Mao

[Desert Fox]

Well last night I saw a docu about him and the chinese revolution. He caught my attention and I was wondering if anyone of you knows more about him. I find a book on the net I could maybe buy to learn more about his views on things it is called "On Guerrilla Warfare TSE-TUNG, MAO" is that book any good, I dunno much about the person and books published around him, so that is the reason why I ask it here ...

[atlanticche]

did he even use guerilla warfare

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 03:46 PM
did he even use guerilla warfare
umm... yes

And to Desert Fox,

I've heard his "Red Book" is supposed to be his most famous. Now, "Red Book" is a nickname--what is it really called? Someone can answer this quickly.

[Dhul Fiqar]

"Quotations of Chairman Mao Tsetung" - it's not bad but very bland and basically it is just a collection of quotes.

--- G.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Thanks Dhul... seems like a lot of Maoists swear by it, though... it seems to affect people dramatically (I would not know personally--never read it)

[Unrelenting Steve]

The little red book is terrible, no complete thoughts, its all very disjionted and actualy overall uninsightful. I am busy reading a book: Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism, where they basicly look at Maoism and where its differant from Marxism, and where it was Utopian, and whether that was necssarily bad, as everyone seems to think it was.... It almost converted me to Marxism (well i guess i havent finished reading it, so that statement might be premature)...Alternativley you can read a book by the same auther (who seems to be an expert in this feild (Maurice Meisner)) called; Mao's China- that would probably suit what your asking for better, but the other is by far the more interesting selection....

[elijahcraig]

"Quotations of Chairman Mao Tsetung" - it's not bad but very bland and basically it is just a collection of quotes.

Hence, the name.


The little red book is terrible, no complete thoughts, its all very disjionted and actualy overall uninsightful.

It was designed as a short covering of Mao's thought, not a 1000 page book on theory.


I am busy reading a book: Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism, where they basicly look at Maoism and where its differant from Marxism, and where it was Utopian, and whether that was necssarily bad, as everyone seems to think it was.... It almost converted me to Marxism (well i guess i havent finished reading it, so that statement might be premature)...Alternativley you can read a book by the same auther (who seems to be an expert in this feild (Maurice Meisner)) called; Mao's China- that would probably suit what your asking for better, but the other is by far the more interesting selection....

Marxism IS Maoism, Maoism IS Marxism; it is an extension of Marxism, as Leninism was.

[Guest1]

you can't say Marxism is Maoism. You can logically assert an opinion that Maoism is Marxism, but it's illogical to say the opposite is also true.

that's like saying food is pork. No matter how much you like Maoism, it doesn't make Marxism equivalent to it. Just by saying that it is an extension of Marxism, you are already stating that there is more to it than Marxism, it can be a brand of Marxism, or an off-shoot, but Marxism cannot be Maoism.

and I think this is a perfect example of my comment about Marx not being god. flying the flag of Marxism means nothing. it is the ideas within the ideology that matter, and having, or not having it, or refusing to admit fine-tuning it, should make no difference as to the validity of any ideology.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 29 2003, 07:17 AM
you can't say Marxism is Maoism. You can logically assert an opinion that Maoism is Marxism, but it's illogical to say the opposite is also true.

that's like saying food is pork. No matter how much you like Maoism, it doesn't make Marxism equivalent to it. Just by saying that it is an extension of Marxism, you are already stating that there is more to it than Marxism, it can be a brand of Marxism, or an off-shoot, but Marxism cannot be Maoism.

and I think this is a perfect example of my comment about Marx not being god. flying the flag of Marxism means nothing. it is the ideas within the ideology that matter, and having, or not having it, or refusing to admit fine-tuning it, should make no difference as to the validity of any ideology.
What I have learned here about the various forms within the communisme is that each one has its roots in marxism but they quit vary when you want to compare with each other. So Che has a point, but I gonna check those books out, since he is a quit intresting figure in history and what he has achieved is quit remarkable ;)

[crazy comie]

maoism isn't marxism it is stalinism.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 29 2003, 09:40 AM
maoism isn't marxism it is stalinism.
Just because they are seen as the two red tsars means that they are alike. Altough they surely shared some ideas but I doubt that they are the same. You shouldn't really compare them both, since one is restricted here and the other one not ;)

[Saint-Just]

I can't believe anyone can say 'Quotations...' is bland or boring, its a great book. For anyone with political interest it is a book of great interest, and for communists a book of profound wisdom. Some quotes may be less interesting than others.

His other important books would probably be 'On Khrushchev's Phoney Communism' and 'New Democracy'.

[Dhul Fiqar]

The general consensus in China is that it is mind-numbingly boring. I found it a lot more interesting than anyone else I met there - but you got to admit it's as bland as bland can be in several places...

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

In the conditions prevailing in China today, the contradictions among the people comprise the contradictions within the working class, the contradictions within the peasantry, the contradictions within the intelligentsia, the contradictions between the working class and the peasantry, the contradictions between the workers and peasants on the one hand and the intellectuals on the other, the contradictions between the working class and other sections of the working people on the one hand and the national bourgeoisie on the other, the contradictions within the national bourgeoisie, and so on

I barely got through that sentance without taking a nap - I know the subjectmatter is great and the ideas are to a certain extent very positive and exciting - but DEAR GOD the presentation SUCKS =D

--- G.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 29 2003, 01:59 PM
I can't believe anyone can say 'Quotations...' is bland or boring, its a great book. For anyone with political interest it is a book of great interest, and for communists a book of profound wisdom. Some quotes may be less interesting than others.

His other important books would probably be 'On Khrushchev's Phoney Communism' and 'New Democracy'.
Thank you CM, I see you a bit as the leading authority on maoisme. I can be wrong tough but your nick and avatar point that way. I don't doubt you know lots of the man and would love what you find of the great man that is mao. He way have his rough edges he done alot for his country ...

[Saint-Just]

The majority of people find political works mind numbingly boring, I cannot think of one that is not seen as such. They are only interesting to those who have a great interest in politics. And, I think that the Red Book is fairly interesting if you compare it to something like Das Kapital. With a lot of people though, books like 'Quotations...' and even more so 'What Is To Be Done?', upon their publication these books were read with great excitement in a single sitting, cover to cover, because of their great importance. Here are some good quotes from the book:


Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this viewpoint is historical idealism.

Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

I have said that all the reputedly powerful reactionaries are merely paper tigers. The reason is that they are divorced from the people. Look! Was not Hitler a paper tiger? Was Hitler not overthrown? I also said that the tsar of Russia, the emperor of China and Japanese imperialism were all paper tigers. As we know, they were all overthrown. U.S. imperialism has not yet been overthrown and it has the atom bomb. I believe it also will be overthrown. It, too, is a paper tiger.

The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?... Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism... Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the full sense.

After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns

Thank you CM, I see you a bit as the leading authority on maoisme. I can be wrong tough but your nick and avatar point that way. I don't doubt you know lots of the man and would love what you find of the great man that is mao. He way have his rough edges he done alot for his country ...

I do not know anyone here who does know as much about the Chinese revolution as I do, however it is not unlikely that there are people here who do.

Mao did indeed do a lot for China. From the early 20's he fought for Chinese independance against the Japanese imperialists. It is evident in the Red Book that he has great wisdom to expound on the nature of imperialism, and indeed he opposed imperialism ferociously all his life. He called on the USSR to ally with China to create strong opposition to the U.S. imperialists in the 60's, at the time he said the east wind was prevailing over the west wind, that the socialist camp was stronger than the imperialist nations. However the USSR had embraced revisionism of Marxism-Leninism at this point.

Mao was often compared as a theoritician to be as great as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin in his lifetime. He had also proved himself to be an invaluable individual in uniting China and leading the revolution. His rise to leadership in the Communist Party came from the repeated evidence of his skill as a military tactician and a leader. Everytime he was given a chance to make an impact he could turn the tide of conflict with the KMT in favour of the communists. People developed great trust in his leadership.

I think there is criticisms that could be directed at him. Whether it was his fault directly or not China did not develop economically as it should have when he had command over economic plans. In addition, the cultural revolution did not seem as straight forward as it should have been. Mao himself having to constantly deliberate over rival Red Gaurd factions. It was to some extent not his fault, China was overburdened with carrying the red flag of socialism once Khrushchev came to power in the USSR. Mao foresaw victorious conflict with the U.S., however the USSR was undertaking a policy of 'peaceful cooperation' with the U.S.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 11:49 PM

The little red book is terrible, no complete thoughts, its all very disjionted and actualy overall uninsightful.

It was designed as a short covering of Mao's thought, not a 1000 page book on theory.


I am busy reading a book: Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism, where they basicly look at Maoism and where its differant from Marxism, and where it was Utopian, and whether that was necssarily bad, as everyone seems to think it was.... It almost converted me to Marxism (well i guess i havent finished reading it, so that statement might be premature)...Alternativley you can read a book by the same auther (who seems to be an expert in this feild (Maurice Meisner)) called; Mao's China- that would probably suit what your asking for better, but the other is by far the more interesting selection....

Marxism IS Maoism, Maoism IS Marxism; it is an extension of Marxism, as Leninism was.
Maoism is very Utopian, something that Marx looked down on- read the book I suggested, any true Marxist would have said Mao was mad from the get go.

Marxism= become advanced capitalist then go communist/socialist, Mao wanted to deurbanise everything!!!!!! Something Im sure Marx would have disagreed with- a quote from my book; "For Marx the city was a symbol of historical progress". So Marxism would have seen Maosim as reactionary, which seems to hold to what happened, now finaly China is practicing a more pure bread Marxist-Leninism.

I agree: Marxist-Lennism is a type of Marxism, I however do not think that Maoism has enough in common with Marxism to call one anything close to the other. Its some form of socialism, somewhere in the Utopian sector, which im sure everyone knows is the oppiste to Marxism- the scientific evolution of sociaty, rather than the unrealistic practicly and historicly unpaved route of Utopianism.

To tell the truth I know at least some stuff about Maosim and Marxism, and very little on Lenin, my current understanding is that Leninism was just: a socialist party must take the steps needed to get to, or engineer, the Marxist flow chart of progression (advanced capitalism->centralisation->communism->decentralisation/breaking down of the state ect.). would neone like to broaden or correct my current understanding?

[synthesis]

It is evident in the Red Book that he has great wisdom to expound on the nature of imperialism, and indeed he opposed imperialism ferociously all his life.

Don't you think the invasion of Tibet could be construed as imperialist? (Not that I oppose it, really.)

[synthesis]

To tell the truth I know at least some stuff about Maosim and Marxism, and very little on Lenin, my current understanding is that Leninism was just: a socialist party must take the steps needed to get to, or engineer, the Marxist flow chart of progression (advanced capitalism->centralisation->communism->decentralisation/breaking down of the state ect.). would neone like to broaden or correct my current understanding?

Leninism is the belief that an elite vanguard must establish socialism for the proletariat because the proletariat is too disorganized to revolt and create its dictatorship.

There are also certain concepts such as the 'labor aristocracy' wherein it is asserted that the working class of the industrialized nations is too comfortable to revolt since all the real exploitation and oppression is enacted upon the proletariat of Third World nations and therefore the industrialized proletariat will side with the bourgeoisie in class matters.

[elijahcraig]

you can't say Marxism is Maoism. You can logically assert an opinion that Maoism is Marxism, but it's illogical to say the opposite is also true.

that's like saying food is pork. No matter how much you like Maoism, it doesn't make Marxism equivalent to it. Just by saying that it is an extension of Marxism, you are already stating that there is more to it than Marxism, it can be a brand of Marxism, or an off-shoot, but Marxism cannot be Maoism.

and I think this is a perfect example of my comment about Marx not being god. flying the flag of Marxism means nothing. it is the ideas within the ideology that matter, and having, or not having it, or refusing to admit fine-tuning it, should make no difference as to the validity of any ideology.

If Maoism is the logical extension of Marxism into another era of economic materialism, then yes, it is Marxism. Because Marxism is not stagnant and is an ever-changing field of theory—without the extension of Maoism, Marxism is not fit for the world of Imperialism in this era.

Though I tend to not see very many differences between Leninism and Maoism.


maoism isn't marxism it is stalinism.

Can you prove this or explain the relation between the two? And the differences between the two?


Maoism is very Utopian, something that Marx looked down on- read the book I suggested, any true Marxist would have said Mao was mad from the get go.

Marxism= become advanced capitalist then go communist/socialist, Mao wanted to deurbanise everything!!!!!! Something Im sure Marx would have disagreed with- a quote from my book; "For Marx the city was a symbol of historical progress". So Marxism would have seen Maosim as reactionary, which seems to hold to what happened, now finaly China is practicing a more pure bread Marxist-Leninism.

Considering he tried to rapidly industrialize the country in the Great Leap Forward, your “argument” is quite useless.


I agree: Marxist-Lennism is a type of Marxism, I however do not think that Maoism has enough in common with Marxism to call one anything close to the other. Its some form of socialism, somewhere in the Utopian sector, which im sure everyone knows is the oppiste to Marxism- the scientific evolution of sociaty, rather than the unrealistic practicly and historicly unpaved route of Utopianism.

Maoism is basically Leninism built for the third world.


To tell the truth I know at least some stuff about Maosim and Marxism, and very little on Lenin, my current understanding is that Leninism was just: a socialist party must take the steps needed to get to, or engineer, the Marxist flow chart of progression (advanced capitalism->centralisation->communism->decentralisation/breaking down of the state ect.). would neone like to broaden or correct my current understanding?

Read “The State and Revolution”.


Leninism is the belief that an elite vanguard must establish socialism for the proletariat because the proletariat is too disorganized to revolt and create its dictatorship.

It is organization of the proletariat for revolution.

Do you mean to tell me you foresee a spontaneously organized revolution by people who have no party or organization previously?


There are also certain concepts such as the 'labor aristocracy' wherein it is asserted that the working class of the industrialized nations is too comfortable to revolt since all the real exploitation and oppression is enacted upon the proletariat of Third World nations and therefore the industrialized proletariat will side with the bourgeoisie in class matters.

It is basically that the Imperialist nation is too powerful for a revolution to work. And that when the Imperialist nation spreads its army out too far over the third world for superprofits, revolution then becomes possible.

[Pete]

I barely got through that sentance without taking a nap - I know the subjectmatter is great and the ideas are to a certain extent very positive and exciting - but DEAR GOD the presentation SUCKS

What do you mean? I love making sentences that last for 5 lines. It is a sign of distinction... Seriously... I'm a writer. Its great... *trails off and away from the subject at hand*

[synthesis]

It is organization of the proletariat for revolution.

It is the organization of the proletariat for revolution by an elite, arrogant, intellectualist vanguard whose entire belief system revolves around the ineptitude of the proletariat.

The Paris Commune was "organized" but there was no hierarchy. I am not anti-organizational, merely anti-dictatorship by anything other than the proletariat.


Do you mean to tell me you foresee a spontaneously organized revolution by people who have no party or organization previously?

It's happened before - in an industrialized nation - it can happen again.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/a....m#paris-commune (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/a.htm#paris-commune)

[synthesis]

On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris "Morality Police". On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped all sales of article pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic".

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers — in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual's conscience" — was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied. On the 5th, day after day, in reply to the shooting of the Commune's fighters captured by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing. On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme, which had been cast from guns captured by napoleon after the war of 1809, should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished night work for bakers, and also the workers' registration cards, which since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees — exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit. On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.

My kind of place.

[elijahcraig]

It is the organization of the proletariat for revolution by an elite,

Elite class conscious Communists, they, the elite and the enlightened, move the masses to revolution through promoting communism.


arrogant,

That’s stupid.


intellectualist vanguard

Do you hate the intellect now?


whose entire belief system revolves around the ineptitude of the proletariat.

Of course! When Lenin says, “The Proletariat can never be defeated.”, he probably means “Fuck the proletariat, we are the new ruling class!”


The Paris Commune was "organized" but there was no hierarchy. I am not anti-organizational, merely anti-dictatorship by anything other than the proletariat.

It also FAILED because it had no party, no organization based on communism. There was hierarchy, as EVERY revolution has—to claim different is just to trail into a picturesque painting of utopianism.


It's happened before - in an industrialized nation - it can happen again.

Above response also applicable.

I guess you also loved the mass executions, hmm? Void of day Hierarchy.

[Pete]

Do you hate the intellect now?


I think he was refering a concept that only those learned enough could join the party, therefore exculding it from its source of power and the people it is fighting for, thus being elitist in an intellectual sense instead of capitalist sense.

[synthesis]

Elite class conscious Communists, they, the elite and the enlightened, move the masses to revolution through promoting communism.

Unfortunately, a system wherein the leaders are assured that they are intrinsically superior to the people they lead inherently leads to a system I can't fly with.


Do you hate the intellect now?

Lenin was of the bourgeois intellectual clique, and although he certainly did not support the bourgeois, the Bolsheviks were comprised nearly completely of formerly bourgeois intellectuals who are almost universally quite arrogant.


Of course! When Lenin says, “The Proletariat can never be defeated.”, he probably means “Fuck the proletariat, we are the new ruling class!”

Words and actions are two very different things.


It also FAILED because it had no party, no organization based on communism.

Of course it failed, as did Leninism. You are still a Leninist, does that mean that you cannot uphold the theories and practices of Lenin? Of course not, just as I can advocate a society similar to the Paris Commune.

Now, before you reply with something regarding the "revisionist betrayal of Khrushchev" ask yourself this: Doesn't Leninism inherently allow for such a thing to happen? If there weren't an oligarchical, top-down system, but rather a bottom-up, democratical system, wouldn't such a betrayal be impossible?

The Paris Commune failed because it was isolated, not because it was disorganized. Two massive national armies wanted it toppled and therefore it was toppled.

A sustainable, spontaneous class revolution cannot be isolated, cannot be "in one country." And yes, the conditions that led to the Paris Commune - a feeling of betrayal by a society towards its society's elites regarding a war - cannot lead to a sustainable revolution. Then again, that same betrayal was what Lenin utilized to enact the October Revolution.

Most Leninist countries have arisen out of the ashes of war. Vietnam, Russia, and China would never have had a successful revolution were it not for their war for elites but by the people. Same with the Nazis and the Fascists. War is a catalyst for unsustainable change. If the revolution arises out of something more Marxist - by which I mean an economic-related betrayal by the bourgeoisie rather than a national war - it is my belief that something wonderful can happen: i.e., a sustainable, global Paris Commune.


I guess you also loved the mass executions, hmm? Void of day Hierarchy.

Mass executions? Of who? Pro-nationalists? Doesn't phase me.

I'm all in favor of the proletariat subjugating and assimilating the bourgeoisie.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 29 2003, 09:12 PM
The majority of people find political works mind numbingly boring, I cannot think of one that is not seen as such. They are only interesting to those who have a great interest in politics. And, I think that the Red Book is fairly interesting if you compare it to something like Das Kapital. With a lot of people though, books like 'Quotations...' and even more so 'What Is To Be Done?', upon their publication these books were read with great excitement in a single sitting, cover to cover, because of their great importance. Here are some good quotes from the book:


Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this viewpoint is historical idealism.

Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

I have said that all the reputedly powerful reactionaries are merely paper tigers. The reason is that they are divorced from the people. Look! Was not Hitler a paper tiger? Was Hitler not overthrown? I also said that the tsar of Russia, the emperor of China and Japanese imperialism were all paper tigers. As we know, they were all overthrown. U.S. imperialism has not yet been overthrown and it has the atom bomb. I believe it also will be overthrown. It, too, is a paper tiger.

The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?... Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism... Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the full sense.

After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns

Thank you CM, I see you a bit as the leading authority on maoisme. I can be wrong tough but your nick and avatar point that way. I don't doubt you know lots of the man and would love what you find of the great man that is mao. He way have his rough edges he done alot for his country ...

I do not know anyone here who does know as much about the Chinese revolution as I do, however it is not unlikely that there are people here who do.

Mao did indeed do a lot for China. From the early 20's he fought for Chinese independance against the Japanese imperialists. It is evident in the Red Book that he has great wisdom to expound on the nature of imperialism, and indeed he opposed imperialism ferociously all his life. He called on the USSR to ally with China to create strong opposition to the U.S. imperialists in the 60's, at the time he said the east wind was prevailing over the west wind, that the socialist camp was stronger than the imperialist nations. However the USSR had embraced revisionism of Marxism-Leninism at this point.

Mao was often compared as a theoritician to be as great as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin in his lifetime. He had also proved himself to be an invaluable individual in uniting China and leading the revolution. His rise to leadership in the Communist Party came from the repeated evidence of his skill as a military tactician and a leader. Everytime he was given a chance to make an impact he could turn the tide of conflict with the KMT in favour of the communists. People developed great trust in his leadership.

I think there is criticisms that could be directed at him. Whether it was his fault directly or not China did not develop economically as it should have when he had command over economic plans. In addition, the cultural revolution did not seem as straight forward as it should have been. Mao himself having to constantly deliberate over rival Red Gaurd factions. It was to some extent not his fault, China was overburdened with carrying the red flag of socialism once Khrushchev came to power in the USSR. Mao foresaw victorious conflict with the U.S., however the USSR was undertaking a policy of 'peaceful cooperation' with the U.S.
Thank you CM for your helpfull contribution to the topic at hand. Since other comrades have decided the faith of this topic otherwise. I don&#39;t mind to read a good discussion, but I hate it when it happens in my threads where I ask for info <_<

[Saint-Just]

Mao wanted to deurbanise everything –Unrelenting Steve

You have the wrong idea. Mao wanted to urbanise China. They spread cities to the countryside. However, when agricultural production fell they had to move some people back to the farms, but now they are once again moving people into cities in China. Mao did say the peasants were important to the revolution, however he viewed that in China there should be a greater number of industrial workers following the revolution.

I think I have explained Leninism in greater detail to you before. But here is something very simple I wrote on Che-Lives about Leninism recently:

Lenin was an orthodox Marxist because he still saw the need to fundamentally change the economic base to change society. He subscribed to dialectical materialism and pretty much everything else Marxist... however, there were a few fundamental things he altered.

He said that Leninism was Marxism in the age the epoch of Imperialism.

He developed and critised Marxism:

1. He said that underdeveloped nations could develop a revolutionary consciousness.

2. He created the theory of the party, that a party should have a strict organisational structure and adhere to the principles of democratic centralism.

3. He created the notion of a working-class vanguard. He said: &#39;Class consciousness can only be brought to the workers from without [the prevailing economic structure - capitalism or feudalism].

Lenin said that in the age of imperialism, underdeveloped countries had become important in the revolutionary struggle. He also talks a lot of the working-class interest, and a group of dedicated middle-class intellectuals bringing about revolution in the working-class interest.

He also created a theory of Imperialism. That nations are pursuing economic, cultural and political imperialism. He said that this would create war, looking at what happened in 1914 and later you can see he was right.

[elijahcraig]

Unfortunately, a system wherein the leaders are assured that they are intrinsically superior to the people they lead inherently leads to a system I can&#39;t fly with.

Boo-hoo.


Lenin was of the bourgeois intellectual clique, and although he certainly did not support the bourgeois, the Bolsheviks were comprised nearly completely of formerly bourgeois intellectuals who are almost universally quite arrogant.

And? Arrogance is not the same as pride and confidence. I think Lenin was the later two, not arrogant.


Words and actions are two very different things.

Let’s see some anti-working class “actions”.


Of course it failed, as did Leninism. You are still a Leninist, does that mean that you cannot uphold the theories and practices of Lenin? Of course not, just as I can advocate a society similar to the Paris Commune.

Then you have not progressed past simple utopianism?

I am a Leninist, but I also know that Leninist theories do not apply all-around to the real world today—just like some of the Paris Commune theories still apply, yet many do not.


Now, before you reply with something regarding the "revisionist betrayal of Khrushchev" ask yourself this: Doesn&#39;t Leninism inherently allow for such a thing to happen? If there weren&#39;t an oligarchical, top-down system, but rather a bottom-up, democratical system, wouldn&#39;t such a betrayal be impossible?

There was no oligarchical system so your question is superfluous.


The Paris Commune failed because it was isolated, not because it was disorganized. Two massive national armies wanted it toppled and therefore it was toppled.

That is not what Marx said and that is not what Lenin said. History is a dialectic, at that time utopian socialism reigned supreme. Now we know better, you should too.


A sustainable, spontaneous class revolution cannot be isolated, cannot be "in one country." And yes, the conditions that led to the Paris Commune - a feeling of betrayal by a society towards its society&#39;s elites regarding a war - cannot lead to a sustainable revolution. Then again, that same betrayal was what Lenin utilized to enact the October Revolution.

A socialist revolution can succeed in one country—a Communist end must be worldwide.


Most Leninist countries have arisen out of the ashes of war. Vietnam, Russia, and China would never have had a successful revolution were it not for their war for elites but by the people. Same with the Nazis and the Fascists. War is a catalyst for unsustainable change. If the revolution arises out of something more Marxist - by which I mean an economic-related betrayal by the bourgeoisie rather than a national war - it is my belief that something wonderful can happen: i.e., a sustainable, global Paris Commune.

War merely increases economic betrayal, it is not separate.


Mass executions? Of who? Pro-nationalists? Doesn&#39;t phase me.

I&#39;m all in favor of the proletariat subjugating and assimilating the bourgeoisie.

Then you are a hypocrite.


I think he was refering a concept that only those learned enough could join the party, therefore exculding it from its source of power and the people it is fighting for, thus being elitist in an intellectual sense instead of capitalist sense.

Party line must be perfected by scientists, not by uneducated. The party must be directed by the most marxist educated. If this is a worker, fine. If this is an “intellectual”, it is also fine.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Desert [email protected] 28 2003, 09:05 PM
Well last night I saw a docu about him and the chinese revolution. He caught my attention and I was wondering if anyone of you knows more about him. I find a book on the net I could maybe buy to learn more about his views on things it is called "On Guerrilla Warfare TSE-TUNG, MAO" is that book any good, I dunno much about the person and books published around him, so that is the reason why I ask it here ...
His Four Essays on Philosophy are the best.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/reading.html

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 30 2003, 12:49 PM
Mao wanted to deurbanise everything –Unrelenting Steve

You have the wrong idea. Mao wanted to urbanise China. They spread cities to the countryside. However, when agricultural production fell they had to move some people back to the farms, but now they are once again moving people into cities in China. Mao did say the peasants were important to the revolution, however he viewed that in China there should be a greater number of industrial workers following the revolution.

I think I have explained Leninism in greater detail to you before. But here is something very simple I wrote on Che-Lives about Leninism recently:

Lenin was an orthodox Marxist because he still saw the need to fundamentally change the economic base to change society. He subscribed to dialectical materialism and pretty much everything else Marxist... however, there were a few fundamental things he altered.

He said that Leninism was Marxism in the age the epoch of Imperialism.

He developed and critised Marxism:

1. He said that underdeveloped nations could develop a revolutionary consciousness.

2. He created the theory of the party, that a party should have a strict organisational structure and adhere to the principles of democratic centralism.

3. He created the notion of a working-class vanguard. He said: &#39;Class consciousness can only be brought to the workers from without [the prevailing economic structure - capitalism or feudalism].

Lenin said that in the age of imperialism, underdeveloped countries had become important in the revolutionary struggle. He also talks a lot of the working-class interest, and a group of dedicated middle-class intellectuals bringing about revolution in the working-class interest.

He also created a theory of Imperialism. That nations are pursuing economic, cultural and political imperialism. He said that this would create war, looking at what happened in 1914 and later you can see he was right.
I guess I was quiet bad to read two books by the same auther and think I know something about China.

That is totaly contradictory to what my book says&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

there is a lot here, I will try to only quote the relevant info from the book:

The mondern Cinese historical situation was hardly conductive to the acceptance to this Marxist faith in the progressive nature of capitalism............blah blah blah............Chinese Marxists, never seriously confronted with the ideological-political oppisition of non-Marxian sociliast theories, had less need to defend or affirm(as did Lenin) the Marxist view that socialism presupposes capitalism, a propososition that many viewed as incongruous both with Chinese historical reality and with their own Socialist hopes.......blah blah blah......Thus mzny Chinese Marxists (and most notanly Mao Tse Tung) found it realiviley easy to ignore or reinterpret the Marxist view that capitalism was a historicly progressivephenomenoun, much less an esential condition for socialism.

-There are other bits which I cant find righ tnow that say how Mao de-urbanised......

The auther doesnt seem to write much from the book I quoted that from, its made up of several essays from other people- they all have a tone that would coincide with what I quoted you.

So do you think my book is full of shit? a Marxist recomended it to me, one of the MP&#39;s at Parliment? I dont know what to make of this controversy .

[atlanticche]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska+Oct 28 2003, 10:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Marxist in Nebraska @ Oct 28 2003, 10:08 PM)
[email protected] 28 2003, 03:46 PM
did he even use guerilla warfare
umm... yes

[/b]
give me proof

[crazy comie]

Mao had economic policys based on stalins five year plans he had a simeler idea of "democracy"

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism

is there a chance you can put it into a PDF file and send me a link or just get it on the internet somehow...maybe it&#39;s already on the internet...either way can you help me read this book...prefrably for free. If not for free can you tell me the publisher, price and where you bought it...thanks&#33;