Is there common ground between mao and trotsky

[Anderson]

If Trotsky has conntributed against Stalin-ism and Stalinism is bureaucratic /capitalist control of working class state

and

Mao has explained that the counter revolution comes from within the Communist Party when bourgeois elements take over the control.

Does this seem like a common ground for Maoists and Trotskyists?:confused:

[Blanquist]

Absolutely no common ground. Mao was not a socialist. They have nothing in common, not one single thing.

Mao admitted in 1950 that he had never read Das Kapital, he didn't know or understand anything about Marxism, all he knew and liked was Stalin's tyrannical rule.

This is what I wrote in another thread;


Mao created "State and private joint-ownership" and had a "redemption policy". Mao just invested and participated in the administration of private business.

From 1949-56, businessmen were allowed to go about their business.


Then in 1956 he decided to start taking over these business's under a "fixed interest policy" He would pay the bourgeoisie a fixed rate of interest annually on the face value of the assets. So every month the 'former' bourgeoisie would get dividends even if the enterprises weren't profit making.

No wonder so many capitalists supported Mao, if they had left to Taiwan or America, they would have had to invest their money into profitable businesses and worry about administration, but under Mao they could just sit on their ass and get dividends no matter what.

These payments only stopped in 1966 during the so-called 'cultural revolution' that's 17 years after Mao came to power! And then we all know what happened, they got back into business and today are some of richest people on the planet.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Except being counter-revolutionary?
Not really.

[thriller]

Not really. Just because Mao and Trotsky disagreed with Stalin and his regime doesn't mean there is a common ground. Both the USSR and USA opposed Nazi Germany, but that did not unite the two after Germany was defeated in WWII

[Anderson]

Absolutely no common ground. Mao was not a socialist. They have nothing in common, not one single thing.

Mao admitted in 1950 that he had never read Das Kapital, he didn't know or understand anything about Marxism, all he knew and liked was Stalin's tyrannical rule.

This is what I wrote in another thread;

WOW:thumbdown:

[Geiseric]

Trotsky was if anything the opposite of Mao and Stalin who were both opportunists, Mao nor Stalin would of gained power if the original leaders of their respective parties didn't end up being killed by the NKVD or the KMT, whom the 3rd International told the original CPC to ally with in an amazing showcase of the bankruptcy of the supposed revolutionary character of comintern post leninism.

They were both increadibly counter revolutionary and detrimental to the working classes of their countries, which naturally leads to their abandonment of the central Leninist tenent of Perminant Revolution. If you read a single thing that Lenin wrote, none of the adventurism that the Comintern tried out with the CPs even closely matches to what the Bolsheviks theoretical basis was at October.

[Anderson]

Trotsky was if anything the opposite of Mao and Stalin who were both opportunists, Mao nor Stalin would of gained power if the original leaders of their respective parties didn't end up being killed by the NKVD or the KMT, whom the 3rd International told the original CPC to ally with in an amazing showcase of the bankruptcy of the supposed revolutionary character of comintern post leninism.

They were both increadibly counter revolutionary and detrimental to the working classes of their countries, which naturally leads to their abandonment of the central Leninist tenent of Perminant Revolution. If you read a single thing that Lenin wrote, none of the adventurism that the Comintern tried out with the CPs even closely matches to what the Bolsheviks theoretical basis was at October.

Who was the 'original' leader of Chinese communist party?:thumbdown:

[JustMovement]

I would say that there is a certain democratic and anti-bureaucratic streak in both tendencies, as well as a distrust of the party.

Assignment: compare and contrast Maos idea of the cultural revolution and the mass line with Trotskys idea of political revolution in the USSR.

[Catma]

Wait, permanent revolution is a Leninist tenet? I thought that was one of the things that separated out Trotskyism.

[Blanquist]

Wait, permanent revolution is a Leninist tenet? I thought that was one of the things that separated out Trotskyism.

Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was accepted by Lenin in his April Thesis, where he threw out his old conceptions of a 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" He accepted Trotsky's idea that the Russian Revolution can only be socialist, that the working class can, and must take power, that it would establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, that it would be a link in the chain of global socialist revolution.

This was accepted by the entire party until Lenin's illness and the spread of petty-bourgeois reaction to the October Revolution, personified in the face of Stalin.

[Anderson]

Both raised concern over bourgeois control growing within the communist party - there can be a debate on the motives of each one though, with more controversy surrounding Trotsky.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Who was the 'original' leader of Chinese communist party?:thumbdown:
Chen Duxiu was it´s first general secretary and was along with Li Dazhao the main founder of the party in 1921.

[Panda Tse Tung]

They were both increadibly counter revolutionary and detrimental to the working classes of their countries, which naturally leads to their abandonment of the central Leninist tenent of Perminant Revolution. If you read a single thing that Lenin wrote, none of the adventurism that the Comintern tried out with the CPs even closely matches to what the Bolsheviks theoretical basis was at October.
How about left-wing communism an infantile disorder?


Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was accepted by Lenin in his April Thesis, where he threw out his old conceptions of a 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" He accepted Trotsky's idea that the Russian Revolution can only be socialist, that the working class can, and must take power, that it would establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, that it would be a link in the chain of global socialist revolution.Hardly, the conditions changed so the april theses shifted the Bolshevik strategy. With the failures of the German revolution and other western revolutions the theory of socialism in one country was developed. Again because of changing conditions, whether or not Trotsky had some influences on this first change of strategy is not relevant to the questions of today nor to the historical question of 'right or wrong' which you attempt to deduct to 'who was a true Leninist, Trotsky or Stalin?'. Something that shouldn't be relevant to any historical discussion.

Edit: on the initial question. There is some (mostly rhetorical) common ground (aside from the whole anti-capitalism, lenin is t3h shizzle stuff). This shouldn't be the question at hand though, the question should be 'what class interests does this or that movement serve'. Imho Trotskyism serves the class-interests of the bourgeouisie, whereas Maoism (not in all forms, but in most) serves the interests of the proletariat.

edit2: it's not worth it but i'll bother for those not informed.

Trotsky was if anything the opposite of Mao and Stalin who were both opportunists, Mao nor Stalin would of gained power if the original leaders of their respective parties didn't end up being killed by the NKVD or the KMTI have no idea what the supposed co-relation is between the NKVD and the KMT, but aside from that both Stalin an Mao we're part of the original leadership of both parties. I dont see the relevance of pointing this out. Trotsky only joined the Bolsheviks years after Stalin, but i dont give a shit cause it's not relevant to the discussion.

[Philosopher Jay]

This sounds like very common ground.
We are dealing with people who lived in very different cultures. Mao was born in Shaoshan, Hunan Province, China, in 1893, Trotsky was born in Bereslavka, Ukraine, part of the Russian empire, in 1879.
They have much in common. Both were born to poor peasants who became wealthy, affording their sons a good education and both became communists at an early age. Both became communist party leaders, military leaders and famous theoreticians of communist revolution.

One may consider that from where each came from and stood, each made the right decisions. Both were extraordinary people, neither were super heroes or super villains. Super heroes and super villains exist only in comic books and bad epic movies.




If Trotsky has contributed against Stalin-ism and Stalinism is bureaucratic /capitalist control of working class state

and

Mao has explained that the counter revolution comes from within the Communist Party when bourgeois elements take over the control.

Does this seem like a common ground for Maoists and Trotskyists?:confused:

[Geiseric]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Massacre <-- This is why popular frontism with the bourgeoisie has never and will never work.

Even "The Left KMT," expelled all communists from its ranks and attacked them in the same way as the Chaing Kai Shek faction. The idea was a farce from the begining that any alliance could of been worked out, and was an attempt to pursue a better relationship with capitalists who had interests in China.

[Ostrinski]

Permanent Revolution and New Democracy aren't really compatible so no.

[Mista Commie]

Absolutely no common ground. Mao was not a socialist. They have nothing in common, not one single thing.

Mao admitted in 1950 that he had never read Das Kapital, he didn't know or understand anything about Marxism, all he knew and liked was Stalin's tyrannical rule.

This is what I wrote in another thread;

Quite demogogic, eh?

Would you like to prove back-up for your claims, or just spout more anti-Mao BS?

[Panda Tse Tung]

This sounds like very common ground.
We are dealing with people who lived in very different cultures. Mao was born in Shaoshan, Hunan Province, China, in 1893, Trotsky was born in Bereslavka, Ukraine, part of the Russian empire, in 1879.
They have much in common. Both were born to poor peasants who became wealthy, affording their sons a good education and both became communists at an early age. Both became communist party leaders, military leaders and famous theoreticians of communist revolution.

One may consider that from where each came from and stood, each made the right decisions. Both were extraordinary people, neither were super heroes or super villains. Super heroes and super villains exist only in comic books and bad epic movies.

You are talking about similar backgrounds, this does not make them ideologically comparable as Communists.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Massacre <-- This is why popular frontism with the bourgeoisie has never and will never work.

This is why it will never work? One incident with one group. K kwl.

Also, you do realize Mao threw out the komintern orders at a certain point? Given that we're talking about Mao and Trotsky and not the Komintern and captain hindsight.

[Blanquist]

Quite demogogic, eh?

Would you like to prove back-up for your claims, or just spout more anti-Mao BS?

I don't know what demogogic means, but proof for my claim is provided in the post you quoted. Mao supported capitalists, capitalists supported Mao. Mao didn't read Capital until he was over 60 years old. He was never a Marxist.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah the block of four classes thing seems to be the direct opposite of what Trotsky wanted. There are many on the right wing who opposed Stalin's bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean they have anything in common with any of the left opposition. In spite of what some Stalinists will say I guess.

[Krano]

Absolutely no common ground. Mao was not a socialist. They have nothing in common, not one single thing.

Mao admitted in 1950 that he had never read Das Kapital, he didn't know or understand anything about Marxism, all he knew and liked was Stalin's tyrannical rule.

This is what I wrote in another thread;
I wonder how China had communes during Mao era if thats true.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I wonder how China had communes during Mao era if thats true.

There are communes here in he US and most other developed countries, does that hold some significance for Maoists?

[Bostana]

Absolutely no common ground. Mao was not a socialist. They have nothing in common, not one single thing.

Mao admitted in 1950 that he had never read Das Kapital, he didn't know or understand anything about Marxism, all he knew and liked was Stalin's tyrannical rule.

What you just said there is horseshit.

Mao never admitted to that. In fact out of all the times I have heard that come from Ultra-Leftist or Trotskyist they have never given me any facts not even link to prove this.

So I assume the same thing will happen here. Where did you get these anti-Mao facts? From your fellow trotskyists? Stalin's tyrannical rule? Really? Say he isn't a Communist would make no sense. The KMT outlawed Communism in China. If anyone was an open Communist or Communist sympathizer they would be imprisoned or executed. So to say that Mao wasn't a communst after he attended illegal Communst Meetings, held illegal Communist rallies, and lead a Communist revolution. I mean what he did all this for a joke? THAT WOULD BE STUPID. But I guess if you're desperate to demonize Mao and Maoism you claim these theories based on no facts and make no sense.

[Bostana]

Now to the OPs question.

No I can't say there is common ground. The idea that counter-revolutionism can come from inside the party really is just a common Marxist view. So if you wan to consider that as common ground I guess you could. But besides some basics to Marxism no common ground really.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not of the opinion that Mao was a secret capitalist, but the fact that he hung out with communists and used communist rhetoric is not a very moving argument by itself.

[Bostana]

I'm not of the opinion that Mao was a secret capitalist, but the fact that he hung out with communists and used communist rhetoric is not a very moving argument by itself.

At the threat of imprisonment and execution at that time I would think that would take some dedication. Saying that he just hanged out with Communists is really just making it sound simple. But when adding the possibilities at that time in China you would say, 'Under the threat of death by the hands of the anti-Communist Chinese government, Mao studied and taught Communism'

[Blanquist]

What you just said there is horseshit.

Mao never admitted to that. In fact out of all the times I have heard that come from Ultra-Leftist or Trotskyist they have never given me any facts not even link to prove this.

So I assume the same thing will happen here. Where did you get these anti-Mao facts? From your fellow trotskyists? Stalin's tyrannical rule? Really? Say he isn't a Communist would make no sense. The KMT outlawed Communism in China. If anyone was an open Communist or Communist sympathizer they would be imprisoned or executed. So to say that Mao wasn't a communst after he attended illegal Communst Meetings, held illegal Communist rallies, and lead a Communist revolution. I mean what he did all this for a joke? THAT WOULD BE STUPID. But I guess if you're desperate to demonize Mao and Maoism you claim these theories based on no facts and make no sense.

This isn't the learning section so I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you.

You seem to lack knowledge of very basic facts. It would be a serious waste of time if I had to 'cite' very basic facts. If I said Marx was from Germany, would you need citations? Would Wikipedia be enough? A birth certificate copy?

It is impossible to have a discussion with someone this way.

[Bostana]

This isn't the learning section so I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you.

You seem to lack knowledge of very basic facts.

Good Job Question dodging there.

Now are you gonna back up what you said or is that just something you said out of the blume like when you said Trotsky was better than Marx?

[Blanquist]

Good Job Question dodging there.

Now are you gonna back up what you said or is that just something you said out of the blume like when you said Trotsky was better than Marx?

Back up what? It's highly childish of you to ask me to back up claims that are known and understood by everyone here.

How would you feel if I asked you to prove that Mao was Chinese?

Poor way to have a discussion. Learn the basic facts, and then argue them.

[Bostana]

Back up what? It's highly childish of you to ask me to back up claims that are known and understood by everyone here.

How would you feel if I asked you to prove that Mao was Chinese?

Poor way to have a discussion. Learn the basic facts, and then argue them.

Why are you talking about Nationality?

Are you that desperate at question dodging? I asked you where did you get the statement that Mao 'admitted' to never understanding Marx? Can you back that up with facts or are you just gonna keep talking? Also, how would Mao be a Capitalist in disguise after he attended illegal Communist Meetings, held illegal Communist rallies, and lead a Communist revolution. I mean what he did all this for a joke? THAT WOULD BE STUPID.

This is based on no facts and is just a desperate attempt by you to demonize Mao. Pretty Sad really.

[Krano]

There are communes here in he US and most other developed countries, does that hold some significance for Maoists?
My point being claiming that Mao wasn't a Socialist is ridiculous considering things like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_commune

[Blanquist]

Why are you talking about Nationality?

Are you that desperate at question dodging? I asked you where did you get the statement that Mao 'admitted' to never understanding Marx? Can you back that up with facts or are you just gonna keep talking? Also, how would Mao be a Capitalist in disguise after he attended illegal Communist Meetings, held illegal Communist rallies, and lead a Communist revolution. I mean what he did all this for a joke? THAT WOULD BE STUPID.

This is based on no facts and is just a desperate attempt by you to demonize Mao. Pretty Sad really.

You are the most ignorant poster I have ever seen or you are a major troll.

I'm done replying to you.

[Bostana]

You are the most ignorant poster I have ever seen or you are a major troll.

I'm done replying to you.

HAHAHA

Wow, what? can't answer my questions? can't back up what you say?
:lol:

What I am a troll because I ask you to back up your claims, and sense you can't do it you're mad?

[Philosopher Jay]

You are talking about similar backgrounds, this does not make them ideologically comparable as Communists.

snip

What I am trying to get at is that they shared an amazing number of attributes. They held many propositions and theories in common.
Cultural and historical differences will always separate out people. It is rare to find any two writers in history who share or express the same ideas on everything.

The geo-historical circumstances were different for Mao and Trotsky. That explains their differences. The point is to understand the processes and use them to our advantage. Saying that one was a communist saint and the other was a communist heretic does nothing but express bourgeois moral sentiments.

Recognizing that we live in a different world than either Mao or Trotsky is an important step to dealing with the world as we find it. That is absolutely what Mao and Trotsky both did in their historical time and space and what we should do today.

[scarletghoul]

They were both critics of the Stalin model of government, to different degrees and obviusly from different motives. trotsky focussed on the bureaucracy more than anything else while still considering the ussr a workers state (albeit degenerated), whereas mao's criticism was more directly class-based imo, pointing to the 'new bourgeoisie' that would later emerge in the party and restore capitalism. bureaucracy was a huge part of this, but maos criticism was of bureaucracy in the context of a resurgent bourgeoisie, rather than bureaucracy in the abstract as some magical demon
His main point was that stalin didnt 'trust the masses' enough, and was too mechanicist in his outlook, which led to a new bourgeoisie emerging in the party (due to remnants of bourgeois culture ideology etc and also the international bourgeoisie that is imperialism) and restoring capitalism.

Trotsky opposed calling the ussr state capitalist , though obviously he didnt live to the stage where mao did, but even if he did i doubt he would have used the term, considering his view seemed to have been of a rotten 'bureaucracy' emerging from the workers state, rather than a directly opposing class force.

I wont go into the motives of trotsky, but with Mao I don't really see how anyone could seriously doubt his sincerity (without resorting to outrageous cartoon caricatures of bloodthirstyness): no other world leader has openly encouraged the people to rebel against his own government. if he just wanted to get fat on profit from the people then he could easily have done so, the capitalist-roaders would have been more than happy to use him as a figurehead. but he made the move that was the cultural revolution, and thats why he'll always be rememberd as a revolutionary more than a ruler, which is something every communist should admire.

anyway thats not the point lol. i guess theres some common ground on the surface but when you scratch deeper the criticisms come from different angles: one is from the view of a man kicked out of the party by his former comrades, and is against what he sees as some cancerous bureaucracy on the workers state, which could indirectly lead to capitalist restoration in the future but is not essentially a seperate ruling class. the other is coming from a man who is the most powerful in the country, in a similar position to that of stalin, but who wants people to rebel against his own government and remnants of backwards culture because he sees them being used to restore capitalism

[Jimmie Higgins]

They were both humans who are now dead and they both had books published. There's some common ground.

In politics - not really.

[Anderson]

I don't know what demogogic means, but proof for my claim is provided in the post you quoted. Mao supported capitalists, capitalists supported Mao. Mao didn't read Capital until he was over 60 years old. He was never a Marxist.:thumbdown:

This is too far from truth.

Mao applied remarkably Marxism - Leninism to the Chinese conditions and path shown by him (People's war) is still relevant in the third world countries with minority working class population and huge number of peasantry.

Mao did not support capitalists. Because of Mao we know that worldwide the communist parties are full of unwanted bourgeois elements which need to be weeded out.

[Geiseric]

They were both critics of the Stalin model of government, to different degrees and obviusly from different motives. trotsky focussed on the bureaucracy more than anything else while still considering the ussr a workers state (albeit degenerated), whereas mao's criticism was more directly class-based imo, pointing to the 'new bourgeoisie' that would later emerge in the party and restore capitalism. bureaucracy was a huge part of this, but maos criticism was of bureaucracy in the context of a resurgent bourgeoisie, rather than bureaucracy in the abstract as some magical demon
His main point was that stalin didnt 'trust the masses' enough, and was too mechanicist in his outlook, which led to a new bourgeoisie emerging in the party (due to remnants of bourgeois culture ideology etc and also the international bourgeoisie that is imperialism) and restoring capitalism.

Trotsky opposed calling the ussr state capitalist , though obviously he didnt live to the stage where mao did, but even if he did i doubt he would have used the term, considering his view seemed to have been of a rotten 'bureaucracy' emerging from the workers state, rather than a directly opposing class force.

I wont go into the motives of trotsky, but with Mao I don't really see how anyone could seriously doubt his sincerity (without resorting to outrageous cartoon caricatures of bloodthirstyness): no other world leader has openly encouraged the people to rebel against his own government. if he just wanted to get fat on profit from the people then he could easily have done so, the capitalist-roaders would have been more than happy to use him as a figurehead. but he made the move that was the cultural revolution, and thats why he'll always be rememberd as a revolutionary more than a ruler, which is something every communist should admire.

anyway thats not the point lol. i guess theres some common ground on the surface but when you scratch deeper the criticisms come from different angles: one is from the view of a man kicked out of the party by his former comrades, and is against what he sees as some cancerous bureaucracy on the workers state, which could indirectly lead to capitalist restoration in the future but is not essentially a seperate ruling class. the other is coming from a man who is the most powerful in the country, in a similar position to that of stalin, but who wants people to rebel against his own government and remnants of backwards culture because he sees them being used to restore capitalism

None of that is really relevant since the same thing happened to china showing the futility of both of their versions of socialism in one country, as a result of being part of degenerated movements. Mao really led a guerilla war which wasn't proletarian in character, it was a peasants movement throughout the entire time. Not unlike Cuba more or less. The CP of China was as un revolutionary as the other comintern affiliated parties.

Mao even send Chen Duxiu, the original party general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and one of its founders to prison! He was blamed for the class collaboration between the KMT and CPC, which came from Comintern.

[JustMovement]

u dont have to read capital to be a communist thats rediculous communism is a political and social movement not a degree u get at the end of marxism school.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One tendency wanted collaboration with some historical obsolete "national bourgeoisie" strata. The other tendency wanted apolitical collaboration with trade union bureaucracies.

[The Machine]

WOW:thumbdown:

wao?