Marxism-Leninism Vs Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

[Akshay!]

I've been looking for the exact tendency that I agree with for several months now, and I think the only ones (left) that I don't disagree with are ML and MLM. So the obvious question is -

What's the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? And what are the similarities?

Which one do you think is correct? And why?

Also, a related question - what (if anything) did Mao and Stalin disagree about?

[Anarchists, liberals, etc.. please stay out of this. Thanks!]
[Also, people who want to say things like "Stalin killed 100 billion people. Mao killed 100 billion people." The above applies to you too.]

[The Feral Underclass]

Did you know that Stalin killed 100 billion people and Mao killed 100 billion people?

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, this thread belongs in Learning.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think most Marxists-Leninists-Maoists consider themselves to be Marxists-Leninists. That is, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is usually considered a sort of Marxism-Leninism, along with Marxist-Leninist antirevisionism (Hoxhaism), Brezhnevism, perhaps even Castroism etc. Perhaps you meant the difference between Hoxhaism and MLM?

The similarities are, as far as I know, the theory of socialism in one country, the theory that revisionist states are capitalist and social-imperialist, the theory of the acceleration of class conflict under socialism, and critical support for the Soviet Union until the early fifties.

The differences are mainly due to the Hoxhaist rejection of the Maoist theories of protracted people's war, and new democracy. Protracted people's war involves the militant section of the communist movement establishing a so-called revolutionary base area and, using the sympathies of the local population, decimating government forces through guerrilla warfare until the balance of forces changes to the benefit of the Maoists. New democracy is, in MLM theory, a period before socialism in the periphery of the imperialist system, led by a so-called Bloc of Four Classes, the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (contrasted to the comprador bourgeoisie).

Marxists-Leninists-Maoists also consider attacks on the party admissible if they damage the opportunist, revisionist element, whereas Hoxhaists, I think, view the party as the paramount authority in the socialist period.

[Akshay!]

Thanks.


the theory of the acceleration of class conflict under socialism.
What does that mean?


the theory that revisionist states are capitalist and social-imperialist
CPGB-ML considers China to be a socialist state - so is the above theory accepted by all MLs (and MLMs)?


led by a so-called Bloc of Four Classes, the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petite bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie (contrasted to the comprador bourgeoisie).

The others I can (probably) understand, but aren't the interests of the "national bourgeoisie" quite different from, say, the interests of the peasantry? And what's "comprador"?

[Brutus]

Comprador bourgeois are foreign bourgeois.

[Akshay!]

Comprador bourgeois are foreign bourgeois.

What's "the theory of the acceleration of class conflict under socialism"?

[helot]

CPGB-ML considers China to be a socialist state - so is the above theory accepted by all MLs (and MLMs)?


... and north korea.

[Q]

Also, this thread belongs in Learning.
I agree. Moved from Theory.

[Akshay!]

... and north korea.

Did you somehow miss the part about me requesting Anarchists, etc.. to stay out of this serious discussion? :confused:

[Fourth Internationalist]

Did you somehow miss the part about me requesting Anarchists, etc.. to stay out of this serious discussion? :confused:

Yes but when people ask for people to not be stupid in their threads you do it anyways. :D <3

[Brutus]

What's "the theory of the acceleration of class conflict under socialism"?

It's rather self explanatory. Think of the GPCR.

[Bostana]

[Anarchists, liberals, etc.. please stay out of this. Thanks!]
No

I'm just gooing to give you a fair warning about Maoism. You'll find in his early days, he seemed like he was a legitimate revolutionary. At least I thought he was. However when the revolution began, a lot of what he did contradicted a lot of the stuff he supported early on in his life. (It also contradicted Marxism) And later on he and his team creates ridiculous theories to support their agenda


But he is a damn fine poet. I'll give him that

[TheEmancipator]

Both are bourgeois nationalist ideologies, so they should suit you well. You just have to pick which class you'd rather hijack to pursue your interests : the peasantry or the urban proletariat?



But he is a damn fine poet. I'll give him that

So was Stalin?

[Lucretia]

Marxism-Leninism is so filled with theoretical holes and silliness that it is difficult to take seriously now that all the countries that used to profess it as an ideology have either disintegrated, switched back to traditional bourgeois capitalism, or are in the process of switching back. See my discussion with Ismail over whether a "dictatorship of the proletariat" can exist under "socialism" for an example of the hoops M-Ls have to jump through to pretend they are carrying on the theoretical traditions of Marx and Engels.

I suppose, to answer your question, I'd ask the following: do you think the USSR continued to be "communist" after Stalin croaked? Or that his final heartbeat represented a social counter-revolution (yes, that's right, a peaceful one-man social counter-revolution) that restored "capitalism" in the Soviet Union, even as the economy continued to function in essentially the same manner as it had since the mid-1930s? If you think so, you'd definitely fit in with the Maoist camp.

[Bostana]

So was Stalin?

Stalin was a poet?

[ind_com]

I've been looking for the exact tendency that I agree with for several months now, and I think the only ones (left) that I don't disagree with are ML and MLM. So the obvious question is -

What's the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? And what are the similarities?

Which one do you think is correct? And why?

Also, a related question - what (if anything) did Mao and Stalin disagree about?

[Anarchists, liberals, etc.. please stay out of this. Thanks!]
[Also, people who want to say things like "Stalin killed 100 billion people. Mao killed 100 billion people." The above applies to you too.]

Mao disagreed with Stalin on the possibility of alliance of communists with the GMD. He also criticized Stalin for his economic policies.

However, since Stalin was merely implementing Marxism-Leninism in the USSR, the main disagreements of Maoism are with Marxism-Leninism, as it stood when Lenin passed away.

The greatest contribution of Maoism is that is believes that there are classes in socialism. The overthrown classes try to regain their glory and overthrow the socialist system. Therefore class-struggle intensifies under socialism. This was also observed by Lenin. But Mao observed in addition, that a new state capitalist class was arising from the party and state bureaucracy, which alienated itself from the working class. Hence, as a solution, he proposed the idea of continuous revolution, based on Marx's theory of Permanent Revolution, which involves the masses conducting several revolutions under socialism to reach communism. This can involve the masses overthrowing a corrupt social-revisionist leadership. Maoists call this theory 'Cultural Revolution', or 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution'. The emphasis on the masses rather than the vanguard party puts GPCR at odds with Leninism.

Another line of Maoism, developed very recently, is the universality of people's war. This opposes an insurrectionary line upheld by Mao himself, and it also radically different from the theory of universal people's war represented by Lin Biao. This theory states, that as bourgeois revolutions are impossible in this era, the proletariat cannot take advantage of a power vacuum and radicalize the army in a short time. This implies that the political-military line that resulted in the Russian Revolution, is useless today for the imperialist countries. Hence, even in the imperialist countries, the proletariat has to wage low intensity military struggle and gradually win the revolutionary war.


CPGB-ML considers China to be a socialist state - so is the above theory accepted by all MLs (and MLMs)?
"Widely propagate Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; that Socialism is the only alternative before the oppressed people of the world, explaining that the crisis in East Europe, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia is a crisis of state bureaucrat capitalism. Masses should be thoroughly educated regarding the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in all the erstwhile socialist countries, particularly expose the modern revisionists who are in power in China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba, and thereby raise the revolutionary consciousness and vigilance of the masses of the world.

In this particularly the Chinese revisionists who come with the fake slogan of “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” need to be exposed. We have to expose before the masses the real face of the revisionist CPI and CPI (M) and all types of the neo-revisionists particularly ‘Liberation’ hiding behind the ideological mask of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought."

- Article 28.B.1, Political Resolution, CPI(Maoist).

[hatzel]

Comprador bourgeois are foreign bourgeois.

That's not quite right, actually:


A Portuguese word meaning ‘purchaser’, comprador was originally used to refer to a local merchant acting as a middleman between foreign producers and a local market. Marxists have used it to refer specifically to those local bourgeoisie who owe their privileged position to foreign monopolies and hence maintain a vested interest in colonial occupation. In post-colonial theory the term has evolved a broader use, to include the intelligentsia – academics, creative writers and artists – whose independence may be compromised by a reliance on, and identification with, colonial power.

The notion of a comprador class, whether of capitalists or intellectuals, assumes the existence of a clear hierarchical structure of cultural and material relations, for it is arguable that nobody in a colonized society can ever fully avoid the effects of colonial and neo-colonial cultural power. In post-colonial societies it is by no means the bourgeoisie alone who have gained ‘access to’ popular cultural media such as television or consumables such as Coca-Cola. The assumption that a comprador class is necessarily and identifiably distinct from the rest of the society is therefore somewhat questionable. The word continues to be used to describe a relatively privileged, wealthy and educated élite who maintain a more highly developed capacity to engage in the international communicative practices introduced by colonial domination, and who may therefore be less inclined to struggle for local cultural and political independence.

I'm not entirely happy with the second paragraph, mind you. Not sure why it would talk about 'cultural and material relations' and then just go on talking about TV and Coca-Cola, totally neglecting the material (economic) side. I suppose that has more to do with the fact that the text I copied this from has more to do with cultural studies than economics, but we could ask the same questions from a more explicit class perspective, whether or not it is still applicable to distinguish between a 'national bourgeoisie' and a comprador class, given the development of capitalism as an interconnected global totality. But I suppose that's a debate for another thread...

[Akshay!]

But Mao observed in addition, that a new state capitalist class was arising from the party and state bureaucracy, which alienated itself from the working class....
which involves the masses conducting several revolutions under socialism to reach communism.
And when do you reach communism? I mean how do you know whether you did? How do you know whether the party has become that new state capitalist class or not?


Hence, as a solution, he proposed the idea of continuous revolution, based on Marx's theory of Permanent Revolution,
This question might sound a bit weird but does that have anything to do with Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution?


"Widely propagate Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; that Socialism is the only alternative before the oppressed people of the world, explaining that the crisis in East Europe, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia is a crisis of state bureaucrat capitalism. Masses should be thoroughly educated regarding the reasons for the restoration of capitalism in all the erstwhile socialist countries, particularly expose the modern revisionists who are in power in China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba, and thereby raise the revolutionary consciousness and vigilance of the masses of the world.

In this particularly the Chinese revisionists who come with the fake slogan of “Marxism with Chinese characteristics” need to be exposed. We have to expose before the masses the real face of the revisionist CPI and CPI (M) and all types of the neo-revisionists particularly ‘Liberation’ hiding behind the ideological mask of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought."

- Article 28.B.1, Political Resolution, CPI(Maoist).
I'm pretty sure many MLs consider DPRK, Cuba, etc.. to be socialist - why is that so? Is it the result of some theoretical difference between Stalin and Mao?

Lastly, do Maoists consider USSR during Stalin to be socialist? If yes, what's the difference between that and DPRK?

[TheEmancipator]

Stalin was a poet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_poetry

Yeah, I didn't realise Mao was a poet, I just thought he was an authoritarian teacher before becoming an authoritarian ruler.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What does that mean?

Most Marxists-Leninist believe that class conflict survives in the socialist society, as the struggle between revolutionary and opportunistic elements in the socialist state. Furthermore, they hold that this conflict becomes aggravated as society advances further in the task of socialist construction.


CPGB-ML considers China to be a socialist state - so is the above theory accepted by all MLs (and MLMs)?

It is accepted by all Hoxhaists and Maoists, I think, but not by other varieties of Marxism-Leninism - the current often known as "Brezhnevism", for example.


The others I can (probably) understand, but aren't the interests of the "national bourgeoisie" quite different from, say, the interests of the peasantry? And what's "comprador"?

The last question has already been answered; the comprador bourgeoisie are the section of the bourgeoisie that is most closely tied to the interests of the imperialist monopolies. Maoists hold that before the socialist society, there must exists a period of "new democracy" in the periphery, where the forces of production are to be built up using partially capitalist measures, hence the inclusion of the national bourgeoisie.

[ind_com]

And when do you reach communism? I mean how do you know whether you did? How do you know whether the party has become that new state capitalist class or not?

Every country in the world must undergo revolutions and enter a developed socialist phase long before communism is reached. By the time communism is reached, there will be no separate nations or any hierarchical structure. The communist party itself will self-liquidate before communism is reached.



This question might sound a bit weird but does that have anything to do with Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution?

"I stand for the theory of permanent revolution. Do not mistake this for Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. In making revolution one must strike while the iron is hot — one revolution must follow another, the revolution must continually advance. The Hunanese often say, ‘Straw sandals have no pattern — they shape themselves in the making.’ Trotsky believed that the socialist revolution should be launched even before the democratic revolution is complete. We are not like that. For example after the Liberation of 1949 came the Land Reform; as soon as this was completed there followed the mutual-aid teams, then the low-level cooperatives, then the high-level cooperatives. After seven years the cooperativization was completed and productive relationships were transformed; then came the Rectification. After Rectification was finished, before things had cooled down, then came the Technical Revolution. In the cases of Poland and Yugoslavia, democratic order had been established for seven or eight years, and then a rich peasantry emerged. It may not be necessary to establish a New Democratic government, but even so one must still unite all those forces which can be united."

- Mao Zedong, 1958


I'm pretty sure many MLs consider DPRK, Cuba, etc.. to be socialist - why is that so? Is it the result of some theoretical difference between Stalin and Mao?

No. Most of those MLs do not wage class war against their domestic ruling classes. That is the real reason.


Lastly, do Maoists consider USSR during Stalin to be socialist? If yes, what's the difference between that and DPRK?

The DPRK follows Juche instead of Marxism-Leninism. It has nothing to do with soviets or any revolution abroad.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"I stand for the theory of permanent revolution. Do not mistake this for Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. In making revolution one must strike while the iron is hot — one revolution must follow another, the revolution must continually advance. The Hunanese often say, ‘Straw sandals have no pattern — they shape themselves in the making.’ Trotsky believed that the socialist revolution should be launched even before the democratic revolution is complete. We are not like that. For example after the Liberation of 1949 came the Land Reform; as soon as this was completed there followed the mutual-aid teams, then the low-level cooperatives, then the high-level cooperatives. After seven years the cooperativization was completed and productive relationships were transformed; then came the Rectification. After Rectification was finished, before things had cooled down, then came the Technical Revolution. In the cases of Poland and Yugoslavia, democratic order had been established for seven or eight years, and then a rich peasantry emerged. It may not be necessary to establish a New Democratic government, but even so one must still unite all those forces which can be united."

- Mao Zedong, 1958

I would just like to note that this characterisation of the Trotskyist position is not entirely correct; Trotskyists hold that the democratic revolution develops organically into the socialist revolution. Our chief difference with the theory of continuous revolution (I think that is how most Maoists refer to Mao's theory of permanent revolution) is (1) that we do not think the course of the revolution can be broken into discrete stages corresponding to relatively fixed relations of production, and (2) that we think that the proletariat needs to lead the democratic revolution as well.

[Geiseric]

Mao did not oppose the popular front with the GMD. Mao purged anybody who disagreed with that tactic after it failed, ending in the failed Wuhan revolt and bloody Canton massacre.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, this thread belongs in Learning.

Just about!

To the OP: don't get too obsessed about 'finding' a specific tendency. That's a quick-fire way to have your own, individual outlook on political philosophy swallowed up by a tendency and probably eventually by some little party-sect that demands you defend all their shitty policies, whether you agree with them or not.

[Akshay!]

I suppose, to answer your question, I'd ask the following: do you think the USSR continued to be "communist" after Stalin croaked? Or that his final heartbeat represented a social counter-revolution (yes, that's right, a peaceful one-man social counter-revolution) that restored "capitalism" in the Soviet Union, even as the economy continued to function in essentially the same manner as it had since the mid-1930s? If you think so, you'd definitely fit in with the Maoist camp.

Why? I'm pretty sure that both 1) MLMs and 2) Most MLs who are not MLMs, believe that USSR stopped being socialist after Stalin.


the comprador bourgeoisie are the section of the bourgeoisie that is most closely tied to the interests of the imperialist monopolies. Maoists hold that before the socialist society, there must exists a period of "new democracy" in the periphery, where the forces of production are to be built up using partially capitalist measures, hence the inclusion of the national bourgeoisie.

I don't understand why the national bourgeoisie would co-operate with other classes to destroy its own power? Isn't it against the interest of the national bourgeoisie that any such process takes place? For example, aren't the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie aligned with those of US's bourgeoisie - at least more so than with those of Indian peasants?



No. Most of those MLs do not wage class war against their domestic ruling classes. That is the real reason.

The DPRK follows Juche instead of Marxism-Leninism. It has nothing to do with soviets or any revolution abroad.

Wait, why is Cuba not socialist? :confused:


But Mao observed in addition, that a new state capitalist class was arising from the party and state bureaucracy, which alienated itself from the working class. Hence, as a solution, he proposed the idea of continuous revolution, based on Marx's theory of Permanent Revolution, which involves the masses conducting several revolutions under socialism to reach communism.

I meant to ask how exactly will the masses know whether or not that "state capitalist class" has arisen?

[ind_com]

I don't understand why the national bourgeoisie would co-operate with other classes to destroy its own power? Isn't it against the interest of the national bourgeoisie that any such process takes place? For example, aren't the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie aligned with those of US's bourgeoisie - at least more so than with those of Indian peasants?

The nature of the national bourgeoisie varies greatly from country to country. At present, only in peripheral parts of India are the revolutionary sections of the national bourgeoisie to be found. Indeed, in most of India there is no pro-communism national bourgeoisie, and the revolutionary camp relies only on workers' militancy. In China, the revolution took place at a historical period where a revolutionary nationalist party was still existing, and had conducted successful revolutionary activities shortly before. In India, all the nationalist revolutionary groups in the central parts of the country have been liquidated many decades ago. There can even be third world countries where the whole of the national bourgeoisie permanently tails the compradors.


Wait, why is Cuba not socialist? :confused:

Why is it socialist?


I meant to ask how exactly will the masses know whether or not that "state capitalist class" has arisen?

The masses can notice when the party and state leadership starts taking anti working class policies. For example, if they try to liquidate the organs of people's power, cut social welfare programmes, or begin to have more privileges for bureaucrats, managers and upper layers of workers etc.

[Brutus]

Cuba, socialist? You have you definitions mixed up, my friend.
Castro is one of my favourite petit bourgeois.