Chairman mao; revolutionary hero or monumental failure?

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Whats your opinions on chairman mao's life and work

[Red And Black Sabot]

Monumental failure just like all of the groups since the 1960s who were maoist or had a maoist structure ended up being nothing more than just that. Failures themselves.

[CommunityBeliever]

I am a maoist so I would say revolutionary hero.

[JoeySteel]

Monumental failure just like all of the groups since the 1960s who were maoist or had a maoist structure ended up being nothing more than just that. Failures themselves.

Let's see:

-Led one of the most important revolutions in the history of human society

-Oversaw one of the largest increases of living standards in history

Among many, many other points of merit.

Maybe that sounds like a failure to you, but to me (and the Chinese people) there might have been some merit to the guy.

You're particularly dishonest because you claim that Mao was a failure "just like" other Maoist groups. Even if you consider Mao a failure, the "failure" of victory and success is a lot different than the failure of most Maoist groups.

Edit: my answer is revolutionary hero, obviously. Even if one doesn't buy Mao's theory and is critical of his practice (and I am critical of some of Mao's practice for sure) it would be difficult to argue by any reasonable standard that he was not a revolutionary hero.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

i think mao was a revolutionary hero, albeit a flawed one, he made some disastrous decisions(great leap forward). but the Chinese people revere him, and he laid the foundations for reforms

[agnixie]

Also supported reactionary governments in the name of realpolitik.

Established the basis for the current capitalist regime in China

The concept of national bourgeoisie is a sick joke that basically justifies the class collaborationism of the above two facts

Claimed to adhere to and rewrite a philosopher he had never read.

[CommunityBeliever]

Established the basis for the current capitalist regime in ChinaIndeed he did. He helped to bring China into the 20th century by industrialising it and building infrastructure and by defeating the imperialists and the feudalists. The remaining progressive programs that are in China were put in place by Mao and his comrades.

[Ballyfornia]

Indeed he did. He helped to bring China into the 20th century by industrialising it and building infrastructure and by defeating the imperialists and the feudalists. The remaining progressive programs that are in China were put in place by Mao and his comrades.

But didn't the Capitalist restoration happen because of the failure of New Democracy?

[Sir Comradical]

"The Chinese people made a revolution led by the CCP, the most important leader of which was Mao...It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 in a space of less than 30 years. It was a revolution that brought unity and stability to a country that had been plagued by civil wars and foreign invasions, and a revolution that laid the foundation for China to become the equal of the great global powers. It was a revolution that carried out land reform, promoted women’s status, improved popular literacy, and eventually transformed Chinese society beyond recognition." - Mobo Gao in 'Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution

[scarletghoul]

A revolutionary hero for sure. He led the chinese people in rebellion against the imperialists, the feudal lords, and the capitalists. After the communist party came to power and the new bourgeoisie started to emerge within that party and exploit the people, mao led the people in rebelling against the party and the state itself. thats something no other world leader has done, encouraged people to rebel against his own government. and that is why mao will always be a revolutionary icon for the people of the world.. revolution is pretty much the essence of mao zedong as a historical figure.


But didn't the Capitalist restoration happen because of the failure of New Democracy?
the New Democratic revolution in china had long passed by the time deng led the capitalist restoration. chinese capitalism was restored in much the same way russian capitalism was: the new bourgeoisie arose within the party and implemented revisionist reforms (the difference is that unlike stalin, mao recognised that this is what would happen. he just failed to stop it).

so in that sense maoism failed, but only to the extent that the restoration of capitalism in russia happened because of the failure of leninism, or that the crushing of the paris commune happened because of the failure of direct workers control.. something can fail without being incorrect.. the most important thing is that mao was on the right track, he saw that the people needed to rebel against the revisionist new bourgeoisie that would restore capitalism.

Monumental failure just like all of the groups since the 1960s who were maoist or had a maoist structure ended up being nothing more than just that. Failures themselves.
Im sorry I guess you haven't heard about the 10,000s-strong maoist organisations who control vast areas of South Asia and have the support of millions of people. looooool

[agnixie]

Indeed he did. He helped to bring China into the 20th century by industrialising it and building infrastructure and by defeating the imperialists and the feudalists. The remaining progressive programs that are in China were put in place by Mao and his comrades.

So basically maoism is just a bloodier version of bourgeois liberalism, gotcha. On the other hand we're not trying to establish capitalism, we're trying to smash it.

[CommunityBeliever]

So basically maoism is just a bloodier version of bourgeois liberalism, gotcha. So you know nothing about maoism? Gotcha.

[OhYesIdid]

IFOP should probably cut back on the constant fight-pìcking if he wants to stick around for long :rolleyes:
I personally agree that he was good and flawed, although Zenga just won this thread so it's pointless to continue. However, we must remember that it was the Sino-Soviet split which probably decided the Cold War. That and the Space Race (oh like you didn't think it). For all his talk of unity, it was his unwillingness to cooperate with revisionists which cost us the world. And history.

[caramelpence]

Why does it have to be a case of either or? Mao was a brilliant revolutionary leader in the tradition of popular nationalism but was a failure when it came to establishing and maintaining socialism in China.

[Aspiring Humanist]

are you asking to start a tendency war

[Tommy4ever]

Not a fan.

[RED DAVE]

Why does it have to be a case of either or? Mao was a brilliant revolutionary leader in the tradition of popular nationalism but was a failure when it came to establishing and maintaining socialism in China.(1) Some people around here are delusional and think he was a socialist leader.

(2) His political legacy is capitalism.

(3) As to how "brilliant" he was, frankly, his writings make Stalin sound like Gorky.

(4) As to how brilliant he was strategically, I wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been operating during and immediately after the war with Japan.

(5) He completely abandoned and opposed any independent action by the working class.

RED DAVE

[Ingraham Effingham]

He certainly was photogenic, and he rocked that cargo-suit like no fools business.

[Ocean Seal]

Established the basis for the current capitalist regime in China
Yep Mao was an evil man even after he died. Is Lenin responsible for Stalin? Is Marx responsible for Lenin? No, after your dead, you can't do anything to stop those who come after you. So Mao can't be held responsible for Deng.



Claimed to adhere to and rewrite a philosopher he had never read.
Hurr durr, Mao was just an ignorant peasant boy. He should have given up to the KMT, read and taken seminars on Marxism and then proceeded to fight them.

[Ballyfornia]

Yep Mao was an evil man even after he died. Is Lenin responsible for Stalin? Is Marx responsible for Lenin? No, after your dead, you can't do anything to stop those who come after you. So Mao can't be held responsible for Deng.


Mao shouldn't have let National bourgeois and petite bourgeois in the Communist Party. Therefore that led to Deng's capitalist restoration.

[agnixie]

Yep Mao was an evil man even after he died. Is Lenin responsible for Stalin? Is Marx responsible for Lenin? No, after your dead, you can't do anything to stop those who come after you. So Mao can't be held responsible for Deng.


Hurr durr, Mao was just an ignorant peasant boy. He should have given up to the KMT, read and taken seminars on Marxism and then proceeded to fight them.

Descartes read the classics and wrote during his time off as a soldier in the middle of a war, it's not like the Sino-Japanese war didn't involve long periods of sitzkrieg between operations. Considering the CPC somehow managed to put out and public a translation of Das Kapital in mandarin before the fucking war (1934), I don't know, you'd sort of hope the future head of the party would at least bother to pore over the book. You know the kind of person who writes on philosophers they know nothing about? Ayn Rand, that's who. That's part of why she's constantly panned as a philosopher, her understanding of Kant was having read a fourth cover blurb and nothing more. And that's the level of understanding of marx the guy maoists insist redefined marxism had? You've got to be kidding me. BTW, I said nothing about being an ignorant peasant (from what I knew, his family were rather well off farmers), but nice strawman.

Mao is still responsible for writing about bullshit like the four classes and national bourgeoisie, he's still responsible for supporting reactionary governments in Africa, and he's still responsible for his overall rejection of working class action.

He should just have crowned himself emperor like some of the more reactionary nationalist elements around him wanted and be done with the illusion.

[CHE with an AK]

...




"During the years when Mao was china’s 'great helmsman', change of many sorts came to china. These include improvements in public health, health care, and the distribution of food, all of which helped to raise life expectancy to age sixty-seven for men and age sixty-nine for women ... China’s socialist system concentrated on bringing benefits to everyone in the population in an equitable fashion. It deserves credit for the doubling of the proportion of the population in school, the provision of housing for everyone, and the abolition of unemployment and inflation."



— The Cambridge Illustrated History of China, 2010

[CHE with an AK]

China's Population

(1949) when Mao took over ~ 550 million

(1976) when Mao died ~ 900 million

... famine and mass murder must do wonders for population growth.

[agnixie]

China's Population

(1949) when Mao took over ~ 550 million

(1976) when Mao died ~ 900 million

... famine and mass murder must do wonders for population growth.

China recovered from many mass murders and famines over its history. Also, seeing as Africa had a nearly 8 fold increase in population in the last century, while Europe didn't quite double, I think you have no goddamn clue how demographics work.

[Nox]

He greatly improved the living standards of the Chinese, and set the foundations for its status as a world superpower, and soon to be worlds largest economy.

Yes, China is now capitalist, but China would be nothing today if it weren't for him.

[CHE with an AK]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z3zLnwZeL3o/SOnIFqpzedI/AAAAAAAAAUs/bkfkJK2XSPs/s400/Mao.png


- Revolutionary


- Military strategist


- Poet


-Political philosopher


- Intellectual


- Commanded parts of the heroic "Long March"


- Lead the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War


- Defeated an assortment of powerful regional and ethnic warlords in the process of unifying China


- Enacted sweeping land reform


- Overthrew feudal landlords and seized their large estates, before dividing the land up among the common people who worked it


- Laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China


- Put an end to China's rampant Western-driven opium addiction


- Eliminated unemployment and inflation


- Doubled the school population


- Increased life expectancy and doubled overall population


- Transformed the country from an underdeveloped peasant-based agrarian society into a major industrialized world power


:star3: :star3: :star3: :star3: :star3:

[CommunityBeliever]

Mao shouldn't have let National bourgeois and petite bourgeois in the Communist Party. Therefore that led to Deng's the capitalist restoration.

He did not "let" the bourgeoisie into the party. Blaming him for everyone who joined the CCP shows a serious disconnect from reality and an acceptance of the great man view of the world.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah I mean, i can understand someone (incorrectly) thinking that mao was not a 'true marxist' or whatever, but i honestly dont see how anyone could deny that he is one of the most successful military/political leaders in history. If he is a 'monumental failure' then someone please tell me what is this huuuuge failure that outweighs all of the considerable achievements listed by "CHE with an AK"

[Nox]

Yeah I mean, i can understand someone (incorrectly) thinking that mao was not a 'true marxist' or whatever, but i honestly dont see how anyone could deny that he is one of the most successful military/political leaders in history. If he is a 'monumental failure' then someone please tell me what is this huuuuge failure that outweighs all of the considerable achievements listed by "CHE with an AK"

Let me try and balance this out in a way everyone will agree with...

If you're going to be really strict, then yes, for Communism he was a failure.

But for humanity he was a HERO (see CHE with an AK's post) :thumbup1:

[DaringMehring]

The achievements of post-revolution China are many and great. Advances in gender equality alone, though incomplete, represent a move toward liberation for over half a billion -- that is to say, nearly 10% of the world's population.

But it is an error to ascribe any and every success of post-revolution China to Mao. We certainly don't credit every advance in the USA to whoever was President at the time.

Mao, especially early Mao, was perceptive and capable organizer. He was honest in a sense with his theory of New Democracy and the bloc of four classes -- while it is non-Marxist or mutant-Marxist, at least he had the guts to say it.

Certainly the bloc of four classes and the way post-revolutionary China was run disqualifies it from Marxism or socialism as understood in the classic tradition. Chalk it to pre-capitalist backwardness, or to bad theory. The two are interrelated.

The point is "revolutionary hero" and "monumental failure" is a false dichotomy. The mind-set of blaming every ill on subjective leadership is false, and so is the idolozing cult of personality that is obvious in various posters, posts, and writings. Mao played a historical role, in a complex set of circumstances that constrained his subjective motivations and historical possibilities. Post-revolution China enjoyed many advances but was by no means socialist either in reality or theory.

[Ballyfornia]

He did not "let" the bourgeoisie into the party. Blaming him for everyone who joined the CCP shows a serious disconnect from reality and an acceptance of the great man view of the world.


He kinda did you know....New Democracy?

[CHE with an AK]

anti-Mao RevLefters ...


ExWfh6sGyso

[Octavian]

Descartes read the classics and wrote during his time off as a soldier in the middle of a war, it's not like the Sino-Japanese war didn't involve long periods of sitzkrieg between operations. Considering the CPC somehow managed to put out and public a translation of Das Kapital in mandarin before the fucking war (1934),
In red star over china mao says that he only got to read a few books because only a few were translated into a language he could read(One of them being the communist manifesto). Also Mao spoke Xiang and considering the complexity and length of Marxs writing I doubt he would be able to read all of it and understand it in a second language he learned later in life.

[Optiow]

He was a wanker...

[#FF0000]

I remember when I first joined the site I said a lot of things that would make me cringe today, because of my inexperience and lack of understanding then.

Saying "there isn't anything revolutionary about mao zedong" is not one of those things.

[#FF0000]

anti-Mao RevLefters ...


ExWfh6sGyso


anti-Imperialist RevLefters ...


ExWfh6sGyso

see what i did here

[Reznov]

Monumental failure just like all of the groups since the 1960s who were maoist or had a maoist structure ended up being nothing more than just that. Failures themselves.

Are you even aware of China pre-Revolution?

We have to look at this revolutions and revolutionaries in their proper context and what they were faced with, and how they had to deal with they had to deal with.

That said, I consider him a hero, just like any other who is a revolutionary.

[scarletghoul]

In red star over china mao says that he only got to read a few books because only a few were translated into a language he could read(One of them being the communist manifesto). Also Mao spoke Xiang and considering the complexity and length of Marxs writing I doubt he would be able to read all of it and understand it in a second language he learned later in life.
Isn't written chinese almost completely the same regardless of the spoken language/dialect of the author ? so its the same written language used by different spoken languages.. thats what i always thought anyway

[scarletghoul]

Anyway i dont think you need to read das kapital to be a good communist. unless ive missed something when reading it, there doesnt seem to be anything essential in volume 1 of das kapital that cant be learned in a short summary of marxist economics by some other author. you dont need to completely read all the classic works to grasp the meaning of something.

I haven't read any works by Lenin, but I'm definitely a Leninist.

[Rafiq]

Mao represented the interests of the Chinese petite bourgeoisie. Supported south African aparthied and eventually gave in to U.S. interests.

[Rafiq]

Jizzing over chinas economic advancement is like boasting over pinochets "advancement"

[Os Cangaceiros]

^yeah, I don't really get the fetishism over hyper-industrialization, either.

Chinese workers today are some of the most exploited and brutalized on the planet. That's partially Mao's legacy.

And no, I don't buy into the notion that "It's all Deng's fault!" That's just the aforementioned "great man theory" inverted unto itself.

[RED DAVE]

Certainly the bloc of four classes and the way post-revolutionary China was run disqualifies it from Marxism or socialism as understood in the classic tradition. Chalk it to pre-capitalist backwardness, or to bad theory. The two are interrelated.Problem is, there was an alternative. This was the path taken by the Bolsheviks: relying on the working class to accomplish the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions simultaneously. That's what makes Mao a shit: his failure to follow Lenin's course.

Neither the Stalinists nor the Maoists have the political guts for that, so we see one episode of class collaboration after another. And the result is always the same – capitalism.

RED DAVE

[CHE with an AK]

see what i did here
Yeah ...
missed the point.

Imperialism extracts resources from the periphery to the center - Mao did the opposite, he widened and industrialized the center within his own nation and brought China from the 18th century to the mid-20th in less than 20 years. China is in a better position than any other nation in the World right now, thanks to the industrialized and infrastructural foundation Mao set out to implement. Moreover, more net lives were added and educated under his reign as Chairman than any nation or empire ever on earth.

This is a marathon, not a sprint, and China is still the best hope to bring about World revolution.

If you want to ignorantly bash Mao, I'd suggest a right-wing forum - not here.

[#FF0000]

Yeah ...
missed the point.

No no no no. You did. Twice now.

[∞]

Revolutionary Failure.

[Jose Gracchus]

Problem is, there was an alternative. This was the path taken by the Bolsheviks: relying on the working class to accomplish the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions simultaneously. That's what makes Mao a shit: his failure to follow Lenin's course.

Neither the Stalinists nor the Maoists have the political guts for that, so we see one episode of class collaboration after another. And the result is always the same – capitalism.

RED DAVE

It is somewhat dishonest to accuse the Maoists of such failings because they yielded 'capitalism' for not following Lenin's 'path' while the Bolsheviks under Lenin managed no better outcome by the 1920s.

Leninists need to be reminded that their tendency's historical relation to the soviet-form was not always positive (famously in 1905 the party I believe informed the soviet it should adopt their program or dissolve). Lenin was prepared to launch his popular coup in Petrograd backed by a Bolshevik majority in the factory committees if he could not obtain it in the soviets. Trotsky also attempted to fix the apportionment of votes to the Second Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies to benefit the Bolsheviks, and of course the first tendency to demand no defense of the Provisional Government, no agitation for a Constituent Assembly, and soviet power was in fact the anarchists.

[caramelpence]

Certainly the bloc of four classes and the way post-revolutionary China was run disqualifies it from Marxism or socialism as understood in the classic tradition. Chalk it to pre-capitalist backwardness, or to bad theory. The two are interrelated.

Except, there was nothing "pre-capitalist" about China in the 20th century, and to say that China was "backward" ignores the decisive effects of combined and uneven development. China exhibited modern phenomena (one of my favourite examples is the fact that the first cinema in Shanghai opened only five years after the first large cinema opened in San Francisco, along with the fact that Shanghai was also home to the largest textile mill in the world by 1930) as a result of imperialist penetration, but these modern phenomena existed alongside and intersected with various forms of underdevelopment. It was precisely because of the condition of combined and uneven development that China was able to exhibit a radical working-class movement throughout the main part of the 1920s, which was centered around Shanghai and the southern port cities of Canton and Hong Kong, and, through the May 30th Movement of 1925, created incipient forms of Soviet power. The formation and success of Maoism was not the result of China being universally and straightforwardly backward, it was a result of the changed strategic situation of the CPC after 1927, when the party found itself in the countryside as a result of the collapse of the Comintern-sponsored first united front.

[tanklv]

I was gonna say both, but for his immediate cause, he was a hero and a success - he did after all succeed in throwing off the colonial yoke of the European and US imperialists, as well as gaining independance from a new form of coersion from the Soviet Union.

The fact that his revolution has given way to a capatalist/communist/socialist blend, it would have to be considered ultimately a failure.

His brutal forced relocation of competant burocrats and professionals to farm the countryside was extremely bad judgement, and on the border of criminal - it set back China for decades.

But the story is not yet over...

[∞]

Jizzing over chinas economic advancement is like boasting over pinochets "advancement"

The case is a little different however. To my best knowledge on Chile, Pinochet decreased inflation but the standard of living dropped drastically. Mao actually improved standard of living for people (if they were alive to see it). I think a better example would be people fetishising over Hitler's "economic advancement".

[Agent Equality]

He was a revolutionary flop as is his doctrine.

[Kiev Communard]

To my mind, Mao Zedong was a great bourgeois revolutionary (in a sense of preparing the ground for extensive capitalist development) but nothing spectacular from a proletarian point of view, as he derailed what could have become a truly proletarian revolution (i.e. the 1966-1969 events, usually known as "Cultural Revolution") into senseless attacks against a handful of liberal intellectuals and his own political adversaries in the CCP. The death toll from his government's disastrous "speed-up" modernisation policies of the "Great Leap Forward" should not be forgotten either.

[RED DAVE]

Ia capatalist/communist/socialist blendNo such thing.

It's capitalism.

RED DAVE

[CHE with an AK]

Like many of the notable revolutionaries that some of the perfectionist left like to criticize, Mao has the unenviable position of being someone who actually carried through in a revolution and did what was necessary to keep it from being overturned by the assortment of capitalist and reactionary jackals that exist in real life – but are missing from most theoretical ivory towers.

When you are actually the one on the ground battling regional war lords, imperialist mercenaries, oligarchs and their private armies, capitalist reactionaries, fascists, leftist dissenters who collaborate with your enemies etc – it is amazing how fast the kumbaya drum circle breaks down and counterrevolutionaries have to start being imprisoned or shot.

Some of the anti-Mao, anti-Lenin, anti-Trotsky, anti-Stalin, anti-Fidel, anti-Che, anti-anyonewhoactuallyeverwon contingent etc -- remind me of meat eaters who are against the killing of animals. They haven’t really thought through how the steak gets on their plate, they just know they like to eat it. However, they also like the fuzzy warm idea that no animal is ever butchered for its meat, so they don’t really find anything ironic about advocating for the non-killing of animals, while also munching down on hamburgers. Likewise, some revolutionary leftists want “revolution”, without the whole actual “revolution” part. They idealistically believe that you can kindly ask the slave owner for your freedom, while bashing the proverbial members of the Amistad who decided that the best way to emancipate themselves was to start slitting throats.

To borrow a line from St. Ignatius, “any dissent in a besieged city is treason” – and Mao et al for the most part did what was necessary to preserve the revolutions gains. Sure, many were killed, but many many more were also born in their place because of the social gains of the revolution. It is amazing to me that China has gone from a collection of warlord feudal states to the second strongest nation in the world in 50 years – and yet, people believe that they have done this “in spite” of Mao, instead of because of him for the first 25 years.

[RED DAVE]

Mao has the unenviable position of being someone who actually carried through in a revolution and did what was necessary to keep it from being overturned by the assortment of capitalist and reactionary jackals that exist in real life – but are missing from most theoretical ivory towers.(1) With his anti-Marxist notion of the block of four classes, Mao planted the seeds of capitalism in China.

(2) The revolution that he carried out ended up as a capitalist revolution.


When you are actually the one on the ground battling regional war lords, imperialist mercenaries, oligarchs and their private armies, capitalist reactionaries, fascists, leftist dissenters who collaborate with your enemies etc – it is amazing how fast the kumbaya drum circle breaks down and counterrevolutionaries have to start being imprisoned or shot.Note to all Comrades: Confiscate this dude's AK ASAP.


Some of the anti-Mao, anti-Lenin, anti-Trotsky, anti-Stalin, anti-Fidel, anti-Che, anti-anyonewhoactuallyeverwon contingent etc -- remind me of meat eaters who are against the killing of animals. They haven’t really thought through how the steak gets on their plate, they just know they like to eat it. However, they also like the fuzzy warm idea that no animal is ever butchered for its meat, so they don’t really find anything ironic about advocating for the non-killing of animals, while also munching down on hamburgers. Likewise, some revolutionary leftists want “revolution”, without the whole actual “revolution” part. They idealistically believe that you can kindly ask the slave owner for your freedom, while bashing the proverbial members of the Amistad who decided that the best way to emancipate themselves was to start slitting throats.I assume your profession involves large amounts of straw.


To borrow a line from St. Ignatius, “any dissent in a besieged city is treason” – and Mao et al for the most part did what was necessary to preserve the revolutions gains. Sure, many were killed, but many many more were also born in their place because of the social gains of the revolution. It is amazing to me that China has gone from a collection of warlord feudal states to the second strongest nation in the world in 50 years – and yet, people believe that they have done this “in spite” of Mao, instead of because of him for the first 25 years. Now, Comrades, a big hand for one of the creators of one of the strongest, most rapacious capitalist nations in the world -- Chairman Mao.

RED DAVE

[CommunityBeliever]

With his anti-Marxist notion of the block of four classes, Mao planted the seeds of capitalism in China.

He layed the foundation for capitalism in the sense that his progressive actions destroyed a much worse system: fuedalism. However, the essence of Mao's system is to progress all the way towards communism through continuing revolution, which as we have seen usually happens in backwards feudal countries (China), not advanced capitalist countries (Britain) as Marx predicted.


The revolution that he carried out ended up as a capitalist revolution.

I see we have more of this means-to-an-end thought. Human civilisation will probably inevitably come to an end - so would you say everything we have done is "pointless"? Why are we doing anything if ultimately our universe will die in the big chill?


Now, Comrades, a big hand for one of the creators of one of the strongest, most rapacious capitalist nations in the world -- Chairman Mao.

A big hand for all the perfectionist reactionaries who can't see the good in anything and therefore need to bash every revolution that ever succeeded.

[RED DAVE]

perfectionist reactionariesNew bullshit Maoist term for anyone who criticizes the Great Leader for anything, including an alliance with the bourgeoisie, paving the way for capitalism, failure to base the revolution on the working class, etc.

How you guys doing with the block of four classes in Nepal?

RED DAVE

[CommunityBeliever]

New bullshit Maoist term for anyone who criticizes the Great Leader for anything

No it is term for people who criticises the revolution for everything.

If it were such a taboo amongst Maoists to criticise "the Great Leader" why is self-criticism such an important Maoist practice?


paving the way for capitalism

Only in the sense that the regressive feudal elements of society were demolished.


block of four classes

The block of four classes creates unity towards the common goal of anti-imperialism and third world development, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.


Nepal

This is a complex situation. It is no easy task to completely transform a nation.

http://kasamaproject.org/2011/07/29/new-nepal-one-year-later-still-waiting-to-be-born/

[RED DAVE]

How you guys doing with the block of four classes in Nepal??
This is a complex situation. It is no easy task to completely transform a nation.As if you Maoists are some kind of experts and know how to transform a nation into anything but state capitalism and/or private capitalism.

Nepal is a perfect test case for Maoism. And what we are seeing is a disgusting scramble among the leadership of the Maoist party to gain positions in a wholly bourgeois government. At the same time, they are liquidating their peoples army. And, of course, they are providing no leadership for the working class.

A year ago, Nepal was the poster child for Maoism. Now it's a political cluster fuck. And there is not one faction in the leadership that is not following this course. The divisions in the leadership are completely opportunistic.

ETA: And (a) most Maoists won't admit it's a colossal betrayal and (b) won't examine the roots of this betrayal in Maoism itself. In fact, this is one more version of what has happened to Maoism in every country where it has won power, including, of course, China.

RED DAVE

[Kiev Communard]

A year ago, Nepal was the poster child for Maoism. Now it's a plitical cluster fuck. And there is not one faction in the leadership that is not following this course. The divisions in the leadership are completely opportunistic.

RED DAVE

One of the members of the Russian Maoist Party travelled to Nepal in 2010 as to some sort of a revolutionary Mecca, but returned completely depressed. He said that the Nepali Maoists have enacted no "progressive" reforms during their tenure whatsoever, as the land still basically belongs to a handful of aristocratic landlords.

[RED DAVE]

perfectionist reactionary
New bullshit Maoist term for anyone who criticizes the Great Leader for anything
No it is term for people who criticises the revolution for everything.

If it were such a taboo amongst Maoists to criticise "the Great Leader" why is self-criticism such an important Maoist practice?Actually, what you engage in is some kind of weird-ass masochistic self-hatred and call it self-criticism.

The behavior of the entire Maoist movement, in and out of Nepal, is a perfect example of your inability to engage in any kind of meaningful criticism towards yourselves at all.


paving the way for capitalism
Only in the sense that the regressive feudal elements of society were demolished.Oh, is that what you did in China: just got rid of the "regressive feudal elements," so the people would triumph? I think the workers in the factories of Guang Zhou might have something to say about that.


block of four classes
The block of four classes creates unity towards the common goal of anti-imperialism and third world development, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.You really need to consider a career as a standup comic after a line like that. You advocate a common front between the working class and the bourgeoisie and when it has become historically obvious, over and over again, in China, Vietnam, Nepal, soon North Korea, that this leads to capitalism, you deny it!

Maoism, like its cousin Stalinism, has been a decades-long diversion for the Left. Time to drop it and get on with building for socialism, not capitalism.

RED DAVE

[CHE with an AK]

Maoism, like its cousin Stalinism, has been ...
... one of the only leftist "ism"s that have had to actually deal with the reality of capitalist treachery, imperialist terrorism, and feudal oligarchs on a national level - instead of just theorizing of how to bring about a "happy utopia" through dialogue and daily 2/3 ratified vote council meetings.

As soon as the anarchists, anarcho-____ fill in blank, syndicalists, etc actually take root in a country, then they will be in a better position to criticize the Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists et al. Because since about 1940, the perfectionist stateless-left have been about as relevant as the Luddites or the Amish.


Now, let's dance ... http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/260760/thumbnail/animated%20can't%20touch%20me%20dance.gif http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/260760/thumbnail/animated%20can't%20touch%20me%20dance.gif http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/260760/thumbnail/animated%20can't%20touch%20me%20dance.gif


w9JK-B_Wvd8

[CommunityBeliever]

As if you Maoists are some kind of experts and know how to transform a nation into anything but state capitalism and/or private capitalism.

So I guess you are just going to stick to the simplistic belief that Maoists are evil state-capitalists. That is cool, simplism is probably easier to get away with, you don't have to do a lot of thinking.


Actually, what you engage in is some kind of weird-ass masochistic self-hatred and call it self-criticism.

First of all we are anti-dogmatic. We constantly improve our ideology, just as Lennism extended Marxism, Maoism extends Lennism, new experiences extend Maoism, etc.

We do partake in self-criticisms and we accept legitimate criticisms but of course we are not going to concede to nonsensical anti-communist propaganda like the left communists, trotskyists, anarchists, etc who participate, along with the imperialists, in the demonisation of all serious attempts at building socialism.


Oh, is that what you did in China: just got rid of the "regressive feudal elements," so the people would triumph?

Yes we got rid of the feudalism. Most Marxists are against fuedalism, but not you apparently.

The revisionists have prevented us, so far, of progressing further towards communism, nonetheless we have made various progressive achievements.


You really need to consider a career as a standup comic after a line like that.

Okay, I will be a comedian and I deliver truth into the minds of people through humor because speaking the truth isn't allowed in the mainstream media.

You can work in the mainstream media on the other hand, and speak for the imperialists and denounce any attempts at unifying against imperialism (like the block of four classes) and denounce all communist movements as Stalinists. I think the imperialist media could use someone like you.

[RED DAVE]

w9JK-B_Wvd8Frankly, I'd be about as embarrassed to post this as I would to post a porn film. Do you watch this when you're alone in your room at 3:00 AM?

RED DAV

[CHE with an AK]

Frankly, I'd be about as embarrassed to post this as I would to post a porn film. Do you watch this when you're alone in your room at 3:00 AM?
1. What's wrong with porn? Maybe you should join the Taliban?

2. Usually 4:00 AM, lots of Stalin videos to jerk off to first :rolleyes: What are we in 3rd grade now, our retorts are now going to be "go masturbate to it" insults?

The video was tongue-in-cheek as should have been obvious with the dancing MC Hammer (not a Maoist by the way).

[Ballyfornia]

we are not going to concede to nonsensical anti-communist propaganda like the left communists, trotskyists, anarchists, etc who participate, along with the imperialists, in the demonisation of all serious attempts at building socialism.


And here i thought Socialism's aim was to give power to the workers but no.......
It appears to be in your opinion that socialism is a massive state capitalist government.

[CHE with an AK]

It's disheartening that I can read the same anti-Mao arguments made by Glenn Beck - on a "revolutionary leftist" site featuring a hammer and sickle in the title bar.

:confused:

WARNING: ANTI-MAO BECK PROPAGANDA
r1fhM1IK4f4

[RED DAVE]

It's disheartening that I can read the same anti-Mao arguments made by Glenn Beck - on a "revolutionary leftist" site featuring a hammer and sickle in the title bar.It's a lot more disheartening to read the same old apologetics for Maoism from someone who fancies themself a Marxist.

RED DAVE

[Agent Equality]

All I see in this thread is the maoists fapping to each others posts and then telling us about how great it was

[CHE with an AK]

All I see in this thread is the maoists fapping to each others posts and then telling us about how great it was
All I see in this thread is the anti-maoists echoing decades old capitalist propaganda and then reciting to us the Faux News talking points.

[Agent Equality]

All I see in this thread is the anti-maoists echoing decades old capitalist propaganda and then reciting to us the Faux News talking points.

So now you're effectively calling anyone who is an anti-maoist a reactionary who watches Fox News? Lol this is funnier than I imagined it would be. You almost sound like Revleft by birth right now ;) Backed into a corner, you start to say that other leftists are the one being influenced by capitalist propaganda all because they are tearing down your ideological walls brick by brick.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z3zLnwZeL3o/SOnIFqpzedI/AAAAAAAAAUs/bkfkJK2XSPs/s400/Mao.png


- Revolutionary


- Military strategist


- Poet


-Political philosopher


- Intellectual


- Commanded parts of the heroic "Long March"


- Lead the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War


- Defeated an assortment of powerful regional and ethnic warlords in the process of unifying China


- Enacted sweeping land reform


- Overthrew feudal landlords and seized their large estates, before dividing the land up among the common people who worked it


- Laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China


- Put an end to China's rampant Western-driven opium addiction


- Eliminated unemployment and inflation


- Doubled the school population


- Increased life expectancy and doubled overall population


- Transformed the country from an underdeveloped peasant-based agrarian society into a major industrialized world power


:star3: :star3: :star3: :star3: :star3:


and you say We're the ones spouting propaganda? I wonder what this whole little thing up here could be then. Before you start saying others are influenced by propaganda, take a look at yourself first.

[DaringMehring]

1) Self proclaimed socialist X kills a million people on the way to capitalist restoration.

2) Bourgeois media criticizes self proclaimed socialist X for killing fifty million people.

3) Socialists criticize self proclaimed socialist X for killing a million people and paving the way to capitalist restoration.

4) Acolytes of self proclaimed socialist X are outraged at socialists who "say the same thing as the bourgeoisie."

Pathetic really. Doesn't the truth matter? If the sky is blue, and the capitalist media says it, and so do the socialists, does that make them sell-outs? No because the sky actually is blue.

I posted earlier my thoughts on Mao's accomplishments, shortcomings, and the constraints of his historical context. But I want to amend my list to add another negative of Mao and "Mao Zedong Thought" --- all the pseudo-socialist acolytes he spawned, who mistake 1950s-60s China for socialist, and the bloc of four classes for Bolshevism.

[CHE with an AK]

1) Self proclaimed socialist X overthrows the feudal landlords who have ruled his nation for thousands of years and through class struggle and fighting class enemies kills .2 % (1 million/550 million) of the population in the process - but then doubles the nations population in 25 years from 550 to over 900 million.

2) Bourgeois media criticizes self proclaimed socialist X for killing fifty million people.

3) Quasi-idealistic "socialists" criticize actual socialist X for killing "millions" of people and blame him for his nation becoming a capitalist World Power after he was dead - and on top of his industrialized foundation and now educated populace (rather than a feudal nation of the 18th century to be raped at will by neo-colonialism/imperialism before he took power etc).

4) Acolytes of self proclaimed socialist X are outraged at quasi-idealistic "socialists" who basically say the same thing as the bourgeoisie media and want to be appear to be "hip" and against "violence and stuff bro". So they critique all revolutionaries who actually lead revolutions, and fatalistically worship any utopian "theorist" who never did.

Pathetic really.

[DaringMehring]

1) Self proclaimed socialist X overthrows the feudal landlords who have ruled his nation for thousands of years and through class struggle and fighting class enemies kills .2 % (1 million/550 million) of the population in the process - but then doubles the nations population in 25 years from 550 to over 900 million.


First of all, you seem to have not read or been able to comprehend my earlier post in the thread where I enumerated accomplishments of the CPC (which by the way does not equal to accomplishments of Mao, socialists don't follow the Great Man theory of history).

Second, if you look at what you yourself wrote, you cite Mao's revolution as a victory over "feudal landlords." Not the capitalists with which he bloc'ed. His vacillating policies towards the capitalists in the 50s-70s are well documented. So, everybody, including yourself, sees Mao's success at root as being carrying out a bourgeois-nationalist revolution.

Certainly basically everything you cite as his accomplishments (more properly, accomplishments of the CPC and Chinese masses) are bourgeois-nationalist --- build up the industry of the country and make it stronger against other nations, build up the population.

That is well and fine, but don't pretend its socialism. Just be honest and say you admire the bourgeois revolutionary (or at best, Menshevik-stagist).



2) Bourgeois media criticizes self proclaimed socialist X for killing fifty million people.


This point we agree on; the bourgeois media lies and slanders anyone who is in any way uncomfortable to the entrenched bourgeoisie, til the cows come home.



3) Quasi-idealistic "socialists" criticize actual socialist X for killing "millions" of people and blame him for his nation becoming a capitalist World Power after he was dead - and on top of his industrialized foundation and now educated populace (rather than a feudal nation of the 18th century to be raped at will by neo-colonialism/imperialism before he took power etc).


Actually, you'll find that typically the overriding concern of revolutionary socialists, is with the actual successful building of socialism.

Speaking for myself, the fact that Mao's regime, despite holding the power for well over two decades, failed in socialist construction, is more damning than that people died in natural disasters and poorly implemented and conceived programs.

You can put in all the praise you want about bourgeois-nationalist stuff but building a strong capitalist country is not going to win any socialist bona fides.



4) Acolytes of self proclaimed socialist X are outraged at quasi-idealistic "socialists" who basically say the same thing as the bourgeoisie media and want to be appear to be "hip" and against "violence and stuff bro". So they critique all revolutionaries who actually lead revolutions, and fatalistically worship any utopian "theorist" who never did.


You clearly have no conception of revolutionary socialist critiques of Menshevik-stagists like Mao.

Trotsky, for instance, was not against "violence and stuff" --- in fact he presented one of the best defenses of revolutionary violence ever conceived. Nor do Trotskyists condemn revolutionary violence, which if successful, in the end is much less than the capitalist violence it prevents. And indeed, Trotsky "actually led a revolution" and was not a "utopian theorist."

What you can't seem to comprehend, is that socialism is not "population growth" or "kicking out the west" or any number of other stupid criteria. Socialism is re-configuring society so that the bourgeoisie, the ruling class of capitalism, is expropriated and effectively eliminated, and the proletariat take the power and run the state and economy based on the needs and interest of all.

That didn't happen in China.


Pathetic really.

Pathetic is the cult of personality of Mao, and "Mao Zedong Thought," where we hear of the superhuman "poet, soldier, philosopher, military strategist" Mao. It is obvious that this deification blinds you to any kind of objective assessment of what Mao was or was not. Based on the poster you posted, which should be an embarrassment to any socialist, he's your Jesus.

Pathetic is confusing a Menshevik-stagist (and hence bourgeois-nationalist) revolutionary for a Bolshevik-communist. Even after history has showed that the road Mao paved and traveled, the road of class collaboration, leads straight to virulent capitalism.

The CPC and the Chinese masses had many great achievements in the pre- and post- revolution period. Abolishing foot-binding alone, saved hundreds of millions of women from mutilation. Mao played a role in that historical process of progress, made positive contributions, and clearly expressed and acted on a great revolutionary spirit in the decades leading up to the revolution. But what he was, and what he achieved, simply was not socialism.

People who understand that aren't bourgeois puppets (who anyway like to call that sort of thing socialism in order to confuse workers about what socialism is). They're revolutionary socialists.

[Tomhet]

How about Mao cozying up to Dick Nixon!? Real proletariat internationalism there!

[RED DAVE]

1) Self proclaimed socialist X overthrows the feudal landlords who have ruled his nation for thousands of yearsAll by his widdle self.


and through class struggleBy ordering the working class not to seize with means of production when it rose up.


and fighting class enemiesAnd building a multi-class political block.


kills .2 % (1 million/550 million) of the population in the process - but then doubles the nations population in 25 years from 550 to over 900 million.Result: rapacious capitalism, and the capitalists return triumphant in less than 40 years, stronger than ever.


2) Bourgeois media criticizes self proclaimed socialist X for killing fifty million people.No one with half a brain believed that shit anyway.


3) Quasi-idealistic "socialists" criticize actual socialist X for killing "millions" of people and blame him for his nation becoming a capitalist World Power after he was deadBecause his politics lead to it.


and on top of his industrialized foundation and now educated populace (rather than a feudal nation of the 18th century to be raped at will by neo-colonialism/imperialism before he took power etc).And the ruling class of China is now advising other capitalist ruling classes on how to rape their population.


4) Acolytes of self proclaimed socialist X are outraged at quasi-idealistic "socialists" who basically say the same thing as the bourgeoisie media and want to be appear to be "hip" and against "violence and stuff bro". So they critique all revolutionaries who actually lead revolutions, and fatalistically worship any utopian "theorist" who never did.What kind of "actually lead" revolution is it that leads to capitalism?

RED DAVE

[Tommy4ever]

I think what Che with an AK misunderstands is the fact that the 'anti-maoists' are not criticising Maoism because the Chinese Revolution was brutal, or violent. Most Marxists would advocate the use of violence in the overthrow of capitalism, indeed those who don't probably aren't revolutionaries. Puting aside the obvious criticisms of the death tolls, why can't you try to address some of the much greater problems with Maoism:

Ideas like the Bloc of Four Classes.

The totally failed economic policies of Maoist China.

The swift advance of China towards capitalism and eventually Imperialism.

Cults of Personality.

The obvious failure of Maoism to bring about socialism in China and Nepal.

The total disconnect of Mao Zedong Thought from Marxism.

[scarletghoul]

I think what Che with an AK misunderstands is the fact that the 'anti-maoists' are not criticising Maoism because the Chinese Revolution was brutal, or violent. Most Marxists would advocate the use of violence in the overthrow of capitalism, indeed those who don't probably aren't revolutionaries. Puting aside the obvious criticisms of the death tolls, why can't you try to address some of the much greater problems with Maoism:
fine ill address them then
Ideas like the Bloc of Four Classes.China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country, in those conditions the other 3 parties are also potentially revolutionary, not just the proletariat. Was Mao really wrong to side with those in the bourgeoisie who opposed japanese imperialism, for example ? And the importance of mobilising the peasantry is obvious for a country thats something like 90% peasant. I really don't see the problem of mobilising four classes with revolutionary potential, as long as proletarian leadership is emphasised (which mao constantly did)

The totally failed economic policies of Maoist China.Now this really is an interesting claim. What exactly do you mean by failed economic policies ? the chinese economy grew hugely in the 50s, and even had some big successes in the turmoil of the cultural revolution. Certainly, for the working class, it was better than contemporary chinese economics. The Great Leap Forward obviously is the outlying failure (though it did have some successes, like building up the infrastructure that means theres been no more famine in china since. also the cause of the failure was not strictly economic, i'd say it was more of a political thing because the chinese economy had relied on the soviet aid which pulled out, and the politicians also were not honest with the figures..) but in general the economy under mao done very very well.

The swift advance of China towards capitalism and eventually Imperialism.This is something which Mao himself predicted and dedicated the last decade of his life to fighting against, so the fact that it came true is really a credit to his correctness. Yes ultimately the cultural revolution was defeated and capitalism was restored, but that could be said of the paris commune and even the russian revolution.. is the capitalist restoration in russia the fault of lenin ? indirectly he shares some responsability, but i think he done more to prevent it than to cause it. same is true of mao.

Cults of Personality.Yeah that was silly, i agree we should criticise Mao for that.

The obvious failure of Maoism to bring about socialism in China and Nepal.lol come on what are you talking about, china was socialist for years, and Nepal is on the way. I was talking to a UCPN(M) member today on facebook, he says both the maoists and the reactionaries know that the peace process can't last, and are making preparations for a confrontation (ie, a maoist insurrection).

Fact is, Maoism is the main force for socialism in the world today.

The total disconnect of Mao Zedong Thought from Marxism.This is so vague i dont even

[RED DAVE]

[1] China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal countryAs was Russia, except it was semi-imperialized: most of the large industry was foreign owned. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks explicity rejeted a block with the bourgeoisie.


[2] in those conditions the other 3 parties are also potentially revolutionary, not just the proletariat.True as in Russia. The Russian bourgeoisie was revolutionary: they participated in the February revolution. The peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie were part of the revolution as well.

However, and this is what Maoists miss, the bourgeoisie is revolutionary in a bourgeois way. They are loyal to their class, not to the revolution or even to the nation. Any revolution in which the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are engaged will produce an unstable condition of dual power, which will result in the defeat of one of those classes. The Chinese Communists planted the seeds of capitalism from the beginning by yoking the revolution to the bourgeoisie, who ultimately captured the revolution with the result that we now have rampant capitalism in China.


[3] Was Mao really wrong to side with those in the bourgeoisie who opposed japanese imperialism, for example ?Yes. The Chinese bourgeoisie had shown that they were not willing to fight the Japanese, so why ally with them? The Russian parallel was the unwillingness of the Russian bourgeoisie to pull out of WWI.


[4] And the importance of mobilising the peasantry is obvious for a country thats something like 90% peasant.That's true, but one of the principles f Marxism is that peasants are unable to be the leading class of a revolution. This must be done by an urban class. Marxists side with the working class. The CCP sided with the petit-bourgeoisie (basically itself) and the bourgeoisie. It never, rhetoric aside, placed the working class as the focal point of the revolution.


[5] I really don't see the problem of mobilising four classes with revolutionary potential, as long as proletarian leadership is emphasised (which mao constantly did)When, at the end of the war, the working class rose in the cities all over China, the CCP told the workers to go back to work and place themselves under the management of the military and their old managers. The CCP never called for the working class to seize power in its own name, set up its own institutions of class rule and run the economy. THAT would have been socialism. Instead, what was instituted was state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[deadsmooth]

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but I can can not find a more appropriate thread. In the 1930's C.E. KMT forces under Shanghai Czech fighting Mao Tsetung's Communist forces received military support from Nazi Germany. The adviser they sent was an S.S. General. The only information I have on this is from Edgar Snow and is sketchy. Any suggestions as to more sources? Apologies if this is not appropriate, this is my first day here.

[scarletghoul]

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but I can can not find a more appropriate thread. In the 1930's C.E. KMT forces under Shanghai Czech fighting Mao Tsetung's Communist forces received military support from Nazi Germany. The adviser they sent was an S.S. General. The only information I have on this is from Edgar Snow and is sketchy. Any suggestions as to more sources? Apologies if this is not appropriate, this is my first day here.
I don't know, haven't looked into it, but there's no reason to doubt it. Chiang's government was quite Fascistic (in particular his "New Life Movement"), and the Chinese civil war was one of the front lines against communism, so it would make sense for Nazis to help out. Also 'shanghai czech' thats quite funny lol

[Tommy4ever]

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but I can can not find a more appropriate thread. In the 1930's C.E. KMT forces under Shanghai Czech fighting Mao Tsetung's Communist forces received military support from Nazi Germany. The adviser they sent was an S.S. General. The only information I have on this is from Edgar Snow and is sketchy. Any suggestions as to more sources? Apologies if this is not appropriate, this is my first day here.

Yeah, Chiang Kaishek's government got aid from the Nazis until they switched over to backing the Japanese around 1937-38 (as it started to look like the Japanese could both win and be a useful ally against the Western Powers and Soviets in the Far East).

But the KMT also got the support fo the Soviets, Americans and British. Chiang basically accepted anyone's help who was willing to give it - can anyone really blame him? Its not like he had any moral gripes with the Nazis himself, or the Soviets, or the Western Powers ....

The Soviets only started backing the CPC after it seemed that they might actually have a shot at power (around mid 40s).

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's true, but one of the principles of Marxism is that peasants are unable to be the leading class of a revolution.

No it isn't. The peasants are unable to be the leading class of a worker revolution, but they're quite capable of being the leading class of some other political revolution.

[CHE with an AK]

Mao adapted Marxism to the underdeveloped Chinese world that Marx was not familiar with. His goal was never to replace Marxism but to expand on it.

Marxism is the blueprint, but not the full instruction manual. Just as Lenin updated 1848 in 1917, Mao updated 1917 in 1949.

[RED DAVE]

That's true, but one of the principles of Marxism is that peasants are unable to be the leading class of a revolution.
No it isn't. The peasants are unable to be the leading class of a worker revolution, but they're quite capable of being the leading class of some other political revolution.(1) Please give an example.

(2) Presumably, you will find some academic hair-split to justify your quibbling, like, say, Haiti. However, we are talking about revolutions in the 20th and 21st centuries and the tasks of Marxists.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Mao adapted Marxism to the underdeveloped Chinese world that Marx was not familiar with. His goal was never to replace Marxism but to expand on it.And he failed miserably. He yoked the working class with the bourgeoisie, with results we know: ramapant capitalism.

The Nepali Maoists are applying the same principles to Nepal, and, as we write, their Maoist leadership is falling over itself scrambling for positions in a bourgeois government.


Marxism is the blueprint, but not the full instruction manual. Just as Lenin updated 1848 in 1917, Mao updated 1917 in 1949.Mao negated Lenin. Lenin's (and Trotsky's) great breakthrough was that in a situation where the bourgeoisie could not accomplish the democratic revolution, this revolution and the proletarian revolution would be combined into one, with the working class carrying out, simultaneously, the tasks of the bourgeois revolution and the tasks of the proletarian revolution.

And, I might add, it is exactly what is happening in Cuba and North Korea.

Maoists (and Stalinists) have completely reversed this and have become the handmaidens of the bourgeoisie in establishing capitalism. This is what happened in China and the USSR. This is what happened in Vietnam. This is what is happening before out very eyes in Nepal.

RED DAVE

[seventeethdecember2016]

Revolutionary hero. People often forget that Mao's revolution was almost IMPOSSIBLE!
Mao owned only a few regions in the MASSIVE Chinese Nation, and he also had several times less soldiers than the Nationalists.
Never the less, Maoism won the impossible revolution, and he later took hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and peasantry.

[Smyg]

Yes, that revolution worked out just fine for the Chinese people. :rolleyes:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yes, that revolution worked out just fine for the Chinese people. :rolleyes:

Well,it kinda did....until capitalism slowly creeped back in and working conditions stagnated (to put it lightly).Point is that Mao did accomplish some great things.He wasn't perfect by any means but his policies did improve life;he of course messed up and that led to deaths but would have things been better if the Nationalists won?

[Hiero]

Well,it kinda did....until capitalism slowly creeped back in and working conditions stagnated (to put it lightly).Point is that Mao did accomplish some great things.He wasn't perfect by any means but his policies did improve life;he of course messed up and that led to deaths but would have things been better if the Nationalists won?

Living conditions are still on the rise in China. The government still invests quite alot of money in areas that focus on improving people's lives.

Take this for example:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-10/29/c_122211469.htm


UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 28 (Xinhua) -- China's progress in meeting a development goal on children's health can serve as an inspiration to other countries working towards the same objective, Dr. Renee Van de Weerdt, chief of maternal, newborn and child health at the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) told Xinhua in an interview Friday.
Van de Weerdt said that "the example of China is very encouraging because it means it can be done, even in a very big country with a very big population."


Life is significantly better in China than Sub Saharan Africa or places in South East Asia. This is a huge feat because China has such a large population.

China's major faults from a socialist perspective is that it relinquishes power to foreign capital over labour. It is a constant tug of war between Chinese state socialism and world capitalism.

[Prometeo liberado]

I am by no means a moaist. Having said that it is clear the he and the rest of the leadership knew well in advance what would be needed in terms of readying the people for the takeover of power. From the massive political education campaign to the restructuring of the revolutionary army into a peoples army. As for day decisions that mao had envisioned for the people you can ask deng xuio ping that question

[A Marxist Historian]

No it isn't. The peasants are unable to be the leading class of a worker revolution, but they're quite capable of being the leading class of some other political revolution.

Well, no actually. Peasant revolutions inevitably fall under the leadership of another class, if not the working class, nowadays it's the capitalists, or more often petty bourgeois types like Castro. (As the inherent class nature of the Soviet bureacracy is petty bourgeois, as Trotsky pointed out, it was possible for Castro to construct a bureaucratically-deformed workers state on the Soviet model.) Go back a few hundred years, and peasant revolutions usually got coopted by dissident factions of feudal nobility or whatnot.

Why? Because the peasantry isn't really a class at all in Marxist terms. Different layers of peasantry are in different social classes. The peasants are a "sack of potatoes," as Marx put it, with no more organic connection with other peasants than potatoes in the same sack have.

-M.H.-

[Agathor]

Living standards in Britain improved dramatically during the tenures of Harold Macmillan, Clement Attlee, Asquith, Disraeli. In Germany, standard of living indexes went vertical under Adenauer. If rising living standards are proof of beneficent socialist governance then I think we have been unfairly neglecting comrades Macmillian and Adenauer (who did it all without killing fifty million people).

[Tovarisch]

Mao was a revolutionary hero but a failed socialist. As much good as he did for the Chinese people with his revolutions, as much bad he did to them with his reign

[Rafiq]

Living standards in Britain improved dramatically during the tenures of Harold Macmillan, Clement Attlee, Asquith, Disraeli. In Germany, standard of living indexes went vertical under Adenauer. If rising living standards are proof of beneficent socialist governance then I think we have been unfairly neglecting comrades Macmillian and Adenauer (who did it all without killing fifty million people).

Mao didn't kill 50 million people...

15 million people died of famine under his leadership.... But please link us the 50 million deaths you fucking troll shitscum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, no actually. Peasant revolutions inevitably fall under the leadership of another class, if not the working class, nowadays it's the capitalists, or more often petty bourgeois types like Castro. (As the inherent class nature of the Soviet bureacracy is petty bourgeois, as Trotsky pointed out, it was possible for Castro to construct a bureaucratically-deformed workers state on the Soviet model.) Go back a few hundred years, and peasant revolutions usually got coopted by dissident factions of feudal nobility or whatnot.

Why? Because the peasantry isn't really a class at all in Marxist terms. Different layers of peasantry are in different social classes. The peasants are a "sack of potatoes," as Marx put it, with no more organic connection with other peasants than potatoes in the same sack have.

-M.H.-

My point is that, where the proletariat is in a demographic minority, it must secure its politico-ideological independence while not harboring any adventurist notions of seizing power and inevitably engaging in socioeconomic civil war with the class(es) that outnumber it. This means that the socioeconomically nationalist, patriotic petit-bourgeoisie of town and country need to take the lead:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html

[Agathor]

you fucking troll shitscum.
Chill kiddo.

27 million died in prison and labour camps, around 40 million died in the famines, which Mao admitted beforehand would be a result of his economic reforms.

[Agathor]

Die Neue Ziet, you are the most comical producer of marxist gibberish I know.

[Rafiq]

Chill kiddo.

27 million died in prison and labour camps, around 40 million died in the famines, which Mao admitted beforehand would be a result of his economic reforms.

Look at the population during the famine period.

15 million was the loss.

There is absolutely no evidence as to whether 27 million died in prison or labor camps, or if 40 million people died. See how inconsistent you are? That is saying 67 million people died, however there is no statistical evidence to confirm this.

There is evidence, however, to confirm that the enemies of the PRC did record people dead who never existed in the first place. I take you're one of the fools who believed them, no?

[Agathor]

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Mao
This compiles death-toll estimates from many different historians. The consensus seems to be somewhere in between fourty and seventy five million. I'm not posting this for Rafiq's benefit, as he is as dumb and arrogant as Stalinists come. Even if took him back in time in my Tardis and showed him Mao individually killing all fourty to seventy million peasants and dissidents with a hammer he would still find ways to deny it. But for everybody else browsing the thread who is interested in learning the truth rather than confirming what they already believe, here it is.

[Rafiq]

That's the equivilent of me linking Stalinist historians on the great purges and using that as proof. You're so full of shit

[Omsk]

This compiles death-toll estimates from many different historians. The consensus seems to be somewhere in between fourty and seventy five million. I'm not posting this for Rafiq's benefit, as he is as dumb and arrogant as Stalinists come. Even if took him back in time in my Tardis and showed him Mao individually killing all fourty to seventy million peasants and dissidents with a hammer he would still find ways to deny it. But for everybody else browsing the thread who is interested in learning the truth rather than confirming what they already believe, here it is.




Because you are new to the forum and i generally believe that new members should be greeted regardless of tendency,in hopes that they will learn a thing or two,find out about something and generally have a nice time talking about things that are in their interest,i will not react as i would in some different cases.
So here is just a few friendly suggestions that could make discussion in this thread and your posts much better than they are now.

Dont launch personal attacks,dont be vulgar and hostile to members of the board who you dont really know.
The bolded text is an insult and i dont see how insulting other users would help you in proving your point. (Try looking for better,more reliable sources for historical information)

Anyone who had a little interest in actually learning something about China,Mao,or anything else related to this thread probably stoped reading the posts after you started insulting and attacking other members while contributing little or nothing to the actual discussion going on.

You are new to the board,dont start throwing off insults and having a generally bad stance.

As for the thread:

The question of the exact numbers and the deaths caused by the events like the "Great leap forward" or the "Great Chinese Famine" is still unknown,with numbers going from 15 to 70 million people.We will probably never know the exact number of people who died because of his wrong economic policies and mistakes.

However,to base an opinion on just a couple of text,is wrong.

[Frank Zapatista]

I swear, when I see threads like these I can't help but think the OP is trolling. What could a thread like this possibly accomplish but a tendency war?

[Agathor]

Because you are new to the forum and i generally believe that new members should be greeted regardless of tendency,in hopes that they will learn a thing or two,find out about something and generally have a nice time talking about things that are in their interest,i will not react as i would in some different cases.
So here is just a few friendly suggestions that could make discussion in this thread and your posts much better than they are now.

Dont launch personal attacks,dont be vulgar and hostile to members of the board who you dont really know.
The bolded text is an insult and i dont see how insulting other users would help you in proving your point. (Try looking for better,more reliable sources for historical information)

Anyone who had a little interest in actually learning something about China,Mao,or anything else related to this thread probably stoped reading the posts after you started insulting and attacking other members while contributing little or nothing to the actual discussion going on.

You are new to the board,dont start throwing off insults and having a generally bad stance.

As for the thread:

The question of the exact numbers and the deaths caused by the events like the "Great leap forward" or the "Great Chinese Famine" is still unknown,with numbers going from 15 to 70 million people.We will probably never know the exact number of people who died because of his wrong economic policies and mistakes.

However,to base an opinion on just a couple of text,is wrong.

You must have missed the first post in the argument where the monumental child Rafiq called me a "fucking troll shitscum".

Amusingly, this Commander Rykov guy thanked that post and later thanked this post telling me not to insult people with the relatively friendly words ignorant and dumb. I'd like to hear him explain that one.

You people are ridiculous. Bluebottles to a dead cat.

[Omsk]

You must have missed the first post in the argument where the monumental child Rafiq called me a "fucking troll shitscum".


I am not saying that his comment was fantastic,but if you call him a monumental child, you should not respond in the same way.

And pretty much what i said to you goes for Rafiq.This thread was doomed from the start,but why not give it a chance?

As AverageMarxist said,this thread is too flamable.

[Rafiq]

You must have missed the first post in the argument where the monumental child Rafiq called me a "fucking troll shitscum".

Amusingly, this Commander Rykov guy thanked that post and later thanked this post telling me not to insult people with the relatively friendly word ignorant and dumb. I'd like to hear him explain that one.

You people are ridiculous. Bluebottles to a dead cat.

Because that's what you are. I've never heard even a bourgeois historian say Mao killed 50mil. Highest I've heard was 30 million and even that was wrong and unsupported with any data.

Where did your Liberal shitheads get their data from, huh? I'm guessing they got it straight from their arsehole. We have concrete evidence that 15 mil died in famine. Higher estimates are pathetic Liberal speculation.

Also, he wasn't reffering to you calling ME out, he was reffering to how you called all the marxist leninists ignorant and stupid, which has nothing to dk with me calling you a troll shitscum. You furtherly insulted DNZ as well.

I mean you're a noob, that means you better adjust your ways to the community's terms or stop posting.

[Agathor]

Because that's what you are. I've never heard even a bourgeois historian say Mao killed 50mil.

Then you didn't even click the link I posted.


I'm guessing they got it straight from their arsehole
Do liberal historians have one gigantic collective arse or something?


better adjust your ways to the community's terms or stop posting.

Or what? You'll get your dad on me?


I mean you're a noob
My god, this is fantastic. Out with it: how old are you?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Die Neue Ziet, you are the most comical producer of marxist gibberish I know.

What I'm proposing is to the left of Maoism but not venturing off the cliff like Trotsky's Permanent Revolution did.

[Commissar Rykov]

I swear, when I see threads like these I can't help but think the OP is trolling. What could a thread like this possibly accomplish but a tendency war?
Pretty much it is just pure trollbait and a veiled excuse to attack people from a certain viewpoint.

You must have missed the first post in the argument where the monumental child Rafiq called me a "fucking troll shitscum".

Amusingly, this Commander Rykov guy thanked that post and later thanked this post telling me not to insult people with the relatively friendly words ignorant and dumb. I'd like to hear him explain that one.

You people are ridiculous. Bluebottles to a dead cat.
You are trolling and using unsubstanianted data and you want to be treated nicely? Not going to happen. I'm sure there are forums you can go to that enjoy that shit but throwing out random numbers and thinking people are going to accept them is beyond bizarre and is at this point just trolling. If you don't want to be taken as a troll I would suggest actually supporting your posts instead of just insulting everyone who calls you out on your shit posts.

[Agathor]

Pretty much it is just pure trollbait and a veiled excuse to attack people from a certain viewpoint.

You are trolling and using unsubstanianted data and you want to be treated nicely? Not going to happen. I'm sure there are forums you can go to that enjoy that shit but throwing out random numbers and thinking people are going to accept them is beyond bizarre and is at this point just trolling. If you don't want to be taken as a troll I would suggest actually supporting your posts instead of just insulting everyone who calls you out on your shit posts.

I posted a link to the conclusions of about twenty different studies of Mao's reign. I am the only person in the last few pages to substantiate anything said.
You people don't like the facts, so you call names. If you were actually concerned about childish insults and temper tantrums you wouldn't be talking to me. See my sig

[Commissar Rykov]

I posted a link to the conclusions of about twenty different studies of Mao's reign. I am the only person in the last few pages to substantiate anything said.
You people don't like the facts, so you call names. If you were actually concerned about childish insults and temper tantrums you wouldn't be talking to me. See my sig

You are on the wrong site if you want people to accept your nutfuck Bourgeois Historians as fact. Good luck with your trolling though you likely won't last.

[Ostrinski]

Political opportunist, revisionist, and defamer of Marxism.

[Commissar Rykov]

Political opportunist, revisionist, and defamer of Marxism.

That would probably mean something if it wasn't coming from a Petty-Bourgeois Anti-Worker Reactionary.

[Ostrinski]

That would probably mean something if it wasn't coming from a Petty-Bourgeois Anti-Worker Reactionary.http://files.sharenator.com/xzibit_meme_7219_RE_Anne_Hathaway_is_Hot-s510x334-195393.jpg

[sherper]

Your definition of both "revolutionary Hero" and Monumental failure" are very loose, Mao was neither of those; he was definitely not a revolutionary Hero nor did he fail spectacularly in any way. He was instead just another man, caring only about himself and his own thirst for power.
Mao never worked for the revolution, the revolution worked for him; as a mask to hide his greed and personal agenda. He does not stray far from the Imperial emperors that ruled China before him, having all their authority with the only exception being their title. Mao does not deserve to be called "revolutionary hero", not even close. Being born in China myself, I've heard personal accounts of what Mao's contributions have done. During the years from 1959 to 1962, China experienced widespread hunger, the scales of which was previously unseen. This was happening everywhere and people had to resort to desperate measures, just to survive. Eating bark off trees became common practice, it was also known for families to exchange toddlers in order to eat them; the prospect of eating one's own child was unbearable, thus swaps of children were made. All of this led to the death of 30 million people within the short space of three years, all of this happened because of Mao's decision; and all of this was labelled under "The Great Leap Forward".
Even for that reason alone, I don't think I can ever call Mao a revolutionary Hero; This is also not a isolated case. Three years of famine left the country physically scarred, three more years later, brings on another of Mao's crusades; that will leave the country emotionally scarred. For those who aren't familiar with this period, it's when Mao encouraged everyone to be suspicious of people who have "anti-government" thoughts; or have any possession from the past that signifies intellectual culture. The "red guard" is also formed during this time, which meant neighbors turned against neighbors, co-workers would turn against co-workers, even family against family. It is not of individual happenings that a son would sentence his father to certain death, by reporting him to the authorities, for the mere gain of being congratulated on the council meetings. For those of you who have a family, whether you are playing the parent or Child role; the emotional damage such a thing would do to a family is unfathomable. A wound that tore apart tens of thousands of families within China, and would take more than a few generations to heal.
It pains me to hear people give politicians like Mao such honorable titles; the damage done by him and his government could never be truly expressed by mere words. His achievements when compared next to their costs, become insignificant and unworthy of mentioning. Yes, he helped create a global economic powerhouse , Yes he let China have it's own arsenal of nuclear weapons in the mere space of 15 years, and Yes, no other leader has been able to pull a country who didn't have the industrial capabilities to build a box of matches to become the world's biggest exporter of manufactured products in so short a time frame.
But what did he do for the people, his people; and the revolution? The China today is filled with corruption; high end officials benefit on the work of the poor, brides and "special privileges" are as common as currency. No longer is China Socialist, nor was it ever. It has opened it's gates to allow State Capitalist Wolves to feed upon the cheap labor costs. In the end we wonder; has Mao been a colostral failure? No. Why? Because he never aimed at what we expected in the first place.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think Mao was a shrewd political operator, definitely. Practical political operator first, ideologue second, not unlike Lenin in that respect. The difference being, of course, that Lenin actually took Marxism quite seriously, that was his primary ideology as a revolutionary, while Mao focused more on a strange mix of Chinese populism combined with a veneer of Marxism which would become commonplace in national liberation struggles (i.e. nationalism + anti-imperialism/nods to Lenin). If you read some of what Mao wrote about the nature of the state, it's actually a bit similar to what someone like Bakunin would write, with all the talk of the "new class" arising form the state that needs to be combatted.

Whether Mao was "successful" or not depends on how you measure success. If by success you mean "did he turn China into a notable player in global politics?" then yes, I think he was successful. If by successful you mean "did he advance the goals of the communist movement?" then I'd say no, he wasn't successful. But then again I'm not a "stage-ist".