Quote from Mao: Agree or Disagree?

[Hiero]

Every Communist must grasp the truth: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Do you believe this to be true.

[RED FIRE]

Of course not, this is absolute absurdity...political power comes about by the rise of the masses,hence, the proletariat... when speaking of communist ''power'' that is.

Mao speaks rubbish...idealist rubbish.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Mao is right.red fire,yes what you say about the masses is true,but they will need to arm themselves when they rise up.Then they will have political power.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by RED [email protected] 26 2003, 02:08 PM
Of course not, this is absolute absurdity...political power comes about by the rise of the masses,hence, the proletariat... when speaking of communist ''power'' that is.

Mao speaks rubbish...idealist rubbish.
Then how did bush get in power? the masses?


I agree with Mao on this one

[Fidelbrand]

so... no guns, no political power~?
bahaha~~ get real~~ :D

e.g. A political fox can easily gain political power by mobolizing mass and/or senate power. Is the wit that does the job today~ not the gun.... otherwise, Bush/U.N. will disarm you~ wohhooo..

[Ian]

I agree with Mao, as you know the state is little more than a body of armed men (police, army, navy, air force) who protect the propertied against the unpropertied. If you control the armed men and the means of coercion, you have political power. Simple.

[RED FIRE]

All that is needed by the proletarait is a mass strike in soldarity...to rid there self's of the oppresive yoke of the bourgeoise. Perhaps for...5 weeks... the bourgeoise will flee the post-captialist nation in fear of there lives. No gun's required-just fear..that is enough alone, hence, a bloodest revolution wouldn't that be "nice".

You all seem to be missing an fundermental point in the Marxist doctrine...revolution's(proletaraitan) are made by the masses, not by an group of armed insurgents in captialist states. To lauch an revolution's in a 3rd world countries is just idealist nonsense...Guevara, Mao etc, throught that there ''will'' alone could bend the "laws" of history...look were it got Guevara.

And where is cuba, china,etc heading....captialism. Marxist ''laws'' of history have proven themselves to be correct so far. Hence it's only a matter of time before an communist revolution is launced in a capitlist, by the proletariat.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by RED [email protected] 26 2003, 11:41 PM
All that is needed by the proletarait is a mass strike in soldarity...to rid there self's of the oppresive yoke of the bourgeoise. Perhaps for...5 weeks... the bourgeoise will flee the post-captialist nation in fear of there lives. No gun's required-just fear..that is enough alone, hence, a bloodest revolution wouldn't that be "nice".

You all seem to be missing an fundermental point in the Marxist doctrine...revolution's(proletaraitan) are made by the masses, not by an group of armed insurgents in captialist states. To lauch an revolution's in a 3rd world countries is just idealist nonsense...Guevara, Mao etc, throught that there ''will'' alone could bend the "laws" of history...look were it got Guevara.

And where is cuba, china,etc heading....captialism. Marxist ''laws'' of history have proven themselves to be correct so far. Hence it's only a matter of time before an communist revolution is launced in a capitlist, by the proletariat.
You seem to be missing the point of the original post.


Its not saying what COULD happen, its saying what DOES happen.

[Soviet power supreme]

Let me tell you about the revolution in Finland 1918.The proletariate made a revoution against the capitalists.They had the man power but they didnt have enough arms or military training and they lost and they got executed or sent in prisons.

I agree with Mao.

[Soviet power supreme]

No gun's required-just fear..that is enough alone, hence, a bloodest revolution wouldn't that be "nice".

You all seem to be missing an fundermental point in the Marxist doctrine

Who is missing the point in the Marxist doctrine?Every marxists agree that an armed revolution is needed.You seem to rely on that flower power. :)

[Comrade Marcel]

The typical Troskyist rhetoric, and what every Trotskyist or Trot like "revolutionary" (ie.e the "new left", "new socialists", etc.) seems to think, is that all you need is to get enough people out in the streets and you'll have a revolution.

Of course, we REAL revolutionary Marxists understand that this could not be farther from the truth. Further more, we come to grsp this through historical experience. One only hast to look to the recent anti-war movement, and before that the anti-war movement during Vietnam, to see that it is far from that simple.

Political power is gained through the barrel of a gun, one way or another. Whoever holds the guns, has the power. If you gain a "position of power" but do not have the power of the gun, eventually you will fall. Experience tells us this too, i.e. Allende.

But to further laugh and the Troskyists, one only has to look at how pathetic and anti-revolutionary they are. They do not support armed struggle, with rare exception, nor do they launch arm struggle. They are not the vanguard anywhere in the world. Even in the west were Trotskyism is prevalent, they cause nothing but havoc and dissillusion to the I.C.M., with splits, lies, alliance to the Social-Democrats, and lack of secure organizing.

In fact, one could say that the Trots, Neo-Trots, New Left, etc. are nothing but Social-Democrats with revolutionary rhetoric. Only such an individual would be concerned with the size of their marches over arming the masses for a real revolution. And we all know that the Social-Democrats have betrayed the Communist movement on many occasions when it comes.. failure to act with the gun when the time was most vital.

So yes, Mao was right. The Proletarian need to be armed and can only gain power - and hold on to it - when they have the power of the gun; tightly and firmly in their hands.

[Ian]

Originally posted by RED [email protected] 26 2003, 09:41 PM
No gun's required-just fear..that is enough alone, hence, a bloodest revolution wouldn't that be "nice".
This has go to be one of the most utopian things I have ever read on this site. These capitalists you speak of are not the same ones I know of, do you think capitalists would be scared of a bunch of people who refuse to use arms in response to capitalist agression? Highly unlikely!

What on earth would a capitalist be afraid of? A capitalist backed by the might of the empire would not be afraid of revolution if the revolutionaries refused to return force. In fact it would be quite comical for a capitalist or reactionary to see a bunch of pussies getting truncheoned whilst trying to spook (you did say we would use fear!) the goons with their best scary faces.

Sorry the whole idea of a workers' state without any means of force or defence is absurd to me.

[ComradeRed]

no, no, no, a thousand times NO! COMRADES! Come comrades, what he is saying is that power comes from guns, like what lenin said, a man with a gun can control a hundred people. All this signifies is that people with guns have control, it doesnt mean communist power comes form guns!

[ComradeRobertRiley]

All power, capitalist or communist comes from guns.




Of course, we REAL revolutionary Marxists understand that this could not be farther from the truth. Further more, we come to grsp this through historical experience. One only hast to look to the recent anti-war movement, and before that the anti-war movement during Vietnam, to see that it is far from that simple.


I agree comrade

[commieboy]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 26 2003, 02:15 PM
Mao is right.red fire,yes what you say about the masses is true,but they will need to arm themselves when they rise up.Then they will have political power.
holy shit, we agree again!!!!

[Pete]

I am pretty sure the original quote in this thread has a larger context which uses 'gun' as an extended metaphor. Perhaps if you could post the entire quote, instead of that one chunk, you would get the whole thing that Mao is trying to say, hell I'll even look for it my self.

Mod: Moved to Theory, Fixed up the Title

-Pete

[Pete]

Here is the entire paragraph that the quote is from.. it is not what I remember reading, but of course I could just remember wrong:



Communists do not fight for personal military power (they must in no circumstances do that, and let no one ever again follow the example of Chang Kuo-tao), but they must fight for military power for the Party, for military power for the people. As a national war of resistance is going on, we must also hght for military power for the nation. Where there is naivety on the question of military power, nothing whatsoever can be achieved. It is very difficult for the labouring people, who have been deceived and intimidated by the reactionary ruling classes for thousands of years, to awaken to the importance of having guns in their own hands. Now that Japanese imperialist oppression and the nation-wide resistance to it have pushed our labouring people into the arena of war, Communists should prove themselves the most politically conscious leaders in this war. Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war". Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.PROBLEMS OF WAR AND STRATEGY (http://www.marx2mao.org/Mao/PWS38.html#s1)

[SonofRage]

I believe that in the end the pen is mightier than the sword.

[redstar2000]

That's the problem with slogans: when you start trying to "draw conclusions" from them, you generally get into trouble.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" and "the pen is mightier than the sword" may sound incisive and witty...but they don't really tell you very much that is actually useful.

If one finds oneself in a situation in which guerrilla warfare is a sensible strategy, then it may be useful to emphasize the first slogan. If one is not in that situation, then the second slogan may be useful.

But you can't decide which situation you're in on the basis of which slogan you "like" best.

It's long been the practice of political movements of all persuasions to develop slogans...pithy remarks that purport to summarize a complex situation in a few words. The rationale is that the masses "cannot" understand complex arguments and descriptions.

I suspect that the utility of slogans is diminishing in the advanced capitalist countries with the passage of time. As more and more people come on-line and begin to educate themselves rather than rely on the capitalist media, I think slogans will seem less appealing and may even begin to be thought insulting.

To be honest about it, I always thought most of them were kind of "simple-minded"...even when I agreed with them.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

that reminds me of this:


Originally posted by "Voltairre"

A witty saying proves nothing.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:55 AM
I am pretty sure the original quote in this thread has a larger context which uses 'gun' as an extended metaphor. Perhaps if you could post the entire quote, instead of that one chunk, you would get the whole thing that Mao is trying to say, hell I'll even look for it my self.

Mod: Moved to Theory, Fixed up the Title

-Pete
Crazypete i actualy meant just that little chunk but anyway. I believe there needs to be 4 parts to a revolution well this is my theory for more western countries like Australia 1) The working mass to barricade the mass producing factories,hospitals etc untill the power is exchange 2) Have a network of free trade to all the other revlutionaires to keep things alive and people healthy(to keep morale high) 3) Have a security force to protect the working masses 4) Have a guirilla army to act out acts of terriosism against valuable buildings of the government etc this does not mean the uneacesory slaughter of civilians and trying to even keep enemy military deaths down. NO SUICIDE ALLOWED

Remembr im jsut a foolish young male tenager

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 05:20 AM
I believe that in the end the pen is mightier than the sword.
ok, arm yourself with your pen and ill kill you with my sword, your statement is the biggest pile of bullshit since G W Bush said "we want world peace"

[Ian]

Aren't we overreacting Robert? Hmmm? :P

[ComradeRobertRiley]

You think so Ian? hmm maybe your right. Its just what a bollox saying and all.

[RED FIRE]

"You seem to be missing the point of the original post."


"Its not saying what COULD happen, its saying what DOES happen."

Im intrigued immensly by your "Leninist" bloodlest revolution of 1917, I believe three people died, hence,was this not an semi - boodlest revolution. Let alone mentioning France 1968, Chile 1972 and Poland 1980

So this is saying what "does" happen is right. The Nazi's come to power in 1933, does this make it right... I think not.

So Mao coming to power is "right".... idiocy

"Who is missing the point in the Marxist doctrine?Every marxists agree that an armed revolution is needed.You seem to rely on that flower power."


To call me "Flower Power", "Hippie" is absolutley absurd in all aspects of Marxism, Marxism calls fourthwith the majority, hence the proletarait to take the political means in themselves, not an conspiritual elite, contingent of Leninist shaping events into their personal desires, therefore myself as Marxist I see the bloodlest revolution as truth, or rather as the way...

The armed revolution is as before idealist nonsense as it always was, Marxist should therefore adhere to the ways of Marx... not, Mao , Guevara.... the ultimate idealist's etc

Perhaps it's time to get offer your Guevara/Maosim dreams..etc

It's hard I know!!

But's it's time... and worth it.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Armed revolution is the only way.

[RED FIRE]

Yes..idealist way, not,...the majority, hence not the proletariat.

You can gahther as many armies as you like.... but consider 5 weeks non-producticon, non production of the necessity's, the economic production will "stan Still".. and collapse

"No" matter what you do!!

It will crumble.

No matter what force's there is... you cannot force 12 million-plus workers.... against an army of 35,000 soilders(Australia). I know what the outcome will be.

Once the idealist release this.. the better... the better the revolution... the more sooner.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

If you are going to wait for the masses to deciede that they want communism you will be waiting for ever.

[RED FIRE]

Your Approach is "laughable"is all notion's....the Proletariat will realsie the yoke that their under "sooner or later"....perhaps 20-150 years, the sooner the better, but lets not get idealsitic...like yourself.

You seem to think that the "workers" are sheep... they need guidence by the Leninest... this is consequently "rubbish". The workers need no guidence. what so ever, they themselves will organise themselves.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by RED [email protected] 2 2004, 06:23 PM
Your Approach is "laughable"is all notion's....the Proletariat will realsie the yoke that their under "sooner or later"....perhaps 20-150 years, the sooner the better, but lets not get idealsitic...like yourself.

You seem to think that the "workers" are sheep... they need guidence by the Leninest... this is consequently "rubbish". The workers need no guidence. what so ever, they themselves will organise themselves.
Your comments show that you have never worked along side the workers. Unless the workers in your area are very very differant from those in the West Midlands UK.

[RED FIRE]

Your comments show that you have never worked along side the workers. Unless the workers in your area are very very differant from those in the West Midlands UK.

You have have forgotten miserabley about the workers in in france 1968, chile 1972.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I was not alive then. I post was talking about personal experiance, not what happend in another country and about 40 years ago.

[RED FIRE]

I am to well aware of what you meant, but my point is that if it did happen, it ''can'' and ''will'' happen sooner or later.

The workers of the 21st century are alot more educated there thoses before.

[lostsoul]

I agree with that quote. But i think he was refering more to power in general.

Most power comes from fear of punishment.

If our goverments did not have armed police and armies, would they be as powerful? or have as much power over us?



Also when thinking of mao's quote, we have to think of his background. His country was in turnoil, they had lost many wars, dr.sun overthrow the old goverment, and the KMT party was using its powerful military to take over china. During mao's time when he said that, I would agree. But if George bush said that during his elections, he'd think of him as an idiot. It must be looked at in the proper context.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by RED [email protected] 3 2004, 03:54 PM
I am to well aware of what you meant, but my point is that if it did happen, it ''can'' and ''will'' happen sooner or later.

The workers of the 21st century are alot more educated there thoses before.
im not sure i would agree with that.

Over the last however many years the media has grown and so has control over the people by governments/media/whatever

Also France has always been a much differant country to (what i was talking about) the UK. UK suck U$ dicks, France tells U$ to fuck itself.

[RED FIRE]

Over the last however many years the media has grown and so has control over the people by governments/media/whatever

Perhaps to an extent,...but the education system in all captialist nation's has lifted profoundly...the proletarian is an lot more educated and wiser to going on's, then they were in the 1800's and the 1900's.



Also France has always been a much differant country to (what i was talking about) the UK. UK suck U$ dicks, France tells U$ to fuck itself.

Again perhaps...but it is an captialsit nation(s), thus...with an stong proletariat... in numbers.