Cambodia and Vietnam during the 1960s and 70s,

The politics of the CPK was not that developed (for obvious reasons), and I heard from one person who had been to Cambodia that they regarded Mao as a revisionist for some reason, but I dont see the big deal in people having supported them against US and Vietnamese aggression.

[HEAD ICE]

Funny how both of you knew that nick name for such a childish past time.

And its a valid question to ask, how much blood has the ICT given over the last 50 years in the stuggle for Communism and human liberation in general, how much has Maoism given? I think the answer will show the seriousness of both tendencies.

I'm a Maoist because guerillas are cool teehee ^_^

[caramelpence]

Funny how both of you knew that nick name for such a childish past time.

And its a valid question to ask, how much blood has the ICT given over the last 50 years in the stuggle for Communism and human liberation in general, how much has Maoism given? I think the answer will show the seriousness of both tendencies.

On a serious note, the second part of this post is actually quite informative when it comes to the political psychology of Maoists in Western Europe and other parts of the First World in the heyday of First World Maoism back in the 1960s and 70s. Reading the recollections of former Maoists and academic studies, one of the things that strikes you is just how much these activists engaged in ascetic practices and how much their politics was centered around the sense of purity and exclusivity we see coming from your posts. For example, the Maoists in Germany sought to self-consciously exclude themselves from the perceived hedonism of the rest of the radical left and the counterculture by wearing very short hair, abstaining from drinking and drugs, emphasizing monogamous and heterosexual relationships, and frowning on relationships continuing for long periods of time outside of marriage - they even had letters (possibly real, possibly fake) in their newspapers from alleged pensioners praising just how different the Maoists were from their apparently scruffy and decadent political opponents in the student movement and other organizations. What you had, in other words, was a combination of self-denial on the one hand, involving a glorification of sacrifice and the rejection of subjective (especially sexual) desire, and a feeling of elitism on the other, precisely because of the supposed willingness of Maoists to give themselves up for the cause. Not so different from other kinds of cult, like monastic communities and certain other religious sects. It's remarkable just how much of this political psychology from over thirty years ago manifests itself in the posts of Maoists on this web forum! It must be quite comforting to look on yourselves as "the chosen ones" and to view everyone else as "degenerate" and "decadent".

Consistent with what you expect from other cults, once it no longer became possible to sustain the illusions that went along with Maoism, many Maoists underwent sudden and erratic changes of political direction, so that in Germany, some have since become major leaders in the Green Party, whose support was central to German participation in the invasion of Afghanistan, whereas others became open fascists, in part because German Maoism had always embodied a strongly nationalistic trend, and German Maoists had cooperated with the far-right whilst still being Maoists, in addition to the self-denial you find in Maoism in many contexts. There is, I think many members will agree, something very disturbing about the discourse of "purity" and being opposed to "decadence" that you so often find with Stalinism in general and Maoism in particular.

[RedSunRising]

There is, I think many members will agree, something very disturbing about the discourse of "purity" and being opposed to "decadence" that you so often find with Stalinism in general and Maoism in particular.

I think many more members would find defending the child abuser adovactes of NAMBLA even more disturbing.

[caramelpence]

I think many more members would find defending the child abuser adovactes of NAMBLA even more disturbing.

You would resort to a slur like that, given that Maoists have always been reactionary and prejudiced when it comes to matters of sex, and have always been quick to accuse their opponents of "sexual deviance" and other such rubbish. Other than Maoism in France, which was perhaps the most appealing and fascinating form of Maoism, at least as far as the "spontex" currents are concerned, Maoism is notorious for its homophobia and puritanical attitudes towards sex. Do you think that being gay is a sign of decadence, which is precisely what most Maoists (and, for that matter, Stalinists in general) have historically argued?

[RedSunRising]

Do you think that being gay is a sign of decadence, which is precisely what most Maoists (and, for that matter, Stalinists in general) have historically argued?

Definitely not. Infact the Maoists in Nepal and in India are very strong on gay liberation. There is a difference though between that and allowing perverts to interfer with kids. And its hardly a slur given your stated sympathy with the Sparts views on NAMBLA.

[hatzel]

People, people, people...can we try not to turn this into yet another 'well, didn't your people do this that time?' 'And what about your people, look what they did!' thread? Cheers...

[Alaz]

So is maoism a viable ideology in a developed western capitalist society? Or does it work best/only in a third world nation without a fully developed industrial proletariat?

To some extent, their methodological approach towards "political power" is quite suitable for both developed western capitalist societies and third world nations without a fully developed industrial proletariat.

But their perception of "Democratic Revolution" and their incapability of the final analysis is heading towards "a strong hope for feudal elements" due to the existence of their ideological distinctions between the other armed strugglers in some the third world countries.

Whereby their general attitude, I believe both in western capitalist countries and third world nations they are fit to the ideological needs of the current physical conditions.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer to your question.

[Alaz]

For example, the Maoists in Germany sought to self-consciously exclude themselves from the perceived hedonism of the rest of the radical left and the counterculture by wearing very short hair, abstaining from drinking and drugs, emphasizing monogamous and heterosexual relationships, and frowning on relationships continuing for long periods of time outside of marriage - they even had letters (possibly real, possibly fake) in their newspapers from alleged pensioners praising just how different the Maoists were from their apparently scruffy and decadent political opponents in the student movement and other organizations. What you had, in other words, was a combination of self-denial on the one hand, involving a glorification of sacrifice and the rejection of subjective (especially sexual) desire, and a feeling of elitism on the other, precisely because of the supposed willingness of Maoists to give themselves up for the cause. Not so different from other kinds of cult, like monastic communities and certain other religious sects. It's remarkable just how much of this political psychology from over thirty years ago manifests itself in the posts of Maoists on this web forum! It must be quite comforting to look on yourselves as "the chosen ones" and to view everyone else as "degenerate" and "decadent".

As far as I'm concerned even the "caricatures" of Maoists who fight for and desire the political power are more sincere than the ideological masturbation bourgeois currents.

Criticism and self criticism is for the good of the ideologies and the struggle, they are not for legitimizing and justifying bourgeois truant deviations.