Maoism

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What exactly is maoism? All I've heard about is that it's Stalinism with the revolution having peasants as the base, not the working class. I've also heard that it's extremly totalitarian and authoritan yet the Nepalese maoist are fighting for democracy and havd helped re-instate a parliament, making it so that the king doesn't have absolute rule. What's the deal?

[barista.marxista]

As with all forms of Leninism, ultimately Maoism is a left-variant of capitalism. Evidence to prove this is the state-capitalist regime of China (which, to counter any maoies, existed long before Mao died), and the current enthusiam with joining the Nepali government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5085760.stm).

[CCCPneubauten]

Ignore the Barista bullshit, as he is just confused nor is he a Marxist. A lot of people in China call it Mao Zedong Thought, some people here call it MLM, I don't really care, what ever floats your boat.

In the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong Thought is part of the official doctrine of the Communist Party of China, but since the 1978 beginning of Deng Xiaoping's market economy-oriented reforms, the concept of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" has come to the forefront of Chinese politics, Chinese economic reform has taken hold, and the official definition and role of Mao's original ideology in the PRC has been radically altered and reduced.

'State capitalism' is a myth against a worker's state.

Tragic Clown already went over this.

Although not 'Stalinism' most Maoists have deemed Joseph Stalin as the last true socialist leader of the Soviet Union.

The Maoist rebellion was one of the people, not of some urban worker, as it's hard to find many of them in China, same goes for the Third World. This is why Barista is pouty I guess, because his 'libertarian Marxist' bull isn't ever a driving force in revolutions, Maoism is, as it attracts the majority of the Third World, the unwealthy peasantry is used as a revolutionary force which, Mao said, could be mobilized by a Communist Party with their knowledge and leadership.

In Maoist thought, "political power comes from the barrel of the gun" (one of Mao's quotes), and the peasantry can be mobilized to undertake a "people's war" of armed struggle involving guerrilla warfare in three stages.

The first stage involves mobilizing and organizing the peasantry. The second stage involves setting up rural base areas and increasing coordination among the guerrilla organizations. The third stage involves a transition to conventional warfare. Maoist military doctrine likens guerrilla fighters to fish swimming in a sea of peasants, who provide logistical support.

Maoism emphasizes "revolutionary mass mobilization" (physically mobilizing the vast majority of a population in the struggle for socialism), the concept of New Democracy, and the Theory of Productive Forces as applied to village-level industries independent of the outside world (see Great Leap Forward). In Maoism, deliberate organizing of massive military and economic power is necessary to defend the revolutionary area from outside threat, while centralization keeps corruption under supervision, amid strong control, and sometimes alteration, by the revolutionaries of the area's arts and sciences.

A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period, as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism. Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for a bourgeoisie to restore capitalism. Indeed, Mao famously stated that "the bourgeoisie [in a socialist country] is right inside the Communist Party itself", implying that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented. This was the main reason for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, in which Mao exhorted the public to "Bombard the [Party] headquarters!" and wrest control of the government from bureaucrats (such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiao Ping) perceived to be on the capitalist road.

Also an important concept is New Democracy (Red Heritic can explain this better)
this means establishing a democracy in a nation with a violent and brutal past for dictatorship.

This is a concept based on Mao Zedong's "Bloc of Four Classes" theory in post-revolutionary China. Currently, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Shining Path, the New People's Army of the Philippines, and the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are conducting active guerrilla warfare ("people's war") with the intent of establishing New Democracy.

The theory still aims to overthrow feudalism and achieve a country's national independence, but it bypasses the rule of the capitalist class, claiming instead to seek to enter directly into socialism though a coalition of classes fighting the old ruling order, subsumed under the leadership and guidance of the working class and its communist party.

Once New Democracy has been established, the country is claimed to be ideologically communist under the leadership of the communist party, and its people are actively involved in the construction of socialism even as the country itself maintains and furthers many aspects of capitalism for purposes of rapid economic growth. It is in this way that New Democracy is considered a stepping stone to socialism — a two-stage theory of first New Democracy, then the dictatorship of the proletariat. Given that the self-proclaimed ultimate goal of socialist construction is the creation of a stateless, classless communist society, adding the New Democratic Revolution arguably makes the whole process a three-stage theory: first New Democracy, then the dictatorship of the proletariat, then communism.



People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism


Get it?

Please don't take some rag tag Anti-Marxist view of a Marxist concept.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:37 AM
Get it?

Please don't take some rag tag Anti-Marxist view of a Marxist concept.
Right buddy, which is why, because of Mao the Great's theories, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and the USSR are communist huh? How truly pathetic to hear of a Maoist apologist who throws out all these wonderful theories, yet does not see the decrepitude of Mao Zedong thought. Mao Zedong thought is just another way for a Stalinist regime, its been shown throughout history, the call for democracy is a sham because there has never been people's democracy under Maoism.

Likewise, ignore counter-revolutionary thought, as it is nothing else and is hurtful to revolution.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+Jun 21 2006, 09:36 PM--> (hastalavictoria @ Jun 21 2006, 09:36 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 10:37 AM
Get it?

Please don't take some rag tag Anti-Marxist view of a Marxist concept.
Right buddy, which is why, because of Mao the Great's theories, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and the USSR are communist huh? How truly pathetic to hear of a Maoist apologist who throws out all these wonderful theories, yet does not see the decrepitude of Mao Zedong thought. Mao Zedong thought is just another way for a Stalinist regime, its been shown throughout history, the call for democracy is a sham because there has never been people's democracy under Maoism.

Likewise, ignore counter-revolutionary thought, as it is nothing else and is hurtful to revolution. [/b]
I think Che would like to have a word with you.... :rolleyes:

Posers.

Plus I didn't say I supported it or hated it, just laying out what it is, like what Henry asked, not just pully the same lame stuff you pull and go 'Durr Mao is a bad bad man, because we all know anarchism has producred revolutions that are working'

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:36 PM
Right buddy, which is why, because of Mao the Great's theories, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and the USSR are communist huh? How truly pathetic to hear of a Maoist apologist who throws out all these wonderful theories, yet does not see the decrepitude of Mao Zedong thought.
Actually, Maoists don't recognize Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea as socialist countries. Same goes for post-1976 China and post-1956 USSR.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:36 PM
Right buddy, which is why, because of Mao the Great's theories, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and the USSR are communist huh? How truly pathetic to hear of a Maoist apologist who throws out all these wonderful theories, yet does not see the decrepitude of Mao Zedong thought.
Actually, Maoists don't recognize Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea as socialist countries. Same goes for post-1976 China and post-1956 USSR.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:36 PM
Right buddy, which is why, because of Mao the Great's theories, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and the USSR are communist huh? How truly pathetic to hear of a Maoist apologist who throws out all these wonderful theories, yet does not see the decrepitude of Mao Zedong thought.
Actually, Maoists don't recognize Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea as socialist countries. Same goes for post-1976 China and post-1956 USSR.

[EusebioScrib]

Posers.


Flame???????? (I don't like this "dirty" game, but Leninists seem to be playing it now, so I might as well join in!)


Plus I didn't say I supported it or hated it, just laying out what it is

Barista layed out exactly what it was in the simplest definition possible. He didn't get all apologetic and try to make himself sound smart by typing alot of words.


like what Henry asked, not just pully the same lame stuff you pull and go 'Durr Mao is a bad bad man,

He didn't...


because we all know anarchism has producred revolutions that are working'

More success and support than you'll ever have! Plus, ours is actually communism. BTW your definition of "revolution" is very narrow and flat out *wrong*

[EusebioScrib]

Posers.


Flame???????? (I don't like this "dirty" game, but Leninists seem to be playing it now, so I might as well join in!)


Plus I didn't say I supported it or hated it, just laying out what it is

Barista layed out exactly what it was in the simplest definition possible. He didn't get all apologetic and try to make himself sound smart by typing alot of words.


like what Henry asked, not just pully the same lame stuff you pull and go 'Durr Mao is a bad bad man,

He didn't...


because we all know anarchism has producred revolutions that are working'

More success and support than you'll ever have! Plus, ours is actually communism. BTW your definition of "revolution" is very narrow and flat out *wrong*

[EusebioScrib]

Posers.


Flame???????? (I don't like this "dirty" game, but Leninists seem to be playing it now, so I might as well join in!)


Plus I didn't say I supported it or hated it, just laying out what it is

Barista layed out exactly what it was in the simplest definition possible. He didn't get all apologetic and try to make himself sound smart by typing alot of words.


like what Henry asked, not just pully the same lame stuff you pull and go 'Durr Mao is a bad bad man,

He didn't...


because we all know anarchism has producred revolutions that are working'

More success and support than you'll ever have! Plus, ours is actually communism. BTW your definition of "revolution" is very narrow and flat out *wrong*

[Janus]

When you analyze Maoism, you have to analyze within the historical and social contexts of its time.

China was a Third World nation that was predominantly made up of peasants. There were workers but they were mainly isolated in the cities. Furthermore, don't get the idea that Mao was the founder of the CCP because he was not. The original CCP helped to organize a strong worker's movement in some of the cities before being crushed in the white purges led by Jiang Jieshi. During this period, communism was intertwined with nationalism and making China stronger (thus the term "stand up").

After this utter defeat, new leaders began to emerge in the CCP with fresh ideas. One of them was Mao who realized that the peasantry had great potential if they could be organized and armed, in fact he stated that whoever had the peasants would have China. So basically, Mao combined Marxism with other ideologies and his own empirical observations.

When you look at all this, I don't think you could simply wave Maoism away because it has great appeal and potential in Third World countries. Yes, Maoism failed in China as soon as Mao died but it did make China better if only for a little while. That's the best thing that really came out of it. I really think that China should look to the future and step away from Mao's shadow in favor of some truly revolutionary change.


I don't like this "dirty" game, but Leninists seem to be playing it now, so I might as well join in!
I don't think you should. It won't help at all and CCPNeubauten will be warned so don't worry.

[Janus]

When you analyze Maoism, you have to analyze within the historical and social contexts of its time.

China was a Third World nation that was predominantly made up of peasants. There were workers but they were mainly isolated in the cities. Furthermore, don't get the idea that Mao was the founder of the CCP because he was not. The original CCP helped to organize a strong worker's movement in some of the cities before being crushed in the white purges led by Jiang Jieshi. During this period, communism was intertwined with nationalism and making China stronger (thus the term "stand up").

After this utter defeat, new leaders began to emerge in the CCP with fresh ideas. One of them was Mao who realized that the peasantry had great potential if they could be organized and armed, in fact he stated that whoever had the peasants would have China. So basically, Mao combined Marxism with other ideologies and his own empirical observations.

When you look at all this, I don't think you could simply wave Maoism away because it has great appeal and potential in Third World countries. Yes, Maoism failed in China as soon as Mao died but it did make China better if only for a little while. That's the best thing that really came out of it. I really think that China should look to the future and step away from Mao's shadow in favor of some truly revolutionary change.


I don't like this "dirty" game, but Leninists seem to be playing it now, so I might as well join in!
I don't think you should. It won't help at all and CCPNeubauten will be warned so don't worry.

[Janus]

When you analyze Maoism, you have to analyze within the historical and social contexts of its time.

China was a Third World nation that was predominantly made up of peasants. There were workers but they were mainly isolated in the cities. Furthermore, don't get the idea that Mao was the founder of the CCP because he was not. The original CCP helped to organize a strong worker's movement in some of the cities before being crushed in the white purges led by Jiang Jieshi. During this period, communism was intertwined with nationalism and making China stronger (thus the term "stand up").

After this utter defeat, new leaders began to emerge in the CCP with fresh ideas. One of them was Mao who realized that the peasantry had great potential if they could be organized and armed, in fact he stated that whoever had the peasants would have China. So basically, Mao combined Marxism with other ideologies and his own empirical observations.

When you look at all this, I don't think you could simply wave Maoism away because it has great appeal and potential in Third World countries. Yes, Maoism failed in China as soon as Mao died but it did make China better if only for a little while. That's the best thing that really came out of it. I really think that China should look to the future and step away from Mao's shadow in favor of some truly revolutionary change.


I don't like this "dirty" game, but Leninists seem to be playing it now, so I might as well join in!
I don't think you should. It won't help at all and CCPNeubauten will be warned so don't worry.

[Janus]

the call for democracy is a sham because there has never been people's democracy under Maoism.
There was some grassroots democracy and there is still some grassroots democracy. What do you think the Cultural Revolution was?

[Janus]

the call for democracy is a sham because there has never been people's democracy under Maoism.
There was some grassroots democracy and there is still some grassroots democracy. What do you think the Cultural Revolution was?

[Janus]

the call for democracy is a sham because there has never been people's democracy under Maoism.
There was some grassroots democracy and there is still some grassroots democracy. What do you think the Cultural Revolution was?

[EusebioScrib]

There was some grassroots democracy and there is still some grassroots democracy.

Examples? Proof?



What do you think the Cultural Revolution was?

An attempt by Mao to reaffirm himself as total ruler of China, not a "group" of rulers.

[EusebioScrib]

There was some grassroots democracy and there is still some grassroots democracy.

Examples? Proof?



What do you think the Cultural Revolution was?

An attempt by Mao to reaffirm himself as total ruler of China, not a "group" of rulers.

[EusebioScrib]

There was some grassroots democracy and there is still some grassroots democracy.

Examples? Proof?



What do you think the Cultural Revolution was?

An attempt by Mao to reaffirm himself as total ruler of China, not a "group" of rulers.

[Janus]

Examples? Proof?
There is still grassroots democracy in the countryside. It's not much since it doesn't really affect the national government but it is still there.


An attempt by Mao to reaffirm himself as total ruler of China, not a "group" of rulers.
The end result perhaps but during the Cultural Revolution, there was actual democracy even if it was inherently limited by Mao. That was the whole purpose of zao fan.

[Janus]

Examples? Proof?
There is still grassroots democracy in the countryside. It's not much since it doesn't really affect the national government but it is still there.


An attempt by Mao to reaffirm himself as total ruler of China, not a "group" of rulers.
The end result perhaps but during the Cultural Revolution, there was actual democracy even if it was inherently limited by Mao. That was the whole purpose of zao fan.

[Janus]

Examples? Proof?
There is still grassroots democracy in the countryside. It's not much since it doesn't really affect the national government but it is still there.


An attempt by Mao to reaffirm himself as total ruler of China, not a "group" of rulers.
The end result perhaps but during the Cultural Revolution, there was actual democracy even if it was inherently limited by Mao. That was the whole purpose of zao fan.

[CCCPneubauten]

I would hardly call Maoism the 'left wing of cpaitalism' that's just stupid and ignorant. He man was looking for what it was, it's Theory, not what is has/had been. Hence the title of this forum (theory)

[CCCPneubauten]

I would hardly call Maoism the 'left wing of cpaitalism' that's just stupid and ignorant. He man was looking for what it was, it's Theory, not what is has/had been. Hence the title of this forum (theory)

[CCCPneubauten]

I would hardly call Maoism the 'left wing of cpaitalism' that's just stupid and ignorant. He man was looking for what it was, it's Theory, not what is has/had been. Hence the title of this forum (theory)

[CCCPneubauten]

Sorry for the flame, it was a bit lame on my part. But what LeftHenry wanted to know is what Maoism was, and what it's points were, not just some wonton insult towards it.

If this thread were say in History I'd post about the Horros that Maoism has had, but this is simply the ideal of Maoism.

[CCCPneubauten]

Sorry for the flame, it was a bit lame on my part. But what LeftHenry wanted to know is what Maoism was, and what it's points were, not just some wonton insult towards it.

If this thread were say in History I'd post about the Horros that Maoism has had, but this is simply the ideal of Maoism.

[CCCPneubauten]

Sorry for the flame, it was a bit lame on my part. But what LeftHenry wanted to know is what Maoism was, and what it's points were, not just some wonton insult towards it.

If this thread were say in History I'd post about the Horros that Maoism has had, but this is simply the ideal of Maoism.

[EusebioScrib]

I would hardly call Maoism the 'left wing of cpaitalism' that's just stupid and ignorant. He man was looking for what it was, it's Theory, not what is has/had been. Hence the title of this forum (theory)

Well, I wouldn't blame you for not calling it that. Being some sort of Leninist your probably don't know much about state-capitalism (well you do, but you think it's communism) and your also a Leninist so this theory is entirely contrary to your beliefs.

He asked "what is Maoism" and we told him exactly what it is from our perspective (which is 100% correct). If he wanted your response he would have said "What do Maoists claim in their theory" or something similar. He didn't ask for Maoist theory, he merely asked what it was.


Sorry for the flame, it was a bit lame on my part. But what LeftHenry wanted to know is what Maoism was, and what it's points were, not just some wonton insult towards it.

Oh I don't really care. I hope they didn't actually warn you for it. My apologies if they did. :( I was just being sarcastic as some mod was *****ing to me about KC and barista. I think it's stupid, but w/e.

It was not an "insult" or atleast not directed as one. Calling Nazism "totalitarian" is not some "wonton insult towards it" it's the truth.

I think we're all getting a bit off topic. CCCPn, would you like to start another thread and discuss state-capitalist theory? I would but I don't really feel like typing a whole first post.

[EusebioScrib]

I would hardly call Maoism the 'left wing of cpaitalism' that's just stupid and ignorant. He man was looking for what it was, it's Theory, not what is has/had been. Hence the title of this forum (theory)

Well, I wouldn't blame you for not calling it that. Being some sort of Leninist your probably don't know much about state-capitalism (well you do, but you think it's communism) and your also a Leninist so this theory is entirely contrary to your beliefs.

He asked "what is Maoism" and we told him exactly what it is from our perspective (which is 100% correct). If he wanted your response he would have said "What do Maoists claim in their theory" or something similar. He didn't ask for Maoist theory, he merely asked what it was.


Sorry for the flame, it was a bit lame on my part. But what LeftHenry wanted to know is what Maoism was, and what it's points were, not just some wonton insult towards it.

Oh I don't really care. I hope they didn't actually warn you for it. My apologies if they did. :( I was just being sarcastic as some mod was *****ing to me about KC and barista. I think it's stupid, but w/e.

It was not an "insult" or atleast not directed as one. Calling Nazism "totalitarian" is not some "wonton insult towards it" it's the truth.

I think we're all getting a bit off topic. CCCPn, would you like to start another thread and discuss state-capitalist theory? I would but I don't really feel like typing a whole first post.

[EusebioScrib]

I would hardly call Maoism the 'left wing of cpaitalism' that's just stupid and ignorant. He man was looking for what it was, it's Theory, not what is has/had been. Hence the title of this forum (theory)

Well, I wouldn't blame you for not calling it that. Being some sort of Leninist your probably don't know much about state-capitalism (well you do, but you think it's communism) and your also a Leninist so this theory is entirely contrary to your beliefs.

He asked "what is Maoism" and we told him exactly what it is from our perspective (which is 100% correct). If he wanted your response he would have said "What do Maoists claim in their theory" or something similar. He didn't ask for Maoist theory, he merely asked what it was.


Sorry for the flame, it was a bit lame on my part. But what LeftHenry wanted to know is what Maoism was, and what it's points were, not just some wonton insult towards it.

Oh I don't really care. I hope they didn't actually warn you for it. My apologies if they did. :( I was just being sarcastic as some mod was *****ing to me about KC and barista. I think it's stupid, but w/e.

It was not an "insult" or atleast not directed as one. Calling Nazism "totalitarian" is not some "wonton insult towards it" it's the truth.

I think we're all getting a bit off topic. CCCPn, would you like to start another thread and discuss state-capitalist theory? I would but I don't really feel like typing a whole first post.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:31 AM
Yes, Maoism failed in China as soon as Mao died but it did make China better if only for a little while.
"it did make China better if only for a little while" is quite an understatement.

Doubling of life expectancy?

Drastic decreases in infant mortality rates?

Emancipation of women from millenia of feudal oppression?

Establishment of basic universal health care?

Establishment of near universal literacy in one generation?

End of regular famines? (There were 435 famines between 1850 and 1932!)

I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:31 AM
Yes, Maoism failed in China as soon as Mao died but it did make China better if only for a little while.
"it did make China better if only for a little while" is quite an understatement.

Doubling of life expectancy?

Drastic decreases in infant mortality rates?

Emancipation of women from millenia of feudal oppression?

Establishment of basic universal health care?

Establishment of near universal literacy in one generation?

End of regular famines? (There were 435 famines between 1850 and 1932!)

I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:31 AM
Yes, Maoism failed in China as soon as Mao died but it did make China better if only for a little while.
"it did make China better if only for a little while" is quite an understatement.

Doubling of life expectancy?

Drastic decreases in infant mortality rates?

Emancipation of women from millenia of feudal oppression?

Establishment of basic universal health care?

Establishment of near universal literacy in one generation?

End of regular famines? (There were 435 famines between 1850 and 1932!)

I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.

[JC1]

Not only that, but Chinese workplaces (as with all socialist states) had some degree of workplace democracy. However, it was limited to a certain extent. "One-Man manegment" existed, but it was not the sole mthod of workplace administration. 3 in 1 committees and just straight up workers concil's existed in many workplaces up to the end of the cultural reveloution. Indeed, a hybryd of worker's and traditional manegment existed in all the socialist states up to the 80's.

[JC1]

Not only that, but Chinese workplaces (as with all socialist states) had some degree of workplace democracy. However, it was limited to a certain extent. "One-Man manegment" existed, but it was not the sole mthod of workplace administration. 3 in 1 committees and just straight up workers concil's existed in many workplaces up to the end of the cultural reveloution. Indeed, a hybryd of worker's and traditional manegment existed in all the socialist states up to the 80's.

[JC1]

Not only that, but Chinese workplaces (as with all socialist states) had some degree of workplace democracy. However, it was limited to a certain extent. "One-Man manegment" existed, but it was not the sole mthod of workplace administration. 3 in 1 committees and just straight up workers concil's existed in many workplaces up to the end of the cultural reveloution. Indeed, a hybryd of worker's and traditional manegment existed in all the socialist states up to the 80's.

[CCCPneubauten]

Russia and China did all they could to build socialism, and they did a pretty good job of it. Although I'm not sure in what way People's control of the economy is 'state capitalist'

[CCCPneubauten]

Russia and China did all they could to build socialism, and they did a pretty good job of it. Although I'm not sure in what way People's control of the economy is 'state capitalist'

[CCCPneubauten]

Russia and China did all they could to build socialism, and they did a pretty good job of it. Although I'm not sure in what way People's control of the economy is 'state capitalist'

[EusebioScrib]

I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.

Of course they were great! Developing capitalism isn't a "bad" thing. Feudal nations need to reach it. However we're merely trying to point out that this isn't what workers are shooting for as it's very similar to what they already have. They want "real power". It was good developments in the USSR and China, though there was quite a bit of totalitarianism, which was rather necessary from the ruling classes perspective.

[EusebioScrib]

I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.

Of course they were great! Developing capitalism isn't a "bad" thing. Feudal nations need to reach it. However we're merely trying to point out that this isn't what workers are shooting for as it's very similar to what they already have. They want "real power". It was good developments in the USSR and China, though there was quite a bit of totalitarianism, which was rather necessary from the ruling classes perspective.

[EusebioScrib]

I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.

Of course they were great! Developing capitalism isn't a "bad" thing. Feudal nations need to reach it. However we're merely trying to point out that this isn't what workers are shooting for as it's very similar to what they already have. They want "real power". It was good developments in the USSR and China, though there was quite a bit of totalitarianism, which was rather necessary from the ruling classes perspective.

[EusebioScrib]

CCCPn, I'm starting a new thread on State-capitalist theory.

[EusebioScrib]

CCCPn, I'm starting a new thread on State-capitalist theory.

[EusebioScrib]

CCCPn, I'm starting a new thread on State-capitalist theory.

[Janus]

Examples? Proof?
Here
Grassroots democracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4319954.stm)
Like I said, it ain't much but this is where Deng's reforms came from.


I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.
I'm not arguing against that. My point was that the CCP did help out CHina quite a bit.


He asked "what is Maoism" and we told him exactly what it is from our perspective (which is 100% correct).
I think LeftHenry would be the only person to know what he truly wanted. But I doubt that giving him another label would be helpful at all. The best thing to do is probably just to provide him with the ideas behind the theory and how they were practiced and let him make his own judgements.

[Janus]

Examples? Proof?
Here
Grassroots democracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4319954.stm)
Like I said, it ain't much but this is where Deng's reforms came from.


I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.
I'm not arguing against that. My point was that the CCP did help out CHina quite a bit.


He asked "what is Maoism" and we told him exactly what it is from our perspective (which is 100% correct).
I think LeftHenry would be the only person to know what he truly wanted. But I doubt that giving him another label would be helpful at all. The best thing to do is probably just to provide him with the ideas behind the theory and how they were practiced and let him make his own judgements.

[Janus]

Examples? Proof?
Here
Grassroots democracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4319954.stm)
Like I said, it ain't much but this is where Deng's reforms came from.


I'm sure anarchists dismiss all of these things carried out by Maoist China as the accomplishments of "state-capitalism," but whatever they want to call it, these were huge improvements for the great majority of the people of China.
I'm not arguing against that. My point was that the CCP did help out CHina quite a bit.


He asked "what is Maoism" and we told him exactly what it is from our perspective (which is 100% correct).
I think LeftHenry would be the only person to know what he truly wanted. But I doubt that giving him another label would be helpful at all. The best thing to do is probably just to provide him with the ideas behind the theory and how they were practiced and let him make his own judgements.

[Rawthentic]

Look, we are discussing the ideals of Maoism here right? Well, I think its necessary, aside the ideals, what they have caused for the world and the bad name it has given communism. Those ideals have not much weight because it has been seen what Maoism, Leninism, etc have caused.

[Rawthentic]

Look, we are discussing the ideals of Maoism here right? Well, I think its necessary, aside the ideals, what they have caused for the world and the bad name it has given communism. Those ideals have not much weight because it has been seen what Maoism, Leninism, etc have caused.

[Rawthentic]

Look, we are discussing the ideals of Maoism here right? Well, I think its necessary, aside the ideals, what they have caused for the world and the bad name it has given communism. Those ideals have not much weight because it has been seen what Maoism, Leninism, etc have caused.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:09 AM
Look, we are discussing the ideals of Maoism here right? Well, I think its necessary, aside the ideals, what they have caused for the world and the bad name it has given communism. Those ideals have not much weight because it has been seen what Maoism, Leninism, etc have caused.
Once again...

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> Theory

NOT

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> History

NOT

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> Politics

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:09 AM
Look, we are discussing the ideals of Maoism here right? Well, I think its necessary, aside the ideals, what they have caused for the world and the bad name it has given communism. Those ideals have not much weight because it has been seen what Maoism, Leninism, etc have caused.
Once again...

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> Theory

NOT

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> History

NOT

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> Politics

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:09 AM
Look, we are discussing the ideals of Maoism here right? Well, I think its necessary, aside the ideals, what they have caused for the world and the bad name it has given communism. Those ideals have not much weight because it has been seen what Maoism, Leninism, etc have caused.
Once again...

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> Theory

NOT

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> History

NOT

RevolutionaryLeft.com -> General -> Politics

[Rawthentic]

Once again, dont be blind

Maoist theory> cult> despotism> state-capitalism

Get it? Stop being an apologist. Nothing you say can provide a good reason for Maoism, its decrepit and counter-revolutionary

[Rawthentic]

Once again, dont be blind

Maoist theory> cult> despotism> state-capitalism

Get it? Stop being an apologist. Nothing you say can provide a good reason for Maoism, its decrepit and counter-revolutionary

[Rawthentic]

Once again, dont be blind

Maoist theory> cult> despotism> state-capitalism

Get it? Stop being an apologist. Nothing you say can provide a good reason for Maoism, its decrepit and counter-revolutionary

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:37 PM
People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism

2 things. Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?

and what exactly is the 'cultural revolution'?

In anycase thanks for the explanation. Gave me new insight.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:37 PM
People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism

2 things. Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?

and what exactly is the 'cultural revolution'?

In anycase thanks for the explanation. Gave me new insight.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:37 PM
People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism

2 things. Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?

and what exactly is the 'cultural revolution'?

In anycase thanks for the explanation. Gave me new insight.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Jun 23 2006, 03:58 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Jun 23 2006, 03:58 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 06:37 PM
People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism

2 things. Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?

and what exactly is the 'cultural revolution'?

In anycase thanks for the explanation. Gave me new insight. [/b]
I don't know where Red Heritic ran off to, as I asked him the same question as your first one...seems like Mao didn't even follow his own theory, but I'm not sure, as I am not all that wise in the history of China, Janus might know.

Sorry. :blush:

Second question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution


A lot of it is there, but I can sum it up, using that.

the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Chinese Communist Party, which grew to include large sections of Chinese society and eventually brought China to the brink of civil war. It was launched by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong on May 16, 1966 to regain control of the party after the disasters of the Great Leap Forward had led to a significant loss of his power to rivals such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.


So from here you can see a reason, Mao (And thus the Revolution) was losing power to erm...more...capitalistic (?) leaders. Thus he wanted to 'stir things up'

Also if things wern't stired up, then China would become the typical paper pusher nation, Mao wanted to keep the 'blood' of Socialism flowing.

That Wiki article is pretty baised, but eh, you get the point of it with that.

Sorry if I was baised in my explination too, accident.

More questions, please ask. And look for Red Heritic. :lol:

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Jun 23 2006, 03:58 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Jun 23 2006, 03:58 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 06:37 PM
People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism

2 things. Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?

and what exactly is the 'cultural revolution'?

In anycase thanks for the explanation. Gave me new insight. [/b]
I don't know where Red Heritic ran off to, as I asked him the same question as your first one...seems like Mao didn't even follow his own theory, but I'm not sure, as I am not all that wise in the history of China, Janus might know.

Sorry. :blush:

Second question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution


A lot of it is there, but I can sum it up, using that.

the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Chinese Communist Party, which grew to include large sections of Chinese society and eventually brought China to the brink of civil war. It was launched by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong on May 16, 1966 to regain control of the party after the disasters of the Great Leap Forward had led to a significant loss of his power to rivals such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.


So from here you can see a reason, Mao (And thus the Revolution) was losing power to erm...more...capitalistic (?) leaders. Thus he wanted to 'stir things up'

Also if things wern't stired up, then China would become the typical paper pusher nation, Mao wanted to keep the 'blood' of Socialism flowing.

That Wiki article is pretty baised, but eh, you get the point of it with that.

Sorry if I was baised in my explination too, accident.

More questions, please ask. And look for Red Heritic. :lol:

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Jun 23 2006, 03:58 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Jun 23 2006, 03:58 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 06:37 PM
People's War->New Democracy->Socialist Revolution->Cultural Revolution Until->Communism

2 things. Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?

and what exactly is the 'cultural revolution'?

In anycase thanks for the explanation. Gave me new insight. [/b]
I don't know where Red Heritic ran off to, as I asked him the same question as your first one...seems like Mao didn't even follow his own theory, but I'm not sure, as I am not all that wise in the history of China, Janus might know.

Sorry. :blush:

Second question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution


A lot of it is there, but I can sum it up, using that.

the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Chinese Communist Party, which grew to include large sections of Chinese society and eventually brought China to the brink of civil war. It was launched by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong on May 16, 1966 to regain control of the party after the disasters of the Great Leap Forward had led to a significant loss of his power to rivals such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.


So from here you can see a reason, Mao (And thus the Revolution) was losing power to erm...more...capitalistic (?) leaders. Thus he wanted to 'stir things up'

Also if things wern't stired up, then China would become the typical paper pusher nation, Mao wanted to keep the 'blood' of Socialism flowing.

That Wiki article is pretty baised, but eh, you get the point of it with that.

Sorry if I was baised in my explination too, accident.

More questions, please ask. And look for Red Heritic. :lol:

[Janus]

Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?
This stage was supposed to abolish feudalism and bring the nation towards democracy. Thus, it began after the emperor's abdication in 1911 and continued to Liberation. However, true multi-party democracy was never established due to the way in which the Guomindang wielded power.


the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Chinese Communist Party
That is considered by many to be one reason for the Cultural Revolution: that Mao wanted to consolidate power. However, other reasons included the fact that Mao wanted to keep the revolutionary flame burning in the youth who had grown up after liberation.

[Janus]

Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?
This stage was supposed to abolish feudalism and bring the nation towards democracy. Thus, it began after the emperor's abdication in 1911 and continued to Liberation. However, true multi-party democracy was never established due to the way in which the Guomindang wielded power.


the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Chinese Communist Party
That is considered by many to be one reason for the Cultural Revolution: that Mao wanted to consolidate power. However, other reasons included the fact that Mao wanted to keep the revolutionary flame burning in the youth who had grown up after liberation.

[Janus]

Where was the 'new democracy' stage in china?
This stage was supposed to abolish feudalism and bring the nation towards democracy. Thus, it began after the emperor's abdication in 1911 and continued to Liberation. However, true multi-party democracy was never established due to the way in which the Guomindang wielded power.


the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Chinese Communist Party
That is considered by many to be one reason for the Cultural Revolution: that Mao wanted to consolidate power. However, other reasons included the fact that Mao wanted to keep the revolutionary flame burning in the youth who had grown up after liberation.

[CCCPneubauten]

Thanks Janus, that clears things up, so then what it seems like is that Mao didn't follow his own rules...if New Democracy was never about in its true form how could the rest of the steps work?


I also find it hard to decide just quite what was the reason for the Cultural Revolution, I guess I'm hoping for the best when I say I honestly think it was Mao just keeping the flame going.

[CCCPneubauten]

Thanks Janus, that clears things up, so then what it seems like is that Mao didn't follow his own rules...if New Democracy was never about in its true form how could the rest of the steps work?


I also find it hard to decide just quite what was the reason for the Cultural Revolution, I guess I'm hoping for the best when I say I honestly think it was Mao just keeping the flame going.

[CCCPneubauten]

Thanks Janus, that clears things up, so then what it seems like is that Mao didn't follow his own rules...if New Democracy was never about in its true form how could the rest of the steps work?


I also find it hard to decide just quite what was the reason for the Cultural Revolution, I guess I'm hoping for the best when I say I honestly think it was Mao just keeping the flame going.

[Janus]

so then what it seems like is that Mao didn't follow his own rules...if New Democracy was never about in its true form how could the rest of the steps work?
I don't think it was Mao's rule? Besides, China was embroiled in an external war and a civil war at the time and the Guomindang were not going to share power.


I guess I'm hoping for the best when I say I honestly think it was Mao just keeping the flame going.
That's one reason and as you said Mao was able to consolidate power at the end so that would be another reason.

[Janus]

so then what it seems like is that Mao didn't follow his own rules...if New Democracy was never about in its true form how could the rest of the steps work?
I don't think it was Mao's rule? Besides, China was embroiled in an external war and a civil war at the time and the Guomindang were not going to share power.


I guess I'm hoping for the best when I say I honestly think it was Mao just keeping the flame going.
That's one reason and as you said Mao was able to consolidate power at the end so that would be another reason.

[Janus]

so then what it seems like is that Mao didn't follow his own rules...if New Democracy was never about in its true form how could the rest of the steps work?
I don't think it was Mao's rule? Besides, China was embroiled in an external war and a civil war at the time and the Guomindang were not going to share power.


I guess I'm hoping for the best when I say I honestly think it was Mao just keeping the flame going.
That's one reason and as you said Mao was able to consolidate power at the end so that would be another reason.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:49 AM
Once again, dont be blind

Maoist theory> cult> despotism> state-capitalism

Get it? Stop being an apologist. Nothing you say can provide a good reason for Maoism, its decrepit and counter-revolutionary
Maoism, for the time being, has been a bigger source for revolution then say...'council communism'...

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:49 AM
Once again, dont be blind

Maoist theory> cult> despotism> state-capitalism

Get it? Stop being an apologist. Nothing you say can provide a good reason for Maoism, its decrepit and counter-revolutionary
Maoism, for the time being, has been a bigger source for revolution then say...'council communism'...

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:49 AM
Once again, dont be blind

Maoist theory> cult> despotism> state-capitalism

Get it? Stop being an apologist. Nothing you say can provide a good reason for Maoism, its decrepit and counter-revolutionary
Maoism, for the time being, has been a bigger source for revolution then say...'council communism'...