How exactly does Maoism fit into America?

[Tolstoy]

Been looking at the website of the RCP, the only Maoist group in America im aware of and im curious, how would Maoism work in America? We lack a peasentry

[Brotto Rühle]

Been looking at the website of the RCP, the only Maoist group in America im aware of and im curious, how would Maoism work in America? We lack a peasentry
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbmds5ux3n1qzjnt7.gif


On a note to avoid getting infracted, Insha'Q, Maoism would fit into America by adapting in it's usual opportunist fashion, and basically doing the same thing the regular Stalinists would do. Become social democrats with guns, and advocate for one party dictatorship state capitalism.

[Red_Banner]

There isn't a peasantry?

Farms family or corporate owned don't use wage labour?

[DDR]

There isn't a peasantry?

Farms family or corporate owned don't use wage labour?

No, groceries in the US magicaly appear in the suppermarket.

BTW, maoism is a lot more than peasants and cool poetry.

[Brotto Rühle]

No, groceries in the US magicaly appear in the suppermarket.

BTW, maoism is a lot more than peasants and cool poetry.

Hey bro, I have a garden in my yard. I grow tomatoes and shit. I am peasant now?

(non infraction worthy translation): What exactly is a peasant, to you?

[Os Cangaceiros]

There isn't a peasantry?

Farms family or corporate owned don't use wage labour?

Those aren't peasants, they're agricultural workers.

[Red_Banner]

Those aren't peasants, they're agricultural workers.

So what is a peasant then?

What is an "agricultural worker"?

Is that the politically correct term now?

[leukotripsy]

Because WHITE America has oppressed the third world (as well as the colored people within the country) to make a profit so whites can achieve their goal of world domination.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So what is a peasant then?

What is an "agricultural worker"?

Is that the politically correct term now?

The peasantry was defined largely by the fact that it contained pre-capitalist elements (even if it existed in a capitalist state). There is no such trace element of pre-capitalism in the American agricultural sector, though. Not even the heavily-subsidized "family farms", etc. There is really no substantial difference in the wage-labor relationship between agricultural workers and workers in other sectors of the economy. I had a job briefly picking kale in Texas but I wasn't a "peasant" at that time LOL

[DDR]

Hey bro, I have a garden in my yard. I grow tomatoes and shit. I am peasant now?

(non infraction worthy translation): What exactly is a peasant, to you?

An agricultural worker who either exploits its piece of land (not employing others) or sells its labour force to a bigger landlord.

[DDR]

The peasantry was defined largely by the fact that it contained pre-capitalist elements (even if it existed in a capitalist state). There is no such trace element of pre-capitalism in the American agricultural sector, though. Not even the heavily-subsidized "family farms", etc. There is really no substantial difference in the wage-labor relationship between agricultural workers and workers in other sectors of the economy. I had a job briefly picking kale in Texas but I wasn't a "peasant" at that time LOL

If you work in the field without owning it for a salary (jornal, litterally daily pay) you're a jornalero , the lowest strata in the "agricultural economy".

[Zukunftsmusik]

If you work in the field without owning it for a salary (jornal, litterally daily pay) you're a jornalero , the lowest strata in the "agricultural economy".

So what? That would make you a jornalero, a wage worker with a not so good deal, not a peasant.

[Blake's Baby]

People who work on other people's farms are the rural proletariat.

People who work on their own farms are peasants.

The rural proletariat is as much part of the proletariat as the urban proletariat is.

Peasants are part of the petite-bourgeoisie (they own the means of production, but also utilise their own labour).

If they employ other people and don't work at all, they're just bourgeois.

[DDR]

So what? That would make you a jornalero, a wage worker with a not so good deal, not a peasant.

The problem is that the jornalero is that he is a wage-slave who doesn't own the means of production (mainly land and machinery), once he takes them, what does he become? a peasant, communal peasant but peasant nontheless.

[Lensky]

Been looking at the website of the RCP, the only Maoist group in America im aware of and im curious, how would Maoism work in America? We lack a peasentry

Study the Black Panther Movement for examples of Maoism being implemented in a First World scenario.

[Yuppie Grinder]

No, groceries in the US magicaly appear in the suppermarket.

BTW, maoism is a lot more than peasants and cool poetry.

lol dude
there are poor agricultural workers in the US, but agriculture is an industrialized thing here and has been for a long time
there is no meaningful "peasantry", that word's only part of american vocabulary as a joke

[DDR]

lol dude
there are poor agricultural workers in the US, but agriculture is an industrialized thing here and has been for a long time
there is no meaningful "peasantry", that word's only part of american vocabulary as a joke

The economic relationships in the rural world (even in developed countries) hasn't changed a bit. The fact that in the US there wasn't any piece of land owned by a fuedal lord doesn't change that the same relations are perpetuated (without the litteral mastery over serfs and so on).

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The American RCP is irrelevant, revisionist garbage. Stay far, far away from them. Regarding Maoism's place in the first world: like any revolutionary anti-capitalist tendency its place is to help push forward theory and organizing by contributing to the current reconception and regroupment effort. While there is no peasantry in the advanced capitalist nations this is besides the point considering New Democracy is not on the agenda when concerning the first world. Likewise, Protracted Peoples' War (and its supposed universality and application int eh Imperialist center) is still something being debated by international Maoist organizations. In terms of organization Kasama has put forward a mode of organizing involving creating a 'communist pole' (http://kasamaarchive.org/) which in terms of theory is different than what one thinks when talking about Maoist groups. However, there are many other Maoist organizations in the United States today; ranging from Left-Wing Maoists to Right-Wing ones (and even the Third-Worldist variety) there are other groups which are competing for influence.

To answer your question directly though: what does it contribute? New means of organizing the working and oppressed classes which in part deals with the previously mentioned question of protracted peoples' war versus that of a communist pole. How does one carry out revolution in the first world, this is what the present Maoist groups are attempting to resolve through the two-line struggle.

In the end any revolutionary tendency boils down to this fundamental question: how to organize in a territory so apathetic to anti-capitalist revolution. Maoist groups are part of the project in which this question will hopefully be resolved.

If you have any more question feel free to PM me anytime or to post in the M-L-M usergroup here on RevLeft. I doubt I will keep up with this thread so if you want my opinion directly please contact me.

Hope that helped!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

So the peasantry are anything from commercial farmers who do some labour on their farms to subsistence farmers who survive almost solely off of their produce?

That's more ambiguous than the god-awful 'middle-class' terminology.


Hey bro, I have a garden in my yard. I grow tomatoes and shit. I am peasant now?

This sounds like a weird mutation of a particular libertarian strawman against the law of value.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

In all honesty, this thread deserves an exhaustive response but I have exams this week so it's going to be a while before I get to it. However I will reply to a few basic things simply because I know if the conversation isn't framed correctly then it'll probably go off the rails pretty quickly and I doubt I'd be able to retrieve a decent conversation from the mess it'll become. Also as a note, I will be refering to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and the Revolutionary Internationalist tradition, I don't care about the various traditions outside of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that claim "Maoism" because I don't think a fidelity to Mao is really that meaningful just like how the French Communist Party's fidelity to Marx isn't really that meaningful either.


Been looking at the website of the RCP, the only Maoist group in America im aware of and im curious, how would Maoism work in America? We lack a peasentry

First of all, the RCP-USA no longer identifies itself as Marxist-Leninist Maoist. They now claim to have devloped the "New Synthesis" which the vast majority of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist left believe to be a form of revisionism. The Communist Party of Afghanistan(Maoist) wrote a pretty good critique of Avakianism which also elaborates on certain issues of dialectics from an MLM perspective: http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html

The Communist Party of India(ML) Naxalbari also published a series of documents against the New Synthesis and the negative role that the RCP-USA that are pretty valuable from a theoretical and historical perspective so I recommend that you check them out.

http://thenaxalbari.blogspot.ca/2013/07/naxalbari-issue-no-4.html


Basically, at this point it isn't a matter of whether the RCP-USA represents a valid form of MLM, it doesn't, the debate is over at what point did the RCP-USA stop functioning as a Communist Party and started to become the cult it is presently. Some people who are from the non-MIM MTWist tradition view the RCP-USA as reactionary from the start. I think I personally agree with the Third Worldist perspective on alot of issues regarding them but I don't think the RCP USA were bad to the bone. The RCP-USA's journal put out alot of good theory in the late 70's and early 80's that ought to be studied, I don't really have any other nice things to say about it though. Here is the MTWist critique of them:

http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/mythology-of-the-white-led-%E2%80%9Cvanguard%E2%80%9D-a-critical-look-at-the-revolutionary-communist-party-usa-2/

As a side note, It's a real pity that Maoist-Third Worldists are restricted around here, sure 70% of them are jerks but there is no reason to restrict an entire tendency based on that since being a troll is breaking a rule in of itself. Alot of Third-Worldists put out alot of really interesting and good theory that is worth engaging and I think if there are proper checks in place to prevent them from becoming hegemonic on here then they could improve the intellectual atmosphere of this forum.

Additionally, Maoism has very little to do with peasantry, the only reason why the revolutionary potential of the peasants was emphasized in the early debates within the CCP was because there was a debate on how exactly a Communist Revolution could occur in a semi-feudal country with only 1.5-3 million proletarians out of a population of 250 million that was divided between numerous warlords backed by foreign powers and with imperialist japan trying to cut up pieces of China for itself, one must ask oneself, how the hell exactly can a successful revolution result from this hodgepodge. The orthdox faction led by Wang Ming and Chen Duxia argued that the proletariat was the only class which could be revolutionary within the Chinese context and that insurectionism was the only valid approach to the Chinese Revolution (as a side note, insurrectionism has a different meaning within MLM than it does within the broader left). The tactics advocated by the orthodoxy led to constant failure and the unnecessary lose of life after numerous failed attempts at insurrection. Wang Ming was demoted from his position for a few years due to these mistakes and later returned to the Central Committee of the CCP. Despite his new position, Wang fled China for Moscow and spent the remainder of his life as an apologist of social democracy. Chen Duxiu was removed from the Communist Party and faded into obscurity. Mao argued that the peasants could play a leading rule in the revolution and argued that Protracted People's War could be a viable strategy given the Chinese context. History proved Mao correct.

Outside of these early discussions within the CCP, the question of the peasants doesn't really have a role within Maoism outside of a purely historical perspective.

Oh yea, and to some of the posts above, no there are no peasants in America. There are Proletarians who work in the agricultural industry, but no peasantry.

I know this didn't answer your question, but I do hope it helped to clear some things up. I do intend to address the original post in time.

[Queen Mab]

This might not be the thread for it, but what exactly is the theoretical advance of Maoism specifically, that sets it apart from anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism?

[Red_Banner]

In all honesty, this thread deserves an exhaustive response but I have exams this week so it's going to be a while before I get to it. However I will reply to a few basic things simply because I know if the conversation isn't framed correctly then it'll probably go off the rails pretty quickly and I doubt I'd be able to retrieve a decent conversation from the mess it'll become. Also as a note, I will be refering to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and the Revolutionary Internationalist tradition, I don't care about the various traditions outside of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that claim "Maoism" because I don't think a fidelity to Mao is really that meaningful just like how the French Communist Party's fidelity to Marx isn't really that meaningful either.



First of all, the RCP-USA no longer identifies itself as Marxist-Leninist Maoist. They now claim to have devloped the "New Synthesis" which the vast majority of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist left believe to be a form of revisionism. The Communist Party of Afghanistan(Maoist) wrote a pretty good critique of Avakianism which also elaborates on certain issues of dialectics from an MLM perspective: http://www.sholajawid.org/english/main_english/A_respose_to_the_rcp_USA_sh28.html

The Communist Party of India(ML) Naxalbari also published a series of documents against the New Synthesis and the negative role that the RCP-USA that are pretty valuable from a theoretical and historical perspective so I recommend that you check them out.

http://thenaxalbari.blogspot.ca/2013/07/naxalbari-issue-no-4.html


Basically, at this point it isn't a matter of whether the RCP-USA represents a valid form of MLM, it doesn't, the debate is over at what point did the RCP-USA stop functioning as a Communist Party and started to become the cult it is presently. Some people who are from the non-MIM MTWist tradition view the RCP-USA as reactionary from the start. I think I personally agree with the Third Worldist perspective on alot of issues regarding them but I don't think the RCP USA were bad to the bone. The RCP-USA's journal put out alot of good theory in the late 70's and early 80's that ought to be studied, I don't really have any other nice things to say about it though. Here is the MTWist critique of them:

http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/mythology-of-the-white-led-%E2%80%9Cvanguard%E2%80%9D-a-critical-look-at-the-revolutionary-communist-party-usa-2/

As a side note, It's a real pity that Maoist-Third Worldists are restricted around here, sure 70% of them are jerks but there is no reason to restrict an entire tendency based on that since being a troll is breaking a rule in of itself. Alot of Third-Worldists put out alot of really interesting and good theory that is worth engaging and I think if there are proper checks in place to prevent them from becoming hegemonic on here then they could improve the intellectual atmosphere of this forum.

Additionally, Maoism has very little to do with peasantry, the only reason why the revolutionary potential of the peasants was emphasized in the early debates within the CCP was because there was a debate on how exactly a Communist Revolution could occur in a semi-feudal country with only 1.5-3 million proletarians out of a population of 250 million that was divided between numerous warlords backed by foreign powers and with imperialist japan trying to cut up pieces of China for itself, one must ask oneself, how the hell exactly can a successful revolution result from this hodgepodge. The orthdox faction led by Wang Ming and Chen Duxia argued that the proletariat was the only class which could be revolutionary within the Chinese context and that insurectionism was the only valid approach to the Chinese Revolution (as a side note, insurrectionism has a different meaning within MLM than it does within the broader left). The tactics advocated by the orthodoxy led to constant failure and the unnecessary lose of life after numerous failed attempts at insurrection. Wang Ming was demoted from his position for a few years due to these mistakes and later returned to the Central Committee of the CCP. Despite his new position, Wang fled China for Moscow and spent the remainder of his life as an apologist of social democracy. Chen Duxiu was removed from the Communist Party and faded into obscurity. Mao argued that the peasants could play a leading rule in the revolution and argued that Protracted People's War could be a viable strategy given the Chinese context. History proved Mao correct.

Outside of these early discussions within the CCP, the question of the peasants doesn't really have a role within Maoism outside of a purely historical perspective.

Oh yea, and to some of the posts above, no there are no peasants in America. There are Proletarians who work in the agricultural industry, but no peasantry.

I know this didn't answer your question, but I do hope it helped to clear some things up. I do intend to address the original post in time.

So how are they not peasantry?

Because barons are now called CEOs?

The class conflicts and contradictions remain very much the same.

Are you also forgetting that these farms employ illegal immigrants who don't even get minimum wage?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So how are they not peasantry?




The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.

~The Principles of Communism, Fredrick Engels

Because they exist outside of the context of feudalism, and the "small family farmer" doesn't exist in modern america, agriculture has been industralized to the extent that there are literally factories that produce chicken and other food goods. We live in the 21st century.


Because barons are now called CEOs?


Barons are a completely different class than CEOs.


The class conflicts and contradictions remain very much the same.



The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
~The Communist Manifesto

No, they haven't remained the same, these contradictions have evolved throughout the change in the mode of production.


Are you also forgetting that these farms employ illegal immigrants who don't even get minimum wage?


Illegal immigrants do receive a wage. It's important to note that they receive less value for their labor than the average amount of value that would normally occur at the average of socially necessary labor time, hence they are super exploited. However this does not indicate a unique class status as socially necessary labor time is an average, not set in stone.

[goalkeeper]

The American RCP is irrelevant, revisionist garbage. Stay far, far away from them. Regarding Maoism's place in the first world: like any revolutionary anti-capitalist tendency its place is to help push forward theory and organizing by contributing to the current reconception and regroupment effort. While there is no peasantry in the advanced capitalist nations this is besides the point considering New Democracy is not on the agenda when concerning the first world. Likewise, Protracted Peoples' War (and its supposed universality and application int eh Imperialist center) is still something being debated by international Maoist organizations. In terms of organization Kasama has put forward a mode of organizing involving creating a 'communist pole' (http://kasamaarchive.org/) which in terms of theory is different than what one thinks when talking about Maoist groups. However, there are many other Maoist organizations in the United States today; ranging from Left-Wing Maoists to Right-Wing ones (and even the Third-Worldist variety) there are other groups which are competing for influence.

To answer your question directly though: what does it contribute? New means of organizing the working and oppressed classes which in part deals with the previously mentioned question of protracted peoples' war versus that of a communist pole. How does one carry out revolution in the first world, this is what the present Maoist groups are attempting to resolve through the two-line struggle.

In the end any revolutionary tendency boils down to this fundamental question: how to organize in a territory so apathetic to anti-capitalist revolution. Maoist groups are part of the project in which this question will hopefully be resolved.

If you have any more question feel free to PM me anytime or to post in the M-L-M usergroup here on RevLeft. I doubt I will keep up with this thread so if you want my opinion directly please contact me.

Hope that helped!

As you will have gathered from this ramble of a post, Maoism doesn't really 'fit' into the US. It mostly consists of a few people debating it. Long gone are the days when you could tell people 1960s China was some sort of society to emulate and thus are the days of Maoism ever extending behind historical-revisionist crank networks.

The OP should note that Maoism is a rather curious phenomenon and seemingly hard to grasp. This is however only due to its partisans incessant use of weird formula (wtf is new democracy LOL) and phrases which generally mask any real of concrete analysis or understanding. Don't be alarmed though, Maoism is easily dealt with. All you need to do is keep pressing its protagonists on their contradictory points.

One fun question to ask is how proponents of Maoism, such a radical departure from the usual understanding of Marxism, can be classed as 'un-revisionist' and how this very novel version of Marxism called Maoism can use 'revisionist' as an insult to other brands of Marxism. The answer you will receive is that when they 'revise' Marxism its not actually revisionism because apparently revisionism is no longer a neutral term to describe the revision of an previously held understanding but actual just means 'bad' or 'something we don't like'. So there you have it, the place of Maoism in America is to define words and and rewrite the dictionary - this is what you call a Great Prole Cultural Revolution. Don't ask whats Proletarian about it though.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think one of the more useful elements of Maoism is the question of social investigation informing action and spurring more investigation for more refined action.


Its a standard form of practice among all ML type organizations of any type (Trot, 'Stalinist,' Maoist, what have you) And seeing how anarchist organizations sometimes run, they run on this method as well. Not the Maoist method, but the method of looking into things and making practical moves on what you discover and continually recalibrating.

The thing with Maoism is there is a major emphasis on base building and how to go about turning investigation into practice. whether or not it works is not the question, but the relevance and usefulness of such a practice is lost on a lot of people and organizations.

[ind_com]

Been looking at the website of the RCP, the only Maoist group in America im aware of and im curious, how would Maoism work in America? We lack a peasentry

The peasantry is the main force in a Maoist people's war only in places where they are the demographic majority, or in stages when the class war is initiated in the rural areas. In industrial countries like the USA, the urban proletariat is the leading as well as the main force of the people's war, with the people's war capturing the urban centers first.

The RCP is at present a personality cult and has nothing to do with Maoist practice. There are genuine Maoist groups in the USA which are building bases among students and workers.

[Rusty Shackleford]

People's War might not even be applicable in the US though. I guess the question is, and the answer i do not have, is what makes People's War relevant versus Urban and Military insurrection?


The US is an urban society. Rural and agricultural workers are geographically and sometimes culturally separated from urban and industrial workers, but the distnction between urban and rural is probably far weaker than say in India or the Philippines.

[#FF0000]

So how are they not peasantry?

Because barons are now called CEOs?

The class conflicts and contradictions remain very much the same.

Are you also forgetting that these farms employ illegal immigrants who don't even get minimum wage?

Why don't we call proletarians "serfs" too, by this logic? They all have people bossing them around, so it's all the same, right?

[Glitchcraft]

They're politics are pretty weak. until the mid 90s the RCP held the position that homosexuality was caused by capitalist overindulgence and heathenism and in a post revolutionary society everyone would just be straight. I assume this line is to avoid having to support or defend any gay rights issues. Theres numerous other anti sexuality stances they take. I can't remember them all.

They also tend to focus on recruiting bands and artists. Rage Against the Machine is the most popular example, they used to plug the RCP and Bob Avakian. Not to mention Chomsky, Zinn and all the other academic favorites.

Something I never understood about Maoism in the US at least is it's preoccupation with entertainment. the Maoist international Movement (MIM) is most remembered more by their movie reviews more than their politics. In fact that's all MIM is now is movie reviews, (I think). There's a hundred and eighty Maoist punk bands in the US and not one Trotskyist entertainer I have ever seen.

The worst aspect of the RCP is that the entire organization is basically politically subservient to Bob Avakian the permanent chairperson of the RCP since it was formed in the late sixties as a split off the maosit sects of SDS. There is no democratic means by which they derive their politics. A top down hierarchy is the opposite of a democratic centralist vanguard party. whether or not you support a vanguard party it's obviously not supposed to be a hierarchy like the RCP.

[Art Vandelay]

They also tend to focus on recruiting bands and artists. Rage Against the Machine is the most popular example, they used to plug the RCP and Bob Avakian. Not to mention Chomsky, Zinn and all the other academic favorites.

Do you have any sources for this? I have a hard time believeing Zinn or Chomsky ever lent support to the RCP.

[Glitchcraft]

Do you have any sources for this? I have a hard time believeing Zinn or Chomsky ever lent support to the RCP.
Oh my bad. I must have worded it poorly. Rage Against the Machine plugged Chomsky, Zinn and the RCP. I mean they had a picture of the Anarchist Cook book on the inside of one of their albums... cmon Zack really?

I'm sure Chomsky is anti RCP since he is anti-Lenin, anti-communist, anti-vanguard party, anti-Bolshevik etc.

[ind_com]

People's War might not even be applicable in the US though. I guess the question is, and the answer i do not have, is what makes People's War relevant versus Urban and Military insurrection?


The US is an urban society. Rural and agricultural workers are geographically and sometimes culturally separated from urban and industrial workers, but the distnction between urban and rural is probably far weaker than say in India or the Philippines.

Insurrection depends upon sudden shift of power. People's war is relevant because in the absence of the conditions necessary for insurrection, the proletariat can empower itself and destroy the state-surveillance and military power only by waging continuous class war.

[RedArmyComrade]

It's not just the peasantry which is fundamental to Mao's theoretical work. You should also look at the People's War too.

[Comrade Chernov]

Wasn't it Mao who said something along the lines of "the poorer someone is, the more revolutionary they are in spirit, therefore poverty is good"?

[Red HalfGuard]

Wasn't it Mao who said [unsourced thing I think Mao said but haven't bothered to even google]?

[Comrade Chernov]

The story is something like this.

I was in my school's library and saw a book titled, in bold yellow print, "Mao". I forget the author.

I was intrigued, and opened to a page somewhere in the middle.

It described a meeting between Mao and various communists of other countries, I don't recall a date being mentioned but I assume some time within the 1950s-1960s, because it mentioned the French delegation being Stalinist. They were discussing the steps that needed to be taken to ensure the welfare of the people of their various countries, and it then went on to say that Mao said something along that line.

One line I distinctly remember said, and I quote, "even the French Stalinists were shocked".

Now I, of course, have no idea if it's true or not. I just am wondering if Mao actually did say that. I have little knowledge of (or care for, truthfully) Maoism, and I don't expect to be an authority on the subject.

[servusmoderni]

Because WHITE America has oppressed the third world (as well as the colored people within the country) to make a profit so whites can achieve their goal of world domination.

Not sure if dumb or serious... o_0

[Tim Redd]

The Revolutionary Internationalist Socialist Party (RISP) is a Maoist organization in the U.S.. Read their programme on their main web page. www.risparty.org

[blake 3:17]

The thing with Maoism is there is a major emphasis on base building and how to go about turning investigation into practice. whether or not it works is not the question, but the relevance and usefulness of such a practice is lost on a lot of people and organizations.

The single best strategic book on doing politics, from our side, I've read in recent years is Eric Mann's Playbook for Progressives.

I don't suggest taking Mann's ideas uncritically, but his emphasis is on base building and he has very very pragmatic and principled approaches to doing that.

I highly recommend the book. www.goodreads.com/book/show/10248896-playbook-for-progressives You can find his site at http://voicesfromfrontlines.com/

[Rusty Shackleford]

Is peoples war an option or potential reality though? If no one is tied to any section of the country like a peasant, then how is a base to be maintained for years or decades of struggle?


are there examples of peoples war being waged - over time - by proletarians outside of revolutionary civil war?

The closest i can come to imagine it is with things like the Urban Guerrilla Concept which didn't play out so well.

[ind_com]

Is peoples war an option or potential reality though? If no one is tied to any section of the country like a peasant, then how is a base to be maintained for years or decades of struggle?


are there examples of peoples war being waged - over time - by proletarians outside of revolutionary civil war?

The closest i can come to imagine it is with things like the Urban Guerrilla Concept which didn't play out so well.

There is no historical example of urban people's war yet, though it is projected as the only possible line by several Maoist communist parties in the first world. For the same reason, the parties that are already waging people's war in the third world have not made any official statement on this line.

It is different from the urban guerrilla model in the sense that it aims to involve a large section of the masses in the armed struggle, and lead to higher military formations inside the urban areas. Also, no one is needed to be tied to a section of the country like a peasant; once the struggle begins, a portion of the population will attach itself to the particular aspects of the struggle in any given region.

[Tim Redd]

Additionally, Maoism has very little to do with peasantry, the only reason why the revolutionary potential of the peasants was emphasized in the early debates within the CCP was because there was a debate on how exactly a Communist Revolution could occur in a semi-feudal country with only 1.5-3 million proletarians out of a population of 250 million that was divided between numerous warlords backed by foreign powers and with imperialist japan trying to cut up pieces of China for itself, one must ask oneself, how the hell exactly can a successful revolution result from this hodgepodge. The orthdox faction led by Wang Ming and Chen Duxia argued that the proletariat was the only class which could be revolutionary within the Chinese context and that insurectionism was the only valid approach to the Chinese Revolution (as a side note, insurrectionism has a different meaning within MLM than it does within the broader left). The tactics advocated by the orthodoxy led to constant failure and the unnecessary lose of life after numerous failed attempts at insurrection. Wang Ming was demoted from his position for a few years due to these mistakes and later returned to the Central Committee of the CCP. Despite his new position, Wang fled China for Moscow and spent the remainder of his life as an apologist of social democracy. Chen Duxiu was removed from the Communist Party and faded into obscurity. Mao argued that the peasants could play a leading rule in the revolution and argued that Protracted People's War could be a viable strategy given the Chinese context. History proved Mao correct.

Outside of these early discussions within the CCP, the question of the peasants doesn't really have a role within Maoism outside of a purely historical perspective.

Your first paragraph states the facts. However, I disagree with your last paragraph. The peasantry in most 3rd world countries have same significance to Maoists in those countries as they did for Mao.