Maoists In The Us

[working_class_warrior]

Im not a maoist but i was woundering if the RCP and MIM are the only maoist organizations in the US?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nah, the FRSO/OSCL (http://www.freedomroad.org) is Maoist. The LRNA (http://www.lrna.org/) was Maoist.. but now they say 'vote for Nadar' :lol:

[Severian]

RCP is almost the only one I've run into in real life, though.

OK, the FRSO also. I knew some FRSO people for a long time before I realized they were FRSO, that's how secretive they were - just worked through the local Progressive Student Organization which they basically controlled.

MiM barely exists off the web. Maybe in Ann Arbor? There are probably some other small Maoist groups out there, maybe some of them bigger than MiM.

Progressive Labor is also out there....but they're ex-Maoist. The first of many to break with Beijing, IIRC even before Mao fully completed his deal with Nixon and started backing every rightist government and organization in the world, as long as they were anti-Soviet and anti-Vietnamese.

[Hit The North]

Maoism: an adaptation of marxist revolutionary theory tailored for the conditions of third-world peasant society.

Why would any American, living in the most advanced capitalist economy, be a Maoist?

I've never understood it. Can someone explain?

[Severian]

I'll try to answer your question, Citizen Zero. But to do that, I gotta point out that's not a particulary useful definition of Maoism. It seems to imply that Maoism is some kind of expression of the peasantry; forced collectivization in China strongly argues otherwise. The suggestion that Maoism is any kind of Marxism is also mistaken.

Here's a more descriptive definition.

Maoism: a variety of Stalinism* which took the apparatchik regime in Beijing, rather than Moscow, as its sponsor. Since that regime is no longer interested in franchising parties abroad, "Maoism" now describes a party's past primarily. "Maoist" parties have diverged in many directions without any regime to act as a Vatican and source of orthodoxy - but from, more or less, a common starting point.

*Stalinism: a political tendency serving the needs of a bureaucratic regime in a country where capitalism has been overthrown, but is still a long, long way from communism. These regimes franchised parties worldwide to serve their diplomatic needs.

"Stalinism" is also a largely historical term, since there are no apparatchik regimes franchising parties worldwide. A Stalinist past does mark a party, and often even individuals, to a great extent, but not always in the same ways.

So to answer your question, then: because sponsorship by a regime sometimes brought material aid and always brought prestige and the chance to point to how your program can in fact be implemented in the real world. "Nothing succeeds like success." Beijing gave less aid and was less attractive as a sponsor than Moscow, to most, but some young people worldwide were sometimes attracted to its radical-sounding rhetoric. Also, it was newer and therefore not so discredited...yet.

[Vanguard1917]

I think that the appeal of Maoism to the American left from the 1960s also had something to do with the movement's disillusionment with the industrial working class in America. 'New Left' politics was also on the rise, which distanced itself from traditional labour politics and struggles, and looked for revolutionary agency elsewhere (black people and students, for example). Maoism - which is not a working class-orientated ideology - appealed to those that were also disillusioned with Moscow. From Wikipedia:

'The New Left opposed the prevailing authority structures in society, which it termed "The Establishment," and those who rejected this authority became known as "anti-Establishment." The New Left avoided recruiting industrial workers and concentrated on a social activist approach to organizing.'

And:

'The U.S. New Left argued that since the Soviet Union could no longer be considered the world center for proletarian revolution, new revolutionary communist thinkers had to be substituted in its place — specifically, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro were chosen as the lead thinkers in this new framework. The U.S. New Left also drew inspiration from the Black Panther Party.'

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

Just wondering: did Maoism ever have any influence in American trade unions?

[working_class_warrior]

The only example I have heard of them being in the unions was in the coal filds of alabama and they were eventuly run out of the union by the miners for all sorts of ultra-left actions.

[Severian]

The RCP was involved in the miners' union other places too. If you watch the documentary "Harlan County" (Kentucky) some of the younger miners involved in that strike went on to join the RCP.

And in other unions and industries in the 70s; I used to work in a rail car plant where the RCP had a fraction many years before; I heard they marched through the plant with red flags. I think they had a certain influence though; one guy I knew was very influenced by 'em and still thought Stalin was the greatest.

So the RCP had a certain initial success despite ultraleft errors. Some workers liked them for being fighters.

Their big fuck-up was siding with the remnants of the Boyle machine against the currently dominant faction of the union bureaucracy. The Boyle machine was the worst element of the bureaucracy, which recently been ousted by the "Miners for Democracy" movement. (As in, union democracy, control by the ranks.)

At one point Boyle had ordered the murder of the Miners for Democracy candidate for union president, Jock Yablonski. Boyle was also known for especially blatant collaboration with the employers.

Anyway, that alliance is what got the RCPers run out nationally; in Alabama it mighta been more of a problem with right-wingers in the union.
Who were fairly common and sometimes very violent; there were a lot of delicate tactical problems in dealing with 'em, I know from the SWP's experience. (And of course, the RCP is not known for even trying to handle delicate tactical problems.)

Then rather than recognize their own mistakes, the RCP concludes industrial workers were just hopelessly reactionary and adopted the student and middle-class orientation it still has today.

Even earlier, Progressive Labor had a industrial orientation; their faction of SDS was called the Worker-Student Alliance. They encouraged students to prioritize relating to campus workers' struggles above everything else.

I'm not sure if the Communist Workers Party was Maoist or what exactly; but they worked in industry too. They're famous for some of their members being murdered by the KKK in Greensboro, North Carolina. Well, that's a textile center and many of the CWPers worked in textile there.

I've heard from some SWP members who lived in worked in Greensboro later that some people also remembered the CWPers favorably, as fighters. On the other hand, the murder and the acquittal of the KKKers had a lasting intimidating effect.

So yes, Maoists sometimes had an industrial orientation in the U.S.; earlier and more than a lot of other leftists even. They never got it right, though, and today are at least as middle-class as most of the left.

AFAIK, no Maoist group in the U.S. ever had any orientation to working farmers. Who are economically and politically significant, though not large in numbers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

At one point Boyle had ordered the murder of the Miners for Democracy candidate for union president, Jock Yablonski.

Off topic but I've been to the house where Joe Yablonski was murdered (in Clarksville, PA). Did you ever see the movie about the murder with Charles Bronson?

[Severian]

No, hadn't even heard about it. Bronson? A mainstream movie, then?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sort of.. it was filmed at the actual house in Clarksville, that's how I know about it, but I've never seen it..

I searched the net and found this: "The murders were portrayed in a 1986 HBO television movie, Act of Vengeance, in which Charles Bronson portrayed Yablonski and Wilford Brimley played Boyle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Yablonski

[Red Heretic]

Sevarian, you're full of shit. I love it how you pretend to explain other people's idoelogies and just distort them.

It's important to understand that there is alot more to Maoism than just Mao's theories on how to wage socialist revolution in semi-fuedal, semi-colonial countries oppressed by imperialism. Maoism is essentially an extension of Marxism-Leninism.

Maoism was the stage of Marxism-Leninism which fully grasped the reality of imperialism in the current world situation, and how to bring about revolutions in the new world situation dominated by imperialism (though it was Lenin who first developed the understanding of the imperialist stage of capitalism).

Maoism also provides many contributions on how to building socialism. For instance, Maoism acknowledged that socialist revolution is preceded by a cultural revolution, in which the proletariat attacks the bourgeoisies ideas which will still exist in the super-structure of society, even after the proletariat gains state power.

Most importantly, Maoism developed the understanding that there is always the potential for the vanguard to become a new bourgeoisie. Marx and Lenin did not concretely see the reality capitalist restoration (revisionism) through the party, and it was Mao who correctly analyzed this. Maoism also promotes the concepts of open dissent, criticism, and rebellion against all reactionary reactionary authority, including any reactionary elements in the party, or even the party as a whole if it is reactionary.

Mao also expanded many other theories of Marx and Lenin, and that is of extreme importance as well.

Most importantly, it is important to understand that Maoists believe that revolutions should occur according to the concrete conditions in each individual country. That means that in the third world, Maoists believe the strategy of protracted peoples war is the strategy to achieve victory. PPW is the strategy of encircling the city from the countryside, and having a revolution which is led by proletariat (with the peasantry and other allied classes as the arm of the proletariat). In the first world, most Maoists believe that the corrent strategy is urban insurrection, followed by civil war (as developed in Russia). However, there are many other theoretical strategies which Maoists have developed in the first world, including the current strategy of the RCP, which is another conversation...

[Iranon]

Maoism: an adaptation of marxist revolutionary theory tailored for the conditions of third-world peasant society.

Why would any American, living in the most advanced capitalist economy, be a Maoist?

I've never understood it. Can someone explain?

Yeah, but first, let me just state something regarding Severian's posts: he's a Trotskyist. Not only is he a Trot, but he's - apparently - a supporter of the Social Workers Party, a group that has actually ran people for the office of the President of the USA. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Anyways, on to subject, if you want to read about Maoism in the American tradition I suggest you look to the Black Panther Party; they were Maoists (although the term wasn't in use then, so they just referred to themselves as Marxists-Leninists) and pretty god damn succesful.

About modern American Maoist groups - with the exception of the RCP-USA (whom I admit I hate) - they tend to be GLOBAL in out look and they also tend to realize that the American "workers" are largely bought off and counter-revolutionary. The Ray O Light Group is somewhat Maoist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_O._Light_Group ) and are ultra-small, but they are active. Both of the FRSO's are Maoist, too.

Regarding the MIM, they do have a small physical presence; run a google on them and you'll come across some conservatives who discuss being harassed by the MIM. They also document their activites on their website.

They have a forum of sorts at irtr.org, which, from what I gather on there, they've stated that it takes _years_ to become a proper member of their organization and they seem to not want to expand to be a mass organization and, once you read their theory, that seems logical. I do like the majority of their econmomic thought, however, and I suggest you read up on that. They also have to be the most vitriolic anti-RCP-USA group out there, and that alone earns them a spot in my heart.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Ray O Light Group is somewhat Maoist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_O._Light_Group ) and are ultra-small, but they are active.

Ray O Light is 'anti-revisionist'.. How could they be Maoist when they say China went the revisionist road when Mao launched the Cultural Revolution in 66?


Both of the FRSO's are Maoist, too.

Well, the FRSO/OSCL could still be considered Maoist, but from what I understand they oppose what they call "Stalinian Marxism" (commonly known as Stalinism), which Maoism really grew out of.

The FRSO(ML) uphold Stalin and what they say are his "theoretical contributions", but at the same time, they consider Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and China to be socialist and politically support the FARC-EP & Workers Party of Belgium! Not typical of any Maoists I've ever met.

[Hit The North]

About modern American Maoist groups - with the exception of the RCP-USA (whom I admit I hate) - they tend to be GLOBAL in out look and they also tend to realize that the American "workers" are largely bought off and counter-revolutionary.


They have a forum of sorts at irtr.org, which, from what I gather on there, they've stated that it takes _years_ to become a proper member of their organization and they seem to not want to expand to be a mass organization and, once you read their theory, that seems logical.

Neither of those positions seem to be very Marxist to me.

Socialist revolution must be the act of the working class itself. All attempts to substitute the class with a clandestine organisation is doomed to failure.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2006, 11:22 AM
Sevarian, you're full of shit. I love it how you pretend to explain other people's idoelogies and just distort them.
You're under no obligation to read my posts - but it's a good idea if you're planning to respond to them.

If you'd read the post, you woulda noticed that there's nothing in there pretending to explain Maoist "ideology".

There's a simple reason for this: there's no ideology to explain. Maoism, like Stalinism generally, is not an ideology. Since the bureaucracy is not a historic class like the capitalists or workers, they don't generate an ideology or theory. Instead, they generate a constantly shifting set of excuses and rationalizations for their pragmatic interests of the moment. This source is now shut off along with the regime's support, of course.

[bayano]

maoism is as easily a tendency of marxism-leninism as trotskyism. personally, im not a namist (and certainly not a maoist or trot), but can we cut out the total dismissiveness of certain global leninist tendencies. maoism and/or maoist writings are a lot more popular in most of the world than trotskyism (ever heard of asia, africa, and much of latin amertica?). ive been doing research on the panamanian revolutionary left including interviews with some of its founders (the first four or five articles of which can be found informally written on my blog) and the maoist tendencies far outweighed the trots.

maoism contributed to its adherents a heavy emphasis on dialectics, ideological discipline, work for popular movements. most maoists find work among what they deem to be oppressed nationalities as very important in comparison to the treatment trots usually give those communities.

also, there is no FRSO(ML). its proper name is FRSO(Fight Back), Fight Back being the name of their paper, but they dont call themselves ML in their name.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:58 AM
If you'd read the post, you woulda noticed that there's nothing in there pretending to explain Maoist "ideology".

There's a simple reason for this: there's no ideology to explain. Maoism, like Stalinism generally, is not an ideology. Since the bureaucracy is not a historic class like the capitalists or workers, they don't generate an ideology or theory. Instead, they generate a constantly shifting set of excuses and rationalizations for their pragmatic interests of the moment. This source is now shut off along with the regime's support, of course.
Right, so all of Mao's theories on Protracted People's War, cultural revolution, imperialism, New Democracy, etc. which people all over the world look to for guidance and leadership are what?!

[red team]

I'm not taking any one position over another as I'm non-sectarian leftist, but clearly explain to me how the ruling party or members of the civil service (others call this the bureaucracy) can be subjected to popular control to make sure that their policy coincides with the interests of the masses? It just seems far too tempting to use the power of your strategically important position in the institution responsible for the distribution and coordination of the resources of society for your own self-interests.

Furthermore, a monetary circulation system being a system in which the issuer of wages be it the government or the Capitalist holds the power to influence production decisions, who's to say that those who are in the position of issuing money for wage would always do it in the best interest of the workers in mind? How would you even know what their best interest is and what's the best production choice for fulfilling their best interests even if you do want to make that decision?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

also, there is no FRSO(ML). its proper name is FRSO(Fight Back), Fight Back being the name of their paper, but they dont call themselves ML in their name.

Actually, if you want to get technical, they just call themselves FRSO. I was using the ML to differeniate between the Left Refoundation grouping and the Marxist Leninist grouping.

[Iranon]

Ray O Light is 'anti-revisionist'.. How could they be Maoist when they say China went the revisionist road when Mao launched the Cultural Revolution in 66?

I'd call the Maoist because they attended The ICMLPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist-Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Internationa l_Newsletter%29) which states at it's website (For the 8th Conference):


1. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought and their creative application in the conduct of the class struggle in each country.
2. Struggle against modern revisionism, and a positive attitude towards Stalin and Mao.
3. Acceptance of the Rules of the Conference.

Seeing as how the Ray O. Light Group attended that meeting, I'd say it qualifies them as Maoist.


Well, the FRSO/OSCL could still be considered Maoist, but from what I understand they oppose what they call "Stalinian Marxism" (commonly known as Stalinism), which Maoism really grew out of.

If we're discussing the Forward Motion branch, I quote their website:


We learn from many revolutionaries and we idolize none.
(edit: they mention Marx, Lenin, but no Stalin... yet)
From Mao, the methods of the mass line and the united front -- how to learn from the experiences and insights of workers and broad masses to formulate demands and build struggles that are as broad and inclusive as possible yet also really challenge the system; and the insight that the transitional relations of production under the socialist state generate new exploiters who must be prevented from restoring capitalism.
We have many friends who are Trotskyists.

I'd say that's enough to qualify them as atleast nominally Maoist.


The FRSO(ML) uphold Stalin and what they say are his "theoretical contributions", but at the same time, they consider Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and China to be socialist and politically support the FARC-EP & Workers Party of Belgium! Not typical of any Maoists I've ever met.

It seems I was incorrect; I was under the incorrect impression they attended the same conference Ray O. Light did.


Neither of those positions seem to be very Marxist to me.

Socialist revolution must be the act of the working class itself. All attempts to substitute the class with a clandestine organisation is doomed to failure.

I'd say they're correctly reacting to the realities of the Global Capitalism; atleast, far more so than other groups. Personally, I fail to see how one can hold out hope for a Western revolution when an American makes more in one hour off of the Federal Minimum Wage than your average Moldovan does in a day - and, not only that, but say the American is proletarian, and so is the Moldovan. It just doesn't add up.

Anyways, regarding their ideas about revolution:

"We should seek to use its relative discomfort with the oppressor nation of U.$. imperialism on the side of proletarian revolution. The best possible outcome will be a combined struggle that results in the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations (JDPON) over imperialism. An active alliance of oppressed nations will be key to advancing the class struggle, bringing down imperialism and establishing socialism. Because of u.$. imperialism's world historic role, we must also insist on Third World peoples everywhere being given the right and duty to join the JDPON and not allow imperialism to restore itself " ( http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/countrie...tlan/index.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/countries/aztlan/index.html) )

...and if you combine that with their ideas about their being no real working class in the Imperialist Nations, aside from what are internal oppressed nations, that's really the logical outcome.

[A Suvorov]

A question I have, then, based on some of the previous posts regarding who is running for office where and who's a Trotskyist and blahblahblah..

If a Leftist/Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Whateverist group is seeking the reformation of America (and, by extension, the world) into a nominally communist soceity, but derides others because their participation in the electoral process...where does that leave that group with respect to their legitimacy as a viable political force propsing change? UNLESS one participates in the electoral process (at least in AMerica) there is NO way change is going to be effected short of armed uprising (i.e., something on the order the Russian Revolution). Waving flags and handing out flyers won't get the job done- but neither will browbeating those trying to change the system 'from the inside', whether you think it will work or not! ALL methods must be employed in a revolution.

The eternal question is: regardless of your orientation (Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxhaist/etc) how do you envision change in America taking place? Ruling out participatory methods leave only one option. 'When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable'.

Who among this group is prepared to forego legal methods of 'regime change' and take up a rifle in the streets? Who among you is prepared to plant the Red Banner on the White House lawn, or even your local City Hall?

I'm not advocating armed uprising by these statements- I merely point out that by ruling out participation in the current electoral process you are leaving the revolution but one option. America is not prepared in any way for a second Civil War, but if you are proposing to instigate such a showdown, you'd better be prepared to make some tremendous sacrifices along the way when taking on government forces in open revolution.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 21 2006, 08:06 PM
I'm not taking any one position over another as I'm non-sectarian leftist, but clearly explain to me how the ruling party or members of the civil service (others call this the bureaucracy) can be subjected to popular control to make sure that their policy coincides with the interests of the masses? It just seems far too tempting to use the power of your strategically important position in the institution responsible for the distribution and coordination of the resources of society for your own self-interests.

Furthermore, a monetary circulation system being a system in which the issuer of wages be it the government or the Capitalist holds the power to influence production decisions, who's to say that those who are in the position of issuing money for wage would always do it in the best interest of the workers in mind? How would you even know what their best interest is and what's the best production choice for fulfilling their best interests even if you do want to make that decision?
Comrade, you really ought to look into the cultural revolution. During the cultural revolution, proletarians were encouraged to rebel against all reactionary authority, including the Party and reactionary elements in it's leadership. The proletariat actively rebelled against all reactionary authority, lessened dependence upon the Party, and completely remade society. The cultural revolution in China was the highest degree of proletarian political power in human history, and shows that Mao's contributions are essential to future socialist societies.


Furthermore, a monetary circulation system being a system in which the issuer of wages be it the government or the Capitalist holds the power to influence production decisions, who's to say that those who are in the position of issuing money for wage would always do it in the best interest of the workers in mind? How would you even know what their best interest is and what's the best production choice for fulfilling their best interests even if you do want to make that decision?

In socialism, society is constantly moving toward the objective of abolishing the monetary system (or maybe it already has abolished the monetary system). Obviously the party has the potential to become a new capitalist class, Mao Tse Tung was the first person to correctly understand that while the vanguard party is necessary to defend proletarian power from being crushed by imperialism (until imperialism is wiped out), the party also has the dynamic within it to become the new capitalist class. For this reason, the masses must be trained to be critical of the party, and to be able to tell the difference between revisionism and socialism.

The masses also ought to be armed and organized into militias which aim to defend society from the party, if the party ever goes back to socialism.

[Poum_1936]

maoism and/or maoist writings are a lot more popular in most of the world than trotskyism (ever heard of asia, africa, and much of latin amertica?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Tr...in_Mass_Support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Trotskyists_Win_Mass_Support)

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:11 AM

maoism and/or maoist writings are a lot more popular in most of the world than trotskyism (ever heard of asia, africa, and much of latin amertica?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Tr...in_Mass_Support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Trotskyists_Win_Mass_Support)
Getting elected into bourgeois democratic revolution proves nothing (and in fact, it reflects upon these Trotskyite groups more negatively)...

How many Trotskyist revolutions have gained power, POUM?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red Heretic+Jul 21 2006, 01:07 PM--> (Red Heretic @ Jul 21 2006, 01:07 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 09:58 AM
If you'd read the post, you woulda noticed that there's nothing in there pretending to explain Maoist "ideology".

There's a simple reason for this: there's no ideology to explain. Maoism, like Stalinism generally, is not an ideology. Since the bureaucracy is not a historic class like the capitalists or workers, they don't generate an ideology or theory. Instead, they generate a constantly shifting set of excuses and rationalizations for their pragmatic interests of the moment. This source is now shut off along with the regime's support, of course.
Right, so all of Mao's theories on Protracted People's War, cultural revolution, imperialism, New Democracy, etc. which people all over the world look to for guidance and leadership are what?! [/b]
I just explained what they are: "Instead, they generate a constantly shifting set of excuses and rationalizations for their pragmatic interests of the moment. This source is now shut off along with the regime's support, of course."

Again, it's a good idea to read a post if you choose to respond to it.

***

Hmmm, I thought this was a thread on Maoist groups. Apparently some Maoists are haunted by the spectre of Trotskyism.

And it is a spectre. I was just pointing out how and why "Stalinism" and "Maoism" are historical terms - without a sponsoring regime to define orthodoxy, the former franchise parties are diverging in many directions.

That's even more true of "Trotskyism," which never had a regime sponsor. The parties labelling themselves "Trotskyist" have been diverging for longer, and have little or nothing left in common. The label's virtually meaningless.

[Poum_1936]

If I remember correctly Red Herectic, Maoists adhered to the two stage theory. That is letting the bourgeois democratic revolution takes its course, then somewhere down the line we can all talk about the socialist revolution.

The link was to counter the idea that Trotskyists have no influence in the 3rd World.

[ZACKist]

Originally posted by Poum_1936+Jul 22 2006, 10:48 PM--> (Poum_1936 @ Jul 22 2006, 10:48 PM)If I remember correctly Red Herectic, Maoists adhered to the two stage theory. That is letting the bourgeois democratic revolution takes its course, then somewhere down the line we can all talk about the socialist revolution. [/b]
I think this will help and you'll get a deeper understand of what Mao was meaning by "twofold task of the Chinese revolution and the CCP"...


Mao Tsetung
What, indeed, is the character of the Chinese revolution at the present stage? Is it a bourgeois-democratic or a proletarian-socialist revolution? Obviously, it is not the latter but the former.

Since Chinese society is colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal, since the principal enemies of the Chinese revolution are imperialism and feudalism, since the tasks of the revolution are to overthrow these two enemies by means of a national and democratic revolution in which the bourgeoisie sometimes takes part, and since the edge of the revolution is directed against imperialism and feudalism and not against capitalism and capitalist private property in general even if the big bourgeoisie betrays the revolution and becomes its enemy -- since all this is true, the character of the Chinese revolution at the present stage is not proletarian-socialist but bourgeois-democratic.[23]

However, in present-day China the bourgeois-democratic revolution is no longer of the old general type, which is now obsolete, but one of a new special type. We call this type the new-democratic revolution and it is developing in all other colonial and semi-colonial countries as well as in China. The new-democratic revolution is part of the world proletarian-socialist revolution, for it resolutely opposes imperialism, i.e., international capitalism. Politically, it strives for the joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes over the imperialists, traitors and reactionaries, and opposes the transformation of Chinese society into a society under bourgeois dictatorship. Economically, it aims at the nationalization of all the big enterprises and capital of the imperialists, traitors and reactionaries, and the distribution among the peasants of the land held by the landlords, while preserving private capitalist enterprise in general and not eliminating the rich-peasant economy. Thus, the new type of democratic revolution clears the way for capitalism on the one hand and creates the prerequisites for socialism on the other. The present stage of the Chinese revolution is a stage of transition between the abolition of the colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society and the establishment of a socialist society, i.e., it is a process of new-democratic revolution. This process, begun only after the First World War and the Russian October Revolution, started in China with the May 4th Movement of 1919. A new-democratic revolution is an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution of the broad masses of the people under the leadership of the proletariat. Chinese society can advance to socialism only through such a revolution; there is no other way.

The new-democratic revolution is vastly different from the democratic revolutions of Europe and America in that it results not in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie but in a dictatorship of the united front of all the revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat. In the present War of Resistance, the anti-Japanese democratic political power established in the base areas which are under the leadership of the Communist Party is the political power of the Anti-Japanese National United Front; this is neither a bourgeois nor a proletarian one-class dictatorship, but a joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat. All who stand for resistance to Japan and for democracy are entitled to share in this political power, regardless of their party affiliation.

...

To complete China's bourgeois-democratic revolution (the new-democratic revolution) and to transform it into a socialist revolution when all the necessary conditions are ripe--such is the sum total of the great and glorious revolutionary task of the Chinese Communist Party. Every Party member must strive for its accomplishment and must under no circumstances give up halfway. Some immature Communists think that our task is confined to the present democratic revolution and does not include the future socialist revolution, or that the present revolution or the Agrarian Revolution is actually a socialist revolution. It must be emphatically pointed out that these views are wrong. Every Communist ought to know that, taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and that the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society. A clear understanding of both the differences and the interconnections between the democratic and the socialist revolutions is indispensable to correct leadership in the Chinese revolution.

Except for the Communist Party, no political party (bourgeois or petty-bourgeois) is equal to the task of leading China's two great revolutions, the democratic and the socialist revolutions, to complete fulfilment. From the very day of its birth, the Communist Party has taken this twofold task on its own shoulders and for eighteen years has fought strenuously for its accomplishment.

[ZACKist]

My apologies comrades, I forgot to show a link to were you can read the quote in it's entirety. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-2/mswv2_23.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_23.htm)

[Iranon]

The eternal question is: regardless of your orientation (Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxhaist/etc) how do you envision change in America taking place? Ruling out participatory methods leave only one option. 'When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable'.

It's not a question of whether or not participatory options are "ruled out"; it's a question of using your brain and understanding that, due to the marginalized nature of the all Socialist/Communist groups in America, running for the Presidency is nothing but a complete and utter waste of money and members time. While in the future it may (hypothetically) be possible; there's no fucking way it was going to happen from the 80s on - consequently, in my opinion, I view parties that still run candidates for elections like these as fools.

When is running for office appropriate? When it's viable, when you can actually win and - after winning - make significant changes. Note how Black Panther Party members running on the Peace & Freedom Party ticket almost won the seat of Mayor of Oakland. That was not a waste of resources; because they could've won and implemented some of the major reforms they hoped to carry out.


America is not prepared in any way for a second Civil War, but if you are proposing to instigate such a showdown, you'd better be prepared to make some tremendous sacrifices along the way when taking on government forces in open revolution.

Boycotting electoral methods can still bring about revolutionary change with little to no force; i.e., look at the Black Panther Party - when they weren't strong enough to challenge the Capitalists on their own turf, they organized isntead of voting - and the effect is still being felt to this day - whereas I've never heard anyone discuss the SWP's "Glorious electoral battles...".

Regarding Poum_1936, it means shit if a party calling itself Trotskyist gains X amount of votes. The Communist Party of Moldova currently rules and, prior to the last election, it had all executive branch positions and decisive majority in the parliament that allowed it to pass a bill without any minority support - yet, it has yet to do anything remotelly "revolutionary". The same can be said for the other Socialist/Social Democrat parties that gain power; they become pigs and decide ideas like WW1 are really fucking good.


Hmmm, I thought this was a thread on Maoist groups. Apparently some Maoists are haunted by the spectre of Trotskyism.

No shit Maoists have a thing against Trots; Maoists aren't about to place their hopes for revolution in the Imperialist west where the workers have the highest standard of living - whereas the Trotskyists declare the Imperialist West is what's *necessary* for a revolution to succeed. The difference between Maoist and Trotskyist ideals are beyond reconcile.


I just explained what they are: "Instead, they generate a constantly shifting set of excuses and rationalizations for their pragmatic interests of the moment. This source is now shut off along with the regime's support, of course."

The differences between most Maoist parties are minor - extremely minor in fact - if you compare them to the Trots. Also, if Maoists are pragmatists, why did the nearly the entire group of them stop supporting China after 1976? That, certainly, was about as far from pragmatism as you can get. Not to mention that Maoists continue to carry on the armed struggle without foreign aid to this very day....