Your oppinions on Maoism

[Marukusu]

I want to know what you comrades think about maoism, not Mao Zedong himself nor the history of China during the 1950-70:s.
What the hell is maoism? People often compares it to stalinism, but doesn't maoism talk about a world revolution rather than socialism in one country?

Please enlighten me with your thoughts and feelings, comrades!
Let a hundred flowers bloom and let a hundred schools of thought contend!

[More Fire for the People]

I ‘like’ Maoists and Maoism as they show a tendency towards progressivism, but I still have huge criticisms of them.

The proletariat is the living negation of capitalism but not all peasants are proletarians, and by emphasizing the role of the peasant in the revolution, the Maoists emphasize the political power of non-proletarian groups.

My second fault with the Maoists is that while the gut Stalinism of its horrible practices, Maoism still holds onto Stalinian theory. For instance, the Nepalese Maoists are attempting to create a ‘new democracy’ that is a ‘bloc of four classes’— the peasants, the proletarians, the urban petty-bourgeoisie, and the ‘national capitalists’. I counter this position with the permanent revolution.

[Marukusu]

Personally, I like maoism mainly for it's self-criticism. No one is perfect, and by admitting for oneself (or whatever) what's "wrong" you can try to "correct" that and thus become "better".
I'm also a fan of the "eternal revolution". The revolutionary idéas and the enthusiasm a revolution can stir up (which apparently got out of control in China under Mao) mustn't be lost in a socialist society, lest the society will be "bureaucratized" and corrupted, like the Soviet Union or China today.

Also, I agree to the thoughts behind the Cultural Revolution (oh, people are going to kill me for writing this). In order to construct the new world, the old world needs to be destroyed. We can't continue to hang on to old traditions and values, we need to unite and go forward to crush capitalism, imperialism and general evil-ism wherever it will manifest - including in our own ranks.

Radical? Aye! My cup of tea? Aye indeed!

[Janus]

Personally, I like maoism mainly for it's self-criticism.
Yeah, but do we really need to write a damn self-examination every time we make a mistake. A mistake was pretty much defined as anything going against Maoist doctrine. People admit that they're wrong all the time, self-criticism is nothing special.


We can't continue to hang on to old traditions and values, we need to unite and go forward to crush capitalism, imperialism and general evil-ism wherever it will manifest - including in our own ranks.
It never mainfested itself in China. Liu Shaoqi and Deng simply weren't as radical as Mao probably wanted them to be; he did not like their moderate economics. The Cultural Revolution would've been good if the ideas behind it had been continued and actually fully implemented. If they had followed through with the Shanghai Commune for instance, then it would've been good. However, Mao's words and actions were definitely not consistent and he soon retook power and eliminated the Red Guards.

The problem with Maoism is that it is rapidly becoming an anachronism. Yes, they are active in certain areas such as Nepal and India but there's not much else besides that. Their emphasis on the peasants is only applicable in the third world. There theories are simply not very applicable in the first world.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Are personality cults, and an elite ruling party part of maoism?

[Janus]

Are personality cults, and an elite ruling party part of maoism?

Personality cults aren't supposed to be part of it but they usually develop due to a need for a leader.

Maoists will deny this but it's pretty much characteristic of most Maoist organizations. Why not too long ago, a few Nepalese Maoists were kicked out for disagreeing with Prachanda.

The vanguard usually develops into the new ruling class after the revolution.

[Marukusu]

Yeah, but do we really need to write a damn self-examination every time we make a mistake. A mistake was pretty much defined as anything going against Maoist doctrine. People admit that they're wrong all the time, self-criticism is nothing special.

...I meant "mistakes" in a wider sense, not just breakings of the "the party line", and far from all people admit all their wrongs (Mao himself, for example).


The Cultural Revolution would've been good if the ideas behind it had been continued and actually fully implemented.

...Which is (almost) what I wrote earlier. The biggest problem with maoism in China was probably Mao himself - he sucked as a politician and administrator and his urge for power was beyond all greed.

However, as I said, the thoughts behind the cultural reovlution was good, IMO.


Their emphasis on the peasants is only applicable in the third world. There theories are simply not very applicable in the first world.

True, but it could be easily modified to fit a first world country. I don't see why maoism should be "locked" on the peasant class just because Mao said so - he was after all not any God.

Also, the "Quotations of Chairman Mao"... what do you think of it? Is it pure Yoda-esque crap or could some sense be made out of it?

[Niemand]

Maoism is nothing more than Stalinism with a new name and god. Maoists are intolerably totalitarian and quite counter-revolutionary. Look at the Cultural Revolution, killing people because they wanted to make a movie which didn't have to do with Maoism or didn't agree with Mao. Sweet!

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:33 PM
Maoism is nothing more than Stalinism with a new name and god. Maoists are intolerably totalitarian and quite counter-revolutionary. Look at the Cultural Revolution, killing people because they wanted to make a movie which didn't have to do with Maoism or didn't agree with Mao. Sweet!
Thats pretty much been my impression of it. I could be wrong, but most maoists seem pretty authoritarian to me.

[The Grey Blur]

I like third-world Maoists, I dislike first-world Maoists

Mao had some excellent ideas and quotes, there's no doubt about that

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I like third-world Maoists, I dislike first-world Maoists

wouldnt a maoist third world go against historical materialism?

[Janus]

However, as I said, the thoughts behind the cultural reovlution was good, IMO.
Yes, but they were inherently limited from the beginning.


True, but it could be easily modified to fit a first world country. I don't see why maoism should be "locked" on the peasant class just because Mao said so - he was after all not any God.
You could but in Maoist theory, the peasants are placed before the proletariat. Western Maoism is somewhat of an anachronism.

Maoism as its name suggests was built on the objective analyzations and experiences of Mao. It didn't take him very long to figure out that the peasantry in China had huge potential. "Whoever has the support of the peasants, controls China."


Also, the "Quotations of Chairman Mao"... what do you think of it? Is it pure Yoda-esque crap or could some sense be made out of it?
The thing with the Quotations which were put together by Lin Biao was that it was a part of Mao's personality cult. It was read almost everywhere and political opponents were required to pull out a copy when asked or risk trouble. So, this dogma did more harm than good as you can see.

However, Mao's military ideas are still good and are studied by many to this day.


Look at the Cultural Revolution, killing people because they wanted to make a movie which didn't have to do with Maoism or didn't agree with Mao.
Where did you hear that? Terrible things occured during the Cultural Revolution but that is just ridiculous.


The biggest problem with maoism in China was probably Mao himself - he sucked as a politician and administrator and his urge for power was beyond all greed.
Mao was a complex character and yes he did some terrible things but he did some good things as well.

[Janus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:00 PM

I like third-world Maoists, I dislike first-world Maoists

wouldnt a maoist third world go against historical materialism?
No, why do you think that?

Historical materialism is about a materialist conception of the world, the belief that events occur due to developments and changes in the material conditions.

Isn't this what occured in China unless you believe that the Chinese revolution appeared out of thin air.

[barista.marxista]

I will refer you to my signature for my opinion on Maoism.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:28 PM
I will refer you to my signature for my opinion on Maoism.
Can't see the words for the bullshit.

[barista.marxista]

Why don't you go deface some more Wikipedia entries, and stick your thumb a bit further up your ass, you useless little shit?

For everyone else: Non-Leninist Marxism: A Philosophy of Revolution (http://www.phillyraan.net/nonlenin.html). Free books!

[FinnMacCool]

Meh best not to get involved.

[More Fire for the People]

Why don't you go deface some more Wikipedia entries, and stick your thumb a bit further up your ass, you useless little shit?
I have never defaced wiki entries, I'm not a member of RAAN.

[kurt]

Originally posted by "Janus"+--> ("Janus")Yeah, but do we really need to write a damn self-examination every time we make a mistake. A mistake was pretty much defined as anything going against Maoist doctrine. People admit that they're wrong all the time, self-criticism is nothing special.[/b]

I'd also like to add that Maoists tend to use "self-criticism" as some sort of condom to shield themselves from blame. Maoists stopped the only geniunely proletarian initiative in China (Shanghai Commune), but it's ok so long as they can "self-criticize" themselves.

We all make mistakes, but when a "theory" has shown itself to be consistantly non-proletarian all the "self-criticism[/b] in the world won't amount to a sack of pennies.


If they had followed through with the Shanghai Commune for instance, then it would've been good.

I believe the Shanghai Commune was far "too radical" for Mao; it sought to go beyond party control, something which is not to be tolerated. So I don't think it's a matter of not following through, but rather a matter of never wanting it to happen in the first place.


"barista.marxista"
Why don't you go deface some more Wikipedia entries, and stick your thumb a bit further up your ass, you useless little shit?
You may not like him particularly, but please try to show some sort of respect for other posters on this board.. (perhaps at least pepper your insults with some actual argument :) )

[Fuzzy_Louster]

To be fair, that sig. is utter and complete garbage. I mean really, you treat communism like it is a religion when you start casting stones at every school you think doesn't meet the appropiate criteria. Communism is an economic theory, thus it brings along with it communal activity in ECONOMIC PRACTICES. But you fail to realize that an economic system can have any political system conjoined to it at any one time. Capitalism by it's very nature dictates that the government should be one man that came into power either by fortune or force. This is untrue, for I see many capitalist systems that can be quite democratic at times, even though many of you-and even I myself- may disagree. The point is, their can be authoritarian communism and the system will still not be completely contradictory if you view communism as what it truly is, and economic system.

As for how I feel about Moaism... I think it is some stupid bullshit, because I am a council communist. Viva la IWW!

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 5 2006, 08:48 PM
I have never defaced wiki entries, I'm not a member of RAAN.
Cute retort.

Does anyone have a good non-Lennie account of the Shanghai Commune? I'd be seriously interested in that.

[kurt]

The point is, their can be authoritarian communism and the system will still not be completely contradictory if you view communism as what it truly is, and economic system.

If there aren't any classes or government, then how can there possible be an absolute obedience to authority?

[FinnMacCool]

You may not like him particularly, but please try to show some sort of respect for other posters on this board.. (perhaps at least pepper your insults with some actual argument

In all fairness, Hopscotch had very little much of an argument either. Anthill simply said primarily "Thats bullshit" and said little else.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:53 PM
To be fair, that sig. is utter and complete garbage. I mean really, you treat communism like it is a religion when you start casting stones at every school you think doesn't meet the appropiate criteria. Communism is an economic theory, thus it brings along with it communal activity in ECONOMIC PRACTICES. But you fail to realize that an economic system can have any political system conjoined to it at any one time. Capitalism by it's very nature dictates that the government should be one man that came into power either by fortune or force. This is untrue, for I see many capitalist systems that can be quite democratic at times, even though many of you-and even I myself- may disagree. The point is, their can be authoritarian communism and the system will still not be completely contradictory if you view communism as what it truly is, and economic system.

As for how I feel about Moaism... I think it is some stupid bullshit, because I am a council communist. Viva la IWW!

You're a pro-Leninist councilist who thinks Communism is an "economic theory" and capitalism can be quite democratic? My deduction is that you're quite confused, and should investigate matters more. If you are interested in reading something, the Flank book I linked to above is written from a council communist standpoint, and it covers most all of the issues in your post. It's a quick and easy read, and is completely free of charge.


You may not like him particularly, but please try to show some sort of respect for other posters on this board.. (perhaps at least pepper your insults with some actual argument

I have little respect for authoritarians, especially ones who present insults with no arguments in the beginning of our conversation, as FinnMacCool kindly pointed out.

[Fuzzy_Louster]

If there aren't any classes or government, then how can there possible be an absolute obedience to authority?

There can be absolute obedience without classes. Plus, there kind of has to be a government with an economic system... Unless your an anarchist that is, but then really that is the only way to say there isn't absolute obedience being possible.

[/QUOTE]You're a pro-Leninist councilist who thinks Communism is an "economic theory" and capitalism can be quite democratic? My deduction is that you're quite confused, and should investigate matters more. If you are interested in reading something, the Flank book I linked to above is written from a council communist standpoint, and it covers most all of the issues in your post. It's a quick and easy read, and is completely free of charge.[QUOTE]

Listen, you start treating communism like some dogmatic system that isn't just an economic theory, and that is when it fails. That is why Leninists always fail, they start teaching that being more like chairman Mao is next to being holy. I am not confused in the slightest, have read much better literature than that. If you want to investigate more into matters, don't read propaganda and read something from serious intellectuals that present all sides of a situation instead of demonizing one group. Demonization is an elitist tactic, real communists wouldn't go about demonizing other communists for their political beliefs.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:01 PM

There can be absolute obedience without classes..
How can that be possible? Isn't class all about who is in charge of your life? without class, your free. Isn't this so?

Do you really consider Mao or stalin or Lenin to be a part of the same class as the workers?

[barista.marxista]

Um, where did I start treating communism like a dogmatic theory? Simply because I don't consider Leninism to be authentically Marxist? Kid, you need to do some homework before throwing around terms like dogmatism. You can start by checking my post history (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=4e3d370084e6d15fc8289043a48d8802&search_in=posts&result_type=posts), since I'm the one you're deeming "dogmatic".

[kurt]

There can be absolute obedience without classes. Plus, there kind of has to be a government with an economic system... Unless your an anarchist that is, but then really that is the only way to say there isn't absolute obedience being possible.

Anarchists and Communists both believe communism to be classless and stateless. There is not government in a classless, stateless society, and thus no possible avenue for authoritarianism.

Furthermore, the economic system communism would utilize does not necessitate government.


I have little respect for authoritarians, especially ones who present insults with no arguments in the beginning of our conversation, as FinnMacCool kindly pointed out.

Well, if not for respect, then at least try to resist degenerating a thread into useless name-calling. The purpose of debate is to win over your reader, not your opponent. If you are consistantly throwing out insults, the reader is less likely to find your views credible.

And furthermore, I believe his initial comment was on the size of your signature text.. but I could be mistaken.

[barista.marxista]

I think an intelligent person can descern smart points from an insulting post, no matter to whom the insult is slung. ;) But I'm glad to see you're interested in keeping the quality of discussion here up.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:11 PM
Where did you hear that? Terrible things occured during the Cultural Revolution but that is just ridiculous.



Well, I saw a show on the History Channel called "Declassified" which goes over controversal figures and events and it went over Mao on one episode and it said that Madame Mao had labelled those who were making plays about anything other than socialism or had no socialist hero were labelled "counter-revolutionary" and some were killed. The plays were shut down by the state and some of the creators of the plays were killed.

Do you have any credible sources that denounce that, because I don't want to be spreading capitalist propaganda around.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:16 PM
What the hell is maoism? People often compares it to stalinism, but doesn't maoism talk about a world revolution rather than socialism in one country?
Maoists say that Mao took Marxism-Leninism to a higher level. I think these are some (not all) of the main concepts:

- the mass line as the way for communists to organize and lead the people

- the new-democratic revolution for colonial/semicolonial countries

- the continuation of class struggle under socialism with cultural revolutions

- opposition to revisionism (USSR from Khrushchev onwards and China from Deng onwards)

Maoists uphold Stalin as a Marxist-Leninist, but are critical of a large part of his legacy, such as relying on police powers too much and believing that class struggle ends under socialism.

[RNK]

Maoism, like most other movements, started with good premise; the idea of the peasant proleteriat masses organizing the military and political tools for their liberation from dominance by bourgeois. Also like most other movements it was eventually twisted and perverted by a group of self-righteous, powerful individuals.

It is also a simple extension, if that, of Marxist-Leninist ideologies. Mao himself disapproved of the term "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" or "Maoism" as he believed he didn't make enough of a contribution to M-L to have his name added after. It's true too that millions suffered under his catastrophic attempts at economic management. IMO, the only useful contribution he made was in terms of the relationship of the revolution and the peasant masses in economic systems dominated by peasant workers (as was the case in China and as is the case in most non-industrialized, 3rd world countries). He was without a doubt a brilliant guerilla warfare tactician and was one of the main reasons for the success of the Chinese revolution but otherwise he is an unimportant figure -- and may even have been a counter-revolutionary after the revolution with his supposed authoritarianism.

And according to Engels, the difference between anarchists and communists is that communists believe a transitional period of government is needed to gear the society into classlessness while anarchists believe both government and class system should be spontaneously and simeltaneously abolised (though this is by standards over 100 years old...)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

No, why do you think that?

Just because most of the third world doesnt have a proletariat or at least a large and advanced one.

And i thought marxists thought that creating a new society was through class struggle not political parties taking power.



Isn't this what occured in China unless you believe that the Chinese revolution appeared out of thin air.

hehe, naw i dont think that.

Just get confused somtimes.

[red_che]

These quotes of Mao from the Little Red Book pretty sums up his thought (although, of course, this is not yet enough). But along this line, Mao's thought is directed.


Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all previous revolutionary struggles in China achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies. A revolutionary party is the guide of the masscs, and no revolution ever succeeds when the revolutionary party leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society and of their respective attitudes towards the revolution. ("Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society" (March 1926), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 13)

Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism - the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big Landlord class and the teactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them. The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat. Our closest friends are the entire semi-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. As for the vacillating middle bourgeoisie, their right-wing may become our enemy and their left-wing may become our friend - but we must be constantly on our guard and not let them create confusion within our ranks. (Ibid, p. 19)

[Janus]

So I don't think it's a matter of not following through, but rather a matter of never wanting it to happen in the first place.
What I meant was that the leadership did not follow through on their rhetoric. Mao wanted the people to zao fan and bash the government. Certain party officials followed through and established the Shanghai Commune but Mao was fearful of the precedent that it might establish.


Well, I saw a show on the History Channel called "Declassified" which goes over controversal figures and events and it went over Mao on one episode and it said that Madame Mao had labelled those who were making plays about anything other than socialism or had no socialist hero were labelled "counter-revolutionary" and some were killed. The plays were shut down by the state and some of the creators of the plays were killed.

Do you have any credible sources that denounce that, because I don't want to be spreading capitalist propaganda around.
The History Channel? I would usually check up on any info that the History Channel spewed out.

First of all, there is a difference between a play and a movie.

After the revolution, most plays became centered around the revolution (not just about socialism and not always about a hero), etc. During the Cultural Revolution, this was pretty much a requirement. The traditional Beijing operas closed, the actors may have been denounced and humiliated but it is very doubtful that any of them were actually killed.

There are so many damn unsubstantiated rumors out there about revolutionary China that I would have no life if I were forced to disprove them all.

[IronColumn]

Mao has good quotations, and is an excellent military commander, but not much else. In fact nothing else. He's not a communist, just look at his time in office, he's a dictator who starved or murdered millions of people. Same old leninist stuff.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Here I go at simplying history:
Maoism- wrong time, wrong place. But everything that happened was bound to, due to so much discontent at the begining of it. But those who uphold Mao say "Well he was successful in taking over a country, and many revolutions have failed at doing that".

Janus suggests that Mao didn't want the Shanghai Commune to spread because that would make the party useless, and make the party members go back to working on the farms. Though, I wonder if the Shanghai commune had to capacity to defend itself incase of a counter-revolution.

[Janus]

Maoism- wrong time, wrong place.
Since it was based on Mao's personal obseravtions and experiences in China, I would say that it was the right time and right place. But your analysis would be true when talking about Maoism in the first world.


Though, I wonder if the Shanghai commune had to capacity to defend itself incase of a counter-revolution.
If it had been called for then yes. The workers could've formed into a militia like they did back in 1927 when the Shanghai Commune (if you wanna call it that) of 1927 was formed after the warlord was deposed.

[Marukusu]

Call me a newbie, but i have never heard of the obviously renown Shanghai commune...

Anyone who wants to enlighten me?

[barista.marxista]

The Shanghai Commune was an attempt to set up a Paris Commune-esque government, autonomous of the Chinese Communist Party, in Shanghai, in 1967. Despite the ongoing Cultural Revolution, Mao and the CCP officials decried the workers' power in Shanghai as being "extreme anarchism," and used the military to violently suppress the commune. The Shanghai Commune is just another instance of the hypocrisy and anti-proletarian nature of Bolshevism, as real workers' power and autonomous sovereignty is a threat to the totalitarian control and reproduction of the "vanguard party." It's comparable to the crushing of the Krondstadt Rebellion, the violent dismantling of the anarchist communes in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War, the repression of the Catalonian region by the Red Army during the Spanish Civil War, and the military occupation of Hungary in '56, Prague in '68, etc., etc.

As I asked before: if anyone can recommend some non-Leninist analyses of the Shanghai Commune, I'd be greatly appreciative.

[Hit The North]

This looks like a good outline of the issues and political context around the Commune:

Click Here (http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samsupp/suppress/suppr04.htm)

[vlad]

Yeah, but do we really need to write a damn self-examination every time we make a mistake. A mistake was pretty much defined as anything going against Maoist doctrine. People admit that they're wrong all the time, self-criticism is nothing special.

Our comrade lenin said that we have to do that, in state and revolution. Or is-it Stalin ? I don't remember.

[Rawthentic]

yeah, the idea that Maoism is authoritarian is very real and true. For example, the RCP, in its draft programme, really freaked me out. It kept mentioning the need for a vanguard party, and that without the Party, revolution was not possible. I believe that Maoism, being an offshoot of Leninism, is truly detrimental to revolution and liberation.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't think any leftist idealogy, apart from Stalinism, will be detrimental to a revolution. For instance, Maoism is doing far more in Nepal than Marxism or Anarchism might have done.

[Janus]

Mao and the CCP officials decried the workers' power in Shanghai as being "extreme anarchism," and used the military to violently suppress the commune.
No, Mao "persuaded" the creators to disband it. Force was used to stop the Red Guards and restore order though.


For instance, Maoism is doing far more in Nepal than Marxism or Anarchism might have done.
We'll have to see what they develop into but there's not that much hope for them.

[Janus]

By the way, there were two communes in Shanghai, one in 1927 and another in 1967. Most consider the first one a commune but I'm pretty sure that the question was about the latter.

[emokid08]

Take it from a former maoist-it's authoritarian and very "un-socialist". I see it as China's version of stalinism, cult of personality included!

;)

Thankfully,I "saw the light" and realized how awful and backwards maoism is.