Castro: Are claims of his authoritarianism true?

[Camarada]

the debate begins now!

[Led Zeppelin]

Are claims of his authoritarianism true?

Yes, he is not elected to his position.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 1 2005, 05:12 AM
Yes, he is not elected to his position.
I thought I read some where saying that if Cuba were to hold elections that the C.I.A. would rig them :che:

:castro:

[KC]

He wasn't elected to his position officially, but when he defeated the Batista regime he was welcome with open arms by the majority of the Cuban population. And yes elections have been stopped since he took power because of cia involvement.

[Camarada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:28 AM
He wasn't elected to his position officially, but when he defeated the Batista regime he was welcome with open arms by the majority of the Cuban population. And yes elections have been stopped since he took power because of cia involvement.
I heard there are still legislative elections, aren't there?

[KC]

I have heard that as well. However, I was implying there are no elections for president, or whatever Castro is.

[Led Zeppelin]

I thought I read some where saying that if Cuba were to hold elections that the C.I.A. would rig them

GRANMA?


He wasn't elected to his position officially, but when he defeated the Batista regime he was welcome with open arms by the majority of the Cuban population. And yes elections have been stopped since he took power because of cia involvement.

Absurd, i am more worried about Castro rigging an election then i am about the CIA.

[KC]

Absurd, i am more worried about Castro rigging an election then i am about the CIA.


If it was guaranteed that they wouldn't be rigged I don't think he'd have much of a problem with that. The majority of the population is on his side as it is.

[Led Zeppelin]

If it was guaranteed that they wouldn't be rigged I don't think he'd have much of a problem with that. The majority of the population is on his side as it is.

Back up this claim.

[KC]

I can't. It is a matter of opinion. You know perfectly well that this is very much in question. I think that we would hear a lot more about anti-castro activity if many people were against him as this would reinforce the US's position on Cuba and would paint Castro as the evil tyrant.

[Led Zeppelin]

I can't. It is a matter of opinion. You know perfectly well that this is very much in question. I think that we would hear a lot more about anti-castro activity if many people were against him as this would reinforce the US's position on Cuba and would paint Castro as the evil tyrant.

Translation: I made that shit up.

[KC]

Actually its an objective conclusion based at everything I have looked at in the past on that.

I'd like to see you prove the opposite.

[Led Zeppelin]

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Even if it was true it is a stupid reason for not holding elections, "never mind elections, the CIA is going to rig them anyway, oh yeah, and the people support him, even though i am not able to prove that".

[KC]

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Even if it was true it is a stupid reason for not holding elections, "never mind elections, the CIA is going to rig them anyway, oh yeah, and the people support him, even though i am not able to prove that".



The burden of proof is on either neither of us, as it is impossible to prove either way. That's not "a stupid reason for not holding elections". If they rigged them then everything that Cuba has done would be for nothing. They are trying to protect themselves from US imperialism; certainly not a stupid reason.

[Led Zeppelin]

Then we might just as well forget about democracy, since the CIA is going to rig every election, right?

[KC]

Then we might just as well forget about democracy, since the CIA is going to rig every election, right?

Every election that stands in the way of US imperialism, yes.

[Led Zeppelin]

You proved my point, Cuba is not socialist in any way.

[KC]

You never said that in this topic at all.

[Led Zeppelin]

Said what?

Since Cuba is not democratic it is politically not socialist, since it has a "mixed" economy it is economically not socialist, therefore not socialist in any way.

[Red Heretic]

Fidel Castro is a revisionist, plain and simple. He was not put into power by a socialist revolution, but rather a Guevaranist coup.

He has ties with the King of Nepal, and he sided with Khruschev over Mao Tse Tung.

Any claims that Castro made as to being a communist were purely a political move to gain the support of USSR revisionist imperialism.

[KC]

Said what?

You proved my point, Cuba is not socialist in any way.

I didn't even realize you were trying to prove that point as this isn't what this thread is about.


Fidel Castro is a revisionist, plain and simple. He was not put into power by a socialist revolution, but rather a Guevaranist coup.

It wasn't a socialist revolution in the Leninist sense, no, but he had the majority of people on his side. How do I know this? They welcomed him with open arms and didn't question him once.


the debate begins now!

You're going to have to go into more detail. What claims of authoritarianism are you talking about?

[Led Zeppelin]

I didn't even realize you were trying to prove that point as this isn't what this thread is about.


Yes it is, if the economy was socialist one could still support him and call him a Communist.


How do I know this? They welcomed him with open arms and didn't question him once.

Are you kidding me?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:43 AM
It wasn't a socialist revolution in the Leninist sense, no, but he had the majority of people on his side. How do I know this? They welcomed him with open arms and didn't question him once.
The majority of Germans in Nazi Germany accepted Adolph Hitler with open arms.

The majority of Iraqis accepted Saddam Hussein with opens arms.

The majority of Chinese accepted Deng Xaioping and revisionism with open arms.

Did they establish socialism? Were the communists?


Only the masses themselves can ever establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, although they do need revolutionary leadership.

[MoscowFarewell]

Fidel was put in place and is loved by the Cuban public. It is wise not to have elections, because CIA has been Anti-Fidel since the beginning. They have tried and failed 3 assassination attempts on him all ready.

[Hiero]

I always thought Castro was put into power by a Central Commitee vote, like Kalinin for President of the USSR.

[Faceless]

makhno,

Castro was forced to take sides in certain matters for purely political purposes because russia was holding cuba in a state of colonial dependence as america had done under batista. Taking the Russian side in the Sino-Soviet split was one, as Russia was a much safer economic bet. Equally, Castro's condemnation of the Czechoslovakian uprising, politically questionable as the uprising was far from a west german fascist plot, was entirely caused by the dependency of cuba on the Soviet Union and its vulnerability to other imperialist nations not so far from its shores.

The irony in what you say is that Guevara was known to disagree with Castro on the Sino-Soviet split, siding with the Chinese which he felt the cuban revolution held much more in common with. Inspite of my many misgivings about maoist ideology it was mao who said this:

The people are like water and the army is like fish.

This was no less true for the so-called "guevaraist" method than for the "maoist" method. Indeed, there is no such thing as guevaraism and the idea that this was a coup when, had the population been hostile to castro, the survivors of the granma landing would have been obliterated is absurd.

[bolshevik butcher]

very true faceless, yeh castro is elected by a the cuban assembly, hat is democratically elected. Not the best form of democracy i think but it is a form.

[Intifada]

Anybody who argues that the American Government will not try to sabotage the Cuban people's independence from Yankee imperialism needs their head checked.

They have already tried to overthrow the Castro regime many times.

[h&s]

It wasn't a socialist revolution in the Leninist sense, no, but he had the majority of people on his side. How do I know this? They welcomed him with open arms and didn't question him once.
It was not a socialist revolution in any sense as it never led to socialism, and there was never any intention of that happening.


The majority of Germans in Nazi Germany accepted Adolph Hitler with open arms.
Did they?

[KC]

Yes it is, if the economy was socialist one could still support him and call him a Communist.

This has NOTHING to do with this thread at all. AT ALL. Read the title. "Are claims of his authoritarianism true?" That's the title. This isn't a debate about if he's socialist or not, this is a debate of "his crimes" (which I'm not sure what the person who started the thread was talking about exactly so I can't really debate that).


The majority of Germans in Nazi Germany accepted Adolph Hitler with open arms.

The majority of Iraqis accepted Saddam Hussein with opens arms.

The majority of Chinese accepted Deng Xaioping and revisionism with open arms.

Did they establish socialism? Were the communists?


Only the masses themselves can ever establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, although they do need revolutionary leadership.

Again, this thread isn't about if he's socialist/communist or not.


They have tried and failed 3 assassination attempts on him all ready.

Try HUNDREDS of assassination attempts.



It was not a socialist revolution in any sense as it never led to socialism, and there was never any intention of that happening.


Then we disagree. The revolution was socialist, however nothing else was.

[Clarksist]

Fidel was put in place and is loved by the Cuban public. It is wise not to have elections, because CIA has been Anti-Fidel since the beginning. They have tried and failed 3 assassination attempts on him all ready.


The people love him? Is that why loads of Cubans flee from Cuba?

And whenever someone thinks that elections aren't wise, you need to seriously rethink your statement. If you say the people love Castro, then he shouldn't have any reservation to have open and fair elections.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Why do people flee from Cuba? :che:

[KC]

And whenever someone thinks that elections aren't wise, you need to seriously rethink your statement. If you say the people love Castro, then he shouldn't have any reservation to have open and fair elections.

Yes he should. Even if the people love him, it isn't too hard for someone to rig them.


Why do people flee from Cuba? che.gif

Because they're criminals or cappies.

[red_orchestra]

Yes, Castro seized the opportunity to achieve power in Cuba. But rightly so! Batista had to be kicked from the country and the Mafia leaders/ reactionaries executed. When I talk with the people in Cuba it is very obvious where the majority of the people sit with Castro. They believe he has done some great things but they are wanting a change in the Government. Castro is getting "possiably" too old for politics...someone else needs to lead the people. Many Cubans see Hugo Chavez style of politcs to be very interesting...more democratic yet still socialist.

And it is also true that the majority of Cuban hate the US Government...

[Paradox]

Why do people flee from Cuba? che.gif



Because they're criminals or cappies.

Well, from what I've read, the majority of those who risk death to leave Cuba, do so because of Cuba's economic strife. This contradicts the story of those in the US government who say that those people are fleeing "persecution" and "dictatorship." I don't know whether many of them are criminals or capitalists, but either way, Castro's "authoritarianism" isn't the main reason, the economy is.

Whether or not Castro is authoritarian, I do not know. When I first started to read about Che and Cuba, I was pro-Cuba. But the more I read, the more confused I became. I've read articles and pieces showing that Cuba is democratic and that the people do have a say it what takes place. And I've read capitalist and Leftist criticisms of Cuba, saying there is no democracy, no free speech, etc., etc.. I honestly don't know what to make of Cuba anymore. On the plus side are all the health and educational advances they've made since the revolution. But the political structure, I don't know which side to believe. Unless I were to go to Cuba and live there for a reasonable amount of time and experience what the average Cuban worker experiences in his or her life, I can't make a confident judgment about Cuba.

[resisting arrest with violence]

Revolution Yes!

Elections No!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Yes, he is not elected to his position.


Yes he is. He is elected by the National Assemblyk, which is a democratic body, and if I am not mistaken, the highest organ in Cuba.

I suggest those new to the Cuban electoral process read this:

http://www.leninism.org/stream/99/mll/0512-danchr.asp

[red_orchestra]

NWOG, that is true...Fidel holds power legitimately in Cuba. But, his time to step aside is very near. My feeling is that Cuba will become more like Hugo Chavez style of Government...only stronger. It will open up a little more...and the US will try and take advantage of this.

....things do change. Fidel Castro is a very brilliant man. A true survivor!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

But, his time to step aside is very near.

That is a claim. Can you back it up?

I am not saying it is not true. I am not saying it is true either. But what you presented is a claim. A lot of claims in this thread <_< :blink:




My feeling is that Cuba will become more like Hugo Chavez style of Government...only stronger. It will open up a little more...and the US will try and take advantage of this.

I think that depends. Fidel is not the only Cuban in Cuba. There are 11,3 million others. If Raul gets elected (I do not know who will automatically replace him by law), Cuba might become even more radical.

But truth to be told, my gut feeling is the same as yours.

[Faceless]

Why do people flee from Cuba?

There are a multitude of reasons why a person would flee cuba. However, the restriction that america imposes on americans travelling to cuba also applies to cubans traveling to america.

[Xiao Banfa]

Far out, some rubbish has been written in this thread that&#39;s for sure.

One fucked my brains was comrade Maknho&#39;s antiquated &#39;Kruchchev was revisionist&#39; rot.
Kruchchev was more humane than Stalin and Mao, and helped more 3rd world liberation movements and anti-imperialist governments.
Castro sided with the USSR for this reason.

Also ,in reponse to some other comrade about the mixed economy, I will say this;
When socialism is under siege for pragmatic reasons a government must compromise on absolute principles or else all will fall apart, NEP is this compromise.
At the same time the state (mandated by the people) must be the main driving force in the economy. Look at Cuba- they have the largest most millitaristic, agressive power on earth sabotaging and isolating them but they have not broken.
EVEN after the USSR collapsed.
Cuba puts so many 3rd world governments to shame with it&#39;s equality and welfare.

One more point is that you have a dichotomy- either authoritarian socialist government or raped victim of capitalism- look at Jamaica, Haiti the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico. The Yanquis should just be honest and formally annex them.
If there was no Castro there would be CHAOS.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:41 AM
The irony in what you say is that Guevara was known to disagree with Castro on the Sino-Soviet split, siding with the Chinese which he felt the cuban revolution held much more in common with. Inspite of my many misgivings about maoist ideology it was mao who said this:

The people are like water and the army is like fish.

This was no less true for the so-called "guevaraist" method than for the "maoist" method. Indeed, there is no such thing as guevaraism and the idea that this was a coup when, had the population been hostile to castro, the survivors of the granma landing would have been obliterated is absurd.
It is true the Guevara sided with the Socialism over Soviet revisionism, but that does not mean that Che&#39;s method was actually Mao&#39;s method. Che tried to comprehend Maoism, but in reality, his programmes were very different in that they did not advocate the creation of a political party that worked among the masses, but rather had a guerilla army that could not stay in one place and work among the masses.

Che did not really understand Maoism. His intentions were highly commendable, but they do not account for his shortcomings when it comes to action.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 2 2005, 01:22 AM
One fucked my brains was comrade Maknho&#39;s antiquated &#39;Kruchchev was revisionist&#39; rot.
Kruchchev was more humane than Stalin and Mao, and helped more 3rd world liberation movements and anti-imperialist governments.
Castro sided with the USSR for this reason.
No.

1. Nikita Khruschev was the origin of the cult of personality around Stalin. Please read: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embas.../pers-cult.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/pers-cult.html)

2. Nikita Khruschev further exposed his reivisionism when he mended ties with the revisionist Tito and gave the revisionists independance, while brutally massacreing the Hungarian move for independance from the revisionist-imperialist empire.

2. Nikita Khruschev was the source of the Berlin Wall, among other symbols of Soviet Imperialism

3. Nikita Khruschev threatened the People&#39;s Republic of China with nuclear missles

4. Nikita Khruschev mended ties with the US imerialists, and put forward a programme of "peaceful competition" between imperialist powers

I suggest you put down the US imperialist propganda, or stop calling yourself a communist. Nikita Khruschev was a phoney communist, a revisionist, and most of all THE ENEMY.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:55 AM



2. Nikita Khruschev was the source of the Berlin Wall, among other symbols of Soviet Imperialism





I agree with Makhno about Khruschev being a reformist, but one thing about the berlin wall....







Lots of people actually blame the Soviet union for building the wall, out of some lust for power or marking their territory etc. However the berlin wall was actually a means of avoiding future conflict. If looked objectively, World war2 left two major powers, one was the U.S who assumed the role of the world&#39;s banker(the dollar was attached to gold value, all international transactions were conducted in U.S dollars because it was the most stable), the second was the soviet union which controlled the baltics and half of germany.
There was a major dispute over control of germany because reconstruction would be a financial boon to the U.S economy(much like Japan), the soviet presence was seen as a threat that the &#39;scourge of communism&#39; would take over Germany, much to France&#39;s chagrin, which has always looked at Germany as a major threat. The soviet union wanted Germany to become communist because it was foretold by earlier communists as a major triumph for marxism.
Both countries had nukes and were uneasy at each other&#39;s presence without any physical markation of each&#39;s boundaries. Tanks and troops stood opposite each other from both sides. anticipating a major rush from the other side. The berlin wall was a way to ease that tension, making it clear that the soviets intended to stay where they were, and relieving the trigger happy generals on both sides.
The berlin wall was thus not some policy adopted out of sheer tyranny(convenient to believe that isn&#39;t it? doesn&#39;t require much analysis), but out of a game of realpolitik and as an attempt to resolve political conflicts of that time.

[waltersm]

he&#39;s head of state, not head of government, he really doesn&#39;t have much power.

[Red Heretic]

Vava La Revolution,

Your analysis is thoughtful, but I think you are too reminescant of the USSR as a socialist country, and forget that it had (at that time) had become an imperialist power in 1954 that was seeking to exert its influence over the world and compete with US imperialism.

The entire method at which Germany was supposedly converted into a socialist country was fundamentally flawed, and reeked of Trotskyism. You see, as Mao (and Stalin to a lesser degree) both pointed out, socialism can only come from the masses within a particular country rising up, and could not be forced upon them by means of invasion as Trotsky urged. Germany was essentially never actually a socialist country, even when it was occupied by the USSR while the USSR was socialist.

However, this does pose a good question... If it is impossible to convert germany into a socialist country through means of occupation, then what should we do with it if we were in that situation again today? This is a qestion that has troubled me for some time, and I&#39;m not sure I have the answer...

Anyway, what I am eluding to here is that Khruschev essentially imposed Soviet Imperialism on Germany.

[freedum]

howdy y&#39;all, i did my best to search this thread and so far don&#39;t think anyone has mentioned this yet.

Cuban Anarchism: the History of a Movement (http://www.illegalvoices.org/bookshelf/cuban_anarchism/), the free version of the book on APOC&#39;s website.

Frank Hernandez&#39; book starts with the anti Colonial struggle and goes through various stages of labor organizing in Cuba under different governments.

Eventually it talks about what happened to leftist activists, mostly Anarchists, members of various trade unions, who wanted to continue to publish their independent analysis of the situation in Cuba in their own publications (like Solidaridad Gastronómica and El Libertario) and were very much involved in the labor struggle but did not want to belong to a trade union that took orders from the government. Prisons for some, exhile for others.

many ended up as exiles in the US and tried to raise awareness of Castro&#39;s actions among the leftist community around the world. one group was called Movimiento Libertario Cubano en el Exilio (MCLE); they worked with american anarchists Sam Dolgoff and Russell Blackwell in NYC. according to this account they were often unsuccessfull and Anarchist groups around the world continued to sing the praises of the Cuban revolution well beyond 1959.

one review of Cuban Anarchism (http://nefac.net/node/177)

has anyone seen any more reviews or analysis of this angle? i&#39;m pretty sure there are bitter disputes over this account, that i imagine fall among the usual &#39;party&#39; lines. i would very much appreciate any links to anything regarding the topic.

[freedum]

ah&#33; my Safari browser is bugging out... or may be i&#39;m being just a little bit crackish tonight.

i meant to post this as a reply to the existing Castro thread (the 3 pager). appologies everyone.

[Faceless]

makhno,


1. Nikita Khruschev was the origin of the cult of personality around Stalin. Please read:

Stalin made an ironically intelligent point when he denied that he was the source of power in that thread. The fact is that the cult of the personality is a historical absurdity perpetuated by western bourgeois historians and the soviet beaurocracy alike, but I expect I feel this to be the case for entirely different reasons to you, makhno. We both know, if we have any marxist bone in our body, that "great men" do not create history but that an interest, critically a class interest and not just the interest of an individual, provides the political impulse behind all of the leaders of men, inspite of our unconsciousness of this at any time. In this sense the "cult of the personality" for the explanation of the Stalin phenomenon is entirely false. However, that interest which propelled Stalin to the political fore was not that of the proletariat, and certainly not that of the peasantry, but the interest of a beaurocratic class which had developed legs in Soviet Russia.

You make great efforts to point out specific acts of the two leaders, Kruschev and Stalin, without analysing the method applied by the two leaders. That Stalin departed from proper marxist theory and indeed any proletarian interest is self-evident. The absurdity of "socialism in one country" is a common thread running through post-Lenin Russia, regardless of the leadership. Incidentally, this was not the view this dialectical genius held in 1924. Other examples include his seemingly ultra-leftist dismissal of social democratic workers in western Europe.

As an artist, the bureaucratic nature of stalin&#39;s regime is most blatant in this sphere. In 1932 he "decreed" that all art must conform with the principles of socialist realism. I dont know if you know much about that art form but it is far from a form of realism except as a poor caricature of it. That a leader can decree such a thing does not suggest a democratic control of the arts but, as I said...

[bolshevik butcher]

The berlin wall represents soviet imperialism. IF people want to elave they should be free to do so. Its quite evident from the amount of people willing to risk death to get over the berli wall that the USSR post ww2 was an empire.

[h&s]

The entire method at which Germany was supposedly converted into a socialist country was fundamentally flawed, and reeked of Trotskyism. You see, as Mao (and Stalin to a lesser degree) both pointed out, socialism can only come from the masses within a particular country rising up, and could not be forced upon them by means of invasion as Trotsky urged. Germany was essentially never actually a socialist country, even when it was occupied by the USSR while the USSR was socialist.
WTF?
Thats not Trotskyism.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:52 AM
However, that interest which propelled Stalin to the political fore was not that of the proletariat, and certainly not that of the peasantry, but the interest of a beaurocratic class which had developed legs in Soviet Russia.

You make great efforts to point out specific acts of the two leaders, Kruschev and Stalin, without analysing the method applied by the two leaders. That Stalin departed from proper marxist theory and indeed any proletarian interest is self-evident. The absurdity of "socialism in one country" is a common thread running through post-Lenin Russia, regardless of the leadership. Incidentally, this was not the view this dialectical genius held in 1924. Other examples include his seemingly ultra-leftist dismissal of social democratic workers in western Europe.

As an artist, the bureaucratic nature of stalin&#39;s regime is most blatant in this sphere. In 1932 he "decreed" that all art must conform with the principles of socialist realism. I dont know if you know much about that art form but it is far from a form of realism except as a poor caricature of it. That a leader can decree such a thing does not suggest a democratic control of the arts but, as I said...
Your point that Stalin was a part of a revisionist trend within the Soviet Union is not true. While it is true that Stalin made many serious mistakes, his overall program was not that of revisionism.

This can be demonstrated by the starkly different programmes of Stalin, and the revisionist Nikita Khruschev. You fail to see that the reasoning for Stalin&#39;s paranoia was because he was opposed by so many revisionists within the party.

As for your accusations of Stalin&#39;s concept of socialism in country... bullshit. Stalin adopt the programme as it was becoming increasingly apparent that Russia was going to be in it alone. Everyone thought socialism would immediatly span accross Europe, but this was a foolish notion. In reality, the vast majority of socialist revolutions will occur one country at a time (especially before socialist countries have reached the level of strategic offensive).

Trotsky&#39;s programme of invasion and forcing socialism down peoples throats from the top was a line that would have developed into imperialism at a much earlier stage.

As for art... yes, that was a mistake on Stalin&#39;s part. The Chinese Communist Party made a similar mistake. This is an issue that Maoists have been talking about doing differently for some time now.

[Faceless]

in the soviet union the factories etc. were not collectively run but were managed by members of the nomenklatura. Sure enough the degree of privilige enjoyed by these members of society was not as high as the CEOs in western societys but they nevertheless enjoyed a degree of privilige. The division of the process of decision making from the working class into another body of individuals who did not otherwise participate in labour marks an antagonism of interest between the social product of the worker&#39;s labour and the private apporpriation of that product which happened to some degree at the hands of the nomenklatura. This was the element linking the whole of so-called "stalinist" soviet union. The bare facts illustrate this. The actions of Kruschev or Stalin are otherwise irrelevant if one can not see the processes by which BOTH men turned against the interests of the Russian proletariat. Stalin&#39;s analysis of class was a complete mockery of marxism. He invented two classes who were considered to be non-antagonistic. The party itself stood in many areas seperated from the workers.


Stalin adopt the programme as it was becoming increasingly apparent that Russia was going to be in it alone.

However, this is not what is at question. When the problem seems insoluble do you march ahead knowing that you are following the wrong path? Lenin new, Trotsky new, and so too did stalin seem to know in 1924, that socialism in one country, particularly one so backward as Russia, was nonsense. Trotsky however understood that the resources of the russian proletariat must be used to agitate the workers of the rest of the world, particularly western europe, to bring forward the only possible salvation for the russian revolution (this is different to invasion, the . The actions of Stalin however paint a terrible picture of betrayal of the world revolution in the name of socialism in one country. If you honestly want me to illustrate this I will do so gladly.

On this point, you failed to answer me as to Stalin&#39;s dimissal of the social democratic workers. Social democracy is running riot in my country, the UK, are all these workers to be thought of as "social fascists" and are all their struggles of no worth?

You have painted a picture of revisionism as an ideology with no material roots, no class responsible. No dialectic based in material conditions, could you please expand on the real causes of revisionism for me?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The only way Cubans are allowed to go to the US, however, is through the wet feet/dry feet policy. A Cuban will not be allowed to simply take a plan to the US. No, they have to make a home-made boat in flee.

The US have tried to bribe diplomats, athletes, etc. The US offered the father of Elian Gonzales one million dollars if he would "flee" from Cuba through the wet feet/dry feet policy. The father refused, on the grounds that Elian Gonzales would be much more healthy in Cuba.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Kruchchev was more humane than Stalin and Mao, and helped more 3rd world liberation movements and anti-imperialist governments.
Castro sided with the USSR for this reason.

Far as i know, he condemned every liberation movement in Latin America, except the one in Colombia.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:15 PM
in the soviet union the factories etc. were not collectively run but were managed by members of the nomenklatura. Sure enough the degree of privilige enjoyed by these members of society was not as high as the CEOs in western societys but they nevertheless enjoyed a degree of privilige. The division of the process of decision making from the working class into another body of individuals who did not otherwise participate in labour marks an antagonism of interest between the social product of the worker&#39;s labour and the private apporpriation of that product which happened to some degree at the hands of the nomenklatura. This was the element linking the whole of so-called "stalinist" soviet union. The bare facts illustrate this. The actions of Kruschev or Stalin are otherwise irrelevant if one can not see the processes by which BOTH men turned against the interests of the Russian proletariat. Stalin&#39;s analysis of class was a complete mockery of marxism. He invented two classes who were considered to be non-antagonistic. The party itself stood in many areas seperated from the workers.


Stalin adopt the programme as it was becoming increasingly apparent that Russia was going to be in it alone.

However, this is not what is at question. When the problem seems insoluble do you march ahead knowing that you are following the wrong path? Lenin new, Trotsky new, and so too did stalin seem to know in 1924, that socialism in one country, particularly one so backward as Russia, was nonsense. Trotsky however understood that the resources of the russian proletariat must be used to agitate the workers of the rest of the world, particularly western europe, to bring forward the only possible salvation for the russian revolution (this is different to invasion, the . The actions of Stalin however paint a terrible picture of betrayal of the world revolution in the name of socialism in one country. If you honestly want me to illustrate this I will do so gladly.

On this point, you failed to answer me as to Stalin&#39;s dimissal of the social democratic workers. Social democracy is running riot in my country, the UK, are all these workers to be thought of as "social fascists" and are all their struggles of no worth?

You have painted a picture of revisionism as an ideology with no material roots, no class responsible. No dialectic based in material conditions, could you please expand on the real causes of revisionism for me?
Did Stalin make mistakes in the area of the contradiction between worker autonomy and centralized socialist planning? Absolutely. Does that make him a revisionist? No, it means he made mistakes. In fact, Stalin&#39;s entire economic program sucked, and depended too much on heavy industry, and made no attempts to understand the peasentry on Russia. Once again though, these a simply poor decisions on Stalin&#39;s part, not things that were done to restore capitalism in Russia.

One of the serious flaws in Stalin&#39;s ideology was that he did not believe that capitalism could be restored from within the party (as Mao Tse Tung later exposed). He did not understand that in socialism, there are still going to be class antagonisms between the party and the proletariat. He did not understand that capitalism could be restored from within the party.

However, like I said, these things are the result in a flawed and incomplete understanding of things on Stalin&#39;s part, which was mostly the result of his not having access to all of the information that we have at our disposal now.

As for them "knowing" that socialism in one country is impossible... bullshit. They believed the socialism in one country would be impossible because the country would be crushed by imperialist states, and that it would be unable to sustain itself. In reality, Stalin&#39;s advancements of industry (though they were flawed) and the success of the experience of socialism in China proved that it is possible to sustain socialism in one country, and to defend a backward nation from a more advanced imperialist invader (just look at Veitnam smashing US imperialism).

Socialism is certainly easier when it spans past the borders of a single nation, but that does not mean that it is impossible to defend socialism against the imperialist states. In addition, the development of capitalism into it&#39;s imperialist stage means that socialism is going to start in the most backward nations, and is ineviltably going to happen one nation at a time. It is the places where the fundamental class contradictions are the sharpest the socialism is going to occur, and that is why the most powerful revolution going on in the world since 1949 is occuring in Nepal, the third poorest country in the world, at this very moment.

The development of socialism in Russia was inevitable. From a dialectical materialist perspective, the inevitable base area for world revolution, and the foundation from which all of the socialist revolutions afterward (China and Vietnam) would come forward, was Russia. So yes, we&#39;re going to start wit socialism in one country, but with every country that joins the side of revolution, the more sharply the contradictions within other states expose themselves, and the more rapidly the world revolution will begin to move.

As for the social democratic party of the UK, I do not know enough to take a position on that.

As for the causes of revisionism... they are rather obvious really. Revisionism occurs for the reasons that Mao explained. Even when you have socialism, there is still a new bourgeoisie (the communist party), and the bourgeoisie is capable of restoring capitalism at any time, when it acts in its own interests rather than the interests of the proletariat.

This is why Mao put forward the line "It is right to rebel against reactionary government." This means that the masses must continually criticize the party and fight it on all fronts when it moves towards the capitalist road, because capitalist restoration is in the interests of the party, and therefore is always a threat.

For this reason, the RCP, USA has put forward a programme that says that armed peoples militias completely independant from the party and the army should be formed, and should continually police the army and the party from an ideological stand point. These militias would take direct action and intervene the moment that revisionism rears its ugly head in the face of the proletariat.

For more information of People&#39;s Militias, check out the Appendix of the RCP&#39;s Draft Programme here: http://rwor.org/margorp/prog_part2-e.pdf
It is discussed in the "Bearing Arms in the New Socialist Society" section in the Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy, and the Rights of the People chapter.

[Led Zeppelin]

He did not understand that capitalism could be restored from within the party.

What was the reason for the purges then?

It is obvious you dont know what you&#39;re talking about.


This has NOTHING to do with this thread at all. AT ALL. Read the title. "Are claims of his authoritarianism true?" That&#39;s the title. This isn&#39;t a debate about if he&#39;s socialist or not, this is a debate of "his crimes" (which I&#39;m not sure what the person who started the thread was talking about exactly so I can&#39;t really debate that).


No, the thread is about him being authoritarian or not, if he was a socialist his authoritarianism could be ignored by some, since he is not a socialist/Communist it cannot be ignored.


Try HUNDREDS of assassination attempts.

You obviously made this up, prove me wrong by citing sources.


Why do people flee from Cuba?

The main reason is poverty.


And it is also true that the majority of Cuban hate the US Government...

That doesn&#39;t say anything about the Cubans "loving" Castro.


Yes he is. He is elected by the National Assemblyk, which is a democratic body, and if I am not mistaken, the highest organ in Cuba.


Ok, sorry, i was wrong, i should have said not directly elected.


Kruchchev was more humane than Stalin and Mao, and helped more 3rd world liberation movements and anti-imperialist governments.


Translation: he was a social-imperialist.

By your logic the US also "helped more 3rd world liberation movements and anti-imperialist governments". (that is anti-Communist imperialism)


he&#39;s head of state, not head of government, he really doesn&#39;t have much power.

This must be a joke.

[KC]

No, the thread is about him being authoritarian or not, if he was a socialist his authoritarianism could be ignored by some, since he is not a socialist/Communist it cannot be ignored.

What?




You obviously made this up, prove me wrong by citing sources.

Gladly. (http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/castroreport.htm)

[Led Zeppelin]

What?

For example, Lenin took over the USSR and he became an authoritarian during the civil war, but he was a Communist, so that can be ignored.

Stalin is called an authoritarian by some, but since he was a Communist and was building socialism this can be ignored.

Castro on the other hand turned Cuba into a Soviet vassal.


Gladly.

That article itself doesn&#39;t cite sources.

[KC]

That article itself doesn&#39;t cite sources.

This is a CIA report&#33; They admit to doing it&#33; The fact that you request sources for a CIA report is ludicrous.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, i skimmed threw that report, no where do i see hundreds of assasination attempts.

[KC]

The information is right in front of you and if you fail to see it then I can&#39;t debate with you.

[Hiero]

What was the reason for the purges then?

It is obvious you dont know what you&#39;re talking about.

So what he purged. It is obvious that Stalin knew there were people in the party who were revisionist, but he didn&#39;t know the extent of it and how to deal with it.

Instead of seeing it as the class war, he seen it as politics.

[Led Zeppelin]

The information is right in front of you and if you fail to see it then I can&#39;t debate with you.

Then dont, as i said, i cannot see where it describes hundreds of assasination attempts.


So what he purged. It is obvious that Stalin knew there were people in the party who were revisionist, but he didn&#39;t know the extent of it and how to deal with it.


But Mao did, right? That is why China is socialist today, all thanks to Mao. :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

Stalin purged his politidccal enemies, not the enemies of the workng class.

[Hiero]

But Mao did, right? That is why China is socialist today, all thanks to Mao.

Mao only realised what was going on at the time the revisionist took power.

[Led Zeppelin]

Mao only realised what was going on at the time the revisionist took power.

So didnt he screw up big time? He knew what happened to the SU, he should have known that it would happen to China sooner or later.

[h&s]

Stalin is called an authoritarian by some, but since he was a Communist and was building socialism this can be ignored.
Stalin building Socialism?&#33;?
Are you having a laugh? :rolleyes:
Stalin (and the beureacracy he represented) destroyed almost all essences of socialism in the USSR&#33;

[Led Zeppelin]

Stalin building Socialism?&#33;?
Are you having a laugh?
Stalin (and the beureacracy he represented) destroyed almost all essences of socialism in the USSR&#33;


Economically he builded socialism, politically is disputable.

[Red Heretic]

Marxism-Leninism, although I understand that Stalin did take several actions against the revisionists at the time, both Stalin and Trotsky claimed that capitalism could not be restored within the Soviet Union without a bloody civil war. Their arguement was something on the lines of "once a baby has been born, it cannot be shoved back into the whome." Unfortunately, they did not understand that socialism is only the birth process, and that stability is not achieved until we get to the stage of communism.

Stalin personally may have seen it coming in an unconscious manner, but he did not ascknolwedge it in his actual ideology. This is why, for example, the Hoaxahites sided with Stalin over Mao. Enver Hoaxa claimed that capitalism could only be restored by outside imperialist forces, and claimed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which the masses were waging against the revisionist elements in the communist party was wrong. This was the issue that Enver Hoaxa isolated Albania from China eventually, and ultimately why Albania went revisionist.

As for the causes of Chinese revisionism, they would be because the leadership of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (Mao) died before the revolution had time to full liberate the party of its revisionist elements. The revisionists within the power were able to hold on to power until Mao died, and then execute/exile the remaining communists in the party.

[Led Zeppelin]

Enver Hoaxa claimed that capitalism could only be restored by outside imperialist forces

No he didn&#39;t.


This was the issue that Enver Hoaxa isolated Albania from China eventually, and ultimately why Albania went revisionist.

As for the causes of Chinese revisionism, they would be because the leadership of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (Mao) died before the revolution had time to full liberate the party of its revisionist elements. The revisionists within the power were able to hold on to power until Mao died, and then execute/exile the remaining communists in the party.

But somehow Hoxha was wrong and Mao was right? Double standards.

In reality the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" wasn&#39;t proletarian at all, it was led by students who turned against Communism as soon as they got the chance.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 3 2005, 03:17 PM

Stalin building Socialism?&#33;?
Are you having a laugh?
Stalin (and the beureacracy he represented) destroyed almost all essences of socialism in the USSR&#33;


Economically he builded socialism, politically is disputable.
Socialism is about worker&#39;s power. That is the whole point of it. Stalin took all power out of the hands of hte workers, therefore he did nothing to build socialism.
Economically, yes he did some good stuff, but a planned economy (as good as that is) does not mean that a country is socialist. That planned economy has to be directly in the hands of the working class.


both Stalin and Trotsky claimed that capitalism could not be restored within the Soviet Union without a bloody civil war. Their arguement was something on the lines of "once a baby has been born, it cannot be shoved back into the whome."
I don&#39;t know about Stalin, but that is not a Trotskyist position. Our position has always been that when overtaken by a beureucracy, &#39;socialism&#39; will inevitably lead back to a restoration of capitalism.
We&#39;ve been saying that since before the USSR and the PRC failed.

[Led Zeppelin]

Socialism is about worker&#39;s power. That is the whole point of it.

False, its also about material reality.

The USSR was not ready for socialism materially before the two 5 year plans.


Stalin took all power out of the hands of hte workers, therefore he did nothing to build socialism.


No, he builded the base that is needed for socialism,i.e., material conditions.


Economically, yes he did some good stuff, but a planned economy (as good as that is) does not mean that a country is socialist.

Did i ever say that the USSR had achieved the first phase of Communism?

I call a nation socialist if it is building socialism, however that does not mean it has achieved it.


That planned economy has to be directly in the hands of the working class.

I completely agree.


I don&#39;t know about Stalin, but that is not a Trotskyist position. Our position has always been that when overtaken by a beureucracy, &#39;socialism&#39; will inevitably lead back to a restoration of capitalism.
We&#39;ve been saying that since before the USSR and the PRC failed.

"Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counterrevolutionary coup d&#39;etat that would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war." Trotsky, Writings, vol. 7, p. 116.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 4 2005, 09:32 AM
I don&#39;t know about Stalin, but that is not a Trotskyist position. Our position has always been that when overtaken by a beureucracy, &#39;socialism&#39; will inevitably lead back to a restoration of capitalism.
We&#39;ve been saying that since before the USSR and the PRC failed.
Try Again.

Trotsky says capitalist restoration cannot be "peaceful evolution" (to speak of the successful State Department phrase/strategy) (1933): http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...tskyrestore.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/wetoldyouso/text.php?mimfile=trotskyrestore.txt)

Trotskyist Spartacist League said for decades that "bloody civil war" necessary for capitalist restoration before changing minds: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...ile=sparts1.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/wetoldyouso/text.php?mimfile=sparts1.txt)


No he didn&#39;t.

I suspect you are a Hoxahite, and I find it rather sad that a Hoaxahite doesn&#39;t know the central idea behind Enver Hoaxa&#39;s ideology.

Enver Hoxha says "no force" exists to make the party deviate (1979): http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...oxhanoforce.txt (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/wetoldyouso/text.php?mimfile=hoxhanoforce.txt)

(Just for the record, I hate MIM, but I found it necessary to cite their website since this is one of the few areas where their work is actually pretty good.)


But somehow Hoxha was wrong and Mao was right? Double standards.

Mao devoted the last 10 years of his life on trying to unleash the masses in China against the growingly revisionist Party, and encouraging rebellion against Chinese revisionism. That is what the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was all about. Read here: http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism...china_facts.htm (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

On the other hand, Enver Hoxha spent the last days of his life claiming that capitalism could not be restored in Albania from within the party, and that criticism of the party was not necessary (he basically wanted to go backward to Stalin&#39;s ideology that did not understand the need for criticism and self-criticism of party leadership). In the end, capitalism was restored in Albania just like Mao said.

[Led Zeppelin]

I suspect you are a Hoxahite, and I find it rather sad that a Hoaxahite doesn&#39;t know the central idea behind Enver Hoaxa&#39;s ideology.


I am not a "Hoxhaite", i admit that Hoxha made mistakes, however i am of the opinion that Mao made alot more than him.


Enver Hoxha says "no force" exists to make the party deviate (1979): http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...oxhanoforce.txt


I can find other quotes:

"As always, our Party of Labour must main tain clear, resolute, bold stands on the correct Marxist-Leninist line. This line of our Party, with its clearly defined objectives, will. help to expose American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, as well as Chinese social-imperialism, and to wage the merciless struggle against them successfully." Hoxha

Note the fact that this is taken from the same chapter as the quote in that MIM article.

Why would Hoxha say that the Party of Labour should remain "tain clear" if he is of the opinion that it is impossible for it not to be "tain clear"?


Mao devoted the last 10 years of his life on trying to unleash the masses in China against the growingly revisionist Party, and encouraging rebellion against Chinese revisionism. That is what the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was all about. Read here:

And he failed.....


On the other hand, Enver Hoxha spent the last days of his life claiming that capitalism could not be restored in Albania from within the party

See above, this is not true.


and that criticism of the party was not necessary (he basically wanted to go backward to Stalin&#39;s ideology that did not understand the need for criticism and self-criticism of party leadership).

Prove this claim.


In the end, capitalism was restored in Albania just like Mao said.

In the end, capitalism was restored in China just like Hoxha said.

Also, when did Mao say this?

[h&s]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism+--> (Marxism&#045;Leninism)False, its also about material reality.
[/b]
The material reality that everything is better when the worker&#39;s are in control.


The USSR was not ready for socialism materially before the two 5 year plans.
It was ready in 1917, but obviously times changed.


No, he builded the base that is needed for socialism,i.e., material conditions.
No, he built the base of the beureucracy.


Makhno
Try Again.
I should have made it clearer. I meant our position as Trots, not Trotsky&#39;s position.
We are allowed to disagree with him you know. Not everything he did was right.
Anyway, I could swear he went back on that position. I&#39;ll try and find a quote, but maybe he didn&#39;t - I don&#39;t really care. The thing is we had that position, and it came to be true.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by h&s+Aug 5 2005, 01:21 PM--> (h&s &#064; Aug 5 2005, 01:21 PM)
Marxism&#045;Leninism
False, its also about material reality.

The material reality that everything is better when the worker&#39;s are in control.


The USSR was not ready for socialism materially before the two 5 year plans.
It was ready in 1917, but obviously times changed.


No, he builded the base that is needed for socialism,i.e., material conditions.
No, he built the base of the beureucracy. [/b]
I am talking about the material conditions of socialism, i.e., industrialization and socialization of the economy.

[h&s]

But the cities were already industrialised by foreign capital. Thats what created the militant proletariat that rose up in 1905 and 1917.

[Led Zeppelin]

But the cities were already industrialised by foreign capital.

:huh: Are you serious?

Do i really need to dig up quotes to prove otherwise?


Thats what created the militant proletariat that rose up in 1905 and 1917.

Only 5% of the population was proletariat.

[h&s]

Only 5% of the population was proletariat.
So what? The rest were mainly peasants.

[Led Zeppelin]

So what? The rest were mainly peasants.

Peasants are reactionary. (Kulaks anyone?)

[h&s]

Yes, but that also means that they will go with any system that suits them best. Socialism makes the best use of all available resources, so on the whole the peasantry are on our side after the revolution.

[Red Heretic]

I can find other quotes:

"As always, our Party of Labour must main tain clear, resolute, bold stands on the correct Marxist-Leninist line. This line of our Party, with its clearly defined objectives, will. help to expose American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, as well as Chinese social-imperialism, and to wage the merciless struggle against them successfully." Hoxha

Note the fact that this is taken from the same chapter as the quote in that MIM article.

Why would Hoxha say that the Party of Labour should remain "tain clear" if he is of the opinion that it is impossible for it not to be "tain clear"?

That statement by Enver Hoxha is so bague that it could mean literally anythinng. It says nothing about combatting revisionism or the bourgeoisie that exist within the Party. Enver Hoxha absolutely insisted (as Stalin did too) that there was no new bourgeoisie within the party, which is straight up BULLSHIT&#33; He claimed that the only bourgeoisie that could restore capitalism in Albania was the old capitalist class that had been overthrown, and even claimed that it was the old capitalist class of China that had overthrown socialism in China&#33; He never in any of his writings admits that capitalism was restored in China by the forces within the communist party.


And he failed.....

Yes, he died before the cultural revolution had time to completely uproot the revisionist forces from within the party. That is very different from refusing to wage war against the revisionist forces that exist within the party, which were ABSOLUTELY all over the Albanian Worker&#39;s Party.

To be fair, there were probably more steps that Mao should have taken to combat the revisionism, but those steps would have needed to be taken at a much earlier stage. These sorts of steps are outlinedi n the Draft Programme of the RCP, which I touched on earlier.



In the end, capitalism was restored in China just like Hoxha said.

Also, when did Mao say this?

First of all, capitalism was NOT restored in China in the way that Enver Hoxha said. Capitalism was restored in China by the leadership of Deng Xaioping, and his influence on other revisionist elements that existed within the Communist Party bourgeoisie. Enver Hoxha claimed that it was restored by the old displaced bourgeoisie that had existed before 1949.

Second of all, I am not aware of any specific quotes from Mao in regards to capitalist restoration in Albaina (mostly because he died before he really had time to analyze such things). However, I am aware that Mao Tse Tung said that capitalism could be restored by the revisionist forces within the Party, and that these forces must best avidly be struggled against or else capitalist restoration becomes inevitable.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 5 2005, 01:43 PM
Peasants are reactionary.
Oh yeah, so I guess the Chinese and Nepalese revolutions never happened, huh?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 5 2005, 01:43 PM


Peasants are reactionary. (Kulaks anyone?)
Ok let&#39;s be clear about this, the kulaks were the rich peasants. landowners if you will.
That&#39;s like saying that the proletariat is reactionary, CEO&#39;s anyone?

The kulaks under the USSR were abolished. The peasants are not reactionary, a true revolution will be made up of both proletariat and peasant( hammer AND sickle).

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:15 PM

I can find other quotes:

"As always, our Party of Labour must main tain clear, resolute, bold stands on the correct Marxist-Leninist line. This line of our Party, with its clearly defined objectives, will. help to expose American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism, as well as Chinese social-imperialism, and to wage the merciless struggle against them successfully." Hoxha

Note the fact that this is taken from the same chapter as the quote in that MIM article.

Why would Hoxha say that the Party of Labour should remain "tain clear" if he is of the opinion that it is impossible for it not to be "tain clear"?

That statement by Enver Hoxha is so bague that it could mean literally anythinng. It says nothing about combatting revisionism or the bourgeoisie that exist within the Party. Enver Hoxha absolutely insisted (as Stalin did too) that there was no new bourgeoisie within the party, which is straight up BULLSHIT&#33; He claimed that the only bourgeoisie that could restore capitalism in Albania was the old capitalist class that had been overthrown, and even claimed that it was the old capitalist class of China that had overthrown socialism in China&#33; He never in any of his writings admits that capitalism was restored in China by the forces within the communist party.


And he failed.....

Yes, he died before the cultural revolution had time to completely uproot the revisionist forces from within the party. That is very different from refusing to wage war against the revisionist forces that exist within the party, which were ABSOLUTELY all over the Albanian Worker&#39;s Party.

To be fair, there were probably more steps that Mao should have taken to combat the revisionism, but those steps would have needed to be taken at a much earlier stage. These sorts of steps are outlinedi n the Draft Programme of the RCP, which I touched on earlier.



In the end, capitalism was restored in China just like Hoxha said.

Also, when did Mao say this?

First of all, capitalism was NOT restored in China in the way that Enver Hoxha said. Capitalism was restored in China by the leadership of Deng Xaioping, and his influence on other revisionist elements that existed within the Communist Party bourgeoisie. Enver Hoxha claimed that it was restored by the old displaced bourgeoisie that had existed before 1949.

Second of all, I am not aware of any specific quotes from Mao in regards to capitalist restoration in Albaina (mostly because he died before he really had time to analyze such things). However, I am aware that Mao Tse Tung said that capitalism could be restored by the revisionist forces within the Party, and that these forces must best avidly be struggled against or else capitalist restoration becomes inevitable.
The difference between you and me is that i admit that Hoxha made mistakes, basically i don&#39;t care about his mistakes, i correct them.


Oh yeah, so I guess the Chinese and Nepalese revolutions never happened, huh?

You mean those bourgeois revolutions? Sure they did.

Nepal is still uncertain.

I am not saying that peasants cant be revolutionary, the poor peasants will support the socialist revolution, but they are inherently reactionary.


Ok let&#39;s be clear about this, the kulaks were the rich peasants.

A rich peasant is still a peasant.


That&#39;s like saying that the proletariat is reactionary, CEO&#39;s anyone?

No it isn&#39;t, they are bourgeois, not proletarian.


The kulaks under the USSR were abolished. The peasants are not reactionary, a true revolution will be made up of both proletariat and peasant( hammer AND sickle).

Yes, they will support the revolution when it is winning, but eventually they will screw us over, as seen in China, Vietnam, Laos etc.

[Red Heretic]

The difference between you and me is that i admit that Hoxha made mistakes, basically i don&#39;t care about his mistakes, i correct them.

As a Maoist, I practice criticism and self-criticism. However, I have seen nothing of Mao&#39;s program on the topic of revisionism that ought to be criticized. If you should point out a mistake that Mao made in this topic, I would gladly criticize it, but I have seen none. I sharply criticize Enver Hoxha&#39;s program and mistakes however.


You mean those bourgeois revolutions? Sure they did.

Nepal is still uncertain.

I am not saying that peasants cant be revolutionary, the poor peasants will support the socialist revolution, but they are inherently reactionary.


This kind of oppressor mentality makes me sick. As someone who has lived in the Chinese countryside, and watched as the Chinese peasentry are subjected to the landlords and the loan sharks, I can confidently tell you that that is complete bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, it&#39;s fucking reactionary.

When you oppress the peasantry, and their right to stand up to imperialism and all other forms of exploitation, you are no better than Bush and the rest of his cronies.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 6 2005, 04:47 AM

.


Ok let&#39;s be clear about this, the kulaks were the rich peasants.

A rich peasant is still a peasant.






Well then CEO&#39;s are also rich factory workers. The similarities are quite clear.

1. the rich peasants own the means of production, the poor ones do not.

2. the rich peasants do not work the land, the CEO&#39;s do not contribute to production as such.

3. The ceo&#39;s oppress the proletariat, the rich peasants oppress the poorer ones.


To lump all of the peasants in one category is just mindless, while at the same time making so many distinctions between the relations of production in an urban setting. The mistake of the Bolshevik revolution was that it did not plan properly for the peasant population, thus collective agriculture had to be imposed by force.
Mao zedong did not through his policies give rise to the return of capitalism in china, it was deng xiaoping( who mao opposed) who represented the right wing of the CCP. Blaming him for the rise of capitalism is misguided and not really realistic.

[Red Heretic]

That was a very good post Viva La Revolution.. :)

[Led Zeppelin]

If you should point out a mistake that Mao made in this topic, I would gladly criticize it, but I have seen none.

Dogmatic.

China is capitalist today, that was not a mistake?&#33;


As someone who has lived in the Chinese countryside, and watched as the Chinese peasentry are subjected to the landlords and the loan sharks, I can confidently tell you that that is complete bullshit. Not only is it bullshit, it&#39;s fucking reactionary.


Ok, so you&#39;re not a Marxist, thats cool with me, just don&#39;t call yourself one please.


When you oppress the peasantry, and their right to stand up to imperialism and all other forms of exploitation, you are no better than Bush and the rest of his cronies.

Yes, i&#39;m a anti-peasant Nazi, I kill/oppress peasants for fun. :rolleyes:


Well then CEO&#39;s are also rich factory workers. The similarities are quite clear.

1. the rich peasants own the means of production, the poor ones do not.

2. the rich peasants do not work the land, the CEO&#39;s do not contribute to production as such.

3. The ceo&#39;s oppress the proletariat, the rich peasants oppress the poorer ones.


You are talking about landlords not peasants, yes landlords are like agricultural CEO&#39;s.

Here is the definition of peasant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peasant):

A member of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture.


To lump all of the peasants in one category is just mindless, while at the same time making so many distinctions between the relations of production in an urban setting. The mistake of the Bolshevik revolution was that it did not plan properly for the peasant population, thus collective agriculture had to be imposed by force.


Wrong, it was because of the NEP that collective agriculture had to be imposed by force.


Mao zedong did not through his policies give rise to the return of capitalism in china, it was deng xiaoping( who mao opposed) who represented the right wing of the CCP. Blaming him for the rise of capitalism is misguided and not really realistic.


You are not looking at it materially, instead you are looking at it in a bourgeois fashion, history is not made by personalities, Mao&#39;s actions gave rise to capitalism.

I could say the same about the USSR, Kruschev did not give rise to the return of caitalism, it was Gorbachev.


That was a very good post Viva La Revolution

Quite mediocre actually.

[Red Heretic]

Dogmatic.

China is capitalist today, that was not a mistake?&#33;

The revisionism that is in China today is not the result of the actions of Mao Tse Tung, but rather the result of the actions of Deng Xaioping and the coup in China. That arguement is like saying "A woman just got rapped, so she made a serious mistake."


Ok, so you&#39;re not a Marxist, thats cool with me, just don&#39;t call yourself one please.

So let&#39;s get this straight, you want to call ME dogmatic, and then attack me for not strictly adhering to every single one of Marx&#39;s ideas?

Your post reeks of that absolute worst form dogmatism.

I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I hold criticisms of all three.

[Led Zeppelin]

The revisionism that is in China today is not the result of the actions of Mao Tse Tung, but rather the result of the actions of Deng Xaioping and the coup in China.

True, but Mao gave rise to Deng Xaioping.

He could have prevented revisionism, but he didn&#39;t, i.e., he failed.


So let&#39;s get this straight, you want to call ME dogmatic, and then attack me for not strictly adhering to every single one of Marx&#39;s ideas?


If its a basic "idea" then yes.

You can&#39;t be a Leninist while supporting capitalism, you can&#39;t be a Marxist while being religious etc.


Your post reeks of that absolute worst form dogmatism.

Strange, I don&#39;t smell it. :lol:


I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and I hold criticisms of all three.

But more of the first two, right?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 7 2005, 09:41 AM







Well then CEO&#39;s are also rich factory workers. The similarities are quite clear.

1. the rich peasants own the means of production, the poor ones do not.

2. the rich peasants do not work the land, the CEO&#39;s do not contribute to production as such.

3. The ceo&#39;s oppress the proletariat, the rich peasants oppress the poorer ones.


You are talking about landlords not peasants, yes landlords are like agricultural CEO&#39;s.

Here is the definition of peasant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peasant):

A member of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture.


To lump all of the peasants in one category is just mindless, while at the same time making so many distinctions between the relations of production in an urban setting. The mistake of the Bolshevik revolution was that it did not plan properly for the peasant population, thus collective agriculture had to be imposed by force.


Wrong, it was because of the NEP that collective agriculture had to be imposed by force.


Mao zedong did not through his policies give rise to the return of capitalism in china, it was deng xiaoping( who mao opposed) who represented the right wing of the CCP. Blaming him for the rise of capitalism is misguided and not really realistic.


You are not looking at it materially, instead you are looking at it in a bourgeois fashion, history is not made by personalities, Mao&#39;s actions gave rise to capitalism.

I could say the same about the USSR, Kruschev did not give rise to the return of caitalism, it was Gorbachev.


That was a very good post Viva La Revolution

Quite mediocre actually.
A rich peasant=landlord.








The definition of peasant provided by you:



A member of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture.


Now tell me How does that contrast with my contention that peasants are the poor in the countryside. Your own definition excludes a &#39;rich&#39; peasant. why? because a rich peasant is the landlord&#33;
Still waiting for a refutation from you.

2. You did not answer me as to why you prefer tp lump the rural population in one category, whether rich or poor.

3. How did mao give rise to capitalism, his own wife, jiang qing, headed the ultra-leftists. Mao himself was in conflict with deng xiaoping and instead was supported by Zhang Guotao, who was marxist-leninist.

[Led Zeppelin]

A rich peasant=landlord.


No, a rich peasant = someone who is able to sell alot of his products.


Now tell me How does that contrast with my contention that peasants are the poor in the countryside.

Because rich peasants also exist.


Your own definition excludes a &#39;rich&#39; peasant. why?

No it doesn&#39;t, it excludes landlords, you wrongly presume that your first response is correct, it isn&#39;t.


because a rich peasant is the landlord&#33;

Not true, for example in Europe peasants work the land and are rich, they may or may not own the land they work on.

In poor nations a landlord doesn&#39;t work at all, so he isn&#39;t a peasant, he only owns the land.


You did not answer me as to why you prefer tp lump the rural population in one category, whether rich or poor.

I don&#39;t "lump the rural population in one category", either they are peasant or they aren&#39;t.


How did mao give rise to capitalism, his own wife, jiang qing, headed the ultra-leftists. Mao himself was in conflict with deng xiaoping and instead was supported by Zhang Guotao, who was marxist-leninist.


He gave rise to capitalism by not preventing it while being able too.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 09:28 AM

A rich peasant=landlord.


No, a rich peasant = someone who is able to sell alot of his products.


Now tell me How does that contrast with my contention that peasants are the poor in the countryside.

Because rich peasants also exist.


Your own definition excludes a &#39;rich&#39; peasant. why?

No it doesn&#39;t, it excludes landlords, you wrongly presume that your first response is correct, it isn&#39;t.


because a rich peasant is the landlord&#33;

Not true, for example in Europe peasants work the land and are rich, they may or may not own the land they work on.

In poor nations a landlord doesn&#39;t work at all, so he isn&#39;t a peasant, he only owns the land.


You did not answer me as to why you prefer tp lump the rural population in one category, whether rich or poor.

I don&#39;t "lump the rural population in one category", either they are peasant or they aren&#39;t.


How did mao give rise to capitalism, his own wife, jiang qing, headed the ultra-leftists. Mao himself was in conflict with deng xiaoping and instead was supported by Zhang Guotao, who was marxist-leninist.


He gave rise to capitalism by not preventing it while being able too.
1.A peasant is one who tills the land and provides labour to the landlord. The omly difference is that a peasant is paid in produce which he in turn has to sell in order to get the bare necessities of life. Usually this arises out of a debt to the landlord. Therefore a rich peasnt would have no need of continuing to serve under the landlord, he would have his own private land, which would make him a landlord.

2. rich peasants do exist, they are known as landlords.

3. In europe there is no feudal structure anymore, no need for agrarian production. the lands are either owned by corporations or absentee landlords. Those who like to grow tomatoes and onions do so as a means of recreation.
The feudal structure in the true sense of the word exists in the third world. Divided between those who work the land and those who do not. Those who work the land are the poor peasants and those who not are the landlords. The peasants do not work the land for the sheer joy of it, but do so out of material compulsuion.

4. And by peasant you mean poor or rich? because obviously you are going by the european model which is no longer applicable in today&#39;s world.

5. Ok what you have him do.. line them up against a wall and shoot? in which case he would be found guilty of extermination and would be labelled a mass murderer. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn&#39;t.
Lenin too was in a position to abolish the red beurocracy, but he didn&#39;t. Nobody accuses him of giving rise to capitalism or beurocracy.
You see during his life mao never encouraged the return of capitalism, why would he when he was the one to abolish it in the first place. What this is tantamount to is blaming him for events that happened after his death. You see mao was a man, and like all men he made mistakes, apparently his mistake took place after he died which he himself never encouraged.

[Led Zeppelin]

You are playing semantics with the peasant issue, I don&#39;t have time for such nonsense.


Ok what you have him do.. line them up against a wall and shoot? in which case he would be found guilty of extermination and would be labelled a mass murderer.

Alot of people were shot, but no, you can&#39;t prevent revisionism by killing the open revisionists, you have to get rid of the hidden revisionists too.

Mao had to industrialize the country and democratize the party if he wanted to prevent revisionism, he did neither, modern Maoists now have hopes in his failed "Cultural revolution" theory. It didn&#39;t work then, its not going to work now.


Lenin too was in a position to abolish the red beurocracy, but he didn&#39;t. Nobody accuses him of giving rise to capitalism or beurocracy.


Lenin took steps to industrialize the country, as did Stalin, Mao on the other hand tried to do it but failed.


You see during his life mao never encouraged the return of capitalism, why would he when he was the one to abolish it in the first place.

China was not capitalist, it was feudal, he did encourage capitalism by not "creating" the material conditions necessary for socialism.


What this is tantamount to is blaming him for events that happened after his death.

No, this is "tantamount" to blaming him for events he could have prevented before his death.


You see mao was a man, and like all men he made mistakes, apparently his mistake took place after he died which he himself never encouraged.

See above.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 01:31 PM
You are playing semantics with the peasant issue, I don&#39;t have time for such nonsense.


Alot of people were shot, but no, you can&#39;t prevent revisionism by killing the open revisionists, you have to get rid of the hidden revisionists too.

Mao had to industrialize the country and democratize the party if he wanted to prevent revisionism, he did neither, modern Maoists now have hopes in his failed "Cultural revolution" theory. It didn&#39;t work then, its not going to work now.


Lenin too was in a position to abolish the red beurocracy, but he didn&#39;t. Nobody accuses him of giving rise to capitalism or beurocracy.


Lenin took steps to industrialize the country, as did Stalin, Mao on the other hand tried to do it but failed.


You see during his life mao never encouraged the return of capitalism, why would he when he was the one to abolish it in the first place.

China was not capitalist, it was feudal, he did encourage capitalism by not "creating" the material conditions necessary for socialism.


What this is tantamount to is blaming him for events that happened after his death.

No, this is "tantamount" to blaming him for events he could have prevented before his death.


You see mao was a man, and like all men he made mistakes, apparently his mistake took place after he died which he himself never encouraged.

See above.
Oh no.. Mao did not industrialize the country :o ......
Comrade, that&#39;s what the cultural revolution was, stepping out of the old world and entering the new one. Resources were pumped into the steel industry to bring China up to par with the united states. China is producing a replica of every product produced in the world. Even then China made leaps and bounds. You see.. Mao lived till the seventies, when China was well on it&#39;s way of becoming an economic powerhouse in the region. Massive investments were made in the building of factories and setting up of national industries.
The results of those policies can be seen in the economic power of China today. so no comrade, sorry your assertion that China did not industrialize under Mao really bears no weight.
2. Yes Lenin and Stalin did industrialize the soviet union, but my previous question still stands, why is lenin not blamed for the rise of the beurocracy when he too was able to abolish it?
3. Yes collective agriculture and national industries were founded. What Material conditions pray tell might you be referring to? maybe not depending on soviet subsidies?
4. Again please tell me why Lenin is not blamed for the rise of the beurocracy when he had the opportunity to abolish it?

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh no.. Mao did not industrialize the country ......
Comrade, that&#39;s what the cultural revolution was, stepping out of the old world and entering the new one. Resources were pumped into the steel industry to bring China up to par with the united states. China is producing a replica of every product produced in the world. Even then China made leaps and bounds. You see.. Mao lived till the seventies, when China was well on it&#39;s way of becoming an economic powerhouse in the region. Massive investments were made in the building of factories and setting up of national industries.
The results of those policies can be seen in the economic power of China today. so no comrade, sorry your assertion that China did not industrialize under Mao really bears no weight.


Prove this absurd claim, the majority of Chinese are still peasants, so I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.


Yes Lenin and Stalin did industrialize the soviet union, but my previous question still stands, why is lenin not blamed for the rise of the beurocracy when he too was able to abolish it?


Who said anything about "the bureaucracy"?

I don&#39;t "blame" Mao for "the bureaucracy".


Yes collective agriculture and national industries were founded.

So?


What Material conditions pray tell might you be referring to? maybe not depending on soviet subsidies?


I am referring to industrialization and socialization of the economy, which includes a majority proletariat of 90% or more.


Again please tell me why Lenin is not blamed for the rise of the beurocracy when he had the opportunity to abolish it?

Did I ever bring up "the bureaucracy" in this thread?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 9 2005, 07:29 PM


Prove this absurd claim, the majority of Chinese are still peasants, so I don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about.


Yes Lenin and Stalin did industrialize the soviet union, but my previous question still stands, why is lenin not blamed for the rise of the beurocracy when he too was able to abolish it?


Who said anything about "the bureaucracy"?

I don&#39;t "blame" Mao for "the bureaucracy".


Yes collective agriculture and national industries were founded.

So?


What Material conditions pray tell might you be referring to? maybe not depending on soviet subsidies?


I am referring to industrialization and socialization of the economy, which includes a majority proletariat of 90% or more.


Again please tell me why Lenin is not blamed for the rise of the beurocracy when he had the opportunity to abolish it?

Did I ever bring up "the bureaucracy" in this thread?
1. umm.... the economic strength of China, the mass of chinese products in the world, hell they even made the berets for american soldiers&#33; I suggest a trip to your local hardware or supply store. Chinese even make playstations&#33; Industrialization is the ability of the country to mass produce goods and products not the occupation of the majority in the country&#33;
2. Ah yes.. the beurocracy, well, you blame mao for the rise of the capitalism after his death in the sense that he did not prevent it in his lifetime. My question was lenin also faced a similar problem, in the sense that he was able to prevent the rise of the beurocracy in russia. but did he? no. after lenin&#39;s death the beurocracy took over under stalin. How come we do not blame lenin under the same score? The similarities of the situations are pretty clear,
(a). Both led the revolutions.
(b). lenin could have abolished the beurocracy, mao could have abolished the revisionists.
&copy;. None did so in their lifetime.
(d). In russia the beurocrats took over and in china the revisionists took over.
(e). yet you seem to uphold one and vilify the other.

I know it&#39;s a little tough to follow :P

[Led Zeppelin]

umm.... the economic strength of China, the mass of chinese products in the world, hell they even made the berets for american soldiers&#33; I suggest a trip to your local hardware or supply store. Chinese even make playstations&#33;

Yes, but I don&#39;t know if you have noticed....China is capitalist today.

It achieved all this after it became capitalist, not before.


Industrialization is the ability of the country to mass produce goods and products not the occupation of the majority in the country&#33;


I have yet to see an industrialized socialist nation which has a minority proletariat, actually it is impossible, it could be said that an imperialist nation --which is industrialzed-- has a minority proletariat, but China was meant to be socialist, not imperialist.


2. Ah yes.. the beurocracy, well, you blame mao for the rise of the capitalism after his death in the sense that he did not prevent it in his lifetime. My question was lenin also faced a similar problem, in the sense that he was able to prevent the rise of the beurocracy in russia. but did he? no. after lenin&#39;s death the beurocracy took over under stalin. How come we do not blame lenin under the same score? The similarities of the situations are pretty clear,
(a). Both led the revolutions.
(b). lenin could have abolished the beurocracy, mao could have abolished the revisionists.
©. None did so in their lifetime.
(d). In russia the beurocrats took over and in china the revisionists took over.
(e). yet you seem to uphold one and vilify the other.


What are you talking about? The bureaucracy took over under Stalin? It seems to me you are not a Maoist, why are you defending an ideology you know nothing of?


I know it&#39;s a little tough to follow

Nearly impossible. :P

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 10 2005, 12:26 PM

umm.... the economic strength of China, the mass of chinese products in the world, hell they even made the berets for american soldiers&#33; I suggest a trip to your local hardware or supply store. Chinese even make playstations&#33;

Yes, but I don&#39;t know if you have noticed....China is capitalist today.

It achieved all this after it became capitalist, not before.


Industrialization is the ability of the country to mass produce goods and products not the occupation of the majority in the country&#33;


I have yet to see an industrialized socialist nation which has a minority proletariat, actually it is impossible, it could be said that an imperialist nation --which is industrialzed-- has a minority proletariat, but China was meant to be socialist, not imperialist.


2. Ah yes.. the beurocracy, well, you blame mao for the rise of the capitalism after his death in the sense that he did not prevent it in his lifetime. My question was lenin also faced a similar problem, in the sense that he was able to prevent the rise of the beurocracy in russia. but did he? no. after lenin&#39;s death the beurocracy took over under stalin. How come we do not blame lenin under the same score? The similarities of the situations are pretty clear,
(a). Both led the revolutions.
(b). lenin could have abolished the beurocracy, mao could have abolished the revisionists.
©. None did so in their lifetime.
(d). In russia the beurocrats took over and in china the revisionists took over.
(e). yet you seem to uphold one and vilify the other.


What are you talking about? The bureaucracy took over under Stalin? It seems to me you are not a Maoist, why are you defending an ideology you know nothing of?


I know it&#39;s a little tough to follow

Nearly impossible. :P
1. yes it is capitalist today sadly. actually the industrializtion of China was well on it&#39;s way during mao&#39;s lifetime. Evdence of this is the korean war where China was able to engage alongwith the north koreans in prolonged fightining thanks to the steady inflow of chinese armaments. the economy was able to sustain this prolonged conflict. this was during the fifties. During the seventies China was already emerging as an economic powerhouse. This fact was recognized by the U.S hence the Nixon and Kissenger rounds of Beijing.
China&#39;s steel production rivalled that of the U.S during Mao&#39;s lifetime, china was largely self-sufficient without having to rely on soviet subsidies, which made the sino-soviet split possible.
2. so do i. but whatever China&#39;s tragectory, does that negate the fact that industrialization took place?
3. You still have not answered my question. As a matter of fact i am a marxist-leninist. If you would like to question my knowledge of maoist theory then please provide a clear refutation or counter arguement.


Nearly impossible. :P

don&#39;t be cheeky :P

[Led Zeppelin]

1. yes it is capitalist today sadly. actually the industrializtion of China was well on it&#39;s way during mao&#39;s lifetime. Evdence of this is the korean war where China was able to engage alongwith the north koreans in prolonged fightining thanks to the steady inflow of chinese armaments. the economy was able to sustain this prolonged conflict. this was during the fifties. During the seventies China was already emerging as an economic powerhouse. This fact was recognized by the U.S hence the Nixon and Kissenger rounds of Beijing.
China&#39;s steel production rivalled that of the U.S during Mao&#39;s lifetime, china was largely self-sufficient without having to rely on soviet subsidies, which made the sino-soviet split possible.


Prove all these claims, the Korean war does not prove that China was industrialized or on its way to industrialization.


so do i. but whatever China&#39;s tragectory, does that negate the fact that industrialization took place?


What? Industrialization took place after China was capitalist, and yes, it does make a difference because Mao had to industrialize the nation before it became capitalist or to prevent it from becoming capitalist.


You still have not answered my question. As a matter of fact i am a marxist-leninist. If you would like to question my knowledge of maoist theory then please provide a clear refutation or counter arguement.


Maoists do not believe that Stalin "took over" (or create) the bureaucracy of the USSR or that Stalin was a capitalist. That is the Trotskyist/bourgeois version of history.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 10 2005, 01:43 PM

1. yes it is capitalist today sadly. actually the industrializtion of China was well on it&#39;s way during mao&#39;s lifetime. Evdence of this is the korean war where China was able to engage alongwith the north koreans in prolonged fightining thanks to the steady inflow of chinese armaments. the economy was able to sustain this prolonged conflict. this was during the fifties. During the seventies China was already emerging as an economic powerhouse. This fact was recognized by the U.S hence the Nixon and Kissenger rounds of Beijing.
China&#39;s steel production rivalled that of the U.S during Mao&#39;s lifetime, china was largely self-sufficient without having to rely on soviet subsidies, which made the sino-soviet split possible.


Prove all these claims, the Korean war does not prove that China was industrialized or on its way to industrialization.


so do i. but whatever China&#39;s tragectory, does that negate the fact that industrialization took place?


What? Industrialization took place after China was capitalist, and yes, it does make a difference because Mao had to industrialize the nation before it became capitalist or to prevent it from becoming capitalist.


You still have not answered my question. As a matter of fact i am a marxist-leninist. If you would like to question my knowledge of maoist theory then please provide a clear refutation or counter arguement.


Maoists do not believe that Stalin "took over" (or create) the bureaucracy of the USSR or that Stalin was a capitalist. That is the Trotskyist/bourgeois version of history.
1.Chinese self-sufficiency, not having to rely on foriegn subsidies etc. despite having a massive rural population and straight out of feudalism. Then to go on to break with the soviets, if dependance were there then how could this be concieved. then to top it all, a protracted proxy war against america. This all points to the fact that if china was not industrialized then it was well on it&#39;s way to achieve that.
Please disprove these arguements if you do not agree with them.

2. well then by that rationale you deny the vast presence of chinese goods and armaments during the seventies. please explain by what rationale you are arguing that industrialization took place after capitalism. Before doing that i suggest you see Chinas production statistics in steel and basic commodities uptil the late seventies. Provide some evidence of your claims.

3. I notice you still have not answered why lenin should not be held by the same yardstick. Instead i notice many efforts to divert off topic.

4. That&#39;s not maoist theory that&#39;s a matter of opinion on historical issues. The theory concerns the rural aspect of the revolution, reliance on rural guerilla tactics, the encirclement of towns and cities and dealing with the new bourgeois emerging in the party by the means of a cultural revolution. Whether stalin was capitalist or not, is just an opinion, has no bearing whatsoever on the way the maoists will pursue future revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Chinese self-sufficiency, not having to rely on foriegn subsidies etc. despite having a massive rural population and straight out of feudalism. Then to go on to break with the soviets, if dependance were there then how could this be concieved. then to top it all, a protracted proxy war against america. This all points to the fact that if china was not industrialized then it was well on it&#39;s way to achieve that.
Please disprove these arguements if you do not agree with them.


Why would I disprove arguments which have nothing to do with the subject at hand?

He didn&#39;t industrialize, thats it, theres no "but" to it.


please explain by what rationale you are arguing that industrialization took place after capitalism

Historical fact, I don&#39;t have time to prove something which is common knowledge.


Before doing that i suggest you see Chinas production statistics in steel and basic commodities uptil the late seventies. Provide some evidence of your claims.


Give me the statistics.


Provide some evidence of your claims

I don&#39;t have the time nor the desire to prove common knowledge.

Its like trying to prove WW2 happened.


I notice you still have not answered why lenin should not be held by the same yardstick. Instead i notice many efforts to divert off topic.


:blink: Lenin and Stalin worked to industrialize the state, therefore they were builders of socialism, Mao did try to industrialize China but he failed, therefore he destroyed socialism and gave rise to capitalism.


Whether stalin was capitalist or not, is just an opinion, has no bearing whatsoever on the way the maoists will pursue future revolution.

It makes a big difference, since most --if not all-- people who claim that Stalin was a capitalist are revisionists.