Good introduction to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hi! I am interested in MLMism and I was wondering if any MLMs happen to know any good introductions to it? Also, if you're an MLM, what got you into it, and were you a non-Maoist Marxist? If so, why did it a appeal to you?

[Red HalfGuard]

I'm not exactly a 'Maoist' because after reading him (especially 'Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing'), i'm not sure he'd want people to call themselves that. But I agree with much of what the old chairman did.

My biggest political influence actually is J Sakai, who's a Maoist. His book Settlers: The Mythology Of The White Proletariat is available here: indybay.org/uploads/2005/10/28/sakaisettlersocr.pdf

And his essay on fascism which changed my entire way of thinking about antifa work: kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/fascism/shock.html

[Sea]

Mao Zedong was for the unrestricted free development of capitalism in China in the period of the state of the type of "new democracy", as he called that regime which was to be established after the departure of the Japanese. At the 7th Congress of the CPC he said, "Some think that the communists are against the development of private initiative, against the development of private capital, against the protection of private property. In reality, this is not so. The task of the order of new democracy, which we are striving to establish, is precisely to ensure the possibility for broad circles of Chinese to freely develop their private initiative in society, to freely develop the private capitalist economy." In this way, Mao Zedong took over the anti-Marxist concept of Katitsky, according to which, in the backward countries the transition to socialism cannot be achieved without going through a lengthy period of free development of capitalism which prepares the conditions to go over to socialism later. In fact, the so-called socialist regime which Mao Zedong and his group established in China,was and remained a bourgeois-democratic regime.In the underlined text, Mao gives a wonderful introduction to his own radical ideology.

[nizan]

"The concentrated spectacle belongs essentially to bureaucratic capitalism, even though it may be imported as a technique of state power in mixed backward economies or, at certain moments of crisis, in advanced capitalism. In fact, bureaucratic property itself is concentrated in such a way that the individual bureaucrat relates to the ownership of the global economy only through an intermediary, the bureaucratic community, and only as a member of this community. Moreover, the production of commodities, less developed in bureaucratic capitalism, also takes on a concentrated form: the commodity the bureaucracy holds on to is the totality of social labor, and what it sells back to society is wholesale survival. The dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice, since the bureaucracy itself has to choose everything and since any other external choice, whether it concern food or music, is already a choice to destroy the bureaucracy completely. This dictatorship must be accompanied by permanent violence. The imposed image of the good envelops in its spectacle the totality of what officially exists, and is usually concentrated in one man, who is the guarantee of totalitarian cohesion. Everyone must magically identify with this absolute celebrity or disappear. This celebrity is master of non-consumption, and the heroic image which gives an acceptable meaning to the absolute exploitation that primitive accumulation accelerated by terror really is. If every Chinese must learn Mao, and thus be Mao, it is because he can be nothing else. Wherever the concentrated spectacle rules, so does the police."

Have fun with it.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse Tung (aka The Little Red Book) is great because you can keep it in your back pocket, and read a chunk whenever you're bored / in a washroom with a Bathroom Reader / whatever. On Practice and Contradiction is another good one, plus the version with an introduction by Zizek is an aesthetically pleasing book with, well, some moderately insightful and wildly entertaining commentary by every Marxist with a sense of humour's favourite Slovenian clown.
I'd also like to second the recommendation of of Settlers by J. Sakai. I know last time you took exception to my recommendation, but . . .
In terms of contemporary Marxism-Leninism-Maoism proper, I encourage you to check out the writings of Joshua Moufawad-Paul (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.ca/)- a member of the Parti Communiste Revolutionaire / Revolutionary Communist Party (http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/) (Canada - no relation to the similarly named Avakian-cult).

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In the underlined text, Mao gives a wonderful introduction to his own radical ideology.

But of course, this is the whole point of the Minum-Maxium programme. The Communist Manifestio contains the ten planks because they represent the minume programme for a specific period of time. Even Mao acknowledged that this was not socialism. To quote him:



To consolidate New Democracy, and to go on consolidating it for ever, is to engage in capitalism. New Democracy is a bourgeois-democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. It touches only the landlords and the comprador bourgeoisie, it does not touch the national bourgeoisie at all. To divide up the land and give it to the peasants is to transform the property of the feudal landlords into the individual property of the peasants, and this still remains within the limits of the bourgeois revolution. To divide up the land is nothing remarkable — MacArthur did it in Japan. Napoleon divided up the land too. Land reform cannot abolish capitalism, nor can it lead to socialism.

Mao Zedong, Questions of Philosophy


It is also worth noting that China was not a capitalist state, it was a feudal country, with a proletariat of 1.5-3 million out of 250 million peasents, that was divided between warlords and imperial powers with no central government. There is no possiblity of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat under such conditions. According to the Two Stage Theory, a bourgeois revolution is necessary before a proletarian one and the two can not occure without eachother. Indeed, this was the basis upon which Stalin suggested entryism into nationalist forces. Mao's formulation of New Democracy was a response to the idea that revolution was impossible in China, suggesting that both phases could indeed occur under the leadership of the proletariat. Mao's formulation must then be seen in light of the right-wing defeatism which surrounded him.

Likewise, if we insist on rejecting people based on out of context theories and quotes, I'll prove that Lenin was also a bourgeois revolutionary:



According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success

Lenin, "Left" Wing Childishness

[Sea]

I merely posted that to give an example of Mao's distortion of scientific socialism, this one by his own admission. There are many, many more. The fact remains that Mao's legacy in China is horrific and did nothing towards accomplishing socialism.

[Comrade Jacob]

I would start by reading Combat Liberalism and the little red book.
I started being interesting in it because of the numerous Maoist insurgencies around Asia and south america, The NPA, Shinning Path, Naxals and of course the Maoists in Nepal, so I wondered why it was the chose of ideology of revolutionaries around the world, so I read into Maoism, I was just a Marxist-Leninist before. I hope you enjoy his works.

Combat Liberalism:
http://www.marxists.org/audiobooks/archive/mao/combat-liberalism.mp3

Little red book:
http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/QCM66.pdf

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I merely posted that to give an example of Lenin's distortion of scientific socialism, this one by his own admission. There are many, many more. The fact remains that Lenin's legacy in Russia is horrific and did nothing towards accomplishing socialism.


See? I can do it to!

This is learning, can we please leave the out of context non-sense out? I've already shown that your quote is merely cherry picking and doesn't consistent as a materialist analysis of China. Besides, as I've said, this is a learning thread about MLM.

To answer the OP's questions, I'll send you more material in a PM later, but for now signalfire has a lot of relevant documents, analysis, and news based in the MLM perspective.

http://www.signalfire.org/

[Sixiang]

In the underlined text, Mao gives a wonderful introduction to his own radical ideology.
You are quoting something Mao said in reference to a period of Chinese history that lasted for 4 years. During the New Democratic period, land was confiscated from the landlords and redistributed to the peasantry, who could then buy and sell it in a private manner, as any revolutionary break with feudal land relations would do. And during New Democracy, the national bourgeoisie (those who hadn't collaborated with imperialists) were quickly bought out by the state and turned into managers until most of them were overthrown by the workers during the Cultural Revolution.

Besides cherry-picking, you didn't even answer the OP's question.


Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse Tung (aka The Little Red Book) is great because you can keep it in your back pocket, and read a chunk whenever you're bored / in a washroom with a Bathroom Reader / whatever. On Practice and Contradiction is another good one, plus the version with an introduction by Zizek is an aesthetically pleasing book with, well, some moderately insightful and wildly entertaining commentary by every Marxist with a sense of humour's favourite Slovenian clown.
I'd also like to second the recommendation of of Settlers by J. Sakai. I know last time you took exception to my recommendation, but . . .
In terms of contemporary Marxism-Leninism-Maoism proper, I encourage you to check out the writings of Joshua Moufawad-Paul (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.ca/)- a member of the Parti Communiste Revolutionaire / Revolutionary Communist Party (http://www.pcr-rcp.ca/) (Canada - no relation to the similarly named Avakian-cult).

I am not 100% sure but I believe that Moufawad-Paul is not a party member but instead is a close supporter of the PCR-RCP. I second this poster's recommendations and will just recommend the book Five Essays on Philosophy by Mao. It contains "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" as well as three other good essays to introduce the OP to Maoist philosophy.


See? I can do it to!

This is learning, can we please leave the out of context non-sense out? I've already shown that your quote is merely cherry picking and doesn't consistent as a materialist analysis of China. Besides, as I've said, this is a learning thread about MLM.

To answer the OP's questions, I'll send you more material in a PM later, but for now signalfire has a lot of relevant documents, analysis, and news based in the MLM perspective.

http://www.signalfire.org/
:thumbup1: Good post, comrade.


And to answer the OP, now: aside from reading that essay collection I recommended, you may want to introduce yourself to the history of Mao's ideological development and practice in the Chinese revolution. They are many books on the matter. I recommend one (of both if you are interested) of these:

The Thought of Mao Tse-tung, by Stuart Schram (http://www.amazon.com/Thought-Tse-Tung-Contemporary-Institute-Publications/dp/0521310628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376610470&sr=8-1&keywords=the+thought+of+mao+tse-tung)

Mao: The Real Story, by Alexander V. Pantsov and Steven I. Levine (http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Alexander-V-Pantsov/dp/1451654472/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376610515&sr=8-1&keywords=mao%3A+the+real+story)

Both are academic works, not Maoist polemics, but they are the most balanced interpretations of Mao's thought and life out there in my opinion. I recommend reading them juxtaposed with reading Mao's writings so you can understand better.

As for your other question, I was relatively new to Marxism in general when I became interested in Maoism. I kept an open mind to it and became convinced after reading various famous writings by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, as well as Chinese history books.

[Teacher]

I have to admit that I was really skeptical about Mao for a long time but the more I learn about China and the Cultural Revolution I've become more and more of a "Maoist." Mao was definitely the most romantic and inspirational leader of the communist movement in the 20th century. As disgusting at the personality cult around him was, after reading a lot of his writings I kinda get it (or at least it doesn't seem as bizarre to me as before).

[Karlorax]

The best introduction are these movies:

http://llco.org/our-day-is-coming/

and

http://llco.org/walk-this-road-with-us/

These movies go beyond Maoism to what LLCO claims is the "next level" of revolutionary science. Even so, there is a good Maoist foundation there.



__________________

Currently reading, dare to join me? I am no Leading Light Communist, but I am studying their work for my MA thesis

Leading Light on Conspiracy Theory is Intelligent Design (http://llco.org/leading-light-on-conspiracy-theory-is-intelligent-design/)
Was Lin Biao guilty plotting a coup? Part 1 of 2 (draft) (http://llco.org/draft-was-lin-biao-guilty-plotting-a-coup-part-1-of-2/)
Revisiting Value and Exploitation (http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/)
What about the Gulag? Mao’s errors? Stalin’s? (http://llco.org/revolutionary-history-initial-summations/)

[RedHal]

if you don't want to start with theory, why not read some books that smash the usual simple bourgeois narrative as Sea puts it "The fact remains that Mao's legacy in China is horrific and did nothing towards accomplishing socialism."

Mobo Gao's - The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution

Bao Di - Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era

[Omsk]

Although you could say i am not the best man to help you in your study of Maoism, because i am not a Maoist myself, (To be precise - i do not adhere to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) i know a couple of relevant links which could help you see trough the veil of bourgeois lies about the many movements in South-East Asia and some parts of Europe. I mainly read about the "Maoist" parties and organizations in India, Nepal and some European countries.

But, first of all, here is a universal study guide: http://www.marx2mao.com/

I highly recommend that you first browse trough the Lenin and Stalin archives, to better understand where Mao made mistakes, or where he was correct in his approach to political questions of the class struggle in the period of construction of socialism.

Siren Bang and the others basically presented you with enough information, but i felt like i wanted to drop by and say that you should also keep an open eye for MLM parties in Europe, those in Italy, Turkey and France, most of them have interesting news which could be of interest to you in your road to learning.

But, by far the greatest influence comes from the Indian Maoist party, the CPI(m) - a big organization which follows the MLM ideology, although they are a bit sectarian and i don't like that side of their struggle, although, their practice was a step forward from the highly sectarian practice of the former Naxal groups.

Here is an interesting section of the MIA about an Indian Maoist, Charu Mazumdar:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/

There is also the website bannedthought.net


I wonder if the Maoist comrades are going to jump at me for being an old Hoxhaite-dogmatic man who is willing to offer some advice to their new comrade. :grin:

[Astarte]

Probably Rius's "Mao for Beginners" - don't expect to get theoretics so much out of it, but rather approach it as a broad introduction to Mao and Maoism historically and ideologically and it is pretty good.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4292690039_e0a29949d7_m.jpg

[Sixiang]

Although you could say i am not the best man to help you in your study of Maoism, because i am not a Maoist myself, (To be precise - i do not adhere to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) i know a couple of relevant links which could help you see trough the veil of bourgeois lies about the many movements in South-East Asia and some parts of Europe. I mainly read about the "Maoist" parties and organizations in India, Nepal and some European countries.

Siren Bang and the others basically presented you with enough information, but i felt like i wanted to drop by and say that you should also keep an open eye for MLM parties in Europe, those in Italy, Turkey and France, most of them have interesting news which could be of interest to you in your road to learning.

But, by far the greatest influence comes from the Indian Maoist party, the CPI(m) - a big organization which follows the MLM ideology, although they are a bit sectarian and i don't like that side of their struggle, although, their practice was a step forward from the highly sectarian practice of the former Naxal groups.

There is also the website bannedthought.net


There's also the fascinating history and important role of the Peruvian Shining Path for the international MLM movement. It doesn't seem that there is any info on them on bannedthought, and I am not an expert on them, so I suggest a bit of exploring. It seems that all of their official websites haven't been updated in years because they group's numbers have depleted in recent years and, like true guerrillas, they are too busy fighting in the mountains and forests of Peru. And there is the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines, which has been engaged in armed struggle since the 1960s.

[Omsk]

There's also the fascinating history and important role of the Peruvian Shining Path for the international MLM movement. It doesn't seem that there is any info on them on bannedthought, and I am not an expert on them, so I suggest a bit of exploring. It seems that all of their official websites haven't been updated in years because they group's numbers have depleted in recent years and, like true guerrillas, they are too busy fighting in the mountains and forests of Peru. And there is the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines, which has been engaged in armed struggle since the 1960s.

Yes, the MCPP is engaged in the longest people's war up to date, i think. I think they made some progress though.

@Aang : As for the research of MLM, i think you should definitely avoid the American Maoists of Bob Avakian..

[Fred]

Ditto on the Avakianites. I will offer something from an opposing view -- I know it is unsolicited in this thread, but if you want to learn a bunch about any political theory, it is most useful to understand the sharpest and most credible criticisms of it.

I am a Trotskyist, and obviously am extremely critical of Mao. However, anyone who can say with a straight face that he did nothing but horrible things for China is an anti-communist. The Chinese Revolution was a huge victory for the proletariat of China and the rest of the world.

http://www.bolshevik.org/history/Other/falsification.html

Happy reading.

[Bea Arthur]

Ditto on the Avakianites. I will offer something from an opposing view -- I know it is unsolicited in this thread, but if you want to learn a bunch about any political theory, it is most useful to understand the sharpest and most credible criticisms of it.

I am a Trotskyist, and obviously am extremely critical of Mao. However, anyone who can say with a straight face that he did nothing but horrible things for China is an anti-communist. The Chinese Revolution was a huge victory for the proletariat of China and the rest of the world.

http://www.bolshevik.org/history/Other/falsification.html

Happy reading.

All the malnourished factory workers building Iphones in the Chinese workers' state would thank your post about their state conquest, Fred, but they're too busy pleading for their bathroom breaks! I am sure their spirit is with you, though!

[Brutus]

All the malnourished factory workers building Iphones in the Chinese workers' state would thank your post about their state conquest, Fred, but they're too busy pleading for their bathroom breaks! I am sure their spirit is with you, though!

1) That's because of Deng, not Mao.
2) If it wasn't for Mao they'd have lived in mud huts, with blind children making broaches for Mr Chiang and peasants still in what was essentially economic serfdom.

[Bea Arthur]

1) That's because of Deng, not Mao.
2) If it wasn't for Mao they'd have lived in mud huts, with blind children making broaches for Mr Chiang and peasants still in what was essentially economic serfdom.

You're suggesting that China was a workers' state up until Deng, but is no longer one? I think Fred disagrees with you.

As for point 2, the same can be said for capitalism in general. Does that mean that we in the 20th century, when socialist is on the agenda, should shill for bourgeois regimes? Your standards are low.

[Brutus]

I'm not suggesting that China was a workers' state, I'm just saying that Deng was the one who's reforms allowed for foreign capital in china.

In response to point 2, you are correct. But when it comes down to Mao or Chiang, Mao was by far the most progressive (in a marxost sense)

[Fred]

All the malnourished factory workers building Iphones in the Chinese workers' state would thank your post about their state conquest, Fred, but they're too busy pleading for their bathroom breaks! I am sure their spirit is with you, though!

Aw Maude, you are so fun when you get self-righteous. Maybe you could take in a show with Carol and chill.

Really, if you compare the conditions in China and India today, you are looking at the difference the Chinese Revolution made. The gains have been enormous, but obviously, the Stalinst bureaucracy in China is a travesty. Far worse, in many ways, than Mao and Co. Since you don't think there is anything worth defending (and never was) you can rail, along with the NY Times and the Economist against China. China needs a political revolution, not a counterrevolution to bring back foot binding.

[Art Vandelay]

Really, if you compare the conditions in China and India today, you are looking at the difference the Chinese Revolution made. The gains have been enormous, but obviously, the Stalinst bureaucracy in China is a travesty. Far worse, in many ways, than Mao and Co. Since you don't think there is anything worth defending (and never was) you can rail, along with the NY Times and the Economist against China. China needs a political revolution, not a counterrevolution to bring back foot binding.

This is really a perfect example of why the fetishization of nationalization among some Trotskyists is just so absurd.

[SonofRage]

But of course, this is the whole point of the Minum-Maxium programme. The Communist Manifestio contains the ten planks because they represent the minume programme for a specific period of time. Even Mao acknowledged that this was not socialism.



It is also worth noting that China was not a capitalist state, it was a feudal country, with a proletariat of 1.5-3 million out of 250 million peasents, that was divided between warlords and imperial powers with no central government. There is no possiblity of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat under such conditions. According to the Two Stage Theory, a bourgeois revolution is necessary before a proletarian one and the two can not occure without eachother.

Isn't this idea the same as Trotsky's transitional program and the theory of permanent revolution?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[Fred]

This is really a perfect example of why the fetishization of nationalization among some Trotskyists is just so absurd.

Why? You don't think the Chinese Revolution was a good thing? Or that capitalism was overthrown?

[SonofRage]

Why? You don't think the Chinese Revolution was a good thing? Or that capitalism was overthrown?

Don't you mean feudalism? :lol:

[Red HalfGuard]

When the imperial powers are using your country as a dumping ground for opium, you can't exactly say there's no capitalism involved. Let's be real here. Colonialism required some countries to be underdeveloped and remain in a feudal mode of production to benefit the colonialist countries as a whole. That doesn't make it not capitalist.

Repeating the lie that just because it was a largely peasant economy doesn't mean that capitalism was responsible for the absolute degradation, misery and starvation of the Chinese (and Russian) people pre-revolution(s) is right-wing nonsense, usually repeated only by anti-communists.

[Fred]

Don't you mean feudalism? :lol:

Actually, what existed in China was a fairly extreme example of what Trotsky called, "combined and uneven development." So along with the poorest of subsistence farmers, there existed modern factories. The Chinese proletariat was not tiny at the time of the revolution -- but of course it was dwarfed by the huge size of the peasantry. A fine example of the Permanent Revolution, too. Chiang and co. were too tied to foreign capital and the imperial bureaucracy to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. When Mao came to power, he was not anxious to overthrow capitalism -- but the CCP did, because there was no middle way.

[Invader Zim]

It seems to me that Mao's ideological legacy, and that of his regime, should be measured not in speeches and writings but in actions and outcomes. On that basis I just finished reading Mao's Great Famine, one of the most recent books on the regime and therefore has the benefit of access to archival material previous authors could only have dreamed about. Suffice to say, the evidence presented in this book suggests that not only was Mao a callous, cold-blooded, narcissistic tyrant, but he was willing to allow millions to die to achieve his political ends and preserve his reputation, nationally and abroad. His regime was built on a cult of personality that put to shame even Stalin, Hitler, and virtually all the other 'strongman' dictators of the 20th Century. Pointing out even minor failures in policy was deemed to be a political attack against him personally, and those who did attempt to highlight the vast myriad of failures and inordinate human cost of the Great Leap Forward, even in the most innocuous of fashions, were branded political enemies. The natural result was that failures were ignored, swept under the carpet or simply brushed off as collateral damage, and given that each layer of the hierarchy necessarily developed as a mirror of its highest levels, the problems on the ground escalated, brutal polices were stepped up, and tens of millions of Chinese peasants and workers paid the cost. When the famine became too much to be ignored, even at the highest levels of the dictatorship, those of Mao's lieutenants who actually criticised the policies paid a heavy price for speaking the truth during the Cultural Revolution, because in addition to having no regard for human life Mao was also a vengeful, spiteful and cruel man who was willing to wait a long time to get his revenge, for even the smallest of slights.

In short the regimes 'contribution' to Communism serves only to illustrate precisely what should not be done in a post-revolutionary society. Fuck Mao, fuck Maoism, fuck his polices, and, most importantly, fuck the regime.

[Teacher]

How about fuck Frank Dikotter? He is a sympathizer of Chiang Kai-shek and a proven liar. Mao's Great Famine is a fraud, no better than Jung Chang's insane anti-communist polemics. Among the "archival material previous authors could only have dreamed about" are "historical documents" he purchased at flea markets.

http://www.maoists.org/dikottermisinterpretation.htm

Also, see Felix Wemheuer's review of his book if you have access to JSTOR.

[Invader Zim]

How about fuck Frank Dikotter? He is a sympathizer of Chiang Kai-shek and a proven liar. Mao's Great Famine is a fraud, no better than Jung Chang's insane anti-communist polemics. Among the "archival material previous authors could only have dreamed about" are "historical documents" he purchased at flea markets.

http://www.maoists.org/dikottermisinterpretation.htm

Also, see Felix Wemheuer's review of his book if you have access to JSTOR.


He is a sympathizer of Chiang Kai-shek

Is he? I don't really care. The arguments he marshaled in previous books hardly prove or disprove those marshaled in this book. Stop ineptly trying to play the man and instead address the arguments and sources.


and a proven liar

That article by Ball hardly substantiates that view if you actually bother to read the arguments Ball raises closely. His first criticism (which is far as I could be bothered reading), regarding Mao's personal knowledge of the famine, and his callous throw-away comment ('It is better to let half the people die so that the other half can eat their fill') is misinterpreted by Dikotter. However, having read the translation provided by Ball, and the alternative reading of the document, I remain utterly unconvinced. Instead it strikes me that the truth lies somewhere inbetween, that the comment was hyperbole, but also indicative of Mao's wider attitude, summarised in his oft quoted analogy that those who fell victim to policy were 'just one finger out of ten'.

Moreover, the key documents, which Ball takes issue with are, as Dikotter told him, have now been published in an edited collection by Zhou Xun, The Great Famine in China, 1958-1962: A Documentary History (2012). So your charge that he is a liar doesn't really pan out. Why lie about a document you know will soon be seeing the light of day?


Mao's Great Famine is a fraud, no better than Jung Chang's insane anti-communist polemics.

Have you actually read the book, and consulted the vast array of archival material employed by Dikotter? My guess is that you haven't.


Among the "archival material previous authors could only have dreamed about" are "historical documents" he purchased at flea markets.

So? The practise of gathering material thrown out of the archives is hardly unusual in China, given the limited access to material. However, you are being dishonest. A cursory analysis of the book's end notes reveals that the vast majority of material employed by Dikotter lead the author to archival repositories and as Wemheuer's review concedes early on:

'In contrast to other western scholars, Dikotter managed to gain access to eleven provincial archives. This is a significant achievement, given that the archival system in China is highly restricted. Remarkably, about 80 per cent of his footnotes are based on these documents.'

Wemheuer then goes on to make a number of criticisms of the book, some well justified others less so, and Dikotter's response, which I have also read, sheds some light on several of the more important criticisms. However, Wemheuer's review hardly proves your bloody-minded conclusion that '[Dikotter is] a proven liar' and that 'Mao's Great Famine is a fraud'. Indeed, several of Wemheuer's critiques are just silly, and his decision to place greater stock by Mao's published speeches over evidence from the archives is simply mystifying.

What the book is, for its fault, is the most comprehensive English language account of the famine based on a hitherto unprecedented survey of archival evidence. However, your screeching about the author is par for the course among those on this board with a hard-on for brutal dictatorships. I've seen it all before.

[Sixiang]

So? The practise of gathering material thrown out of the archives is hardly unusual in China, given the limited access to material. However, you are being dishonest. A cursory analysis of the book's end notes reveals that the vast majority of material employed by Dikotter lead the author to archival repositories and as Wemheuer's review concedes early on:

'In contrast to other western scholars, Dikotter managed to gain access to eleven provincial archives. This is a significant achievement, given that the archival system in China is highly restricted. Remarkably, about 80 per cent of his footnotes are based on these documents.'

What the book is, for its fault, is the most comprehensive English language account of the famine based on a hitherto unprecedented survey of archival evidence. However, your screeching about the author is par for the course among those on this board with a hard-on for brutal dictatorships. I've seen it all before.
You are probably correct about that but historians should practice source criticism, which should lead one away from using questionable/unverifiable sources. Much other evidence suggests that Mao wasn't a "callous, cold-blooded, narcissistic tyrant" as you posit. There's no doubt that lots of people died in the Great Chinese Famine, that there were many institutional failures of the entire Great Leap Forward program, and that the program is attributable to Mao's over-enthusiasm.

Mao was largely responding to a successful mass peasant movement across China in favor of collectivization. Collectivization began in 1955 and was successful at first. The Great Leap Forward, while it did not produce the grain and steel outputs projected by the party, still produced incredible yields given the time, place, and circumstances. The famine was exacerbated by natural disasters and poor management. Party cadres sought to impress their superiors and thus inflated figures. This led to uneven grain distribution heavily in favor of the cities, which came at a great cost for the peasantry.

There were many factors at work in the GLF. To blame it all on Mao's evil machinations, as if he oversaw and controlled everything from some evil bunker while he rubbed his hands with glee at pictures of dead peasants is absolutely absurd. Mao wasn't a cold-blooded, narcissistic tyrant. Over-optimist? Yes. Even utopian? Yes. But he responded to a mass movement in favor of this direction with enthusiasm. He was heavy-handed towards critics of the GLF and did believe in his own ideological correctness, but it is way too simple and just wrong to blame all failures on Mao and treat him as selfishly evil.

[Art Vandelay]

Why? You don't think the Chinese Revolution was a good thing? Or that capitalism was overthrown?

Was it a good thing? Meh, it did pull a hell of a lot of people out of semi-feudal conditions, but it was also at a point in time when proletarian revolution was seriously on the table, which leaves me with less sympathy for the movement than certain earlier bourgeois revolutions. Was capitalism overthrown? Not in the slightest, unless of course capitalism doesn't have to be overthrown by the self emancipation of the proletariat that is.

[Invader Zim]

You are probably correct about that

There is no 'probably' about it.


but historians should practice source criticism

And I fail to see any evidence that the author has failed to do so. On occasion it struck me, having read the book cover to cover, the populist narrative and emphasis on individuals experiences became repetitive and that the same points could have been made more convincingly with quantitative as opposed to qualitative evidence - assuming any is available. However, his noting that Mao, and other highly senior figures within the party were briefed regarding the extent of the famine and generally took a wholly callous attitude towards it was presented with an unassailable quantity of evidence and that Mao's comment in that speech was indicative of the attitude lending credence to Dikotter's reading of that speech. Moreover, as noted, Dikotter is certainly not alone in reading the speech in that fashion.


which should lead one away from using questionable/unverifiable sources.

How precisely do you think that the mass of evidence from Mao's inner sanctum is questionable or unverifiable?


Much other evidence suggests that Mao wasn't a "callous, cold-blooded, narcissistic tyrant" as you posit.

In Mao's public speeches perhaps, published and disseminated for propaganda purposes. However, the bulk of Dikotter's material is drawn from the archives, in other words, what Mao and other senior officials said behind closed doors, what they were briefed, what they said about policy and the environment in which policy was written.


There's no doubt that lots of people died in the Great Chinese Famine, that there were many institutional failures of the entire Great Leap Forward program, and that the program is attributable to Mao's over-enthusiasm.

The ignores the wider structural systems developed under Mao's regime which were implemented from the top and trickled down. Part of which included a climate of fear instilled in every subsequent level of the bureaucracy which directly encouraged over-inflation of industrial production and agricultural output and a refusal to voice criticism of policy. Admitting that policy had failed, that harvests were poor and that disaster was unfolding was dismissed as 'rightist' and held potentially dire consequences for the dissenter. Finally, when the evidence did inevitably find its way to the centre, despite Mao and his lieutenants typical reaction of deliberately closing their ears, it shrugged off and the lives of those who suffered and died were deemed expendable casualties in a 'war' for advancement. Meanwhile, the regime continued to ship many hundreds of thousands of tons of foods and financial resources to other countries, in order to save the regime face internationally. The lives of millions of people were deemed of secondary importance to the regimes private competition for international standing with the Soviet Union. In other words, diplomatic dick-measuring was given a higher status than people.


Mao was largely responding to a successful mass peasant movement across China in favor of collectivization.

Which is why millions of them en-mass immediately began hiding grain, slaughtering their livestock and selling their possessions as soon as they got wind of collectivisation?


The Great Leap Forward, while it did not produce the grain and steel outputs projected by the party, still produced incredible yields given the time, place, and circumstances.

Grain harvests dropped each year of the Great Leap Forward and by significant amounts. Meanwhile, steel production, employing backyard furnaces produced some increase in output, but much of it was in too small quantities and quality to be of viable application. The result was actually a massive waste of resources and time, which would have been far more fruitfully spent by the peasants in the fields.


The famine was exacerbated by natural disasters and poor management.

That is certainly true, but as one senior party official was to note, the ratio was in the region of 70% man 30% nature, and it seems likely that he was being rather generous. In no small part because the regime itself helped crease the 'natural' disasters, through ludicrously wrong-headed demands, such as close planting, deep ploughing and deforestation. The result was damaged topsoil, inevitably leaving harvests vulnerable to the elements.


To blame it all on Mao's evil machinations, as if he oversaw and controlled everything from some evil bunker while he rubbed his hands with glee at pictures of dead peasants is absolutely absurd.

Indeed it would be, and only a fool would suggest that Mao personally played anything beyond a functional role. However, the same is also true of senior officials in the repression in the Soviet Union, but that does not eliminate or absolve responsibility from those who inhabited the centre of the regimes in question, what it does is contextualise and qualify that responsibility within wider structures.


Mao wasn't a cold-blooded, narcissistic tyrant.

Yes, he was. The fact that he was surrounded by 'yes men', vying for his approval for their own gain, a situation he held no small responsibility for in the first place, hardly absolves him. The fact is that many people in China were murdered, the argument that this was simply a case of abuse by individual cadres does not hold water. This abuse was systemic, ubiquitous and prolonged over years, which can only reflect on the wider bureaucracy with Mao and his lieutenants at the centre of that bureaucracy. The notion that they had zero control or knowledge is absurd.

That isn't to suggest that Mao or the regime wanted peasants to die, or were engaged in 'evil machinations' - rather, that they built a regime of a character in which systemic abuse and violence were inevitable, introduced policies which were doomed to dismal failure, refused to accept reality when the inevitable occurred and once it escalated to the stage that they could no longer ignore or deny it they continued to forge on with bad policy and accepted massive human suffering as collateral and deemed people as expendable - just 'one finger of ten'. And Mao, personally, was as personally guilty of this as any of the senior figures within his circle. If that isn't cold-blooded and tyrannical then I wonder what is?

[Karlorax]

The Chinese regime was going revisionist before Deng. With Mao's help, the Cultural Revolution was ended, the Maoist economic policies ended, the beginnings of an alliance with the West... It had been going bad since the period between the Ninth Congress and Lin Biao's fall.. LLCO has the best material on this.

__________________

Currently reading, dare to join me? I am no Leading Light Communist, but I am studying their work for my MA thesis

Leading Light on Conspiracy Theory is Intelligent Design (http://llco.org/leading-light-on-conspiracy-theory-is-intelligent-design/)
Was Lin Biao guilty plotting a coup? Part 1 of 2 (draft) (http://llco.org/draft-was-lin-biao-guilty-plotting-a-coup-part-1-of-2/)
Revisiting Value and Exploitation (http://llco.org/revisiting-value-and-exploitation/)
What about the Gulag? Mao’s errors? Stalin’s? (http://llco.org/revolutionary-history-initial-summations/)

[redguarddude]

A good place to learn more is at the MLM mayhem site, which you should be able to find via google.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In the research sub- forum (within the RevLeft study guide project thread) there is a MLM study guide in the tendencies section which should be of use to you regarding Maoist theory. For various flares of modern Maoism you could see the websites of the PCR-RCP as well as that of the Kasama Project to get an idea of the different routes theorists have since taken after the demise of the RIM.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD