Maoism

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Post your ideas here

[redstar2000]

Short-version: if you live in a colonized "third-world" country, dominated by imperialist lackeys and a landed aristocracy, and you want to make a real modern bourgeois revolution without calling it that...then Maoism is for you!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Subversive Rob]

Maoism.
Well Redstar summed it up rather cynically but:
1. Alliance with national bourgeois against imperialists
2.New democracy after revolution - capitalism supervised by CP with socialism happening
3. Class struggle under socialism, differenct contradictions remain:
New Bourgeois emerge in the Party - need to be eliminated by mobilising the masses
Contradictions within the people - need to be eliminated by education and debate

[crazy comie]

I would say stalinism for the third world that turns to capitalism.

[Edelweiss]

Maoists in 1st world nations, at least in Germany, are tending to turn into fascists or even to go the "way rgough the institutions" and turn eben into goverment members, I think that says a lot. Just a few examples for former Maoists, who are (or where, one of him is dead) now leading fascists in Germany, just to back up my claim: Horst Mahler, Christan Worch or Michael Kühnen.
Current former Maoist government members: Antje Volmer (Greens, 2nd president of the parliament), Jürgen Trittin (Greens, minister for enviromental issues).

[Fidelbrand]

Viewing politics and life as a perpetual series of struggles.
Contradictory and anti-intellectualism.
.. with a pocket full of good intentions, but.. FASCIST.

P.S. I am studying Maoism at school right now. (beginner)

[Saint-Just]

I agree with what Subversive Rob says, in general. I do not think it is anti-intellectualism at all, or fascist. Some people try to paint it that way. Anyway, I think Maoism today is somewhat different from what Mao himself was thinking. I think support for the Cultural Revolution is ultra-leftism, and that Mao recognised it was a failure. Too many people were attacked and in the wrong way too often. I think Hoxhaists would be correct in saying that the party should purge itself rather than let outsiders.

I do not remember where this is from. Anyway, it is in answer to the assertion that Maoism is anti-intellectualism.

Many Western people believe that Mao was against "real" education and "intellectuals" during the Cultural Revolution, and that schools were tools for "brain-washing" and "propaganda." These beliefs come from stories about the closing of universities in China, new requirements and regulations for textbooks and research, and new controls over what types of art and theater were to be encouraged or allowed. Some of this information was brought to Westerners by Chinese intellectuals who left China before or during the Cultural Revolution: they left because they believed their way of life and status was threatened by these changes.

Westerners define "real" education as that which resembles Western educational topics and agendas; i.e. studying history and literature from the point of view of the oppressors and imperialists, mathematics/science with the goal of research toward technological or medical advances that increase the wealth and power of the ruling classes, and studying to the point of expertise and academic status but without emphasis on practical experience or usefulness for the community.

Westerners perceive Chinese education under Mao as "propaganda," because it encourages values and goals which contradict the goals of capitalism. These values and goals taught in China during the Cultural Revolution were consistent with the building of socialism. Education in Western nations is not perceived as "propaganda" by those who, consciously or not, agree with the goals of capitalism/imperialism and patriarchy. Similarly, advertising for capitalist products, while recognized as very influential on people's opinions and actions, is not perceived as "brain-washing" by those who benefit from capitalism and have therefore decided to tolerate it.

Western perceptions of Maoist attitudes toward education, intellectuals and art were mostly based on information from Chinese who rejected socialism,or from foreigners who examined the events in China from an outsider's viewpoint.You can gain a more realistic picture of the educational revolution in China by reading books by authors who support what's best for the majority of the people, and who were closely involved in the changes going on. For example, William Hinton's Hundred Day War: The Cultural Revolution at Tsinghua University explains how socialism developed and old oppressive educational ideas were dismantled in the context of a famous institute of science and engineering:

"Students now spend as much time in the factories and on the construction sites of greater Peking as they do in classrooms and laboratories, and professors devote as much energy to developing liaison with the scores of factories and enterprises with which the university is allied as they do to lecturing and advising students. No longer will thousands of privileged young men and women withdraw into the leafy wonderland of Tsinghua to crack books until they are too old to laugh. No longer will they stuff their heads with mathematical formulas relating to the outmoded industrial practices of pre-war Europe and America, sweat through 'surprise attack' exams, and then emerge after years of isolation from production and political engagement unable to tell high-carbon steel from ordinary steel or a 'proletarian revolutionary' from a 'revisionist.'

Before his death, Mao said he wanted to be remembered only as a "teacher." Mao did not oppose education. He opposed Western-style education because of its use in creating and justifying the existence of self-interested classes that don't necessarily serve the public. Instead, education and intellectuals should only serve the public, and as part of this doctrine, Mao ordered the intellectuals to go live with the peasants to help the peasants, educate the peasants and learn from the peasants.

The majority of China's population was poor and illiterate and had very little access to basic needs, education or medical care. Regarding medical education, Mao said in 1965: "Medical education should be reformed.There's no need to read so many books. ... It will be enough to give three years to graduates from higher primary schools. They would then study and raise their standards mainly through practice. If this kind of doctor is sent down to the countryside, even if they haven't much talent, they would be better than quacks and witch doctors and the villages would be better able to afford to keep them. ... the way doctors are trained is only for the benefit of the cities. And yet in China over 500 million of our population are peasants."(12)

And in fact, one of many socialist programs developed was the barefoot doctors, who were peasants trained for a few months in basic medical care and then worked in their village to prevent disease and injury, improve sanitation,and treat common medical problems. (13)

The following was the order issued by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)Central Committee at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in 1966:

"As regards scientists, technicians and ordinary members of working staffs, as long as they are patriotic, work energetically, are not against the party and socialism, and maintain no illicit relations with any foreign country, we should in the present movement continue to apply the policy of unity-criticism-unity." (14)

Vast improvements were made in the educational system in China. Old capitalist-based textbooks were put aside and new textbooks were used to teach the history and politics from the perspective of the majority of the people. For example, Fundamentals of Political Economy: a Popular Introductory Marxist Economics Text, was published in 1974 (Shanghai People's Press) and studied by schoolchildren. Also, the literacy rate in China increased dramatically.

[redstar2000]

No longer will thousands of privileged young men and women withdraw into the leafy wonderland of Tsinghua to crack books until they are too old to laugh.

That sounds kind of weird. I'm still "cracking books" and I'm pretty old and I'm still laughing.


...the way doctors are trained is only for the benefit of the cities. And yet in China over 500 million of our population are peasants.

The words of a "peasant emperor". All well and good, of course, and even true. But why call this sort of thing a "dictatorship of the proletariat"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[roman]

The most important contribution to the maoist tradition in recent years is J. Sakai's _Settlers: the myth of the white proletariat_. I think this book is important for all revolutionaries, but especially for maoists.

I don't really think you can understand the revolutionary situation in the usa until you absorb the information in this book.

[redstar2000]

The most important contribution to the Maoist tradition in recent years is J. Sakai's Settlers: the myth of the white proletariat.

For all the fuss that's been made about this guy's thesis, I wonder of anyone has noted the fact that all the "settlers" are now dead?

Not all of them literally, of course. But the "golden door" of immigration to the United States was slammed shut back in 1921 or so -- ironically to mainly exclude Italians and Jews.

Since then, the number of "settlers" from Europe or any place has slowed to a trickle.

Say someone came over in the last great wave of immigration (in 1921) and was old enough to actually have a "settler mentality" (say 15)...if s/he were still alive, s/he'd be 98-years-old.

Thus, even if Sakai's analysis of American history was "indisputable"...it is now obsolete and probably has been for at least a generation.

There are, no doubt, lingering cultural artifacts of that period...but lacking support in material conditions, they will inevitably "fade away".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[roman]

Myself, Redstar, and some Avakianites have been discussing Sakai in several threads in another forum. I don't have time to get into the reply over here, but if you are interested, check out this thread for my response about Sakai:

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1073960945 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1073960945)
Sakai does not think of Settlerism as just "racist ideology" or whatever. Sakai reserves the term for concrete kinds of national formations that have their origins in garrisoned colonies: USA, South Africa, Zionist Israel, N. Ireland, etc. Although there is obviously an ideological side to this, it isn’t the main thing.

I really think people need to read Settlers, to get a full sense of it. It is one of my favorite books. There is some decent material online about it, "When Race Burns Class" interview and the Gilbert and Kuwasi Balagoon reviews. But, none of these do the book justice. The book is a bit hard to find it might be available through Solidarity/Arm the Spirit. From the inside jacket: Cooperative Distribution Service, Rm 1409-93, 5 N. Wabash Ave, Chicago, Il 60602... Single copies are 8.95$, postage and handling included. Price for Prisoners 2$. Bulk orders of 10 or more copies 50% discount. Payment must accompany all orders. Orders without full payment can't be filled. I would double check this address, my book is old. Or call Illinois information and get their phone number. Or, try Amazon..

[crazy comie]

Chairman mao do you agree with me that china is capitalist now.
If you accept this surley you must acept that the root of all of this was the way he revoulotion was carried out.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 20 2004, 10:55 AM
Chairman mao do you agree with me that china is capitalist now.
If you accept this surley you must acept that the root of all of this was the way he revoulotion was carried out.
Yes, I agree absolutely. The last vestiges of socialism have been shot from China. I think it is a capitalist country ruled by capitalists and full of capitalist ideas. The other day I talked to a girlfriends friend who is a teacher in China. He said that China was a socialist nation, but he then went on to say that those unemployed, impoverished and diseased in China could only help themselves. That statement was not one that any socialist country would agree with.

Yes, I think the root of this was in the way the revolution was carried out.

[crazy comie]

would you agree with me that the revoulotion was carried out that way becuse chairman mao carried it out that way.

[RedAnarchist]

I believe in a global revolution of the Proletariat and gaining communismj through socialism.

I also advocate nationalization, compete equality of women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities, the UK leaving the EU and NATO, the removal of US bases from UK territory, the abolishment of the moanrchy, the abolishment of the House of Lords.

I also belive that the government after a revolution should be libertarian, not authoritarian.

These beliefs of mine are not maoist in my opinion, but i still regard it as a communist idealogy and as a feasible path to a communist utopia

[crazy comie]

was that relervent.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 23 2004, 04:21 PM
would you agree with me that the revoulotion was carried out that way becuse chairman mao carried it out that way.
To some extent yes. I would not place all the blame on Mao.

[crazy comie]

In that cm i would agree wiyh you there here others to blame.

[Rasta Sapian]

mao was the man!
The cultural revoltion, the militant communist generation rising up with their red books in hand!
to crush impirialism, and all of the greed that it stood for
the impirialist barrons, and bourgousie slaughtered in this bloody revolution
young killing the old and corrupt
and a new people emerge, workers of red
while Jun qui chek and the remaining impirial guard flee to taiwan only to spawn a lost american dream

[Saint-Just]

Yes Rasta Sapian, you sound very much like a Maoist. But I think the cultural revolution was not quite as effective as that. For example, Deng Xioaping was not dealt with correctly at all, 2 years in prison for the man who would destroy such an amazing communist revolution. Although thats easy to say with hindsight, but obviously it is an example of a mistake, one of a great number. I think that basically the entire cultural revolution was a poor idea or not executed very well.

[crazy comie]

Rasta saipian all the cultural revoulotion did was plunge china into caos

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 1 2004, 04:27 PM
Rasta saipian all the cultural revoulotion did was plunge china into caos
Thats quite true, but most revolutions are quite chaotic.

[crazy comie]

Yes but the cultural revoulotion was aftere the actual revoulotion and the army had to stop it after all.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 2 2004, 03:45 PM
Yes but the cultural revoulotion was aftere the actual revoulotion and the army had to stop it after all.
Yes, I don't disagree. I do not think that the cultural revolution should have been carried out like it was, however when Mao carried it out he knew that it would be somewhat disorganised. He did not foresee the Red Guard falling into factions but he knew what the Red Guard would do and likely knew that they would make some mistakes.

Mao identified a problem, the new bourgeoisie within the party, and I think his cure did work to some extent. In the future I do not think one would want to carry out the same thing, it is better that the party maintain control.

I would suggest that thorough ideological work be carried out and that Mao's successor should have been chosen while he was alive to prevent the rise of a new bourgeoisie in the party.

[crazy comie]

That is another part of the problem he went from making the party very strong to trying to smash it he should of aimed for a middle position to begin with.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 3 2004, 04:10 PM
That is another part of the problem he went from making the party very strong to trying to smash it he should of aimed for a middle position to begin with.
Thats partly true. He didn't try to smash it entirely but submit it to very harsh criticism from outside and try to rid it of any capitalist elements. I agree that he should have gone for a 'middle ground', to foster criticism without going to such great measures.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution were good way to get the community involved in the revolution, but the fact that it ended up being part of Mao's personality cult pretty much defeated the purpose. I'm not much of a fan of Mao's ideas on the economy, I am more in favor of a large scale nationalized/collectivized Soviet/Cuban style economy rather then the smaller, localized economy that Mao designed. (E.G. backyard steel furnaces that made unusable steel.)

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 10:57 PM
I think the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution were good way to get the community involved in the revolution, but the fact that it ended up being part of Mao's personality cult pretty much defeated the purpose.
The thing is the red gaurds where there purly to purge pepole from the party etc how is that revoulotionary especially since alot of the pepole did nothing wrong.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by crazy comie+Mar 4 2004, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (crazy comie @ Mar 4 2004, 05:13 PM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 10:57 PM
I think the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution were good way to get the community involved in the revolution, but the fact that it ended up being part of Mao&#39;s personality cult pretty much defeated the purpose.
The thing is the red gaurds where there purly to purge pepole from the party etc how is that revoulotionary especially since alot of the pepole did nothing wrong. [/b]
True, but when they did get the right person, e.g. Deng Xiaoping (although he only got two years and in hindsight he should have been executed) you could then call it revolutionary, in that it would further the revolutionary cause.

Although I agree, they misjudged many times and obviously different measures needed to be taken since eventually the Gang of Four were attacked by others in the party, and they were anti-revisionists.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, we all know what happens when there is no safeguard for the party, and modern China is a perfect example.

[crazy comie]

What do you mean by "no safeguard for the party". AS i said they should have gone the middle way.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, when there is no purging of the party at all, then the party degerates into a capitalist party like modern day China, but if there is purging, then the only way that can happen is with a dictator who does as he pleases, often against working class interests. The party must purge itself, and the only way to do that is with a trial with the other party members (local or national, depending on level of post) to determine if that comrade&#39;s actions are acceptable or not.

[Saint-Just]

Hoxha says the party should have kept control of the purging. I think the cultural revolution failed partly because of the reaction within the party against it. Also, they missed quite a few people who had they got rid of they would of been more successful in maintaing a MLM line. If the Gang of Four had not been attacked then things probably would have been better.

In the CPPRC today, there are many differing views, unfortunately they are all reactionary ones.

[crazy comie]

I&#39;m not saying there shouldn&#39;t be purging i&#39;m saying there is no need to execute and torture pepole.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 9 2004, 12:08 PM
I&#39;m not saying there shouldn&#39;t be purging i&#39;m saying there is no need to execute and torture pepole.
Agreed.

[crazy comie]

I see we have all ended up in a middle ground areself&#39;s wich is good.

[Raisa]

Mao had a real lot of good points in his red book, but what confuses me is how he talks about commandism as a bad trait, and then shows an affinity for Stalin. Stalin seemed like a pretty " Because I said so" kind of guy so I wonder if Mao really was aware of the atrocities of Stalin&#39;s leadership. Alot of people werent aware of it becuase Stalin was good putting a nice face, and if you were aware, you probably were going to keep your mouth shut so as to not get in trouble.
Because of what I know of Stalin, I do not understand Mao&#39;s liking for him, especially after reading the red book.

[Raisa]

<<Well, we all know what happens when there is no safeguard for the party, and modern China is a perfect example. >>

This I can understand very much, because just because there was a revolution, doesnt mean capitalism is dead. It&#39;s more then just an economic system as we know, it is a pshycological state.
I was considering the idea of the people being the safe guard as well as the ones in the party. As if after the revolution they were taught as a class in school what to expect, and to not lot let any one take advantage. It is most important that the people know what to expect and are esteemed as workers I think, beucase if we are all in the same school system and we are all dignified,and understand our revolution how far among us will currupted orders go?
but that was just another thought from Raisa. <_<

[elijahcraig]

Settlerism

Are we giving everyhing an “-ism” now?



I view Maoism as very destroyed by modern Maoist’s constant use of rhetoric (MIM for instance) to block discussion of something. If you bring up a point, they immediately say you are supporting racism, or fascism, or whatever. It’s really cult-like.

[Fear]

Maoism never failed. The people failed.

[elijahcraig]

Vague and meaningless^

[crazy comie]

I doudt mao did no of stalins attrocities or even the ammount of damadge he himself would do.