Maoism

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Does anyone have a clear explanation about what Maoism is.
How is it different from Marxism/Leninism?
What were it's pros and cons?
Also is it still relevant?
And are there any books I should read?

[Egalitarianism]

And are there any books I should read?

I'll allow other's who are more learned to answer the other questions but as far as Maoist literature is concerned I recommend "Quotations for Chairman Mao Tse -Tung" known in the West as "The Little Red Book"

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'll allow other's who are more learned to answer the other questions but as far as Maoist literature is concerned I recommend "Quotations for Chairman Mao Tse -Tung" known in the West as "The Little Red Book"

Yeah I read some parts of it, But I don't really understand everything.

[NewLeft]

Does anyone have a clear explanation about what Maoism is.
How is it different from Marxism/Leninism?
What were it's pros and cons?
Also is it still relevant?
And are there any books I should read?
It is different by including nationalist elements, promoting agrarian life and being more specific to China. Pros: It's revolutionary and still alive in parts of Asia?? Cons: It hasn't been very successful..

[Ballyfornia]

Its stupid, It has all this revolutionary rhetoric but has the theory of new democracy and block of four classed which is counter revolutionary. State capitalism, which doesn't really need much explanation why that's bad. Although i must say Maoist art is pretty cool

[daft punk]

Mao's aim was for China to be capitalist for several decades after WW2 in accordance with Stalinist two stage theory and a variety of Popular Frontism (this aspect of Stalinism was completely discredited in China for obvious reasons). Even so, Stalin backed the other side. Mao's plan failed partly cos of the Korean war, partly cos it was a rubbish idea in the first place. But socialism was never on the cards so China became modelled on the USSR in the end. A dictatorship by a bureaucracy over a planned economy. A deformed workers state.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Even back in the days of Chairman Mao his followers rejected a notion of Maoism in favor of Mao Zedong thought. Since Mao's death it is apparent that while Mao's thought may be alive in China as a matter of form, as a matter of substance it has been eclipsed. Frankly, given the disastrous chaos and confusion surrounding the Cultural Revolution I don't believe Mao's thought ever constituted a coherent approach to revolutionary praxis.

[Homo Songun]

OP, to sum up so far:

"It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

Mao Zedong, To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing (May 26, 1939)

[Lei Feng]

Maoism is the expansion of Marxism-Leninism to fit the needs of China(and other "backward" countries).

It is virtually the same as Marxism-Leninism and there aren't many huge differences(us Maoists mostly refer to each other as M-L's regardless) since it is merely adding on to M-L theory and practice.

However, some differences would include New Democracy(which, yes, is often perceived as "counter-revolutionary", but keep in mind, the party was still in control during this phase and China evetunally moved to the socialist phase. This was done because China had not reached the full capitalist phase of development as many countries had, so this phase was designed to get China to Socialism without letting the Bourgeoisie take power and then have to overthrow them as well), focus on guerilla fighting using the Peasantry as a major force, aka the Peoples War(keep in mind, China didnt have a very developed working class/proletariat at the time), Cultural Revolution, and the Mass Line. Those are just some i can think of off the top of my head.

However, despite these differences, that isnt to say that Maoism differed that much from regular Marxism-Leninism.

For your other question:
Pros:
Led China to become a healthy Socialist Society(until Deng Xiaoping came along)
Follows an anti-revisionist line against Khruschev
Has inspired several other revolutions
Is known for fighting Beauracracy
The Proletariat/Peasants are made the leaders of society and could overthrow corrupt party officials(in the case of Deng Xiaoping among other revisionists during the Cultural Revoluion)
It puts a lot more power in the hands of the people and is less "mechanical"(to paraphrase Mao) than traditional M-Lism, which relied mainly on purges to get rid of corrupt officials.

Cons:
Is looked at as "Revisionist" by Hoxha supporters despite China and Albania being allies after the Sino-Soviet split
Utilizes nationalism(anti-imperialist nationalism, mind you, but still nationalism)

Yes, it is still relevant, as it has inspired rebellions in Nepal, India, the Philippines, Peru, and parts of Africa. Workers in China are protesting to this day about how their government has been hijacked by the capitalists and many still view Mao and his leadership in high regard.(Hell, there's even one village left over from the Mao era that still retains socialism to a decent extent, within China). So yes, it is relevant. Mao taught us a lot about how to wage revolution and how to continue it after Socialism has been achieved.

And as for reading, the Marxist internet archive has TONS of works by Chairman Mao. Other than that, i suggest the Xiao Hong shu(Little Red Book).

[The Douche]

Its stupid, It has all this revolutionary rhetoric but has the theory of new democracy and block of four classed which is counter revolutionary. State capitalism, which doesn't really need much explanation why that's bad. Although i must say Maoist art is pretty cool

If you had left out the flame bait ("its stupid") this would've been a decent post, in the future, please keep that in mind.

[Ballyfornia]

OP, to sum up so far:

"It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

Mao Zedong, To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing (May 26, 1939)

So instead of responding or trying to refute criticism you're going to show this quote and that makes it all better? and some how makes you better because you don't reply? What?

[Homo Songun]

Maoism is the expansion of Marxism-Leninism to fit the needs of China(and other "backward" countries).
[quote]

I don't think this is quite right. It is true that he developed the strategy of Peoples War and other things that are, strictly speaking, apropos of backward countries. But the main theoretical contributions of Maoism as such were ideas like the bourgeoisie being reborn within the party itself, and so are applicable to any and all countries.

[quote]However, some differences would include New Democracy(which, yes, is often perceived as "counter-revolutionary", but keep in mind, the party was still in control during this phase and China evetunally moved to the socialist phase. This was done because China had not reached the full capitalist phase of development as many countries had, so this phase was designed to get China to Socialism without letting the Bourgeoisie take power and then have to overthrow them as well),I also think this is not quite right. New Democracy is not so much about carrying the bourgeoisie's water for them as it is completing the tasks of a typical bourgeois revolution long after the bourgeoisie has ceased to be capable of doing such a thing. Arguably this is analogous to the Trotskyist conception of "uneven and combined development" and the tasks that flow from it from the point of view of a communist party.



And as for reading, the Marxist internet archive has TONS of works by Chairman Mao. Other than that, i suggest the Xiao Hong shu(Little Red Book).To this I would add the website massline.info

[Ismail]

Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution (http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm) has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis. It can be viewed here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/imperialism-and-revolution/part2/III.pdf

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

[Prometeo liberado]

Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution (http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm) has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis. It can be viewed here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/imperialism-and-revolution/part2/III.pdf

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

Bob Avakian will never go away(sadly).

[Homo Songun]

If China's situation is the logical outcome of Mao Zedong's thought, as Enver Hoxha would surely assert, then your statement that Maoism is irrelevant is fallacious on its face. After all, there are 80 million members in the Chinese party as of 2010.

Personally, my criteria for Maoist parties is more selective, but even then, your statement strikes me as somewhat disassociated from reality :rolleyes: ... this coming from someone who has no problem giving PCMLE and PCOT mad props

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution (http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm) has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis. It can be viewed here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/imperialism-and-revolution/part2/III.pdf

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

Kind of on this subject, what's with India's Maoists? It seems that the Intelligentsia is committed to the ideology but that the rank and file guerrillas and their supporters are just peasants whose land is under attack from the Indian state and would be putting up resistance with or without the party organizing them. How do they plan on keeping the movement together to take state power after the peasants have successfully defended their land, assuming that ever happens?

[CommunityBeliever]

Maoism is the expansion of Marxism-Leninism to fit the needs of China(and other "backward" countries).

I agree with the point raised by comrade Schmuel Katz. The most important features of Maoism are an understanding of how the bourgeoisie can arise in the party and the practice of cultural revolution.


Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

Hoxhaism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the restoration of capitalism during the reign of Hoxha's chosen successor Ramiz Alia, Hoxhaism is becoming increasingly hard to defend. Hoxhaists are nowhere to be seen these days.


Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

That is BS. There are plenty of Maoists "roaming about" especially in the far east. In fact, most revolutionary socialists today are Maoists.

Well there are anti-Maoists in Nepal that are obedient wards of the state, there are still plenty of actual Maoists in Nepal. Furthermore, in the most populous countries of the world: India and China, Maoism is the main revolutionary force. The Indian Maoists are actively fighting a civil war against the state and of course in China there are many millions of Maoists.

[Ismail]

If China's situation is the logical outcome of Mao Zedong's thought, as Enver Hoxha would surely assert, then your statement that Maoism is irrelevant is fallacious on its face. After all, there are 80 million members in the Chinese party as of 2010.Well yes, China is quite a populous country. The modern-day CCP also isn't Maoist, it's more or less openly capitalist and has cared very little for Mao since 1978.


this coming from someone who has no problem giving PCMLE and PCOT mad propsWell I don't think the PCMLE massacred peasants while extolling them as the sole force of the revolution and building up their leadership as glorious figures à la "Chairman Gonzalo."


Well there are anti-Maoists in Nepal that are obedient wards of the state, there are still plenty of actual Maoists in Nepal. Furthermore, in the most populous countries of the world: India and China, Maoism is the main revolutionary force. The Indian Maoists are actively fighting a civil war against the state and of course in China there are many millions of Maoists.The "actual Maoists in Nepal" seem content to vacillate between all the various factions. Of course Hoxha noted that it is the norm for Maoists to vacillate on all sorts of questions. The "many millions of Maoists" in China are not much different from the various nostalgists for Soviet times. In India there is indeed a peasant movement that does seem to enjoy limited popularity, but they've faced the same situation as various other peasant-led rebellions: they've been fighting for decades with little in the way of gains. Not much different from, say, FARC-EP.

"Maoism as an anti-Marxist 'theory' is in agony. It will face the same fate as other theories which have been devised by global capitalism and imperialism in decay."
(Enver Hoxha. Letra të zgjedhura Vol. 1. Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 1985. p. 401.)

[Grenzer]

If China's situation is the logical outcome of Mao Zedong's thought, as Enver Hoxha would surely assert, then your statement that Maoism is irrelevant is fallacious on its face. After all, there are 80 million members in the Chinese party as of 2010.

I'm not even a fan of Hoxha, and this statement makes no sense at all.

How does the fact that 80,000,000 are a member of an openly capitalist party somehow refute the idea that Maoism is anti marxist?

Maoism allows ideological plurality(IE capitalists and reformists) to be part of its ranks, so the statement that capitalism is the logical conclusion of Maoism seems to be pretty valid to me.

[Ostrinski]

What were it's prosAesthetic
Neat quotes


and cons?Everything else

[Homo Songun]

How does the fact that 80,000,000 are a member of an openly capitalist party somehow refute the idea that Maoism is anti marxist?
It doesn't. It only refutes the assertion that Maoism is not "relevant".

http://www.myteacherpages.com/webpages/CFrazier1/imageGallery/read.jpg


Although, in all fairness, the CCP is not openly capitalist.



The modern-day CCP also isn't Maoist, it's more or less openly capitalist and has cared very little for Mao since 1978.Yeah, actually no.

[Ismail]

Although, in all fairness, the CCP is not openly capitalist.Neither was the CPSU under Gorbachev, and the CCP has far outstripped the CPSU in terms of negating Marxism-Leninism.

[CommunityBeliever]

Maoism allows ideological plurality(IE capitalists and reformists) to be part of its ranks, so the statement that capitalism is the logical conclusion of Maoism seems to be pretty valid to me.

Many of the most important MLM practices are designed to combat against feudalist, capitalist, and imperialist elements in the party and society at large. Capitalism is not a logical conclusion of MLM practice.


How is it different from Marxism/Leninism?

In my own work rebel against pseudoscience (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6591) I denounce pseudoscientific ideas, including Lysenkoism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism), a form of pseudoscience that recieved support from administrative measures in the USSR. One distinct feature of MLM thought is that it is based upon cultural revolution, criticism, self-criticism and it is opposed to all forms dogmatism and pseudoscience. Comrade Mao Zedong understood that questions of right or wrong should be settled in scientific circles through practical work:

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land. Different forms and styles in art should develop freely and different schools in science should contend freely. We think that it is harmful to the growth of art and science if administrative measures are used to impose one particular style of art or school of thought and to ban another. Questions of right and wrong in the arts and sciences should be settled through free discussion in artistic and scientific circles and through practical work in these fields. They should not be settled in summary fashion." - Mao Zedong

"Natural science is one of man's weapons in his fight for freedom. For the purpose of attaining freedom in society, man must use social science to understand and change society and carry out social revolution. For the purpose of attaining freedom in the world of nature, man must use natural science to understand, conquer and change nature and thus attain freedom from nature." - Mao Zedong


Also is it still relevant?Absolutely; MLM practice drives the revolutionary movements in the most populous countries in the world: India and China.

China

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/187_feature_hilton.jpg


The modern-day CCP also isn't Maoist, it's more or less openly capitalist and has cared very little for Mao since 1978.

On the contrary, the CCP still does care for Mao. With their never-ending NEP policy and their abandonment of the most important aspects of Maoism, the CCP has abandoned Mao as a great thinker but not Mao as an important historical figure.

Communist Party of China CPC (http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/index.html) >> Mao's 110th Anniversary (http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66095/index.html)

It is true that Mao Zedong made gross mistakes in his later years, but when his life is judged as a whole, his indisputable contributions to the Chinese revolution far outweigh his mistakes, and his merits are primary and his errors secondary. He is still held in great respect by the Chinese people. The CPC gave an all-round evaluation of all his revolutionary activities and thought in a resolution adopted by its Central Committee five years after his death. Mao Zedong Thought, the development of Marxism in China, is still the guiding ideology of the CPC. Mao Zedong's main works are included in the Selected Works of Mao Zedong (in four volumes) and Collected Works of Mao Zedong (in eight volumes).


After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology.

Nixon's visit to Beijing is not indefensible. The social imperialist USSR completely abandoned socialism several years before 1972 and it was just as threatening to China as the American empire, especially by the year 1969 when the USSR had hundreds of thousands of troops by China's border and border skirmishes were breaking out. It was sensible to meet with some American leaders under these conditions.

This was just a meeting, nothing reactionary that came out later on can be blamed on Mao. It is unfair to blame the reactionary actions that happened in the late 1970s well Mao's health degenerated due to motor neuron disease (MND) or amytrophic lateral sclerolis (ALS) the same condition Stephen Hawking's is suffering from today. By 1974 Mao couldn't even speak coherently. In particular, you can't blame the three world's theory on Maoism it was mainly described by Deng Xiaoping in his 1974 speech to the UN.

India


In India there is indeed a peasant movement that does seem to enjoy limited popularity, but they've faced the same situation as various other peasant-led rebellions: they've been fighting for decades with little in the way of gains. Not much different from, say, FARC-EP.

The Indian government admitted that the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is the greatest continuing threat to their reign. In 2009, the Naxalite insurgency effected over 180 districts in India:

http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Maoist_map_20091026.jpg

India is a weak link of the global capitalist system. The Indian Maoists have faced considerable obstacles in their struggle, their is absolutely no doubt about that. Operation Green Hunt certainly didn't help matters much. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Indian Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is the most important revolutionary organisation in existence today.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kPnUT5uaOvY/TWTk_whuy3I/AAAAAAAAAvg/htxqHLOz7ss/s1600/maoist-rebels.jpg

Nepal


The "actual Maoists in Nepal" seem content to vacillate between all the various factions.

Prachanda was an important progressive figure in the Nepalese people's war; this led many of the Nepalese Maoists to "vacillate." However, more and more Nepalese Maoists are becoming disillusioned with the Prachanda path. For the very first time during the 17th anniversary of the people's war (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/nepals-maoists-celebrate-peoples-war-anniversary/), Prachanda's photo was not posted in the main banner hanged down in Khula Mach in Kathmandu.

http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/seventeenth-anniversary-peoples-war-nepal-revolution.jpg

Hoxhaism
@Ismail the fact is Maoists, through their presence in the most populous countries, India and China, outnumber Hoxhasists 1000 to 1. It is Hoxhaism that is becoming increasingly irrelevant well Maoism is only gaining in relevance. The idea that there are not many "Maoists roaming around anymore" is nonsensical.


"Maoism as an anti-Marxist 'theory' is in agony. It will face the same fate as other theories which have been devised by global capitalism and imperialism in decay."

On the other hand, Hoxhaism isn't going to go into 'agony' because it has never been a significant part of the international proletarian struggle in the first place. The Albania proletariat made some considerable achievements before 1991, but that was not in anyway a result of Hoxha's dogmatic, revisionist and anti-Marxist ideas.


Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm) has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis.

Perhaps Hoxha sincerely believed that Mao Zedong thought was anti-Marxist. If that is the case, the fundamental issue here is that Hoxha didn't properly understand Marxism because if he did he would've realised that with Imperialism and Revolution he was making a complete and utter departure from Marxist thought:

Beat Back the Dogmato-Revisionist Attack on Mao Tsetung Thought (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/rcp-hoxha/index.htm)

The comment made in Revolution after the appearance of an Albanian press release announcing Hoxha’s utter and complete departure from Marxism with the publication of Imperialism and the Revolution remains a fitting conclusion after having examined in greater depth some of Hoxha’s main attacks on Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tsetung Thought: 'At a time when the international communist movement is at a crossroads Enver Hoxha had the opportunity and the responsibility to play the role of a giant. He chose instead to be a pipsqueak."

[Ismail]

On the contrary, the CCP still does care for Mao. With their never-ending NEP policy and their abandonment of the most important aspects of Maoism, the CCP has abandoned Mao as a great thinker but not Mao as an important historical figure.Well yes, much like the Khrushchev, Brezhnev and onwards didn't "forget" Stalin either and noted that he did some nice things as well, like defeat Hitler. That isn't the point, and for what it's worth Mao's published works in modern-day China are apparently heavily bowdlerized and very selective.


Nixon's visit to Beijing is not indefensible. The social imperialist USSR completely abandoned socialism several years before 1972 and it was just as threatening to China as the American empire, especially by the year 1969 when the USSR had hundreds of thousands of troops by China's border and border skirmishes were breaking out. It was sensible to meet with some American leaders under these conditions.No it wasn't. You cannot rely on one imperialism to oppose the other, that was one of the main things the Albanian leadership emphasized.


Mao's health degenerated due to motor neuron disease (MND) or amytrophic lateral sclerolis (ALS) the same condition Stephen Hawking's is suffering from today.Last I heard Stephen Hawking is still quite conscious of his words and actions.


By 1974 Mao couldn't even speak coherently. In particular, you can't blame the three world's theory on Maoism it was mainly described by Deng Xiaoping in his 1974 speech to the UN.Yet Mao approved that very speech.

See: http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/series-on-maoist-revisionism-mao-endorses-the-three-worlds-theory-dengs-u-n-speech/


On the other hand, Hoxhaism isn't going to go into 'agony' because it has never been a significant part of the international proletarian struggle in the first place. The Albania proletariat made some considerable achievements before 1991, but that was not in anyway a result of Hoxha's dogmatic, revisionist and anti-Marxist ideas.Various Marxist-Leninist parties abroad adhered to the line of the Party of Labour of Albania. Most notable was the PCdoB in Brazil, which certainly isn't a minor party.


As an example of how dogmatic Hoxha is he once said of Stalin that "not a single major mistake in theory or practice was ever made by this brilliant leader."Actually you got that from some Kasama forum thread of some guy recalling a quote from memory. But yes, not a single major mistake was made.

In his diary in 1964 Hoxha noted that:

"Proper recognition of the great work of Stalin is the guarantee for proceeding on the correct Leninist road. Stalin was and is a glorious Leninist, irrespective of any minor mistakes he may have made."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. p. 124.)

[CommunityBeliever]

Yet Mao approved that very speech.I can contest your points on this issue. But lets say what you are saying is correct, that doesn't mean that Maoists such as myself have to support all the actions of an unhealthy Mao who could barely speak.


Actually you got that from some Kasama forum thread of some guy recalling a quote from memory. But yes, not a single major mistake was made.What can I say I like kasama. They have a nice site.


But yes, not a single major mistake was made.I agree with that point, but he did make some mistakes because Stalin was the first leader of a socialist state and he didn't have any prior experience to look upon. It is my opinion that with the experiences that are the basis of Maoism many of the socialist movements previous mistakes can be avoided.

Consider that comrade Ismail once said: ... Stalin made "mistakes" whereas Mao was this bright, energetic "non-dogmatic" type of guy who supposedly noted these "mistakes" and somehow advanced Marxism-Leninism onto a qualitatively new stage which, of course, became Mao Zedong Thought. (source: post #42 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2350813&postcount=42)) I think this energetic non-dogmatic Mao corrected many mistakes and he brought Marxism-Leninism to a new stage.

[Ismail]

Consider that comrade Ismail once said: ... Stalin made "mistakes" whereas Mao was this bright, energetic "non-dogmatic" type of guy who supposedly noted these "mistakes" and somehow advanced Marxism-Leninism onto a qualitatively new stage which, of course, became Mao Zedong Thought. (source: post #42 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2350813&postcount=42)) I think this energetic non-dogmatic Mao corrected many mistakes and he brought Marxism-Leninism to a new stage.I "once said" that a month ago. I was evidently being sarcastic and explaining the Maoist view of Mao.

The Mao cult is certainly not an indication of a healthy approach to things.

And if you agree that Stalin made no major mistakes, then what was the point of bringing up Hoxha's supposed "dogmatism" over that very issue?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

@all of the people mentioning how the CPC isn't openly capitalist

It probably will be as soon as the generation that lived during Mao's time dies off.

[CommunityBeliever]

I "once said" that a month ago. I was evidently being sarcastic and explaining the Maoist view of Mao.Yes I know that was sarcastic which is why I referred to you in the third person lol.


And if you agree that Stalin made no major mistakes, then what was the point of bringing up Hoxha's supposed "dogmatism" over that very issue? My bad, I didn't realise that it said major mistakes.

[Dark Matter]

Read an book :lol:
Im just reading Maocetung that my grandma gave it to me
she is awesome ♥