A quick question for Maoists

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Hey, again, I'm asking a Tendancy question.

Do you feel that the PRC is still socialist, or do you view it as being capitalist?

Personally, I believe its capitalist, but I'm just surveying Maoists to understand their opinion on the matter.

EDIT: Shit, I forgot to add the poll. That may effect my results.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Most Maoists, especially on RevLeft, will tell you that the PRC after Mao stopped being socialist with the rise of Deng Xioping and his revisionist policies which restored capitalist economic and social structures (the elimination of the peoples communes, restoration of capitalist education methods, managers being reinstated in the factories, etc). Some comrades defend the PRC as socialist today but generally speaking such people subscribe to tendencies other than Maoism (a tendency which has much more emphasis on the "ism" than the Mao part; Maoism is school of ideological thought and is highly critical of Mao).

[Zealot]

Most Maoists reject the PRC as being socialist to my knowledge but here is a pro-China article (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/) if you're interested in some of the arguments used.

E: It's important to remember that there is a difference between a country being Marxist and a country having a socialist mode of production. It is entirely consistent for a country to have a non-socialist mode of production and still adhere to Marxist thought. I think Tim Cornelis once started a thread about this. So the question may not be exactly "does China have Socialism?" but "does China have a DoTP or a party that still rigorously follows scientific Marxism?".

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A country, however, cannot "be" Marxist since Marxism is simply a manner of analyzing things.

[Zealot]

A country, however, cannot "be" Marxist since Marxism is simply a manner of analyzing things.

True, I should have worded it better but you get the point.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Generally I don't think you'll find many Maoists that are fond of Deng. It's important to note that the whole rationale behind the cultural revolution was the fact that the Deng faction tried to pull this crap in the 60's and Mao thought the best way to deal with it was to foster greater public involvement in the body politic and create institutions of direct democracy (which were admittedly flawed). Since many don't know much about the cultural revolution I'd recommend reading this paper which recently approved by the China Study Group (unfortunately I am unable to post links, can some one else provide some good information)
Deng knew that he couldn't pass his reforms in an atmosphere of democracy, so he ended the cultural revolutions and abolished the "four freedoms" that allowed the Chinese Labor movement it's autonomy from the central government. Now a days you can hear alot of Mao bashing from the CPC only because Mao tried to prevent Deng from achieving political power. So just because the PRC might give Mao lip service doesn't mean that they are in any way "maoist"

[hetz]

A country, however, cannot "be" Marxist since Marxism is simply a manner of analyzing things.
Even more importantly, it's a guide to action. :cool:

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I will add my two cents -- although I am not a Maoist. Since Maoism is a variant of Stalinism, a nationalistic perversion of Leninism, Maoists have typically tended to take a binary view of the PRC. If they agree with the given leadership at the moment, it is socialist. If not, it is capitalist. The class nature of the Chinese state has not fundamentally changed since 1949 when capitalism was overthrown (although it did take a while for Mao and Co. to get this).

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution. So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy. Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. I think a good comparison is between India and China. Both countries were in similar circumstances after WWII. The Chinese have been far better off in so many ways because of the revolution.

As for the Cultural Revolution? It was a faction fight in the CCP. Mao was on the outs because of a number of failed policies, including The Great Leap Forward. He used his base in the PLA and the enthusiasm of Chinese youth to push out Deng and Liu. It was a very destructive period -- imbued with the worst kind of moralism and idealism. And democratic it absolutely was not.

[ind_com]

Good advertisement for Trotskyism there.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Good advertisement for Trotskyism there.

Don't stoop to his level.Offer a quick rebuttal and explanation of why Trotskyists think they way they do (while defending MLM of course) and leave it at that.No need to exacerbate things without saying a great sum.

[hetz]

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution. So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy. Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. That's just recycling old formulas without any thought and without considering the new developments that had taken place in China since the 50s, 60s or whatever.
If according to you today's China and 50's GDR were all basically "deformed worker's states", then you have to rethink your positions, because they don't explain many things.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maoism is a variant of Stalinism, a nationalistic perversion of Leninism

Stalinism, if there is a such thing, proposes that the party is the sole leader of society and that all social debate should take place in the party, and that the correctness of the party line is to be maintained by purges. Maoists on the other hand see the party as another battle ground for class struggle, capable of either leading the revolution or being overtaken by reactionaries. Because of the possible flaws of the party, Maoists believe that the party line should not come entirely from the party itself but instead should be taken from the proletariat who are the only force capable of waging class struggle in both socialist and capitalist societies (See mass line, Maoist views on base and superstructure, Maoist views on class struggle under socialism). This is why the working class under the advice of Mao (though not necessarily led by since in many cases the red guard directly defied his orders) waged the cultural revolution to continue this class struggle. Orthodox Stalinists on the other hand would never have engaged the masses in such a way because they believe that only the party made pure from time and space can form a perfect line. This faulty belief led to revisionists merely waiting until Stalin died to take over the party with no one being able to stop them. Maoists don't uphold Stalin because they think his line was perfect, they merely uphold him because he was the only thing standing in the way of revisionism.


Maoists have typically tended to take a binary view of the PRC. If they agree with the given leadership at the moment, it is socialist. If not, it is capitalist. The class nature of the Chinese state has not fundamentally changed since 1949 when capitalism was overthrown (although it did take a while for Mao and Co. to get this).
Socialism, as defined by marx, is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. If a state is heading to communism then it is socialist, if not then it is capitalist. This isn't anything peticular to Mao, this is basic Marx


The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution. So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy. Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. I think a good comparison is between India and China. Both countries were in similar circumstances after WWII. The Chinese have been far better off in so many ways because of the revolution. Personally I agree with Trotsky on this account so I won't argue with you here.


As for the Cultural Revolution? It was a faction fight in the CCP. Mao was on the outs because of a number of failed policies, including The Great Leap Forward. He used his base in the PLA and the enthusiasm of Chinese youth to push out Deng and Liu. It was a very destructive period -- imbued with the worst kind of moralism and idealism. And democratic it absolutely was not.

Unfortunately I can't link yet, but can someone link the MLM study group paper on the cultural revolution here to give a less trot-tinted view of the cultural revolution?

[Let's Get Free]

Socialism, as defined by marx, is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. If a state is heading to communism then it is socialist, if not then it is capitalist. This isn't anything peticular to Mao, this is basic Marx

No, Marx never made a distinction between socialism and communism, with socialism being the "lower stage" of communism. He used the words more or less interchangeably.

[ind_com]

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution.

Do you hold that China actively follows imperialist policies?


So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy.

Any country should be defended from imperialist attack, regardless of whether it is socialist or communist.


Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. I think a good comparison is between India and China. Both countries were in similar circumstances after WWII. The Chinese have been far better off in so many ways because of the revolution.


So, what is your solution for China? Is it just another political revolution replacing 'bad' people with 'good' ones? Maoists advocate a full-fledged socialist revolution in China.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, Marx never made a distinction between socialism and communism, with socialism being the "lower stage" of communism. He used the words more or less interchangeably.
Yes, socialism is the lower stage of communism, where the proletariat wrestles control of the state away from the bourgeois and use it to suppress them until the state can be abolished and communism can be established without the fear of external intervention. When state power is usurped from the proletariat and given to a few party bureaucrats, then no matter how violent those bureaucrats are they can't be said to be leading the way to communism since their violence is to preserve their order, not to establish a new one.

[Let's Get Free]

Yes, socialism is the lower stage of communism, where the proletariat wrestles control of the state away from the bourgeois and use it to suppress them until the state can be abolished and communism can be established without the fear of external intervention. When state power is usurped from the proletariat and given to a few party bureaucrats, then no matter how violent those bureaucrats are they can't be said to be leading the way to communism since their violence is to preserve their order, not to establish a new one.

That was a distinction made by Lenin, not by Marx.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That was a distinction made by Lenin, not by Marx.

Nope

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." — Critique of the Gotha Program

Yes Lenin paid greater attention to this concept, however the fundamental foundations of a transitional state period were laid by Marx and Engels.

Ed: I think it is fair to say that the dictatorship of the proletariat and Socialism are synonymous. While Lenin may have theorized the socialist state differently than Marx, it is sufficient to assume that Marx wasn't imagining that the dictatorship would be capitalist ;)

[Let's Get Free]

Ed: I think it is fair to say that the dictatorship of the proletariat and Socialism are synonymous. While Lenin may have theorized the socialist state differently than Marx, it is sufficient to assume that Marx wasn't imagining that the dictatorship would be capitalist ;)

No, Marx never identified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, Marx never identified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism.

Admittedly arguing over semantics is silly so I apologize. Though still, whether it was socialism or not Marx clearly did have a conception of a transitional stage, and if this the state was not transitioning, then how could we define it as a communist state?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Unfortunately I can't link yet, but can someone link the MLM study group paper on the cultural revolution here to give a less trot-tinted view of the cultural revolution?

Link: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/01/08/mlmrsg-evaluating-chinas-cultural-revolution-and-its-legacy-for-the-future/

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Thank you comrade!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thank you comrade!

No problem. The paper is a wonderful read and has more than a few thought-provoking moments. One of the vital readings if one wishes to understand the Cultural Revolution; especially if one is looking for a good introduction to the era.

[blake 3:17]

As for the Cultural Revolution? It was a faction fight in the CCP. Mao was on the outs because of a number of failed policies, including The Great Leap Forward. He used his base in the PLA and the enthusiasm of Chinese youth to push out Deng and Liu. It was a very destructive period -- imbued with the worst kind of moralism and idealism. And democratic it absolutely was not.

I learnt recently that the Cultural Revolution was a great boon for the Chinese peasantry -- not because of any policy from Mao, but the fact that the Chinese state was paralyzed, and peasants did way better without state interference.

There was a a strong element of spontaneism and voluntarism in the Cultural revolution, which reached some rather bizarre and unhealthy peaks, but that also created some opportunities to rebuild a culture with mass action.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I learnt recently that the Cultural Revolution was a great boon for the Chinese peasantry -- not because of any policy from Mao, but the fact that the Chinese state was paralyzed, and peasants did way better without state interference.

First of all, this implies that there was excessive state interference in the peasant economy when this was simply not the case. During the Mao era the local villages were organized into People's Communes which were owned and managed cooperatively by the local peasant's, not the state (There is a letter where Mao makes this very clear, Mobo Gao cites it in his Battle for China's Past, though I don't expect anyone to go searching for it since it is obscure.) After the failures of the Great Leap Foward Mao advocated the de-regulation of communes against the wishes of Deng and Liu Shaoqi and allowed them to distribute their salaries autonomously depending on their circumstances. (Prior to his reforms, 70% of an individual's salary was for his own use and the rest was returned to the commune, after his reforms some communes increased this to 85% and greater when it was thought that the local economy wasn't strong enough for the individual to contribute any more)

Secondly, during the cultural revolution the standard of living for the average peasant was increased greatly due to the effort to expand medical coverage to the rural eras. Additionally local schools were established to increase literacy and affirmative action was introduced for woman to equalize their position in society. Peasants were taught to read and write so they could contribute to culture, and during the cultural revolution the Bejing thethre had 7.6 million attendants with 74% of the plays being written by industrial workers and peasants.

[Geiseric]

The trick with china is that over half the economy is state owned meaning the capitaists are technically allowed to proit of the workers by the far more powerful (inside of china at least) bureaucracy. As we see there is a struggle to fully restore capitalism on the part of the ccp but the workers aren't too fond of that notion, which is why we see thousands of strikes a year in this so called "sociaist state." Its a deformed workers state for this reason.

[Paul Cockshott]

No, Marx never made a distinction between socialism and communism, with socialism being the "lower stage" of communism. He used the words more or less interchangeably.

This just is not true. He only came out as a communist not a socialist, and polemicised against socialism. It is social democracy and Trotskyism that identify the two.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Do you hold that China actively follows imperialist policies?



Any country should be defended from imperialist attack, regardless of whether it is socialist or communist.



So, what is your solution for China? Is it just another political revolution replacing 'bad' people with 'good' ones? Maoists advocate a full-fledged socialist revolution in China.

China is not a capitalist country. So there is a difference between, say defending Libya and China against imperialist aggression -- with Libya we would be defending the national rights of the country, with China we are defending the property relations. In a war between, say Russia and China, at this point in history, we would defend China against capitalist Russia.

And yes, China needs a political revolution to put Marxist Internationalists in power to advance the cause of the revolution in China, but most importantly internationally.

As for their being a some fundamental problem saying that on a basic level, a class level, the GDR in the 50s and the PRC today are equivalent, I don't see it. These are societies with a fundamental contradiction between their property forms and the politics of the leadership. In the GDR this was resolved by counterrevolution. I fear the same may happen to the PRC, but I am hoping that it does not. Great Britain was a capitalist country in need of a proletarian revolution in the 1860s and so is Spain today. Doesn't sound so crazy, does it?

[hetz]

In a war between, say Russia and China, at this point in history, we would defend China against capitalist Russia.
Cool, "defending" one ( and the stronger one at that ) imperialist country against another imperialist country in a war that can only be a war of imperialist aggression.
Congratulations.


I fear the same may happen to the PRC, but I am hoping that it does not.
There has been no counterrevolution in China?

[Art Vandelay]

It's so sad, to me, to see intelligent comrades still upholding China as a degenerated workers state; I believe the theory has some merit (a proletariat dictatorship cannot vanish over night, it must slowly degenerate) however Trotsky, by the end of his life, was close to rejecting the label for the USSR, let alone what he'd think hearing others label China as a DWS in this day and age, as they're slowly overtaking the USA as the dominant capitalist state worldwide. The theory that Trotsky was close to abandoning near the end of his life, would become the cornerstone of the ideology to the post Trotsky Trotskyists.

[l'Enfermé]

It is much sadder still that some mislead comrades believe that China ever was a worker's state("degenerated" or not) at all.

China's political leadership is increasing more and more composed of private capitalists. CEOs, execs, finance majors, millionaires, billionaires etc, etc.

I'm just baffled by claims that China is not a capitalist country. This is a terribly stupid and misinformed position. The greatest Marxist economist of the 20th century was probably Yevgeny Preobrazhensky, who co-wrote the ABC of Communism with Bukharin, the popular explanation of the Bolshevik post-October new programme. In the ABC of Communism, the primary characteristic of economic life under capitalism is generalized commodity production, i.e production for sale on the market, i.e production for profit.

This is true of China. China's dominant form of production is commodity production. Production for profit.

But simple commodity production doesn't suffice. To turn simple commodity production into capitalist production, the a capitalist class must monopolize the means of production. The ownership of the means of production must be in the hands of capitalists, not proletarians.

This is also true in China. The workers own nothing, the capitalists own everything. You can say, "But l'Enferme! - the State owns some of the most important sectors of the Chinese economy! Does this not mean that the State have a more meaningful monopoly on the means of production in China?". But that is all misleading. All these State enterprises are managed by capitalists who make millions off of it - in fact, the last time I checked around a 3rd of China's millionaires are Party members, and high-ranking members at that.

Look at the list of top Chinese billionaires . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_billionaires)Of the 12 on the list, 8 have English wikipedia articles. Let's check them out.

Liang Wengen, richest man in China. "tapped to join the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.".

Zong Qinghou, member of the NPC, China's highest state body since 2002.

Wu Yajun, another member of the NPC.

Wang Jianlin, member of the party since 1996. "He served as deputy to the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.[4][5] He now serves as the Vice-Chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has been a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference since 2008"

And so on.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2947009.ece

The third main characteristic of capitalism according to Preobrazhensky and Bukharin is that under capitalism, labour-poweritself becomes a commodity and wage-labour becomes the norm.

I have never seen anyone argue that wage-labour is not the norm in China.

Not only is China not "state-capitalist", an alleged form of capitalism where the state takes over the function of capitalists, it's just straight-up capitalism.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Cool, "defending" one ( and the stronger one at that ) imperialist country against another imperialist country in a war that can only be a war of imperialist aggression.
Congratulations.


There has been no counterrevolution in China?
You don't pick sides in a military conflict based on which country is "stronger" -- you do it on class relations. Since you consider China to be a capitalist country, your position is consistent. Since I do not, my position is also consistent.

When did the counterrevolution occur? When were property relations fundamentally changed? Mao tried very hard to have some kind of coalition government with the KMT -- he would have, if given a chance, probably made the same mistakes that the CCP made in the twenties. But Chaing would not play ball, and Mao had to follow through with eradicating the KMT. The Chinese bourgeoisie have remained in Taiwan ever since. Do sections of the CCP aspire to be the new bourgeoisie? Of course they do. Have they looted the workers and peasants of China? Again, yes. But they are a privileged bureaucratic strata, not a new ruling class and not bourgeois (at least not yet). It is still quite likely that if there is a counterrevolution that the entire CCP apparat will end up in prisons, not mansions. Let us hope that does not come to pass as it would be no less a catastrophe for the workers of the world (and particularly to the proletariat of the affected nation) than the collapse of the USSR.

[hetz]

Since I do not, my position is also consistent. It's also stupid.


You don't pick sides in a military conflict based on which country is "stronger"The only war that can someday break out between China and Russia is a war of Chinese imperialist aggression. That is obvious to anyone.
Chinese irredentism is already claiming the Russian Far East.

Also l'Enferme already pointed out the facts.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It's also stupid.

The only war that can someday break out between China and Russia is a war of Chinese imperialist aggression. That is obvious to anyone.
Chinese irredentism is already claiming the Russian Far East.

Also l'Enferme already pointed out the facts.
Your "facts" are redolent of moralism, not Marxism. No doubt you would have sided with "poor little Finland," in 1939, against the USSR, which was the "aggressor" in that battle. One picks sides based on class analysis and since yours is sorely lacking you wind up no better than some benighted bourgeois historian. Your uncomradely remarks are neither appreciated nor illuminating.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It is much sadder still that some mislead comrades believe that China ever was a worker's state("degenerated" or not) at all.

China's political leadership is increasing more and more composed of private capitalists. CEOs, execs, finance majors, millionaires, billionaires etc, etc.

I'm just baffled by claims that China is not a capitalist country. This is a terribly stupid and misinformed position. The greatest Marxist economist of the 20th century was probably Yevgeny Preobrazhensky, who co-wrote the ABC of Communism with Bukharin, the popular explanation of the Bolshevik post-October new programme. In the ABC of Communism, the primary characteristic of economic life under capitalism is generalized commodity production, i.e production for sale on the market, i.e production for profit.

This is true of China. China's dominant form of production is commodity production. Production for profit.

But simple commodity production doesn't suffice. To turn simple commodity production into capitalist production, the a capitalist class must monopolize the means of production. The ownership of the means of production must be in the hands of capitalists, not proletarians.

This is also true in China. The workers own nothing, the capitalists own everything. You can say, "But l'Enferme! - the State owns some of the most important sectors of the Chinese economy! Does this not mean that the State have a more meaningful monopoly on the means of production in China?". But that is all misleading. All these State enterprises are managed by capitalists who make millions off of it - in fact, the last time I checked around a 3rd of China's millionaires are Party members, and high-ranking members at that.

Look at the list of top Chinese billionaires . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_billionaires)Of the 12 on the list, 8 have English wikipedia articles. Let's check them out.

Liang Wengen, richest man in China. "tapped to join the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.".

Zong Qinghou, member of the NPC, China's highest state body since 2002.

Wu Yajun, another member of the NPC.

Wang Jianlin, member of the party since 1996. "He served as deputy to the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.[4][5] He now serves as the Vice-Chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has been a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference since 2008"

And so on.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2947009.ece

The third main characteristic of capitalism according to Preobrazhensky and Bukharin is that under capitalism, labour-poweritself becomes a commodity and wage-labour becomes the norm.

I have never seen anyone argue that wage-labour is not the norm in China.

Not only is China not "state-capitalist", an alleged form of capitalism where the state takes over the function of capitalists, it's just straight-up capitalism.

You have made the case for viewing modern China as a capitalist state, but I don't see how this applies to Mao's China, since the industries of the People's Communes were cooperatively owned. (I cite Mobo Gao's work on Mao Era China as my source in this)

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It is much sadder still that some mislead comrades believe that China ever was a worker's state("degenerated" or not) at all.

China's political leadership is increasing more and more composed of private capitalists. CEOs, execs, finance majors, millionaires, billionaires etc, etc.

I'm just baffled by claims that China is not a capitalist country. This is a terribly stupid and misinformed position. The greatest Marxist economist of the 20th century was probably Yevgeny Preobrazhensky, who co-wrote the ABC of Communism with Bukharin, the popular explanation of the Bolshevik post-October new programme. In the ABC of Communism, the primary characteristic of economic life under capitalism is generalized commodity production, i.e production for sale on the market, i.e production for profit.

This is true of China. China's dominant form of production is commodity production. Production for profit.

But simple commodity production doesn't suffice. To turn simple commodity production into capitalist production, the a capitalist class must monopolize the means of production. The ownership of the means of production must be in the hands of capitalists, not proletarians.

This is also true in China. The workers own nothing, the capitalists own everything. You can say, "But l'Enferme! - the State owns some of the most important sectors of the Chinese economy! Does this not mean that the State have a more meaningful monopoly on the means of production in China?". But that is all misleading. All these State enterprises are managed by capitalists who make millions off of it - in fact, the last time I checked around a 3rd of China's millionaires are Party members, and high-ranking members at that.

Look at the list of top Chinese billionaires . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_billionaires)Of the 12 on the list, 8 have English wikipedia articles. Let's check them out.

Liang Wengen, richest man in China. "tapped to join the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.".

Zong Qinghou, member of the NPC, China's highest state body since 2002.

Wu Yajun, another member of the NPC.

Wang Jianlin, member of the party since 1996. "He served as deputy to the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.[4][5] He now serves as the Vice-Chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has been a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference since 2008"

And so on.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2947009.ece

The third main characteristic of capitalism according to Preobrazhensky and Bukharin is that under capitalism, labour-poweritself becomes a commodity and wage-labour becomes the norm.

I have never seen anyone argue that wage-labour is not the norm in China.

Not only is China not "state-capitalist", an alleged form of capitalism where the state takes over the function of capitalists, it's just straight-up capitalism.
Comrade, can you show me the figures of private enterprise vs. state owned production? And while you are at it, can you break it down by industry. Is steel and energy production primarily private? How about transportation? It matters that key industries are nationalized. It doesn't mean that there is workers control or workers democracy. But it ain't capitalism -- or if it is it is a new type of capitalism

As for Preobrazhensky, I agree he was a great economist, and the ABCs of Communism is still a worthwhile read. There was a lot of confusion among the Bolsheviks as to what was going to happen after the revolution regarding organizing the economy. But I don't think anyone said that since we have wages, this is capitalism. In the transition to socialism after capitalism is defeated, there will probably be wage labor for a period of time.

But to clarify, you never thought that China was anything but capitalist -- so all this stuff about millionaires must be beside the point, right?

And I have no disagreement that the party is rife with bureaucratic leeches that are pro-capitalist. But a counterrevolution in China will be bloody and you will see the kind of falling off a cliff of the living standards of the population. You look at it and have a moralistic response. Hey Napoleon played a pretty negative role in the French Revolution. His armies were the aggressors against some of the old monarchies in Europe. Quick, which side represented progress?

[Grenzer]

I don't see how there can be a "falling off a cliff of the living standards" for most people in China, since many are already living at subsistence levels. This itself is a form of moralism trying to defend capitalist China. It certainly is not a workers' state of any kind, nor is a "Stalinist bureaucracy" in charge politically. All of the bureaucrats in charge of the higher posts of government are simultaneously capitalists, just like here in the West. The bureaucrats aren't merely "pro-capitalist" they are capitalists themselves. CEOs and the like that actually have ownership in the companies they administrate.


This just is not true. He only came out as a communist not a socialist, and polemicised against socialism. It is social democracy and Trotskyism that identify the two.

This is more than a little dishonest. It was revolutionary social-democracy, not contemporary social-democracy. I should not need to remind you that Engels himself played a large role in the development of the former.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It's so sad, to me, to see intelligent comrades still upholding China as a degenerated workers state; I believe the theory has some merit (a proletariat dictatorship cannot vanish over night, it must slowly degenerate) however Trotsky, by the end of his life, was close to rejecting the label for the USSR, let alone what he'd think hearing others label China as a DWS in this day and age, as they're slowly overtaking the USA as the dominant capitalist state worldwide. The theory that Trotsky was close to abandoning near the end of his life, would become the cornerstone of the ideology to the post Trotsky Trotskyists.
Okay, I'm game. What is this ostensible "abandonment" based on? Trotsky's last big political fight in the FI was precisely about defending the USSR as a degenerated worker's state. There was a split in the US section with Burnham, Shachtman, and Abern abandoning Soviet defensism. The excellent book, In Defense of Marxism came out of this fight. I recommend it.

Also, I think you have the point of this theory a bit inverted. A proletarian revolution can vanish over night if it is overthrown by a counterrevolution. The idea that it can evaporate because the leadership, without fundamentally changing the economic system, has bad policies is pure idealism.

[hetz]

Your "facts" are redolent of moralism, not Marxism. I guess the facts that China is much more powerful than Russia in every way probably don't have much to do with Marxism. Facts are facts.


Yo doubt you would have sided with "poor little Finland," in 1939, against the USSR, which was the "aggressor" in that battle.The USSR was undoubtedly the aggressor. Does anyone still question that?
And that aggression more than anything severely harmed the revolution in Finland. See: "Spirit of the Winter War"

[ind_com]

I guess the facts that China is much more powerful than Russia in every way probably don't have much to do with Marxism. Facts are facts.


Both China and Russia are imperialist countries. Hence there is no reason to support any of them, until the war takes places inside the national boundaries of one, and results in occupation of its lands by the other. Our main duty would be to call for the proletariat of both the countries to convert the imperialist war into revolutionary civil wars.

[hetz]

Both China and Russia are imperialist countries.Of course.


Hence there is no reason to support any of them, until the war takes places inside the national boundaries of one, and results in occupation of its lands by the other.That's what I said, but Russia cannot attack China, so such hypothetical war can only be a war of aggression by China.


Our main duty would be to call for the proletariat of both the countries to convert the imperialist war into revolutionary civil wars. Naturally.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade, can you show me the figures of private enterprise vs. state owned production? And while you are at it, can you break it down by industry. Is steel and energy production primarily private? How about transportation? It matters that key industries are nationalized. It doesn't mean that there is workers control or workers democracy. But it ain't capitalism -- or if it is it is a new type of capitalism

Private enterprise vs. state owner production doesn't matter at all. Most of these "nationalized" enterprise and industries and such are managed by party-affiliated capitalists, CEOS, millionaires, etc.


As for Preobrazhensky, I agree he was a great economist, and the ABCs of Communism is still a worthwhile read. There was a lot of confusion among the Bolsheviks as to what was going to happen after the revolution regarding organizing the economy. But I don't think anyone said that since we have wages, this is capitalism. In the transition to socialism after capitalism is defeated, there will probably be wage labor for a period of time. I don't think so comrade. Wage labour means that workers are selling their labour-power as a commodity to capitalists. If workers conquer power, the first thing they would do is abolish wage-labour if they know what's good for them.


But to clarify, you never thought that China was anything but capitalist -- so all this stuff about millionaires must be beside the point, right?I don't know what it was before the market reforms. Under Mao, the there was no capitalist class, let alone a capitalist class whose most influential members are high-ranking officials in the party! I don't think I'm sufficiently informed to say what the mode of production in China was before the "market reforms", but I think I'm sufficiently informed on modern China to caterogically state that it's definitely a capitalist country, with a very powerful capitalist class and a completely impotent proletariat completely at the mercy of the capitalists.



And I have no disagreement that the party is rife with bureaucratic leeches that are pro-capitalist. But a counterrevolution in China will be bloody and you will see the kind of falling off a cliff of the living standards of the population. You look at it and have a moralistic response. Hey Napoleon played a pretty negative role in the French Revolution. His armies were the aggressors against some of the old monarchies in Europe. Quick, which side represented progress?The party is not rife with bureaucratic leeches that are pro-capitalist. It's rife with actual capitalists. Capitalists that employ workers and make money off of capital. Capitalists that own the means of production. And these capitalists are some of the highest-ranking members of the party. Around a third of China's numerous millionaires are party members; in August 2012, there were 1,020,000 millionaires(and what, over 100 billionaires?) in China, that would mean that there are over 300,000 millionaires in the Chinese "Communist" Party!

This is simply ridiculous.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I guess the facts that China is much more powerful than Russia in every way probably don't have much to do with Marxism. Facts are facts.

The USSR was undoubtedly the aggressor. Does anyone still question that?
And that aggression more than anything severely harmed the revolution in Finland. See: "Spirit of the Winter War"
Well, that is my point. Marxists don't give a shit who the aggressor is. That is moralism. We are concerned with the class nature of the states that are fighting. As for whether China would attack Russia or vice versa what is the difference? I would defend China against the Russians. Before counterrevolution restored capitalism in Russia, hostilities between the countries was a much more complex issue.

Comrade Enferme, I am as impressed as you are with the wealth accrued by some of the Chinese bureaucrats. That this somehow changes the class nature of the state is not true. I agree that it is a bad thing. When did the counterrevolution take place, then? At which point did China become capitalist do you think?

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade, the fact that the Chinese state is governed by Chinese capitalists that have hoarded tens of billions of dollars does greatly impact the class nature of the state. This is undeniable. The combined wealth of 70 of the National People's Congress(the Chinese parliament) richest members is 90 billion dollars. The combined wealth of the all 535 members of the US Congress is 2.04 billion dollars.

As for counterrevolution, what do you mean? There was never a socialist revolution in China to begin with. There was a Civil War, in which Mao's peasant and petty-bourgeoisie based army won. The proletariat had absolutely nothing to do with it. Then you had a dictatorship of these Chinese Stalinists, which makes bourgeoisie democracy look like a utopia. Then you had Dengist market reform.

What does the proletariat and the proletariat's world-historical mission, socialism, have to do with any of it? I'm confused.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Comrade, the fact that the Chinese state is governed by Chinese capitalists that have hoarded tens of billions of dollars does greatly impact the class nature of the state. This is undeniable. The combined wealth of 70 of the National People's Congress(the Chinese parliament) richest members is 90 billion dollars. The combined wealth of the all 535 members of the US Congress is 2.04 billion dollars.

As for counterrevolution, what do you mean? There was never a socialist revolution in China to begin with. There was a Civil War, in which Mao's peasant and petty-bourgeoisie based army won. The proletariat had absolutely nothing to do with it. Then you had a dictatorship of these Chinese Stalinists, which makes bourgeoisie democracy look like a utopia. Then you had Dengist market reform.

What does the proletariat and the proletariat's world-historical mission, socialism, have to do with any of it? I'm confused.
The Chinese bourgeoisie were expropriated -- industry and finance were nationalized, a monopoly of foreign trade was established. That has a lot to do with it -- although, of course, it was never socialism or anything close. It was a huge victory for the Chinese peasants and workers. This was a peasant based Stalinist party that took power and instituted the dictatorship of the proletariat, while maintaining political power. Was Mao a capitalist? Was Deng? I don't think so. The bloated Stalinist slime that currently lead the CCP will ultimately be swept aside. By either political revolution, or counterrevolution that restores capitalism. BTW, it will look different than in the USSR because their actually is an extant Chinese bourgeoisie. The Russian bourgeoisie was dead by the time of the counterrevolution.

What was your view of the USSR?

[Grenzer]

The Chinese bourgeoisie were never expropriated fully as a class. Even during the peak of the Cultural Revolution, 20% of industry remained within privately owned hands with the surplus value of labor going to capitalist accumulation.

The class nature of the CCP ceased to be proletarian in 1927; it then became primarily based in the peasantry with a petit-bourgeois leadership. The proletariat simply had nothing to do with it. You cannot institute a proletarian dictatorship through a party that is not proletarian. This is simply common sense.

There can be no counter-revolution in China that restores capitalism, as what exists now is capitalism. What would take place in China would ultimately be a political revolution: one section of the bourgeoisie overthrowing another in order to have a state form that is less cumbersome to themselves.

The CCP today is a bourgeois party. It is headed by CEOs, factory owners, and the like. Private ownership exists in China. The bourgeois appropriate the surplus value of labor in capitalist accumulation, reinvest, and so on. It functions more or less identically to other bourgeois states. There is higher state involvement, but it remains a bourgeois state as the fundamental laws of capitalism remain in operation.

The Sparts and their hangers on have a terrible track record with this kind of thing. In 1993, they were still talking about "Defending the gains of the October Revolution" in Russia.

You yourself admit there is a Chinese bourgeoisie. It is a complete negation of all the features of the USSR that Trotsky argued made it worth defending.

Here are two illuminating Mao quotes:


Not only we do not hinder the private economic activity, but on the contrary we encourage and stimulate it, if the owners of private enterprises do not violate the laws promulgated by the government, because the development of the private economy now is necessary, it is in the interests of the state and the people


The labour legislation of the People’s Republic defends the interests of the workers, but it is not directed against the enrichment of the national bourgeoisie... for this development is not in the interest of imperialism, but in the interest of the Chinese people

Again, this quote clearly highlights the petit-bourgeois, populist nature of the Chinese ideology and state. There is absolutely nothing proletarian about the regime in China. The initial regime established by Mao was primarily Bonapartist in nature, trying to mediate the interests of the different classes which included the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie. This is especially highlighted by the drivel about the "bloc of four classes". With Mao's death, the balance decisively shifted in favor of the bourgeoisie, which have remained in control of the state ever since.

As it stands, those who support China are supporting an actually existing imperialist power. They're spreading their tendrils across Africa now, much as the young imperialist United States did in Latin America a century ago. There is no practical difference between the ostensible Trotskyists who support China and the Brezhnevites of the CPUSA.

[Paul Cockshott]

What are the dates of those quotes?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The Chinese bourgeoisie were never expropriated fully as a class. Even during the peak of the Cultural Revolution, 20% of industry remained within privately owned hands with the surplus value of labor going to capitalist accumulation.

The class nature of the CCP ceased to be proletarian in 1927; it then became primarily based in the peasantry with a petit-bourgeois leadership. The proletariat simply had nothing to do with it. You cannot institute a proletarian dictatorship through a party that is not proletarian. This is simply common sense.

There can be no counter-revolution in China that restores capitalism, as what exists now is capitalism. What would take place in China would ultimately be a political revolution: one section of the bourgeoisie overthrowing another in order to have a state form that is less cumbersome to themselves.

The CCP today is a bourgeois party. It is headed by CEOs, factory owners, and the like. Private ownership exists in China. The bourgeois appropriate the surplus value of labor in capitalist accumulation, reinvest, and so on. It functions more or less identically to other bourgeois states. There is higher state involvement, but it remains a bourgeois state as the fundamental laws of capitalism remain in operation.

The Sparts and their hangers on have a terrible track record with this kind of thing. In 1993, they were still talking about "Defending the gains of the October Revolution" in Russia.

You yourself admit there is a Chinese bourgeoisie. It is a complete negation of all the features of the USSR that Trotsky argued made it worth defending.

Here are two illuminating Mao quotes:





Again, this quote clearly highlights the petit-bourgeois, populist nature of the Chinese ideology and state. There is absolutely nothing proletarian about the regime in China. The initial regime established by Mao was primarily Bonapartist in nature, trying to mediate the interests of the different classes which included the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie. This is especially highlighted by the drivel about the "bloc of four classes". With Mao's death, the balance decisively shifted in favor of the bourgeoisie, which have remained in control of the state ever since.

As it stands, those who support China are supporting an actually existing imperialist power. They're spreading their tendrils across Africa now, much as the young imperialist United States did in Latin America a century ago. There is no practical difference between the ostensible Trotskyists who support China and the Brezhnevites of the CPUSA.

Excuse me, comrade. Did Mao and his minions expropriate the bourgeoisie or not? Was the vast majority of capital in China in the hands of the state by the mid 50s? Of course it was/is a bonapartist regime -- absolutely. But you are buying what Mao was saying. The bloc of four classes is not only drivel, but it is impossible. It couldn't happen. Mao tried to form a coalition, but the bourgeoisie wouldn't play nicely. They fled and hoped to regain power with the help of the US. They still do.

The Sparts date the counterrevolution before 1993. In 1993 there was no USSR to defend. As for it being the same as Brezhnevites -- that is silly. The SL condemns the anti-Marxist Chinese leadership in no uncertain terms and has done so dating back to it's inception. I suspect you know that and are just engaging in hyperbole, as is your wont.

Your position is consistent. Since there wasn't really a Chinese Revolution that overthrew capitalism, there was never much to defend. It's consistent, and wrong.

[thälmann]

is it possible that what mao did in the first years of the prc concerning middle and small private capital is exactly the same as what lenin did in the 20s? the only differene is that china was much mor backward and oppressed by imperialism, which makes such policy much more necessary then in the SU.

by the way the last interest payment on private owners was stopped in 66 in china, this interest payment was the only form of capitalist ownership since the late 50s.

[hetz]

Well, that is my point. Marxists don't give a shit who the aggressor is. That is moralism.No, moralism would be saying that the USSR shouldn't have intervened in Poland in 1939 and violate the borders of the poor Polish "Republic".
Saying that the USSR shouldn't have attacked Finland for some swamps, because that would destroy and discredit the revolutionary movement in Finland for decades to come is not moralism.
And yeah, Marxists usually oppose imperialist aggression.


As for whether China would attack Russia or vice versa what is the difference? The difference is that Russia cannot possibly attack China.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

is it possible that what mao did in the first years of the prc concerning middle and small private capital is exactly the same as what lenin did in the 20s? the only differene is that china was much mor backward and oppressed by imperialism, which makes such policy much more necessary then in the SU.


This essentially.

How do you nationalize the means of production without any means of production to nationalize?

[hetz]

How do you nationalize the means of production without any means of production to nationalize?
I don't know, but Pol Pot managed to pull it off.
:laugh:

[jookyle]

No, Marx never identified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism.

Actually, it's not unfair to say that Lenin's definition of the lower phase of Communism, which he refers to as socialism, and Marx's placement of the DotP are more or less the same.


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx- Critique of the Gotha Program

This is not really so different from the circumstances in which Lenin says the lower phase of communism exists. I hate to post the entire section where this is quite clear in Lenin's writing but I think it's the only to do it justice and shows how Lenin himself made the connection.


In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.

Instead of Lassalle's hazy, obscure, general phrase ("the full product of his labor to the worker"), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the Light of Day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.

Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.
Lenin-The State and Revolution

Both are the period between capitalism and communism. Lenin simply goes into the situation in a bit more detail than Marx did.

[Ostrinski]

What appeal are people in the west supposed to draw from Maoism?

[hetz]

http://revcom.us/i/bacommun.jpg

[ind_com]

What appeal are people in the west supposed to draw from Maoism?

A clear military line for revolution, that does not project the revolution indefinitely into the future.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No, moralism would be saying that the USSR shouldn't have intervened in Poland in 1939 and violate the borders of the poor Polish "Republic".
Saying that the USSR shouldn't have attacked Finland for some swamps, because that would destroy and discredit the revolutionary movement in Finland for decades to come is not moralism.
And yeah, Marxists usually oppose imperialist aggression.

The difference is that Russia cannot possibly attack China.

I'm glad your crystal ball is working so well regarding the relations of China and Russia:laugh:. As for Finland vs. Poland, you are talking about outcome. In both cases you had hostile capitalist countries on the border of the USSR -- while it would not have been correct strategy to attack these countries, once the battle was joined the class nature of the state's was the essential factor, not whether it would alienate people. If the USSR had defeated Finland and subsequently overturned capitalism that would have been positive in the historical sense. That is what Trotsky defended. And that is what the petite bourgeois opposition ran away from.

[l'Enfermé]

^I hope Messieurs Maoists will forgive us Marxists for not confusing a military rebellion of peasants lead by petty-bourgeoisie pseudo-communists with Proletarian Revolution.

As Marx said, parties do not make revolutions, Nations do. We are horrified by the notion of peasant armies forcing the nation to "make" a revolution through military force. And rightly so.

[hetz]

I'm glad your crystal ball is working so well regarding the relations of China and RussiaIf Russia cannot attack China now then it will be even less "competitive" in the future, because China is getting stronger every day and Russia isn't. All well known facts.


If the USSR had defeated Finland and subsequently overturned capitalism that would have been positive in the historical sense. That is what Trotsky defendedTrotsky defended "exporting revolution" by force, building socialism on tops of bayonettes?

[ind_com]

^I hope Messieurs Maoists will forgive us Marxists for not confusing a military rebellion of peasants lead by petty-bourgeoisie pseudo-communists with Proletarian Revolution.

As Marx said, parties do not make revolutions, Nations do. We are horrified by the notion of peasant armies forcing the nation to "make" a revolution through military force. And rightly so.

Of course you'll be horrified by any revolution! Because each military action in a revolution is a blow to the imperialist capital you support by disguising yourself as a Marxist and spewing reactionary bullshit.

[l'Enfermé]

Maoist logic: You're a fake Marxist if you adhere to Marx's ideas, but you're a Marxist if you discard the Marxist conception of what consitutes a class and the Marxist attitude towards the peasantry, if you equate proletarian revolution to peasant army rebellion and force the nation to revolution through military force.

Makes sense. By your definition of what a Marxist is and what a reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxist is, Marx, Engels, Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, Karl Kautsky and Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, Daniel De Leone, Georgi Plekhanov, Zetkin, Mehring, Lafargue, Connolly, Trotsky and even Stalin and so many others were reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxists. The only Marxists, then, are Maoists. The same Marxists that openly discard and revise most of Marxism and fail to comprehend even slightly the rest.

Hear ye! comrades, the only true Marxism is petty-bourgeois Maoist populist-Bonopartism. Hear and learn! Proletarians do not make proletarian revolutions, peasant guerrilla armies lead by petty-bourgeois intellectuals make proletarian revolutions!

[ind_com]

Maoist logic: You're a fake Marxist if you adhere to Marx's ideas, but you're a Marxist if you discard the Marxist conception of what consitutes a class and the Marxist attitude towards the peasantry, if you equate proletarian revolution to peasant army rebellion and force the nation to revolution through military force.

Makes sense. By your definition of what a Marxist is and what a reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxist is, Marx, Engels, Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, Karl Kautsky and Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, Daniel De Leone, Georgi Plekhanov, Zetkin, Mehring, Lafargue, Connolly, Trotsky and even Stalin and so many others were reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxists. The only Marxists, then, are Maoists. The same Marxists that openly discard and revise most of Marxism and fail to comprehend even slightly the rest.

Marxism is shaped by class struggle in its various phases in history, summing up their experience. Marx's ideas were suited most for Western Europe of his time, which made him the real leader of the Paris Commune. Lenin, Stalin, and for a brief period, Trotsky, served the world revolution by leading the class struggle in Russia. They deviated from orthodox Marxism by following Leninist vanguardism, but that made them no less Marxist than Marx himself. Luxemburg, Liebknecht perished in their attempt to conduct insurrections, following the Marxist line of revolutionary practice. Such is the glorious revolutionary history of Marxism.

Today, all the other branches of Marxism, other than Maoism, have been rendered unable to lead any revolution anymore, as demonstrated by their failure to do so for more than half a century. At this point in history, where the material conditions keep insurrections of the old models from happening, some pseudo-communists are cunningly using Marx's ideas suited for his time and continent, to attack the Maoist revolutions, which are the Marxist revolutions of today. They advice the victorious proletariat of a single country to quit the revolution, they label the peasantry oppressed by imperialism as reactionary, and all this they do in the name of Marxism. They themselves claim to be Marxists, while they sit in their safe perches in imperialist centers, away from the class wars of the neo-colonies, away from even the class struggles of the workers in imperialist countries, only enjoying the benefits of colonial oppression. These are the worst parasites that the society has ever borne, because they disguise themselves as well-wishers of the working-class, and make sure that no revolution happens anywhere due to their practical liquidationism. But with the intensification of class struggle all over the world today, it is easily understood that these wolves in sheepskins will be eventually exposed politically by none other than the proletarians of the imperialist countries themselves, and thrown into the garbage-bin of history.


Hear ye! comrades, the only true Marxism is petty-bourgeois Maoist populist-Bonopartism. Hear and learn! Proletarians do not make proletarian revolutions, peasant guerrilla armies lead by petty-bourgeois intellectuals make proletarian revolutions!

Nope! Only some petty-bourgeois motherfuckers living in the centers of imperialism and dissociating Marxism from all reality make proletarian revolutions.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

If Russia cannot attack China now then it will be even less "competitive" in the future, because China is getting stronger every day and Russia isn't. All well known facts.

Trotsky defended "exporting revolution" by force, building socialism on tops of bayonettes?
The facts notwithstanding, you can't say with certainty what will or will not happen regarding Russia and the PRC. Neither can anyone else. My guess is that they will not have a war with each other as neither country would have much to gain from it.

Trotsky did not advocate imposing revolution through bayonets, as the phrase goes. However, he militarily defended the USSR and noted that if they defeated the Finnish bourgeoisie and overthrew capitalism there, it would be a victory for the world proletariat. It is not a simple position, comrade. It comes from the Trotskyist concept of "military defense." Defending the USSR, or the PRC because of the economic and social structure of these countries while at the same time opposing the Stalinist political leadership.

[thälmann]

Maoist logic: You're a fake Marxist if you adhere to Marx's ideas, but you're a Marxist if you discard the Marxist conception of what consitutes a class and the Marxist attitude towards the peasantry, if you equate proletarian revolution to peasant army rebellion and force the nation to revolution through military force.

Makes sense. By your definition of what a Marxist is and what a reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxist is, Marx, Engels, Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, Karl Kautsky and Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, Daniel De Leone, Georgi Plekhanov, Zetkin, Mehring, Lafargue, Connolly, Trotsky and even Stalin and so many others were reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxists. The only Marxists, then, are Maoists. The same Marxists that openly discard and revise most of Marxism and fail to comprehend even slightly the rest.

Hear ye! comrades, the only true Marxism is petty-bourgeois Maoist populist-Bonopartism. Hear and learn! Proletarians do not make proletarian revolutions, peasant guerrilla armies lead by petty-bourgeois intellectuals make proletarian revolutions!

i dont know if youre joking or beeing serious, but...

concerning marx and the peasents: marx saw the peasents not as the revolutionary class( which ius the working class), and did talk about their reactionary role in france. but on the other side he always mentioned that a proletarian revolution cant happen against the small farmers, in europe. engels said that the proletarian revolution would include some kind of peasent war.( in germany) and so on.....it seems like exaxtly what lenin, stalin and mao said about it.

concerning PPW in feudal countries: you know that the majority there are peasents, so to talk of a peasent army force the nation and so on is...bullshit?

i mean the whole thing is so simple: in the oppressed countries, the peasetns are the majority of the population, and the biggest oppressed class. but they cant, for several known reasons, lead the revolution, which is the task of the working class. the most revolutionary class in every country, lead by a communist party.

this was never different by marx,lenin,stalin and mao.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

i dont know if youre joking or beeing serious, but...

concerning marx and the peasents: marx saw the peasents not as the revolutionary class( which ius the working class), and did talk about their reactionary role in france. but on the other side he always mentioned that a proletarian revolution cant happen against the small farmers, in europe. engels said that the proletarian revolution would include some kind of peasent war.( in germany) and so on.....it seems like exaxtly what lenin, stalin and mao said about it.

concerning PPW in feudal countries: you know that the majority there are peasents, so to talk of a peasent army force the nation and so on is...bullshit?

i mean the whole thing is so simple: in the oppressed countries, the peasetns are the majority of the population, and the biggest oppressed class. but they cant, for several known reasons, lead the revolution, which is the task of the working class. the most revolutionary class in every country, lead by a communist party.

this was never different by marx,lenin,stalin and mao.

Basically what he said. Thanks.

[Art Vandelay]

Marxism is shaped by class struggle in its various phases in history, summing up their experience. Marx's ideas were suited most for Western Europe of his time, which made him the real leader of the Paris Commune. Lenin, Stalin, and for a brief period, Trotsky, served the world revolution by leading the class struggle in Russia. They deviated from orthodox Marxism by following Leninist vanguardism, but that made them no less Marxist than Marx himself. Luxemburg, Liebknecht perished in their attempt to conduct insurrections, following the Marxist line of revolutionary practice. Such is the glorious revolutionary history of Marxism.

False, but okay the rest sounds alright.


Today, all the other branches of Marxism, other than Maoism, have been rendered unable to lead any revolution anymore, as demonstrated by their failure to do so for more than half a century.

Yeah because the reasons we haven't had revolutions in half a century is because we haven't yet engaged in PPW in the heart of imperialist countries and not material conditions. :rolleyes: Do you have any idea what a revolutionary period in history is? We are not just witnessing the stirrings of a new one, after one of the longest period of reaction in capitalist history, where the global bourgeoisie has been able to further exert their hegemony and strengthen capital.


At this point in history, where the material conditions keep insurrections of the old models from happening, some pseudo-communists are cunningly using Marx's ideas suited for his time and continent, to attack the Maoist revolutions, which are the Marxist revolutions of today.

Your class collaborationist bullshit ideology continually sells out the working class whenever their guerrilla campaigns have succeeded in taking state power.


They advice the victorious proletariat of a single country to quit the revolution,

Just because we don't abandon the Marxist conviction of internationalism, by adopting the anti-Marxist notion that socialism can exist within the confines of a state, means we tell the victorious proletariat of a single nation to quit the revolution? Ad hominem.


they label the peasantry oppressed by imperialism as reactionary,

No we don't, we simply understand the historic task which falls to the proletariat.


and all this they do in the name of Marxism.

Indeed, cause it is Marxism.


They themselves claim to be Marxists, while they sit in their safe perches in imperialist centers, away from the class wars of the neo-colonies, away from even the class struggles of the workers in imperialist countries, only enjoying the benefits of colonial oppression.

Why do I feel like your a kid enjoying the comfort of his parents house somewhere in a first world nation.


These are the worst parasites that the society has ever borne, because they disguise themselves as well-wishers of the working-class, and make sure that no revolution happens anywhere due to their practical liquidationism. But with the intensification of class struggle all over the world today, it is easily understood that these wolves in sheepskins will be eventually exposed politically by none other than the proletarians of the imperialist countries themselves, and thrown into the garbage-bin of history.

The maoists will end up where they belong, the dustbin of history.


Nope! Only some petty-bourgeois motherfuckers living in the centers of imperialism and dissociating Marxism from all reality make proletarian revolutions.

Do you know what petty-bourgeois is? It entails a specific relation to the means of production, it isn't some slur. Somehow I doubt many, if any, of the posters on revleft are small business owners.

[hetz]

It entails a specific relation to the means of production, it isn't some slur. Not necessarily. If you read Lenin he often uses it as a slur.
You can disposses the petty-bourgeoisie of their miserable "property", but many of them will still remain Kleinburgers in their outlook and worldviews.

[Let's Get Free]

Today, all the other branches of Marxism, other than Maoism, have been rendered unable to lead any revolution anymore, as demonstrated by their failure to do so for more than half a century.

The Maoist insurgencies in India, Peru, Philippines are absolutely doomed to failure. Maoism is incapable of leading a revolution anywhere. Just look at Mao's legacy- China. Is it something to be emulated, or another capitalist, imperialist state to be struggled against?

[ind_com]

The Maoist insurgencies in India, Peru, Philippines are absolutely doomed to failure. Maoism is incapable of leading a revolution anywhere.

Sorry, at least the Indian movement is showing no signs of conforming to your wet dreams. It is only advancing despite the state-onslaught.


Just look at Mao's legacy- China. Is it something to be emulated, or another capitalist, imperialist state to be struggled against?

The CPC of today is a product of capitalist restoration in China, and it is openly against Mao's line. They denounce the achievements of socialist China under Mao.

[Let's Get Free]

The CPC of today is a product of capitalist restoration in China, and it is openly against Mao's line. They denounce the achievements of socialist China under Mao.

In China, the Communists smashed the old feudal state and created a new ‘workers state’. However, Deng Xiaoping and his successors seem quite able to use the ‘workers state’ for capitalism. How?

Why did the masses seem unable to tell the difference between the revolutionary line of Mao Zedong and the gang of four, and the revisionist line of Deng Xiaoping?

Could it be that Chinese revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and not proletarian revolution?

[ind_com]

In China, the Communists smashed the old feudal state and created a new ‘workers state’. However, Deng Xiaoping and his successors seem quite able to use the ‘workers state’ for capitalism. How?

Because they have changed the key-principles on which the worker's state functioned. It is not a worker's state anymore.


Why did the masses seem unable to tell the difference between the revolutionary line of Mao Zedong and the gang of four, and the revisionist line of Deng Xiaoping?

Could it be that Chinese revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and not proletarian revolution?

Actually many Chinese people who had lived through the socialist-era do differentiate between the two. It is not easy to identify a capitalist restoration as soon as it takes place, specially when the chief organization for class struggle falls.

[ind_com]

False, but okay the rest sounds alright. So, Lenin was an orthodox Marxist?


Yeah because the reasons we haven't had revolutions in half a century is because we haven't yet engaged in PPW in the heart of imperialist countries and not material conditions. :rolleyes: Do you have any idea what a revolutionary period in history is? We are not just witnessing the stirrings of a new one, after one of the longest period of reaction in capitalist history, where the global bourgeoisie has been able to further exert their hegemony and strengthen capital.

Yes, keep hiding behind that same old excuse of material conditions. And your ilk will not be able to do anything even in this 'new' revolutionary period.


Your class collaborationist bullshit ideology continually sells out the working class whenever their guerrilla campaigns have succeeded in taking state power.

That is only a false accusation by your kind that serve the interests of imperialism by attacking revolutionary from a pseudo-Marxist point of view.


Just because we don't abandon the Marxist conviction of internationalism, by adopting the anti-Marxist notion that socialism can exist within the confines of a state, means we tell the victorious proletariat of a single nation to quit the revolution? Ad hominem.

Internationalism is not the same as the defeatism that you advocate. I am asking you again, what is your plan for the victorious proletariat of a single country?


No we don't, we simply understand the historic task which falls to the proletariat.



Indeed, cause it is Marxism.

Liberalism actually.


Why do I feel like your a kid enjoying the comfort of his parents house somewhere in a first world nation.

May be because you're one yourself.


The maoists will end up where they belong, the dustbin of history.

All reactionaries wish that, but instead end up there themselves.

[Let's Get Free]

Because they have changed the key-principles on which the worker's state functioned. It is not a worker's state anymore.

It takes a revolution or a counterrevolution to overthrow a 'workers state.' Socialism is not a matter of policy. It is concerned fundamentally with who owns the means of production. Marxists do not subscribe to the Great Man notion of judging a regime by who happens to be in office. A capitalist state does not become less capitalist just because a social democrat happens to be prime minister or president. Similarly, a socialist regime does not become capitalist just because Deng Xiao Ping is in power rather than Mao.


Actually many Chinese people who had lived through the socialist-era do differentiate between the two. It is not easy to identify a capitalist restoration as soon as it takes place, specially when the chief organization for class struggle falls.

The experience of the 20th century showed profoundly that state-capitalist regimes are inherently unstable and invariably lapse back into "traditional" capitalism as soon as extreme circumstances dictating their emergence disappear. Also, it should be noted that the victory of Mao's peasant armies was accomplished without independent political participation of the Chinese proletariat. Mao's forces suppressed independent workers' organizations, put trade unions under police control, jailed and killed socialist militants. They especially hunted out and destroyed the Trotskyist organizations.

[ind_com]

It takes a revolution or a counterrevolution to overthrow a 'workers state.' Socialism is not a matter of policy. It is concerned fundamentally with who owns the means of production. Marxists do not subscribe to the Great Man notion of judging a regime by who happens to be in office. A capitalist state does not become less capitalist just because a social democrat happens to be prime minister or president. Similarly, a socialist regime does not become capitalist just because Deng Xiao Ping is in power rather than Mao.

A counter-revolution might not be as visible as a revolution. Due to uneven development in capitalism, socialism is initiated with the overthrowal of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, under the leadership of a vanguard. The proletariat controls the socialist state through the vanguard. So, if the vanguard itself degenerates, then it suffices for them to change some policies and arrest those who are still loyal to the proletariat. This is essentially a counter-revolution.


The experience of the 20th century showed profoundly that state-capitalist regimes are inherently unstable and invariably lapse back into "traditional" capitalism as soon as extreme circumstances dictating their emergence disappear. Also, it should be noted that the victory of Mao's peasant armies was accomplished without independent political participation of the Chinese proletariat.

What exactly do you mean by 'independent' political participation of the proletariat? The proletariat was mainly inside the Communist Party and its organizations.


Mao's forces suppressed independent workers' organizations, put trade unions under police control, jailed and killed socialist militants. They especially hunted out and destroyed the Trotskyist organizations.

Please mention some specific examples of these.

[Let's Get Free]

A counter-revolution might not be as visible as a revolution. Due to uneven development in capitalism, socialism is initiated with the overthrowal of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, under the leadership of a vanguard. The proletariat controls the socialist state through the vanguard. So, if the vanguard itself degenerates, then it suffices for them to change some policies and arrest those who are still loyal to the proletariat. This is essentially a counter-revolution.


If the masses were so unable to tell the revolution from the supposed counterrevolution, that can only mean one thing. The Chinese revolution was a bourgeois one! If there was a counterrevolution that restored capitalism, Marxists would expect a lot more violence. A struggle between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary factions that was carried on in the open, rather than behind the closed doors of a CC meeting room. A complete party purge, like those that occurred in the thirties in the USSR, if the struggle happened within the party, perhaps. If Deng really led a counterrevolution that (immediately or eventually) restored capitalism, you would expect the proletariat China to defend socialism, rather than take capitalist reforms lying down, as they apparently did. To say otherwise is, as the phrase goes, rolling the film of reformism in reverse. Were there no proletarians left in the party willing to defend socialism?




What exactly do you mean by 'independent' political participation of the proletariat? The proletariat was mainly inside the Communist Party and its organizations.

The fact is that an active proletariat had very little to do with the actual revolution in 1949 or the character of the state established afterwards. Workers did not make up a significant section of the CPC, and played no role in the actual consolidation of state power under the CPC. Mao believed socialism could be achieved on behalf of the working class by a peasant army, instead of through the self-activity of workers--a fundamental tenet of Marxism.


Please mention some specific examples of these.

In the early 50s, the Chinese proletariat were resorting to the classical strike weapon. But the country's legislation was directed against the self-activity of the working class. Behind the thin facade of the so-called 'dictatorship of the proletariat' could be found, the features of capitalism. In 1952 the Chinese unions were purged of officials who, it was stated, 'allowed themselves to be led too much by the workers', i.e. who 'showed too much concern over the workers living standards', or who 'proved overzealous in ensuring workers' rights'. Meetings were called at which attacks were made on those who 'failed to understand that, while strikes are necessary in a capitalist country, they are superfluous in a socialist state'. A campaign was launched against 'laxity in labor discipline.'

Or what about the young man, by the name of Yang Xiguang. He was an 18 year old high school student. He composed a short essay that made him famous across China—and led to his imprisonment for the next ten years. What gave rise to his notoriety was his proclamation that the major conflict in China was not between Mao’s supporters and enemies, nor between China’s
proletariat and the former wealthy, but rather between a “red capitalist class”

Or perhaps the most interesting case, along with the short lived Shanghai Commune, before the army marched in, was the Shengwulian current in Mao's own Hunan province. The workers and students there who had produced a series of documents that became famous throughout China, analyzing the country as being under the control of a “new bureaucratic ruling class.” The Shengwulian militants disguised their viewpoint with bows to the “thought of Mao tse-tung” and “Marxism-Leninism,” but their texts were read throughout China, and at the top levels of the party itself, where they were clearly recognized for what they were: a fundamental challenge to both factions in power. They were mercilessly crushed.

[thälmann]

on the one hand it is clear that sometimes the shortterm interests are against the longterm interests of the proletariat and the revolution, concerning wages etc. of course certain actions of workers can be harmful to the revolution...nothing new.it has all to do with the political consciousness of the workers.a strike for higher wages in a socialist state CAN be wrong from the interests of the proletariat

but generally it should be mentioned that the right to strike was given as a product of the GPCR...

[Paul Cockshott]

It takes a revolution or a counterrevolution to overthrow a 'workers state.' Socialism is not a matter of policy. It is concerned fundamentally with who owns the means of production.

Well since the Deng period there was a big change in property relations, decollectivisation in the countryside, the expansion of the class of private capitalists, the opening of factories owned by foreign firms, the creation of stock markets.




Marxists do not subscribe to the Great Man notion of judging a regime by who happens to be in office. A capitalist state does not become less capitalist just because a social democrat happens to be prime minister or president. Similarly, a socialist regime does not become capitalist just because Deng Xiao Ping is in power rather than Mao

Political power is the key. And a capitalist country can become less capitalist when social democratic governments stay in power over a prolonged period.

What is crucial is the army and the state machine. A socialist government comming to power can make substantial changes in property relations, whether these are enough to totally change the economy depends on whether they have control over the means of coercion. Gottwald could do more than Atlee for this reason.

Deng was not in a position to carry out a total reversion to private capitalism even had he wanted to do so, since the state machine would not have tolerated this then. But he did set in train a policy of gradual expansion of the capitalist sector and a corresponding strengthening of the bourgeois class and its influence and control over the state. The struggle over the degree of privatisation continues, and over time the capitalist interests have grown stronger.

[Art Vandelay]

So, Lenin was an orthodox Marxist?

Indeed he was.


Yes, keep hiding behind that same old excuse of material conditions. And your ilk will not be able to do anything even in this 'new' revolutionary period.

So material conditions mean nothing to you? Thanks for letting us all know you're materialism is bullshit. There are certain criteria for what constitutes a revolutionary situation and they are not always present.


That is only a false accusation by your kind that serve the interests of imperialism by attacking revolutionary from a pseudo-Marxist point of view.

Prove me wrong, where are all the shinning examples?


Internationalism is not the same as the defeatism that you advocate. I am asking you again, what is your plan for the victorious proletariat of a single country?

There is plenty the proletariat can do (in terms of agitation, material support, guidance,etc) once they have successfully seized state power; however, ultimately we as Marxists know, that the establishment of socialism depends on the success of the international revolution, the global civil war.


Liberalism actually.

Coming from a Maoist (a tendency which holds class collaboration as one of its corner stones) I almost consider that a compliment.


May be because you're one yourself.

I'm not a kid, but I have also never denied where I live.

[Grenzer]

A counter-revolution might not be as visible as a revolution. Due to uneven development in capitalism, socialism is initiated with the overthrowal of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, under the leadership of a vanguard. The proletariat controls the socialist state through the vanguard. So, if the vanguard itself degenerates, then it suffices for them to change some policies and arrest those who are still loyal to the proletariat. This is essentially a counter-revolution.

Perhaps by the standards of your vulgarized materialist-cum-idealist views, but not by the standards of a scientific, Marxist analysis.

We recognize that it is the class basis of a state and the extant relations of production that define the nature of a country, not based on whether the leadership is adhering to your infantile, nationalistic conception of socialism.

Agricultural decollectivization is irrelevant in this, unless one would also classify Poland and several other Eastern European states as capitalist as well. Industry remained almost entirely within the hands of the state until the 1990's, so if China had suddenly been capitalist when Deng came to power, then it certainly was when Mao was in charge as well.

If opposition to Deng and ending support to China is to be justified on grounds that policies were being pursued that would lead to an ordinary, Western style capitalism, then we would also have to oppose Mao, Stalin, and all of the ostensibly socialist countries. The working class was not in charge in any of those states, as no organs existed for the working class to independently assert its will as a class for itself outside of the narrow confines of a reactionary bureaucracy(whom some may classify as bourgeois themselves, but that is beyond the scope of this thread).

Maoism is just as irrelevant as the rest of the left is. All that remains are a few kooky cults, bourgeois liberals(Nepal), and thugs who espouse individualistic terrorism(Peru and India).

Bring on the glorious Maoist vanguard which will lead the proletariat to victory, just like the previous dozens of clubs and sects!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

If opposition to Deng and ending support to China is to be justified on grounds that policies were being pursued that would lead to an ordinary, Western style capitalism, then we would also have to oppose Mao, Stalin, and all of the ostensibly socialist countries. The working class was not in charge in any of those states, as no organs existed for the working class to independently assert its will as a class for itself outside of the narrow confines of a reactionary bureaucracy(whom some may classify as bourgeois themselves, but that is beyond the scope of this thread).

Actually Mao's China during the cultural revolution did allow for a fair amount of public participation in the political process, although this was not in the form of standard democracy. However I do agree that this is a problem with most historically "socialist" countries, its just that Mao's China allowed for far more public participation in it's politics that pretty much every other socialist country that has existed so far. I'd recommend that you read the paper that TheGodlessUtopian has linked.



Maoism is just as irrelevant as the rest of the left is. All that remains are a few kooky cults, bourgeois liberals(Nepal), and thugs who espouse individualistic terrorism(Peru and India).

Bring on the glorious Maoist vanguard which will lead the proletariat to victory, just like the previous dozens of clubs and sects!
Just as irrelevant as the rest of the left? Please tell me about all of the glorious moments Trotskyism/Left communism has ever been a significant threat to the state. Now contrast that to India's and The Philiphine's Maoist movement that has actually managed to abolish state power in areas of the country.

And I'm not going to even bother engaging with that whole "terrorist" rhetoric, Marx was a terrorist, he advocated revolutionary terror against the rich. But the way you're using it is no different than the way the USA uses it to justify it's war and Britain uses it to discredit the IRA. Don't let your perception of actual movements to overthrow state power be blinded by this outlook. Yes, we should always criticize human rights abuses but we must remember that the capitalist system is far worse than any so called terrorist movements and that it is morally right to rebel, not to sit back and to wait until others do it for you.

[ind_com]

Indeed he was.Nope.




So material conditions mean nothing to you? Thanks for letting us all know you're materialism is bullshit. There are certain criteria for what constitutes a revolutionary situation and they are not always present.

The very existence of decaying capitalism is enough for its overthrowal, with the necessary subjective conditions present. Waiting for other material conditions is just an excuse for failure to achieve anything.


Prove me wrong, where are all the shinning examples?

You are one.


There is plenty the proletariat can do (in terms of agitation, material support, guidance,etc) once they have successfully seized state power; however, ultimately we as Marxists know, that the establishment of socialism depends on the success of the international revolution, the global civil war.

The proletariat can do all that without the leadership of your tendency and because of your pseudo-communism you will never be among the revolutionary proletariat anywhere; neither in the third world nor in any imperialist country. You'll just whine about how actual revolutions do not exactly fit into your hypotheses and denounce them.


Coming from a Maoist (a tendency which holds class collaboration as one of its corner stones) I almost consider that a compliment.

I'm not a kid, but I have also never denied where I live.

Fuck off.

[Art Vandelay]

Nope.

Hmmm, strangely compelling.....


The very existence of decaying capitalism is enough for its overthrowal, with the necessary subjective conditions present. Waiting for other material conditions is just an excuse for failure to achieve anything.

A revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat is needed to pose a serious threat to state power, we can't just produce one out of thin air.


You are one.

What the fuck does that even mean? I was asking for an example of where your Maoists have successfully taken state power and then used it to do anything else other than class collaboration and sell out the working class?


The proletariat can do all that without the leadership of your tendency

Never claimed they couldn't, the emancipation of the proletariat must be the work of the proletariat themselves after all. We want the party constituted as a class for itself.


and because of your pseudo-communism you will never be among the revolutionary proletariat anywhere;

Given my relationship to the means of production, I will be apart of revolutionary proletariat. You seriously arguing which sides of the barricades I'll be on? You can fuck right off with your strawmen, you suck at debating.


neither in the third world nor in any imperialist country. You'll just whine about how actual revolutions do not exactly fit into your hypotheses and denounce them.

Actual "revolutions" which only succeed in managing capital. :rolleyes:


Fuck off.

Will do.