Alternatives to Stalin and Trotsky

[Brutus]

For all of my Marxist life, I have been a Leninist of one kind or another. Now, I'm looking for a different form of Marxism to Trotskyism or Stalinism. If you could explain to me the different tendencies and how they differ from Leninism, I would be very grateful.
Thanks

[Sea]

Try hitting up the MIA's encyclopedia of Marxism with some of the tendency names, and check out the revleft tendency group descriptions here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouplist&cat=3). Keep in mind many will be self-promoting. I'm personally not a big fan of either of the main "camps" of Bolshevism so I know where you're coming from. When thinking about different tendencies it's important to not only separate what you're reading or hearing from any preconceptions another tendency may have left you with but also to be aware at the same time that no tendency can have any significance without its relation to other tendencies. Before exploring other tendencies it's also a good idea to discard any ideas you might have that are dependent on personality or any given theory by virtue of a theorist's personality. But above all, don't feel obliged to join a tendency and don't be loyal to anything other than the objective, logical truth.

[Leo]

There's the communist left (http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left).

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Well, there are plenty of them. I think instead of making a bunch of incomplete descriptions and comparisons it´s more useful to get you started on your own reserch. My suggestion is you start by looking into left- communism and orthodox marxism.
For left communism you could for a start take a look at the websites of the International Communist Tendency:
http://www.leftcom.org/en
the International Communist Current:
http://en.internationalism.org/
and the International Communist Party:
http://www.international-communist-party.org/
The wikipedia article on left- communism might also be a useful read to begin with.

For orthodox marxism you can look at the website of the Communist Party of Great Britain:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/
and the wikipedia article.
If you are leaning more towards anarchism you should take a look at libcom (http://libcom.org/).

[ind_com]

For all of my Marxist life, I have been a Leninist of one kind or another. Now, I'm looking for a different form of Marxism to Trotskyism or Stalinism. If you could explain to me the different tendencies and how they differ from Leninism, I would be very grateful.
Thanks

Here's a particularly terrible version of 'Stalinism', in case you're interested.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=10

[keystone]

Mao led the largest revolution in human history, and his philosophy was a major rupture from the dominant perspective of the Communist International pushed by Stalin.

I won't try to sum up his ideas in a post here, and I can't post links yet on this forum, so search for some materials online (Marxists Internet Archive, for example) or PM me for resources.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Mao led the largest revolution in human history, and his philosophy was a major rupture from the dominant perspective of the Communist International pushed by Stalin.

I won't try to sum up his ideas in a post here, and I can't post links yet on this forum, so search for some materials online (Marxists Internet Archive, for example) or PM me for resources.

He led the largest revolution? All by himself? God damn, is he some sort of demigod or something?

Well, to remain on topic. I don't think the Stalin-Trotsky debate is really relevant. The best alternative is starting to read Marx and Engels. Then you can move into relevant 20th century communists. I'd personally suggest people like Lenin, (pre-renegade) Kautsky, Luxemburg and then Trotsky and Stalin. Maybe some anarchists. I don't say that they are alternatives, but they are the persons that are probably seen as the most relevant. If you study them you see that there were many debates and disagreements back then. Next to that I suggest that you study revolutionary struggles in history. If you do that, I think you can make your mind up and decide what you agree with.
So, the best alternative to Stalin and Trotsky is studying.

[Alekséi]

For all of my Marxist life, I have been a Leninist of one kind or another. Now, I'm looking for a different form of Marxism to Trotskyism or Stalinism. If you could explain to me the different tendencies and how they differ from Leninism, I would be very grateful.
Thanks

Don't you want to be only Marxist-Leninist without any other tendency? Do you need another?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I hear there is something called anarchism...

Here, this answers questions: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ

[Rugged Collectivist]

You could start by checking out some of the groups here. They usually have discussions about the tendency and links to it's major theoretical texts.

[Red Enemy]

I'm not sure why anyone is so anxious to label themselves any specific tendency. It would make sense if you did some reading, and found you are in agreement with, say, Bordigism.

What I think could really help? Reading! Just start over with Marx and Engels, and then move on to Lenin, then look into others. I have found Raya Dunayevskaya rather interesting, for instance. A former Trotskyist (and Trotsky's former secretary), founder of Marxist-Humanism. A Marxist-Feminist. Opposed to the Leninist vanguard concept. Worked out the Marxist Humanist Theory of State Capitalism. Really good stuff to be found in her works.

To add to that, a lot of the time there will be conflicting views within a tendency: Trotskyism has it's State Caps and DWS, Left Comms have the anti-leninists (opposed to anything Lenin and Bolshevik) and pro-leninists (Critically supportive of Lenin and the Bolsheviks), and so on.

[The Idler]

Marxian Impossibilism includes figures like Daniel De Leon (and Deleonism), arguably William Morris, John Keracher and even James Connolly at one time.

[Let's Get Free]

IMO, to be a leninist of any stripe is to be as much a capitalist as a Keynesian. There are different forms and interpretations but the theoretical maintenance of the working class as workers (it makes no fundamental difference whether the workers work for the state or private capitalists ) and the emphasis on the re-organization of production (usually in terms of nationalization ) means they are always within the capitalist frame of definition, the capitalist relations are not done away with.

So I would say look towards anarchism/libertarian socialism or maybe left communism/council communism.

[Geiseric]

IMO, to be a leninist of any stripe is to be as much a capitalist as a Keynesian. There are different forms and interpretations but the theoretical maintenance of the working class as workers (it makes no fundamental difference whether the workers work for the state or private capitalists ) and the emphasis on the re-organization of production (usually in terms of nationalization ) means they are always within the capitalist frame of definition, the capitalist relations are not done away with.

So I would say look towards anarchism/libertarian socialism or maybe left communism/council communism.

Way to mislead new people, with something that has no factual grounding.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

IMO, to be a leninist of any stripe is to be as much a capitalist as a Keynesian

No

[Brosa Luxemburg]

IMO, to be a leninist of any stripe is to be as much a capitalist as a Keynesian. There are different forms and interpretations but the theoretical maintenance of the working class as workers (it makes no fundamental difference whether the workers work for the state or private capitalists ) and the emphasis on the re-organization of production (usually in terms of nationalization ) means they are always within the capitalist frame of definition, the capitalist relations are not done away with.

So I would say look towards anarchism/libertarian socialism or maybe left communism/council communism.

Not all Leninists are like this, especially left communists that consider themselves Leninist.

[Geiseric]

Not all Leninists are like this, especially left communists that consider themselves Leninist.

There aren't any "leninists," like that, if you believe in state capitalism, you're not a leninist, it's not even a marxist idea that a state bureaucracy can become the new capitalist owners of production, in that they can extract profit from the working class and freely exchange capital, like a big fucking stock market, it's completely asinine from the beginning, and was basically used by opportunists to seem like the "good communists," disconnecting themselves from the "bad communist," fSU. The theory started at Kautsky, after he supported WW1, so connect the dots!

[Sea]

Way to mislead new people, with something that has no factual grounding.Volkov might be new, but I suspect he has enough working brain cells. After all, only need around 3 to be unscathed by such drivel.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mao led the largest revolution in human history, and his philosophy was a major rupture from the dominant perspective of the Communist International pushed by Stalin.

I won't try to sum up his ideas in a post here, and I can't post links yet on this forum, so search for some materials online (Marxists Internet Archive, for example) or PM me for resources.

Maoism was basically east Asian Stalinism, with some tweaks here and there...some big overlaps though, esp. in regards to the "voluntarism" of Stalin & Mao, the cults of personality, etc.

I think that Stalin had more coherent theoretical knowledge in comparison to Mao, though (which isn't saying much, but still). But mostly I think that a continuance of thought can be drawn from Stalin to Mao, in that Stalin broke away from some of the early tenets of Marxism, and Mao continued this but took it to a whole other level...like comparing China to a blank piece of parchment that he could write any future he wanted on. Had he said this to a group of early 20th century Marxists, it would've been dismissed as a foolish notion.

[Ostrinski]

There aren't any "leninists," like that, if you believe in state capitalism, you're not a leninistWhat a profoundly ridiculous thing to say. The question of the economic nature of the Soviet Union among Leninists wasn't even an existent thing until after Lenin died. Please stop making the most groundless and uninformed positions and declaring them the truth. Try to think about what you are writing before you post.

[keystone]

Maoism was basically east Asian Stalinism, with some tweaks here and there...some big overlaps though, esp. in regards to the "voluntarism" of Stalin & Mao, the cults of personality, etc.

I think that Stalin had more coherent theoretical knowledge in comparison to Mao, though (which isn't saying much, but still). But mostly I think that a continuance of thought can be drawn from Stalin to Mao, in that Stalin broke away from some of the early tenets of Marxism, and Mao continued this but took it to a whole other level...like comparing China to a blank piece of parchment that he could write any future he wanted on. Had he said this to a group of early 20th century Marxists, it would've been dismissed as a foolish notion.

and for you, seemingly, the history of the actual communist revolutions of the 20th century is a blank piece of parchment on which you can write any past you want.

maoists have a slogan: "no investigation, no right to speak."
it applies here.

go read mao and stalin for yourself, and compare the difference in perspective. the history of socialism in the ussr and in china was very different, especially given the experience of the great proletarian cultural revolution led by mao in an effort to continue the revolution further. it is just ignorance to lump the entire history of china under the label of "stalinism" - which illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

start reading: the marxists internet archive, the marx2mao collection, even wikipedia are good places to start for original writings by mao and others, as well as resources on the history of china. alain badiou has a great summary of the chinese cultural revolution. read everything critically, and you can always raise questions on revleft.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maoism was basically east Asian Stalinism, with some tweaks here and there...some big overlaps though, esp. in regards to the "voluntarism" of Stalin & Mao, the cults of personality, etc.


No it wasn't. If it was Stalinism, then we'd use the word Stalinism.

Do you know what words are for? Let me look up the definition of words in the dictionary. According to Webster Dictionary a word is:

""a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning."

What does this mean?

It means that words carry meaning independent of perception, that their ability to do so is what formulates language. So when we use old words, we are doing so to portray the meaning they hold. When we create new words it is for the purpose of expressing new meanings and new ideas.

Your use of the word "Stalinism" clearly shows that you do not grasp this concept. Your failure falls with in one of two possible routes:

A) That "Stalinism" to you represents things you don't like rather than concrete policy choices. Hence, it is absurd to call Mao a Stalinist because by this definition you would lament how Stalinist the weather is being and how Stalinist that Pizza you ate last tuesday was

B) That you do not have a single clue what Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is and therefore you have no right to conflate it with Stalinism, since you don't even know what MLM is

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There aren't any "leninists," like that, if you believe in state capitalism, you're not a leninist

Erm, ever hear of Anti-Revisionism? Or basically the most important branch of Leninist thought until very recently?

[Os Cangaceiros]

and for you, seemingly, the history of the actual communist revolutions of the 20th century is a blank piece of parchment on which you can write any past you want.

maoists have a slogan: "no investigation, no right to speak."
it applies here.

go read mao and stalin for yourself, and compare the difference in perspective. the history of socialism in the ussr and in china was very different, especially given the experience of the great proletarian cultural revolution led by mao in an effort to continue the revolution further. it is just ignorance to lump the entire history of china under the label of "stalinism" - which illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

start reading: the marxists internet archive, the marx2mao collection, even wikipedia are good places to start for original writings by mao and others, as well as resources on the history of china. alain badiou has a great summary of the chinese cultural revolution. read everything critically, and you can always raise questions on revleft.

I have read works of JV Stalin and Mao, actually. I wouldn't recommend reading Mao except as a historical curiousity. Whatever the supposedly unique contributions of Maoism are, the most important thing was that Mao continued Stalin's break with the earlier widespread Marxist notions that conscious human action couldn't overcome the conditions a nation found itself in, and that a true socialist revolution could only come about through a mature productive system. Overcoming this belief contributed significantly to state policy in both the USSR and the PRC, in somewhat different but ultimately fundamentally similar ways.

In addition the primary theoretical texts that influenced Mao (esp. in regards to dialectics) were written in the Soviet Union during the 1930's. It should go without saying that Soviet philosophy at that time was heavily dictated by state orthodoxy.

[Red Enemy]

Gladiator will continue to insist that any Leninist, since Lenin himself, are State Capitalists. He claims that they will give lip service to socialism, but secretly wish to establish state capitalist dictatorship of the bureaucracy. It's true, happened in Russia!

"Material conditions? How do they work? I don't want to talk to a scientific socialist, mother fuckers lying, getting me pissed" - Gladiator.

[Let's Get Free]

Gladiator will continue to insist that any Leninist, since Lenin himself, are State Capitalists. He claims that they will give lip service to socialism, but secretly wish to establish state capitalist dictatorship of the bureaucracy. It's true, happened in Russia!

"Material conditions? How do they work? I don't want to talk to a scientific socialist, mother fuckers lying, getting me pissed" - Gladiator.

Thank you ever so much for this irrelevant post.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Not all Leninists are like this, especially left communists that consider themselves Leninist.

Seems strange that left-communists would describe themselves as leninist, but I do know that Caj did it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Seems strange that left-communists would describe themselves as leninist, but I do know that Caj did it.

I really have no idea why that would seem so strange unless you're confusing council communism (which is highly anti-Bolshevik and anti-Leninist) with left communism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I really have no idea why that would seem so strange unless you're confusing council communism (which is highly anti-Bolshevik and anti-Leninist) with left communism.

Here is why:


Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Here is why:

So left communists can't be Leninists because they don't uphold every word Lenin ever wrote as holy?

Also, you might be interested to know that left communist Herman Gorter, who wrote "Open Letter To Comrade Lenin" (which was in response to Lenin's Left Wing Communism) was pro-Bolshevik and supported Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

[l'Enfermé]

I really have no idea why that would seem so strange unless you're confusing council communism (which is highly anti-Bolshevik and anti-Leninist) with left communism.
Cause historically the only prominent left-communist organisation in Western Europe was the councilist KAPD, and even that stopped being a "serious political factor in the German labor movement" after 1923(Mattick). If you were to go and ask someone knowledgeable in these affairs to list some of the most famous left-coms in history, 90 percent of those would be councilists. Mattick, Pannekoek, Gorter, Rühle, etc.. I don't know about Pankhurst, never read anything by her, but I'm pretty sure she was a councilist too.

[Red Enemy]

What Lenin talks about in "An Infantile Disorder" are Russian Communists, who follow the idea of "economism".

The Left communists of today come out of either the German/Dutch left; Pannekoek and Ruhle - or the Italian Left; Bordiga and Damen(?). The pro-Leninists usually coming from the Italian left.

That's my understanding of it.

[Lord Hargreaves]

For all of my Marxist life, I have been a Leninist of one kind or another. Now, I'm looking for a different form of Marxism to Trotskyism or Stalinism. If you could explain to me the different tendencies and how they differ from Leninism, I would be very grateful.
Thanks

It would help to know exactly why you want to reject Leninism and explore other tendencies? What are you looking for in your new belief? Otherwise this will be little more than a navel-gazing thread, with people taking a "Hi this is what I think, why not this?" approach.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Cause historically the only prominent left-communist organisation in Western Europe was the councilist KAPD, and even that stopped being a "serious political factor in the German labor movement" after 1923(Mattick). If you were to go and ask someone knowledgeable in these affairs to list some of the most famous left-coms in history, 90 percent of those would be councilists. Mattick, Pannekoek, Gorter, Rühle, etc.. I don't know about Pankhurst, never read anything by her, but I'm pretty sure she was a councilist too.

Council Communism is a degeneration of Dutch/German Left Communism, so it really isn't surprising to see many Left Communists becoming, later, Council Communists (holding the Bolshevik revolution as bourgeois, anti-partyism, etc.) but that doesn't mean that Council Communism is a type of Left Communism.

[Red Enemy]

Council Communism is a degeneration of Dutch/German Left Communism, so it really isn't surprising to see many Left Communists becoming, later, Council Communists (holding the Bolshevik revolution as bourgeois, anti-partyism, etc.) but that doesn't mean that Council Communism is a type of Left Communism.Didn't Bordiga reject the notion that he, and those of his faction, were left communists?

[Tim Cornelis]

I find this thread very amusing for more than one reason. Carry on.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I find this thread very amusing for more than one reason. Carry on.

Um......okay?

[Ostrinski]

Council Communism is a degeneration of Dutch/German Left Communism, so it really isn't surprising to see many Left Communists becoming, later, Council Communists (holding the Bolshevik revolution as bourgeois, anti-partyism, etc.) but that doesn't mean that Council Communism is a type of Left Communism.If council communism constitutes a degeneration of Dutch/German left communism, then shouldn't that also mean that Bordigism constitutes a degeneration of Italian left communism, in kind?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Read some Luxembourg, DeLeon, Gramsci and Paul Mattick. Just explore a few new theorists and their ideas and then settle upon something you feel comfortable with. Always be willing to read something new from a critical perspective, whether it be anarchist or maoist, in my opinion.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If council communism constitutes a degeneration of Dutch/German left communism, then shouldn't that also mean that Bordigism constitutes a degeneration of Italian left communism, in kind?

I don't really see why. Council Communism is anti-party, anti-Bolshevik, etc. that make it essentially different than left communism. Bordigism, while a tendency of left communism, is not anti-party, anti-Bolshevik, pro-internationalist, etc. etc. and doesn't make it different from left communism.

[Caj]

If council communism constitutes a degeneration of Dutch/German left communism, then shouldn't that also mean that Bordigism constitutes a degeneration of Italian left communism, in kind?

If by Bordigism one means the positions of late Bordiga and his followers, such as support for unions and national liberation movements, then I would say yes.

[l'Enfermé]

Council Communism is a degeneration of Dutch/German Left Communism, so it really isn't surprising to see many Left Communists becoming, later, Council Communists (holding the Bolshevik revolution as bourgeois, anti-partyism, etc.) but that doesn't mean that Council Communism is a type of Left Communism.
Is that the ICC/ICT Orthodoxy? Councilism emerged out of the November Revolution in 1918 in Germany. The entire German and Dutch "left-communist" tendency, pretty much from the beginning,

I don't know if you read the works of the councilists of the 1920s, I don't really recommend it, it's crap, but anyway, the councilist outlook is very clear. Gorter, in 1921, actually called for a Fourth International and said the Third International was "in tow" to the international bourgeoisie and that in character, the Comintern was bourgeois. Pannekoek began complaining about the "Neo-Blanquism" of the representatives of the Bolshevik in Germany, like Radek, in 1920. It was Rühle, one of the main leaders of Left-Communism in Germany, who in 1920 wrote "The Revolution Is Not A Party Affair" where he basically attacked the political party as inherently bourgeois and stated that the "party" part of the KAPD's name is merely an "external vestige" that will soon be superfluous and was added only out of tradition that can't so soon be wiped away.

No, comrade. Dutch-German Left-Communism was both Anti-Bolshevik and viciously anti-party. The only actually influential left-com force in West European history was the KAPD, between 1920 and 1923, and I didn't even realize that anyone disputes that the KAPD was councilist.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't really see why. Council Communism is anti-party, anti-Bolshevik, etc. that make it essentially different than left communism. Bordigism, while a tendency of left communism, is not anti-party, anti-Bolshevik, pro-internationalist, etc. etc. and doesn't make it different from left communism.
I don't understand how Bordigism is a tendency of Left-Communism when Bordiga accused the Dutch-German Left-coms of "anarchism" or "syndicalism" or whatever and his relations with them was as close as his relations with Stalinists.

[ArrowLance]

For all of my Marxist life, I have been a Leninist of one kind or another. Now, I'm looking for a different form of Marxism to Trotskyism or Stalinism. If you could explain to me the different tendencies and how they differ from Leninism, I would be very grateful.
Thanks
I hear black is a good alternative to white. But you can't go wrong with red. (Unless you are wrong.)

[Geiseric]

to the OP, trotskyism theoretically isn't very different from "leninism," which is basically orthodox marxism, stalinism is revisionist and renegade because of the fSU's non marxist bureaucracy which was in charge of the state, which had its own interests at heart, which meant basically making comintern oportunist, which means the comintern parties in the 30's in england, france, and the U.S. vaccilated between being anti war with germany (during the italian invasion of abyssinia to the molotov ribbentrop period) to vehemently pro war, when those parties saw the survival of the fSU more important than the marxist principle of opposing imperialist wars.

[Geiseric]

What a profoundly ridiculous thing to say. The question of the economic nature of the Soviet Union among Leninists wasn't even an existent thing until after Lenin died. Please stop making the most groundless and uninformed positions and declaring them the truth. Try to think about what you are writing before you post.

I meant the goal of leninists is never state capitalism, as in I'm not working for the eventual goal of managing a bourgeois state interfered economy.

[Art Vandelay]

IMO, to be a leninist of any stripe is to be as much a capitalist as a Keynesian. There are different forms and interpretations but the theoretical maintenance of the working class as workers (it makes no fundamental difference whether the workers work for the state or private capitalists ) and the emphasis on the re-organization of production (usually in terms of nationalization ) means they are always within the capitalist frame of definition, the capitalist relations are not done away with.

So I would say look towards anarchism/libertarian socialism or maybe left communism/council communism.

This post, in all honesty, should of been deleted. This is learning and someone going around spouting this type of nonsense will only confuse new posters.

[Let's Get Free]

This post, in all honesty, should of been deleted. This is learning and someone going around spouting this type of nonsense will only confuse new posters.

*shrugs* its just my opinion.

[subcp]

The German communist left were pro-party; the KAPD's theses on the role of the party in the proletarian revolution is an excellent document attesting to this. Councilism developed out of council communism. Pannekoek was for the party; in his later life he promoted it being simply an educator rather than active participant in a revolutionary crisis.

They're linked with the Italian left for having similar concerns and criticisms. Bordiga wrote a paper called "The Italian Communist Left in the 3rd International", it's on the MIA. So no, Bordiga didn't reject those terms.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There aren't any "leninists," like that, if you believe in state capitalism, you're not a leninist, it's not even a marxist idea that a state bureaucracy can become the new capitalist owners of production, in that they can extract profit from the working class and freely exchange capital, like a big fucking stock market, it's completely asinine from the beginning, and was basically used by opportunists to seem like the "good communists," disconnecting themselves from the "bad communist," fSU. The theory started at Kautsky, after he supported WW1, so connect the dots!

So you're the arbiter of what is and isn't Marxist? The historical analysis of the USSR presented by the left communists is historical materialist. You might disagree with it and propose an alternative understanding, but calling the State-Capitalist idea not Marxist is laughable.

[Geiseric]

I already responded, look above. I meant something different.

[islandmilitia]

Maoism was basically east Asian Stalinism, with some tweaks here and there...some big overlaps though, esp. in regards to the "voluntarism" of Stalin & Mao, the cults of personality, etc.

I think that Stalin had more coherent theoretical knowledge in comparison to Mao, though (which isn't saying much, but still). But mostly I think that a continuance of thought can be drawn from Stalin to Mao, in that Stalin broke away from some of the early tenets of Marxism, and Mao continued this but took it to a whole other level...like comparing China to a blank piece of parchment that he could write any future he wanted on. Had he said this to a group of early 20th century Marxists, it would've been dismissed as a foolish notion.

Describing Maoism as "east Asian Stalinism" is a classically Eurocentrist maneuver - it takes a category derived from a particular reading of the European historical experience (in this case, Stalinism) and applies it to a historical phenomenon in the non-European world without any consideration of whether this category is actually so universal as you assume, or whether there might be more situated and indigenous categories that can be used to understand the phenomenon in question. You completely avoid looking at the specificity of Mao and Maoism and in doing so you press a complex historical phenomenon into a pre-given category whose applicability is questionable even in the European context where it originally emerged, let alone in the Chinese context.

Mao did, in my view, engage in a certain set of theoretical tasks that were not visible or central to earlier generations of revolutionaries. He was faced with the task of carrying out a revolution in a country that was neither fully independent nor under the full control of a colonial power (due to the system of treaty ports then prevalent in China, which involved European countries exercising power through territorial concessions in China's major urban centers whilst the rest of the country remained under formal Chinese control, albeit under the ultimate control of regional warlords) and where modern forms of capitalist production existed alongside an archaic system of landholding and rural exploitation, described by Mao as "semi-feudal". These are not tasks with any easy parallel in European societies, even Tsarist Russia, and even if you disagree with the answers that Mao posed to these theoretical problems, what needs to be recognized is the novelty of the Chinese situation and the novelty of Mao's attempts to deal with that situation.

[black magick hustla]

Describing Maoism as "east Asian Stalinism" is a classically Eurocentrist maneuver - it takes a category derived from a particular reading of the European historical experience
Oh please. You can follow the political trajectory of Mao from his days in the comintern. At that time, the 1920s comintern soviet policy was heavily geared towards aiding and abetting bourgeois nationalism etc, which followed in the alliance of the ccp with the KMT etc. You can scream "eurocentrism" all you want but the political genealogy of maoism is quite clear.

[black magick hustla]

http://insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/ very good article about maoism as stalinism imho

[ind_com]

http://insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/ very good article about maoism as stalinism imho

That is a pretty bad article. Just bad analysis and wrong information. Many Trots and leftcoms in this forum have far better critiques of Maoism.

Here are two replies to that article, from the same blog:

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.in/2012/10/message-to-insurgent-notes-please.html

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.in/2012/10/maoism-or-trotskyism-free-download.html