Maoists & Cuba

[CubaSocialista]

What is the general consensus of Maoists on Fidel Castro's Cuba? Are they supportive? Is it considered idiotic to support both forms? I know Castro was with the Soviets in the Sino-Soviet Split, though now Castro has warmed up to the Chinese in recent years for economic and military reasons... Even though currently China isn't really socialist at all...

[Severian]

Here you go (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31514)

Why Maoists are still denouncing Cuba as "revisionist" and why this makes no sense at all.

Excerpt:
Why not admit the real reason you Maoists are denouncing Cuba?

1. Mao and Krushev had a petty border dispute.
2. Each side made up a bunch of ideological excuses for that border dispute.
3. Mao decided to break relations with anyone who accepted Soviet aid, and denounce them as puppets of "social-imperialism".

I should add:
4. Maoists today are still stuck in past positions (since Mao isn't around to tell 'em to suddenly reverse everything.) At one time, these positions served the interests of Chinese apparatchiks; today they serve no real purpose at all.

[Salvador Allende]

Nonsense, China is still Socialist and the vast majority of people adhering to Mao Zedong Thought support Cuba and their Socialism. It is only a minority of the ultra-left persuasion, calling themselves "Maoist" who do not support either. I fully support Marxism-Leninism and hence Mao Zedong Thought, which is it's application in China. I also support Cuba and her Socialist road, albeit a quite different road.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 21 2006, 01:40 AM
Nonsense, China is still Socialist and the vast majority of people adhering to Mao Zedong Thought support Cuba and their Socialism. It is only a minority of the ultra-left persuasion, calling themselves "Maoist" who do not support either. I fully support Marxism-Leninism and hence Mao Zedong Thought, which is it's application in China. I also support Cuba and her Socialist road, albeit a quite different road.
I like your thinking.

I do not see any problem between studying and believing in Maoism and supporting Cuba.


As well, as big of a supporter of Maoism I may become, I do disagree with the Sino-Soviet split, as I support both forms of socialism, though I do not oppose Khruschev's policies too much. The only one I have a big problem with is Xiaoping, but I'm a popular frontist; I want socialism, and we can argue of its nature when we've gotten this threat aside.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 20 2006, 07:40 PM
Nonsense, China is still Socialist and the vast majority of people adhering to Mao Zedong Thought support Cuba and their Socialism.
All the Maoist organizations I'm aware of don't. (Can you name some that do?)

Mao himself didn't.

Cuba Socialista wrote:

I do not see any problem between studying and believing in Maoism and supporting Cuba.

As well, as big of a supporter of Maoism I may become, I do disagree with the Sino-Soviet split, as I support both forms of socialism, though I do not oppose Khruschev's policies too much.

The problem you have is: why did Mao declare the USSR, China, and Vietnam to be capitalist, and even the main enemies of the working class? To the point where he allied with U.S. imperialism, and all kinds of rightist forces in the world, against them?

If you call this an error, clearly it's not a minor one. Seems to me it's a betrayal and a crime.

And if you're going to apply a historical materialist method, you have to ask: what class interests was Mao serving with this policy?

Seems to me it was the narrowly nationalistic interests of an bureaucratic caste. Certainly it wasn't the interests of the world working class.

[redstar2000]

Maoists don't like Cuba at all.

And the Cubans returned the favor. I can remember back in 1964 hearing Cubans scornfully dismiss the "new Chinese buses" which overheated and broke down in Cuba's tropical summers. :lol:

It's quite ironic when you stop and think about it; the 26th of July Movement waged a "protracted people's war" based on the peasantry precisely in accordance with Mao's own strategic outlook.

By any reasonable criteria, Castro, et.al., were "soft Maoists".

But I suspect that it was Castro's failure to "kiss the hem of the imperial robe" that alienated the Chinese more than anything else.

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

[chebol]

Oh, of course. The ""protracted people's war" based on the peasantry"....

That would be why the vast majority of MR26J cadre were organising in the cities and towns, where they faced the worst of Batista's police, torturers and spies, and organised the medical, sometimes food, often armament, frequently clothing and other supplies for the guerrilla forces in the sierras. Official July 26 guerrillas numbered in the mere hundreds, the urban cadre numbered in the tens of thousands.

They risked their lives in organising the urban insurrection with sabotage, strikes, assassinations, and other efforts, without which the revolution would never have happened.

To use the term "people's war" is technically correct in the broadest sense, only it is meant by Redstar as a slur. The Cuban people, the vast majority of them, fought against or opposed Batista, and most of those active in the struggle were urban dwellers, not peasants. To continue this myth, that it was the effect of a crumbling regime and a few focoists in the hills, is an insult to the sacrifice of the Cuban people, and to the strategy of Fidel Castro.

So, no, it was certainly NOT
a "protracted people's war" based on the peasantry precisely in accordance with Mao's own strategic outlook.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:55 PM
By any reasonable criteria, Castro, et.al., were "soft Maoists".
Except for the little detail that Maoism is a variety of Stalinism - the rule of a privileged bureaucratic caste.

While in contrast, the July 26th Movement began as revolutionary democrats and ended as communists.

Chebol is also right about the major urban component of the Cuban Revolutionary War. What's more, agricultural wage-workers were a major part of the Cuban rural population, especially in the sugar-producing areas.

Redstar, how have you managed to live so long and learn so little?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by che-bol+--> (che-bol)To use the term "people's war" is technically correct in the broadest sense, only it is meant by Redstar as a slur.[/b]

"Slur"? It's a descriptive term which even you must admit that I used correctly.

So you just want to get in a "dig" at me? :lol:

Yes, there was substantial urban opposition to Batista...no one denies that. And there were urban supporters of the 26th of July movement...providing supplies to the guerrillas -- no one denies that either.

But it was the guerrillas who got the job done!

And nearly all of them were peasants.

Moreover, the peasants joined because Castro made the same promise that Mao made: land to the tillers!

A promise which he delivered on.


Severian
Except for the little detail that Maoism is a variety of Stalinism - the rule of a privileged bureaucratic caste.

And? There's no "bureaucratic caste" in Cuba? Or it's not as "privileged"? Or what?

Are you suggesting that the Cubans chose the USSR over China because the Maoists were "too Stalinist"? :lol:


Redstar, how have you managed to live so long and learn so little?

I have my shortcomings, no question about it. But nevertheless, I think I've managed to outperform all the Trotskyists on this board put together. :D

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

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Besides, as in the early 50's and 60's, the most ardent supporters of the revolutionary regime are still found among the peasantry.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 22 2006, 07:35 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 22 2006, 07:35 AM) But it was the guerrillas who got the job done! [/b]
Define "got the job done". If you mean overthrew the regime, not so simple. No regime has ever been overthrown by guerilla warfare alone...and in Cuba it was urban insurrection and general strike which finished off the regime, and derailed plans to set up some other government in order to keep the revolutionaries from taking power.

In contrast to China, where there was no urban uprising at all...which, among other things, helped Chiang escape to Taiwan with sufficient military forces to perpetuate his regime there. This is because Mao feared any mobilization of the working class - and perceived the cities as sources of corruption and decadence.

Instead, the Chinese guerilla armies made the transition to conventional warfare thanks to Soviet aid, including large amounts of captured Japanese weapons, and Soviet military advisers....


And nearly all of them were peasants.

Source? I've never seen any exact statistics on this...and I seriously doubt you have either.

More likely, you're pulling a "fact" out of thin air, as usual.

Every account of the revolutionary war I've seen talks about young people from the cities finding their way into the Sierra.


Moreover, the peasants joined because Castro made the same promise that Mao made: land to the tillers!

A promise which he delivered on.

You could say the same for the Russian Revolution...or any proletarian revolution.

But there are contrasts between Chinese and Cuban agricultural policy....including no forced collectivization in Cuba.


Severian

Except for the little detail that Maoism is a variety of Stalinism - the rule of a privileged bureaucratic caste.

And? There's no "bureaucratic caste" in Cuba? Or it's not as "privileged"? Or what?

It's far less privileged...and it doesn't rule. I've demonstrated this in detail in past threads, while you've been wholly unable to back up your assertions about Cuban society today.


Are you suggesting that the Cubans chose the USSR over China because the Maoists were "too Stalinist"? :lol:

They didn't "choose the USSR over China" at all. China broke relations with Cuba, not vice versa. Cuba continued to call for unity of the "socialist camp", especially in defense of Vietnam.

But that's beside the point...which is that Cuba does not practice any variant of Maoism, "soft" or otherwise. There is a gulf between Stalinism and communism, and the leadership of the Cuban revolution are communists.


But nevertheless, I think I've managed to outperform all the Trotskyists on this board put together. :D

Define "Trotskyist". Unless it's just one of those meaningless insults like "revisionist."

[RedStarOverChina]

In contrast to China, where there was no urban uprising at all...

Are you joking?

From the famous Nanchang Uprising to the civil war that ended in 1949, urban insurgency was present... My grandfather himself was a urban insurgent who helped to "soften up" the town of Xuzhou for the CPC guerrillas to take over.

Urban uprising wasn't exactly "critical" in the Chinese Revolution but it was certainly present...Just like the Cuban Revolution.

[norwegian commie]

Maoism was the main revolutionary force in Norway during the 70s, all of these rejected Cuba and every other socialist model. "join the capitalistic superpower to overthrow the social-imperialists and then grow a new and functioning communist society out of its ashes. Then when China worked together with the foe, the maoists became one of the most reactionary forces in Norway at the time. (thats saying aa lot! since the goverment had the commies by the balls. The maoists worked AGAINST the people they had sopported and sabotasjed strikes and demonstrations. This is not a pfenomenen special in norway, but in all maoist enviroments at (at least) that time.

Now the maoists are mostly social-democrats and rightists

They sabotasjed all of the other communist parties during that time resulting to a propaganda war that killed the norwegian left, and gave it a rumor i am not found of.

[Severian]

Thanks, Norwegian Commie. That's the kind of thing which happened worldwide...and why this can't just be brushed aside.

As I said earlier: "And if you're going to apply a historical materialist method, you have to ask: what class interests was Mao serving with this policy?"


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:51 AM

In contrast to China, where there was no urban uprising at all...

Are you joking?

From the famous Nanchang Uprising to the civil war that ended in 1949, urban insurgency was present... My grandfather himself was a urban insurgent who helped to "soften up" the town of Xuzhou for the CPC guerrillas to take over.

Urban uprising wasn't exactly "critical" in the Chinese Revolution but it was certainly present...Just like the Cuban Revolution.
Yeah, I was referring specifically to 1949. Of course if you look at other periods urban uprisings were a larger factor, the major factor in 1927! Which is when the Nanchang Uprising apparently occurred, a rebellion by Kuomintang troops in that city.

There were also workers' uprisings in Guangdong and Shanghai....it's kinda funny you don't mention those instead. The CCP seems to play those down now, perhaps because the CCP's policy during this period led to a hideous, bloody defeat of the Chinese working class.

Maybe I was exagerating even as to 1949...I may have done a Redstar and shot my mouth off about something I know little about.

But what do you mean by "insurgency"? Urban guerilla action, or a mass uprising?

In any case, all the histories of the Chinese Revolution I've seen say the primary way the Chinese Revolution triumphed was by peasant armies marching on the cities. There was a larger element of urban uprising and general strike in the Cuban Revolution.

[Salvador Allende]

The Communist Party of China, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Workers Party of Belgium, Freedom Road Socialist Organization (USA), New Communist Party of Britain. All are deeply influenced by Mao Zedong Thought and fully support it or retain it as part of their official ideology and support Cuba wholeheartedly.

The vast majority of people adhering to Mao Zedong Thought are in China and the stance of the Communist Party of China and the People's Republic of China is supportive of Cuba.

Cuba herself is a Socialist country and should be supported as such, the Sino-Soviet split was a disaster, Chairman Mao went into it with the right reasoning and was correct, but he made many errors after the Split which hurt China and it's people. Both sides did much wrong, but I am certainly more supportive of China than the USSR.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 22 2006, 02:56 PM
The Communist Party of China, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Workers Party of Belgium, Freedom Road Socialist Organization (USA), New Communist Party of Britain. All are deeply influenced by Mao Zedong Thought and fully support it or retain it as part of their official ideology and support Cuba wholeheartedly.

The vast majority of people adhering to Mao Zedong Thought are in China and the stance of the Communist Party of China and the People's Republic of China is supportive of Cuba.
Most people would not consider the CCP today as Maoist, since Mao's factional opponents eventually got control of it.

If I were to use that as an example of Maoism, most Maoists would justifiably say this was an unfair argument against them - saddling them with responsibility for their opponents' actions.


but he made many errors after the Split which hurt China and it's people.

Is that all you have to say to the points I made? How can siding with U.S. imperialism and rightist forces all over the world be called merely "errors"? How about a little historical materialism here?

[Janus]

In any case, all the histories of the Chinese Revolution I've seen say the primary way the Chinese Revolution triumphed was by peasant armies marching on the cities. There was a larger element of urban uprising and general strike in the Cuban Revolution.
Much of the urban communist infrastructure and network had been wiped out in 1927 by Jiang Jieshi. Basically, the communists thought that the Guomindang were still on their side so they were taken completely off guard. So it wasn't really the CCP's policies that caused it. This was when the urban communists began losing influence to rural leaders like Mao who were calling for a focus on the rural areas.


There were also workers' uprisings in Guangdong and Shanghai....it's kinda funny you don't mention those instead. The CCP seems to play those down now, perhaps because the CCP's policy during this period led to a hideous, bloody defeat of the Chinese working class.
There were strong worker's movements in those cities but they were wiped out in surprise attacks by Jiang's soldiers and members of the Green Gang.


Instead, the Chinese guerilla armies made the transition to conventional warfare thanks to Soviet aid, including large amounts of captured Japanese weapons, and Soviet military advisers....
The Soviets didn' t think that the communists wouldn't succedd until close to the end of the war. They turned over Japanese weapons but they didn't provide much aid beyond that. Their military advisors may have been helpful during the Northern Expedition but not during the Civil War.


There was a larger element of urban uprising and general strike in the Cuban Revolution.
How much larger? It seems that Castro and his army marched on the cities as well. There was probably a larger element of urban uprising but this is because the communist network was decimated in China and the Guomindang were able to take harsh action due to their strong presence in the cities particularly later on. Besides, the Guomindang fled from many of the cities since this was around the later stages of the Civil War when the Guomindang hopes for victory were pretty much gone.

[bezdomni]

China is still Socialist
How did you arrive at this conclusion?

The socialist tendencies of China are few and far between.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 04:44 PM
Basically, the communists thought that the Guomindang were still on their side so they were taken completely off guard. So it wasn't really the CCP's policies that caused it.
That's precisely the CCP policy I was talking about. Or one of them. Then they did a 180 degree turn and called for uprisings in Canton and Shanghai which had no chance of winning.

[RedStarOverChina]

Yeah, I was referring specifically to 1949. Of course if you look at other periods urban uprisings were a larger factor, the major factor in 1927! Which is when the Nanchang Uprising apparently occurred, a rebellion by Kuomintang troops in that city.


There were also workers' uprisings in Guangdong and Shanghai....it's kinda funny you don't mention those instead. The CCP seems to play those down now, perhaps because the CCP's policy during this period led to a hideous, bloody defeat of the Chinese working class.

I mentioned the Nanchang Uprising of 1927 because it is without a doubt the single most important urban uprising in the Chinese Revolution. A huge number of communist leaders rose out of that historic event: Zhu De, Lin Biao, Zhou En-lai and more. Together with the peasant from the Autumn Harvest Uprising, they WERE the Communist Party back then.


I know that wikipedia says it's a "rebellion of the KMT troops"...but they were KMT only in name. Most leaders were both members of those troops had both membership of the Communist Party and that of the KMT. Communists were encouraged to work with the Bourgeoisie nationalists to fight against warlords and what was left of feudalism...Until when the KMT started massacring the communists, of course. That's when the communists launched the Nanchang Uprising.

The Nanchang Uprising did start as a military rebellion...But it's not a single event. The rebels turned south and organized workers along the way. Its strategy was to find support from the workers, not the peasants. And they did receive much support in cities like Shantou.


From the famous Nanchang Uprising to the civil war that ended in 1949, urban insurgency was present...
By this I meant to say was that urban uprisings cover the entire course of the Chinese Revolution.


It's impossible that urban uprisings didn't exist if you think about it. It was a turbulant time even in the cities.



But what do you mean by "insurgency"? Urban guerilla action, or a mass uprising?

In any case, all the histories of the Chinese Revolution I've seen say the primary way the Chinese Revolution triumphed was by peasant armies marching on the cities. There was a larger element of urban uprising and general strike in the Cuban Revolution.


My grandfather was one of the organizers of underground resistance in the city of Xuzhou under Japanese occupation---and later on organized a strike with the union leaders (he was primarily a student organizer) before and during the communist siege of the city (late 1948). It got more violent at the end and they managed to arm a considerable number of workers and hung quite a few military policemen.

Then they welcomed the Guerrilla fighters into the city, got drunk, played poker and lived happily ever after. :)

Well, not the last part.

Anyways it's almost without a doubt that the CPC had had "cells" or members in every Chinese city by 1945. Their part was not absolutely essential but they did in fact, exist.

I think it was probably the same in Cuba.

[321zero]

Basically, the communists thought that the Guomindang were still on their side so they were taken completely off guard. So it wasn't really the CCP's policies that caused it.

That's precisely the CCP policy I was talking about. Or one of them. Then they did a 180 degree turn and called for uprisings in Canton and Shanghai which had no chance of winning.

I think it was more the Cominterns policy, forced upon the CCP. At this point the Comintern was already bent into a tool of Soviet foreign policy, and their first concern was to get the KMT onside.

There were critics of this suicidal policy at the time.

....oooo0000DRUM-ROLL000ooo...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...china/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/china/index.htm)

p.s. The 180 degree shift from popular-frontism in the late 20's to 'third-period social fascist' ultra-leftism was transperently geared to the USSR's foreign policy requirements

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:25 AM
I mentioned the Nanchang Uprising of 1927 because it is without a doubt the single most important urban uprising in the Chinese Revolution.
Well, if the most important uprising was in 1927....that does imply something.

I didn't actually know about Nanchang, and I can see where that is important to the origins of the guerilla war...but Canton and Shanghai may have been more important in fact, in the impact of the defeat which others in this thread have described.


My grandfather was one of the organizers of underground resistance in the city of Xuzhou under Japanese occupation---and later on organized a strike with the union leaders (he was primarily a student organizer) before and during the communist siege of the city (late 1948). It got more violent at the end and they managed to arm a considerable number of workers and hung quite a few military policemen.

Then they welcomed the Guerrilla fighters into the city, got drunk, played poker and lived happily ever after. :)

Well, not the last part.

Anyways it's almost without a doubt that the CPC had had "cells" or members in every Chinese city by 1945. Their part was not absolutely essential but they did in fact, exist.

Okay, thanks. In light of that I was exaggerating, and shooting off my mouth about something which I had...a medium amount of knowledge about. I'm glad to learn some more detail. This is an important question for understanding the Chinese Revolution, if it wasn't a purely peasant phenom either.

But compared to what you describe, the urban element was larger in Cuba; one, the urban underground's role in aiding the rural guerilla armies. Two, it was mass uprisings which actually took the cities, beginning with Santa Clara; the guerilla columns were part of that battle but relatively small in size. 'Course it was all possible 'cause Batista's army had begun to disintegrate.

I have the impression there were no national general strikes in the Chinese Revolution, either. There were 3 in Cuba IIRC; one of them failed which was a major setback and created the conditions for a Batista counterattack against the Sierra.

[chebol]

Redstar is posting jibberish again. ;)
I'll post the stats for peasant involvement in the Rebel Army in a day (not at home ATM). It was miniscule. Most of them were urban 'middle-class' or working class youths who could either no longer afford the risk of the urban struggle or were drawn to the romantic image of the guerrilla.
Also, many guerrillas were not MR26J. There was one group of the Revolutionary Student Directorate (which split into two), and a few other attempts.
The "job" was done via a combination of the propaganda value of an "undefeatable" (but not invincible or militarily victorious) guerrilla and the agitation and activism across the country, in the rural and urban centres, by thousands of cadres of the Movement. Narely a peasant among them.

[rebelworker]

I think cuba is a great example of a fluke that has lead to a failed ideology for many.

It seems like Che et al harvested the rewards of decades of radical labour organising.

After reading the bolivian diaries my suspicions that che was a petty burgeoise adventurist are confirmed. He tried to duplicate an intrinsically flawed model of peasant guerilla party as central to revolution. It is insane how out of touch with the reality of struggle in Bolivia he was, got alotof people killed for nothing(I have heard fidel sent him there to get rid of him, anyone care to comment on this?)

As for China the alost daily rural and factory rebellions, often calling for communism, should be proof enough that china is infact not a progressive model to follow at all.

Two side notes:

" Salvador Allenede", did you know that he was an anti lenninist, with his foundation in revolutionary politics coming from his mentor an Italian refugee anarchits shoe maker( just saw an interesting documentary from france called "Salvador Allende" that is very informative, includes debates with militants arguing the direction they should have taken vis a vi workers militias and independance of the workers mvmnt from the govt).

Second are people aware of the size and influence of anarchism in the cuban labour mvmnt in the 30's-40's and 50's?
Not looking to start a sectarian fight, just currious.

[Hiero]

China supported Cuba in the same way the supported Vietnam. They gave aid to the Cuban revolution. I'll find the reference if you require it.

On the Cuba question i think Maoist have somethings right and somethings wrong. Cuba was an extension of USSR social imperialism. The USSR modeled the Cuban economy so best to benifit USSR interests. While Cuba got a good deal on exporting what the USSR said they should export, thoose benifits were only going to last as long as the USSR survived.

Another criticism i agree with is that Communist Party of Cuba hasn't address the inevitability of a new Bourgioes to grow within the party. Unless Cuba address the bourgeois in the superstructure the bourgeois will win over the Communist Party of Cuba. Every socialist revolution needs some form of cultural revolution.

The things i disagree with the Maoist is their claim that Cuba is no progressive or socialist. Cuba is no enemy to the proleterait, they are just going to make the same mistakte Stalin and Hoxha made.

[Janus]

That's precisely the CCP policy I was talking about. Or one of them. Then they did a 180 degree turn and called for uprisings in Canton and Shanghai which had no chance of winning.
The communists didn't call for uprisings against the Guomindang. In 1927, the Guomindang didn't have much control over those areas yet. Jiang was still focused on the Northern Expedition. The First United Front occured due from pressures from the Comintern. The communists and workers had major influences in those areas and were consolidating support. However, Jiang and the other conservative Guomindang did not want this at all. So the 1927 purge was an attempt to destroy the communists and take power on the part of Jiang. Basically the Guomindang betrayed their allies. After this event, Stalin still wanted the remainder of the communists to stick with the Guomindang since he saw that as their best hope.

[Severian]

Janus, I get the impression you've read an official history which edited out one of the Comintern's policy zigzags.

" Basically the Guomindang betrayed their allies. After this event, Stalin still wanted the remainder of the communists to stick with the Guomindang since he saw that as their best hope."

That's all true. But between the first sentence and the second, there was an ultraleft adventurist zigzag, where the CCP organized the Canton and Shanghai uprisings.

I recommend anything by Trotsky on China for an understanding of the late-20s situation. Or Harold Isaacs, or Peng Shu-Tse.

[TC]

The Cuban government like the Yugoslavians and north Koreans was neither aligned with the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China, they had friendly relations with both countries and were part of the Non-Alignment Movement. Cuba perhaps had stronger ties to the Soviet Union than to China but it was never firmly in its camp to the exclusion of China the way say, Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of Germany were firmly pro-Soviet and Albania and Cambodia were firmly pro-Chinese.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:26 AM
Here you go (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31514)

Why Maoists are still denouncing Cuba as "revisionist" and why this makes no sense at all.

Excerpt:
Why not admit the real reason you Maoists are denouncing Cuba?

1. Mao and Krushev had a petty border dispute.
2. Each side made up a bunch of ideological excuses for that border dispute.
3. Mao decided to break relations with anyone who accepted Soviet aid, and denounce them as puppets of "social-imperialism".

I should add:
4. Maoists today are still stuck in past positions (since Mao isn't around to tell 'em to suddenly reverse everything.) At one time, these positions served the interests of Chinese apparatchiks; today they serve no real purpose at all.
Thought I don't fully agree (you are generalizing) in some ways you are right. These are what I call the dogmatic Maoists.

I persynally support Cuba. One of the reasons I don't completely support the RCP-PCR (the Kanadian version of the RCP) is because of their stupid position on Cuba.

[Janus]

I get the impression you've read an official history which edited out one of the Comintern's policy zigzags.
If you're talking about official as in something published by the CCP itself then no. Did you mean the CPC in that sentence?


That's all true. But between the first sentence and the second, there was an ultraleft adventurist zigzag, where the CCP organized the Canton and Shanghai uprisings.
The Guangzhou Uprising may have been a failure due to the fact that the Guomindang was already actively opposing the Communists and the workers at this time in December of 1927. However, the Shanghai Uprising was successful for a certain period until Jiang and the conservative Guomindang launched their coup on April 12, 1927.


But between the first sentence and the second, there was an ultraleft adventurist zigzag, where the CCP organized the Canton and Shanghai uprisings.
The Shanghai Uprising was the event that I mentioned in the first sentence. The Canton Uprising occured several months after it. What exactly do you mean by ultraleftist? Are you talking about organizing massive worker's movements? Because this is what the CCP was focued on up until 1927 and what the Comintern wanted. The CPC made a 180 turn and switched from a focus on the cities to the countryside after the failures of 1927 due to the destruction of their infrastructure and networks as well as the strong anti-worker and anti-Communist sentiments of Jiang Jieshi and the Guomindang.

[Janus]

What I'm trying to say is that it was the Comintern that pushed the CCP into defeat at the hands of the reactionary forces. The Comintern pressured the CCP into the alliances with the Guomindang and continued to call for it after the anti-worker and anti-Communist attitudes of Jiang Jieshi and the Guomindang were clear. Comintern policy at that time was geared towards worker movements in the cities, something that China wasn't really ready for. Once the white terror campaigns by Jiang ended, the Communist lost the majority of their influence in the cities. This was when new leaders such as Mao began coming into the foreground as Chen Du Xiu and the other urban leaders lost their influence.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:00 PM

I get the impression you've read an official history which edited out one of the Comintern's policy zigzags.
If you're talking about official as in something published by the CCP itself then no. Did you mean the CPC in that sentence?
Any Moscow-oriented or Beijing-oriented party's....since this is an event before their split.


The Guangzhou Uprising may have been a failure due to the fact that the Guomindang was already actively opposing the Communists and the workers at this time in December of 1927.

An odd explanation; all uprisings have to be prepared to contend with the "active opposition" of the people you're rising up against.


However, the Shanghai Uprising was successful for a certain period until Jiang and the conservative Guomindang launched their coup on April 12, 1927.

Then it was crushed; the result of calling the uprising was a bloody defeat for the workers.



But between the first sentence and the second, there was an ultraleft adventurist zigzag, where the CCP organized the Canton and Shanghai uprisings.
The Shanghai Uprising was the event that I mentioned in the first sentence.

By the first sentence you presumably mean one of these: " So the 1927 purge was an attempt to destroy the communists and take power on the part of Jiang. Basically the Guomindang betrayed their allies. "

But no; the Guomingdang committed its betrayal first; the uprisings were a response to this.


What exactly do you mean by ultraleftist?

I mean calling for uprisings at a time when they have no chance of winning, and can only result in bloody defeats. The Chinese working class took decades to recover from these defeats, in fact - as shown by the fact that the '27 uprisings are more important than any uprising that came later.



Are you talking about organizing massive worker's movements? Because this is what the CCP was focued on up until 1927 and what the Comintern wanted.

No, they were focused on alliance with the Guomintang and supporting a vain hope that a bourgeois party could still be revolutionary. The same policy that the Mensheviks followed in Russia, with the Guomintang equivalent to the Kadets. That was the opportunist zig before the ultraleft zag.

[Janus]

But no; the Guomingdang committed its betrayal first; the uprisings were a response to this.
The Shanghai workers controlled a portion of the city before Jiang's purge. The April 12, 1927 purges crushed the worker's movement. The Guangzhou Uprising occured after the April purges and reflected the party's continued adherence to urban revolt.


An odd explanation; all uprisings have to be prepared to contend with the "active opposition" of the people you're rising up against.
Exactly, that is why the revolutionaries failed.


No, they were focused on alliance with the Guomintang and supporting a vain hope that a bourgeois party could still be revolutionary.
There were left and right tendencies within the Guomindang. After the purges, there was a strong reaction against Jiang Jieshi within his own party. The CCP focues on the alliance with the Guomindang because of the Comintern policy at the time. The Guomindang didn't really become a true bourgeois party until after the split when the conservatives took control.

[Salvador Allende]

China is still Socialist, they are guided and are the guides of Mao Zedong Thought. I will forever seperate Mao Zedong Thought, which is Marxism-Leninism applied to the Chinese Revolution by Mao and the other revolutionaries, with the blind anarchistic rebellion of the modern Jiangite "Maoists".

China was perfectly correct to side against the USSR. The USSR became Imperialist, just as imperialistic as the USA. What is the difference, the difference was proximity. The USA was in no position to invade the PRC, but the USSR was and in the case of 2 enemies, it was a good position to ally with one to defeat the other.

As for Hua Guofeng being the "opposing" faction of Mao, that is a ridiculous statement. Mao is on-record as having said that the people should get to know Hua to accept him as his successor and before Mao died, he gave Hua a note saying "With you in charge, I am at ease". Mao was fully supportive of Chairman Hua taking over the People's Republic and not one of the Gang taking over.

Today, China and Cuba have a close friendship and a reason Cuba was able to shorten the "Special Period" in such a fashion and begin it's end was because of the Chinese aid. Cuba is a model Socialist state, it may have sided too closely with the USSR in the past, but today it firmly sides with the Democratic camp of the Socialist nations and the Anti-Imperialist ones.