What does a 21st century Marxist think of Mao's China?

[Matteo]

I am not a Marixst.

I am not a Communist.

I don't subscribe to any paternalistic set of political ideologies or beliefs.

I am an amalgamation of different things, including some Marxist doctrines.

However, how does an ardent Marxist view Mao's Communist China? I ask because I honestly can not see how such a despotic, tyrannical, and anti-dissident state can be revered.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's not a despotic, tyrannical, and anti-dissident state, at least not unless you then want to have to call nearly every other state the same thing.

China, though peculiar and unique in its development over the past 30-40 years, is a typical capitalist state, albeit with an emphasis on state-sponsorship and political protection of capital. You could say that whereas in countries like Britain, the political class are weak and spineless enablers of capital, in China the political class is strong, dominant, and has managed to very much control the flows and accumulation of capital in that country. It's impressive in a way, but in other ways not so much - China is not some 'beast' and we shouldn't ascribe it special status. In a generation or two it will be seen as un-remarkable compared to any liberal democratic nation in the capitalist system.

[Comrade Jacob]

Mao's China was socialist... however Mao abandoned many Maoist principles in the 70s. Three world's theory (Not to be confused with 3rd worldism) is utter bollocks and Mao knew that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Mao's China was capitalist. What if means for a post-capitalist mode of production to exist, where socialised labour is in harmony with the mode of appropriation, is a social transformation of the relationships of production. Concretely, it means that wage-labour, and all forms of formally free and bounded labour, will have been superseded by freely associated labour. The consequence of this transformation is that all social labour will have become directly part of all total labour, meaning that no commodities and no exchange will exist in a society based on freely associated labour.

This was clearly not true for China. Control of the means of production was removed from the working class, instead being in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable revolutionary committee of military, red guard, and party deputies, whose only mandate was a non-committal, freely interpreted slogan: "serve the people". The working class did not exercise control over the means of production, no transformation of the social relationships of production occurred, only phenomenal changes transpired, and therefore no socialist revolution can be said to have occurred in China, as per Marxist analysis.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, a Marxist here.

Mao's China was capitalist, and probably dictatorial as well. Much like many other states. A bit more extreme in its organisation than most. A bit less extreme in some other ways.

What's 'paternalistic' about Marxism or Communism, in your opinion?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Mao was a brilliant revolutionary and guerrilla warrior with incredible interpersonal skills and charisma.

But he was a SHIT politician. When it came to actually running the country and building socialism he was criminally incompetent. He's not a 'mass murderer', but he WAS a horrid manager.

It also didn't help that he was completely indifferent to the damage his policies were causing.

So ultimately, Mao's China was basically never surpassed anything more than State Capitalism.

[John Nada]

However, how does an ardent Marxist view Mao's Communist China? I ask because I honestly can not see how such a despotic, tyrannical, and anti-dissident state can be revered.China's capitalist to the max now. I don't think anyone reveres modern China. Deng Xiaoping, who's more influential on China, wasn't a Marxist but a capitalist nationalist.

As for Mao, regardless of what you think of him, his writings on guerrilla warfare are brilliant and very influential.

[#FF0000]

OP, I think you should check out Loren Goldner's Notes Towards a Critique of Maoism (http://insurgentnotes.com/2012/10/notes-towards-a-critique-of-maoism/).

[John Nada]

A Maoist response to that atrocious Loren Goldner article: http://www.signalfire.org/2012/10/18/notes-towards-a-critique-of-euro-marxism/

I'm sorry, but that Notes Towards a Critique of Maoism is awful. The Chinese Revolution had the proletariat at the forefront. Demographics weren't that different from pre-revolution Russia. That the CCP included the peasantry meant they were more inline with Marxism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/index.htm Engels had similar views towards the peasantry.

Marxism was never about workers going Rambo in a country with a peasant majority, or waiting for a German Revolution(still in 2015, wtf:confused:), which they half-got(from above with force) at the time of the Chinese Revolution. Goldner bastardizes Trotsky's beliefs(which isn't surprising with the whole "bureaucratic collectivism" line), butchers Mao's line with all kinds of anti-communist shit, and has a mechanical eurocentric understanding of Marxism(which is not waiting for Germany in 2015, important but not much more than say Brazil or India).

What I don't think gets talked about much on China is the Rightist line of the capitalist roaders. https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/ Mao wasn't some cartoon dictator. There were other factions in the party, which Mao described as having become more like a united front of Marxists with non-Marxists. Mao wasn't paranoid when he said the party was infiltrated with revisionist and capitalist. I could see how Deng was able to usurp the Gang of Four; he may have been a revisionist not unlike Bernstein but he wasn't a dumbass like Gorbachev.

[The_Southern_Leftist]

I feel like early on in Mao's leadership he was building socialism but later on he abandoned it and became a Revisionist. His and others revisionism thus makes me side with the Hoxhaist viewpoint on the Sino-Albania Split. While I remain a Maoist I reject much of his later work and ideology.