Mao's Criticism of Stalin

[Hiero]

Concerning Economic Problems Of Socialism In The USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_65.htm)

Critique of Stalin’s Economic Problems Of Socialism In The USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_66.htm)


Stalin’s book from first to last says nothing about the superstructure. It is not concerned with people; it considers things, not people. Does the kind of supply system for consumer goods help spur economic development or not? He should have touched on this at the least. Is it better to have commodity production or is it better not to? Everyone has to study this. Stalin’s point of view in his last letter is almost altogether wrong. The basic error is mistrust of the peasants.

What do you all think of Mao's criticism of Stalin.

Edit: Here is the Book Mao is quote from.

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm)

[redstar2000]

Does it matter "what we think" of this archaic "dispute"?

Are we (or do we aspire to be) "socialist bureaucrats" in backward countries looking for "Marxist" justifications for commodity production?

I daresay those folks back then generated many tons of "theoretical documents" to bridge the abyss between their nominal "Marxism" and the fact that they were building the foundations of modern capitalism.

But the bridges collapsed long ago...and the only lesson I see there is that one should not let oneself be seduced by words while ignoring material reality.

In Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, ordinary people worked for a wage and acquired the necessities of life in a market.

Calling it a "socialist wage" or a "socialist market" is just word-spinning.

It's as if one were to claim that "socialist malaria" is "not as bad" as "capitalist malaria". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

Mao's criticism was correct. Stalin may have overlooked the important role light industry would play in speeding up industrial development. Especially in a country where agriculture is vast, it is impossible for the heavy industry to develop if agriculture will be left behind. And the bridge between the two is light industry.


redstar2000 Posted on Nov 25 2005, 11:29 AM
Does it matter "what we think" of this archaic "dispute"?

Are we (or do we aspire to be) "socialist bureaucrats" in backward countries looking for "Marxist" justifications for commodity production?

I daresay those folks back then generated many tons of "theoretical documents" to bridge the abyss between their nominal "Marxism" and the fact that they were building the foundations of modern capitalism.

But the bridges collapsed long ago...and the only lesson I see there is that one should not let oneself be seduced by words while ignoring material reality.

In Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, ordinary people worked for a wage and acquired the necessities of life in a market.

Calling it a "socialist wage" or a "socialist market" is just word-spinning.

It's as if one were to claim that "socialist malaria" is "not as bad" as "capitalist malaria".

Your comment certainly didn't matter. In fact, it is nonsense.

[celticfire]

I don't Mao went far enough in critcizing Stalin. It was a problem at the time, because I think a period of purging the Stalinist mistakes was natural and very needed, but unfortuntely the head of the whole "deStalinization" process was Khrushchev who was a revisionist (capitalist-roader) and used criticizing Stalin to implement capitalism. So things got complicated. I think the whole ICM needs to purge the errors of Stalinism from their ranks, while keeping the important contributions Stalin made. Mao said Stalin 70% correct and 30% incorrect, well I came up with 50/50. I also think its important to keep Stalin the context in which he struggled and not remove him from that like the bourgeois historians like Robert Conquest do. There was a looming threat of attack from Germany, there were active counter-revolutionaries, and there were real threats to the Soviet Union. That being said, Stalin also made some very bad mistakes and was mechanical and detached in his thinking, not dialectical.

[Hiero]

In Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, ordinary people worked for a wage and acquired the necessities of life in a market.

Why did you even comment in this thread if you weren't even going to read the texts? If you did read it you would be commenting on the reasons given and the explanation of wages in a socialist system.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:07 AM

In Stalin's Russia and Mao's China, ordinary people worked for a wage and acquired the necessities of life in a market.

Why did you even comment in this thread if you weren't even going to read the texts? If you did read it you would be commenting on the reasons given and the explanation of wages in a socialist system.
Are you complaining that I didn't "pick a side"?

Mao was right and Stalin was wrong! or Stalin was right and Mao was wrong!

To what purpose? Taking seriously what is, after all, a dispute between theologians???

And long dead ones at that.

I understand, you take all that "socialist rhetoric" seriously -- as "holy writ" -- which must be carefully read and interpreted by "the faithful".

Well, I don't go to your church.

So if you or others choose to clutter this forum with meaningless squabbles over "Leninist orthodoxy", I will from time to time offer my own less than flattering comments.

I suggest that you stop reading my posts...they might cause you to "lose your faith".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Punk Rocker]

And long dead ones at that.

Then I guess when shouldn't talk about Marxism, because Marx is dead?

Shit, this whole forum is based on the ideas of dead people!


Mao said Stalin 70% correct and 30% incorrect, well I came up with 50/50.

Mao was the greatest socialist revolutionary, but I think he should have criticized Stalin more.

I welcome Stalinists as my comrades in the revolution, but I really don't admire Stalin at all. He played the biggest role in defeating Hitler, but also he killed way too many people. I agree with celticfire, Stalin balances out to 50/50.

[Hiero]

Are you complaining that I didn't "pick a side"?

To make it more clearer i was saying that you are a hack, who doesn't add much to the conversation.

If you didn't read it, then please don't ruin my thread with your useless rhetoric and empty words.


Mao was right and Stalin was wrong! or Stalin was right and Mao was wrong!

More evidence that you don't understand what you are talking about.


I suggest that you stop reading my posts...they might cause you to "lose your faith".

To the contray. I used to at the begining think your posts were very usefull, now i realise they are just empty anarchist words. You have no real basis for your post other then to be more radical then every succesfull revolutionary. It is very attractive to the kids who don't to be associated with something controverisal that they might have to defend.

Now i hope you are finished with your nonesense so you can stop spaming my thread.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Punk Rocker+--> (Punk Rocker)Shit, this whole forum is based on the ideas of dead people![/b]

It often seems so...that I must concede.

But I think there is a difference between those who pour over the works of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et.al., as if they were "holy writ" and those of us who would like to bring Marx into the 21st century and discard the failed Leninist paradigm as irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

We want to see the development of a living revolutionary theory...in place of simply watching the museum curators throwing old bones at each other.


Mao was the greatest socialist revolutionary, but I think he should have criticized Stalin more.

This is a good example of, as Marx put it, "the dead oppressing the living".

Mao actually made a revolution that was "socialist in words" and capitalist in deeds.

I'm not saying that he was a "liar"...the "third world" Maoists, including Mao himself, were undoubtedly sincere in their "socialist convictions"...as they are today.

But what you think "you are doing" is not necessarily what you are really doing.

When you interact with the real world, material reality prevails...no matter what words you use to costume its less pleasant aspects.

Calling monopoly state-capitalism "socialism" makes it "sound better"...but does not change its class realities.

Ordinary people in Russia and China lived just like we do here. They worked for wages and went shopping in stores...where they never had enough money to buy all the things they needed.

The party elite in Russia and China lived in luxury...just like the capitalist elite does here.

The party elite decided everything and ordinary people were utterly powerless...just like it is here.

Holding up either Stalin or Mao as "models" who have something interesting to say to us is foolishness of the first magnitude.

We want communism...something entirely different from what they built.


Hiero
Now I hope you are finished with your nonsense so you can stop spamming my thread.

No...but I will offer a suggestion. If you really want to avoid my impieties, post future threads of this nature in the History forum...where they really belong.

In fact, I'll be glad to move this thread there if you wish.

I rarely interject my presence in that forum...so those who wish to chew over the "old bones" without my interference are usually free to do so.

Just say the word. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedSabine]

I think they were both despots who just feigned socialism/communism to get total control of the populace. But that's just me.

[Hiero]

But I think there is a difference between those who pour over the works of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et.al., as if they were "holy writ"

Yes i pour over the works so much that i posted one that has criticism of the other.


and those of us who would like to bring Marx into the 21st century and discard the failed Leninist paradigm as irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

True, the Anarchist theory is so well succesfull that we should promote that....


We want to see the development of a living revolutionary theory...in place of simply watching the museum curators throwing old bones at each other.

Your an idiot to imply there wasn't a revolution in China.


Mao actually made a revolution that was "socialist in words" and capitalist in deeds.

I'm not saying that he was a "liar"...the "third world" Maoists, including Mao himself, were undoubtedly sincere in their "socialist convictions"...as they are today.

But what you think "you are doing" is not necessarily what you are really doing.

When you interact with the real world, material reality prevails...no matter what words you use to costume its less pleasant aspects.

Calling monopoly state-capitalism "socialism" makes it "sound better"...but does not change its class realities.

Your an even bigger idiot to say this, to deny that the means of production and social life were controled by a different class in pre 1949, 1949 to 1976 and 1976 to today shows how disillusioned you are.


Holding up either Stalin or Mao as "models" who have something interesting to say to us is foolishness of the first magnitude.

You should stop with the patronising, all the Stalin kids have gone and what is left are thoose who pefer realism and criticism of the revolution to come and the revolution that has been.


We want communism...something entirely different from what they built.

Yet you aren't willing to struggle for and accept the long road. You want to tell people that they can build communism without so much as a struggle.


No...but I will offer a suggestion. If you really want to avoid my impieties, post future threads of this nature in the History forum...where they really belong.

You are really arrogant, to pass over a theory that affect over a billion people.

Now see i could jump into every thread and remind people how little anarchism has improved the lifes of millions, but i tend not to care, so i wish you could do the same and keep your crazy theories to yourself.


I think they were both despots who just feigned socialism/communism to get total control of the populace. But that's just me.

Are you a fucking idiot? Where did i ask for your opinion on Stalin and Mao.

Now i posted this hoping everyone would read the texts and comment, but alas 3 people were able to do this. It is really annoying, now if you could, read the text and tell me what you think of them, or don't say anything at all.

[red_che]

To what purpose? Taking seriously what is, after all, a dispute between theologians???

And long dead ones at that.

You really don't know when to extract lessons from the past, aren't you?

Or is that simply because you don't get it?


But I think there is a difference between those who pour over the works of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et.al., as if they were "holy writ" and those of us who would like to bring Marx into the 21st century and discard the failed Leninist paradigm as irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

We have never discarded Marx. We are "pouring" over the works of Lenin, Stalin and Mao, et al. because these guys, and the proletariat of their times, did bring Marx into the present situation.

You deny this fact because you don't want to accept them.


Mao actually made a revolution that was "socialist in words" and capitalist in deeds.

There you go again, twisting facts by your rhetorics.


We want communism...something entirely different from what they built.

You really didn't want communism at all...

All you really want is to confuse everybody by your own brand of "materialism" which directs to anything else but the victory of socialism and attainment of communism.

Again, I say, you are a petty-bourgeois ideologue wearing a materialist mask.


Ordinary people in Russia and China lived just like we do here. They worked for wages and went shopping in stores...where they never had enough money to buy all the things they needed.

The party elite in Russia and China lived in luxury...just like the capitalist elite does here.

The party elite decided everything and ordinary people were utterly powerless...just like it is here.

Holding up either Stalin or Mao as "models" who have something interesting to say to us is foolishness of the first magnitude.

Stop confusing everybody by your altered facts and spinning rhetorics.


But what you think "you are doing" is not necessarily what you are really doing.

Your arrogance really must have gotten to the deepest portion of your brain that you really can't get away with it.

You don't have any right to say this thing because, in the first place, you don't know what we are doing. We are waging a revolution. You don't know that, did you? What you really want to tell to the people is that "we must do nothing, cause everything will fall into place without even trying", that's what you want to tell to everybody.

I wonder why you were calling yourself a revolutionary while you are not doing a thing to effect changes in the society.

Is that materialism? Yeah, for you it is. Cause you're really enjoying doing nothing but just to talk.



Calling monopoly state-capitalism "socialism" makes it "sound better"...but does not change its class realities.

No one ever told that state monopoly capitalism is socialism. Her,e you really are an expert at twisting things around to confuse everybody and make them believe to your "genious".

[viva le revolution]

Ignore the anarchist with an ego problem.


To contribute my two cents: I beleive that Mao basically is justified in his criticism in global theoretical context but given the conditions in the soviet union at that time i feel that the reliance in heavy industry at that point of time was absolutely correct and incorporated by Mao himself. to elaborate, the promotion of light industry would have empowered the kulaks(rural bourgeois), given the party's anti-kulak stance, and the growing threat of counter-revolution from the kulaks, militarists and foreign elements(guess who?) the policy of heavy industry to downplay the kulak's influence was a priority. Therefore, in my opinion, the soviet union was correct in that regard. Mao himself incorporated this example, for example, rejuvenating and expanding China's steel industry and the great leap forward. It was only through the expansion of heavy industry, i.e. capital goods(machinery etc.) that mechanization of agriculture and the survival of collectivization was possible. therefore Stalin was correct with regards to the conditions in the soviet union at that time.

[viva le revolution]

By the way comrades, there is no such thing as 'stalinist' or maoist. Both are just extensions of marxism-leninism. Both Stalin and Mao refused credit for establishing a new branch of socialism arguing that both are just an extension of basic marxism-leninism.

[redstar2000]

Ah, such sputtering and fuming...I'd get less of a response by fornicating in church. :lol:

Ok, you've convinced me. Off to the History forum you go...where I promise not to interfere with your scholastic disagreements.

Have a nice day.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

What a nice response, manipulating the thread by transferring to another place.

That is rude! :angry:

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:13 PM
Ah, such sputtering and fuming...I'd get less of a response by fornicating in church. :lol:

Ok, you've convinced me. Off to the History forum you go...where I promise not to interfere with your scholastic disagreements.

Have a nice day.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The best of Redstar's contribution so far!

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:13 PM
Ah, such sputtering and fuming...I'd get less of a response by fornicating in church. :lol:

Ok, you've convinced me. Off to the History forum you go...where I promise not to interfere with your scholastic disagreements.

Have a nice day.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I guess we can say this post is "history"! :lol:

[flyby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:29 AM
I think they were both despots who just feigned socialism/communism to get total control of the populace. But that's just me.
nah, it's not "just you." It is the official anti-communist line of U.S. superstructure, embedded into your brain (both by indoctrination and by keeping alternative analyses away from you) until you think "this is my own idea."

The fact that you think "but that's just me" shows how this works, and how deceptive it is.