Sup, Comrades!

[Warren Peace]

Sup, brothers and sisters of the revolution, I'm new.

Basically I'm a spikey-haired punk and a Socialist/Communist radical. I'm addicted to kickass music: punk rock/metal/some other rock, and I play the electric guitar. I love everything Chinese: China, Chinese food, Chinese girls, Maoism. You could call me a Maoist, I guess. Che Guevara was a Maoist, after all.

When it comes to the Revolution, my belief is that there is already a revolution in the US: the Class War. The anarchist Book of Resistance (http://socialnerve.org/resist/) defines the Class War the best, but I don't agree with everything in the book because I'm a communist, not an anarchist.

Value 14 in the Book of Resistance:


In my lifetime there are two forces: the Working Class and the Class Enemy. The Working Class is all of us, it is the slaves and the workers, it is all of life that strives to perfect its situation and benefit society. The Working Class is united by all races and genders, buy subgroups and subcultures, it is all accepting and all growing. Within the Working Class there are billions of different people, with different ideas, different outlooks on life, religions, etc. But with all the differences that exist amongst them, only one thing unites them all: they are enchained by the Class Enemy. The Class Enemy is the total opposite of me. It is a small, petty, segregated group of individuals who hold nothing sacred except for money. The Class Enemy is the one who makes billions while the workers barely make enough to feed themselves. The Class Enemy is the being that brings drugs and prostitution to our streets, it sends us war, it humiliates and degrades our existence. The Class Enemy is always the capitalist the government, the police and the secret police, the teachers, the bankers, the military, and the ones in power. The Class Enemy has only one goal: to enslave as many as possible, to destroy as much as possible, to turn the world into a police state, to always be at war. The Class Enemy holds nothing sacred, it doesn't respect itself or its people. Its pleasure is momentary, its existence is a burden on the rest of the world. It cannot be bargained with. It only understands violence and war. The Class Enemy only knows how to produce and consume, and it will produce the rope with which we shall hang them! The Class Enemy is my eternal enemy. Because of it I must watch my mother work herself to death, I must watch my father dig his own grave, I must watch my brother's and my sister's youth fly past them because of war, poverty, and a wasted society. In their names I will resist the enemy till death. In the names of my loved ones I will pick up the sword of justice and behead the Class Enemy! The enemy of the working class deserves total, universal, merciless destruction. It will be ripped out by the root and nothing will be left. Of all this I am certain.

To start a succesfull revolution, we need to unite the Working Class factions that are fighting the Class War. The problem with revolutionary factions is that they don't work together: some Anarchists don't get along with Communists. And communists don't get along with other communists! Trotskyists don't get along with Stalinists, who don't get along with Leninists, who don't get along with fundemental Marxists, who don't get along with Maoists.

I support a United Front. We need to put aside our differences and form an armed revolutionary movement, a new Red Army. Conflicts between revolutionaries should come second to the conflict with our common and eternal enemy: the Class Enemy! The reactionaries, the government, the rich ass coorporations, the Christian/Zionist fundementalists, all the fucking right-wingers.

Reform isn't going to fix our problems. The Democratic Party, other moderate leftists, the hippies, they will never stop the Class Enemy with their lazy politics. The Class Enemy only understands violence and war. We need Revolt, not Reform! We need an "armed insurrection", we need to light the fire of dissent that will rage across the world and burn away oppression.

Viva la Revolution!

[Organic Revolution]

welcome.

[novemba]

indeed.

you'll get some shit for being a Maoist, be prepared...

[Thomas]

Heh Guevara supported China primarily, he wasn't a Maoist though, he wasn't even a commie.

But welcome none-the-less :)

My advice? Drop the Maoism and adopt Anarchism, Maoism's.......not the best course of action. Worldwide actions have shown that (China, Shining Path etc)

[rise_up]

these guys have a point. but do what you want.....if you believe in something go for it.

[Warren Peace]

Thanks.

I'm not strictly a Maoist, but the Chinese Revolution rox, it was an uprising by the students and workers against fascism and imperialism.

How was Che not a communist? He said


Man still needs to undergo a complete spiritual rebirth in his attitude towards his work, freed from the direct pressure of his social environment, though linked to it by his new habits. That will be communism.

And tell me what you think about my ideas? I want to know if people here are like "yes we need to stand together" or "fuck that everyone for themselves".

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:17 AM
Heh Guevara supported China primarily, he wasn't a Maoist though, he wasn't even a commie.

It's true, the Soviets accused Che of being a Maoist because he admired Mao. But he was a Marxist, and I believe that makes him one of the many branches of Communism

[Warren Peace]

Ya, I admire Mao too, that's why I'm sort of a Maoist. But like I said I'm not strictly a Maoist, I agree with anarchists on some issues for example, like education.

[pogue_mahone]

Surely Maoism is only applicable to Third World countries with significant peasantries, and not industrialised countries in the West?

On another thread I introduced myself as "a working-class revolutionary with anarcho-communist leanings." I disagree with adopting the orthodox interpretations of Marxism by people such as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao etc. It is important for ideological positions to be rooted in reality and pragmatism, not idealism and the past. Working-class movements must also preserve their working-class character, and not become suffocated by middle-class radicalism. Power must always rest with the rank-and-file of a movement, restricting the ability of any leadership to become unaccountable and dictatorial (history has shown the destructive potential of 'vanguards').

This thread has shown how easily personalities can dominate politics. Ultimately it is irrelevant whether Che was a maoist or even a commie. What matters is how best to galvanise the working-class into a self-aware, confident, independent movement.

[small101]

wasn't mao a stalinist anyway, so a maoist is a stalinist????

[emma gg]

man, screw the ists and think for yourself!
che was amazing, but had troubling facets of his belief system.
even lenin was an amazing and true revolutionary in his own right. but when you start looking for people to follow, you begin to give up your own ability to make your own decisions. there will never be just one right answer. the zapatistas call it the principle of "one no, many yeses." we don't have to figure it all out to know that we are headed down a destructive and mindlessly self-consumptive path.
oh, and remember to have fun along the way. because we only have one life to make a difference, and if we suborn your own joy and happiness for some "greater good" outside of yourself, then you have failed the only person that will wake up with you every day for the rest of your life. be happy and healthy, because without that, you are in no condition to embrace the revolution.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Revolt Now!@Jul 7 2005, 06:15 PM
but I don't agree with everything in the book because I'm a communist, not an anarchist.


do you mean marxist? because most anarchists are communists

[Che1990]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:27 AM
wasn't mao a stalinist anyway, so a maoist is a stalinist????
Precisely! That's what I've been trying to say in various different threads! Maoism IS Stalinism!!!!!

[pogue_mahone]

The working-class don't care about -isms. The left seem more interested in idols like Che and Lenin, than THE WORKING CLASS. Che fought in rural South America, and the Russia of Lenin's day was still a feudal society. These people lived in the past. They did not lead revolutions in 21st century, capitalist Britain. They may inspire us, and they may look cool on a t-shirt, but ultimately they are not relevent to the modern class struggle, or the day-to-day experience of working-class life.

[Sven_Linderot]

I totaly agree with pogue_mahone we need to spend less time theorising and more time organising the working-class!
90% of ideological conversations amongst the left leads nowhere it's just dogmatism.
the real question is how do I get the blokes at work to get behind me on claiming their own right rather then how do I get along with another leftiest.....

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 04:49 PM
Precisely! That's what I've been trying to say in various different threads! Maoism IS Stalinism!!!!!
I thought Mao and his army gaiend most of their support from Leninist Factions? Ah well, I'm all for the unified front and such mate, but I think we should start with the believers of communism before we move to the entire working class, this whole discussion about Maoism and Marxism and such is proof. We are all bound to have minor disagreements on the finer points of the theory but for the most part we have the same basic ideas, lets stand for those and get a move on.

[Warren Peace]

I'm glad most people seem to agree with me on the united front and getting rid of leftist dogmatism, but

Maoism is not Stalinism! :angry:

Since I've explained this so many times in other threads, and nobody here has made any specific arguments that Maoism is Stalinism, I'm just going to refer to some of my comments in other threads.

On the Greal Leap Forward, Chinese Civil War, & Cultural Revolution. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37367&st=20)

On Mao as a person, the Gang of Four, and the relationship of Maoism to Anarchism. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37749&hl=)

[Hiero]

Revolt Now! I think you are a bit confused. Mao thought of Stalin as 70% good and 30%. It means he support Stalins socialism and progress but didn't like the way Stalin supressed reactionaries. When Krushchev took power after Stalin and started reforming socialism, Mao seen this as the faults of Stalins system to stop the revisionist from rising in the party.

So Mao developed on Lenin and Stalins socialism, which has nothing to do with anarchism other then it is anti capitalist.

[TC]

China is cool.


Don't let the utopian anarchist types push you around.



Heh Guevara supported China primarily, he wasn't a Maoist though, he wasn't even a commie.



I think you anarchists are just jealous that you don't have a sexy icon to put on t-shirts so you want to co-opt ours!



Worldwide actions have shown that (China, Shining Path etc)

Sooooooo how's the Anarchist worldwide record on revolutions going, mmmm not one yet?



wasn't mao a stalinist anyway, so a maoist is a stalinist????


Mao's a 'stalinist' just cause he didn't demonize the guy? So, if he say, didn't totally reject, say, the Beatles, would that make him, what, a Lennonist?.. No, right, cause John Lennon might have made some political comments but he didn't develop a new political theory or ideological position? Well, Stalin didn't either. Maoism on the otherhand involves political analysis on issues like revisionism and culture that Stalin lacked.


man, screw the ists and think for yourself!

Hey i think i learned that in an American cold war propaganda film (http://www.archive.org/details/MakeMine1948)...

Its one thing i think, to think for yourself and critically examin all ideas, but its another to dismiss things cause you've head so many statements about how bad mao or stalin or che (who, you know, couldn't possibly be involved with such bad men!) or for that matter trotsky was to the point you just assume its true and that anything they said must have been pure totalitarian fascist crap, or whatever.



do you mean marxist? because most anarchists are communists

:rolleyes: Yeah...in the same way that most Libertarians are anarchists.




Precisely! That's what I've been trying to say in various different threads! Maoism IS Stalinism!!!!!


:lol: It all makes sense now!! Of course Mao also followed Lenin, so Mao was a Leninist...So Maoism is Leninism...but Leninism, i mean, the guy supported Marx, so he was a Marxist. Marx was definately a communist for sure...he wrote the g'damn manifesto for communists right? And, as has been mentioned many times here, most anarchists are communists.

Stalin you know, was very bad, he starved 80 million ukranians to death and was buddy buddy with hitler! :rolleyes: So, Stalinism you know, is just another word for Fascism.

So if Maoism and Stalinism are the same things, and Maoism is Leninism and Leninism is Marxism, which is communism, and anarchism is also communism, would that make anarchism really fascism? :unsure:


The left seem more interested in idols like Che and Lenin, than THE WORKING CLASS.

Right. I'm sure you speak for the working class...and the survey says that they prefer sectarian arguments on what socialist leaders may or may not have done 40-90 years ago. They also would rather have direct personal participation on all levels of goverment with none of those corrupt 'party officials' to get in the way of democracy rather then, say, food, shelter, education, medical care, housing, job security, utilities, and a guerenteed decent standard of living, eh? Little stuff like that that surely working class people don't care about, they care about going straight to anarchy lol...


Mao thought of Stalin as 70% good and 30%. It means he support Stalins socialism and progress but didn't like the way Stalin supressed reactionaries.

Where did you hear that? The famous 70%/30% (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1693116,00.html) thing was the Chinese Communist Parties official compromise on the ratio of Mao's good to bad contributions. I've never heard that attributed to Mao...but if thats true does it mean the current Chinese Communist Party is 49% Stalinist? :P Is 49% enough to be evil or does it just get by?



So Mao developed on Lenin and Stalins socialism, which has nothing to do with anarchism other then it is anti capitalist.

In all fairness the Maoist, or at least radical Gang of Four Maoist desire to head straight to 'communism' before imperialism is defeated, with communes and direct democracy and local control and all, is more 'anarchist' then i think other types of marxism-leninism.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:54 AM
Sooooooo how's the Anarchist worldwide record on revolutions going, mmmm not one yet?
Seriously, you continue to use the most petty arguments to dismiss other ideologies. What about in 1916? How many Marxist revolutions had occurred? On those grounds, Marxism should have been dismissed. At least come up with a constructive attack on anarchism and not some ridiculous argument that "if it hasn't happened yet, it never will".



man, screw the ists and think for yourself!

This is another ridiculous argument. Why is it that you can't think for yourself if you agree with what someone else says?

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:40 AM

Seriously, you continue to use the most petty arguments to dismiss other ideologies. What about in 1916?

I was simply replying to someone dismissing Maoism on the grounds that its worldwide history record wasn't good, like in China and the Shining path...but China to me seems like a success (by Communist standards, not Anarchist standards), and the Shining path might be mostly gone now but they liberated more people for longer then any anarchist group ever has, so my point was just that Anarchist historical accomplishments were on a whole different level of utter failure.

and, what exactly happened in 1916 that you're refering to?


At least come up with a constructive attack on anarchism and not some ridiculous argument that "if it hasn't happened yet, it never will".

Uh, okay, constructive attack: The capitalists kick your guy's butts cause you wont organize with the degree of dicipline required to use power effectively. Thats why every anarchist revolutionary attempt has failed misurably and only a few were remotely serious to begin with. There has never, for instance, been a serious go at an anarchist revolution on a national level...


How many Marxist revolutions had occurred? On those grounds, Marxism should have been dismissed.

Uh...the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, the cuban revolution, the bolivarian revolution, revolution in angola, revolution in mozambique, revolution in algeria, in nicaragua, in vietnam, in afghanistan, in laos, in mongolia, In Korea, in Hungary, in Iraq, in the Congo, in Saxony, in South Yemen, in Somalia, Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Guinea and Cape Verde, Grenada, ect.

So like 25 at least, most of which resulted in communist power for at least a period longer then the so called anarchist revolutions did, some of them produing regimes that are still in power today. So not to be cruel but your question was not very historically informed.

[OleMarxco]

The only "anarchist"-"revolution" I can think of, must be union-uproar uprisin' (UUU! Say that fast, ten times in-a-row!) In Spain, back in the...ah...uh...nevermind the detail's! Jus' the time when Salvador Dali where Alive...think, in'...uh...EARLY 1900's! YEAH! That's the stuff, there we got it, all-right :P

Just 'cuz there was ....and is...relative-anarchy in Somalia, doesn't mean there's a reason for sayin' it's an anarchist-revolution, get-yer-fact's-straight ;) P.S.; Maoists can suck my nuts...'course we might have a peasents-revolution (or atleast WITH'EM on the trail-bandwagon), but all the other stuff, TO HELL WITH THAT!

[BOZG]

I was simply replying to someone dismissing Maoism on the grounds that its worldwide history record wasn't good, like in China and the Shining path

I'd accept that but I've seen you use that petty argument before.



and, what exactly happened in 1916 that you're refering to?

In 1916, no Marxist revolution had occurred or in 1870, no workers' state had ever been established, so by your logic, in 1916, Marxism could never have been achieved because it hadn't happened yet?



The capitalists kick your guy's butts cause you wont organize with the degree of dicipline required to use power effectively. Thats why every anarchist revolutionary attempt has failed misurably and only a few were remotely serious to begin with. There has never, for instance, been a serious go at an anarchist revolution on a national level...

I am not an anarchist. Please don't confuse me for one. I'm just someone who argues beyond the level of "if it didn't happen, it can't happen" and such ridiculous logic.



Uh...the russian revolution, the chinese revolution, the cuban revolution, the bolivarian revolution, revolution in angola, revolution in mozambique, revolution in algeria, in nicaragua, in vietnam, in afghanistan, in laos, in mongolia, In Korea, in Hungary, in Iraq, in the Congo, in Saxony, in South Yemen, in Somalia, Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Guinea and Cape Verde, Grenada, ect.

So like 25 at least, most of which resulted in communist power for at least a period longer then the so called anarchist revolutions did, some of them produing regimes that are still in power today. So not to be cruel but your question was not very historically informed.

See above.

[zendo]

WElcome COmrade!!

Che Guevara was a MARXIST, MAO was a MARXIST. The reason CHe Guevara supported China was because he saw the sad situation in Russia, he saw that Russia was turning back to Capitalism. That is why he supported Mao and Communist China. Because Che saw that Mao was a true MARXIST!

Che was a true Communist, so was Mao of course.

By the way you gotta love CHE for what he did when he arrived in Russia. The first thing he did against all the wishes of the Cuban Govt was to go and pay his respects to DADDY STALIN knowing that the new sold out leadership of Russia would be most offended. CHe did not care, he stood up for what he believed in.

He knew Stalin was a the last true MArxist leader of Russia. He knew that after Stalin's death, Russia had lost its Socialist Spirit and had reverted back to Capitalism.

Anyhows Comrade welcome to this forum, I Myself have LENIN and STALIN T- SHirts and suffice to say that I get some dirty looks from ignorant people in the streets of NYC. But I wear the shirts and represent Socialism with my head up high.

But that is exactly what they are : ignorant, unaware of the true history and accomplishments of Magnificent REvolutionaries like MAO, STALIN and LENIN!

You sound like you got a lot of heart and spirit, happy to have you here

[OleMarxco]

Well, withouth wanting to sound like appealin'-to-authority, guess what: I don't think alot of Comrades would agree with what you just said, never-the-much less than what Uncle RedStar 2k would :P

You consider Stalin a real revolutionary, &#39;tho? Mao and Lenin, I could understan&#39;, but Stalin? HECK&#33; He just overthrew his own "republic", and couped powah from his own "socialist nation"&#33; What the fuck, is that for "revolutionary"? Atleast not Communist-revolutionary&#33; Get real <_<

And P.S.; I loathe Leninists for their militarianism. Sure, some degree of control, allright, but goin&#39; all Maoist on it (&#39;spite there&#39;s not THAT much Peasents in western land&#39;s to do a "cultural revolution" with, it were almost exclusively for China, only. Xenophobic&#33;) like Che, eh,. I don&#39;t think so. But Guevara did what he thought was right, and I &#39;spose I could respect that.

Certainly I do not agree with the New-Yorker&#39;s timid view of Communism and how they loathe us, but I can understand the T-Shirts shun&#39;s. It&#39;s grose...and wearin&#39;, if not buyin&#39; that shit (I atleast hope you stole it&#33;) is very counter-revolutionary. We need more people wearing Rosa-Luxembourg T-Shirts, in my humble-opinion, &#39;tho ;)

[zendo]

Ole Marxo anyone that does not acknowledge that Stalin was the greatest LEader in the history of Russia is completely ignorant on the RAW NUMBERS< the STATISTICS that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stalin took Russia out of the dark ages and transformed the most BACKWARDS COUNTRY into the most powerful, educated and industrialized country in the world


Stalin defeated Hiter in WW2

Russia Defeated GERmany

Socialism Defeated Fascism

Stalin doubled Life expectancy in Russia

Stalin lowered infant moratlity rate in Russia in half

Stalin fulfilled EVERY WISH AND DESIRE OF LENIN

and I quote Lenin "Communism is Soviet Power plus the Elcetrification of the whole Country"

Stalin consolidated Soviet Power, established the dictatorship of the Proliterate and electrified the ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Ole Marxo is still brainwashed by Western Wall St. Propaganda and Media, but it is not your fault Marxo,

and by the way, I make T-Shirts :D

[MoscowFarewell]

Oh my dear god. It is yet another complete dumbass. When that guy has any sense in that empty skull, he&#39;ll realize wtf is going on. What a cock.