Maoism is flawed!

[den röde skogshuggaren]

Mao's economic theory(Maoism) is flawed because it was all about agrarian culture. The problem is that agrarian workers cannot form a proper revolution to the end-goal because they are not industrialized. This would cause an imbalance with the industrialized revolutionary powers leading to yet another bourgeoisie hierarchy.

Discuss.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

You don't say!

But seriously though, why discuss it here at all, when this thread is only meant to slag off Maoists, which is flaming by the way.

[Althusser]

The point of their ideology was to industrialize under socialism. Mao and the CCP attempted this transition. Maoists today do not think they can reach a communist end goal without being fully industrialized.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Mao's economic theory(Maoism) is flawed because it was all about agrarian culture. The problem is that agrarian workers cannot form a proper revolution to the end-goal because they are not industrialized. This would cause an imbalance with the industrialized revolutionary powers leading to yet another bourgeoisie hierarchy.

Discuss.

First of all, Maoism does not equal "That Mao guy was fucking awesome"

Secondly, please investigate before you speak.


The emphasis in our country's construction is on heavy industry. The production of the means of production must be given priority that's settled. But it definitely does not follow that the production of the means of subsistence, especially grain, can be neglected. Without enough food and other daily necessities, it would be impossible to provide for the workers in the first place, and then what sense would it make to talk about developing heavy industry? Therefore, the relationship between heavy industry on the one hand and light industry and agriculture on the other must be properly handled.

In dealing with this relationship we have not made mistakes of principle. We have done better than the Soviet Union and a number of East European countries. The prolonged failure of the Soviet Union to reach the highest pre-October Revolution level in grain output, the grave problems arising from the glaring disequilibrium between the development of heavy industry and that of light industry in some East European countries -- such problems do not exist in our country. Their lop-sided stress on heavy industry to the neglect of agriculture and light industry results in a shortage of goods on the market and an unstable currency. We, on the other hand, attach more importance to agriculture and light industry. We have all along attended to and developed agriculture and have to a considerable degree ensured the supply of grain and raw materials necessary for the development of industry. Our daily necessities are in fairly good supply and our prices and currency are stable.

The problem now facing us is that of continuing to adjust properly the ratio between investment in heavy industry on the one hand and in agriculture and light industry on the other in order to bring about a greater development of the latter. Does this mean that heavy industry is no longer primary? No. It still is, it still claims the emphasis in our investment. But the proportion for agriculture and light industry must be somewhat increased.
~Mao
ON THE TEN MAJOR RELATIONSHIPS


So basically, yes they did try to industrialize in their early stage. But they were more focused on making food, since you really don't need trucks when you can't eat three square meals a day. And they did industrialize. When the Mao era started only 3 million people were employed in industry but by it's end there were over 800,000 state owned enterprises and over 25 million people employed in industry (Mobo Gao, The Battle for China's Past). There are so many more things I could point out that directly contradict your argument but if you refuse to make the most elementary investigation into the problem I honestly can't be bothered to respond more than I have already.

[~Spectre]

Maoism is incoherent reactionary nonsense.

[Let's Get Free]

Maoism is flawed for plenty of reasons, but not for the one you mention. first, Mao Tse-tung pointed out that the new society would not be Socialist. In his statement On People's Democratic Dictatorship (July 1949), which was incorporated into the Common Programme adopted by the Communist Party, he wrote:
"To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it" (Essential Works of Chinese Communism, New York, 1972).

Second, there is no need for wishy-washy transitionary periods of capitalist democracy in order to create enough surplus value for a communist economy to take place as Marx suggested. People are dominating and oppressing people right now, and those that are ruled can and should overthrow their rulers here and now rather than wait for some sort of positivist progression of society into industrialized capitalism. The distaste for capital in all forms is too urgent to wait for every oppressed person to become an industrial worker.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No tendency is perfect and as this thread shows there are misconceptions everywhere. Maoists do no advocate an agrarian plan for industrialized nations. This is more suited semi-feudal nations such as Nepal. Maoism in the first world and Maoism in the third-world are connected with strands of theory but practice altogether different advances for reaching socialism. For example, no first world Maoist group, aside from Third-worldists, have advocated Peoples' War in the first world. More to the point in the first world, places like America and Europe, Maoism takes on a form comprised of the relationship between contradictions, learning from the mistakes of the previous revolutionary movement, and regrouping on how to best move forward with the next.

For a more in-depth look see this thread from The Kasama Project: http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/what-is-maoism (http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/what-is-maoism)

...and here as well: http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/maoism-rupture-and-continuity

[DasFapital]

Mao's economic theory(Maoism) is flawed because it was all about agrarian culture. The problem is that agrarian workers cannot form a proper revolution to the end-goal because they are not industrialized. This would cause an imbalance with the industrialized revolutionary powers leading to yet another bourgeoisie hierarchy.

Discuss.

Oh my god! Maoism has been refuted forever! After all these decades you finally came along and exposed this flawed ideology for what it is. This will certainly be remembered as an important moment in the anti-capitalist movement.

[Art Vandelay]

No tendency is perfect and as this thread shows there are misconceptions everywhere. Maoists do no advocate an agrarian plan for industrialized nations. This is more suited semi-feudal nations such as Nepal. Maoism in the first world and Maoism in the third-world are connected with strands of theory but practice altogether different advances for reaching socialism. For example, no first world Maoist group, aside from Third-worldists, have advocated Peoples' War in the first world. More to the point in the first world, places like America and Europe, Maoism takes on a form comprised of the relationship between contradictions, learning from the mistakes of the previous revolutionary movement, and regrouping on how to best move forward with the next.

For a more in-depth look see this thread from The Kasama Project: http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/what-is-maoism (http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/what-is-maoism)

...and here as well: http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/maoism-rupture-and-continuity


This is false, the Candian RCP advocates PPW.

[~Spectre]

This is false, the Candian RCP advocates PPW.

A lot of first world Maoists do, even if their "groups" don't.

[~Spectre]

No tendency is perfect and as this thread shows there are misconceptions everywhere.

The "misconceptions" arise from the fact that Maoism is filled with contradictions, weasel words, jargon, lies, and incoherent clap trap. It's not so much a theory or tendency, as it is a label for reactionary nationalists looking to put a left gloss on rage.

Third world Maoists often get a pass, for reasons that are a bit beyond me. They're worse than their louder but impotent first world cousins. Backing Islamic fundamentalists, slaughtering workers, and selling out to form trade deals with capitalist states, isn't some trivial matter.

[vanukar]

This is false, the Candian RCP advocates PPW.

LOL that is sad

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This is false, the Candian RCP advocates PPW.

I should have said a great deal of the 1st world Maoists groups do not advocate PPW (and for good reason). Some do but it is very rare, in my experience. But there is a dissonance, in my opinion, between advocating and present reality, namely about the effectiveness of any kind of struggle in the first world without a mass-base of support (but that is getting off track, I suppose).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

This is false, the Candian RCP advocates PPW.

9MM is right on this one. The Norwegian Maoists, the Italian Maoists, the Canadian Maoists, and the Spanish Maoists all advocate PPW, and these are the Maoists whose parties are large enough to have international connections to the three big movements in India, Nepal, and Afghanistan. Kasama puts out some good stuff sometimes, but I am not sure Mike Ely counts. Sure he identifies as a Maoist and is pretty consistant with it, but when I refer to Maoism I refer to Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, the ideology of Shining Path, the Naxals, the Turkish guerillas, the left-wing faction of the New People's Army, and other Maoists groups that are fighting real world revolutions. It's not that I don't consider Mike's Maoism legitimate, nor am I accusing him of revisionism, I just don't mean the same thing when I say "Maoism" as he does (which is why I think we should drop the term and just say the full MLM even though it is a mouth full.)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

9MM is right on this one. The Norwegian Maoists, the Italian Maoists, the Canadian Maoists, and the Spanish Maoists all advocate PPW, and these are the Maoists whose parties are large enough to have international connections to the three big movements in India, Nepal, and Afghanistan. Kasama puts out some good stuff sometimes, but I am not sure Mike Ely counts. Sure he identifies as a Maoist and is pretty consistant with it, but when I refer to Maoism I refer to Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, the ideology of Shining Path, the Naxals, the Turkish guerillas, the left-wing faction of the New People's Army, and other Maoists groups that are fighting real world revolutions. It's not that I don't consider Mike's Maoism legitimate, nor am I accusing him of revisionism, I just don't mean the same thing when I say "Maoism" as he does (which is why I think we should drop the term and just say the full MLM even though it is a mouth full.)

I don't think it is that the two mean different things as much as the objective situations are so radically different in each of the countries you mentioned that what might work in Peru, India, or Turkey would never be able to work in the US. The ideology is the same, it is the application that is different, hence the different appearance. Also, I do not know what you mean by fighting for real world revolutions when the situation in the first world is radically different from the third and second world: should Maoist groups in the first world take up arms and fight against the state in order to become "real revolutionaries" even though they have no hope of winning? Regrouping while pushing the struggle forward is a process, not something which results simply from an adherence to pseudo-dogma.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And when first world Maoists say PPW, they don't mean taking Mao's military tatics and applying them to the west a literal sense. They mean that the formation of a military line is absolutely essential for a communist party and that a communist party without a military line is not a communist party (I am simply stating our views, this critique is not directed at tendencies but rather at individual parties), and that all activity a communist party undergoes should be for the sole purpose of accumulating enough forces to launch a revolution with the assumption that our party must operate as an illegal organization, and that the strategy of insurrection is impractical in the modern context. Mike Ely is being very intellectually dishonest when conflates our concept of PPW with surrounding the cities from the country side. We aren't even advocating a spesfic strategy pe se, all we are saying is that a communist party should operate as if it were banned regardless of it's legal status, refuse to cooperate with bourgeois legality under any circumstances, and try to formulate a military strategy to overthrow the state. In this sense PPW is not a specific military doctrine as much as it is a principled rejection of activist politics. It is merely putting forth the case that there needs to be a specific military doctrine

Though to give credit where it is due, he has been talking alot about security culture lately and it's importance. So props to him for that.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't think it is that the two mean different things as much as the objective situations are so radically different in each of the countries you mentioned that what might work in Peru, India, or Turkey would never be able to work in the US. The ideology is the same, it is the application that is different, hence the different appearance. Also, I do not know what you mean by fighting for real world revolutions when the situation in the first world is radically different from the third and second world: should Maoist groups in the first world take up arms and fight against the state in order to become "real revolutionaries" even though they have no hope of winning? Regrouping while pushing the struggle forward is a process, not something which results simply from an adherence to pseudo-dogma.

Not at all, I think I could have put that better. What I meant is that what Mike Ely advocates is defintily Maoism, since his arguments are much more consistant with Mao's theoretical frame work than MLM. I am simply saying that the Maoism that he refers to is different than mine. We don't mean the same thing. I don't think he's a bad guy, he's probably one of the best Maoist theoreticians in the Western hemisphere. Nor do I think he is a revisionist, since he has stuck up for his principles quite well. It's just that his Maoism is in essense, an application of Mao Zedong thought as formulated by Mao to the modern context, while Marxist Leninist Maoism was a framework formulated only officially in 1993 that has been adapted by all the major third world Maoist parties. Obviously we are all Maoists, but there is a clear distinction between the two just like there was a distinctions between Stalin's Marxist-Leninism and Mao's Marxist Leninism

Sorry, I am going to add one more edit here because I want to be as clear as possible while maintaining as much civility as I can. Because you are my personal favorite poster.


what do I mean by an application of Mao Zedong Thought as opposed to Marxist Leninist Maoism? Here's a quote from Mao's "Problems of War and Strategy"


The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries.
But while the principle remains the same, its application by the party of the proletariat finds expression in varying ways according to the varying conditions. Internally, capitalist countries practice bourgeois democracy (not feudalism) when they are not fascist or not at war; in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other nations. Because of these characteristics, it is the task of the party of the proletariat in the capitalist countries to educate the workers and build up strength through a long period of legal struggle, and thus prepare for the final overthrow of capitalism. In these countries, the question is one of a long legal struggle, of utilizing parliament as a platform, of economic and political strikes, of organizing trade unions and educating the workers. There the form of organization is legal and the form of struggle bloodless (non-military). On the issue of war, the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries oppose the imperialist wars waged by their own countries; if such wars occur, the policy of these Parties is to bring about the defeat of the reactionary governments of their own countries. The one war they want to fight is the civil war for which they are preparing.[1] But this insurrection and war should not be launched until the bourgeoisie becomes really helpless, until the majority of the proletariat are determined to rise in arms and fight, and until the rural masses are giving willing help to the proletariat. And when the time comes to launch such an insurrection and war, the first step will be to seize the cities, and then advance into the countryside' and not the other way about. All this has been done by Communist Parties in capitalist countries, and it has been proved correct by the October Revolution in Russia.

To hold that position is completely consistent with Maoism, and yet at the same time at odds with Marxist Leninist Maoism to the extreme, and more importantly is a position that is in extreme contradiction with my politics and thus I refuse it utterly. That's not to say that Mike advocates parliamentary struggle, but my point being that "Maoism" doesn't mean MLM.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

And when first world Maoists say PPW, they don't mean taking Mao's military tatics and applying them to the west a literal sense. They mean that the formation of a military line is absolutely essential for a communist party and that a communist party without a military line is not a communist party (I am simply stating our views, this critique is not directed at tendencies but rather at individual parties), and that all activity a communist party undergoes should be for the sole purpose of accumulating enough forces to launch a revolution with the assumption that our party must operate as an illegal organization.Mike Ely is being very intellectually dishonest when conflates our concept of PPW with surrounding the cities from the country side. We aren't even advocating a spesfic strategy pe se, all we are saying is that a communist party should operate as if it were banned regardless of it's legal status, refuse to cooperate with bourgeois legality under any circumstances, and try to formulate a military strategy to overthrow the state. In this sense PPW is not a specific military doctrine as much as it is a principled rejection of activist politics. It is merely putting forth the case that there needs to be a specific military doctrine

Well, Kasama is not a Party. Instead it is a collective from several revolutionary tendencies with a base of Maoism. This base serves as the essential building block for theory. It is a project in the fullest sense of the world with each collective operating under different circumstances.

In my opinion having a correct military line does not make a communist party. It certainly helps if a organization has "shadows" and can operate underground at a moment's notice but in the current conditions, where it is legal to operate above ground and nothing would be gained from diverting mass-amounts of material and man-power to establishing a alternative mode of organizing, I do not see why this is of relevance at the moment. Likewise what use is a military line in an era of first world indifference? Before any kind of military policy is constructed workers should actually be motivated by socialism in large numbers. Otherwise why spend such a great amount of time and effort over wondering how to organize for a war which both is not close nor even feasible as there are no combat forces to assess.

I am not against theorizing possible applications of PPW but simply do not see the point when at the moment military action is unthinkable. I also do not know what you mean by reusing to cooperate with bourgeois legality. This has such a wide definition it can mean any number of things, most of which are contradictory.

I do not remember when Mike ever conflated your theory in such a manner. I have only ever seen him advocate Mao's opinion of legal above ground struggle prior to the launching of armed struggle; his (Mao's) advocacy of first-world workers seizing the cities and then moving onto the country-side.

See here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7226

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not at all, I think I could have put that better. What I meant is that what Mike Ely advocates is defintily Maoism, since his arguments are much more consistant with Mao's theoretical frame work than MLM. I am simply saying that the Maoism that he refers to is different than mine. We don't mean the same thing. I don't think he's a bad guy, he's probably one of the best Maoist theoreticians in the Western hemisphere. Nor do I think he is a revisionist, since he has stuck up for his principles quite well. It's just that his Maoism is in essense, an application of Mao Zedong thought as formulated by Mao to the modern context, while Marxist Leninist Maoism was a framework formulated only officially in 1993 that has been adapted by all the major third world Maoist parties. Obviously we are all Maoists, but there is a clear distinction between the two just like there was a distinctions between Stalin's Marxist-Leninism and Mao's Marxist Leninism

Sorry, I am going to add one more edit here because I want to be as clear as possible while maintaining as much civility as I can. Because you are my personal favorite poster.

what do I mean by an application of Mao Zedong Thought as opposed to Marxist Leninist Maoism? Here's a quote from Mao's "Problems of War and Strategy"

To hold that position is completely consistent with Maoism, and yet at the same time at odds with Marxist Leninist Maoism to the extreme, and more importantly is a position that is in extreme contradiction with my politics and thus I refuse it utterly. That's not to say that Mike advocates parliamentary struggle, but my point being that "Maoism" doesn't mean MLM.

I understand what you are getting at and hope I haven't come off as too hostile in my words, as well.

I agree that we are all from different Maoist ideologies. More aptly we should consider this as the Maoist tradition, perhaps. I would still argue that all Maoist thought is under the same roof, so to speak. That it simply expresses itself differently in each country. There are differences but to me these difference are more uniting than sectarian (or should be, anyway).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I understand what you are getting at and hope I haven't come off as too hostile in my words, as well.

I agree that we are all from different Maoist ideologies. More aptly we should consider this as the Maoist tradition, perhaps. I would still argue that all Maoist thought is under the same roof, so to speak. That it simply expresses itself differently in each country. There are differences but to me these difference are more uniting than sectarian (or should be, anyway).

Of course, at the end of the day, since Maoism stresses dialectical materialism, there can only be one form of Maoism that is correct according to this method. It's too early yet to say whether it is Ely's tendency or that of the Canadian RCP, but there is only one correct application of Maoism. Still, the two tendencies of Maoism are gaining ground in America with the success of Kasama and the fact that the influence of the Canadian RCP is spreading south of the border through the work of JMP and other Canadian Maoists. So at some point there will be two competing strands of Maoism in the US that will compete for hegemony. It will be interesting to see that come into fruition.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Of course, at the end of the day, since Maoism stresses dialectical materialism, there can only be one form of Maoism that is correct according to this method. It's too early yet to say whether it is Ely's tendency or that of the Canadian RCP, but there is only one correct application of Maoism. Still, the two tendencies of Maoism are gaining ground in America with the success of Kasama and the fact that the influence of the Canadian RCP is spreading south of the border through the work of JMP and other Canadian Maoists. So at some point there will be two competing strands of Maoism in the US that will compete for hegemony. It will be interesting to see that come into fruition.

I am not sold on the ultimate victory of one kind of ideological strain over another. All revolutionary anti-capitalist thoughts must, in some manner, work together if a revolution is to happen in the first world; in this manner I think that with any degree of success the respective revolutionary movements will either have to work together or face defeat. I do not think America is a country where conflicting anti-capitalist groups can bicker amongst each other and survive. To this I more mean that at the end of the day the difference among Maoists, and the larger anti-capitalist movement, will fizzle out and form into a sort of jointly administered socialist state; one which has the tendencies working among their spheres of influence, not against one another.

This is a different train of thought, one which is mostly foreign to the revolutionary tradition, yet it is something which I honestly think is the only natural route. Experience might prove it to be mistaken but until that day comes it is hard to tell with so little activity.

Yet to comment on your point more directly, yes, it will be interesting to see which strand of thought gains more traction, especially since come that day the two schools of thought are sure to engage in more pronounced polemics than what they are currently undertaking.

I think both traditions are gaining ground in each country (The RCP (http://pcr-rcp.ca/)through JMP (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com.br/) and Kasama (http://www.kasamaproject.org/) through the Revolutionary Initiative (http://ri-ir.org/about/). ).

[xvzc]

Universality of people's war does not entail mechanically applying armed struggle as it has existed in oppressed countries to imperialist ones. There are no Maoists in imperialist countries who propose that we create base areas in rural districts and/or organize "peasantry".

This theory exists as a rejection of the old and dead-end formula of long legal work followed by insurrection, which the PPW Maoists considers to be rightism, idealism and a mechanical application of the experience of the October Revolution.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Universality of people's war does not entail mechanically applying armed struggle as it has existed in oppressed countries to imperialist ones. There are no Maoists in imperialist countries who propose that we create base areas in rural districts and/or organize "peasantry".

This theory exists as a rejection of the old and dead-end formula of long legal work followed by insurrection, which the PPW Maoists considers to be rightism, idealism and a mechanical application of the experience of the October Revolution.

No one here was advocating as much, however. The altercation was between the universality of it in general, not in its application (I.E. the means and mode, method of struggle, etc). Likewise, however, you seem to be advocating a rejection of legal struggle in non-revolutionary times without first elaborating on what this implied non-compliance with the state actually means.

[Art Vandelay]

Universality of people's war does not entail mechanically applying armed struggle as it has existed in oppressed countries to imperialist ones. There are no Maoists in imperialist countries who propose that we create base areas in rural districts and/or organize "peasantry".

This theory exists as a rejection of the old and dead-end formula of long legal work followed by insurrection, which the PPW Maoists considers to be rightism, idealism and a mechanical application of the experience of the October Revolution.

I don't know if this is true. I am pretty sure that the Canadian RCP calls for just that. I haven't read their party program in a while, I'll have to re-read it.

[RedSonRising]

Industry doesn't seem sustainable at this point. And Marx's letters concerning the Russian peasantry largely contradict the widely accepted view that his predictive theory of stages, which include industrialization as a precursor, is a must for revolution, and that history must be linear.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Industry doesn't seem sustainable at this point. And Marx's letters concerning the Russian peasantry largely contradict the widely accepted view that his predictive theory of stages, which include industrialization as a precursor, is a must for revolution, and that history must be linear.

This is why, for semi-feudal nations, the theory of New Democracy exists, so as to build up industry and pave the way for socialism. I haven't been searching through Mao's texts on New Democracy for a while so I cannot lecture at length but this seems to be the solution to the problem you are getting at.

[xvzc]

No one here was advocating as much, however. The altercation was between the universality of it in general, not in its application (I.E. the means and mode, method of struggle, etc). Likewise, however, you seem to be advocating a rejection of legal struggle in non-revolutionary times without first elaborating on what this implied non-compliance with the state actually means.

From my own observations I'd say that the vast majority of communists advocate some variant of the "October Road", i.e. insurrectionism, which is in my opinion an unrealistic strategy which has had very negative results.

I wouldn't say that I reject legal struggle. However, the default method in communist and activist work is to give primary emphasis to legal work which more often than not ensnares you within the framework of bourgeois legality and breeds opportunism.


I don't know if this is true. I am pretty sure that the Canadian RCP calls for just that. I haven't read their party program in a while, I'll have to re-read it.

I'd suggest that you skim over their documents again. I find PCR-RCP practice to be very exciting since it is a rather radical break from traditional methods of communist work in Canada.

[~Spectre]

an unrealistic strategy which has had very negative results.


As opposed to Maoism?

[vanukar]

From my own observations I'd say that the vast majority of communists advocate some variant of the "October Road", i.e. insurrectionism, which is in my opinion an unrealistic strategy which has had very negative results.

You really don't sound like much of a materialist here if you're actually subjecting material conditions to doctrinal strategies.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I wouldn't say that I reject legal struggle. However, the default method in communist and activist work is to give primary emphasis to legal work which more often than not ensnares you within the framework of bourgeois legality and breeds opportunism.


How does it breed opportunism? In addition: what do you consider "legal work"? Becasue from my standpoint unless you are actively trying to overthrow the local ruling class your activities fall into the category of "legal work" (which would include the PCR-RCP, as I haven't seen them undertake anything which would be an inclusion of this still yet undefined non-compliance).

[RedSonRising]

This is why, for semi-feudal nations, the theory of New Democracy exists, so as to build up industry and pave the way for socialism. I haven't been searching through Mao's texts on New Democracy for a while so I cannot lecture at length but this seems to be the solution to the problem you are getting at.

That's the thing, building industry seems like an inherently unsustainable process. The problem is living on a planet with finite resources. I don't advocate waiting on a crisis for socialism to take hold, but when capitalism implodes, it will be the 3rd world that adjusts easier IMO. The western industrial model for "development" is a flawed one.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That's the thing, building industry seems like an inherently unsustainable process. The problem is living on a planet with finite resources. I don't advocate waiting on a crisis for socialism to take hold, but when capitalism implodes, it will be the 3rd world that adjusts easier IMO. The western industrial model for "development" is a flawed one.

I think this would be an interesting discussion (albeit not related to the topic at hand) as it it certainly true: Earth has limited resources, resources which, even under a communist system, would eventually run out. This is then linked up with the development of revolution and lifestyle (IE precious minerals used in technological devices). In this manner I think the question of how to bring about socialist revolution is close but not one-in-the same (as revolution which happens in the third world will happen, or won't happen, regardless of our tactics). In this regard I do not know what you mean by flawed; Western development came partly as a result of Imperialism (the subjugation of foreign resources,specialists and markets to ensure dominance). It is flawed, yes, but it exists and is something which we, and our third-world comrades, must grapple with in order to make world revolution a reality.

[l'Enfermé]

This is a theoretical thread, moved to Theory.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm very much an anti-Maoist but OP's critique is pretty weak.

[ind_com]

The "misconceptions" arise from the fact that Maoism is filled with contradictions, weasel words, jargon, lies, and incoherent clap trap. It's not so much a theory or tendency, as it is a label for reactionary nationalists looking to put a left gloss on rage.

Third world Maoists often get a pass, for reasons that are a bit beyond me. They're worse than their louder but impotent first world cousins. Backing Islamic fundamentalists, slaughtering workers, and selling out to form trade deals with capitalist states, isn't some trivial matter.

Your post belongs to defenceforumindia, not revleft.

[Brutus]

I wouldn't say Maoism is flawed, it is 'Marxism-Leninism' applied to rural, peasant based areas. Adaptation is necessary to survive. You try going to peasants and tell the, they need to liberate the proletariat, which in most cases of the world is a minority.

[ind_com]

I wouldn't say Maoism is flawed, it is 'Marxism-Leninism' applied to rural, peasant based areas. Adaptation is necessary to survive. You try going to peasants and tell the, they need to liberate the proletariat, which in most cases of the world is a minority.

It is much more than that. Maoism generalizes to all countries, including the imperialist ones. The ideas of continuous revolutions, and the working classes systematically decimating the bourgeois state apparatus through protracted political and military struggles, are universal in nature.

[ind_com]

Double post!

[Brutus]

Would the PPW be replaced with urban guerrilla warfare? And on a totally unrelated note, weren't Baader-Meinhoff Maoists who had adapted the theory to the west?

[ind_com]

Would the PPW be replaced with urban guerrilla warfare?

Urban guerrilla warfare is feasible in the imperialist countries since the proletariat is the single largest oppressed class and concentrated in urban areas. But guerrilla warfare has to be transformed into mobile warfare and then conventional warfare, with the communist forces gaining control of territories, and introducing organs of proletarian power.


And on a totally unrelated note, weren't Baader-Meinhoff Maoists who had adapted the theory to the west?

Like most contemporary Maoist groups, they could not advance beyond the initial phase of guerrilla struggle, and failed to involve the proletariat as a class in their struggle.

[Brutus]

Thanks.

[kasama-rl]

Many important ideas have been raised here. Let me touch on a few:

YABM has written a number of thoughtful things, but seems a bit confused on my own personal argument:

"Mike Ely is being very intellectually dishonest when conflates our concept of PPW with surrounding the cities from the country side. We aren't even advocating a spesfic strategy pe se, all we are saying is that a communist party should operate as if it were banned regardless of it's legal status, refuse to cooperate with bourgeois legality under any circumstances, and try to formulate a military strategy to overthrow the state. In this sense PPW is not a specific military doctrine as much as it is a principled rejection of activist politics. It is merely putting forth the case that there needs to be a specific military doctrine "

So let me start there. The GodlessUtopian is correct when he say that I have never conflated PPW with surrounding cities from the countryside. In other words, it seems unfair (and a bit rash) to suddenly accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, when in fact, I have not engaged in that at all.

I am aware that those who advocate PPW in advanced countries are talking about forms of urban guerilla warfare, not rural guerilla warfare. And no one (that I know of) has suggested that ppw always means "countryside to city."

I am arguing that under most foreseeable conditions that is a mistaken (and even suicidal) approach -- IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. And further that the only conditions where forces have waged urban guerilla (or partisan) warfare in advanced countries is when they riased the national flag and sought to protray themselves as the saviors of the nation. (I.e. when the rather rightist communist parties of WW2 waged anti-nazi partisan warfare, or when the IRA waged anti-british warfare on a nationalist basis.)

There have been several points in the U.S. communist mvement, where forces advocated shifting to urban guerrilla warfare (and forms of protracted peoples war) -- and (in predictable ways) their attempts were disasterous and very short lived. It is a very unwise policy for reasons we can discuss in more detail.

The existence of political base areas and embryonic forms of power within those base areas is a key feature of protracted peoples war. Mao liberated territory, created an early government, carried out land reforms, developed an army -- and waged warfare between communist controlled areas and government controlled areas (and develope guerilla zones where stable base areas were not possible).

However it is not possible to develop stable political base areas in advanced countries -- because the economy is integrated and not agrarian, because the state is generally quite strong and exerts control over the terrritory, and because it is only rarely that such states are directly occupied from without.

That is the basis on which communist generally have argued that different strategies and military approaches (armed insurrection followed by civil war, for example) would be considered for advanced countries.

It was written above:

"We aren't even advocating a spesfic strategy pe se, all we are saying is that a communist party should operate as if it were banned regardless of it's legal status, refuse to cooperate with bourgeois legality under any circumstances, and try to formulate a military strategy to overthrow the state. "

Well these are points worth considering one by one:

First, all communist acknowledge that their existence is (at best) semi-legal, and is likely (at some point) to be functionally illegal. This is not a controvery (or at least is not a controversy associated with the matter of protracted pw).

Second, I don't know what it means to "refuse to cooperate with bourgeois legality under any circumstances." Does this mean not engaging in court cases when people are put on trial? Is a communist press forbidden to file taxes? If our offices are raided, are we forbidden to file motions in court? In other words, I can imaging many circumstances where communists would be required to use (but not rely on) bourgeois legality. Perhaps I odn't understand your phrase "cooperatew with bourgeois legality" -- what does that mean to you?

Third: "and try to formulate a military strategy to overthrow the state" -- communists explore (theoretically) the tasks of discussing possible military doctrines and strategies for future conditions. You don't have to believe in "universal ppw" to believe in that. And when formlating military strategies, communists often come up with strategies that are not ppw.

Perhaps we can explore this more, so we have a common language, and understand the different views more closely.

[MarxArchist]

The "misconceptions" arise from the fact that Maoism is filled with contradictions, weasel words, jargon, lies, and incoherent clap trap. It's not so much a theory or tendency, as it is a label for reactionary nationalists looking to put a left gloss on rage.

Third world Maoists often get a pass, for reasons that are a bit beyond me. They're worse than their louder but impotent first world cousins. Backing Islamic fundamentalists, slaughtering workers, and selling out to form trade deals with capitalist states, isn't some trivial matter.
I like you.

[kasama-rl]

Originally Posted by ~Spectre
"The "misconceptions" arise from the fact that Maoism is filled with contradictions, weasel words, jargon, lies, and incoherent clap trap."

Spectre's brief rant/characterization is not helpful here -- largely because it is ill-informed.

You may not agree with Maoism, but if so, deal with its actual content. It is (whether you acknowledge it or not) a sophisticated and developed political approach -- that brought a quarter of humanity (first) through the liberation of feudalism's abolition, and (then) to new waves of revolution that sought to develop socialism and early forms of communist sprouts.

Is it "filled with contradiction"? Well, yes -- but exactly in the dialectical sense that every set of ideas is filled with contradictions. (Mao said that socialism itself doesn't just *have* contradictions but is riddled with contradiction, propelled by contradiction, defined by contradiction.... and the same is true of our communist theory--both past and present.)

[JoeySteel]

Although I think Maoism is often a harmful trend in the Communist movement, I don't disagree with it for anti-communist reasons like some in the thread, and I must chime in in agreement with Mike Ely on this issue of "breaking with bourgeois legality."

This issue has led to confusion among some young people in Canada. There is a rhetorical tendency among the anglophone Maoist left to constantly espouse that they are "breaking with bourgeois legality" as if this signifies something meaningful or differentiates Maoism from other trends.

The Communist movement, especially since the Bolsheviks, has always stressed the importance of conducting illegal work that advances the cause. The importance of combining legal and illegal work is something that found its way into the Leninist canon and remains essential to stave off right opportunism and seize all opportunities. Maoism today is not putting forward a new or different idea by saying that the party should not let the law dictate their activities.

The leap that Maoist ranters like JMP and his followers seem to be making is from the necessity to conduct illegal work and not be limited by the legality or illegality of activities over to the idea of boycotting everything "legal". This seems to be 99% posturing. There is a rich internet sport of Maoist bragging about how they don't do this or that, which seems to be a badge of honour more so than anything actually done. I have even seen the idea of "boycotting the state" put forward, something that I can scarcely find a concrete meaning for. Sometimes "breaking with bourgeois legality" is explained as strict separation between Maoist activities and so-called legal political organizations or work. This is nothing more than a self-enforced isolation from political life, and Maoists are clearly suffering from it considering the decline of their political activities. Likewise the "boycotting" gimmick is becoming incredibly tired and accomplishes nothing. The insanity of it is clear when the Maoists called to boycott the Quebec elections that resulted in the defeat of the Liberals and the victory of the Summer 2012 Quebec student strike.

All this "breaking with" nonsense, and there are plenty more examples, amounts to abstentionism masked in ultra-revolutionary rhetoric. It has nothing to do with Marxist-Leninst strategy and tactics and finding the line of march of the working class movement. In fact the Maoists are breaking with nothing because there was nothing they were hitched to. Today there are no small number of young people who read JMP, who gets drunk and writes terrible rants on his blog that have very little to do with Marxism and the Canadian working class and class struggle in Canada, and instead espouses his own eclectic and ultra-left theories he calls Maoism. People should be very wary of this stuff. He writes with a bravado and cocky self-confidence, replete with rhetorical flourishes that are usually ridiculous strawpersons.

That brings us to the second point here that must be addressed. One of the major strawpersons erected by JMP that has, in the last few years, trickled down to other young people who call themselves Maoists is regarding "Lenin's theory of insurrection" or some such thing.

The way the story is usually told is like this: "Lenin's theory" of "insurrection" (usually told as a ridiculous strawperson like "suddenly everyone decides to rise up at once and magically overthrows the state) 'only' worked in Russia due to the "special conditions" (?) in Russia at the time, which don't exist anywhere else today. "Insurrectionism" failed everywhere else, because it is inherently flawed. The Chinese revolution succeeded, therefore it showed how obsolete "insurrectionism" is, and showed that PPW is "the path" to revolution.

The problem is THERE IS NO "LENINIST THEORY OF INSURRECTION." Leninist "INSURRECTIONISM" IS NOT A THING. JMP and others are making this shit up drunk on their blog wholesale. Lenin wrote many different things about the conditions under which one class can overthrow the other. He did not have some hackeneyed "theory of insurrection". I noticed several times where the supposed Leninist insurrectionism was blended with Syndicalist notions of the General Strike taking power in order to discredit it. Simply this whole exercise is being used to trick young people uneducated in Marx and Lenin into not even bothering to read Lenin and instead adopting wholesale the abstentionist, ultra-leftist nonsense that some people are calling Maosim or "MLM". There is no rational argument for why PPW is "necessary" and no one has been able to produce one. They are all based on flawed and horribly oversimplified premises. All it is leading to is young people withdrawing from political thought and political activity, withdrawing from Leninism, and fetishizing military activity and fantasies about going into the woods with guns.

I just cannot recommend enough that people are extremely skeptical when reading the stuff JMP is saying because he simply does not know what he is talking about.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The problem is THERE IS NO "LENINIST THEORY OF INSURRECTION." Leninist "INSURRECTIONISM" IS NOT A THING. JMP

This seems like an easily falsifiable claim. Lets see here, did Lenin have a theory of insurrection? Oh look what I found:


Marxism and Insurrection <--------------(Hey look Lenin is theorizing about insurrection over here)


One of the most vicious and probably most widespread distortions of Marxism resorted to by the dominant "socialist" parties is the opportunist lie that preparation for insurrection, and generally the treatment of insurrection as an art, is "Blanquism".

Bernstein, the leader of opportunism, has already earned himself unfortunate fame by accusing Marxism of Blanquism, and when our present-day opportunists cry Blanquism they do not improve on or "enrich" the meagre "ideas" of Bernstein one little bit.

Marxists are accused of Blanquism for treating insurrection as an art! Can there be a more flagrant perversion of the truth, when not a single Marxist will deny that it was Marx who expressed himself on this score in the most definite, precise and categorical manner, referring to insurrection specifically as an art, saying that it must be treated as an art, that you must win the first success and then proceed from success to success, never ceasing the offensive against the enemy, taking advantage of his confusion, etc., etc.?

To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.

Once these conditions exist, however, to refuse to treat insurrection as an art is a betrayal of Marxism and a betrayal of the revolution.

To show that it is precisely the present moment that the Party must recognise as the one in which the entire course of events has objectively placed insurrection on the order of the day and that insurrection must be treated as an art, it will perhaps be best to use the method of comparison, and to draw a parallel between July 3-4 and the September days.

On July 3-4 it could have been argued, without violating the truth, that the correct thing to do was to take power, for our enemies would in any case have accused us of insurrection and ruthlessly treated us as rebels. However, to have decided on this account in favour of taking power at that time would have been wrong, because the objective conditions for the victory of the insurrection did not exist.

(1) We still lacked the support of the class which is the vanguard of the revolution.

We still did not have a majority among the workers and soldiers of Petrograd and Moscow. Now we have a majority in both Soviets. It was created solely by the history of July and August, by the experience of the "ruthless treatment" meted out to the Bolsheviks, and by the experience of the Kornilov revolt.

(2) There was no country-wide revolutionary upsurge at that time. There is now, after the Kornilov revolt; the situation in the provinces and assumption of power by the Soviets in many localities prove this.

(3) At that time there was no vacillation on any serious political scale among our enemies and among the irresolute petty bourgeoisie. Now the vacillation is enormous. Our main enemy, Allied and world imperialism (for world imperialism is headed by the "Allies"), has begun to waver between a war to a victorious finish and a separate peace directed against Russia. Our petty-bourgeois democrats, having clearly lost their majority among the people, have begun to vacillate enormously, and have rejected a bloc, i.e., a coalition, with the Cadets.

(4) Therefore, an insurrection on July 3-4 would have been a mistake; we could not have retained power either physically or politically. We could not have retained it physically even though Petrograd was at times in our hands, because at that time our workers and soldiers would not have fought and died for Petrograd. There was not at the time that "savageness", or fierce hatred both of the Kerenskys and of the Tseretelis and Chernovs. Our people had still not been tempered by the experience of the persecution of the Bolsheviks in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks participated.

We could not have retained power politically on July 3-4 because, before the Kornilov revolt, the army and the provinces could and would have marched against Petrograd.

Now the picture is entirely different.

We have the following of the majority of a class, the vanguard of the revolution, the vanguard of the people, which is capable of carrying the masses with it.

We have the following of the majority of the people, because Chernov's resignation, while by no means the only symptom, is the most striking and obvious symptom that the peasants will not receive land from the Socialist-Revolutionaries' bloc (or from the Socialist-Revolutionaries themselves). And that is the chief reason for the popular character of the revolution.

We are in the advantageous position of a party that knows for certain which way to go at a time when imperialism, as a whale and the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary bloc as a whole are vacillating in an incredible fashion.

Our victory is assured, for the people are close to desperation, and we are showing the entire people a sure way out; we demonstrated to the entire people during the "Kornilov days" the value of our leadership, and then proposed to the politicians of the bloc a compromise, which they rejected, although there is no let-up in their vacillations.

It would be a great mistake to think that our offer of a compromise had not yet been rejected, and that the Democratic Conference may still accept it. The compromise was proposed by a party to parties; it could not have been proposed in any other way. It was rejected by parties. The Democratic Conference is a conference, and nothing more. One thing must not be forgotten, namely, that the majority of the revolutionary people, the poor, embittered peasants, are not represented in it. It is a conference of a minority of the people—this obvious truth must not be forgotten. It would be a big mistake, sheer parliamentary cretinism on our part, if we were to regard the Democratic Conference as a parliament; for even if it were to proclaim itself a permanent and sovereign parliament of the revolution, it would nevertheless decide nothing. The power of decision lies outside it in the working-class quarters of Petrograd and Moscow.

All the objective conditions exist for a successful insurrection. We have the exceptional advantage of a situation in which only our victory in the insurrection can put an end to that most painful thing on earth, vacillation, which has worn the people out; in which only our victory in the insurrection will give the peasants land immediately; a situation in which only our victory in the insurrection can foil the game of a separate peace directed against the revolution —foil it by publicly proposing a fuller, juster and earlier peace, a peace that will benefit the revolution.

Finally, our Party alone can, by a victorious insurrection, save Petrograd; for if our proposal for peace is rejected, if we do not secure even an armistice, then we shall become "defencists", we shall place ourselves at the head of the war parties, we shall be the war party par excellence, and we shall conduct the war in a truly revolutionary manner. We shall take away all the bread and boots from the capitalists. We shall leave them only crusts and dress them in bast shoes. We shall send all the bread and footwear to the front.

And then we shall save Petrograd.

The resources, both material and spiritual, for a truly revolutionary war in Russia are still immense; the chances are a hundred to one that the Germans will grant us at least an armistice. And to secure an armistice now would in itself mean to win the whole world.

* * *

Having recognised the absolute necessity for an insurrection of the workers of Petrograd and Moscow in order to save the revolution and to save Russia from a "separate" partition by the imperialists of both groups, we must first adapt our political tactics at the Conference to the conditions of the growing insurrection; secondly, we must show that it is not only in words that we accept Marx's idea that insurrection must be treated as an art.

At the Conference we must immediately cement the Bolshevik group, without striving after numbers, and without fearing to leave the waverers in the waverers' camp. They are more useful to the cause of the revolution there than in the camp of the resolute and devoted fighters.

We must draw up a brief declaration from the Bolsheviks, emphasising in no uncertain manner the irrelevance of long speeches and of "speeches" in general, the necessity for immediate action to save the revolution, the absolute necessity for a complete break with the bourgeoisie, for the removal of the present government, in its entirety, for a complete rupture with the Anglo-French imperialists, who are preparing a "separate" partition of Russia, and for the immediate transfer of all power to revolutionary democrats, headed by the revolutionary proletariat.

Our declaration must give the briefest and most trenchant formulation of this conclusion in connection with the programme proposals of peace for the peoples, land for the peasants, confiscation of scandalous profits, and a check on the scandalous sabotage of production by the capitalists.

The briefer and more trenchant the declaration, the better. Only two other highly important points must be clearly indicated in it, namely, that the people are worn out by the vacillations, that they are fed up with the irresolution of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks; and that we are definitely breaking with these parties because they have betrayed the revolution.

And another thing. By immediately proposing a peace without annexations, by immediately breaking with the Allied imperialists and with all imperialists, either we shall at once obtain an armistice, or the entire revolutionary proletariat will rally to the defence of the country, and a really just, really revolutionary war will then be waged by revolutionary democrats under the leadership of the proletariat.

Having read this declaration, and having appealed for decisions and not talk, for action and not resolution-writing, we must dispatch our entire group to the factories and the barracks. Their place is there, the pulse of life is there, there's the source of salvation for our revolution, and there is he motive force of the Democratic Conference.

There, in ardent and impassioned speeches, we must explain our programme and put the alternative: either the Conference adopts it in its entirety, or else insurrection. There is no middle course. Delay is impossible. The revolution is lying.

By putting the question in this way, by concentrating our entire group in the factories and barracks, we shall be able to determine the right moment to start the insurrection.

In order to treat insurrection in a Marxist way, i.e., as an art, we must at the same time, without losing a single moment, organise a headquarters of the insurgent detachments, distribute our forces, move the reliable regiments to the most important points, surround the Alexandriusky Theatre, occupy the Peter and Paul Fortress,1' arrest the General Staff and the government, and move against the officer cadets and the Savage Division those detachments which would rather die than allow the enemy to approach the strategic points of the city. We must mobilise the armed workers and call them to fight the last desperate fight, occupy the telegraph and the telephone exchange at once, move our insurrection headquarters to the central telephone exchange and connect it by telephone with all the factories, all the regiments, all the points of armed fighting, etc.

Of course, this is all by way of example, only to illustrate the fact that at the present moment it is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to remain loyal to the revolution unless insurrection is treated as an art.

-Lenin

So what have we learned from this?

That Lenin referred to insurrection as an "art", which can be seen as both another word for a "theory"

That Lenin lists the material conditions that allow for an insurrection to be possible, I.E gave the emperical conditions that are required for any theory to be scientific (by the Marxist definition of course)

That Lenin distinguished his theory of insurrection from Blanqui's theory of insurrection, which makes his theory distinguished from another theory of insurrection and therefore unique. And if you know anything about the controversy between Rosa Luxemburg, the Left Communists, and Lenin, you know that none of them thought that Lenin's definition of insurrection fit within their own categories, which obviously means that it is separate from the other theories of insurrection at that time period.

This isn't to say that this theory of insurectionism is unique to Lenin,(I'm pretty sure at this point it was but I'm sure that his concept of insurrection didn't come from a vacuum) but it is definitely unique to it's time period and to the contemporaries of it's time period. So it isn't a stretch to refer to it as the "Leninist theory of insurrection"

So next time you make claims about what Lenin did or did not theorize, I'd recommend that you try reading something Lenin wrote other than Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.(Should be renamed Right Wing Opportunism for Revisionists Who Want to Quote Lenin) Because that text is shitty and most of Lenin's suggestions proved disastrous for the communist movement, such as his suggestion of entryism into the British Labour Party. Oh and before you accuse me of Ad Hominen, try reading your entire post and find more than two paragraphs that don't contain an Ad Hominen against my comrade JMP (who I will have you know that I am aquantied with and I can link statements made by him that contradict what you are claiming about him)

And since there are alot of points here that are often made by the "Leninist" left I'll try to respond to them all in a new post eventually.

Also on a side note, I've made a couple posts distinguishing "Ultra-Leftist" Marxist Leninist Maoism from the theory and Praxis of the various right wing deviations of "Leninism" in the attempt of garnering the respect of those who have previously falsely labeled my tendency as "Stalinism", however I feel like the rant above me will garner more respect and understanding of the theory and praxis of my tendency amougnst the "Ultra-Left" then any words I could have ever said.

[JoeySteel]

I would recommend you actually read that pamphlet of Lenin's because it is not about entryism into the Labour Party. This is another shitty ultra-left line I have seen thrown around by JMP and others to discourage people from actually reading Lenin.

Lenin wrote about insurrection and even conducted a successful insurrection. Lenin argued to treat insurrection in a Marxist way as opposed to a Blanquist. This has nothing to do with the ridiculous straw person of the "Leninist theory of insurrection" or "insurrectionism" espoused by some Maoists and counterposed to PPW.

Some Maoists try to argue that as opposed to "others" who follow the "October" road they are following PPW but this is just nonsense. There is no cliche "October road" and nobody is putting into "practice" PPW rather using it as a fashion statement.

The whole "dilemma" of "which road" takes the focus off the concrete task of organizing subjectively and objectively the working class to take up its rightful position as the decision-makers in society.

When was the last time any Leninists espoused this hackeneyed version of a magical insurrection attributed to them by Maoists? The only people that mention in are Canadian and some other Maoists who made it up.

People are throwing around "proved disastrous" without knowing anything. "Insurrectionism" proved disastrous when revolutions were defeated. OK, so when people saying they were conducting PPW were defeated, what did that prove? Be consistent and try and grasp the subtlety and that not all historical events are so simple.

What about Left-Wing Communism "proved disastrous" exactly? What is disastrous is communists isolating themselves from society and sticking to ultra-left self-reinforcement and arrogant self-congratulation.

[kasama-rl]

This seems like an easily falsifiable claim. Lets see here, did Lenin have a theory of insurrection? Oh look what I found..... [cites a Lenin essay on insurrection]

Well, let's break this down. (And here I agree with parts of what both Joey Steel and YABM write)..

Lenin advocated an insurrection in Russia. He started advocating such a thing during the 1905 events, when his forces staged an uprising in Moscow that petered out.

Then he started urging preparing for an insurrection in 1917 -- after returning from abroad (at the Finland Station) and proclaiming his shocking "April Thesis" (which most of his own party considered dangerously ultra-left and destablizing.) After the events of July 1917 (the first attempt of uprising in Petrograd) and then September (the Kornilov events where the virulence of the White forces, the weakness of Kerensky and the streetlevel strength of the revolutionary left were all revealed) -- Lenin started to plan an actual revolution. Then he carried out an insurrection in October in Petrograd (followed by an attempt at insurrection in Moscow and other places)

So lenin (in fact) advocated and then led insurrections.

And he had ideas about such things (about the need for revolution, about the laws of warfare applied to insurrection, about the way of identifying and exploiting a revolutinoary crisis to seize power, etc).

This was not some pristine or universal "theory of insurrection" (in any mechanical sense).... but a theorizing about how to seize power in crisis, under particular conditions. (Where, for example, the urban forces were much more conscious and ready than rural forces, where the existing government was weak, where external reactionary forces threatened a Paris commune-type bloodbath etc.)

And (following Lenin) many of his followers (in the Comintern) assumed that there was something universal about this October road -- that everywhere in the world, Soviets were the discovered form of new socialist power, and insurrection-followed-by-civil-war was the likely military form of seizing power.

It is an example (one among many) of a victory by particular forms in very specific situations are (mistakenly) assumed to suddenly be universal.

The particular (and often changing/morphing) norms of the Bolshevik Party were also declared to be universal.... in a way that codified the Russian experience in a rather mechanical and harmful way.

Joey writes:


"Some Maoists try to argue that as opposed to "others" who follow the "October" road they are following PPW but this is just nonsense. There is no cliche "October road" and nobody is putting into "practice" PPW rather using it as a fashion statement."

One thing worth pointing out here is that the civil war in Russia (followoing the insurrections) was an early form of peoples war (relying on the people, combining irregular and regular warfare, building on liberated areas to contest with white areas, moving from strategic defensive to strategic equilibrium etc.)

But it wasn't a form of PROTRACTED people war.

In some ways, I assume that revolutions will often involve elements or periods of peoples war -- but they will not generally be "protracted" in the very distinctive way that happened in China (and then Vietnam).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I would recommend you actually read that pamphlet of Lenin's because it is not about entryism into the Labour Party. This is another shitty ultra-left line I have seen thrown around by JMP and others to discourage people from actually reading Lenin.

Actually I've read it twice. Herman Gorter demolished it pretty effectively in his reply.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

Also Borgida's Theses on the Abstentationist Faction of the Italian Socialist Party are pretty good.

And yea, I know what it is about. Participation in reformist unions, participation in parliamentary elections (with the famous reply to the German Communists, "You might think that the Parliament is no longer relevant, but the proletariat sure does" or something like that. It's been a while since I've read that text so maybe I'll get to it when I am done reading about intersectionality theory) and a whole bunch of other things.


Lenin wrote about insurrection and even conducted a successful insurrection. Lenin argued to treat insurrection in a Marxist way as opposed to a Blanquist. This has nothing to do with the ridiculous straw person of the "Leninist theory of insurrection" or "insurrectionism" espoused by some Maoists and counterposed to PPW.


First of all. I've already explained that Lenin's theory of insurection was separate from his contempories, which you would know if you had read Rosa's Polemics and the other works by his opponents that are essential for understanding the context of what you call "Leninism". Heck Rosa even coined the term "Leninism" in 1904 as a political insult because Lenin's theories were thought to be Blanquism on steroids, which is why he felt it was necessary to distinquish himself from Blanqui. Even if it isn't the "Leninist" theory of insurectionism, there is definitely a tendency towards insurectionism that Lenin put forth and therefore the term "Leninist theory of insurrection" isn't inaccurate because he clearly had a very specific idea of insurrection that he was a proponent of.


Some Maoists try to argue that as opposed to "others" who follow the "October" road they are following PPW but this is just nonsense. There is no cliche "October road" and nobody is putting into "practice" PPW rather using it as a fashion statement.


This is kinda nonsense. First of all, the practice of PPW has led them to do illegal work that has made the RCP Canada a target of state repression. Secoundly we've outlined what PPW means so I'd advise you read the articles in PPW digest.


The whole "dilemma" of "which road" takes the focus off the concrete task of organizing subjectively and objectively the working class to take up its rightful position as the decision-makers in society.


This is just sloganeering. They have been active in organizing the working class and agitation. The idea that the choice of "which roads" is irrelevant is in all essense suggesting that we should just ignore the various theoretical difference on our practice. Which will never happen because every other tendency has an idea of which road to take even if they don't frame it in the way the RCP Canada does.


When was the last time any Leninists espoused this hackeneyed version of a magical insurrection attributed to them by Maoists? The only people that mention in are Canadian and some other Maoists who made it up.


If you've ever read anything produced by the IMT (which I assume you haven't because you seem to be capable of some semblance of rational thought), you'd know that almost every other sentence they put out is "omg you guize, IT'S 1905 AGAIN 13 MORE YEARS TO WORLD REVOLUTION W00000". Since they are one of the RCP main rivals then naturally they would focus on critiquing them. Though this is probably an honest mistake on your behalf because I assume that you have enough brain cells to avoid the likes of IMT Trottery.


People are throwing around "proved disastrous" without knowing anything. "Insurrectionism" proved disastrous when revolutions were defeated. OK, so when people saying they were conducting PPW were defeated, what did that prove? Be consistent and try and grasp the subtlety and that not all historical events are so simple.


In short (very short because there is plenty of work on this question) the question of insurectionism as used by the IMT trots and anarchist who the RCP extanges polemics with is just a way of justifying opportunism by quoting Lenin. By "waiting" for an insurection you are waiting for a set of very specific material conditions that were unique to the 20th century and will probably never come again. All they have to do to avoid the obvious claims of revisionism on from their opponents is to say that the "objective conditions" aren't there yet and therefore they ought to engage in parlimentarism and entryism or do nothing at all except for activism, protesting and demos. The question of PPW therefore is an attempt to get out of the mire of rightist opportunism.


What about Left-Wing Communism "proved disastrous" exactly? What is disastrous is communists isolating themselves from society and sticking to ultra-left self-reinforcement and arrogant self-congratulation.


Two specific things come to mind though there are plenty more than these two examples.

First, there is the entryism in the British Labour party which directly responsible for the fractured state of the Trotskyist parties and organizations that attempted entryism into that party, and indirectly responsible for influencing the "British path to Socialism" programme that destroyed any sembelence of the historical Communist Party's revolutionary content.

Second, the road taken by the Italian Communist Party after they purged Bordiga by Lenin's orders, led them to spiral down from "Leninist" parilementarianism to "Eurocommunism" to the point that they dissolved and liquidated into the christian democrat party in that country, this leading to a split that resulted in another split when that new party took a parliamentary path and ended up collaborating with the social democrats in Parliament to (which is the inevitable result of parlimentarianism btw) to sponsor the Afgan war efort. Now adays all of the Trot internationals circle around the Italian Communist party like vultures to take advantage of the discontent in that party and orginize split after split after split to the point that there are about 4 Trot parties and the Communist party can only survive by forming a Die Linke sort of confederation that has failed to result in any electoral success.

There are plenty of other examples that I might outline in a bit, but I'd recommend you read them for yourself in this article

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/ch04.htm

[kasama-rl]

Joey writes:


"People are throwing around "proved disastrous" without knowing anything. "Insurrectionism" proved disastrous when revolutions were defeated. OK, so when people saying they were conducting PPW were defeated, what did that prove? Be consistent and try and grasp the subtlety and that not all historical events are so simple. "

There are no socialist countries today. So, in one way or another, each revolutionary attempt of the 20th century ended in defeat. Some precious ones produced a period of countrywide power (real existing socialism) -- particularly the decades of socialism in Soviet Union and China.

But there were many attempts at power that ended in defeat -- including of course the Paris Commune, and the subsequent attempts in Germany and Italy (roughly simultaneous with the victorious insurrection in Russia).

Many forces tried to reproduce Mao's road of protracted peoples war (in Turkey, Palestine, India, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, and quite a few more.) They often didn't succeed in getting over some basic hurdles: Some didn't find a way to initiate the armed struggle. Some didn't successfully move from guerrilla war to political base areas. And some developed base areas, but never moved successfully to strategic equilibruium (or from there to the offensive ability to defeat the government and take countrywide power).

So really, we only have one or two cases of protracted peoples war achieving victory.

I think that there are still great lessons to learn (and places where the specific strategy has applicability). But it is hardly proving to have been a universal or magic approach.

And we can say that there was a similar experience with focoism -- imitating the Cuban military approach -- that led to a string of disasters, including Che's own disaster in Bolivia. And there were a number of attempts to reproduce the "october road" -- including Berlin 1919 and Hamburg 1923, and Canton in 1927 and so on.

Defeat is not necessarily failure or disaster. Though some defeats do expose the absrdity of some theories in the way they WERE disasters.

But (as I said elsewhere in challenging a "PPW as a universal" approach) it is hardly as if "history" has "proven" one road over another.

And really we need to do very specific analysis of very specific conditions -- AND be open minded to the possibility of as-yet-unimagined-or-invented approaches.

And if we want to look for "models" -- we will quickly discover that each attempt at power (whether victorious or defeated) was unique. The Paris Commune was unique. so was the Russian october, and the Chinese october victory. There was the Cuban attempt (with its compromises and road).

And there were also several attempts at power rooted in powerful base areas within neighboring (existing or emerging) socialist countries This includes several different countries of Eastern europe, North Korea, Mongolia, Tibet... where liberation attempts were entwined with the intrusion of red armies "from without." Don't those count as a attempts -- each with their own special problems and conditions?

It is true that Russia's crisis was unique. It is similarly true that (as Mao said) China had unique conditions.

But isn't that also true of every country? Aren't both the U.S. and India unique today? Won't a future revolutionary movement and moment face unique conditions (including perhaps unprecendented possibilities and positive factors that were previously unknown)?