deer_skull
25th October 2012, 18:53
PDF Link:
www[dot]mediafire[dot]com/view/?g6nsqj65xpzdx5y
(stupid low post link block)
TL;DR but hopefully it interests you in actually reading it (no investigation; no right to speak).
This is a well argued piece that directly addresses the accusations put forth by Goldner; namely, class collaboration (aka it being bourgeois revolution with red flags), Maoism being equated to "Stalinism," and its mechanistic assertion that the peasantry is ultimately counter-revolutionary.
It begins by directly engaging the Trotskyist notion of "Permanent Revolution" and ultimately demonstrates its absurdity as viable revolutionary theory. It compares this theory to the Maoist "New Democracy," explaining why these two concepts are meant to address the same question and how New Democracy does this successfully. Further on this issue, it argues against the characterization that Maoism can be reduced to ND, but rather it is a robust revolutionary theory with universal implications not limited to peripheral nations.
He then addresses the "Stalinist" accusations, showing how they are the result of the mechanistic (and incorrect) understanding that there is either true Marxism-Leninism as Trotskyism or false forms as Stalinism. He goes into detail regarding their inability to properly analyze the Soviet regression under Khruschev that results from this understanding, and how Mao succeeded in identifying and critiquing this regression; not to mention the identification that class struggle continues under the socialist transition, and thus demands the re-ignition of proletarian revolutionary forces (culminating historically in the GPCR).
Finally, he compares the successes in starting mass movements that both the Trotskyist and Maoist lines have inspired, noting that the former has none while the latter has inspired revolutions in Peru, India, Nepal, and the Philippines (I apologize if I missed any others).
In short, this is definitely worth reading since it sheds light on some of the theoretical components of Maoism as well as the inadequacies of the theory behind Trotskyism.
www[dot]mediafire[dot]com/view/?g6nsqj65xpzdx5y
(stupid low post link block)
TL;DR but hopefully it interests you in actually reading it (no investigation; no right to speak).
This is a well argued piece that directly addresses the accusations put forth by Goldner; namely, class collaboration (aka it being bourgeois revolution with red flags), Maoism being equated to "Stalinism," and its mechanistic assertion that the peasantry is ultimately counter-revolutionary.
It begins by directly engaging the Trotskyist notion of "Permanent Revolution" and ultimately demonstrates its absurdity as viable revolutionary theory. It compares this theory to the Maoist "New Democracy," explaining why these two concepts are meant to address the same question and how New Democracy does this successfully. Further on this issue, it argues against the characterization that Maoism can be reduced to ND, but rather it is a robust revolutionary theory with universal implications not limited to peripheral nations.
He then addresses the "Stalinist" accusations, showing how they are the result of the mechanistic (and incorrect) understanding that there is either true Marxism-Leninism as Trotskyism or false forms as Stalinism. He goes into detail regarding their inability to properly analyze the Soviet regression under Khruschev that results from this understanding, and how Mao succeeded in identifying and critiquing this regression; not to mention the identification that class struggle continues under the socialist transition, and thus demands the re-ignition of proletarian revolutionary forces (culminating historically in the GPCR).
Finally, he compares the successes in starting mass movements that both the Trotskyist and Maoist lines have inspired, noting that the former has none while the latter has inspired revolutions in Peru, India, Nepal, and the Philippines (I apologize if I missed any others).
In short, this is definitely worth reading since it sheds light on some of the theoretical components of Maoism as well as the inadequacies of the theory behind Trotskyism.