Modern-day Maoists worry Chinese authorities

[Queercommie Girl]

http://observers.france24.com/content/20110923-china-modern-day-maoists-worry-authorities-commemoration-unrest-taiyuan

Excerpts from the article:

For this new generation of Maoists, the Chinese Communist Party has betrayed their leader’s roots by succumbing to capitalism and world trade. As a result foreign companies have been allowed to run amok in China, exploiting the country’s low-paid workers and wreaking havoc on the environment. In today's China, where disparities between groups are rapidly growing, Maoists are attracting an ever-growing following among the poor and working classes, which have been hard hit by unemployment and inflation. Their growing popularity, however, has also drawn the wrath of local authorities.

... ...
Nevertheless, the results of 30 years of ‘reform’ and opening up the world markets [a shift begun in the 1980s by one of Mao’s successors, Deng Xiaoping], are mixed at best. Yes, living standards have improved for some, and people have more freedom. But the gap between the rich and the poor widens every day. I experienced China coming onto the world market in the 1980s, and entering the World Trade Organisation in 2000. My conclusion is that capitalism poses many problems, especially in terms of social equality.

... ...

Today, people use Mao’s teachings and theories to express their discontent against the government. That’s what irritates authorities, and they remain very wary of our movement. [According to another of our Observers in China, the CCP uses Mao’s image to serve its own purposes, but when Maoists refer to him to express their discontent, they are immediately silenced]. Mao didn’t deliver the solutions to all of our socio-economic problems. These solutions must come from confrontation and debate different political forces. Only a multi-party system will allow our country to move forward.

... ...

There are many small informal political groups these days, but they’re not allowed to be parties so to speak of. They communicate and spread their ideas on the Web, sometimes on the field. Some even form alliances. I know that Shanghai police closely monitor members of these groups on a daily basis.

I personally created a virtual political group : ‘The party of the Chinese Revolution’. I’ve been contacted several times by police, but so far it hasn’t gone any further. I signed Liu Xiabao’s Charter 08 for democratic reform because I agree with most of his principles. Of course, some Maoists are opposed to a multi-party system. But I think the core principles of our ideology are based on human rights, freedom and expression and democracy. We will head in that direction".

[Queercommie Girl]

One of the RevLeft members, sunfarstar, was interviewed in this article.

[Geiseric]

This maoist sounds very liberal... Thinking that a multi party system will help the chinese working class! Sounds to me alot like the egyptian protesters. Hardly revolutionary.

[Queercommie Girl]

"This Maoist" is our own sunfarstar! But I think he meant a socialist multi-party system.

Still, you can't deny it's still a step-forward from the explicit authoritarianism of traditional Maoism.

[Smyg]

Even if a socialist multi-party system wasn't what was meant, a capitalist multi-party system with some freedom is far superior to a capitalist one-party system without any at all.

[Geiseric]

I suppose so, however maoists need to throw away the bloc of four classes entirely. All their tendencies where maoist groups ally with bourgeois "revolutionaries" weakens the workers movement.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I cannot see how any communist can be justified in signing the fucking Charter 08.

( I mean, seriously:


Specific demands are:


Amending the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China).
Separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers).
Legislative democracy.
An independent judiciary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_the_judiciary).
Public control of public servants.
Guarantee of human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights).
Election of public officials.
Abolition of Hukou system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system).
Freedom of association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association).
Freedom of assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly).
Freedom of expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression).
Freedom of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion).
Civic education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_education).
Free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markets) and protection of private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property), including privitizing state enterprises and land.
Financial and tax reform.
Social security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security).
Protection of the environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_protection).
A federated republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_China).
Truth in reconciliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_reconciliation_commission).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_08#cite_note-Link2008-6)

)


I’m a Maoist, and I feel both leftist and socially conservative.I'd like to know what this means. Is it a reference to thinking back to the 70's or a genuine reference to the conservative ideological climate that prevails in China?

[Geiseric]

Uhhhhh LOOK AT NUMBER 14!

[Queercommie Girl]

I cannot see how any communist can be justified in signing the fucking Charter 08.

( I mean, seriously:

)

I'd like to know what this means. Is it a reference to thinking back to the 70's or a genuine reference to the conservative ideological climate that prevails in China?

Re "social conservative"

It doesn't mean he is a "conservative" in the Western right-wing sense. It just means he probably doesn't support things like "free love", sex work, legalisation of drugs etc. Every Maoist strongly believes in gender equality and anti-racism.

[Queercommie Girl]

On Charter 08:



Amending the Constitution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China).
Disagree. I would rather keep the PRC's generally socialist constitution with only minor amendments, like guaranteeing LGBT rights.



Separation of powers (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers).
Legislative democracy.
An independent judiciary (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_the_judiciary).
Public control of public servants.
Guarantee of human rights (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights).
Election of public officials.
Abolition of Hukou system (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system).
Freedom of association (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association).
Freedom of assembly (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly).
Freedom of expression (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression).
Freedom of religion (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion).
Civic education (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_education).
These are all positive things which every genuine democratic socialist should support.



Free markets (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markets) and protection of private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property), including privitizing state enterprises and land.
Completely opposed to this.



Financial and tax reform.
Social security (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security).
Protection of the environment (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_protection).
Again, generally positive things.



A federated republic (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_China).
Maybe. The USSR under Lenin was a federated republic. This could give non-Han ethnic minorities in China more rights.



Truth in reconciliation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_reconciliation_commission).
Not sure what this means...

But of course socialists would go much further on many issues. However, to completely reject the Charter as completely reactionary is wrong. Some articles are no doubt completely reactionary, but many are not.

[Red Commissar]

At the end of Sunfarstar's bit he says that he signed the charter because he agrees with 'some of the principles' not the entire thing. That's how I read it at least. He points out that while some Maoists oppose multi-party democracy, that "the core principles of our ideology are based on human rights, freedom and expression and democracy. We will head in that direction".

Thanks for sharing this btw, it's not everyday we see something from Sunfarstar that isn't incoherent. I was actually thinking for awhile he didn't even exist (:laugh:), but now I know for sure he's around.

[Nox]

Does anyone else find it extremely ironic that the government set up by a Maoist revolution is now inspiring another potential Maoist revolution :laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

Does anyone else find it extremely ironic that the government set up by a Maoist revolution is now inspiring another potential Maoist revolution :laugh:

Trotskyism is the same. Trying to initiate another Leninist revolution in a state that was created by a Leninist revolution in 1917 - the USSR. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

With some serious reservations...my opinion is that the idea that young generations correct the mistakes and the moving away from the core ideology of the older generations is often necessary.

Maoism stopped being a serious tendency (for me and IMO) after the theory of the three worlds took over the CPC. And especially when the CPC made a reformist and reactionary move to allow capitalism.

To correct these mistakes are a duty IMO of every serious revolutionary...as well as it is the duty to keep evolving the way society is being regulated.

[Geiseric]

Trotskyism is the same. Trying to initiate another Leninist revolution in a state that was created by a Leninist revolution in 1917 - the USSR. :rolleyes: The workers of the USSR standing up to Stalin's beuracracy doesn't mean revolution. I don't know where you read that Trotsky wanted another leninist revolution in the USSR. However a democratic movement to get rid of leaders who no longer represent proletarian intrests should be supported by any marxist.

[Wanted Man]

Are they "Maoists" ideologically? Or are they more like patriots who want to go back to some aspects of Mao, like the crime-fighting party boss of Chongqing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai)?

[Iron Felix]

But I think the core principles of our ideology are based on human rights, freedom and expression and democracy. We will head in that direction
Is a Maoist saying that with a straight face?

Ah, the irony!

[Queercommie Girl]

The workers of the USSR standing up to Stalin's beuracracy doesn't mean revolution. I don't know where you read that Trotsky wanted another leninist revolution in the USSR. However a democratic movement to get rid of leaders who no longer represent proletarian intrests should be supported by any marxist.

Actually Trotsky called for a political revolution in the USSR while calling for a social revolution in the capitalist world. So yes technically workers overthrowing the bureaucracy is a revolution. But China is far beyond that stage now.

[PhoenixAsh]

Are they "Maoists" ideologically? Or are they more like patriots who want to go back to some aspects of Mao, like the crime-fighting party boss of Chongqing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai)? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai%29?)

that is actually an interesting observation.

So far it seems to me that the article describes a whole set of initiatives. Some may fall under the banner of what could perhaps be described as aspectism...if that is even a word...but some may be genuinely communist and anti-reformist.

The overall analysis that SFS puts foreward is one that I agree with. What his solutions are I can not say. would be interesting to read that Utopia forum.

[Tablo]

Whatever the case, I'm happy to see Maoist activity in China against the CCP. While, from what I understand, there is a group in the CCP trying to move it back towards Maoism, seeing people outside the party and in support of a multi-party system is good. Better a multi-party system than a CCP dictatorship. My main concern is the desire some have for a free-market. I can't see a free-market china being a good place for anyone but the rich to live. Not to say it is good now.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

On Charter 08:

Disagree. I would rather keep the PRC's generally socialist constitution with only minor amendments, like guaranteeing LGBT rights.


It would probably be better if it was re-written. Like the Soviet constitution and many others, that sort of documents aren't very important, and the focus from Charter 08 on it indicates that the authors take influence form the constitution-centred philosophy of U.S. politics.


These are all positive things which every genuine democratic socialist should support.

They are not. Separation of powers is directly undesirable, and an independent judiciary is as well: a judiciary should be political. The problem in the PRC is not that the judiciary is political, it's who controls the state and thus the legal system; i.e. it is not the working class.

Abolishing internal passports (if this is what it means by abolishing the Hukou system, it seems to be a term that applies to other aspects such as citizen registration also) is a good thing, however, guarantee of human rights is not. The bourgeoisie has no human rights. Arbitrarily asserting such is pointless.

I'll give you so much that the rest could be thought of as positive depending on your views.


Completely opposed to this.

I'd hope so. Point 14 is such that, even if every other single point was good, it ought to be rejected wholesomely (preferably in favour of a socialist alternative to this liberal-capitalist rubbish, I mean it's just a pointless petition anyway).


Again, generally positive things.

This time I do agree, but they do not go far enough.


Maybe. The USSR under Lenin was a federated republic. This could give non-Han ethnic minorities in China more rights.

All ethnic borders must be blurred and a spirit of coöperation would be more preferable to counter reprehensible ethnic discrimination, as well as the building of a new unified culture, rather than fomenting divisions along ethnic lines.


Not sure what this means...

It means rejecting "communism", that's what it means. It means going on about enormous death tolls and asserting they are the fault of communism and building monuments all around to the memory of the "crimes of communism". They'd say it'd only reflect excesses by the state during Mao, but we all know they like to take it one-step further and few people will be making that distinction. It is essentially about creating a bunch of symbols and references that will forever be regarded as the enormous dreadful tombstones of socialism - regardless of what socialism this might be - and will be used to strengthen the already strong support for capitalism in public opinion. Whenever there comes a red and say that things are wrong now, the ruling class will point in the direction of that barren steel monument and say, "That is what happened last we tried, that is where socialism gets us!" - even referring to Capitalist China of today - and thus the score will be settled. That is what Truth in reconciliation means.

[Queercommie Girl]

It would probably be better if it was re-written. Like the Soviet constitution and many others, that sort of documents aren't very important, and the focus from Charter 08 on it indicates that the authors take influence form the constitution-centred philosophy of U.S. politics.


But the basic framework does not need to be re-written. China today still has a Soviet-style constitution. The first article reads "the alliance of the working class and the peasantry is the leading class". Why fix an unbroken wheel?

And I disagree with you that a constitution is not important. "Constitution-centrism" isn't just American, the USSR also saw it as a very important thing.



They are not. Separation of powers is directly undesirable, and an independent judiciary is as well: a judiciary should be political. The problem in the PRC is not that the judiciary is political, it's who controls the state and thus the legal system; i.e. it is not the working class.


The judiciary should indeed be political, but also independent. A judiciary that is not independent, even if it is fully under the democratic control of the working class, is still prone to corruption.



Abolishing internal passports (if this is what it means by abolishing the Hukou system, it seems to be a term that applies to other aspects such as citizen registration also) is a good thing,


The hukou system essentially separates China's population into 2 castes: urban and rural. It's directly discriminatory in many ways.



however, guarantee of human rights is not. The bourgeoisie has no human rights. Arbitrarily asserting such is pointless.


I agree that human rights need to be asserted with a class orientation, but this doesn't mean human rights aren't important for socialists. Also, to state that "the bourgeoisie has no human rights" isn't actually correct. Capitalists are still human, and the only area where their rights will be taken away is in relation to their ownership of the means of production. It doesn't mean capitalists aren't given basic human rights in other areas.



All ethnic borders must be blurred and a spirit of coöperation would be more preferable to counter reprehensible ethnic discrimination, as well as the building of a new unified culture, rather than fomenting divisions along ethnic lines.


National consciousness can never be forcefully taken away. I prefer Lenin's original multi-national socialist federation idea.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But the basic framework does not need to be re-written. China today still has a Soviet-style constitution. The first article reads "the alliance of the working class and the peasantry is the leading class". Why fix an unbroken wheel?


The alliance of the peasantry and working class was a mistake when done in the Soviet Union and a mistake that ought not to have been repeated.


And I disagree with you that a constitution is not important. "Constitution-centrism" isn't just American, the USSR also saw it as a very important thing.

The constitution of the Soviet Union had a different function than it does in the United States and was rewritten entirely several times (lastly in 1977) and formed a basic frame of political goals and so on so forth in addition to laying out some basic organisation.


The judiciary should indeed be political, but also independent. A judiciary that is not independent, even if it is fully under the democratic control of the working class, is still prone to corruption.

An independent judiciary is not necessarily any less prone to corruption.


I agree that human rights need to be asserted with a class orientation, but this doesn't mean human rights aren't important for socialists. Also, to state that "the bourgeoisie has no human rights" isn't actually correct. Capitalists are still human, and the only area where their rights will be taken away is in relation to their ownership of the means of production. It doesn't mean capitalists aren't given basic human rights in other areas.

In general they might have, but the moment they organise counter-revolutionary opposition, they surrender all rights.


National consciousness can never be forcefully taken away. I prefer Lenin's original multi-national socialist federation idea.

It can, and should, be taken away. I have no idealist perceptions of this being easy. It will probably take a very long time. But despite the difficulties, the formulation of a new global single-unity culture, the final brotherhood between all humanity, is no less desirable therefore.

[Queercommie Girl]

The alliance of the peasantry and working class was a mistake when done in the Soviet Union and a mistake that ought not to have been repeated.


The October Revolution in 1917 was based on Lenin's slogan of the alliance between workers and peasants (hence the "hammer and sickle" being the communist symbol) and that was a success. Bureaucratic degeneration didn't happen until later.



An independent judiciary is not necessarily any less prone to corruption.
There is no absolute guarantee anywhere, but generally speaking a judiciary that is both independent and under democratic mass control is less prone to corruption than a judiciary that is only independent but not democratic, or only democratic but not independent, or worse a judiciary that is neither independent nor democratic.



In general they might have, but the moment they organise counter-revolutionary opposition, they surrender all rights.
But the same applies to everyone. If a working class person organises counter-revolutionary opposition, he/she would be persecuted just the same. This is because "counter-revolutionary activities" is against socialist law.



It can, and should, be taken away. I have no idealist perceptions of this being easy. It will probably take a very long time. But despite the difficulties, the formulation of a new global single-unity culture, the final brotherhood between all humanity, is no less desirable therefore.It cannot be "taken away" at all. The formation of a single "Earth consciousness" is something that will naturally evolve in a global socialist society over a long period of time. But in a democratic socialist society the national consciousness of workers is not something that can simply be removed or even dampened down through administrative or bureaucratic means. Lenin understood this which is why he strongly supported national rights, even allowing Finland to break away from the Soviet Union.

Also, it's sexist for you to only mention the "final brotherhood between all humanity" but not "sisterhood".

[Seth]

Maoists should worry the workers, too.

[mosfeld]

Maoists in China, like the Maoist Communist Party of China, might be at odds with the general line of MLM at some points but young Parties often state weird shit which they correct later. No Party or individual is perfect from its inception.


Are they "Maoists" ideologically? Or are they more like patriots who want to go back to some aspects of Mao, like the crime-fighting party boss of Chongqing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai)? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai%29?)
Comrade, take a look at The Post-Mao Chinese Left: Navigating the Recent Debates (http://sanhati.com/excerpted/3894/). Some comrades are clearly tilted towards reformism and working within the CCP, while others are more revolutionary and advocate an overthrow.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It can, and should, be taken away. I have no idealist perceptions of this being easy. It will probably take a very long time. But despite the difficulties, the formulation of a new global single-unity culture, the final brotherhood between all humanity, is no less desirable therefore.

This got my attention in particular. It seems quite troublesome for a variety of reasons, not least of which the fact that any such "universal" culture will need to give preference to certain traditions over others. Why teach Mandarin as the central language of the unified culture and not Tibetan or Mongol? Because they are a demographic minority? What if Muslims want the weekend to start on Friday and Christians demand that it covers Sunday?

A far more realistic world would allow for cultural plurality within a broader context of universal brotherhood/sisterhood, and this would be something which is far more acceptable to the individuals within ethnic groups whose traditions are more distinct and regional. There is no reason to think that cultural unanimity needs to be imposed by demolishing cultural diversity and localization.



All ethnic borders must be blurred and a spirit of coöperation would be more preferable to counter reprehensible ethnic discrimination, as well as the building of a new unified culture, rather than fomenting divisions along ethnic lines.

Ethnic borders should be blurred but one should not ignore the institutional problems which exist along that road. Realistically speaking it would be a long-term process and would have to come from the bottom up not the top down. In China in particular you have a problem where some 90% of the people have a single hegemonic culture and receive economic and social preference, which is why the ethnic minorities in China are so concerned. In their case this "blurring" is not a bottom-up process but is largely occurring without their volition. Until the nature of the society is more equal and ethnic minorities aren't at a social disadvantage, it is a reasonable demand to ask for some institutional protection for these communities. You cannot impose a color-blind society by force.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why teach Mandarin as the central language of the unified culture and not Tibetan or Mongol?


A better question would be "why teach English as the global language and not Mandarin or Spanish or Arabic"?

As an internationalist, I have a global perspective, and certainly not just a Chinese one. If the whole world becomes socialist today under a "global mono-culture", the English language and Anglo-American culture will become the dominant force, not Chinese. (E.g. the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek, which is a kind of utopian socialism, uses English as the official language) Obviously I don't want to see that happening, so I'm a supporter of cultural pluralism in the entire world.

[Tenka]

A better question would be "why teach English as the global language and not Mandarin or Spanish or Arabic"?
A "world mono-culture" would necessarily be a multi-lingual one. You can't just enforce a global language -- it's impossible, and no materialist has such aspirations.

And earlier you said:

It cannot be "taken away" at all. The formation of a single "Earth consciousness" is something that will naturally evolve in a global socialist society over a long period of time. But in a democratic socialist society the national consciousness of workers is not something that can simply be removed or even dampened down through administrative or bureaucratic means.But no one is suggesting 'removing' it through 'administrative' or 'bureaucratic' means. It won't be be long, once a true spirit of internationalism is felt by all, till these separatist "national consciousnesses" wither away on their own. But then, I've lived in the U.S. almost all of my life and have never had anything like a "national conscious" (which is something that sounds nationalistic to me).
Also, Lenin can be wrong.

Also, it's sexist for you to only mention the "final brotherhood between all humanity" but not "sisterhood". I don't think it's sexist to refer to the brotherhood of humanity. I think it's more so to refer to both a brotherhood and a sisterhood, as though they are distinct things -- as though the sexes have interests which do not coincide.
Maybe it would be better if we just referred to the sisterhood of humanity and left terms like "brother", which have come to be associated with the distinct, false, 'male' species, to rot in the rubbish bin of history. I don't know how well that would be received in general, but I am not opposed to it, and it's better than making superficial distinctions which seem like feel-good liberal concessions to those who are conscious of patriarchal society.

edit: I'm going off-topic though, and probably not making a whole lot of sense.

[Queercommie Girl]

But then, I've lived in the U.S. almost all of my life and have never had anything like a "national conscious" (which is something that sounds nationalistic to me).


The US however is dominated by the English language...:rolleyes:

This is precisely my point. I don't want to see a socialist world becomes a global socialist version of the United States of America.



Also, Lenin can be wrong.
And so can you. I'd rather put my money on Lenin.



I don't think it's sexist to refer to the brotherhood of humanity. I think it's more so to refer to both a brotherhood and a sisterhood, as though they are distinct things -- as though the sexes have interests which do not coincide.

Maybe it would be better if we just referred to the sisterhood of humanity and left terms like "brother", which have come to be associated with the distinct, false, 'male' species, to rot in the rubbish bin of history. I don't know how well that would be received in general, but I am not opposed to it, and it's better than making superficial distinctions which seem like feel-good liberal concessions to those who are conscious of patriarchal society.Yes I think it's better to talk about a "sisterhood".

But really, what's wrong with simply writing "brotherhood/sisterhood"? You might think "token reminders" don't mean anything, but this isn't completely true. Language matters. Often even "liberal concessions" are better than "no concession at all".

Seriously, as much as I criticise the liberals, I really hate those Marxists who think liberals are even worse than conservatives.

[Tenka]

Seriously, as much as I criticise the liberals, I really hate those Marxists who think liberals are even worse than conservatives.
I'm not one of those particular sort of "Marxists" to which you refer; my last point of contention was that referring to a "brotherhood of humanity" is not in fact sexist, and that brotherhood/sisterhood is only a superficial improvement, if one at all, i.e., nowhere near good enough. I'd have preferred something like "comradery of humanity" myself, but that might look a little gaudy, and anyway, I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct.