Maoism

[Sidagma]

Since I've been called a Maoist (disparagingly, alas,) by two separate people in the last few days, I figure I should put a little effort into learning what exactly a Maoist is. I'm afraid I have only a rudimentary exposure.

To the people who have called me a Maoist or who understand why that is happening, what exactly are you perceiving as the overlap between my ideas and Maoism? For the record, people doing so tend to also reference my familiarity with anti-oppression organizing. I suspect that that might be related, but I don't know.

What is the Maoist stance on things like the first world middle class, first world poverty, the role of the state, the establishment of the state, etc?

It's my understanding that Mao himself felt a revolution in a first world country to be an impossibility, but that his ideas were later taken up by groups like the Black Panthers. Did they disagree with this sentiment?

[MarxArchist]

Your take on an imaginary European and American labor aristocracy being at the root of the end of the world warranted my slightly snarkish Maoist Third Wordist label. Maybe past posts where idealism seems to be your 'guide', if you will, added to my bewilderment. Maybe the sort of focus on 'first world' oppressing the 'third world' without any sort of class analysis or analysis of the capitalist system made me feel a tad vexed (maybe you're right- maybe the white middle class will be the end of the world?). Look into it (Maoist Third Worldism) as I think it would fit both your world view and your desire to throw idealism around but the conclusion of the sort of thinking I'm criticizing doesn't necessarily pervade all of Maoism and or isnt limited to Maoism- it's part of the overall New Left's shifty class analysis which basically says only the 'most oppressed' group can be the revolutionary agent. It branches into daily theory/practice with privilege theory, most of the focus on colonialism etc which is well and good as no Marxist is pro colonialism but seeing the system through the eyes of historical materialism (something many Maoists and privilege theorists don't do) helps illuminate colonialism for what it was and what it is today. To sit and rail against American and European workers for 'living the high life' is, well, a tad repugnant to me. Viewing workers in the most advanced capitalist nations as incapable of revolution is part of why we don't see much effort organizing in traditional ways with most efforts put into this or that liberation movement within capitalism in advanced capitalist nations, ie gay rights, woman's rights. This isnt to say fighting sexism/homophobia/racism isnt important it should be done with proper class analysis with the goal of ending capitalism. Outside advanced capitalist nations this way of thinking ends up in struggle led by peasants. This way of thinking/organizing taken to it's extreme leads some people to denounce the 'first world' in general as being the privileged oppressor class. Something I see you flirting with but people might also accuse me of being a Eurocentric Orthodox Marxist. ;)

[ind_com]

Since I've been called a Maoist (disparagingly, alas,) by two separate people in the last few days, I figure I should put a little effort into learning what exactly a Maoist is. I'm afraid I have only a rudimentary exposure.

To the people who have called me a Maoist or who understand why that is happening, what exactly are you perceiving as the overlap between my ideas and Maoism? For the record, people doing so tend to also reference my familiarity with anti-oppression organizing. I suspect that that might be related, but I don't know.

What is the Maoist stance on things like the first world middle class, first world poverty, the role of the state, the establishment of the state, etc?

It's my understanding that Mao himself felt a revolution in a first world country to be an impossibility, but that his ideas were later taken up by groups like the Black Panthers. Did they disagree with this sentiment?

Maoists consider the working classes as the main force of revolution in every country, and among them the proletariat as the leading force of revolution in every country. The middle classes can be radicalized, divided and drawn towards the revolution only after the working classes advance the revolution.

Mao himself never held that revolution was impossible anywhere.

"Racial discrimination in the United States is a product of the colonialist and imperialist system. The contradiction between the Black masses in the United States and the U.S. ruling circles is a class contradiction. Only by overthrowing the reactionary rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and destroying the colonialist and imperialist system can the Black people in the United States win complete emancipation. The Black masses and the masses of white working people in the United States have common interests and common objectives to struggle for. Therefore, the Afro-American struggle is winning sympathy and support from increasing numbers of white working people and progessives in the United States. The struggle of the Black people in the United States is bound to merge with the American workers’ movement, and this will eventually end the criminal rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class." - Mao Zedong

Maoists believe that revolution is possible only by armed overthrowal of the bourgeois state by the masses. Mao claimed that revolution in the imperialistic countries like the USA would take the form of insurrection, although many Maoists of today consider protracted people's war as the only strategy possible. One proposed Maoist strategy for the first world is to organize the most oppressed sections among the masses, such as the native non-white population, immigrants, and also various types of minorities such as homosexuals etc under various popular struggles against oppression, and gradually create mass bases, mass organizations and class organizations, finally initiating the people's war.

[Comrade #138672]

Your take on an imaginary European and American labor aristocracy being at the root of the end of the world warranted my slightly snarkish Maoist Third Wordist label. Maybe past posts where idealism seems to be your 'guide', if you will, added to my bewilderment. Maybe the sort of focus on 'first world' oppressing the 'third world' without any sort of class analysis or analysis of the capitalist system made me feel a tad vexed (maybe you're right- maybe the white middle class will be the end of the world?). Look into it (Maoist Third Worldism) as I think it would fit both your world view and your desire to throw idealism around but the conclusion of the sort of thinking I'm criticizing doesn't necessarily pervade all of Maoism and or isnt limited to Maoism- it's part of the overall New Left's shifty class analysis which basically says only the 'most oppressed' group can be the revolutionary agent. It branches into daily theory/practice with privilege theory, most of the focus on colonialism etc which is well and good as no Marxist is pro colonialism but seeing the system through the eyes of historical materialism (something many Maoists and privilege theorists don't do) helps illuminate colonialism for what it was and what it is today. To sit and rail against American and European workers for 'living the high life' is, well, a tad repugnant to me. Viewing workers in the most advanced capitalist nations as incapable of revolution is part of why we don't see much effort organizing in traditional ways with most efforts put into this or that liberation movement within capitalism in advanced capitalist nations, ie gay rights, woman's rights. This isnt to say fighting sexism/homophobia/racism isnt important it should be done with proper class analysis with the goal of ending capitalism. Outside advanced capitalist nations this way of thinking ends up in struggle led by peasants. This way of thinking/organizing taken to it's extreme leads some people to denounce the 'first world' in general as being the privileged oppressor class. Something I see you flirting with but people might also accuse me of being a Eurocentric Orthodox Marxist. ;)So do you believe there is no labour aristocracy, since you call it imaginary? I agree with most of your critique, but I think Maoists have a valid point to make as well. We shouldn't underestimate the impact of the labour aristocracy. Especially here in the Netherlands I notice that the "higher" layers of the working-class are hardly interested in revolution. Quite a lot of them even have a reactionary attitude towards immigrants threatening their "standard of living". They just don't want to lose their "standard of living", which I believe are kept up mostly by super-profits. I'm not condemning that or anything, I'm only stating it.

I would never say that it is impossible for the working-class in the First World to start a revolution first, but I can certainly understand why the labour aristocracy could make this more difficult. I can also see why a revolution in backward countries would be likely to be backward as well. It is hard to say what the better conditions are.

[Fionnagáin]

There's no such thing as "super-profits". Westerners have a higher standard of living because their labour is utilised in a more efficient manner, and because their more central role in capitalist production allows them to demand higher wages. That's all.

[Slippers]

There's no such thing as "super-profits". Westerners have a higher standard of living because their labour is utilised in a more efficient manner, and because their more central role in capitalist production allows them to demand higher wages. That's all.

Is it not also because of the exploitation of people in poorer countries?

I'm ignorant on a lot of things and have potentially wrong ideas on lots of things; I acknowledge that. Trying to learn.

[Luís Henrique]

Is it not also because of the exploitation of people in poorer countries?

Not like that.

Capital uses differences between countries to maximise its profits everywhere. In some countries, it uses the infrastructure, the trained workforce, and the higher composition of capital to produce high technology products in high productivity factories and farms, increasing profits via relative surplus value, and consequently paying higher wages, allowing for a comparatively high degree of union acitvity). In other countries, it uses the lack of infrastructure, the untrained workforce, and the lower composition of capital to produce low technology products in low productivity factories and farms, increasing profits via absolute surplus value, and consequently paying lower wages and repressing union activity to a much higher degree.

This accounts for an actual transference of value from the "third world" to the "first".

So, yes, the overexploitation of third world workers is not unrelated to the relatively higher living standards of first world workers. But no, the first world workers are not robbing the third world ones, nor is the bourgeoisie robbing the third world workers and then distributing the bounty with first world workers.

In fact, more value is produced in the "first world" than in the "third", and "first world" workers are exploited by the bourgeoisie, producing surplus value for it.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade #138672]

Not like that.

Capital uses differences between countries to maximise its profits everywhere. In some countries, it uses the infrastructure, the trained workforce, and the higher composition of capital to produce high technology products in high productivity factories and farms, increasing profits via relative surplus value, and consequently paying higher wages, allowing for a comparatively high degree of union acitvity). In other countries, it uses the lack of infrastructure, the untrained workforce, and the lower composition of capital to produce low technology products in low productivity factories and farms, increasing profits via absolute surplus value, and consequently paying lower wages and repressing union activity to a much higher degree.

This accounts for an actual transference of value from the "third world" to the "first".

So, yes, the overexploitation of third world workers is not unrelated to the relatively higher living standards of first world workers. But no, the first world workers are not robbing the third world ones, nor is the bourgeoisie robbing the third world workers and then distributing the bounty with first world workers.

In fact, more value is produced in the "first world" than in the "third", and "first world" workers are exploited by the bourgeoisie, producing surplus value for it.

Luís HenriqueHow come most labour force in First World countries is put in the service sector then? We would generally consider those workers not to be producing any value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition

[Fionnagáin]

How come most labour force in First World countries is put in the service sector then? We would generally consider those workers not to be producing any value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition
...Since when? :confused:

[Per Levy]

How come most labour force in First World countries is put in the service sector then?

because the capies thought it too expensive and outsourced those tasks to countries with generally lower wages. or take the uk, where the thatcher gouverment pretty much killed the mining and industrial sector to make place for service sector where unions are almost powerless and the wages are low.


We would generally consider those workers not to be producing any value.

do "we"? if they produce no value why are the bourgeoisie keep them employed? for fun and lols?

[Comrade #138672]

I meant value in the Marxist sense.

[Fionnagáin]

So did I. Value is a quality of the commodity, and commodities aren't necessarily tangible objects, so there's reason to assume that the production of services and intangible objects can't also constitute the production of value.

[Luís Henrique]

How come most labour force in First World countries is put in the service sector then? We would generally consider those workers not to be producing any value.

Not all services are improductive.

Take a private school. It produces and sells a commodity - even if an immaterial one - for a price. This price gravitates around its value, which is determined by the labour embodied in the commodity. How does the school not produce value?

And - technically, MacDonalds are considered "service sector". To me, they look like factories, producing very material commodities for sale. How, first, do they not produce value, and how, second, are they not industry?

Luís Henrique

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In fact, more value is produced in the "first world" than in the "third", and "first world" workers are exploited by the bourgeoisie, producing surplus value for it.

Luís Henrique

This is a pretty common falacy that is created by the dominace of what Marx called the M-C-M circuit, that is the dominate logic of capital that sees extange as an end and a creator of economic value rather than the otherway around. In truth more value is created in the global south but more value is realized in the west, creating the illusion that the first world is more productive when by their standard of productivity, the most productive place on earth is Bermuda when it produces literally nothing. This article explains it decently well without any "maoism" in it.

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/07/01/the-gdp-illusion

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

.....New Left's shifty class analysis which basically says only the 'most oppressed' group can be the revolutionary agent. It branches into daily theory/practice with privilege theory, most of the focus on colonialism etc which is well and good as no Marxist is pro colonialism but seeing the system through the eyes of historical materialism

First of all, I think this "new lefty shift" is an appropriate addition to Marxist theory. I think there is a workerist misconception of Marxism that has been created by a mis-reading of some of the hyperbole in the Communist Manifesto. Marx never said that the primary contradiction was between the proletariat and the bourgeois, (he never said this seriously, I'm aware of the aestetic flair he pulls off in the Manifesto so let's not get into one of those silly quote-off sessions) but rather it was between the socialized mode of production and private ownership, and that the working class would be the historic force to resolve this contradiction. Still Marx doesn't provide us with a very good schema of how exactly this contradiction will resolve it's self. He never gives us a hand manual to tell us how to tell which movement will be revolutionary. However he does provide us a theoretical framework to understand the world around us. For one it's important to note that the revolution will not be an act of the base pushing the superstructure foward but the revolution will be the result of the contradiction between these two forces. That is, while the base and superstructure are in a unity under the normal state of capitalism, during times of radical change these two aspects are in direct opposition. Russia's Revolution wasn't cause by the economy running out of gas, that was an aspect of it but it wasn't the cause. Likewise workers will be the determining force in the final instance of history, but we aren't at the final instance yet and I hardly see class struggle determining much in every day capitalist normality when the base and the superstructure are in unity. And your view of workerism seems to assume that workers exist only as workers and is a form of identity politics in of it's self. In a certain sense identity politics is unavoidable but the point is to get a grasp of a concrete situation. Despite what some say about superseding the working class identity, the truth is that workers don't spend their time thinking of themselves in terms of class unless they are engaged in class struggle. Many times, they engage the rest of the world in terms of their race, gender, sexual orientation, and nation. Obviously class struggle is the most important way to engage the working class because it will determine history in the final instant, but we aren't their yet. So it's important to engage the broad working masses with revolutionary politics in ways that encompasses them in their entirety, not only as a "worker". History is full of incidents where oppressed people have been engaged in revolutionary politics on terms other then class, such as the Stone Wall Riots and the more recent indigenous people's protests. So I don't think narrowing our view of the world is productive for Marxist analysis.


Viewing workers in the most advanced capitalist nations as incapable of revolution is part of why we don't see much effort organizing in traditional ways with most efforts put into this or that liberation movement within capitalism in advanced capitalist nations, ie gay rights, woman's rights.

But of course this is to pretend that Marxists haven't continued with the traditional means of organizing. The British left is obsessed with engaging workers in their unions and "mass organizations" and all it has led to is politically bankrupt projects chasing that "orthdox marxism" of the 19th century that died long ago (I'm not talking about the CPGB-PCC, whose orthodox marxism is not what I'm referring to here). Why the closest thing to a mass worker's party we've seen took your view of "identity politics as bourgeois, workers=revolutionary" and it led to the SWP rape case. Why the Socialist Equality Party has been harping about Orthdox Marxism for years now and considering the racist bile they put out, I wouldn't be suprise if they already have a few dead minorities in their basement. Good intentions or not, if you don't attack hegemonic cultural ideology within a radical space, it will overcome that space and no level of "Orthodox Marxism" will prevent it.

[Fionnagáin]

This is a pretty common falacy that is created by the dominace of what Marx called the M-C-M circuit, that is the dominate logic of capital that sees extange as an end and a creator of economic value rather than the otherway around. In truth more value is created in the global south but more value is realized in the west, creating the illusion that the first world is more productive when by their standard of productivity, the most productive place on earth is Bermuda when it produces literally nothing. This article explains it decently well without any "maoism" in it.

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/07/01/the-gdp-illusion
Without any Marxism, either.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Without any Marxism, either.

Did you actually read it? Or do you enjoy posting contentless one-liners

[Fionnagáin]

Yes, and yes.

For Marx, value is socially-necessary labour-time, yes? And profit consists in the difference between socially-necessary labour-time and the cost of the reproduction of capital. That acknowledgement doesn't appear anywhere in the article, which rather concerns itself with value in purely dollar-terms, which is seemingly assumed to be a natural commodity of the property itself, rather than a function of social context.

[Sudsy]

Maoism as a theory is good but the reason many call themselves Maoist I think is the fact that Mao pushed China closer to communism than anyone in history, except for maybe the Paris Commune.

[TheEmancipator]

Maoism as a theory is good but the reason many call themselves Maoist I think is the fact that Mao pushed China closer to communism than anyone in history, except for maybe the Paris Commune.

Yes, I think people take issue with the death toll that came in parallel with Maoist model than his achievement.

The reason why people like Maoism is because it is very populist ( People's war, integration of most social classes including peasantry, and the coolest communist quotes you can find) as well as placing importance on the third world's struggle.