What did the Gang of Four think about Stalin?

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

I heard that Jiang Qing didn't like Stalin. That sounds quite weird to me as she was Mao's wife. Does anyone else know more about this?

[Prairie Fire]

Mao was pretty vocal taking shots at Stalin in his writings (most of which were unfounded,), calling him "mechanical", and then there was his infamous " 70% good-30% bad" ratio. Mao said that Stalin's childhood in the seminary lead him to a metaphysical approach to Socialism.

The more you get into Mao's writings, you see that much of his public advocacy of Stalin was political expediency. China gained an international following by presenting themselves as the continuation of where the USSR left-off in 1954. Delving into his writings, Mao rarely has anything positive to say about Koba, and frequently contradicts him.

"5 heads" Maoism itself is fairly anachronistic today. Maoism that incorporated Stalin had it's day in the international New Left, especially prior to the Sino-Albanian split. I know that CPC-ML in Canada was a pretty good example of "5 Heads" Maoism prior to 1978. Even then though, there were grumblings within the New Left. Huey P of the Black Panthers repeatedly seems to have nothing positive to say of Stalin in his writings from that time period.

Contemporary Maoism is generally of the "3 heads" variety: Marx, Lenin, Mao ( Even in this formulation, reference to Marx and Lenin is often little more than a formality.). In the US, the Kasama project is Sans-Stalin Maoism, as is the modern RCP-USA ( Avakian has characterized Stalin as too "Economist", which is unfounded.). Likewise, the Canadian/Quebecois RCP is of the sans-Stalin variety as well. In Southern Ontario, I'm told that "3-heads" Maoism is the predominant variety.


In Nepal, I have seen signs that Pro-Stalin Maoism persists in some capacity ( I don't think that it is the official line of the UCPN, though,), and maybe in India and the Philippines as well. In the western world especially though, any trace of Stalin had been wiped clean from contemporary Maoism ( give or take some critical defense of the USSR circa 1917-1954).

Maoism, especially internationally, has always been opportunistic, but also pandering. Stalin was praised when he was in vogue among the international left and in the former colonies. Now, Stalin is no longer in vogue, and so he is jettisoned without ceremony and denounced by contemporary Maoists without hesitation. This also explains why contemporary Maoism flirts with Trotskyism so frequently. Mao himself was an eclectic, and so this is appropriate.

In high school, I was a " 5 heads" Maoist. I think another part of the reason that Pro-Stalin Maoism is on the decline is that those of us who begin in this trend investigate Mao and find little there of value, and so we move on from Mao.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Mao was pretty vocal taking shots at Stalin in his writings (most of which were unfounded,), calling him "mechanical", and then there was his infamous " 70% good-30% bad" ratio. Mao said that Stalin's childhood in the seminary lead him to a metaphysical approach to Socialism.


Mao's criticisms of Stalin were far more in depth than merely taking "shots" at him. Considering that he devoted over 100 page critiquing Stalin's works of political economy I'd say that Mao had a very clear idea of his critique of Stalin.

For Mao's critique of Stalin's work on political economy, see here:

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html



The more you get into Mao's writings, you see that much of his public advocacy of Stalin was political expediency. China gained an international following by presenting themselves as the continuation of where the USSR left-off in 1954.


Mao held a more or less consistent view of Stalin, however the content of his criticism changed depending on the context. Mao criticized Stalin during the civil war period for the failure of the tactic of entryism in the KMT and later he critized other aspects of Comintern policy, going as far to declare that after 1938, the CPC ceased to listen to Comintern. Later Mao criticized his work on political economy after the restoration of capitalism in the USSR because obviously the primary tasks of the day shifted. So there's little inconsistency in the matter.

And I'd shy away from calling Mao an opportunist, considering that Stalin backed the warlord Feng Yuxiang as a "progressive" force against the communists when it looked like they might not win. Such an error is hardly more excusable than Deng backing the UNITA .

To say that Mao hardly ever said anything positive of Stalin after his death is demonstratably false:


The leaders of the CPSU have accused the Chinese Communist Party of “defending” Stalin. Yes, we do defend Stalin. When Khrushchov distorts history and completely negates Stalin, naturally we have the inescapable duty to come forward and defend him in the interests of the international communist movement.

In defending Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party defends his correct side, defends the glorious history of struggle of the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was created by the October Revolution; it defends the glorious history of struggle of the CPSU; it defends the prestige of the international communist movement among working people throughout the world. In brief, it defends the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. It is not only the Chinese Communists who are doing this; all Communists devoted to Marxism-Leninism, all staunch revolutionaries and all fair-minded people have been doing the same thing.

~On the Question of Stalin


After Lenin's death Stalin as the chief leader of the Party and the state creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defend the legacy of Leninism against its enemies - the Trotskyites, Zinovievities and other bourgeois agents - Stalin expressed the will and wishes of the people and proved himself to be an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. The reason Stalin won the support of the Soviet people and played an important role in history was primarily that he, together with the other leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, brought about the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditions for the victory of the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler; these victories of the Soviet people conformed to the interests of the working class of the world and all progressive mankind. It was therefore quite natural for the name of Stalin to be greatly honoured throughout the world.

~ Stalin's Place in History


In Nepal, I have seen signs that Pro-Stalin Maoism persists in some capacity ( I don't think that it is the official line of the UCPN, though,), and maybe in India and the Philippines as well. In the western world especially though, any trace of Stalin had been wiped clean from contemporary Maoism ( give or take some critical defense of the USSR circa 1917-1954).


Indeed, the revisionist factions of the MLM movement in Nepal and India did hide behind Stalin. Notably the renegade faction of the Maoist Communist Cente of India and the NCP (Mashal). Both organizations echoed quasi-hoxhaist defenses of Stalin and both organizations ended up betraying the working class, the Nepalese party notably ended up merging with the Prachanda clique and ended up being their most stance supporters:




yet another common feature of both the NCP (Mashal) and this section is their so-called
defense of Stalin. Both of them reject Mao’s criticisms on Stalin. They argue that his
contributions are nothing more than a continuation of Stalin’s positions. Finally, both of them conclude that Mao’s contributions are only equal to Stalin’s. Thus, they have ended up negating their own previous position of considering Mao Tsetung Thought as a new stage! Or rather, they have only succeeded in exposing that their earlier adherence to Mao Tsetung Thought was really covering up deep-rooted revisionism. One sees here yet another variant of the revisionist tactics of pitting the old against the new. Beyond that, their attack on Maoism, quite close to Enver Hoxha’s attack, raises an important question. How should we grasp the rupture/continuity dialectic in the development of proletarian ideology?



Mao Tsetung no doubt inherited and applied the contributions of Stalin. We particularly
stress Stalin’s contributions in the struggle against anti-Leninist currents on international
questions, building socialism and specific questions of the Chinese revolution. Moreover, he
played a leading role in the ICM in the struggle to defend Stalin from the vile attacks of
Krushchevite revisionists. But, and this was the key aspect, he did this by rupturing from
outmoded ideas as well as real errors of Stalin. The continuity with Stalin’s revolutionary
legacy, or more broadly with the Marxist-Leninist legacy, was possible precisely because of this rupture. This is what paved the way for the development of the new, higher and third stage of proletarian ideology. On the other hand, in the name of defending Stalin, Enver Hoxha clung to his errors and ended up as a renegade. This has also been the inevitable trajectory followed by the NCP (Mashal). The section expelled from the MCCI can be expected to trail it, especially since they have taken to slandering the People’s Wars in Peru and Nepal as ‘left’ adventurism; a regular refrain of the RF and the NCP (Mashal). This discussion helps us to understand how their metaphysics complements their idealism in the question of ideology

~The Fight to Establish Maoism, from the journal of the RIM

Of course defense of Stalin has a particular role in particular contexts. The defense of Stalin is always an essential task of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists as long as right-wingers, Social Democrats, and Kruchevites continue to hurl mud on Stalin. However, the reason why Mao critiqued Stalin was not because he was an opportunist, but because Kruchevite revisionism was the logical result of Stalin's mistakes and tendency to deviate from Marxism-Leninism


Huey P of the Black Panthers repeatedly seems to have nothing positive to say of Stalin in his writings from that time period.


Indeed, Huey Newton once wrote of his frustration with the policies of the Soviet Union under Stalin:
"During the pre-war years, Black Americans were pawns on the Soviet chessboard, being led back and forth by the whims of Moscow; today oppose Roosevelt who opposes Hitler, because Stalin allied with Hitler, and tomorrow support Roosevelt against Hitler, because Hitler has invaded "Mother Russia". All the while, blacks were struggling to eat and survive by entering the system of capitalist endeavor as workers or producers. The Roosevelt New Deal did a bad deal to blacks. The president's trumped-up reforms and the Communist Party of America's sudden Stalin-induced silence on the issue of black civil rights and human rights excluded many peoples of color"
~The Huey Newton Reader, pg 250


Thus is what one gets, when one engages in crass oppertunism

[Hrafn]

In the western world especially though, any trace of Stalin had been wiped clean from contemporary Maoism ( give or take some critical defense of the USSR circa 1917-1954).

The recently founded October Movement in Sweden, a Maoist group, upholds Stalin.

[Prairie Fire]

Indeed, Huey Newton once wrote of his frustration with the policies of the Soviet Union under Stalin: Quote:
"During the pre-war years, Black Americans were pawns on the Soviet chessboard, being led back and forth by the whims of Moscow; today oppose Roosevelt who opposes Hitler, because Stalin allied with Hitler, and tomorrow support Roosevelt against Hitler, because Hitler has invaded "Mother Russia". All the while, blacks were struggling to eat and survive by entering the system of capitalist endeavor as workers or producers. The Roosevelt New Deal did a bad deal to blacks. The president's trumped-up reforms and the Communist Party of America's sudden Stalin-induced silence on the issue of black civil rights and human rights excluded many peoples of color"
~The Huey Newton Reader, pg 250
Thus is what one gets, when one engages in crass oppertunism __________________

Yes, that was exactly the passage that came to my mind.

In all fairness, Newton had a penchant for half-baked analysis.

When you delve into his writings, you see that he was strongly motivated by the idea that an immanent genocide of all Black people in the US was impending, not unlike the policies enacted in the Third Reich. For this reason, all BPP programs were called "Survival programs".

One could argue that the idea wasn't completely unfounded; contingency plans to that effect did exist in the United States ( i.e. Operation Garden Plot). Depending on your outlook on the Crack epidemic of the 80's and policies like the 1970 Family planning Act, it could be said that genocide was implemented against the Black Population ( and aboriginal peoples as well.). Whole-sale extermination SS style, however, was not the method employed in the US at the time.

Either way, Newton jumped to a conclusion, with little basis in the material realities at that time.

He also took the stance that the Lumpenproletariat were the ascending revolutionary class, because increasing automation in Industry would render the Proletariat obsolete.

This was his stance in the late 1970's.

Here we are in 2013;has automation rendered human labour obsolete on a large scale yet?

He also seems to confuse unemployed Proletarians and the Lumpenproletariat as one and the same.

So, here in this particular quotation, he repeats the fallacious trope that Stalin was "Allied" with Hitler ( I've dealt with this claim in great detail on numerous other occasions; check my post history). From this, he extrapolates that it was this "Alliance" with Hitler that lead the USSR to encourage uprising against Roosevelt.

Not that Roosevelt was President of the United States, and the USSR had encouraged armed revolution against every previous US president, years before Hitler came to power.

I'm not going to even get into Newton's accusations that Eldridge Cleaver was a homosexual, etc, etc.

I'm not saying everything Huey ever wrote was useless; His personal memoirs and some of his analysis was very astute and should be taken to heart. I'm also not regretting the BPP (albiet, their theory and practice were not always suited to the task).

As I said though, Huey P had a consistent history of half-baked analysis. His gadfly criticisms of Stalin are no exception.

[Creative Destruction]

Here we are in 2013;has automation rendered human labour obsolete on a large scale yet?

It's seemingly getting there, at least in the United States. Large corporations are reshoring, but they're only doing so because of automation. Those jobs aren't coming back. I think leftists tend to dismiss the pretty awesome (not in a positive or negative sense) progress that automation has made, particularly within the last decade. It's only going to get more and more so. This is especially true in the black working class, where unemployment is something like 11% or 12% and not on course to get any better, really. And that is the demographic that Huey was primarily writing toward, especially in the early days when the Black Panthers started taking on a Marxist character.


He also seems to confuse unemployed Proletarians and the Lumpenproletariat as one and the same.

I don't think so. The fact that he was a great advocate of street gangs and bringing them together (along with Fred Hampton's creation of the Rainbow Coalition) under a revolutionary banner I think shows pretty well that he understood the difference. It was just that in his environment, so much of the working class was (and still is) being destroyed that those former proletarians were slipping into the lumpen subclass. Where the Panthers were organizing, and who they were organizing, were arguably lumpenproletariats. They're off the street, living on the fringes of society, dealing in crime and what not. I don't think his analysis, considering the time and environment he was in, was at all invalid. It was actually very relevant to who it was the Black Panthers were trying to recruit. And he was right. For a time in the 60s, the Black Panthers, along with the other radical groups like the Young Lords, represented probably the truest revolutionary potential in this country and they had a revolutionary potential that we haven't seen in this country since.


When you delve into his writings, you see that he was strongly motivated by the idea that an immanent genocide of all Black people in the US was impending, not unlike the policies enacted in the Third Reich. For this reason, all BPP programs were called "Survival programs".

One could argue that the idea wasn't completely unfounded; contingency plans to that effect did exist in the United States ( i.e. Operation Garden Plot). Depending on your outlook on the Crack epidemic of the 80's and policies like the 1970 Family planning Act, it could be said that genocide was implemented against the Black Population ( and aboriginal peoples as well.). Whole-sale extermination SS style, however, was not the method employed in the US at the time.

Either way, Newton jumped to a conclusion, with little basis in the material realities at that time.

I mean, no disrespect or anything, but what makes you the arbiter of how the Panthers should have perceived their material realities at the time? The black community was one that was (and is) under constant and near total attack. In those times, when their leaders were being assassinated, they were being poisoned by drugs, black folks were sterilized and tested on like lab rats, and there was always the looming threat of state violence during those times, what makes it so bad that Newton "jumped" to that conclusion? Considering the rise of white terrorism in that part of the century and the ever increasing threat that the state would use its power against black people, I'd say it was a perfectly fuckin' reasonable conclusion to jump to. When you look at how another minority group was treated -- and what it led to -- and see similarities in how you're being treated, you don't stand around and wait for you to be harmed. You organize. The Panthers saw that the civil disobedience of the 50s and early 60s didn't work, and they weren't going to wait around to be assassinated. If they were going to be harassed, brutalized and possibly killed, they were going to fucking fight it first. You protect yourself and your community from those forces.

Hind sight is 20/20, but it's incredibly condescending to even think that you should trash Newton for a "half-baked" analysis regarding this and "jumping to a conclusion" and not consider the full breadth of what was happening to them back then.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Hmm I don't think they ever wrote a song about him ... :grin;

QRjjVFC-oG4