Maoist internationalism

[Xiao Banfa]

I've always thought that despite the USSR being labelled "revisionist" after Stalin they aided more progressive and revolutionary movements than the Mao era PRC.
Also Nixon visiting China and Mao's explanation "better make friends with enemy's far away" (in order to deal with those close close by) worries me.

[Janus]

Why does that bother you? Mao was pragmatic and he was just trying to get China out of its isolation. Also, he needed an ally to counter the USSR after the Sino-Soviet split and the border clashes caused the Soviet Union to become an enemy.

[Punk Rocker]

Maybe they were allies for a while, but there is no way in hell the US and the socialist PR were ever friends. Mao attacked the US in his speaches more than any other country except maybe Japan. Also don't forget about Mao sending troops to kick US imperialism in the ass in the Korean War.

[Xiao Banfa]

I understand how one could view the Nixon meeting as pragmatic, but I'd like to know how you could concieve of the US than less reactionary than the USSR.
On the whole US imperialism suffered more from the USSR countering it.
I've seen footage of Kruschev delivering speeches to the UN and he was genuinely incensed at US aggression against Cuba!

Mao's assistance to the Latin America was negligible.

China was one of the first countries to recognise the Pinochet dictatorship.

Why is the USSR more reactionary or imperialist?- They poured money INTO countries they were allied to rather than sucking money OUT like the US did!

[Janus]

I never said that the USSR was more reactionary or imperialistic than the US. I simply stated that Mao wanted to end China's isolation and since all rapproachment with the USSR had been dashed; he turned to the US.

[Xiao Banfa]

I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm just a bit rusty around this area.
I would like to support Mao, but I'm sure how the USSR could be more antagonistic
(and uninterested in rapprochement) than the US.
If you could explain I would be greatful.

Another thing is an undeveloped and partially substantiated theory I have.
The PRC supported the Khmer Rouge before they came to power and while they were in power. This was China being hegemonic and oppurtunist using (with the aid of the yanquis) the KR as a proxy to drive back Vietnam (or at least corner them and render them impotent).

By the way, I'm referring to events prior to 76'.

[celticfire]

It is the nature of revisionism to cloak itself in meaningless words. Lenin attacked the revisionist of his time Kautsky, who basically wanted to give up the idea of revolution. Revisionists like Khrushchev use words like "democracy" and "freedom" in general to mask their gross support of inequalities. Khrushchev was really interested in developing capitalism as fast as possible in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a flawed socialism before the revisionist coup, but it was still essentially socialist - after Khrushchev & co. dismantled all the socialist facets.

Mao was a rebel among rebels - I suggest you do some more investigation!

Revolutionary China (http://www.rwor.org/s/china.htm)

[Xiao Banfa]

Celticfire, you haven't actually dealt with anything I've said. I really wouldn't mind a proper answer.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:23 PM
It is the nature of revisionism to cloak itself in meaningless words.
Yes, like Mao continuing to give radical-sounding speeches while in fact allying with the U.S. and all its right-wing client regimes against the USSR, Vietnam, and revolutionary movements worldwide.

Here's one of many loathsome examples. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/kissinger/docs/06-13.htm) Mao and Deng discussing with Ford and Kissinger how to jointly intervene against newly independent Angola. Both aided the FNLA and UNITA contra groups, which were the puppets of the Zairean dictatorship and South African apartheid regime. Mao drew the line at being openly allied with South Africa, since he was still trying to maintain some influence with left-oriented African regimes and guerilla groups...but the PRC did in fact arm South Africa's clients.

Also of interest in that document is Mao's close relationship with the Mobutu dictatorship in Zaire, through which aid to the FNLA was channeled. Zaire also directly invaded Angola with its own troops, accompanied by U.S. and Chinese advisors.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Right!

And don't forget about the quasi-fascist Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines that was supported by the PRC under Mao!

[Xiao Banfa]

The reason I opened this thread is because I would really like to hear a Maoist actually explain away this shit- by actually tackling the facts.

Maoists are usually so vague and platitudinal. Why did the pre 76 leadership do these things, oh followers of Mao Zedong/Gonzalo whatever thought?

[celticfire]

I would have to agree (and Avakian does too) that the PRC had some messed up foreign aliances.

Here is a thread on another board about Mao and Nixon:

AWIP: Nixon & Mao (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=1107077897)

[celticfire]

I think it is also very important to remember that red China was very isolated internationally and emerged from the Cultural Revolution seeking to build international ties. This isn't wrong, but unfortuntely they didn't always pick the best ties...and this deserves critcism....

[Xiao Banfa]

Thanks.
I can see where you're coming from but I just can't se why (ever since China split from most of the international communist movement) they had to be so consistently incorrect in their foreign policy.

[Hiero]

The foriegn policy of the USSR after Stalin is considered as social imperialist. Regardless of the effort of Maoist internationalism, Soviet "internationalism" wasn't all that great for the client countries. The result was that these countreis agreed to Soviet demands which did not help this countries. There is a good article that explains this with regards to Cuba, but i can't find it. Basically it is most evident in Cuba because the Soviet Union found it profitable for Cuba to trade mostly in sugar. This resulted in and today is still evident with nutrition problems in Cuba caused by development in sugar industries of "liberation" is common with US imperialism that results in useless traing.

With Mao meeting Nixion, Australia had the year before opened diplomatic relations with China. This is just basic politics, China was not offically recognised by Australia and the USA before this.

I do not know how much support China gave for revolution around the world and support against the US imperialist and the social imperialist USSR. It is clear they gave support for national liberation in Korea and Vietnam and today it is Maoist who lead succesfully revolutions in the 3rd world.

[celticfire]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 29 2005, 05:17 AM
Thanks.
I can see where you're coming from but I just can't se why (ever since China split from most of the international communist movement) they had to be so consistently incorrect in their foreign policy.
I think Hiero is right. China may have gotten some of their diplomatic relations wrong; but the Soviet Union purposefully aided reactionaries. This much is evident. If you hapen to read From Ike to Mao, Bob Avakian talks about how it was wrong for the RU (Revolutionary Union forerunner of the RCP) to uncritically accept the PRC's relations with reactionaries. The RU criticized itself and moved on.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

China may have gotten some of their diplomatic relations wrong; but the Soviet Union purposefully aided reactionaries.

Marcos wasn't reactionary??

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:33 AM
I think it is also very important to remember that red China was very isolated internationally and emerged from the Cultural Revolution seeking to build international ties. This isn't wrong, but unfortuntely they didn't always pick the best ties...and this deserves critcism....
It is a fact that foregin policies is nothing more than a continuation of the country's domestic policies. If you look at how anti-Marxist these foregin policies were, it is not hard to picture the internernal conditions of the "P"RC.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:22 AM
China may have gotten some of their diplomatic relations wrong; but the Soviet Union purposefully aided reactionaries.
If anything, China was more open in supporting right-wingers. The USSR at least tended to ally with liberal, social-democratic and Third World left-nationalist bourgeois forces. Alliances which were not repugnant in and of themselves, but rather in the betrayal of revolution for the sake of those alliances.

The USSR was never as openly reactionary as Mao in its foreign policy, except during the Stalin-Hitler pact.

"Lenin i Stalin" is, amazingly, dead right in pointing out that foreign policy is the continuation of domestic policy.

Bureaucratic regimes always seek an accomodation with the capitalists - "peaceful coexistence". In the early period of the PRC, the capitalists were unwilling to make such an accomodation, and hoped to destroy the PRC. It was in the national interests of the PRC bureaucracy to resist this, for example by intervening in the Korean War as MacArthur's troops approached the Yalu River.

That was an objectively progressive act, but internationalism had nothing to do with it! Rather, the regime had reason to fear that U.S. troops on its border threatened its national existence....particularly with the kind of talk coming from MacArthur as well as many U.S. politicians at the time.

Even during this period, Beijing-influenced parties internationally did not follow a revolutionary course. The largest of them, the Indonesian CP, followed a reformist course of support to the left-nationalist bourgeois regime of Sukarno...resulting in the coup by Suharto and one of the biggest and bloodiest defeats of the working class in world history. The Maoists have never made any half-honest accounting of this defeat.

And when the U.S. was willing to make a deal with the PRC, of course Mao jumped at it. In pursuit of the same narrow national interests of the bureaucracy that had always governed PRC policy.

Despite the excuses put forward by Celticfire and Hiero, this cannot be explained as the "mistakes" of a communist regime. No communist worthy of the name can sell out the world revolution in exchange for better relations with the imperialists...much less conspire with the imperialists against the world revolution, as the link I gave shows Mao doing!

So you still haven't really answered Tino's question. I think I have, though.

[Reds]

South Africa! The meeting with nixon can was bad enough but siding with a not only imperialist state but an openly white supremisist one is there anthing that is more aginst mao zedong thought? It would have been interessting if china hade sent actual millitary forces to angola then we might have seen a China vs Cuba scanerio.

[Xiao Banfa]

I'll definately agree with those Maoist folks that revolution is most sucessfull (and class struggle at it's sharpest) in countries where the revolutionary movement is under Maoist-type Marxist-Leninist leadership (The party I'm in is a member of the ILPS- a Maoist International).

But Mao really went crazy after awhile. Power became his ultimate concern.
Why else would he indirectly support so many reactionaries.

The face of "Soviet Social-Imperialism" was really characterized by so many popular, VEHEMENTLY anti-US Imperialist movements- The New Jewel Movement, The FMLN, Cuba, the Chilean Popular Front, the Sandinistas, the MPLA, the ANC,
post-79 Vietnam, Jacobo Arbenz's government in Guatemala, Socialist Congo and there are many others.

All of this is was done in a period of supposed revisionism. Couldn't Mao, if he wanted to save face, have said: "now Kruschev is no longer in power, let's have a strategic alliance with the USSR" he could have done that in 1964.
Imagine how much more empowered the progressive forces of the world would be now.

I think the real reason is that he didn't want his hegemony to be challenged.

However, the reason I'm banging on about this is because it relates to today.
Let's not take a step backwards. Consolidate the gains against imperialism.
Support a seriously Marxist-Leninist struggle like the Peoples wars in Nepal and the Phillipines but also support progressive left-nationalists like Hugo Chavez (who I wouldn't call a marxist; he's rather more in the tradition of Arbenz and Nasser).
We can't afford to lose any ground against imperialism!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:59 AM
today it is Maoist who lead succesfully revolutions in the 3rd world.
Really? Can you name a single victorious revolution led by Maoists - other than China's?

[Reds]

Were it not Maoists who destroyed the burkino faso revolution.

[Hiero]

I don't actually know what to make of the conversation with Mao and Ford. I'm actually not going to make anythign of it, i don't know and don't trust Severian to know the history of the PRC foreign policy. It is most likely Mao was playing Ford rather then telling him the PRC's intentions. I doubt that the PRC during Mao gave support to right wing forces.


Really? Can you name a single victorious revolution led by Maoists - other than China's?

The revolution in Nepal is so far succesfull. In Peru and Phillipines they have managed to build up enough to sustains themselves and do not face threat for complete destruction. The Maoist revolutions are the greatest threat for US imperialism.

[RedStarOverChina]

I think you guys are forgeting something here.

At the time, a full blown war between the USSR and the PRC was not unlikely. The Soviet Union for a period of time place 1 million troops around USSR-PRC border.

USSR was a much greater threat to China than US ever was.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:23 PM
I think you guys are forgeting something here.

At the time, a full blown war between the USSR and the PRC was not unlikely. The Soviet Union for a period of time place 1 million troops around USSR-PRC border.

USSR was a much greater threat to China than US ever was.
And who's fault was that? You can't laud Mao for getting them out of a mess when he got them into it in the first place.

[celticfire]

Originally posted by Bolshevist+Nov 29 2005, 04:02 PM--> (Bolshevist @ Nov 29 2005, 04:02 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 03:33 AM
I think it is also very important to remember that red China was very isolated internationally and emerged from the Cultural Revolution seeking to build international ties. This isn't wrong, but unfortuntely they didn't always pick the best ties...and this deserves critcism....
It is a fact that foregin policies is nothing more than a continuation of the country's domestic policies. If you look at how anti-Marxist these foregin policies were, it is not hard to picture the internernal conditions of the "P"RC. [/b]
Bolshevist: First of all, that's a very mechanical view, and not very materialist. Secondly, Mao, I am sure is part responsible for the bad ties, but he didn't make those decisions on his own, that's not how the PRC operated.

CompaneroDeLibertad: Marcos was very reactionary, the (socialist) PRC deserves criticism for this. But you it seems uncritically support Cuba - have you no criticism of their past reactionary ties?

Tino Rangatiratanga: Mao was only concerned with his own personal power, that is what the capitalists have written about them. If you are reffering to the Cultural Revolution, I suggest you read this (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=h&action=display&thread=1118773078) by William Hinton. That was a mass struggle from below that attempted to further democratize the government and Party, and mobolize the masses while doing it. It was a truly great event.

In a speech at the 1999 Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City, William Hinton explained that the method of the Cultural Revolution was to "mobiliz[e] the common people to seize power from below in order to establish new representative leading bodies, democratically elected organs of power." All over China, tens of thousands of revolutionary committees in factories, farms, and schools were built. Inspired by Mao's vision, people developed other socialist new things that revolutionized society, such as barefoot doctors in the countryside, and cultural works based on the rich life experiences of China’s workers and peasants.

Mao understood that the Cultural Revolution was a high-stakes battle to prevent the emergence of state capitalism in China. He had studied the political economy and social relations in the Soviet Union and was convinced that capitalism had been restored there. Ultimately Mao and his allies failed, but that does not mean that they shouldn’t have launched this historic struggle. Writing in the early 1970s, Hinton made a profound observation: "socialist revolution is much more complex and difficult than most revolutionaries have hitherto supposed, that the seizure of power...is only the first step in a protracted revolutionary process...."

Did you mention the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Look, the PRC had a line that went like this: whatever the Soviet Union does, we will do the opposite. It was a very wrong, undialectical line. I am not defending the mistake, but the people that made the mistake.

[celticfire]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Dec 1 2005, 01:48 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Dec 1 2005, 01:48 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 01:23 PM
I think you guys are forgeting something here.

At the time, a full blown war between the USSR and the PRC was not unlikely. The Soviet Union for a period of time place 1 million troops around USSR-PRC border.

USSR was a much greater threat to China than US ever was.
And who's fault was that? You can't laud Mao for getting them out of a mess when he got them into it in the first place. [/b]
How was that Mao's fault that the Soviet Union might invade? Is it Mao's fault the Soviet Union was so devious and brutal as to do that? This is absurd.

[Andy Bowden]

Maoist chinas activities in supporting the forces of apartheid in SA, such as the FNLA are evidence of how "revolutionary" the regime was - and why "revisionism" is mostly a boogeyman created to dissuade people from the errors of Maoism and Stalinism.

Im also quite amazed how Maoists can call Castro a revisionist and a traitor to Marxism, when he sent Cubans to fight and die against an apartheid regime and its Contra allies.


BTW I also heard that Mao had relations with Pinochets Chile. Any sources?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:09 AM
I don't actually know what to make of the conversation with Mao and Ford. I'm actually not going to make anythign of it, i don't know and don't trust Severian to know the history of the PRC foreign policy.
Heh. You don't have to trust me. That's why I linked the document. But apparently you don't trust your own eyes either!



Really? Can you name a single victorious revolution led by Maoists - other than China's?

The revolution in Nepal is so far succesfull. In Peru and Phillipines they have managed to build up enough to sustains themselves and do not face threat for complete destruction. The Maoist revolutions are the greatest threat for US imperialism.

In other words, no, you can't name one.

And in Peru the Shining Path has been destroyed. The last thing anyone posted here about it...was an attack by some of its veterans demanding a better retirement plan from the government!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:23 AM
I think you guys are forgeting something here.

At the time, a full blown war between the USSR and the PRC was not unlikely. The Soviet Union for a period of time place 1 million troops around USSR-PRC border.

USSR was a much greater threat to China than US ever was.
Which, of course, ignores the question: which was the biggest enemy of the world revolution? Obviously the U.S. And secondly Mao's regime! (During the period we're discussing.)

If Mao was a communist, his political course could not start with China's national interests in a petty border dispute! But rather with the world....

And what's more, Maoists worldwide decided their political course based on the Chinese national interest you identify, not based on the world revolution...

Even if Mao's actions could be justified, how could that course be justified for Maoists worldwide?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:00 AM
CompaneroDeLibertad: Marcos was very reactionary, the (socialist) PRC deserves criticism for this. But you it seems uncritically support Cuba - have you no criticism of their past reactionary ties?
Such as? Maoists (like Flyby) typically complain that Cuba committed some awful, reactionary deed by intervening in Angola against South Africa, the U.S., and the Mao and Mobutu regimes, and their FNLA and UNITA clients...on the contrary, this was a great example of revolutionary internationalism.

Maoists further complain, echoing Kissinger, that Cuba was acting as "mercenaries" of the "Soviet empire" by doing this...historical fact now shows the opposite, that Cuba responded to the MPLA's request for aid without even informing the USSR in advance. The USSR was surprised and, initially, displeased. See the book Conflicting Missions by Piero Gliejeses for details and facts from the declassified documents of several countries.

There has never been a case where Cuba has sold out the interests of the world revolution for its narrow national interests as Mao did. There has never been a case where Cuba has aided right-wing regimes like Marcos' and imperialist powers like the U.S. against workers and national liberation struggles, as Mao did.

It is necessary to distinguish between mistakes and betrayals. Cuba has made mistakes. Mao committed gross, obvious betrayals.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:09 AM
Right!

And don't forget about the quasi-fascist Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines that was supported by the PRC under Mao!
are you sure you have your facts straight? i thought Marcos was supported by the USSR and pro-Moscow Communists in the Philippines.

[Janus]

I believe that Mao was a bit vain and prideful when he tried to establish his superiority over the Soviets after the death of Stalin. He should have united with the Soviets and appeased them without trying to assert himself as the leader of the communist world. Had this occured the union between China and the USSR would've terrified the Western capitalists. However, this was not to be as one can see by the many times that the USSR and China opposed each other directly and indirectly.

[RedStarOverChina]

And who's fault was that? You can't laud Mao for getting them out of a mess when he got them into it in the first place.
He didn't "create" the mess. There were conflicts between the Soviet Union and the CCP way before the establishment of PRC. It could no longer be contained by the time Kruschev came to power.

He should have united with the Soviets and appeased them without trying to assert himself as the leader of the communist world.
I don't think he was stupid enough to think that way. He merely resisted against Soviet Imperialism. The Soviet Union tried to make a satellite state out of China ---and Mao did not like that at all.

China fought hard against US and Japanese imperialism. What was the purpose of all that if she only ends up submiting herself to Soviet imperialism?


Which, of course, ignores the question: which was the biggest enemy of the world revolution? Obviously the U.S. And secondly Mao's regime! (During the period we're discussing.)


Thats an outrageous exaggeration. So according to you, anyone who opposes Soviet imperialism is automatically "super reactionary"? I do not agree with China's appeasement with the US. But I also do not agree with complaining about China's "betrayal" by upholding Soviet Imperialism as somehow righteous and "unrebelable". If anything, Soviet imperialism was as reactionary as US imperialism.


If Mao was a communist, his political course could not start with China's national interests in a petty border dispute! But rather with the world....
The border dispute merely tiggered the confrontation. It was NOT the cause of it. The real cause of it being soviet imperialism.

[Themaoistthinker]

The Soviets didn't really care about spreading revolution, they were interested in controlling the globe. The revisionists were a new class of imperialists. The Soviets Invaded Afghanistan against the popular will of the Afghan people, basically to get the oil. The Soviets betrayed Che Guevara by having the Communist Party of Bolivia denounce him, rather than support him, leaving him stranded with no support among the masses, ready to be destroyed by the CIA. The Soviets were a new empire, and U.S. Imperialism's enemy.

Mao made many forgiegn policy mistakes, but he did this because the PRC was desperately in need of allies in a world with an ever shrinking socialist camp.

[Hiero]

In other words, no, you can't name one.

No, they are all moving in a succesfull movement. There is no other Communist Revolution that is having as much success as the Maoist revolution.


And in Peru the Shining Path has been destroyed. The last thing anyone posted here about it...was an attack by some of its veterans demanding a better retirement plan from the government

Yes it seems they are becoming a spent force, however you shouldn't believe everything you hear, i doubt they will be totally destroyed.


There has never been a case where Cuba has sold out the interests of the world revolution for its narrow national interests as Mao did. There has never been a case where Cuba has aided right-wing regimes like Marcos' and imperialist powers like the U.S. against workers and national liberation struggles, as Mao did.


Cuba has supported the Monarch of Nepals move to absolute power. I have also read that Cuba continued regular politics with Argentina during Pinochet.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:04 PM
The Soviets didn't really care about spreading revolution, they were interested in controlling the globe.
They were neither. Their motives were basically similar to Mao's, which I discussed earlier. For the simple reason that both had a similar economic basis. Both were apparatchik regimes ruling over nationalized economies after the bureaucratic degeneration of a workers' and peasants' revolution.

Both sought, above all, to be left alone, aka "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism. A basically isolationist approach.

-
The Soviets Invaded Afghanistan against the popular will of the Afghan people, basically to get the oil.

There is no oil in Afghanistan. Sorry.

In fact, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they feared a U.S-supported regime would rise to power otherwise. Like other acts of Soviet aggression, it was aimed at ensuring the USSR was ringed by "buffer states" that would guard its borders. See above, isolationist approach.

Afghan Maoists allied with the rightist, fundamentalist, CIA-supported Mujahedeen against the government of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, which for all its numerous faults took more progressive measures than any other government in Afghan history. But it was pro-Soviet, and anything pro-Soviet was bad and anything anti-Soviet was good.

RAWA, with its Maoist origin, is today still bragging about this course of action and how it proves they're true Afghan patriots.


The Soviets betrayed Che Guevara by having the Communist Party of Bolivia denounce him, rather than support him, leaving him stranded with no support among the masses, ready to be destroyed by the CIA.

Why yes. The USSR and its franchise CPs - like the PRC and its Communist Party of Indonesia - typically acted as social traitors, as reformist betrayers within the working-class movement. This is different from being open enemies of revolutionary movements.

Mao, in the last years of his rule, took this a step further, by openly allying with U.S. imperialism and its right-wing client regimes against all kinds of revolutionary movements. If the USSR had acted in the 60s like Mao did in the 70s, it would not merely have sponsored parties like the Bolivian CP which refused to aid Che's guerilla...it would have actively aided the Bolivian dictatorship.

As Celticfire admits:

Look, the PRC had a line that went like this: whatever the Soviet Union does, we will do the opposite.

Exactly! And the Soviet Union, for its own reasons, aided a lot of revolutonary movements in the world.

So the PRC lined up against all of them, aiding the rightist regimes.

The PRC preferred all the most anti-Soviet forces in the world...which typically meant the most rightist forces.

Is this a "mistake" that a communist regime could ever make? No. What class interests would lead a government to follow such a course of action? Clearly not the interests of the world working class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by fats+Dec 1 2005, 09:17 PM--> (fats @ Dec 1 2005, 09:17 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 03:09 AM
Right!

And don't forget about the quasi-fascist Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines that was supported by the PRC under Mao!
are you sure you have your facts straight? i thought Marcos was supported by the USSR and pro-Moscow Communists in the Philippines. [/b]
I'm possitive.

You thought wrong.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Dec 2 2005, 09:48 AM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Dec 2 2005, 09:48 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:17 PM

[email protected] 29 2005, 03:09 AM
Right!

And don't forget about the quasi-fascist Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines that was supported by the PRC under Mao!
are you sure you have your facts straight? i thought Marcos was supported by the USSR and pro-Moscow Communists in the Philippines.
I'm possitive.

You thought wrong. [/b]
got a source?

[Xiao Banfa]

Che Guevara went into the jungle with a tiny handful of guerillas. He had no support among the workers or peasantry.
He wanted a millitary-style revolution. The Bolivia adventure was stupid. Read John Lee Andersons' Che biography.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:37 PM
Cuba has supported the Monarch of Nepals move to absolute power. I have also read that Cuba continued regular politics with Argentina during Pinochet.
False and false. On the second one, maybe you meant to say Chile instead of Argentina and China instead of Cuba? 'Cause Mao did maintain normal relations with Pinochet, and the Chinese embassy in Chile was one of only two which turned away refugees fleeing Pinochet's bloodbath immediately after the coup.

As Celticfire says, anything the Soviets were against, Mao was for...including Pinochet.

[poetofrageX]

Tino, I wouldn't go so far as to call the Bolivian Campaign stupid, in fact, it could have been succesful if the Bolivian Communist Party had provided the support it promised, instead of leaving Che stranded in the jungle.

On another note, i thin the whole Sino-Soviet split was a stupid mistake on both sides, the pointless bickering between the two socialist superpowers played right into the hands of the U.S. What we needed at that time was unity between the revolutionary movements of the world. Significant mistakes were definately made on both sides.

[Xiao Banfa]

The problem with the Bolivian Campaign is that they went off with no peasant or worker support. I don't think an orthodox communist party like the Bolivian one would be of much use- so whether they supported the campaign or not, it doesn't matter.
Che should have actually tried to do some agitating amongst the peasants and workers-this did not take place.

Sorry for branching off into this-we should get back into Mao.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 5 2005, 12:50 AM
The problem with the Bolivian Campaign is that they went off with no peasant or worker support.
That's not so accurate. In fact, they did consider the political situation in Bolivia carefully, and there were people involved with the guerilla attempt who in fact had been "agitating" for many years...members of the Bolivian CP who continued their involvement despite the party leadership's betrayal.

See the book Fertile Ground by Rodolfo Saldana, who was head of the underground support network for the guerilla, for details.

The issue with the Bolivian CP is they promised support, then withdrew it at the last minute. If they'd never promised their support, that could not be called a betrayal.

And if they'd given their support as promised, that would have made a significant difference in terms of the political base of the guerrillas.

[Xiao Banfa]

I'll look into it. But I'd heard Anderson describe it as a Foco-type operation.
That's why Regis Debray was so into it. Anyway it's no good discussing this if I can't be conclusive. Back to Mao!

[Xiao Banfa]

However, the true character of the 'Cultural Revolution' has been brilliantly analysed by the Albanian Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha:
"The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and, in particular, not in the least proletarian".
(Enver Hoxha: 'Imperialism and the Revolution' (April 1978), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Tirana; 1985; p. 655).
According to Hoxha, it was a struggle between two revisionist factions within the Chinese Communist Party -- headed respectively by Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi:
"The Chinese 'Cultural Revolution' was a factional fight between the group of Mao and that of Liu Shao-chi. Neither the working class . . . nor the peasantry . . . took part in it".
(Enver Hoxha: 'The Chinese Strategy is suffering Fiasco' (December 1976), in: 'Reflections on China', Volume 2; Tirana; p. 391).
At the time of the onset of the 'Cultural Revolution', the leadership of the the Communist Party of China was pursuing an anti-imperialist political line, directed in particular against US imperialism:
"US imperialism is the chief bulwark of world reaction and an international gendarme..
The international proletariat must and can . . . establish the broadest united front against the US imperialists and their lackeys".
(Central Committee of the Communist Party of China: Letter in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 (June 1963), in: 'A Proposal concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement'; Peking; 1963; p. 12).
In 1966, the Party and state machinery of China were dominated by the anti-American faction headed by Liu Shao-chi:
"The Party had slipped from his (Mao's -- Ed.) grasp. Everything there was in the grip of the General Office, which Liu Shao-chi had firmly in his grasp".
(Enver Hoxha: 'What is the General Office in China?' (September 1977), in: op. cit.; p. 621).
However, the faction headed by Mao, which had become:
"the pro-American faction",
(Enver Hoxha: 'It seems that the Pro-American Faction will triumph' (January 1977), in: op. cit.; p. 400).
". . . wanted to establish links with the Americans. . . . . This is how the 'Cultural Revolution' began".
(Enver Hoxha: 'Chinese Puzzle, Maoist Confusion' (February 1976), in: ibid.; p, 225).

In these circumstances:
" . . . Mao was left with only one course: he had to seize power again. In order to do this, he had to rely on the 'romantic' youth who 'worshipped' Mao, and on Lin Piao, whom he made his deputy -- that is, he had to rely on the army".
(Enver Hoxha: 'Neither the Party nor the State of the Proletariat are operating in China' (June 1970), in: ibid.; p. 254-55).
In the course of this 'Cultural Revolution':
"the Party was liquidated".
(Enver Hoxha: 'The Chinese are not propagating the Correct Line of our Party' (January 1976), in: ibid.; p. 209).
Thus, in no way can the 'Cultural Revolution' be considered as an attempt by Mao to correct his revisionist mistakes. It was a factional struggle between the anti-US faction within the Party headed by Liu Shao-chi and the pro-US faction headed by Mao Tse-tung. The victory of the latter was followed by Nixon's visit to China, Chinese support for the Shah of Iran and the US backed FNLA/UNITA in Angola, the Chinese loan to the Chilean junta of Pinochet, etc.
So, if we judge Maoism on the basis of facts and not on that of mere prejudice and wishful thinking, it is clear that MAOISM IS A BRAND OF REVISIONISM DESIGNED TO SERVE THE NATIONAL CAPITALISTS OF COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRIES BY CHECKING THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AT THE STAGE OF NATIONAL-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION AND PREVENTING IT FROM GOING FORWARD TO THE STAGE OF SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.

[Xiao Banfa]

I didn't write that, nor do I completely agree with it.

[RedStarOverChina]

Liu Shaoqi did not have a faction. Liu knew very well that everything Mao gave to him he could take it back. He had NO chance in "struggling" against the "Great Helmsman". He was an unimportant union leader while Mao had been the biggy eveR since the Autumn Harvest Uprising.

Liu "earned" his brownie points by criticizing Mao's enemies. You dont get too many of "loyal" guys like him around.

But I agree that Mao attacked him at least partially due to the fear that he might takeover. But then again, the Red Guard fought against EVERYTHING...Even Mao's "own factions"(if there was such a thing).

Other than that, maybe we oughtta know if Enver Hoxha wrote his work before or AFTER the Sino-Albanian Emotional Breakdown.

My guess is that it's done AFTER it.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Severian+Dec 5 2005, 02:45 PM--> (Severian @ Dec 5 2005, 02:45 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 08:37 PM
Cuba has supported the Monarch of Nepals move to absolute power. I have also read that Cuba continued regular politics with Argentina during Pinochet.
False and false. On the second one, maybe you meant to say Chile instead of Argentina and China instead of Cuba? 'Cause Mao did maintain normal relations with Pinochet, and the Chinese embassy in Chile was one of only two which turned away refugees fleeing Pinochet's bloodbath immediately after the coup.

As Celticfire says, anything the Soviets were against, Mao was for...including Pinochet. [/b]
I meant to say Chile.

And you are false, there were media report with quotes from Fidel showing support for the Monarch of Nepal. Cuba also supports Iran and many other countries that are very reactionary.

[Xiao Banfa]

Other than that, maybe we oughtta know if Enver Hoxha wrote his work before or AFTER the Sino-Albanian Emotional Breakdown.


Enver Hoxha started preparing for the split 8 years before it happened (1970) with the knowledge that Mao was beginning a process of complete capitulation to the US. Some of those works were written in 1970.
It sort of makes circumstantial sense.

[RedStarOverChina]

^apparently loads and loads of Chinese aid shut him up. :lol:

If I do recall correctly, the Sino-Albanian relation experienced catastrophic collapse after Deng Xiaoping either reduced or completely cancelled (I forgot which) aid to Albania.

[leftist manson]

[QUOTE]Afghan Maoists allied with the rightist, fundamentalist, CIA-supported Mujahedeen against the government of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan

you have got your record absolutely wrong here severian as the maoist shola-e-javed was the only political force in the country with revolutionary platforms which opposed and fought against the reactionary islamists till the very end and still is slightly active in some parts