Maosim in Britain!

[stonerboi]

To all forum members who live in Britain I would like to ask them about setting up a Maoist communist group/party in Britain.

Britain has plenty of Trotskyist groups ( SWP, SP, ISG, SSP, SA, WRP etc...) and also a few traditional communist parties aligned to the former USSR ( CPB and the NCP)

But you can see the absence of Maoist groups.

Although I am a Maoist, I do not think all Maoist theories apply to the first world. By that I mean that a peasant revolution is imppossible in Britain for two reasons:

1.) 85% of UK population is urban.

2.) The majority of rural population in the UK are tory voting, well off and very right-wing.

However the other aspect of Maoism are most true to communist ideals. They are:

1.) The belief that 'moral incentives' should motivate the proletariat into action and economic activity rather than economic/material incentives as was the case in the Soviet Union. This theory of a 'socialist morality' influenced Che in his ideas on the 'New Socialist Man'.

2.) Maosim rejects the revisionist/reformist concept of socialists/communists participating in capitalist elections and using the system to bring about half-hearted measures. Maoism argues for revolution at all levels, very similar to Trotsky in that sense.

3.) Maoism rejects all concepts of 'peacefull co-existence' and 'socialism in one country'. It is criminal for any socialist/communist state to work with or establish links with any capitalist/imperialist system, regardless of the short term benefits. Again another similarity with Trotsky.

4.) The Maoist concept of communes is the closest a human society ever got to becoming a moneyless, nationless and classess society. Communal living is essential in any true socialist society.

5.) Maoist are not Stalinistic in the sense that we encourage inter-party debate and are in a constant state of self awareness and self critcism. Like Trotskyists Maoists party methods are in line with Marxism-Leninism in the concept on a single party vanguard state, but also allow inter-party democracy and so the chance for the masses to express their opinions.

The reason why I highlight the similarities with Trotsky are that it is my beleif that Maosim and Trotskyism are very close ideologically. Some Maoists who label themselves Marxist-Leninists align with Stalin. In my five pionts of Maoist ideology you can see how far apart Stalinism and Maoism were and how close Maoism is to Trotskyism.

So when I propose setting up a Maoist communist group in Britain, I am not only appealing to Maoists, but to Trotskyists who at the moment do not identify with any of the current British Trotskyist parties due to their revisionist and reformist nature.

[redstar2000]

Of course, I am not competent to comment on this practical proposal, not being a Maoist or living in the U.K. But the political comments are "fair game", so...

The belief that 'moral incentives' should motivate the proletariat into action and economic activity rather than economic/material incentives as was the case in the Soviet Union.

That's idealism (not Marxism), at least in the abstract way that it's put.

A Marxist would argue that appeals to "morality" can only work under conditions of material abundance...which was not the case in either the USSR or China. In conditions of material scarcity, public "morality" will always be accompanied by private corruption...exactly what happened in both places.

Maoism rejects the revisionist/reformist concept of socialists/communists participating in capitalist elections and using the system to bring about half-hearted measures.

Good for them! That's definitely a positive step.

Maoism rejects all concepts of 'peacefull co-existence' and 'socialism in one country'. It is criminal for any socialist/communist state to work with or establish links with any capitalist/imperialist system, regardless of the short term benefits.

If that's really true, then it represents a departure from Mao's own practice; he did receive the American war-criminal Richard Nixon as a welcome ally against the USSR. It is possible, of course, that he was already senile and powerless at that time...mere stage-dressing for the "capitalist-roaders" who would follow him.

The Maoist concept of communes is the closest a human society ever got to becoming a moneyless, nationless and classless society. Communal living is essential in any true socialist society.

That's an interesting hypothesis; I don't know enough about the "large communes" that Mao established to say one way or another (I'm sure they were not "nationless"...). But it appears to be the historians' consensus that the communes failed in a rather dramatic fashion, resulting in China's only famine since 1949. Something doesn't quite add up here...

Maoists are not Stalinistic in the sense that we encourage inter-party debate and are in a constant state of self awareness and self critcism. Like Trotskyists, Maoists party methods are in line with Marxism-Leninism in the concept on a single party vanguard state, but also allow inter-party democracy and so the chance for the masses to express their opinions.

Well, yes and no. It's true that there were periods in China under Mao when the masses were encouraged to express the views publicly through the "great character poster" movement. They did not, however, have access to the public media (newspapers, radio, television). The "walls" of public expression were limited to urban areas, often, I think, in the university neighborhoods.

I don't think there's much evidence that would support the view that the masses had significant influence within the party. And although some inner-party debate became "public", you pretty much had to be a "Mandarin scholar" to understand the historical and literary allusions and who they were being applied to.

I have no idea whether or not Maoist parties in general have more internal debate and discussion than other kinds of Leninist parties; I think the reasonable assumption is that it depends on the particular party itself, who's running it, etc.

The real criticism of "democratic centralism" is the limit on discussion itself--once a decision has been reached, discussion ends and the party member is expected to "carry out his orders" without delay. There is no way to correct a mistake until the leadership itself recognizes that a mistake has been made...any attempt to communicate the idea that a mistake has been made to all the members of the party by an individual member is regarded as "factionalism", "indiscipline", etc. and promptly punished, usually by expulsion.

People have noted when writing the histories of Leninist parties that they have a marked tendency to "lurch" from mistake to mistake...since there's no on-going mechanism for correcting the "party line", the leadership "overcorrects" each mistake...jerking from (usually) "too reformist" to "too sectarian" and back again.

That does not inspire confidence.

:cool:

[stonerboi]

Redstar2000. You made the point that the Chinese proletariat did not understand the inter-party debates and would have to be 'Mandarin scholars' to know what they were talking about.

Well I personally believe that it is the duty of every communist party to enable the proletariat to become educated and so will have the intellectual capacity of running their own affairs within collective workers units.

You then talk of communes. Yes mistakes were made by the Chinese and some may not have functioned according to plan. However you pointed out that your source for the history of the communes was a number of certain 'historians'. Even I have some criticism of Mao, but to use capitalist anti-communist 'historians' to inform yourself of the situation in China will do you no service. Most of the capitalist 'historians' are right-wing, like Britains David Starkey, David Irving, Simon Schama and Anthony Roberts. These individuals will look at history from a right-wing, anti-communist and euro-centric perspective. So in my opinion the veiws of these 'historians' is totally irrelevant to me and most communists.

One point we are both on agreement is the shameful meeting between comrade Mao and that vile dictator Nixon. Some Maoists such as the US Revolutionary Communist Party defend such an alliance (between US/China) as a practical step to securing China from an attack by the USSR. I DO NOT support this and say that the Maoist concept of a 'peoples war' would suffice to repel the USSR from China and render US involvement useless. When you said the Nixon meeting was instigated by the state-capitalist faction led by Deng Xiaoping, I agree with you as they fought tooth and nail to restore capitalism in China.

My last point is that you label moral incentives over material ones as 'un-Marxist'. Well Marx, Engels or Mao never made statements similar to yours, so it is your opinion and not Marxist theory. You label me as idealistic, well isn't that what Marxism is all about? I mean a global classless, moneyless, nationless society of emancipated humans is idealistic in itself, as it aims to solve the problems of today with the ideals of a future utopian society, ie: communism. Also in the era after a workers revolution, the only way to secure communism and to prevent capitalist restoration is not only to have a revolution in political and economic terms, but to change the human way of thinking from a constant greedy want of money/material desires to a level of thinking for the whole community and to better oneself.

[elijahcraig]

I think the assumption that a "moral incentive" will do anything is what he calls idealism, and I would agree. Such assumptions are useless when examining history materially.

[Marxismliveson]

In Britain we do not need to set up more and more parties. There are already too many. We need to unite under the single banner. We should settle all our little differences, because after all we are all fighting for the same thing.

Alligning with different parties is dividing the left, remember the old saying:
"Divided we fall, united we stand"
Well at the moment we are divided and we are fallen, we need to unite and strengthen!

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I agree with Comrade Marxismliveson. It is rather stupid to form so many small socialist/communist parties. According to Comrade stonerboi, there are eight Trotskyite parties in the UK alone! Why the hell are there EIGHT parties using the same doctrine?

The unity argument has its limits. I do not think rational leftists like Marxists should join forces with pseudo-leftists like Stalinists.

But really, there should be only one Trotskyite party. Probably believers in most versions of socialism, communism, and even anarchism (I believe) can form one party united against capitalism.

[stonerboi]

Actually if you look up www.broadleft.org you will see there are about 20-30 Trotskyist parties, 5 hardline Stalinist parties and about 3 pro-USSR parties.

The point I make is that I am a revolutionary and consider, as many on the forum do, that capitalist elections are a waste of time.

I also consider that the Labour Party was NEVER a party to serve the interests of the proletariat, but rather a capitalist right-wing party with a working-class base.

Yet despite the two points above, almost all of the 'Trotskyist' parties favour reclaiming the Labour party back to a social-democratic position. The ISG and the SWP are the most right-wing (social democrat) outside of the Labour party. Both parties use so-called 'left' MPs like Corbyn, who only talk left to gain support, but when the going gets tough, they all fall apart.

You cannot ever reclaim the Labour party for socialism, let alone any form of Marxism or communism, because it was never socialist to begin with.

Remember, CAPITALIST party with WORKING-CLASS base!

In office, Labour has always tied the workers and union to the ruling class and kept the unions impotent by backing right-wing (often called 'moderates') union general-secetaries who support the party and in return form part of the Labour party leadership (providing they NEVER stand up for the interests of the workers!)

In office, Labour have been as war-mongering, militarist, imperialist and as pro-US as the Conservatives!

It was Labour who 'helped' the US slaughter 3 million Koreans in the Korean War.

It was Labour who toyed with the idea of sending British troops to Vietnam, but public opinion stoped them from doing so.

It was Labour who started the process of slaughter and ethnic genocide in Northern Ireland by supporting the neo-fascist Protestant statelet and suppressing the liberation struggle in Northern Ireland.

It is also Labour which support every oppresive 'anti-terrorist' or 'national security' act/law put forward by the Tories. And guess what, this New Labour administration has put forward such oppresive state security laws that even the TORIES OPPOSE them!!!

And it is this Labour government that is doing what the Tories could only ever dream about. Privitising the NHS and the education system as well as abolishing free education for university students.

The point I am making with all of this is that you said that it is better to unite with these other leftist groups.

But these groups you talk of (SWP, SP, SA, ISG, WP, CPB, NCP) all support the concpt of keeping Labour in POWER, but simply changing the leadership at the very top, ie: Tony Blair and possibly Gordon Brown.

In other words these parties which recruit people (just like they did to me) who call themselves Marxists, but then these parties at the same time as proffessing Marxist ideology and proletarian revolution verbally are also the same parties which support a right-wing government ie: Labour.

Well whats the point of aligning communist revolutionaries like myself, with parties that call on the Labour party to 'listen to the people' (that qoute coming from the SWP's leader Chris Bambary) and replace the nasty Tony Blair with a nicer more 'liberal' type like that turncoat ***** Claire Short.

If these parties really are Marxist as they claim to be, then they would know that not only is Labour a capitalist party and a leading part of the reactionary British establishment, but also that capitalsim will never give up power to the working class peacefully (by elections), but would go down with a fight.

Karl Marx said that capitalsit elections are only there to provide the allusion of democracy but in reality change nothing. Lenin said that elections simply mean the process by which people vote as to which section of the ruling call will continue to oppress them.

So before anyone says to me that instead of forming a communist party that fights for proletarian revolution I should join forces with existing parties, I say that I will not join these existing parties until they drop their reformist policies and STOP supporting the Labour party and instead fight to overthrow capitalism instead of trying to change it!

I am not by the way having a go at the ordinary members of these parties, rather I am targeting the unaccountable leadership of groups like the CPB and SWP.

I say this as I was once a member of the SWP. I joined because when you look at their newspaper and see the SWP party programme, it talks of workers militias, workers councils and NOT using the apparatus of the capitalist state but using proletarian revolution instead.

However upon joining all they want you for is your money (constant pressure to pay more and to top up your monthly subs) and they use you only to sell their newspapers. The SWP never ask you for your input into ideas for party ideology and never consult members on party policy. They do not even try to educate their members on Marxism. Not once did they discuss Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky or even their founder Tony Cliff. As long as you sell their papers all is alright in their eyes.

Despite having a rotten and completely crap leadership. the SWP is not democratic and so you never have the chance to actually bring about any change. The only two things you can do are:

-Leave (like I did) as an individual member.

-Build up a group of dissedents and leave en-masse to form a new group (like the Revolutionary Communist Group did in 1982).

So when I say I would like to set up a new party, I do not do it to try and split the left, but do it because we need a PROPER revolutionary communist party which will fight Labour (unlike everyone else) and fight to replace capitalism with communism and not stop with a few piecemeal social democratic reforms.

Actually by setting up this new party it could actually unify the left, as I mentioned earlier many grassroots members of the existing parties are unhappy with their reformist nature and due to the lack of internal democarcy within these parties they cannot change them! So by setting up a true revoluyionary party it could draw away these dissatisfied members form their current parties and they could all join the new one thus the new party will have become the largest party of the far-left and will leave all the old reformist parties (SWP, WP, SP, CPB) with no members but their own leadership and so they will have become insignificant little sect while the new party will be large and also a threat to the system because of its revolutionary nature as opposed to reformism of the old parties.

[redstar2000]

Stonerboi, I admitted my personal ignorance of the "great leap forward" period in Cinese history; I was simply observing the "common consensus" that it was a disaster; the "big communes" didn't grow enough food and China suffered a famine.

If there is an informed communist critique of this period, I'm certainly willing to take a look.


In ordinary language, it might be "ok" to describe a communist as an "idealist"...as one motivated by certain ideas for a fundamentally different social order (classless society). But ordinary language can be misleading on occasion...and this is one of those occasions.

A Marxist understands (or is supposed to understand) that consciousness depends on material reality...not the other way around. When Mao called upon Chinese peasants to live like communists, he was asking them to do something that was literally "undoable" because the material conditions that would have generated that level of consciousness did not exist.

You can't substitute slogans for reality and expect to accomplish very much. Paradoxically, if Mao had made such an appeal to the urban proletariat, he would have gotten much further...but he was not able to do that because of the limitations of his own consciousness...he himself was of middle peasant origins.


I enthusiastically endorse your remarks on what it was like to be in the SWP (UK). I have known many people who were members of all kinds of Leninist parties...and the similarities and parallels are amazing. For all their blather about training "professional revolutionaries", they often treat their membership worse than a crew of door-to-door magazine peddlers. As I've said elsewhere, in the end, it's like having a really shitty, low-paying job.

I likewise endorse your remarks on the "Labour" Party and the fact that capitalist elections are an illusion of democracy.

But I "predict" that the kind of critical (Marxist) outlook that you are developing is going to make you a "poor" Leninist in the long run.

:cool:

[Cassius Clay]

Maoism in Britain? More chance of Nazism in Isreal.

First you should really see what Mao had to say on Stalin and Trotsky. More to the point the only thing uniting the Trotskyite movement/s and some Maoist ones is that both share a love for personality cults and ultra-leftism.

Stonerboi you are right to say that 'some apsects' of Maoism do not apply to the First world. Alot of self-procalimed Maoists would go alot further and discard the First World all together. Mao himself likely thought the same. Was it not he who came up with the reactionary and nationalist theory of Three Worlds? I may be wrong there but the whole concept of three Worlds comes from Mao's Thought and what he actually did in practice.

Mao aided the Unita forces in Angola, Mao gave aid to the Pakistan Military because it was rival with India, nevermind that the Pakistan Military crushed workers and students with those guns. Mao met with the Shah of Iran to promote his third world nationalism, and finally he capt it off by meeting Nixon and Kissenger while they were bombing millions of VIetnamese workers and peasants.

This is not to say Maoism is not progressive, it is very much so and the number of Maoist infulenced or symathectic of Mao and Maoism groups who are bringing about real social change and fighting Imperialism is very impressive and deserves are full support. For sake of unity many Marxist-Leninist groups are and should make a clear difference between Mao himself and Maoists who are on the whole genuine.

The reason I say this is because as allready pointed out Maoism is very much progressive and is one of if not the leading force in the world fighting Imperialism. Never the less what happened in the PRC and Mao's role in it deserves criticism. I won't criticise Mao's foriegn policy, I think he made alot of mistakes in practice but everyone understands that geopolitics sometimes comes over Ideology.

First was Socialism or even the foundations for Socialism ever built in China? It's my understading Marx defined Socialism as the elimination of classes, yet in China after 1949 Mao promoted the idea of a 'New-Democratic Revolution' this meant involving and allying with the the bourgesie (hell even the former Emperor got involved), as long as they were 're-educated' but when they were allowed out they were just aloud to go back and run the factories and still exploit the workers. In Russia in 1917 did the Bolsheviks ally with the landlord class or the former Capitalists? No. Now I'm painting a unfair and wrong picture here somewhat, but to a point this is what happened and what Mao promoted.

At the moment I dont have a source for this but I've read that these former 're-educated' Capitalists earned something like 10% more than the workers. While Mao was criticising the USSR for being Capitalist the same thing was going on in the PRC.

Now this brings up Mao's fight against the Revisionists in the USSR. He was right to fight them and criticse them. But there are a number of flaws on how he went about doing this both in theory and practice. First he was all to happy to ally with Khruschev when the USSR was not threatening the PRC, he only started to fight against the USSR's Revisionism when it threatened the PRC's interests and acted in a very opportunist manner. It should be pointed out that in 1956 at the CPC's Congress that the main enemy was decalred to be 'US Imperialism'. In 1968 it was both 'Soviet-Social Imperialism and US Imperialism', in 1973 it was merely 'Soviet-Social Imperialism'. This brings back the point of allying with Nixon and Kissenger. You dont do this, especially to fight against half-hearted socialists.

Now it may appear as if I'm presenting only one side of the story here. So yes it may be right to say that Mao did the above because he was interested in the preserving unity in the socialist camp. But that doesn't stand up when allying with U$ Imperialism, he did it because he was looking into securing China's own Imperialist motives.

Note that the U$A Establishment and Government never saw Mao as a threat to there interests. They backed him over Chaing in the Second World War. Mao often spoke during that time and even after the revolution of promoting Capitalism. When he did threaten the U$A he did it by allying with hiw own bourgesie and not foriegn Imperialists.

I hope I'm not coming across as to anti-Mao here, I'm not. I would hope all I'm doing is highlighting his mistakes.

This brings me on to Mao's criticisms of Stalin and the USSR before 1956. Now he was in some aspects right to criticse Stalin, as are you infact. Mao was right when he criticised Stalin for being far to optimistic on the elimination of classes in the USSR (note that Stalin himself retracted this in 1952), he was also right in that Stalin could of allowed more peoples involvment in unmasking beuracrates and the like. Although I would in no way endorse something similar to the Cultural Revolution which was ultra-leftist and promoting a personality cult.

But Mao was also wrong to criticise Stalin on a number of issues. They are on the whole bourgesie criticisms of Stalin's leadership. For instance Mao claimed that Stalin had intervied (spell) in other CP's roles in the war, this is wrong. For one Dmitrov headed the Comintern and both Dmitorv and Mao reguarly telegramed eachother exchanging views and ideas and coming up with the united front strategy. Not to mention if it wasn't for comintern aid the CPC would of been all dead by 1939.

Mao also said that Stalin did not regonise that revisionists and opportunists do increase their struggle and fight as Socialism progresses. As allready pointed out Mao was right to a certain extent that the class struggle was carried out not in the best way. But infact the people did engage fully in party democracy and criticism in the USSR pre-1956. Then there's the fact that Mao wouldn't of had to of engaged in the ltra-leftist Cultural Revolution if he hadn't let in the bourgesie and revisionists into the party in the first place. Letting 'One hundred flowers bloom' or whatever is NOT Marxism.


Anyway oddly enough it's ironic that Maoists would want to unite with Trotskyites, the former beleiving in a coalition of all third world forces (peasants, petty bourgesie even Nationalists if there along for the ride and hey even some workers in there aswell) while the latter believing that only folks in the first world are 'advanced' and or 'civilised' enough to build Socialism.

Long story short your going to have trouble uniting if you bring up any of Trotsky or Mao's theorys.

[stonerboi]

Firstly I would like to say that the discussion here has deviated from the original point ( if anyone is interested in setting up a Maoist group in the UK ) and has moved to a debate on the ideology of Maoism.

I am not saying I am uncomfortable with this debate, as a Maoist I believe in critical discussion and find the points, especially of those of redstar2000 and cassius clay thought provoking. However I know that everyone who reads this will find that the post starts of with a certain topic and then somehow ends up discussing something else.

In reply to cassius clay, from what I have read of your posts, esp. on topics like Trotsky, you are either a Stalinist ( I know that Stalinists refer to themselves as Marxists-Leninists, but since Trotskyist also identify with M-L I will not use the M-L label but the Stalinist one ) or at least support him over Trotsky.

You do RIGHTLY point out the shameful pacts the Mao had made with Nixon, fascist Pakistan, and other reactionary states. I have already said that I do NOT defend these foolish alliances unlike some 'Maoist' groups like the RCP-USA of Avakain. I have said earlier that I identify with the IDEOLOGY of Maoism and not Mao as an individual! Since I am a believer in Maoist ideology, I believe that a rural country like China could of easily defeated an invading Soviet army by a Peoples War. This should of been of priority in Chinese policy, not reactionary alliances with USA.

Yet as a Maoist I am able to critise Mao on this and have done in the past and will continue to do so. I do not believe in 'cults of personality' even for Marx, Engles or Lenin. Lenin himself told those around him to not turn him (Lenin) into a figure of worship. Marxism is a science of society and as such all Marxist theotricians (Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Mao and Guevara) are all scientists. You are not supposed to worship scientists and they do not seek worship, they simply lay out theories which can be followed and if need be modified.

Cassius clay, as a Stalin supporter you contrdict yourself when you say that Maoists have a 'cult of personality'. Mao himself allowed the masses to criticise and even reject his line. However Stalin allowed no such criticism and dealt harshly and brutally with anyone who did so. When I refer to these victims of Stalin, I am not refering to the tsarist officials, preists and other reactionary types who deserved Stalins harshness, I am refering to the victims who were members of the Bolshevik party who quesioned Stalins incorrect approach to Marxism, esp. in regards to international revolution. Stalin was also the one who came up with this whole 'cult of personality' thing anyway. Stalin was the one who turned the Soviet media into a neverending diet of praise for himself as a 'warrior' 'field marshall' 'father of the nation' etc... It was also Stalin who went agianst Lenins wishes and turned Lenin in Soviet propaganda from a Marxist revolutionary and theotrician into a demi-god.

Stalin also like Mao made a bad choice when it came to foreign alliances. Was it not Stalin who signed a 'friendship treaty' (in 1939) with the most EVIL society to have existed in human history, Nazi Germany. So much for communist internationalism when you befriend Hitler, who at the time of the treaty was sending german communists to extermination camps. Stalin also joined Hitlers carve up of Poland thus making Stalins USSR no better that modern day imperialist America in that Stalin oppressed other countires with military occupation.

Stalin also sold out the Spanish revolution to Franco by making the Spanish Communist party turn against its fellow anti-fascist fighters in POUM, the Spanish Trotskyist group. In Stalins eyes it was better to have a go at Trotsky than unite against the common threat of Franco. This silly immaturity showed that Stalin could not give a FUCK about the plight of peoples outside his despotism and was more interested in his own image. Such a man was not worthy to lead the USSR let alone claim to speake for the international communist movement. Even from a military parspective, Stalin fucked up the Spanish Republic by insisting that the communists fight inside the Spanish army as proffessional soilders. The POUM had the right idea to fight Franco through a workers militia and a Peoples War. This makes stategic sense in that you could not defeat Franco with a state army as he had the loyalty of around 60% of the Spanish army and was backed to hilt in weapons, finance, food by Germany and Italy. These two countries also sent in their own troops around 100,000 combined. Yet the USSR was too far away to really help the republic and so Franco was bound to win a conventional war. If the republicans had followed POUM's advice, then they could have fought a guerrilla war against Franco and could have stoped him, even if Madrid were to temporarily fall to Franco. Yet when the civil war ended, the Stalinists and liberal capitalists/social democrats fled Spain and gave up the fight like COWARDS!

So Cassius, Stalins record is hardly perfect and has shown that if Mao was opportunistic/nationalistc and made mistake, they do not even compare to Stalin.

[elijahcraig]

Well done stonerboi, I agreed with everything you said.

[Cassius Clay]

Stonerboi sorry for deviating from the originall discussion but hey we got a interesting topic now so lets continue with the debate.

You are right to criticse Mao for his foriegn policy, this is why I say that people should make a clear difference between Mao and Maoists. I'm also sure that Mao was NOT the all imposing dictator who had a final say in everything, part of the PRC's foriegn policy would of been decided or atleast pressured from the extreme rightist elements running amok (but once again who allowed these people in the CPC in the first place?).

You bring up the pact with Nazi Germany, yes at first site this does deserve some criticism. But if you look into it in more detail you see what happened. First it was a primarily a non-agression treaty which prevented war not only with Nazi Germany but the Empires in Britain and France, second of all it was not a military or political alliance of any sought. Unlike Mao's meeting/s with Nixon and Kissenger (while they were bombing Vietnam). Also the USSR campaigned for a united front against Fascism from atleast 1935 and was still prepared to go to war with Nazi Germany over Poland like they would of done a year before in Czechslovakia as late as August 1939. Who did the British and French send? Third rate diplomats who had no authority on a very slow boat.

The Pact also guarrenteed the Imperialists would fight eachother rather than united against the USSR. Compare all this to Mao who allied directly with U$ Imperialism against a admitingly revisionist but never the less far more progressive system/government in the USSR.


On Stalin and the 'Cult of Personality', Stalin fought against it and ridiculed it. Infact Mao was one of those who helped build it up in the first place. Now Mao especially during the culutral revolution became a demi-god, his word was final. The little red book praised Mao as 'The four Greats' and whenever he himslef became the target of criticism such as in the Shaghai Commune or in the late sixties from Red Guards who protested him cosing up to the U$ he acted with violence from the military. This is ofcourse a criticism of Mao from the 'left', my own opinion is that the CPCR was wrong to begin with but if you read PLP material your see how Mao set about building a cult and only unleashed it to elimante rivals and whenever it 'went to far' (ie usually when he was criticised) he reacted by using oppression.

While in the USSR under Stalin debate, criticism and self-criticism aswell as inner-party democracy was handled in the proper and far better way. The opposition of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev and co put forward there ideas and well oppoistion ot the party and people and were rejected. Bakhurin and the rightists criticised everything Stalin was doing both in the party and in Soviet newspapers (Bakhurin was editor of Ivesta from where he criticised Industrialistation, collectivastion, war against Kulaks) and the party rejected him.

More over in the USSR the people through out party leaders in elections who had became beuracrates and the like through very democratic elections. While the NKVD would deal with those who were in the service of foriegn Imperialism. Compare this to Mao ordering a bunch of teenagers to go and 'overthrow' whoever. That has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism, it's ultra-leftism.

In the USSR criticism and self-criticism was hadled in a proper way. Not only was there a fair democratic procedure, but there was inner-party debate aswell as enourmous criticism of the leadership and also on lower levels. Maxim Gorky once wrote a letter to Stalin suggesting that 'he not allow so much criticism because it will only play into the hands of our enemies'. Stalin was called to account when he was wrong and also when he was right. He was once forced to apologise to rank and file party members who thought he had been 'rude' to them. Zhadnov also writing in 1939 questioned the foriegn policy of the USSR which was supported by Stalin.

Also workers had the right to fire their own managers at the workplace in the USSR. While in Mao's PRC the managers tended to be the same old Capitalists who earned 5 times the amount as the workers. Make up your own mind.

On the Spanish Civil War. I would recomend you read veterans accounts (other than George Orwell) who were there aswell as German documents proving that POUM were in the pay of the Fascists. Sure mistakes were made in the Spanish Civil War and the 'Stalinists' did make mistakes. But running away was not one of them, far from it. There are threads in the History forum which deal with this in more deatil I believe, go there.

Finally as I said to begin with you should read what Mao had to say on Stalin on what he had to say on Trotsky and Trotskyites. I would think logic would dictate that the two ideologies cannot get along but still. Mao criticised Stalin and he was right to, on some issues I think Mao was just plain wrong in criticising Stalin and would of been better concentrating on where Stalin did actually go wrong. At the same time Mao acknowledged Stalin both while he was alive and more so afterwards on where he was right. Mao said Stalin was good 70% and bad 30%, this is the sought of criticism that makes no sense.

Anyway I acknowledge Mao for the many great things he did and I acknowledge Maoists who are in the front line and leading fighters against Imperialism far more. At the same time it should be highlighted where he went wrong.

[Blackberry]

However upon joining all they want you for is your money (constant pressure to pay more and to top up your monthly subs) and they use you only to sell their newspapers. The SWP never ask you for your input into ideas for party ideology and never consult members on party policy. They do not even try to educate their members on Marxism. Not once did they discuss Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky or even their founder Tony Cliff. As long as you sell their papers all is alright in their eyes.

Fairly spot on with trotskyists groups all over the world.

The trotskyist youth group I joined (just to keep updated with the happenings - I am certainly no trotskyist) actually went one step further and offered to 'educate' me about socialism. I bet they didn't allow any critiques in their classes (I said I would 'think' about it, but never took it up).

Yes, they indeed are fanatical about their newspapers. the Green Left Weekly's website is the 'number one political website in Australia' (corporate media isn't counted).

I recently wrote up a couple of leaflets for them, for a protest coming up in a month's time. Instead of getting the copy of the file off me via email, they are making me take a 40 minute bus trip to drop the leaflets off. Incidentally, they sell their paper the same time I am going to drop it off. I really should not turn up. I think I will stop getting involved with them after this.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 2:07 pm on July 24, 2003

However upon joining all they want you for is your money (constant pressure to pay more and to top up your monthly subs) and they use you only to sell their newspapers. The SWP never ask you for your input into ideas for party ideology and never consult members on party policy. They do not even try to educate their members on Marxism. Not once did they discuss Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky or even their founder Tony Cliff. As long as you sell their papers all is alright in their eyes.

Fairly spot on with trotskyists groups all over the world.

The trotskyist youth group I joined (just to keep updated with the happenings - I am certainly no trotskyist) actually went one step further and offered to 'educate' me about socialism. I bet they didn't allow any critiques in their classes (I said I would 'think' about it, but never took it up).

Yes, they indeed are fanatical about their newspapers. the Green Left Weekly's website is the 'number one political website in Australia' (corporate media isn't counted).

I recently wrote up a couple of leaflets for them, for a protest coming up in a month's time. Instead of getting the copy of the file off me via email, they are making me take a 40 minute bus trip to drop the leaflets off. Incidentally, they sell their paper the same time I am going to drop it off. I really should not turn up. I think I will stop getting involved with them after this.

And I didn't turn up after all. :biggrin:

If you look at this (http://melbimc.nomasters.org/news/2003/07/51193.php) link, you will see under 'yawn...old news' a petty attempt by a trotskyist from Resistance/Democratic Socialist Pary plug their paper.

[stonerboi]

I am sorry to hear that you had the same problems as I did with Trotskyist parties, Neutral Nation.

What party are you with now?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from stonerboi on 1:54 pm on July 26, 2003
I am sorry to hear that you had the same problems as I did with Trotskyist parties, Neutral Nation.

What party are you with now?

None. I was an anarchist the whole time anyway ( :biggrin: ).

The anarchists in my area are becoming active again, so it is a good time for me to get involved with them now. And once I finish school, I will be able to dedicate more time.

It's good to see you are actually setting up a non-parliamentary party, even if it is maoist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Comrade SB I now have time to continue our IM debate over the Stalin/germany treaty. We had better things to do that day you dig?

The treaty was designed to delay the invasion of the Nazis into the east so The Soviets could guage what Britain and the US were going to do. If Stalin declared war too soon the western cowards would have simply sat back and waited to see if the Red Army could crush the Nazi's alone. As more and more western countries pointed the war to the east, the soviets had no choice but to find some way to buy enough time to completely prepare the Red Army as well as find out what the west's intentionswere so an accurate strategy to fight the Nazis could be developed. Trust me, Trosky would have done the same thing. Stalin had no intentions of obeying the terms of the treaty, he simply needed time.

Elijah, I can already attest that you know nothing of the terms or history of the non aggression pact between the Soviets and the Germans and simply dropped a post because comrade SB happens to not fully support comrade Stalin. I feel sorry for you.

[elijahcraig]

Of course RAF, you are a historical revisionist, why would I agree with you? You love to debate the murderous Stalin, but refuse to accept any "debunking" of his cult, of which you are so in love with obviously.

I posted earlier, on the original post, I agree with stonerboi on the Maoism and his analysis of Stalin. You make excuses for state capitalists. How good of you, marxist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 6:49 am on July 27, 2003
Of course RAF, you are a historical revisionist, why would I agree with you? You love to debate the murderous Stalin, but refuse to accept any "debunking" of his cult, of which you are so in love with obviously.

I posted earlier, on the original post, I agree with stonerboi on the Maoism and his analysis of Stalin. You make excuses for state capitalists. How good of you, marxist.

Please provide proof that I am a "historical revisionist".

[elijahcraig]

You are a Stalinist. That is all that is needed.

[Cassius Clay]

elijahcraig you say Stalin was a 'State-Capitalist' when he quite clearly wasn't. More to the point there's no such thing as a 'State-Capitalist', you are either a Capitalist or you aren't. Mao was the one who allied with the national bourgesie, did Stalin? Now if you go to the thread 'Resotration of Capitalism in the USSR' you will quite clearly see the difference between a Socialist like Stalin and a Capitalist like Khrushev.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Can you believe this fucking guy comrade Clay? Whatever you do don't ask him for proof to support his statements. He may start calling you a nazi in a n attempt to divert attention from himself.

Comrade SB, I know you secretly love Stalin. Don't lie.

[elijahcraig]

elijahcraig you say Stalin was a 'State-Capitalist' when he quite clearly wasn't. More to the point there's no such thing as a 'State-Capitalist', you are either a Capitalist or you aren't. Mao was the one who allied with the national bourgesie, did Stalin? Now if you go to the thread 'Resotration of Capitalism in the USSR' you will quite clearly see the difference between a Socialist like Stalin and a Capitalist like Khrushev.

I'm no longer sure about this subject, so I really can't debate you.

RAF, nice comment.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are on the right track comrade Elijah. There is hope for you yet.

[Cassius Clay]

I'd be lessed concerned about his political views and more concerned about the fact he cant stop following you around.

Damn internet stalkers.

[stonerboi]

This 'state caitalist' concept is too vague and is based on little historical evidence and it tends to be very contradictory.

The origins of this theory come from the founder of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP) Tony Cliff.

I for one am critical of Stalin, mainly for his foriegn policy and the fact that he did not move fast enough in the USSR to the last communist phase. By staying too long in the socialist phase he allowed the USSR to become a bloated state of civil servants and thus the USSR could not transform into a stateless communist society, but instead became a deformed workers state. Evidence for this is the fact that the revisionists took control of the USSR in 1956 and this led to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.

However just because Stalin made some mistakes, does not mean he was a capitalist as some would say he was, like the SWP and other Cliffites. Stalin

[Vinny Rafarino]

I am one hot piece of ass ya know Clay.

[elijahcraig]

You are, I have to say.