What are the differences between Maoism and Marxism-Leninism?

[06hurdwp]

I have done some research into this, but I haven't really found much, only that Maoism is based on an agrian society whereas Marxism-Leninism is based on an industrial society...

What other differences are there?

[ZrianKobani]

Maoism has more of an emphasis on third world revolution. I hope you get some answers, I asked on this forum about Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and got nothing.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

If you want an anti-Mao, biased answer you should read this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm

However, if you want a biased, Pro-Mao perspective, there are many knowledgable Maoists on this forum.

One big difference though, is the elevation of the role of the peasants' role in the revolution.

And by the way, Maoists dont see Marxism-Leninism and Maoism as two different ideologies. They see Mao's contributions as ideological additions that do not conflict with Marxism-Leninism. Hence, why they're called Marxist-Leninist-Maoists :)




Maoism has more of an emphasis on third world revolution. I hope you get some answers, I asked on this forum about Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism and got nothing.

The most significant difference between Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism is Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution.

[ZrianKobani]

Not trying to divert the topic but I've also heard it said that Trotsky was attempting to go back to the fundamentals of Marxism, do you know how and in what way?

[Тачанка]

Mao's bloc of four classes, building a government consisting of representatives of the peasentry, the workers, the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie
While the stalinists on paper want a worker's government, they practically established a bureaocratic dictatorship

Mao's Mass line: Listening to what the masses want and then acting.


Kind of anti-Marxist, all this.

why can't i turn fattext off

[The Douche]

Maoism is based on an agrian society

No, this is a secterian, anti-maoist lie. It doesn't even make sense, the Great Leap Forward was all about industrialization, and was based on the 5 year plans of Stalin's Marxism-Leninism.


Mao's Mass line: Listening to what the masses want and then acting.


That is not an accurate description of the mass line, the mass line means that the party needs to go to the workers, listen to them, understand their demands, bring them back to the party, formulate a method and an analysis, and then bring these positions back to the workers with communist analysis and solutions.

[06hurdwp]

No, this is a secterian, anti-maoist lie. It doesn't even make sense, the Great Leap Forward was all about industrialization, and was based on the 5 year plans of Stalin's Marxism-Leninism.

Like I said it's not my opinion, it's what I have found on google, probably posted by an anti maoist yes :)

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I have done some research into this, but I haven't really found much, only that Maoism is based on an agrian society whereas Marxism-Leninism is based on an industrial society...

What other differences are there?

- the 'People's War' military strategy

- the 'New Democracy' bloc of four classes (where applicable) system as a way of establishing socialism in undeveloped countries

- revolutionising culture as well as politics

Those are the main things Mao contributed to Marxism-Leninism. He also put more emphasis on the contradictions aspect of dialectical materialism, stressed the Marxist principle of relying on the masses - the 'Mass Line', and refined Stalin's theory of the aggravation of class struggle under socialism into a more systematic fully-developed theory. He was also against excessive repression towards class enemies but I don't agree with that.

[Devrim]

Marxism-Leninism is Maoism. Parties that have (ML) after their name are Maoists.

Devrim

[Imposter Marxist]

Marxism-Leninism is Maoism. Parties that have (ML) after their name are Maoists.

Devrim


What?

[caramelpence]

What?

When there were splits within the official Communist Parties during the Sino-Soviet Split, it was common for pro-China splits to identify themselves by adding (ML) to the name of the parent party, and that trend continued throughout the rest of the 1960s and 70s and 80s, in that additional Maoist parties also commonly identified themselves with the (ML) suffix to their initials. For example, the manifold Indian CPI(ML) organizations, or the German KPD/ML. Things got more complicated in the late 1970s as there were also pro-Albanian parties, some of which had originally been Maoist parties and undergone ideological changes, that identified in those terms, and there were also some Maoist parties that didn't use (ML) to begin with, like the PLP in the United States, but generally parties that have (ML) as part of their initials are related in some way to Maoism, or at least anti-Soviet Stalinism, and in that sense the user Devrim is fully correct.

[Devrim]

What?

Apart from on Revleft, the term Marxism-Leninism is used to refer to refer to Maoist organisations. It does also refer to Hoxhaists as well, but they are a split from Maoism anyway. If a party has (ML) after its name, as in TKP(ML), it means it is a Maoist party.

It does not refer to Trotskyist organisations, who historically called themselves Bolshevik-Leninists.

Devrim

[Imposter Marxist]

Ah, okay, confused me for a minute. But a party can be a Marxist-Leninist party, without being maoist? It only signafies Maoism if they have (ML) by their name?

[caramelpence]

Ah, okay, confused me for a minute. But a party can be a Marxist-Leninist party, without being maoist? It only signafies Maoism if they have (ML) by their name?

As Devrim said, there are pro-Albainain parties that identify as (ML), but in most cases those parties were originally Maoist, and orientated more towards Albania after the death of Mao and defeat of the Gang of Four in 1976, so they can still be seen as products of the broader phenomenon of 1960s pro-China sentiment and radical chic. There are not, to my knowledge, any parties that orientated primarily towards Albania back in the 1960s, before the end of the Maoist period in China. The death of Mao in China brought about a crisis within the Maoist left, especially in the First World, and whereas some activists and organizations turned to Albania, as in the case of the KPD/ML, which was the first Maoist party to emerge in Germany, you should keep in mind that there were also others who went in more radically different political directions, so that in Germany, for example, many current Green Party politicians and former participants in the 1980s anti-nuclear movement had their political education in Maoism, and there were also other German Maoists who became explicitly fascist, and especially Strasserists, which is surprising at a superficial level, but makes more sense when you consider that Maoists in Germany and in other countries in the First World tried to characterize their countries as "oppressed nations" that were threatened by Soviet "social-imperialism" and NATO.

I don't think most Maoists on this sight appreciate how important anti-Sovietism was for Maoists in the First World and elsewhere. They use Maoism as a general term for Stalinist politics, including support for the USSR and countries like Cuba, whereas historical Maoists were quite willing to call the USSR fascist and state-capitalist and to call on their governments to prepare for a Soviet invasion.

[Devrim]

Ah, okay, confused me for a minute. But a party can be a Marxist-Leninist party, without being maoist? It only signafies Maoism if they have (ML) by their name?

It could be used in a slightly broader sense to include all 'anti-revisionists', but as there are that many Stalinists around today it is almost exclusivly used by Maoists.

I would imagine that in the USA the PSL might use it, but although they have roots in Trotskyism, they have moved far from it.

Devrim

[Spawn of Stalin]

TKP (ML) is one example but I think I would disagree with you on the whole. In the UK we have three parties with ML in the name and none of them are Maoists, in fact two of them are staunch supporters of the Chinese state so definitely not Maoist

[Devrim]

TKP (ML) is one example but I think I would disagree with you on the whole. In the UK we have three parties with ML in the name and none of them are Maoists, in fact two of them are staunch supporters of the Chinese state so definitely not Maoist

I think the three parties would be:

Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist):


The Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPB(M-L)) is a British communist political party. The small party was formed in 1968 by Reg Birch as a split from the Communist Party of Great Britain, siding with the Communist Party of China. Originally planned as the "British Marxist Leninist Organisation", the party published the Worker from 1969 until 2000, when it became Workers. In 1976, the Communist Workers' Movement split from the CPB(M-L), later joining its main British rival, the Revolutionary Communist League of Britain

Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist):


The party was founded on July 3, 2004 in London[1]. [2] Many of the founding members had previously been members of the Association of Communist Workers or the Indian Workers Association (GB).

Association of Communist Workers

It originated in 1969 as a split from the Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist League around Harpal Brar. Initially regarded as Maoist,

Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist):


Like other Bains-inspired parties, the then CPE(ML) took the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet split, thus being endorsed by Albania, then allied with Maoist China, and opposing both the capitalist West and the Soviet bloc. As a result, it supported the Three Worlds Theory promoted by Beijing and, as a consequence of this anti-Soviet line, supported British membership of NATO. However, during the deterioration in Sino-Albanian relations, it increasingly sided with the Party of Labour of Albania. It developed party to party relations with the Party of Labour of Albania and renounced Maoism.

All of them have their roots directly in the Sino-Soviet split .

Devrim

[Hebrew Hammer]

I have done some research into this, but I haven't really found much, only that Maoism is based on an agrian society whereas Marxism-Leninism is based on an industrial society...

What other differences are there?

That's not really the differences between Maoism and traditional Marxist-Leninism. China, pre-revolution was feudalistic with a large peasantry class and a very small proletarian base because it had not gone through the capitalist phase and was (to my knowledge) under a feudal mode of production hence the theory of New Democracy. This theory posits that it is possible to skip the capitalist phase and go from feudalism straight into Socialism. There is not a preoccupation with agrarian society this is just the material reality of China during the time period the CPC and Mao came into power. The conditions in Russia were different than in China, they had a larger proletarian base and because of this followed Marx's comments and assessments of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry class more closely, in that, they really had no role at all being that they owned/rented land and were tied to it and their class interests were no in sync with the proletariat.

Traditional Marxist-Leninists like the Hoxhaists, for example, see Maoism as revisionist whereas Maoist view the theories of Mao extending Marxist-Leninist thought and taking it and developing them further. Most ML would disagree with the bulk of the newer theories of Mao and policies in acted under his leadership as revisionist. They also see the cultural revolution as being anarchic. There is various points of agreement between us but there is also some points of disagreement. Take what I am saying with a grain of salt as I am new and still learning but this is what I've gathered thus far.

[caramelpence]

That's not really the differences between Maoism and traditional Marxist-Leninism. China, pre-revolution was feudalistic

No it wasn't.

[Ismail]

Okay, in brief:

Trotskyism = claims that Marxism-Leninism (which it terms "Stalinism") is a "bureaucratic distortion" of Marxism and Leninism. Trotskyists follow the views of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Leon Trotsky, although Marxist-Leninists would dispute the way in which Trotskyists uphold the former three.

Marxism-Leninism = a very broad term. Originally it referred to the pro-Soviet and pro-Stalin line of the 1920's-to-1950's USSR. After 1956 the Soviets continued to use it despite denouncing Stalin, as did the pro-Soviet parties and countries. In the 1960's and 1970's Maoists claimed to be upholding Marxism-Leninism against what they viewed as attempts to illegitimately revise both Marxism and Leninism by the post-1956 Soviet leadership. Maoists claim that Mao "advanced" Marxism-Leninism, and thus Mao Zedong Thought (later termed Maoism) was born. In the 1970's Enver Hoxha denounced Maoism as a right-wing deviation not much different in practice from the pro-Soviet, post-1956 "Marxism-Leninism." Thus "Hoxhaism" (although the term wasn't too popular amongst non-Maoists) was born, as Hoxha proclaimed his adherence to pre-1956 Marxism-Leninism without the supposed "advancements" of Mao.

So everyone from Stalin to Mao to Hoxha to Khrushchev to Brezhnev to (pre-1991) Gorbachev to Castro to Kim Il Sung to Ho Chi Minh claimed to be Marxist-Leninists, even though they certainly wouldn't all get along too well if given a room together.

Maoism has "New Democracy," the "bloc" of differing classes, and generally a need to emulate in some form the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" to reach a higher stage of socialist society. Hoxha rejected all three as anti-Marxist, and also more or less developed his own variant of the mass line throughout the 1960's and 70's which stressed the importance of the vanguard party and the role in promoting political education to the masses. It wasn't promoted like Mao's was, though, and the term was dropped completely after the Sino-Albanian split.

One helpful thing about Hoxha was that he denounced all sorts of supposedly "anti-dogmatic" measures and "theories." While the Soviets and the Maoists were talking about "not being dogmatic," Hoxha denounced such talk as treating Marxism less as a science and more like something that just somehow got horribly lopsided and needed to be "corrected" by this or that glorious new personality. It's why he not only denounced familiar things such as Trotskyism and Maoism, but also Eurocommunism, Juche, "African Socialism," "Arab Socialism" (including Ba'athism), Titoism, Che Guevara's "Foco" views and so on.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Maoism has "New Democracy," the "bloc" of differing classes, and generally a need to emulate in some form the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" to reach a higher stage of socialist society. Hoxha rejected all three as anti-Marxist, and also more or less developed his own variant of the mass line throughout the 1960's and 70's which stressed the importance of the vanguard party and the role in promoting political education to the masses. It wasn't promoted like Mao's was, though, and the term was dropped completely after the Sino-Albanian split.

Didn't Albania have a cultural revolution though? In fact I'd say the 'Cultural and Ideological Revolution' is a better example of a GPCR than the actual GPCR was. The problem with the Chinese one was that it was both a cultural revolution and a 'great purge' so to speak rolled into one and it ended up all chaotic with a lot of ultra-leftism and such and didn't achieve its goals, while the Albanian one avoided all those problems.

[Ismail]

Yes, Hoxha launched what he termed a "Cultural and Ideological Revolution," but it had little in common with Mao's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution." There was no "Red Guard," no emphasis on students over workers and peasants, no disrupting of the vanguard party, no "little red book," and no anarchy. The purpose of Hoxha's was to enhance the role of the vanguard party and to get rid of reactionary cultural norms. For instance, whereas in the GPCR Mao made the army more or less the banner of the "revolution," Hoxha abolished ranks and noted that the party must always subordinate the army to its tasks.

[Hebrew Hammer]

No it wasn't.

How was it not?

[Hebrew Hammer]

Mao's bloc of four classes, building a government consisting of representatives of the peasentry, the workers, the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie
While the stalinists on paper want a worker's government, they practically established a bureaocratic dictatorship

I don't think this is an accurate description of the "bloc of four classes," under the New Democratic theory. Also, Mao and Maoists propose the dictatorship of the proletariat/worker's state.

[caramelpence]

How was it not?

What makes you think that China was "feudal" in the 1920s and 30s? I say it was not because corvee labor was no longer a major feature of the social relations of the countryside, because land was alienable, because taxation had already become based solely on cash during the Ming Dynasty, because the means of collecting rents had changed from sharecropping to fixed rents that were paid in cash, because agrarian production was increasingly orientated towards cash crops (i.e. commodities) rather than production for subsistence or immediate use, because peasant handicraft production became integrated with global markets, because there was an increasing convergence of industrial property and land ownership, because there was an increase in absentee landlordism with implications for the harshness of social relations, because there was sustained migration between rural and urban areas and transfers of remittances from workers who were employed in the treaty ports and other cities - in short, because the Chinese countryside was based on commodity production, the sale and purchase of labor power, and was fully integrated with global circuits and circuits of capital accumulation.

[Red_Struggle]

New Democracy: Maoism states that socialism can only be built through collaboration of several classes and parties via new democracy; a new democratic regime with such wrongful misconceptions based on “coexistence” and non-Marxist teaching. New democracy undermines the vanguard Marxist-Leninist party, undermines the proletarian dictatorship, and allows the bourgeoisie to remain in power. Dictatorship of the proletariat let alone socialism can never exist without strong leadership from the vanguard party; such political pluralism of Maoism is therefore detrimental to socialism. Marxism-Leninism seeks a well disciplined and educated vanguard party to educate and lead the people, but attempting to give the petty-bourgeois this position is merely liberalism. Stalin noted that the Communist Party is the most advanced detachment of the proletariat, and so denying the Party their true influence results in failure.

Three Worlds Theory: According to Mao, the USA and the post-Stalin Soviet Union represented the first world, imperialist states. The second world represented other, lesser imperialist states in their spheres of influence and the third world represented all non-imperialist countries. The first and second world exploit the third world through imperialism. The entire conception of the Three Worlds Theory was merely justification for Mao’s attempt to gain control over the third world countries surrounding China. Some Maoist Third Worldists even extended this further and claim that there can be no proletariat in the “first world,” which merely leads to ultra-leftism and radically false perceptions of class struggle. The “Maoist Third-Worldist” perception of the Three Worlds says that the working class of the “first world” are “bought off” by the bourgeoisie and raised by imperialism, and thus according to Maoist Third-Worldists, socialist revolution can not occur in the first world or imperialist countries; there is no proletariat in the imperialist countries. This led Mao is ally China with people like Mobuto, Suharto, Pinochet, Savimbi, and Marcos.

People’s War: Historically, and even in more modern situations, people’s war has relied extensively on the peasantry. The proletariat is the only force capable of fully leading the revolution; the peasantry is a valuable ally, but Hoxha criticized Mao’s conception of a peoples war for cementing power for the peasantry and not the proletariat. The Marxist-Leninist approach of revolution therefore is an uprising that occurs simultaneously with the cities and countryside. Hoxha furthermore stressed that the people themselves train in using weapons in order to defend the country, and therefore military ranks were abolished, arms were distributed, and so forth.

Mass Line: The mass line makes analysis of what the people need, what is on their minds, and so forth, and then takes those needs and gives a Marxist approach in order to help the masses understand their class interests. The mass line theory is indeed Marxist, but the problem is that Maoists seem to attribute the theory in it’s entirety to Mao. All Marxists have supported the same ideas, and the very idea of going to the masses can be attributed as early on as Marx himself.

Also, here are some funny Mao quotes:

“We shall be glad to have Europe become powerful.” — Mao to Edward Heath.

"Differences between China and the Soviet Union began in 1954, because when Adenauer visited Moscow in 1955, Khrushchov told him that China was no end of trouble. It was written thus in Adenauer’s memoirs. Have you ever met Adenauer?” — Mao, admitting the Sino-Soviet split was not over Stalin’s legacy nor Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”

“I welcome Nixon’s winning the election.” –Mao Zedong, December 18th, 1970

“One of our policies now is refusing to let Americans visit China. Is this policy correct? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should study it. Leftists, moderates and rightists should all be approved to come to China. Why the rightists? [...] The reason is that the moderates and leftists are unable to solve any problem, and right now we must straighten things out with Nixon. We have to let him come as a matter of course.” –Mao, 1970

:D

[Born in the USSR]

http://anticomprador.ru/_ph/1/2/697523554.jpg
"Thank you!Thank you,my dear!"

[Rafiq]

Wha- ....^

[Marxach-Léinínach]

New Democracy: Maoism states that socialism can only be built through collaboration of several classes and parties via new democracy; a new democratic regime with such wrongful misconceptions based on “coexistence” and non-Marxist teaching. New democracy undermines the vanguard Marxist-Leninist party, undermines the proletarian dictatorship, and allows the bourgeoisie to remain in power. Dictatorship of the proletariat let alone socialism can never exist without strong leadership from the vanguard party; such political pluralism of Maoism is therefore detrimental to socialism. Marxism-Leninism seeks a well disciplined and educated vanguard party to educate and lead the people, but attempting to give the petty-bourgeois this position is merely liberalism. Stalin noted that the Communist Party is the most advanced detachment of the proletariat, and so denying the Party their true influence results in failure.
Maoists don't believe that socialism can be established only via New Democracy, just in third world countries where the national bourgeoisie is also a revolutionary class, and even then just when applicable. The Shining Path in Peru for example only ever talked about their "worker-peasant alliance" and didn't mention the national bourgeoisie. Basic socialism was established in China via New Democracy. The problem was Mao allowed their representatives like Liu and Deng in the party in the name of "Two-Line Struggle" which I don't agree with. The national bourgeoisie can be incorporated into socialism economically but they can't be given any ideological quarter.

Three Worlds Theory: According to Mao, the USA and the post-Stalin Soviet Union represented the first world, imperialist states. The second world represented other, lesser imperialist states in their spheres of influence and the third world represented all non-imperialist countries. The first and second world exploit the third world through imperialism. The entire conception of the Three Worlds Theory was merely justification for Mao’s attempt to gain control over the third world countries surrounding China. Some Maoist Third Worldists even extended this further and claim that there can be no proletariat in the “first world,” which merely leads to ultra-leftism and radically false perceptions of class struggle. The “Maoist Third-Worldist” perception of the Three Worlds says that the working class of the “first world” are “bought off” by the bourgeoisie and raised by imperialism, and thus according to Maoist Third-Worldists, socialist revolution can not occur in the first world or imperialist countries; there is no proletariat in the imperialist countries. This led Mao is ally China with people like Mobuto, Suharto, Pinochet, Savimbi, and Marcos.
Maoist Third-Worldists denounce the Three Worlds Theory all the time. Rather than ignoring class struggle in the first world, China's coverage of progressive movements in the first world increased during the TWT period. MTWists don't believe that there's no proletariat in the first world either, they believe there's no significant proletariat in the first world. The TWT was never about "gloriously uniting the third world against the first world!" or whatever, it was just a lame theoretical justification for the fact the China was allying with the west and all its pro-West anti-Soviet compradors in the third world, hence all the third world leaders who came to power via coups and such that they allied with

People’s War: Historically, and even in more modern situations, people’s war has relied extensively on the peasantry. The proletariat is the only force capable of fully leading the revolution; the peasantry is a valuable ally, but Hoxha criticized Mao’s conception of a peoples war for cementing power for the peasantry and not the proletariat. The Marxist-Leninist approach of revolution therefore is an uprising that occurs simultaneously with the cities and countryside. Hoxha furthermore stressed that the people themselves train in using weapons in order to defend the country, and therefore military ranks were abolished, arms were distributed, and so forth.
Hey, it worked in China and Vietnam. It came close in Peru. It's doing well in India right now as well.

Mass Line: The mass line makes analysis of what the people need, what is on their minds, and so forth, and then takes those needs and gives a Marxist approach in order to help the masses understand their class interests. The mass line theory is indeed Marxist, but the problem is that Maoists seem to attribute the theory in it’s entirety to Mao. All Marxists have supported the same ideas, and the very idea of going to the masses can be attributed as early on as Marx himself.
I agree

[Dave B]

Well given that most neo post modernist Maoists and Marxist-Leninists wouldn’t support, suggest or advocate that Mao’s China was state capitalism then they aren’t Maoists but at best revisionists Maoists or Narodniks.


And Mao could just have said that that; ‘all I know is that I am not a Maoist’.

So from;
Mao Tse-tung
THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION
OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE



From the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1977
First Edition 1977 Vol. V, pp. 112-14.

THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE September 7, 1953





The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism.

1. In the last three years or so we have done some work on this, but as we were otherwise occupied, we didn't exert ourselves enough. From now on we should make a bigger effort.

2. With more than three years of experience behind us, we can say with certainty that accomplishing the socialist transformation of private industry and commerce by means of state capitalism is a relatively sound policy and method.


3. The policy laid down in Article 31 of the Common Programme should now be clearly understood and concretely applied step by step. "Clearly understood" means that people in positions of leadership at the central and local levels should first of all have the firm conviction that state capitalism is the only road for the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce and for the gradual completion of the transition to socialism. So far this has not been the case either with members of the Communist Party or with democratic personages. The present meeting is being held to achieve that end.

4. Make steady progress and avoid being too hasty. It will take at least three to five years to lead the country's private industry and commerce basically onto the path of state capitalism, so there should be no cause for alarm or uneasiness.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TC53.html

I think however that Mao was a genuine Leninist, as opposed to a neo post modernist Leninist, as both Lenin and Mao both advocated the introduction of state capitalism.

And both described their revolutions as such

And considered that the introduction of anything else but (state) capitalism in a feudal country as reactionary.

Democracy and Narodism in China. Lenin 1912;





But the Chinese Narodnik combines this ideology of militant democracy, firstly, with socialist dreams, with hopes of China avoiding the capitalist path, of preventing capitalism, and, secondly, with a plan for, and advocacy of, radical agrarian reform. It is these two last ideological and political trends that constitute the element which forms Narodism—Narodism in the specific sense of that term, i.e., as distinct from democracy, as a supplement to democracy.


………For the idea that capitalism can be “prevented” in China and that a “social revolution” there will be made easier by the country’s backwardness, and so on, is altogether reactionary.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1912/jul/15.htm


which was an identical analysis to the one that Lenin applied to Russia in 1914.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm

[Hebrew Hammer]

Maoists don't believe that socialism can be established only via New Democracy, just in third world countries where the national bourgeoisie is also a revolutionary class, and even then just when applicable. The Shining Path in Peru for example only ever talked about their "worker-peasant alliance" and didn't mention the national bourgeoisie. Basic socialism was established in China via New Democracy. The problem was Mao allowed their representatives like Liu and Deng in the party in the name of "Two-Line Struggle" which I don't agree with. The national bourgeoisie can be incorporated into socialism economically but they can't be given any ideological quarter.

From what I understand the national-bourgeoisie were never given any sort of political position or allowed to have any influence, the CPC was the only political force and one in power and all classes were under the direct leadership of the party. The New Democratic model (as you said) is mainly for semi-feudal, semi-colonial 'third world' countries whom have not gone through the capitalist phase or had a bourgeois-democratic revolution. It is not the cookie-cutter model for all revolutions, of all nations, ever, just tailored specifically to the material conditions of a given nation, in particular (and obviously) in China. Further, I think it's strange that some Hoxhaists and other ML are viewing the theory in such a manner considering Mao cited works by Stalin in his On New Democracy.

I might address the other points later.

[Dave B]

I think Mao laid out the basis of the Chinese revolution in 1939 which, despite some nuances of his own, was still basically then that of the so called stageist theory and of a “bourgeois-democratic type”.

Although I must confess to not being an expert on Mao having probably read less than half of what is available on the internet.




THE CHINESE REVOLUTION AND THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY December I939





5. THE CHARACTER OF THE CHINESE REVOLUTION



We have now gained an understanding of the nature of Chinese society, i.e., of the specific conditions in China; this understanding is the essential prerequisite for solving all China's revolutionary problems. We are also clear about the targets, the tasks and the motive forces of the Chinese revolution; these are basic issues at the present stage of the revolution and arise from the special nature of Chinese society, i.e., from China's specific conditions.

Understanding all this, we can now understand another basic issue of the revolution at the present stage, i.e., the character of the Chinese revolution.

What, indeed, is the character of the Chinese revolution at the present stage? Is it a bourgeois-democratic or a proletarian-socialist revolution? Obviously, it is not the latter but the former.

Since Chinese society is colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal, since the principal enemies of the Chinese revolution are imperialism and feudalism, since the tasks of the revolution are to overthrow these two enemies by means of a national and democratic revolution in which the bourgeoisie sometimes takes part, and since the edge of the revolution is directed against imperialism and feudalism and not against capitalism and capitalist private property in general even if the big bourgeoisie betrays the revolution and becomes its enemy -- since all this is true, the character of the Chinese revolution at the present stage is not proletarian-socialist but bourgeois-democratic

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CRCCP39.html#c2s5