What is Maoism and Juche Idea?

[Proletariat]

As the title may suggest I need some help on what are the theories and thoughts of Maoism and Juche.

My background knowledge on both are quite limited, So im asking to which they both inhere to and do they follow the grounds of Marxism set down by Marx and Engels or are they revisionist.

Thank you for your assistance.

[Desperado]

I'll leave a comprehensive answer to another poster, but just to note that what justly counts as "revisionist" or not is a highly contentious issue. Some might see Lenin as a distortion of Marx's original ideas, others Trotsky or Stalin. All certainly added and revised Marx's original ideas to an extent - and filled in a lot of gaps which are left out. It's also worth noting that at 1917 few of Marx's works were available to the Russian revolutionaries (who Mao and Juche see themselves as continuing), so they could hardly keep truly in line with what Marx's thought. Not that this is the point either - we don't judge them on their dogmatic orthodoxy, but rather on whether they were truly installing the communism envisaged by Marx, Engels and others. And that, again, is contentious, as this thread will show in a moment...

[scarletghoul]

As the title may suggest I need some help on what are the theories and thoughts of Maoism and Juche.

My background knowledge on both are quite limited, So im asking to which they both inhere to and do they follow the grounds of Marxism set down by Marx and Engels or are they revisionist.

Thank you for your assistance.Maoism is a development of Marxism-Leninism to a higher stage. Its basis is the fundamental concepts of class struggle as found in marx engels and lenin, but it adds on to this several new ideas which came about due to the unique chinese circumstances but are applicable all over the world. In philosophy Mao developed dialectical materialism especially in his two main essays On Practice and On Contradiction. Using this theory the party was able to assess the contradictions in a situation and put htat understanding into practice; this is how they could rally the whole chinese people and take over the country through guerilla war ("Protracted Peoples War"). The most important principle, both ethically and strategically, in the PPW is the Mass Line, which means the revolutionaries must be as one with the masses, listening to them and understanding their situation, then translating their concerns into revolutionary action. A more familiar example of the mass line might be the black panther partys community programs. Another important principle that mao emphasised is that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. self explanatory lol but it points to the direction in which the people can be empowered ...

But Maoism only became a qualitatively higher stage of Marxism Leninism really in the 60s, when the Cultural Revolution began. understanding that the revolution isnt garuanteed success just because it seized state power, that a new bourgeoisie was emerging in the ussr as well as in china, and summarising marxism with the term "its right to rebel", mao got the people to rebel against his own government. workers gained more direct power, corrupt or capitalistic officials were disciplined at the hands of the people, backwards cultural elements were purged, women emancipated more than any other chapter in human history, ideological debate encouraged, etc etc.

i'll do the juche one later

[Os Cangaceiros]

Maoism was definitely one of the worse mutations of communism (and I use that word in a very loose sense). Maoism as "Mao Zedong thought" goes beyond Mao, though, there was a circle of people who really codified the theory that is known as "Maoism", not just Mao alone.

Mao the man was impressive. He was a shrewd political operator (much like Lenin) and an accomplished military theorist. His thoughts on military tactics are still studied by people interested in "COIN" (counter-insurgency). His combination of folksy nationalism with a topping of socialist talking points would become the standard for many leading figures in anti-colonial movements. He helped move China from being a provincial outpost to ultimately becoming an important country on the world stage.

Maoism as an ideology is extremely problematic, though. One of the more disturbing elements of it is the emphasis on ideological purity. That manifested itself in the burning of classical music during the Cultural Revolution; Rengo Sekigun in Japan murdering 12 of their own comrades in "character exercises"; the cultish "self-criticism" exercises in which you confess your ideological "sins"; Maoists in India, the Phillipines and elsewhere ranting at peasants about Mao while clutching "red books", as if the revolution will be made if only enough peasants are preached at and indoctrinated. Utterly ridiculous.

Equally so is a lot of the "Maoist hardman" sloganeering about "power coming from the barrel of a gun". If that were actually true then we might as well give up now, as those in power not only have plenty of guns, they have nuclear submarines which can turn entire cities to ash. No, power comes from the position of people within their own society, specifically the position of workers in relation to the productive form. Political power grows from those who accrue economic power for themselves.

Never-the-less Maoism remains relevant in certain areas of the world, namely India and the Phillipines. In Nepal Maoists actually had an opportunity to prove all of us natter naybobs of negativism wrong, with "Maoist Jesus" Prachanda, but instead they just proved us all right by thoroughly embracing their new role as the up and coming ruling class and managers of capital, with barely even an attempt at excuses.

Juche is pretty much entirely irrelevant and only worth knowing about if you're interested in Korean history.

[gorillafuck]

there are no Juche movements aside from the Workers Party Of Korea.

[Homo Songun]

Maoism as an ideology is extremely problematic, though. One of the more disturbing elements of it is the emphasis on ideological purity.

Of all the criticisms one could lay at the feet of Maoism, this one is bizarre. Compared to Trotskyism for example, it has a much more flexible and tolerant approach to ideological differences. Maoism takes it for granted that differences of opinion arise in the party and they are worked out via a dialectical process of unity-struggle-unity over time. Trotskyists basically just split every time.

Of course, one may object that in practice it is quite different but the point is that Maoism has an ideological commitment to a certain level of diversity of opinion in the party. Other strands do not.

Also, "Maoism" and "Mao Zedong Thought" are not synonyms. The choice of one term over another has significance, within the world of anti-revisionism anyways. For example, the Chinese party describes it's ideology not as "Maoism" but "Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents." This is not by accident. (Don't ask me what "Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents" means, I haven't a clue.)

[black magick hustla]

state department socialism

[black magick hustla]

fun fact: western maoists are stuck in the 90s cuz' they all love the gonzalo and the old senderistas but virtually every leader of the shining path broke with him and called him a sociopath so thats why there is like a billion senderista factions

[tachosomoza]

Juche = Follow the Kims down the road of starvation, while they drink Hennessy and attend bourgeois schools in Switzerland!

[Proletariat]

Juche = Follow the Kims down the road of starvation, while they drink Hennessy and attend bourgeois schools in Switzerland!

Sounds fun, but in all honesty what is the definition of the Juche Idea.

[Ostrinski]

Juche holds that the military, not the proletariat, is the revolutionary class. That should be enough.

[tachosomoza]

Sounds fun, but in all honesty what is the definition of the Juche Idea.

That's the practical definition, the rest of it is fluff and bullshit. Juche shouldn't be taken seriously. It is all dynastic, kleptomaniac bullshit.

[Sasha]

Sounds fun, but in all honesty what is the definition of the Juche Idea.

Where orthodox-Marxist/left-coms and leninists see the industrialized worker and the maoists the peasant as the primary revolutionary force juche/shogun see the military in that role (what trotskist think i don't know, midle class students I guess by a look at most trot groups - boom sectarian stab!).

Funny enough they where all right in the specific time and circumstances when the theorys in question where formulated, its still the proletarians most locked in violent struggle with capital but that means it are now the precarious, the migrants, the marginalised, the unemployed youth and not the western industrial workers with their reformist payoffs sewn up by the unions and social-dems, its not the peasants made a insignificant force by mechanized farming and it are certainly not the northkorean army who long ago took over from the imperial colonists as the exploitve ruling class sucking the country drie.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Also, Juche is highly nationalistic. It believes that the Korean people can only count on themselves and should shut themselves out from other countries.

[tachosomoza]

Also, Juche is highly nationalistic. It believes that the Korean people can only count on themselves and should shut themselves out from other countries.

Nationalistic is an understatement. It's verging racism. The pure Korean "race" is eternally at odds with the rest of the world. They don't mention that when they stick their hand out for food aid, though. :lol:

[Homo Songun]

Not that it'll change any confirmed zealots' mind one way or the other, but:


Where orthodox-Marxist/left-coms and leninists see the industrialized worker and the maoists the peasant as the primary revolutionary force juche/shogun see the military in that role

It is not clear to me what you mean by "primary revolutionary force", but Maoism doesn't see the peasants as the leaders of the revolution. In the first place, there is nothing about about Maoism as such that ties it to semi-feudal or backwards countries. In the second place, even in China Mao was quite clear about the proletariat, as numerically small as it was, being the class-for-itself pushing the revolution forward.


Juche holds that the military, not the proletariat, is the revolutionary class. That should be enough.

That is definitely not true of the Juche idea. As for the Songun policy, I don't think it goes that far. As Kim Chol U, Korean professor of political science says in the (official?) "SONGUN POLITICS OF KIM JONG IL" :







The fact that Songun politics gives prominence to the armed forces as the pillar of the revolution does not mean degrading the position of the working class and other political forces, their position as the independent motive force of history.


I don't suppose either of you have any primary source documents to the contrary though?

If you'll notice, in both of these instances the common denominator is the practical application of classical 'imported' theory to situations that deviate from the western European template they were originally supposed to apply towards. Draw your own conclusions.

[scarletghoul]

Maoism as an ideology is extremely problematic, though. One of the more disturbing elements of it is the emphasis on ideological purity. That manifested itself in the burning of classical music during the Cultural RevolutionOh no ! Not the classical music !!!!! lolll


Maoists in India, the Phillipines and elsewhere ranting at peasants about Mao while clutching "red books", as if the revolution will be made if only enough peasants are preached at and indoctrinated. Utterly ridiculous.
yes its ridiculous to educate and mobilise an oppressed and vast section of the masses, what are these people thinking !?! They should be posting on revleft or looking for food in bins, who cares about huge areas of indian territory being under revolutionary control


Equally so is a lot of the "Maoist hardman" sloganeering about "power coming from the barrel of a gun". If that were actually true then we might as well give up now, as those in power not only have plenty of guns, they have nuclear submarines which can turn entire cities to ash. No, power comes from the position of people within their own society, specifically the position of workers in relation to the productive form. loool "maoist hardman". despite the quotes i think youre the first person ever to use this term, its good though. Anyway the full quote is political power coming from the barrel of a gun, not power in the abstract.
Political power grows from those who accrue economic power for themselves.ok now keep going. how do they do this ? What protects private property ? How did the bourgeoisie get all the resources they own ? How do the people take it back ?

guns guns guns

Also, "Maoism" and "Mao Zedong Thought" are not synonyms. The choice of one term over another has significance, within the world of anti-revisionism anyways. For example, the Chinese party describes it's ideology not as "Maoism" but "Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents." This is not by accident. (Don't ask me what "Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents" means, I haven't a clue.)Ha ha no one knows what the Three Represents means, or if it means anything other than "jiang zemin was here lol"

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh no ! Not the classical music !!!!! lolll

By itself it's not all that important, but it does illustrate the "secular religion" lunacy that seems to plague Maoist praxis.


yes its ridiculous to educate and mobilise an oppressed and vast section of the masses, what are these people thinking !?! They should be posting on revleft or looking for food in bins, who cares about huge areas of indian territory being under revolutionary control

LOL yeah, totally logical, like when Charu Mazumdar urged urban revolutionaries in Calcutta to go out into the countryside in order to read Mao to peasants. :lol: Turning yourself into a communist Jesuit always has had an awesome record of success.


loool "maoist hardman". despite the quotes i think youre the first person ever to use this term, its good though. Anyway the full quote is political power coming from the barrel of a gun, not power in the abstract. ok now keep going. how do they do this ? What protects private property ? How did the bourgeoisie get all the resources they own ? How do the people take it back ?

Capitalism isn't primarily kept in place by guns...a system in which the population of helot workers is kept in check only by force of arms is not capitalism, it's chattel slavery. The fact that pure force is not what sustains capitalism should be proven abundantly by the fact that in the couple of times that capitalism's self-proclaimed enemies managed to seize state power temporarily, commodified labor and the law of value never really went away. The bourgeoisie achieved their power more through the economic & social revolution called the industrial revolution, not through any one political revolution (i.e. the glorious revolution, French Revolution, etc.) Those political revolutions were symptoms of a trend dating back to about the 1500's.

A massive strike does a lot more to interupt capitalism than Sendero Luminoso impalling indians on spears in the Andes.

[scarletghoul]

Juche holds that the military, not the proletariat, is the revolutionary class. That should be enough.
No, it doesn't. This is a falsehood of the first degree. I think you should look into Juche and maybe read some Kim Il Sung in order to gain some understanding of what you criticise.


the northkorean army who long ago took over from the imperial colonists as the exploitve ruling class sucking the country drie.
Wow, do you realise what you're saying ? This is astonishing .. Youre saying that the Korean Peoples Army is the main enemy of the korean people, more so even than the USA, which is still occupying half of korea and hasnt given up on the other half. I assume that in practice this means you think koreans should devote all their energy to fighting the KPA, rather than overthrowing american imperialism (this would be a de facto alliance with the US, given the common super-exploitative enemy of the KPA)


Also, Juche is highly nationalistic. It believes that the Korean people can only count on themselves and should shut themselves out from other countries.What the fuck is wrong with an oppressed people vowing to liberate themselves ?? Virtuous as fuck imo.


Nationalistic is an understatement. It's verging racism. The pure Korean "race" is eternally at odds with the rest of the world. They don't mention that when they stick their hand out for food aid, though. :lol:yes this is textbook condescending imperialist propaganda, thanks for posting it

ANyway for the OP; Juche is most often translated to english as self-reliance. This has practical ideological and ethical manifestations, from the individual to the collective korean people. in DPRK juche is seen as the primary ideology, and while kim il sung was influenced by marx and lenin, he has surpassed marxism leninism . I disagree with this on the theoretical level; self-determination of course has always been at the core of the communist movement and in the theories of marx lenin mao etc. Self-reliance is really just applied self-determination, especially when surrounded by enemies. But while its a little immodest to proclaim it as an original theory, i can't criticise the koreans for emphasising it. In fact i really do admire the independant spirit of that country. Without the DPRK's emphasis on self determination i doubt they would exist, the korean people would be fully colonised. As the BBC said in a recent report, they are 'stubbornly socialist'.

Btw people who say juche is all about militarisation are first of all just echoing imperialistt propaganda and secondly confusing Juche for Songun. Songun was Kim Jong Ils idea which stresses the importance of the military. There are obvious reasons for this.

[Grenzer]

As the BBC said in a recent report, they are 'stubbornly socialist'.

Btw people who say juche is all about militarisation are first of all just echoing imperialistt propaganda and secondly confusing Juche for Songun. Songun was Kim Jong Ils idea which stresses the importance of the military. There are obvious reasons for this.


How is it that Maoists are able to cope with such mind shattering paradoxical positions. You just cited the BBC as proof that the DPRK was socialist, and the very next sentence you start whining about people who use the same source against it?

Furthermore, it's completely ignorant to refuse to recognize the reality that Juche IS about the military. Kim Jong Il blatantly stated that the military is the revolutionary class, not the workers. There are obvious reasons for this, most blatant of which is that it echoes the class interest of the Kim dynasty and their cronies, which is the interest of the bourgeoisie as opposed to that of the proletariat.

[Sasha]

@ SG:
Yes I know what I'm saying and yes, for the north-korean proletariat the kims and the rest of the military ruling class and the dynastic fuedal capitalist despotism they represent is the primary enemy, its for the sourh koreans proletariat to kick out the US and overtrow the laizefaire globalized capitalist "democracy" they are exploited by. What good is a bullwark protecting you against a system that gives the workers only a small piece of the pie if that bulwark isn't protecting a system where the workers not only also not own the bakery but not even get not any pie but hardly any rice either...
But keep pretending your a Marxist by all means

[Jimmie Higgins]

(what trotskist think i don't know, midle class students I guess by a look at most trot groups - boom sectarian stab!).Someone calling themselves an insurrectionist wants to go there? Then do insurrectionists see as the driving force? Trust-funded white people who riot-hop from city to city?:p

Boom-jab!

But seriously, if who historically has been involved in revolutionary tendencies were the test, then M-L would have Trotskyists and Anarchists and Left-Coms beat on a numerical basis since these organizations and viewpoints have been much larger and influential in trade-unions and other movements and organizations. But as far as who these political tendencies see as the driving force of the revolution it is the workers whereas M-Ls have often supported X state as the "defense of the revolution". Many Trotskyists have historically made the same mistake, but for both ostensibly it's the working class whereas Maoism and a lot of the anti-imperialist revolutionary movements have looked to Peasants or students or ex-peasants/-students turned soldiers (Che) to win the revolution FOR workers.

[Sasha]

Touche, though i guess you haven't read much insurectionary theory... like i said i/we regard the primary group to be in conflict with capital to be the precarious, the marginalised, the migrants and the unemployed. We as revolutionaries for sure can be part of them and for sure stand next to them in their struggle but we can only hope that they are inspired by our politicised choice for the attack but we are not and do not want to be anything remotely vanguardian

[Jimmie Higgins]

Touche, though i guess you haven't read much insurectionary theory... Well the point of my response to your joke was that just because Trostkyist groups have only been stuck organizing in student movements doesn't mean that is who the theory is oriented on - just as conversely, BBP may have appealed to the black working class, they purposefully saw the "brother on the block" black underclass as the "vanguard".


like i said i/we regard the primary group to be in conflict with capital to be the precarious, the marginalised, the migrants and the unemployed.Who are all part of the working class unless we're talking about people who only make their money off the black market, pimps, or professional drug dealers. IMO "precariat" is just revolutionaries trying to side-step the issue of us being marginalized from the working class for so long. Liberation for the so-called precarieat is tied to the liberation of the whole working class because if you are marginalized, by definition, you can not take power over the means of production by yourself, you have to fight collaboratively with the rest of working class.


We as revolutionaries for sure can be part of them and for sure stand next to them in their struggle but we can only hope that they are inspired by our politicised choice for the attack but we are not and do not want to be anything remotely vanguardianVanguard - as in the leading part of a force as in inspiring people to take action? Lol. Insurrectionism = 1970s Maoism 2.0[/thread derailment]:lol:

[Comrade Jandar]

Maoism is a development of Marxism-Leninism to a higher stage. Its basis is the fundamental concepts of class struggle as found in marx engels and lenin, but it adds on to this several new ideas which came about due to the unique chinese circumstances but are applicable all over the world. In philosophy Mao developed dialectical materialism especially in his two main essays On Practice and On Contradiction. Using this theory the party was able to assess the contradictions in a situation and put htat understanding into practice; this is how they could rally the whole chinese people and take over the country through guerilla war ("Protracted Peoples War"). The most important principle, both ethically and strategically, in the PPW is the Mass Line, which means the revolutionaries must be as one with the masses, listening to them and understanding their situation, then translating their concerns into revolutionary action. A more familiar example of the mass line might be the black panther partys community programs. Another important principle that mao emphasised is that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. self explanatory lol but it points to the direction in which the people can be empowered ...

But Maoism only became a qualitatively higher stage of Marxism Leninism really in the 60s, when the Cultural Revolution began. understanding that the revolution isnt garuanteed success just because it seized state power, that a new bourgeoisie was emerging in the ussr as well as in china, and summarising marxism with the term "its right to rebel", mao got the people to rebel against his own government. workers gained more direct power, corrupt or capitalistic officials were disciplined at the hands of the people, backwards cultural elements were purged, women emancipated more than any other chapter in human history, ideological debate encouraged, etc etc.

i'll do the juche one later

I've recently become legitimately interested in Maoism as there seems to be certain aspects that could be very useful. What's some good introductory literature?

[Sasha]

Well the point of my response to your joke was that just because Trostkyist groups have only been stuck organizing in student movements doesn't mean that is who the theory is oriented on - just as conversely, BBP may have appealed to the black working class, they purposefully saw the "brother on the block" black underclass as the "vanguard".

Who are all part of the working class unless we're talking about people who only make their money off the black market, pimps, or professional drug dealers. IMO "precariat" is just revolutionaries trying to side-step the issue of us being marginalized from the working class for so long. Liberation for the so-called precarieat is tied to the liberation of the whole working class because if you are marginalized, by definition, you can not take power over the means of production by yourself, you have to fight collaboratively with the rest of working class:

No disagreement there, but let's be honest that in most western capitalist countries it wont be traditional unionized fordist worker who will first escalate the class struggle beyond the critcal point. While we need the whole of the working class to ultimately win we shouldn't wait to attack until all are ready. No one of us started out where they are now, and I believe radicalisation and politication goes a lot faster through direct attack/conflict with capital than unionizing, party building, voting, reading lenin or selling newspapers (boom - sectarian dig at most of the rest of the board)

[scarletghoul]

@ SG:
Yes I know what I'm saying and yes, for the north-korean proletariat the kims and the rest of the military ruling class and the dynastic fuedal capitalist despotism they represent is the primary enemy, its for the sourh koreans proletariat to kick out the US and overtrow the laizefaire globalized capitalist "democracy" they are exploited by. What good is a bullwark protecting you against a system that gives the workers only a small piece of the pie if that bulwark isn't protecting a system where the workers not only also not own the bakery but not even get not any pie but hardly any rice either...
But keep pretending your a Marxist by all means
Korea is a country, and the korean people are still very much a national community despite 50 years of forced seperation. As a nation Korea has a primary enemy, that is US imperialism. To say the US is only the main oppressor in the south and not the north just because they dont have any troops in the north is to take a metaphysical view point and to see the current picture in static isolation (in particular it means assimilating your ideological judgement into the 2-country narrative of the imperialists). Regardless of the class character of the DPRK, we can apply the same logic to other more familiar countries to see how incorrect it is: when Free Derry became an autonomous area in 1969, should the people there have focussed their efforts on overthrowing any irish property owners in the area instead of fighting against the british forces, simply because there were no british forces in the area at the time ? Should the residents of the Gaza strip be fighting against the government there rather than the State of Israel ?

[scarletghoul]

I've recently become legitimately interested in Maoism as there seems to be certain aspects that could be very useful. What's some good introductory literature?

www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/049_049_CRpaper-Final.pdf is a good piece for learning about the cultural revolution

http://ajadhind.wordpress.com/marxism-leninism-maoism-basic-course/ is a good introduction to MLM by some indian comrades. if youre familiar with marx and lenin you can skip to the last bits which are about the chinese revolution

Maos writing itself is actually fine as an introduction, much more concise than most revolutionary theorists. heres the most important ones imo -


On Practice (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OP37.html)
On Contradiction (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OC37.html)
Combat Liberalism (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CL37.html)
U.S. Imperialism Is a Paper Tiger (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/IPT56.html)
On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CHC57.html)
Where do Correct Ideas Come From ? (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_01.htm)
A Critique of Soviet Economics (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html)

Theres also the red book which can be found on MIA ..


Unfortunately i cant find any intro that includes the original history + theory as well as the current movements in india and elsewhere.. these movements are just as important as any theory, so i suggest you follow the news from them. http://signalfire.org http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/ http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/ are some news websites


feel free to join the MLM group on here too and ask any more questions either there or in learning (tho obviously theres a lot of bullshit replies in any learning thread )

[Sasha]

Korea is a country, and the korean people are still very much a national community despite 50 years of forced seperation. As a nation Korea has a primary enemy, that is US imperialism. To say the US is only the main oppressor in the south and not the north just because they dont have any troops in the north is to take a metaphysical view point and to see the current picture in static isolation (in particular it means assimilating your ideological judgement into the 2-country narrative of the imperialists). Regardless of the class character of the DPRK, we can apply the same logic to other more familiar countries to see how incorrect it is: when Free Derry became an autonomous area in 1969, should the people there have focussed their efforts on overthrowing any irish property owners in the area instead of fighting against the british forces, simply because there were no british forces in the area at the time ? Should the residents of the Gaza strip be fighting against the government there rather than the State of Israel ?

I'm not saying the "US is the main oppressor in only the south" either, the main oppressor in the whole of Korea, and the whole world is capitalism, US imperialism is only one of its many faces and by now in Korea only a minor facilitating one too, Korean capital, be it the extreme laissezfare capitalism in the south or the state-capitalism in the iron grip of the regime in the north can exploit the workers fine on its own.

Sad that I, being the ultimate revisionist autonomist situationist marxist insurectionary anarchist hybrid that I am, have to explain you such fundamental core tenants of marxism like internationalism and the workings of capital.

[Yuppie Grinder]

This is exactly the sort of shit that's holding Marxism back. Folks often say that the revolutionary left's current situation was created by sectarianism, but more than anything I think it's an association with the likes of Mao and Kim Il Sung. Marxism should not be a religion, it should be an approach to social science and a political movement. Calling those who dare to question the party line "revisionists" the same way someone might have been called a "heretic" in the glory days of the Roman Catholic church, abandoning material analysis when it comes to anything you have an emotional attachment to, and masturbating over the corpses of long dead dictators, if that's Marxism than call me a decadent bourgeois revisionist because fuck that.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I think:

Maoism=Stalinism in the east

and

Juche=Maoism in Korea

But I am not informed about these things

[Tim Cornelis]

As the BBC said in a recent report, they are 'stubbornly socialist'.

Because the BBC is so committed to historical materialism and Marxism :rolleyes:

'Hitler called himself a socialist, therefore it must be true',

it's ridiculous how some people get away with calling themselves communist.

[scarletghoul]

the bbc reference was ironic obviously

[gorillafuck]

I think:

Maoism=Stalinism in the eastthis already doesn't make sense considering where Russia is. and that Vietnam was pro-soviet during the Sino-Soviet split.


Juche=Maoism in Koreathat's not what Juche means.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No disagreement there, but let's be honest that in most western capitalist countries it wont be traditional unionized fordist worker who will first escalate the class struggle beyond the critcal point. While we need the whole of the working class to ultimately win we shouldn't wait to attack until all are ready. No one of us started out where they are now, and I believe radicalisation and politication goes a lot faster through direct attack/conflict with capital than unionizing, party building, voting, reading lenin or selling newspapers (boom - sectarian dig at most of the rest of the board)Fair 'nuff. I think I was channeling Red Dave in my last post.

[Sasha]

Fair 'nuff. I think I was channeling Red Dave in my last post.

Do we need to bring out the exorcist again? Stop getting posesesd already, shit is bad for your mental health
:lol:

[tachosomoza]

Personally, I see lumpen (chronically unemployed, etc) playing a pretty heavy role in regards to escalation, especially those from minority communities. A lot of people tend to walk over those guys, it's dumb. That's just my BPP heritage coming through, though. The thing that worries me is that the "white" working class will see the minority communities engaging in direct class conflict and sides with the bourgeois out of fear of some sort of idiotic "race war" scenario, sorta like the EDL going out during last year's rebellion in the United Kingdom. If it's gonna work, we need to break down the divisive walls put in place to keep the proles divided and at each other's throats.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, Maoism is basically a mutation of... forget it.

When we bring "Juche" into the discussion, the thing that comes to mind is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAlNrtcPCLw

http://glossynews.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=http://glossynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kim-jong-lil-wang.jpg&h=300&w=300&zc=1&q=90

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x241/whupass93/political-pictures-kim-jong-il-sexy-back.jpg

[Stadtsmasher]

My understanding is that that the Juche Idea was largely manufactured by NK to meet the perceived need of having a national ideology. Synthetic in nature, it lacks the depth of Maoism, which is a more profound and organic philosophy.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

My understanding is that that the Juche Idea was largely manufactured by NK to meet the perceived need of having a national ideology. Synthetic in nature, it lacks the depth of Maoism, which is a more profound and organic philosophy.
How so? What makes Maoism so deeper and more profound than Juche?
How is maoism an "organic philosophy"?

[Grenzer]

Juche had been the ideology of North Korea since the 1950's. It was essentially created to try to take a middle ground between China and the Soviet Union, in which they succeeded. They continued to receive aid from both countries. However, Juche did not become the overtly militaristic, racist thing we see today until the adoption of the Songun Doctrine which was in the nineties.

I'm getting Kim Il-Sung's selected works later in the month, so it should be interesting to see how Juche evolved over time.

Maoism isn't an "organic" political theory. Use of that word usually makes me cringe.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Juche had been the ideology of North Korea since the 1950's. It was essentially created to try to take a middle ground between China and the Soviet Union, in which they succeeded. They continued to receive aid from both countries. However, Juche did not become the overtly militaristic, racist thing we see today until the adoption of the Songun Doctrine which was in the nineties.

I'm getting Kim Il-Sung's selected works later in the month, so it should be interesting to see how Juche evolved over time.

Maoism isn't an "organic" political theory. Use of that word usually makes me cringe.

I really don´t understand what organic philosophy supposed to mean in this context. I fail to see how maoism is any less of a state (or at least a party) doctrine than Juche is. If Juche is a doctrine created as a response to certain needs and conditions, I don´t see why the same can´t be said of maoism (aside from the fact that they respond to- and reflect somewhat different conditions).

[Robespierres Neck]

I really don´t understand what organic philosophy supposed to mean in this context. I fail to see how maoism is any less of a state (or at least a party) doctrine than Juche is. If Juche is a doctrine created as a response to certain needs and conditions, I don´t see why the same can´t be said of maoism (aside from the fact that they respond to- and reflect somewhat different conditions).

Juche has much more of an individualist philosophy than Maoism does.