Maoism

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, it is obvious to any observer that Leninism and it's logical extension, Maoism, can only succeed in 3rd World countries that have not even reached the advanced capitalist stage. When they come to power, it invariably results in the creation of a new ruling class that then proceeds to carry out the bourgeois revolution.

However, before communism can be achieved, it is necessary for all countries to reach the advanced capitalist stage. So, by speeding the process of capitalism, Maoism actually performs a vital service to the revolution.

My question is: should Maoism be used as a tool to speed up the bourgeois revolutions of the 3rd world?

[Louis Pio]

My question is: should Maoism be used as a tool to speed up the bourgeois revolutions of the 3rd world?

The problem today is that the national bourgiosie of those countries are to weak to even fullfill the tasks of a bourgious revolution. Also they are totally entangled with different imperialists. To put the task of socialist revolution under the task of a bourgious revolution would mean disaster. Capitalism cannot at all give them even the basic neccesities.
In alot of countries that policy has lead to disaster.
As an example we can look at the Philipines as this article does The tasks of Filipino socialists after the Edsa II and III uprisings (http://www.marxist.com/Asia/tasks_of_filipino_socialist1.html) A note is that there use to be a maoist tradition there. Today most have abandoned maoism since they saw it as a failure.

Also most (if not all) of those countries have today both features of feudalism but also of capitalism. A good example is Pakistan.
Actually alot of these countries can be somewhat seen as Russia in 1917. In Russia they also had to move straight ahead towards socialism

Anyway I think this article is also quite good on the subject Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/colrev.html)

[Louis Pio]

I just realised I misread your question :D
That's what I get from posting when I should be in bed...

[Essential Insignificance]

My question is: should Maoism be used as a tool to speed up the bourgeois revolutions of the 3rd world?

Yes. It's what it done in China.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Can somebody explain Maoism in short terms? Thank you :-)

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, it is basically the strategy that Mao Zedong used, hence its name. This means that although the conditions for a revolution clearly do not exist (i.e. 80% of the country is peasants and maybe 15% were workers), the Communist Party attempts to win by any means necessary, which usually includes using the peasantry to fill their ranks.

The major problem with this is that although the peasantry are 'working people' and although they are exploited like the proletariat, they are not the same class and in fact, in an advanced capitalist society, they are usually considered to be part of the petty bourgeiosie. They have they own concerns which focus around land reform and redistribution.

Maoism is basically the overthrow of the old regime and then putting the Communist Party in as the new ruling class. This process can speed up the process of capitalism immensely, as shown in Russia or China, though eventually, it results in the restoration of capitalism.

My thought is that Maoism can be used to speed up the capitalist process in the 3rd world by allowing the establishment of a national bourgeiosie instead of a countries domination by the Western bourgeiosie. This is a necessary precondition for the era of 'high mass consumption' as Rostow called it. The sooner the 3rd world embraces capitalism, the sooner the world can embrace communism.

[redstar2000]

However, before communism can be achieved, it is necessary for all countries to reach the advanced capitalist stage.

This was not the view of Marx and Engels; originally they thought that proletarian revolution would succeed first in four countries -- England, France, Germany, and the United States.

But that was back in 1847; the question for the present day that might prove interesting is "how large" an area would be needed to sustain a communist society even if there was still a substantial part of the world that remained capitalist?

For example, suppose the EU were communist by 2050 or 2100...could it "stand" against the rest of the world long enough for the rest of the world to reach the level of communism? Or would it be successfully invaded and overthrown by the remaining imperialist countries?

Or suppose it were just France that went communist first? Would it be doomed?

This question goes to the heart of one of the principal theses of the Leninist paradigm; namely, "without a Leninist state, the initial proletarian revolutions will be invaded and overthrown by other imperialist powers".

Is that true? Or even likely?

:redstar2000:

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