Maoism actually a form of communism?

[nihilust]

Ive read little from mao, only some pamphlets such as "The democratic peoples dictatorship" and from what i recall it seemed pretty, well, "communist". However, i just read some posts on him and it said he was a class-collaborate and i dont get the whole point of peasants being such a big deal. I understand that conditions were different, but why does it truly matter if its a peasant or whomever leading the revolution? Also i read that mao was not for the peoples control and seeing the dotp as a lower stage- note that everything i read could be wrong so i was hoping to get some differing opinions, thanks! I would prefer very consolidated messages as i dont have a lot of time to read lengthy pieces.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Mao was a proponent of class-collaborationist state-socialism. His conception of socialism is not a Marxist one.
Maoists confuse the DotP for the lower stage of communism.
Bordiga called Mao the last great bourgeois revolutionary in an era when bourgeois revolutions were supposed to be a thing of the past.

[Grenzer]

Mao wasn't a proponent of "state socialism"(this term is redundant) as he never advocated a society in which wage labour and commodity production were abolished.

Mao's status as a "bourgeois revolutionary" also seems to be highly questionable. China already had a bourgeois dictatorship when the KMT was in charge.Mao seems more like a petit-bourgeois revolutionary who pursued a program of peasant populism.

Bordiga's lame, hyperbolic platitudes aren't really of interest to anyone.

[jookyle]

The conclusion I've been brought to by my own analysis is that Maoism is more of a anti-imperialist programme for the third world and used socialist rhetoric in order to gain support of the much earlier student movement in China and allies from socialist countries in other parts of the world.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

First post (and others) in this thread might clear up some questions...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/misconceptions-maoism-t175273/index.html

[Paul Cockshott]

Ive read little from mao, only some pamphlets such as "The democratic peoples dictatorship" and from what i recall it seemed pretty, well, "communist". However, i just read some posts on him and it said he was a class-collaborate and i dont get the whole point of peasants being such a big deal. I understand that conditions were different, but why does it truly matter if its a peasant or whomever leading the revolution? Also i read that mao was not for the peoples control and seeing the dotp as a lower stage- note that everything i read could be wrong so i was hoping to get some differing opinions, thanks! I would prefer very consolidated messages as i dont have a lot of time to read lengthy pieces.
Of course it seemed very communist, Mao was one of the leading figures in the international communist movement, and represented the largest left wing tendancy within international communism. Bordiga, who is cited here as an authority against Mao was a very ineffective and unrepresentative figure within international communism. He was of some political significance in the early 1920s, but was of no influence after that. He became leader of a small ultra left sect in Italy in the late 1940s which never gained any significant following in the Italian workers movement.
Mao by contrast led a successful revolutionary communist party in the largest country in the world under incredibly challenging conditions, was massively popular among the working class of China and had a huge influence on the international communist movement.

If you want to understand his ideas about socialism here is a good place to start:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_64.htm

[Grenzer]

Yeah, the workers were so enthusiastic about Mao that he had no choice but to use the Red Guards against them and tell them to tone it down a bit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Turbo-charged populism w/ a dash of nationalism and Marxism, IMO.

Mao was influenced quite a bit by socialist theory, but he got most (if not all) of his tutelage in this respect from the Soviet Union, not other pre-USSR theorists. Specifically figures within Soviet institutional philosophy like Mark Mitin ("Dialectical and Historical Materialism") and Shirokov/Aizenberg ("A Course on Dialectical Materialism"). Mao's views on basic Marxist theory are a subject of great controversy, of course, specifically his views on the economic base vs. the ideological superstructure. Views like:

"Similarly, from the standpoint of world history, the bourgeois revolutions and the establishment of the bourgeois nations came before, not after, the Industrial Revolution. The bourgeoisie first changed the superstructure and took possession of the machinery of state before carrying on propaganda to gather real strength. Only then did they push forward great changes in the production relations."

(from here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_64.htm))

...are obviously in conflict with some other socialist theorists, who would probably argue that this analysis relies too heavily on a conscious ideology, rather than a particular class of people gaining more and more power through a changing economic landscape, through which they had more economic power and thus more power generally-speaking, rather than a situation where a group of people somehow came to power through propaganda and THEN made a plan to fundamentally transform society and economic relations.

[Paul Cockshott]

"Similarly, from the standpoint of world history, the bourgeois revolutions and the establishment of the bourgeois nations came before, not after, the Industrial Revolution. The bourgeoisie first changed the superstructure and took possession of the machinery of state before carrying on propaganda to gather real strength. Only then did they push forward great changes in the production relations."

(from here)

...are obviously in conflict with some other socialist theorists, who would probably argue that this analysis relies too heavily on a conscious ideology, rather than a particular class of people gaining more and more power through a changing economic landscape, through which they had more economic power and thus more power generally-speaking, rather than a situation where a group of people somehow came to power through propaganda and THEN made a plan to fundamentally transform society and economic relations.
__________________

Mao's analysis there is entirely consonant with Marx's analysis in Capital I of capital first establishing a formal subordination of labour during the period of manufacture and only later establishing a real subsumption of labour to capital with modern industry - the specifically capitalist mode of material production.

[Rodrigo]

Calling Mao a "class-collaborationist" is really a display of complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I suggest nihilust study Mao Zedong Thought (not "Maoism") by him/herself instead of depending upon other people's views.

Works of Mao here: www.marx2mao.com
And here: www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/date-index.htm

Topics from the "Maoist" group in RevLeft which could help you:

- http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4284
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=6332

Classics:

- http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
- http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OP37.html
- http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OC37.html
- http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CHC57.html
- http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_01.htm
- http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mao's analysis there is entirely consonant with Marx's analysis in Capital I of capital first establishing a formal subordination of labour during the period of manufacture and only later establishing a real subsumption of labour to capital with modern industry - the specifically capitalist mode of material production.

Hard to believe there's a direct correlation to what Marx wrote in Capital and what Mao wrote, seeing as how Mao admitted to never reading Capital. Not that this was all his fault, as the amount of translated Marxist literature was not great during his lifetime. Furthermore, in other works Mao expresses different outlooks on the "primacy of the productive forces". From the same link:

"In socialist society the formal categories of distribution according to labor, commodity production, the law of value, and so forth are presently adapted to the demands of the productive forces. But as this development proceeds, the day is sure to come when these formal categories will no longer be adapted. At that time these categories will be destroyed by the development of the productive forces; their life will be over."

This suggests to me that tranformative economic events are what eventually shatters the current state of things, not ideological concerns. Also this quote:


"When the old relations of production on the whole no longer correspond to the productive forces, the latter having reached a certain stage of development, and when the old superstructure on the whole no longer corresponds to the economic basis, the latter having reached a certain stage of development, then changes of a fundamental nature must inevitably occur; whoever tries to resist such changes is discarded by history."


from here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/HEDP56.pdf) seems to suggest a Mao who was well-aware of the distinct relationship between the dominant productive forces and the subordinate forces of the "old superstructure"...a leading base and a following superstructure. Mao never really had a very firm grasp on traditional Marxism, honestly. Although he may have had a good grasp on the court-appointed dialectical magicians who grovelled before Stalin whenever they made a "philosophical error".

[JoeySteel]

I don't agree with Maoism, but at least 90% the time when this 'maoism isnt communism" stuff is floated on the forums it's in the form of inane euro chauvinist left communism (about how China could not have a revolution and therefore could not have communists), not a Marxist-Leninist critique of the theory and practice of Maoism. This is typically utter windbaggery and Os Cangaceiros demonstrates it perfectly showing both that he doesn't understand Mao's writings, and most importantly that like leftcom in general actually is aiming his blow at Marx and Engels (not to mention Lenin) and their theory. I have no idea where he is pulling out of his ass stuff like "a group of people somehow came to power through propaganda" etc.. which part of Chinese history or Mao's writing is this ? He defines in opposition "a particular class" having "more economic power" as if this doesn't describe post-revolutionary China quite well. Clearly forgetting to carry forward the left com critique into pure metaphysics and inability to handle the question of the state. What they are actually aiming at is the history of the international communist movement and using mao as an opening to delegitimize the whole enterprise of marxism-leninism and the history of the millions of communists around the world. Instead, a few meaningless windbag euro ultra left philosophers who deserted the movement are the "real" communists!


Hard to believe there's a direct correlation to what Marx wrote in Capital and what Mao wrote, seeing as how Mao admitted to never reading Capital. Not that this was all his fault, as the amount of translated Marxist literature was not great during his lifetime.

lMao is this a joke? Do you actually think that there not being a fully translated edition of Capital for some period of Mao's life means he couldn't express any sort of thing in agreement with Marx? I'm not sure if you are expressing some Eurochauvinism view or genuine ignorance but during Mao's lifetime the PRC was one of the biggest publishers of Marx and Engels (the most important of which WERE translated at least by the 1950's and 1960's) in the world in most languages including English. I'm just imagining a situation now where Marx's ghost gets told about the Chinese revolution and he then he asks "But did this guy Mao read ALL of Capital??"

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is typically utter windbaggery and Os Cangaceiros demonstrates it perfectly showing both that he doesn't understand Mao's writings, and most importantly that like leftcom in general actually is aiming his blow at Marx and Engels (not to mention Lenin) and their theory.

Hey dude, I just comment on various facets of the left as I understand them. I'm critical of most if not all of the modern & historical left-wing, so I'm not sure about this criticism of me being a "left communist" or whatever. I make my claims best on the best of my knowledge and try to back them up when I can with sources. I've read a fair deal about both Maoist theory and practice, so if I'm in the wrong by all means, drop some knowledge on me. But honestly envoking the memory of "tens of millions of Marxist-Leninists" who made the world such a great place...welp, sorry, but I'm very skeptical of both Maoism's unique theoretical content, and the way it's been practically expressed in the "real world" by groups claiming to be Maoist or followers of Mao's thought.

In regards to Mao not reading Capital, apparently it's an historical fact that he said this to Molotov. See this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-tse-tung-t155107/index.html) thread. Now, what's the significance of that? Do you need to ponder the minutia of Capital in order to be a "good communist"? No, I don't think so, but if you're trying to draw a strong link of theoretical continuity between Marxism as it was originally defined by Marx, and Maoism, well....it would be helpful if Mao actually had a firm grasp on Marxist theory.

[JoeySteel]

Hey dude, I just comment on various facets of the left as I understand them. I'm critical of most if not all of the modern & historical left-wing, so I'm not sure about this criticism of me being a "left communist" or whatever. I make my claims best on the best of my knowledge and try to back them up when I can with sources. I've read a fair deal about both Maoist theory and practice, so if I'm in the wrong by all means, drop some knowledge on me. But honestly envoking the memory of "tens of millions of Marxist-Leninists" who made the world such a great place...welp, sorry, but I'm very skeptical of both Maoism's unique theoretical content, and the way it's been practically expressed in the "real world" by groups claiming to be Maoist or followers of Mao's thought.

The problem with the quotes you pulled out in the post above is that you're confusing the question of the productive relations/productive forces and state power as both class power and part of the superstructure. In Historical Experience of DoP text they describe contradiction between productive forces and relations of production as propelling history, in the others is described the question of how the working class in power will build socialist society, by expanding the productive forces (like Marx talked about) in order to move towards communism. Not much controversial there unless we're getting into esoterics and semantics. I have problems with Maoism, latter day and modern day, but most of its critics here could do a whole lot better.

[Ostrinski]

The elephant in the room: how did that man get fat so fast?

[Geiseric]

The one positive aspect of the Great Leap Foward (which had the same problems as the first 5 year plans) was that 51% of the productive property was state owned. The CPC will soon have to choose between complete nationalization or complete privatization, because there is no consumption whatsoever with the majority of chinese workers being on par with slave labor. Mao is basically the Stalin of china though, he had the same basic role as the person in the center of the party bureaucracy who needed to purge anybody who didn't like him or his insane great leap forward.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Am I the only one who thinks this "euro chauvinism," charge is ridiculous? How does acknowledging the actual material conditions of China at the time equate to "euro chauvinism"? How is acknowledging the fact that it's the proletariat not the peasantry, whom is the revolutionary class, "euro chauvinism"? I consider this hilariously ironic considering you go on to accuse Os of windbaggery, just saying. In terms of actual theoretical ties to Marxism, I would say Maoism leaves much to be desired in that department.


The elephant in the room: how did that man get fat so fast?

^Indeed.

[Hiero]

Yeah, the workers were so enthusiastic about Mao that he had no choice but to use the Red Guards against them and tell them to tone it down a bit.

The Red Guards were a polarised group. Some were formed by the right wing of the party to fight against Mao, and some were inspired by Mao and formed of themselves to fight party bureaucrats. It is a complete misunderstanding of the cultural revolution and alack of knowledge to assume Mao just created the red guards to terrorise workers, it is also orientalist by nature. Workers were not the target of any Red Guard group and least likely to be victims, the majority of victims were party bureaucrats, middle class and intellectuals.
But lets not let a bit of boring history get in the road of good old Mao bashing.

[Paul Cockshott]

In regards to Mao not reading Capital, apparently it's an historical fact that he said this to Molotov.
And when was this? Back in the 40s. It is a historical fact that in 1969 I had not read Capital, but that was before I read it. Do you have any evidence that he had not read it by the 1960s when he was critiquing the Soviet textbook of political economy?

[Geiseric]

Well he obviously didn't, since he ignored massive problems with wage labor and how the peasantry was being dying off, while he was basically industrializing almost like it said how capitalist countries do in capital, in regards to the proletariat and the peasantry? He flooded the cities with peasantry, ignoring the implications of that, and allowing Chinese workers to be slave laborers for foreign companies.

[Grenzer]

The Red Guards were a polarised group. Some were formed by the right wing of the party to fight against Mao, and some were inspired by Mao and formed of themselves to fight party bureaucrats. It is a complete misunderstanding of the cultural revolution and alack of knowledge to assume Mao just created the red guards to terrorise workers, it is also orientalist by nature. Workers were not the target of any Red Guard group and least likely to be victims, the majority of victims were party bureaucrats, middle class and intellectuals.
But lets not let a bit of boring history get in the road of good old Mao bashing.

I never said the Red Guard was created to repress the workers. That's a massive fucking strawman. I said they were on occasions specifically deployed to repress the workers. This is historical fact.

It is sheer opportunism to pretend that all repressions of the workers were carried out by anti-Mao Red Guards. There is not one iota of evidence to support this.

If China was a proletarian dictatorship, then the ruling class wouldn't be using state power to repress itself. This is common sense.

[Grenzer]

And when was this? Back in the 40s. It is a historical fact that in 1969 I had not read Capital, but that was before I read it. Do you have any evidence that he had not read it by the 1960s when he was critiquing the Soviet textbook of political economy?

So your defense of Mao is that because there is no evidence that he specifically didn't read Das Kapital, that he must have read it despite his total lack of understanding in regards to Marxian economics and even basic common sense(RE forced collectivization)?

That's pretty weak.

[Hiero]

I never said the Red Guard was created to repress the workers. That's a massive fucking strawman. I said they were on occasions specifically deployed to repress the workers. This is historical fact.

This is all you said:


Yeah, the workers were so enthusiastic about Mao that he had no choice but to use the Red Guards against them and tell them to tone it down a bit. Nothing about any 'occasion' or what they were created for. You just made out Mao had complete control of the Red Guards and used them against 'workers'

And what did the Red Guards do to repress workers? They were their to repress opposing red gaurd factions, factions of the Communist Party and right wing intellectuals. Working class people would have just found them as a hindrance to their daily activities. Thats not to say individual working wouldn't have been victims of violence and intimidation, but nothing like the systematic violence you're implying.



It is sheer opportunism to pretend that all repressions of the workers were carried out by anti-Mao Red Guards. There is not one iota of evidence to support this.I didn't even say that. This is actually a 'straw-man' as you people say.

[l'Enfermé]

If "Maoism" was the revolutionary movement that brought about the Chinese Revolution(i.e the PLA victory in 1949 over the KMT, I believe the Chinese call it the War of Chinese Liberation or something), then no honest and informed person could call Maoism a communist trend. Communism is the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and the CPC lacked even the slightest proletarian character(not originally, of course, but in the 1940s), it was in it's entirety composed of peasants and the petty-bourgeoisie. Marxists could only accept Maoism as a communist trend only if we completely abandon our notions of class and class analysis.

[Paul Cockshott]

So your defense of Mao is that because there is no evidence that he specifically didn't read Das Kapital, that he must have read it despite his total lack of understanding in regards to Marxian economics and even basic common sense(RE forced collectivization)?

That's pretty weak.
What I am saying is that we dont know either way whether he had read capital by the 1960s, your evidence relates only to the 1940s when he was rather busy as the commander of a revolutionary army.

I am not sure what forced collectivisation you are talking about, are you saying that Mao was insufficiently critical of Soviet forced collectivisation?

If you claim that he had a total lack of understanding with respect to Marxian economics then perhaps you would care to prepare a critique of this
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_64.htm
or this
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_66.htm
which is his most detailed writing on economics that has been published in English, I dont know if there are more detailed texts in Chinese, this was as far as I know not made available in English till after his death.

If you think that what he writes is contrary to Marx's critique of political economy be specific about which points Mao makes that you think are contrary to the analysis in Capital, and which parts of Capital contradict what Mao says.

[Paul Cockshott]

If "Maoism" was the revolutionary movement that brought about the Chinese Revolution(i.e the PLA victory in 1949 over the KMT, I believe the Chinese call it the War of Chinese Liberation or something), then no honest and informed person could call Maoism a communist trend. Communism is the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and the CPC lacked even the slightest proletarian character(not originally, of course, but in the 1940s), it was in it's entirety composed of peasants and the petty-bourgeoisie. Marxists could only accept Maoism as a communist trend only if we completely abandon our notions of class and class analysis.

This is German Social Democratic dogmatism at its worst. If a movement is not like the SPD it can not be Communist. Well 20th century history showed how narrow and wrong this idea was - communist revolution proved far easier in countries that were destabilised by being at the point where the old agricultural social order was just breaking down, than it was in developed industrial countries.
Czechoslovakia is the only example in history so far of a developed capitalist country undergoing a communist revolution.
We obviously hope that a communist movement can again win support in developed capitalist countries but nobody has yet got much of a clue as to how to do this.

[l'Enfermé]

How are peasant and petty-bourgeoisie uprisings communists revolutions? Moreover, Moscow and Petrograd were highly developed capitalist places, and it was here that the October Revolution happened. I.e the only communist revolution we had in the 20th century happened in the capitalist Petrograd and Moscow, and the revolution was lead by a SPD-style mass vanguard party, and the final collapse of the international working class movement with the Second International was caused exactly by the failure to stay true to the SPD-model(even by the SPD itself).

[Paul Cockshott]

How are peasant and petty-bourgeoisie uprisings communists revolutions? Moreover, Moscow and Petrograd were highly developed capitalist places, and it was here that the October Revolution happened. I.e the only communist revolution we had in the 20th century happened in the capitalist Petrograd and Moscow, and the revolution was lead by a SPD-style mass vanguard party, and the final collapse of the international working class movement with the Second International was caused exactly by the failure to stay true to the SPD-model(even by the SPD itself).

Not all peasant uprisings are communist, but historically they have often had a utopian communist tinge to them, but in the 20th century it can hardly have escaped your notice that the international communist movement set up branches in lots of countries, several of which were predominantly peasant ones, and in these countries they actually won a lot of support and in several the communist parties were able to come to power. It was the leadership of the movement by communist parties that made the difference between these and earlier peasant revolts. Remember that even in Russia, the communists came to power thanks to the revolt of a predominantly peasant army.

[Q]

The conclusion I've been brought to by my own analysis is that Maoism is more of a anti-imperialist programme for the third world and used socialist rhetoric in order to gain support of the much earlier student movement in China and allies from socialist countries in other parts of the world.

This raises a good point. The Marxist movement has come up with several answers regarding the "third world" question. The most famous ones are by Lenin (Peasant and Workers government), Trotsky (Permanent Revolution) and Mao (Alliance of Four Classes).

I agree that Mao's take was highly problematic, but it was at least trying to grapple with the very real problem of trying to achieve a dictatorship of the proletariat in a society where the proletariat is an absolute minority of society.

While this issue is no longer so urgent in China (51% of the population now lives in cities, which is a relatively good indicator of the size of the proletariat), it still is a live question in India (31% urbanisation) and elsewhere and Marxists should keep thinking about it.

But I never understood the value of Maoism in any society that belongs to the capitalist core where the proletariat does form the absolute majority of society.

[ind_com]

While this issue is no longer so urgent in China (51% of the population now lives in cities, which is a relatively good indicator of the size of the proletariat), it still is a live question in India (31% urbanisation) and elsewhere and Marxists should keep thinking about it.

Though you are right about China, a Maoist people's war can initiate in villages even in countries with a majority of urban population, depending on other conditions.


But I never understood the value of Maoism in any society that belongs to the capitalist core where the proletariat does form the absolute majority of society.

This makes perfect sense, as the Maoist line for capitalist countries is very new and largely still under development. However, the already existing Maoist theories about continuous class struggle or mass-line are applicable globally.

[RedMaterialist]

Well he obviously didn't, since he ignored massive problems with wage labor and how the peasantry was being dying off, while he was basically industrializing almost like it said how capitalist countries do in capital, in regards to the proletariat and the peasantry? He flooded the cities with peasantry, ignoring the implications of that, and allowing Chinese workers to be slave laborers for foreign companies.


A quick glance through Mao's writings (marxist.org) reveals numerous references to Marx such as this one:

"To sum up our eighteen years of experience and our current new, experience on the basis of our understanding of the unity between the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the Chinese revolution, and to spread this experience throughout the Party, so that our Party becomes as solid as steel and avoids repeating past mistakes-- such is our task."

Mao and the Chinese people were engaged in a desperate revolutionary struggle for most of the 20th century. Most of Mao's writing was on the strategy and tactics of a peasant guerrilla war against international capitalism. I would think this could account for the lack of a systematic analysis of Marxian economics by Mao.

As far as Mao's alleged comment to Molotov that he had never read Marx, that is international politics; China and Russia have detested each other for centuries. Mao was supposed to trust Molotov who had just signed a deal with Hitler?

Mao also practiced this kind of politics against Nixon and Kissinger. In 1972, Kissinger thought he could convince Mao to withhold support for Vietnam in exchange for a seat on the UN Security Council (and consequently kicking Taiwan out), and for trade agreements. Mao agreed and as soon as the People's Republic of China was in the U.N., Mao resumed shipments of arms, food, etc. to Vietnam. To this day Kissinger probably doesn't know he had been taken by Mao. Even if he does he's not saying.

[Geiseric]

A quick glance through Mao's writings (marxist.org) reveals numerous references to Marx such as this one:

"To sum up our eighteen years of experience and our current new, experience on the basis of our understanding of the unity between the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the Chinese revolution, and to spread this experience throughout the Party, so that our Party becomes as solid as steel and avoids repeating past mistakes-- such is our task."

Mao and the Chinese people were engaged in a desperate revolutionary struggle for most of the 20th century. Most of Mao's writing was on the strategy and tactics of a peasant guerrilla war against international capitalism. I would think this could account for the lack of a systematic analysis of Marxian economics by Mao.

As far as Mao's alleged comment to Molotov that he had never read Marx, that is international politics; China and Russia have detested each other for centuries. Mao was supposed to trust Molotov who had just signed a deal with Hitler?

Mao also practiced this kind of politics against Nixon and Kissinger. In 1972, Kissinger thought he could convince Mao to withhold support for Vietnam in exchange for a seat on the UN Security Council (and consequently kicking Taiwan out), and for trade agreements. Mao agreed and as soon as the People's Republic of China was in the U.N., Mao resumed shipments of arms, food, etc. to Vietnam. To this day Kissinger probably doesn't know he had been taken by Mao. Even if he does he's not saying.

Wow you didn't address my post. Mao's politics, all of them, created the conditions that Marx outlined in Capital. Mao laid the foundation for the modern exploitation of chinese workers. Communists have no place in an imperialist bourgeois multinational organization either.

[l'Enfermé]

Not all peasant uprisings are communist, but historically they have often had a utopian communist tinge to them, but in the 20th century it can hardly have escaped your notice that the international communist movement set up branches in lots of countries, several of which were predominantly peasant ones, and in these countries they actually won a lot of support and in several the communist parties were able to come to power. It was the leadership of the movement by communist parties that made the difference between these and earlier peasant revolts. Remember that even in Russia, the communists came to power thanks to the revolt of a predominantly peasant army.
I disagree comrade. Firstly, the only communist party that has come to power in history was the RCP(b)(though perhaps the alliance of the majority Blanquist and minority Proudhounian Communards in 1871 can be called a party - or perhaps only a Jacobin-style political "club"), and secondly, the RCP(b) came to power through the Soviets and their support in the army rested on proletarian soldiers and sailors.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is German Social Democratic dogmatism at its worst. If a movement is not like the SPD it can not be Communist. Well 20th century history showed how narrow and wrong this idea was - communist revolution proved far easier in countries that were destabilised by being at the point where the old agricultural social order was just breaking down, than it was in developed industrial countries.
Czechoslovakia is the only example in history so far of a developed capitalist country undergoing a communist revolution.
We obviously hope that a communist movement can again win support in developed capitalist countries but nobody has yet got much of a clue as to how to do this.

Comrade, here I think you're conflating "communist revolution" with "socialist revolution." My musings on Third World Caesarean Socialism are all about Maoism having a lot of shortcomings on the "socialist revolution" aspect.

Political Marxism is primarily about the merger of revolutionary socialism with the class movement of a proletarian demographic majority. Building the latter and the subsequent merger is indeed a problem.

Anyway, the big problem with Maoism is class collaboration with bourgeois parties. A post-Maoist but nonetheless petit-bourgeois movement that scraps this would be better.


I agree that Mao's take was highly problematic, but it was at least trying to grapple with the very real problem of trying to achieve a dictatorship of the proletariat in a society where the proletariat is an absolute minority of society.

While this issue is no longer so urgent in China (51% of the population now lives in cities, which is a relatively good indicator of the size of the proletariat), it still is a live question in India (31% urbanisation) and elsewhere and Marxists should keep thinking about it.

Hence Third World Caesarean Socialism.

[Let's Get Free]

I'd say Mao's ideology was pretty much agrarian populism combined with radical nationalism with vaguely Marxist sounding rhetoric on top of it.

[nihilust]

thanks everyone for all the posts, it seems mao is still a questionable figure to me. if hes not a ML-ist, i cant dig it

[ind_com]

thanks everyone for all the posts, it seems mao is still a questionable figure to me. if hes not a ML-ist, i cant dig it

Why does unchanged Marxism-Leninism have to be the only way towards communism?

[Paul Cockshott]

I disagree comrade. Firstly, the only communist party that has come to power in history was the RCP(b)(though perhaps the alliance of the majority Blanquist and minority Proudhounian Communards in 1871 can be called a party - or perhaps only a Jacobin-style political "club"), and secondly, the RCP(b) came to power through the Soviets and their support in the army rested on proletarian soldiers and sailors.

Well I thought the party which came to power was still called the RSDLP, but that is a minor point, the key issue is your absurd sectarianism that leads to to pretend that the communist movement which grew up after the Russian Revolution, and which spread across all the continents never existed and never came to power anywhere. I think you would find difficulty in locating historians who would agree with this interpretation of 20th century history.

The other point is that the Russian revolution only became possible because the army mutinied against the old officer class. The army was predominantly recruited from the peasant population and the Bolsheviks supported the aspirations of these peasant soldiers by agitating for peace and land. It was this support from the peasant population that was crucial to being able to destroy the repressive power of the old state.

[Paul Cockshott]

Anyway, the big problem with Maoism is class collaboration with bourgeois parties.

The CPC under Mao's leadership allied with the Guomindang only during the war against Japan. Once the Guomindang became openly counter revolutionary again, they again waged revolutionary war against it.

The idea that some people have that it is anti Marxist to ally with the revolutionary bourgeoisie is belied by the strategy adopted by Marx and Engels in the German revolution where the position was sumarised in the Communist Manifesto as:


In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way

And they go on to say:


But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The strategy of the CPC was a pretty literal application to Chinese conditions of these German mid 19th century precepts with the difference that the CPC was much much more sucessful than the German Communists were, and a key reason for this was their success in building up a base among the oppressed peasant masses.

[The Borg]

I really don't like this idea that there is "true" communism, and then there are all the policies you don't like. I think it is a very important PR step for our movement to acknowledge, that there are many ways to be a communist, and some of them are not politically correct. Stalin and Mao were undoubtedly communists, but communism isn't some kind of dogma that you either agree with or you don't, so if you don't like Stalin or Mao then just be some other kind of communist.

I find this to be the basis of why capitalism is so popular today. If we point out a bad capitalist, then the capitalist apologists and social democrats will just go "well that was bad capitalism, you just need to be a good type of capitalist like me". With communism everyone thinks that you are either a "true communist" or then you don't agree with communism. That is why it is easier for the average dude to just abandon communism altogether, rather than adjusting their view of politics slightly.

As painful as it is for me to admit this, I think we could learn something from capitalists in this regard.

[nihilust]

its not necessarily unchanged, because of course it will change with worldly situation, its more so a practice of reading and understanding, acknowledging dialectics and the party itself.

[ind_com]

its not necessarily unchanged, because of course it will change with worldly situation, its more so a practice of reading and understanding, acknowledging dialectics and the party itself.

The point is that it has to be changed consciously as the world situation changes. Also, there is no reason to think that it is theoretically complete even with respect to the revolutionary period of the erstwhile socialist countries. Marxism-Leninism does not elaborate on the existence of class struggle inside socialism or the communist party, and does not provide a concrete military line for neo colonies with strong state power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The CPC under Mao's leadership allied with the Guomindang only during the war against Japan. Once the Guomindang became openly counter revolutionary again, they again waged revolutionary war against it.

The idea that some people have that it is anti Marxist to ally with the revolutionary bourgeoisie is belied by the strategy adopted by Marx and Engels in the German revolution where the position was sumarised in the Communist Manifesto as

I was referring to the pro-bourgeois situation after the CPC took power, not the anti-imperialist war against Japan.

[Paul Cockshott]

I was referring to the pro-bourgeois situation after the CPC took power, not the anti-imperialist war against Japan.


which bourgeois party did they ally with then?

e

[Comrades Unite!]

This thread seems to be more concerned with Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist party than the actual Maoist theory.

Yes Maoism is a form of Communism, It is the third qualitative stage after Marxism and Leninism.

May I add that since the 90's the most prominent revolutionary theory put in practice was Maoism and not some idealistic theory such as Trotskyism.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

This thread seems to be more concerned with Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist party than the actual Maoist theory.

Yes Maoism is a form of Communism, It is the third qualitative stage after Marxism and Leninism.

May I add that since the 90's the most prominent revolutionary theory put in practice was Maoism and not some idealistic theory such as Trotskyism.
Kind of ironic, because Maoism is so drenched in idealism and idealistic terminology. (e.g., Kruschev's secret speech restored capitalism in the USSR). Trotskyists defend the gains made by the Chinese Revolution. Capitalism was overthrown and replaced by the Chinese equivalent of the Soviet degenerated worker's state. In part made possible by the existence of the USSR. If the KMT had been willing to make a deal with Mao, I suspect he would have taken it. They weren't and he was left with no choice but to attempt to seize power in the name of the CCP. The revolution was a huge gain for the masses of Chinese peasants and workers.

The Cultural Revolution was essentially what grew out of a faction fight in the leadership of the CCP. Mao was on the outs after several major policy failures, including, but not limited to the "great leap forward." His remaining base was concentrated in the PLA. He used that and the militant aspirations of Chinese youth, to take back the reins of power. Of course at a ridiculously high cost.

Maoist theory, such as it is, is nationalistic and idealistic. The bloc of 4 classes was used an excuse for all kinds of opportunism. Mao and his group were what was left to lead the CCP after it had been destroyed in the 1920s by the KMT. Their defeat of the warlords and nascent bourgeois nationalists was a great achievement. Maoism is not the continuation of Marxism or Leninism.

"Dig tunnels deep, store grain everywhere, and never seek hegemony." Chairman Mao

[Die Neue Zeit]

which bourgeois party did they ally with then?

The Guomindang that remained in the PRC was still an outright bourgeois party, just like the various "liberal democratic" satellite coalition parties in Eastern Europe.

[Let's Get Free]

This thread seems to be more concerned with Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist party than the actual Maoist theory.

Yes Maoism is a form of Communism, It is the third qualitative stage after Marxism and Leninism.

May I add that since the 90's the most prominent revolutionary theory put in practice was Maoism and not some idealistic theory such as Trotskyism.

May I add that Maoists are nowadays generally doomed to hopeless, futile guerrilla struggles in Third World countries (or just as hopeless and futile electoral campaigns in the First World - look at German MLPD, for example), with the results of building yet again another bureaucratic collectivist regime in case of victory (at best. The Maoists in Nepal demonstrated that they could not even accomplish this)

[Art Vandelay]

May I add that since the 90's the most prominent revolutionary theory put in practice was Maoism and not some idealistic theory such as Trotskyism.

Yawn. Ideological posturing.

[Geiseric]

Trotskyism is so idealistic. It's not like it had anything to do with how the russian revolution worked :laugh:

[ind_com]

May I add that Maoists are nowadays generally doomed to hopeless, futile guerrilla struggles in Third World countries (or just as hopeless and futile electoral campaigns in the First World - look at German MLPD, for example), with the results of building yet again another bureaucratic collectivist regime in case of victory (at best. The Maoists in Nepal demonstrated that they could not even accomplish this)

No, the Maoists of today are mostly engaged in successful guerrilla struggles that are stopping the plunder of third-world resources, thus hurting the asses of some liberals that call themselves communists.

And at least put forward some recent successful example by some other tendency before talking about Nepal or Germany. The MLPD isn't even considered Maoist by the biggest Maoist parties.

[ind_com]

Trotskyism is so idealistic. It's not like it had anything to do with how the russian revolution worked :laugh:

That is crazy. Trotsky was definitely a very important leader of the Russian Revolution; there is no doubt about it. But it was Leninism that worked, not Trotskyism.

[Take The Long Way Home]

I don't know nothing about mao,but i will just say this: The more books you have,more different sources you can get.

[Let's Get Free]

This thread seems to be more concerned with Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist party than the actual Maoist theory.

Yes Maoism is a form of Communism, It is the third qualitative stage after Marxism and Leninism.

May I add that since the 90's the most prominent revolutionary theory put in practice was Maoism and not some idealistic theory such as Trotskyism.


No, the Maoists of today are mostly engaged in successful guerrilla struggles that are stopping the plunder of third-world resources, thus hurting the asses of some liberals that call themselves communists.

And at least put forward some recent successful example by some other tendency before talking about Nepal or Germany. The MLPD isn't even considered Maoist by the biggest Maoist parties.


Ha, successful my ass. They're occupying areas in the countries that the governments don't care enough about to try to recapture. Whenever there's a real proletarian struggle, the "Maoists" are no where to be found. Just recently there were some worker deaths in the Bangladeshi garment industry from police repression and from a factory fire. In Dhaka 3,000 workers fought cops and blocked roads – while the Chittagong EPZ was forced to close as thousands of workers battled police. As clashes intensified police fired 600 rounds of rubber bullets, 150 teargas canisters and made numerous baton charges. Workers replied with missiles and sticks; roads were blocked with burning and vandalized vehicles while 11 factories and 20 other commercial buildings were ransacked. Where were the Maoists during all this? To me, the communist movement is in the self-mobilization of the working class as a class. Asia is being rocked by all sorts of wildcat strikes and mass proletarian unrest. The garment female workers in Bangladesh, the bloody shop floor battles being waged by Chinese and Indian workers, etc. Of course the Maoists stay absolutely clear of these worker struggles, because Maoism has nothing to do with the self-movement of the proletariat, or even socialism, for that matter. They're more concerned bloody, gang warfare based (like almost all gang activity in the world) on the most miserable and marginalized sectors of society, and a "revolution" from above by a "People’s Army" that somehow requires basically no ideological preparation of the populace, who are just supposed to follow their lead. The Maoist story is always the same. A bunch of sociopathic dropouts from the local philosophy department with daddy issues going to the countryside and trying to make some peasants shoot some cops and soldiers, and manipulating the the worse aspects of peasant revengism for their political goals. No better than other gangs and bourgeois low lives who do the same thing. And lets say by some remote chance the Maoists actually win. Let's say the Naxalites in India somehow succeed in overthrowing the government. Is that a victory for the Indian working class? Or is it a victory for the Naxalites? And then we have a Naxalite government, do we support it? Or do we now turn against it because they're the new government, the new ruling class, a new set of bastards under a different name. It's not just that I "don't like" Maoists or Maoism but that the form that their politics takes (of political parties taking control of state power 'for' the working class) is counter to what my politics are about (workers taking action to fight for their own interests). Take away the guns and who the fuck are the Naxalites? They're just the same bunch of Leninists you see selling newspapers on demonstrations. You can keep cheering on the Maoists to actually accomplish something, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Paul Cockshott]

The Guomindang that remained in the PRC was still an outright bourgeois party, just like the various "liberal democratic" satellite coalition parties in Eastern Europe.
Yes but these groups had very little power.

[Ostrinski]

That is crazy. Trotsky was definitely a very important leader of the Russian Revolution; there is no doubt about it. But it was Leninism that worked, not Trotskyism.Neither Trotskyism nor Leninism existed at the time of the Russian Revolution.

[Paul Cockshott]

Neither Trotskyism nor Leninism existed at the time of the Russian Revolution.

Fair point, they all called themselves social democrats.

[Ostrinski]

Fair point, they all called themselves social democrats.Well it isn't necessarily about what they called themselves as much as Leninism didn't exist as an ideology until the 20's.

[ind_com]

Ha, successful my ass. They're occupying areas in the countries that the governments don't care enough about to try to recapture.

Anyone who is even the very least informed about Maoist struggles knows that this is a lie. In India there is severe conflict going on continuously in and around the Maoist influenced areas. About six months ago, there was a well-planned operation by the Indian Government to wipe out Maoists from the main guerrilla-zone in Bastar, and many thousands of troops were involved.


Whenever there's a real proletarian struggle, the "Maoists" are no where to be found. Just recently there were some worker deaths in the Bangladeshi garment industry from police repression and from a factory fire. In Dhaka 3,000 workers fought cops and blocked roads – while the Chittagong EPZ was forced to close as thousands of workers battled police. As clashes intensified police fired 600 rounds of rubber bullets, 150 teargas canisters and made numerous baton charges. Workers replied with missiles and sticks; roads were blocked with burning and vandalized vehicles while 11 factories and 20 other commercial buildings were ransacked. Where were the Maoists during all this?

Bullshit. It is very well known that Maoists are involved in the garment workers' movement. The main organizations are clandestine, as expected and reported by the Bangladeshi press, but some individuals in the mass-line branches actually have some internet representation and report the struggles first-hand. They are different from the main Maoist group that has launched the people's war, but they support the people's war nevertheless. Here is their website:

http://www.mongoldhoni.net/


To me, the communist movement is in the self-mobilization of the working class as a class. Asia is being rocked by all sorts of wildcat strikes and mass proletarian unrest. The garment female workers in Bangladesh, the bloody shop floor battles being waged by Chinese and Indian workers, etc. Of course the Maoists stay absolutely clear of these worker struggles, because Maoism has nothing to do with the self-movement of the proletariat, or even socialism, for that matter.

This is another half-truth. While Maoist activity might be marginal in China, it is well known that in India it is not the case. In the recent Maruti workers movement the DSU was involved. The press also claimed Maoist involvement.


They're more concerned bloody, gang warfare based (like almost all gang activity in the world) on the most miserable and marginalized sectors of society, and a "revolution" from above by a "People’s Army" that somehow requires basically no ideological preparation of the populace, who are just supposed to follow their lead. The Maoist story is always the same. A bunch of sociopathic dropouts from the local philosophy department with daddy issues going to the countryside and trying to make some peasants shoot some cops and soldiers, and manipulating the the worse aspects of peasant revengism for their political goals. No better than other gangs and bourgeois low lives who do the same thing. And lets say by some remote chance the Maoists actually win. Let's say the Naxalites in India somehow succeed in overthrowing the government. Is that a victory for the Indian working class? Or is it a victory for the Naxalites? And then we have a Naxalite government, do we support it? Or do we now turn against it because they're the new government, the new ruling class, a new set of bastards under a different name. It's not just that I "don't like" Maoists or Maoism but that the form that their politics takes (of political parties taking control of state power 'for' the working class) is counter to what my politics are about (workers taking action to fight for their own interests). Take away the guns and who the fuck are the Naxalites? They're just the same bunch of Leninists you see selling newspapers on demonstrations. You can keep cheering on the Maoists to actually accomplish something, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The above portion of your post has insignificant intellectual content and is mainly bullshit following a copy-paste from a standard anti-Maoist troll-post quoted below. So consider the replies to it as replies to your post as well. I also suggest that you get your head out of your ass before you post next time.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2240654&postcount=22


blahblahgblahblah some kkkanadian dude in ontario and his r-r-r-r-r- evolutionary credentials. certainly my vegan potluck (lol if it existed) is as relevant to anything as some stalinist artist wanker in motherfuckin ontario pushing the rrrrrevolutionary PR line for situations that he has no modicrum of influence. anyway alberta pride yo

edit: just because the admins always accuse me of trolling and flaming i am going to elaborate on my view. we have a totally different view of what being "pro-rev" means. to you, it is following certain groups of cadre that expouse a sort of enlightened revolutionary evangelism, in your case it being maoist theology. so to you its all about the good chosen ones with the correct line and theology fighting the good fight for the good of the masses. to me, the communist movement lies in the self-movement of the class as a class. for itself. asia is being swept by all sorts of wildcat strikes and mass proletarian unrest, from garment female workers in bangladesh, to the bloody shopfloor battles being waged by chinese and indian workers. of course maoists are nowhere to be found there, because maoism has nothing to do with the self-movement of the proletariat, and everything to do with bloody, gang warfare based (like almost all gang activity in the world) on the most miserable and marginalized sectors of society. the maoist story is always the same, a bunch of sociopathic dropouts from the local philosophy department with daddy issues going to the countryside and trying to make some peasants shoot some cops and soldiers, and manipulating the the worse aspects of peasant revengism for their political goals. no better than other gangs and bourgeois low lives who do the same thing. (see sendero luminoso and the sociopath presidente gonzalo for the worst aspects of maoism)

P.S. Who is this guy? Seems to be the inspiration of all anti-Maoist trolls here.

[Let's Get Free]

I remembered seeing his post somewhere and thought some of it was pretty funny, so I incorporated some of it into my post. But he's an aside. The point I'm trying to make is that no group can seize power on behalf of the working class (whether with guns or slick electoral campaigns).. this tactic will always be a dead end and this is because socialism necessarily involves mass participation and for the working class to be in control of its own decision making bodies. It does not and cannot involve giving up power to one or another political faction..

And all this is even before we start discussing whether socialism can be brought about through military force..

Again, who would the Naxalites be without their guns? How can you bring about socialism by having a "revolution" from above by a "People’s Army" that somehow requires basically no ideological preparation of the populace, who are just supposed to follow their lead? Unless you think socialism is something that can be imposed on the working class by gangs of peasants led by members of the 'middle class' intelligentsia.
What sort of politics are clandestine military groups based on strict hierarchy attempting to seize state power capable of enacting? Is it something that could liberate? Or is it a new ruling class, a new tyranny in the making?

I think looking at this sort of thing in history (for instance China, Vietnam and, in its nastiest instance, Cambodia) and in the present (Nepal) will show that such a strategy is a dead end. But I get the feeling that the Indian working class are coming to this conclusion themselves, judging from the recent proletarian struggles. I'll ask this question again: if in the incredibly unlikely chance that the Naxalites win, will it be a victory for the proletariat, or a victory for the Naxalites? I don't think socialists should be supporting the Naxalites in this ridiculous conflict. . I do think, however, that we should be supporting grassroots, mass working class action to defend working class interests. And there is a lot of that in India at the moment, so I support that, not the Naxals.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Fair point, they all called themselves social democrats.
Certainly nobody used the term. But Lenin was making and had been making important theoretical contributions for many years, particularly regarding the nature and structure of the Vanguard Party. Sometimes we get too hung up on labels (e.g., it wasn't Trotskyism it was Leninism). Look at the program they were carrying out, not so much the individual leaders -- what did they stand for and what did they actually do.

[thälmann]

dead end? the peoples war strategy was the ONLY succesful in the semifeudal countries. i mean, how could somebody be so fucking ignorant.

the naxalites dont make politics in the working class? i mean are people here not able to read even bourgois media? this thread is strange...

[ind_com]

I remembered seeing his post somewhere and thought some of it was pretty funny, so I incorporated some of it into my post. But he's an aside. The point I'm trying to make is that no group can seize power on behalf of the working class (whether with guns or slick electoral campaigns).. this tactic will always be a dead end and this is because socialism necessarily involves mass participation and for the working class to be in control of its own decision making bodies. It does not and cannot involve giving up power to one or another political faction..

So you are essentially questioning vanguardism. This is a very old question, and till now no alternative method of the working class seizing power without a vanguard, and defending their gains for more than a few months, has been implemented successfully. All worker's movements without vanguards have either been crushed mercilessly, or have succumbed to economism. Mass participation has to be consolidated through vanguardism, in order to defeat the bourgeoisie.


And all this is even before we start discussing whether socialism can be brought about through military force..

This point is wrong. Even if we assume that a vanguardless revolution is possible, military force will be necessary to defeat the ruling classes.


Again, who would the Naxalites be without their guns? How can you bring about socialism by having a "revolution" from above by a "People’s Army" that somehow requires basically no ideological preparation of the populace, who are just supposed to follow their lead? Unless you think socialism is something that can be imposed on the working class by gangs of peasants led by members of the 'middle class' intelligentsia.
What sort of politics are clandestine military groups based on strict hierarchy attempting to seize state power capable of enacting? Is it something that could liberate? Or is it a new ruling class, a new tyranny in the making?

The PLGA is composed of the local peasants and workers, and follows the decisions of the local democratic bodies of peasants and workers until it is not fighting a centralized military operation. The class contradictions the lowest sections of the working class face is enough to prepare them ideologically for class war. A worker does not need to read three volumes of Capital in order to know that he will be better off if he militarily combats capitalism.


I think looking at this sort of thing in history (for instance China, Vietnam and, in its nastiest instance, Cambodia) and in the present (Nepal) will show that such a strategy is a dead end.

Those examples only show that the model of vanguardism that has been followed so far is unable to maintain socialism for more than a few decades. But this question can be approached only when one agrees the necessity of vanguardism to overthrow the bourgeoisie, because non-vanguardists have not reached even that stage in the last century.


But I get the feeling that the Indian working class are coming to this conclusion themselves, judging from the recent proletarian struggles. I'll ask this question again: if in the incredibly unlikely chance that the Naxalites win, will it be a victory for the proletariat, or a victory for the Naxalites? I don't think socialists should be supporting the Naxalites in this ridiculous conflict. . I do think, however, that we should be supporting grassroots, mass working class action to defend working class interests. And there is a lot of that in India at the moment, so I support that, not the Naxals.

This is your own wishful thinking about the Indian working class. The Indian working class wants to lead the military struggle against imperialism and its allies, not get away from it. This is a proven truth, due to the expanding Maoist bases in the Indian working class. Self proclaimed socialists might or might not support the Naxalites, but it will not affect the struggle in India a single bit. These grassroots workers struggles will develop into organized military struggles by the PLGA against the Indian ruling classes, despite what you may think of them.

[Let's Get Free]

So you are essentially questioning vanguardism. This is a very old question, and till now no alternative method of the working class seizing power without a vanguard, and defending their gains for more than a few months, has been implemented successfully. All worker's movements without vanguards have either been crushed mercilessly, or have succumbed to economism. Mass participation has to be consolidated through vanguardism, in order to defeat the bourgeoisie.

This needs to be made crystal clear - you cannot seize state power on behalf of the workers. Its simply not possible. Only the workers can secure their self emancipation - not some self appointed vanguard. This is basic Marxism. Anyone who strives to secure power on behalf of the workers will INEVITABLY end up on the side of capital against the interests of workers. For the Naxal Maoists as with all capitalist exploiters the poor are cannon fodder to be used in their efforts to carve out their piece of the capitalist cake. The poorest of the poor have to endure the Maoists and the government troops and being caught in the middle of their bloody struggles.



This point is wrong. Even if we assume that a vanguardless revolution is possible, military force will be necessary to defeat the ruling classes.

The revolution is not, and cannot be, the work of some paramilitary group. The most a paramilitary group like the Naxals can do is to forment a coup d'etat. But a coup d'etat is not a revolution. You tell me that the revolution cannot take place without a communist party and that without the conquest of political power emancipation is not possible, and that without dictatorship one cannot destroy the bourgeoisie: all these assertions are absolutely gratuitous.


The PLGA is composed of the local peasants and workers, and follows the decisions of the local democratic bodies of peasants and workers until it is not fighting a centralized military operation. The class contradictions the lowest sections of the working class face is enough to prepare them ideologically for class war. A worker does not need to read three volumes of Capital in order to know that he will be better off if he militarily combats capitalism.

The class background of the Naxals doesn't matter, all of them from the highest to the lowest rank could be penniless dispossessed peasants and it wouldn't change a thing. No group can seize power on behalf of the working class.




Those examples only show that the model of vanguardism that has been followed so far is unable to maintain socialism for more than a few decades. But this question can be approached only when one agrees the necessity of vanguardism to overthrow the bourgeoisie, because non-vanguardists have not reached even that stage in the last century.

Any form of vanguardism won't be able to maintain socialism. Vangaurd parties tend to be opportunistic. Who was it that overthrew that archetypal "workers state", the mother of all "workers states" - the Soviet Union? That's right - the red fat cats, your glorious fucking vanguard, the state capitalist class, the nomenklatura, who grew tired of the lie that they were leading the workers to communism and opted for corporate capitalism without illusion in their "revolution from above"


Having you learnt nothing at all from the last 100 years?




This is your own wishful thinking about the Indian working class. The Indian working class wants to lead the military struggle against imperialism and its allies, not get away from it. This is a proven truth, due to the expanding Maoist bases in the Indian working class. Self proclaimed socialists might or might not support the Naxalites, but it will not affect the struggle in India a single bit. These grassroots workers struggles will develop into organized military struggles by the PLGA against the Indian ruling classes, despite what you may think of them.

The Naxals have been fighting for over 20 years. If they had significant popular support, they would have won a long time ago. Right now it seems damn near impossible that the Naxals could overthrow the Indian government. The Naxals' troop numbers are estimated to be about 45 thousand. This in comparison to the nearly 2 million troop strong Indian army.

Overall, I find it hard to begrudge the Naxalites the right to self-defense. If the government was attempting to forcibly relocate anyone, from where their ancestors lived for God knows how long, into camps, anyone would fight back. And I imagine the Naxals do it under the Maoist banner because that's what's available. Nobody else cares.

[ind_com]

This needs to be made crystal clear - you cannot seize state power on behalf of the workers. Its simply not possible. Only the workers can secure their self emancipation - not some self appointed vanguard. This is basic Marxism. Anyone who strives to secure power on behalf of the workers will INEVITABLY end up on the side of capital against the interests of workers. For the Naxal Maoists as with all capitalist exploiters the poor are cannon fodder to be used in their efforts to carve out their piece of the capitalist cake. The poorest of the poor have to endure the Maoists and the government troops and being caught in the middle of their bloody struggles.

The revolution is not, and cannot be, the work of some paramilitary group. The most a paramilitary group like the Naxals can do is to forment a coup d'etat. But a coup d'etat is not a revolution. You tell me that the revolution cannot take place without a communist party and that without the conquest of political power emancipation is not possible, and that without dictatorship one cannot destroy the bourgeoisie: all these assertions are absolutely gratuitous.

The class background of the Naxals doesn't matter, all of them from the highest to the lowest rank could be penniless dispossessed peasants and it wouldn't change a thing. No group can seize power on behalf of the working class.

Any form of vanguardism won't be able to maintain socialism. Vangaurd parties tend to be opportunistic. Who was it that overthrew that archetypal "workers state", the mother of all "workers states" - the Soviet Union? That's right - the red fat cats, your glorious fucking vanguard, the state capitalist class, the nomenklatura, who grew tired of the lie that they were leading the workers to communism and opted for corporate capitalism without illusion in their "revolution from above"

I am too tired of negating anti-vanguardist theory, and I will leave you in peace to follow your line, while we follow ours. Let's see which way the revolutions happen. Just addressing some technical points below.


Having you learnt nothing at all from the last 100 years?
Have you?


The Naxals have been fighting for over 20 years. If they had significant popular support, they would have won a long time ago. Right now it seems damn near impossible that the Naxals could overthrow the Indian government. The Naxals' troop numbers are estimated to be about 45 thousand. This in comparison to the nearly 2 million troop strong Indian army.

Doesn't this apply to other tendencies too? There are anti-vanguardists in India too. Have they got enough popular support to gather even 45 cadres? And by the way, only three years back the GOI claimed that Maoists had 20 thousand troops. That number has more than doubled within three years. If this is not enough evidence for significant and expanding popular support, then it is hard to imagine what is.


Overall, I find it hard to begrudge the Naxalites the right to self-defense. If the government was attempting to forcibly relocate anyone, from where their ancestors lived for God knows how long, into camps, anyone would fight back. And I imagine the Naxals do it under the Maoist banner because that's what's available.

The displacement issue is more recent. The Naxalite movement started with a peasant revolt and subsequent attempts of workers and students to seize power in the cities. And yes, nothing else but the Maoist banner was accepted by the rebelling workers, peasants and students. Partly because all the other perfect communists shied away from the armed struggles.


Nobody else cares.

Most do.