Why do Maoists hate Trotskyists?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Okay, there is a thread floating around which is about Maoism and trotskyims but it doesn't really cover this. Why do Maoists hate trotskyists? Also to what extent do Maoists agree with Stalin and Mao? Do they recognize that millions died? DO they recognize that socialism should be democratic and free? There aren't very many maoists around but the ones are, should awnser this.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Don't argue or "debate" with maoists. It won't work. It's like communism, it goes against their human nature.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You know. i dont really think they hate each other particularly.

They can even be friends and work together on stuff.

The thing is, the academics on both sides highlight errors of trotsky,stalin, mao and as they all favour one then the academics pass on their grievences to the actual activists.


Don't argue or "debate" with maoists. It won't work. It's like communism, it goes against their human nature.

lol they still want socialism, they ARE communists too. :P

[bezdomni]

Actual Maoists don't hate Trotskyists. In fact, I (a trotskyist) do work with some RCPers. As long as we don't talk about Stalin, we agree on most things.

The RCP will unite with any group or person that has some progressive measures. Like a reformist group that is pro-gay rights, the RCP will work with them to advance gay rights....

The RCP also works with anarchists and even christians.

Maoists don't really "hate" anybody besides the bourgeoisie.

[redwinter]

i think sovietpants has the right idea here...maoists don't hate trotskyists, we think that their analysis and approach to changing the world is incorrect and actively struggle with them to advance their views, as we do with everyone else.

as far as hating the bourgeoisie - the bourgeoisie is a class that has emerged under certain conditions from the natural progression of the struggle between man and nature. i don't think it's quite logical to hate the bourgeoisie - the shit that they do is a logical outgrowth of their narrow economic interests (as well as the long term interests of maintaining their dictatorship). rather, i think it makes more sense to hate the capitalist-imperialist system and to struggle for a society that works in the interest of all of humanity, eliminating all classes, and the way we get to that society is socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, with class struggle politics in command.

[Comrade Marcel]

Lefthenry "There aren't very many Maoists around..."

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. Are you really that fucking stupid?

Please show me the revolutions currently being led by Trotskyists. Well your at it, show me one Trot org that doesn't have more splits than a John Claude Van Dam movie!

When you are finished poundering this question, think about the revolutions currently being led / won by Moaists:

China, 1949: Defeated the imperialist Japanese then the Koumintang liberating 1.3(?) billion people or so
Nepal: Maoists currently control just about everywhere except Katmandu
Peru: 20-30% of the countryside is liberated by Maoists and they have declared a republic
Philippines: 70% of the countryside are Red zones and basically every city is encircled, even in the face of U$ imperialists
India: huge Maoist movement and influence

What about the Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists as you call em')?
FARC-EP, Red Brigades, Red Front, Red Army (USSR), and the list goes on.

Now please name anything the Trots have done except newspapers. And no, 1917 doesn't count because that was the Bolsheviks not Trotsky.

[redhmong]

Trotsky considers liberating working class is the first step. That goes against the principle of Marxism, Maoism think so. So, they argue in this point.

According to Trotskyism, working class is very imporant. Even the only revoluionary class. But Mao has decreased the weightness of working class. He made the peasantry another important part of revolution.

[CombatLiberalism]

I don't have time to start another debate on here, but here are the short Maoist answers:


Why do Maoists hate trotskyists?

Because TrotsKKKyists are chauvinist, imperialist lackeys. They agitate for a better piece of pie for the labor aristocracy, in this respect, they are just like fascist white nationalists.


Also to what extent do Maoists agree with Stalin and Mao?

Mao gave Stalin a 70% positive rating. Maoists agree with this assessment. This means that Stalin was mostly good, he was the best alternative. Stalin was a great hero.


Do they recognize that millions died?

Yes, many died, not as many as the bourgeois say. But, many millions more were saved. Life expectancy basically doubled in the Stalin years -- think about the millions that lived because of that. Infant mortality was incredibly reduced -- millions more saved and so on. Compared to the alternative those who died under Stalin were a drop in the ocean compared to those who die every year under capitalism and imperialism. You can't compare the USSR to some fantasy in your head, that isn't materialism. You need to compare it to what really is possible and what alternatives exist.


DO they recognize that socialism should be democratic and free?

It depends what you mean. For the oppressed, there is more freedom and democracy under socialism. For those who oppose the proletariat and its allies, there should be no freedom and democracy.

I hope this helps.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:06 AM
I don't have time to start another debate on here, but here are the short Maoist answers:


Why do Maoists hate trotskyists?

Because TrotsKKKyists are chauvinist, imperialist lackeys. They agitate for a better piece of pie for the labor aristocracy, in this respect, they are just like fascist white nationalists.


Also to what extent do Maoists agree with Stalin and Mao?

Mao gave Stalin a 70% positive rating. Maoists agree with this assessment. This means that Stalin was mostly good, he was the best alternative. Stalin was a great hero.


Do they recognize that millions died?

Yes, many died, not as many as the bourgeois say. But, many millions more were saved. Life expectancy basically doubled in the Stalin years -- think about the millions that lived because of that. Infant mortality was incredibly reduced -- millions more saved and so on. Compared to the alternative those who died under Stalin were a drop in the ocean compared to those who die every year under capitalism and imperialism. You can't compare the USSR to some fantasy in your head, that isn't materialism. You need to compare it to what really is possible and what alternatives exist.


DO they recognize that socialism should be democratic and free?

It depends what you mean. For the oppressed, there is more freedom and democracy under socialism. For those who oppose the proletariat and its allies, there should be no freedom and democracy.

I hope this helps.

Why do Maoists hate trotskyists?
Because TrotsKKKyists are chauvinist, imperialist lackeys. They agitate for a better piece of pie for the labor aristocracy, in this respect, they are just like fascist white nationalists.
Do you mean chauvinistic as in sexist, as in where in the Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky talks about how the Nuclear Family was STILL enslaving women (his words); or do you mean nationalistic, where he maintained the belief of Permanent Revolution after Stalin accepted the Status Quo?
Furthermore, he talks of the ruling stratum creaming all the privelege in the time he was writing.


DO they recognize that socialism should be democratic and free?

It depends what you mean. For the oppressed, there is more freedom and democracy under socialism. For those who oppose the proletariat and its allies, there should be no freedom and democracy.

How exactly were they free in China or Russia with a state leaching off them? You cannot be free under any state, because all states inhibit your own choice. Also, I belive Marx said no man has the right to dominate another.


I hope this helps.

No, not really.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:06 AM
Because TrotsKKKyists are chauvinist, imperialist lackeys. They agitate for a better piece of pie for the labor aristocracy, in this respect, they are just like fascist white nationalists.

Mao gave Stalin a 70% positive rating. Maoists agree with this assessment. This means that Stalin was mostly good, he was the best alternative. Stalin was a great hero.

Yes, many died, not as many as the bourgeois say. But, many millions more were saved. Life expectancy basically doubled in the Stalin years -- think about the millions that lived because of that. Infant mortality was incredibly reduced -- millions more saved and so on. Compared to the alternative those who died under Stalin were a drop in the ocean compared to those who die every year under capitalism and imperialism. You can't compare the USSR to some fantasy in your head, that isn't materialism. You need to compare it to what really is possible and what alternatives exist.

It depends what you mean. For the oppressed, there is more freedom and democracy under socialism. For those who oppose the proletariat and its allies, there should be no freedom and democracy.

I hope this helps.
"Because TrotsKKKyists are chauvinist, imperialist lackeys"

Oh my God! How did you know?

As for Stalin, you shouldn't ask about how many people he saved, you should examine how he effected the move towards socialism within the borders of Russia and the world. The level of degeneration, of not just the Russian Communist Party, but also many revolutionary movements of the world towards the end of the 1930s is simply disgusting. He encouraged the participation of many foreign Communist parties in bourgeois systems and even sided with fascist governments. He welcomed an abnormal amount of foreign capital into Russia, signing trade contracts with France, Britain, and other imperialist countries. He gave permission to the fascist governments of Poland, Romania, and Germany to train soldiers on their territory. The amount of former revolutionaries from the revolution of 1917 killed is truly disgusting. He destroyed whole ethnicities, such as the Chechens, sending them to his infamous Gulags. That isn't socialism. I don't care how many people he saved, FDR saved people too, but that isn't socialism.

"It depends what you mean. For the oppressed, there is more freedom and democracy under socialism. For those who oppose the proletariat and its allies, there should be no freedom and democracy."

What about the grassroots opposition of peasants and workers in the USSR and China?

[Hit The North]

Leon:


Do you mean chauvinistic as in sexist, as in where in the Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky talks about how the Nuclear Family was STILL enslaving women (his words); or do you mean nationalistic, where he maintained the belief of Permanent Revolution after Stalin accepted the Status Quo?
Furthermore, he talks of the ruling stratum creaming all the privelege in the time he was writing.


CombatLiberalism means Trotskyists are chauvenistic because they promote the interests of the western working class. According to the peasant ideology of Maoism (which uses marxism in the most opportunistic manner), the Western working class are the enemy of the world proletariat.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2006, 03:15 AM









Lefthenry "There aren't very many Maoists around..."

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. Are you really that fucking stupid?

you fucking shithead :lol: I was talking about Revleft. There are mabe like 10 Maoists that are semi-active? I don't think the 'Shining Path' and Nepal Communist Party is debating on this site
:lol:


Please show me the revolutions currently being led by Trotskyists. Well your at it, show me one Trot org that doesn't have more splits than a John Claude Van Dam movie!

Fair enough. I see your point. Now you show me one Maoist revolution that has succeeded and that hasn't gotten millions killed.

[More Fire for the People]

Most active Maoists do not have access to a computer, and thus do not have access to RevLeft. I don't see why millions of death are horrible when the statistics used to account for these atrocities don't account for natural deaths or analyze what would have happened. There is no doubt in my mind, even as a Trotskyist, that China would have been by far worse off without the Chinese Revolution than with it. Besides there are very progressive ideas within the Chinese and Nepalese revolutions

[Comrade Marcel]

Well, you said "there aren't many Maoists around." period not "around here". This sight is not the centre of the universe and is very divourced from actual struggles this is a place for conversation, but you can't really expect to ask a question of such magniture and expect the answers to remain within the realms of the "reality" of revleft.

"A Revolution is not a dinner party." - Mao

Also, prove these "millions" were killed, and explain what you mean by "killed".

[BreadBros]

The thing to remember about Maoism, and variants of Leninism is that they primarily serve as a force for the transition to capitalism and a bourgeois society in third-world countries. Obviously this is not a conscious process, as most revolutionaries see themselves as enacting true Marxist principles despite the obvious discrepancies between what Marx said and their beliefs. As Marx said, socialism can only be achieved as a transcendence beyond advanced capitalism, and most of these third world countries listed above have not developed industrial capitalism to any great extent. Thus most of these revolutions fail to establish any kind of lasting socialism, especially not any that mirrors what Marx described. They do however serve the vital role of establishing a centralized state that can militarily defend against imperialism and devote its energies to developing infrastructure and economic development that is impossible under previous imperialist relations, which ergo allows for explosive growth and integration into global capitalism at an extremely rapid rate. Best example would be China. The differences between Trotskyism and Maoism likely boil down to their historical roots. Maoism has primarily served as a force for modernization and industrialization in primarily agraria rural communities, it has been particularly successful at this. Trotskyism and most other forms of Leninism usually focus on nascent urban proletariats in countries that have some level of industrial production, i.e. Russia in early 1900s. As such their views of 'what should be done' (to borrow a phrase) differ greatly because of the different circumstances they operate in. The reality is that "in the real world" they rarely fight or have disagreements since they rarely operate in the same realm. The squabbles are mostly based in internet forums and the such where most of the participants are from advanced nations, and their squabbles usually boil down to irrelevant divergences in interpretations of past squabbles and debates.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 14 2006, 11:08 PM
Most active Maoists do not have access to a computer, and thus do not have access to RevLeft. I don't see why millions of death are horrible when the statistics used to account for these atrocities don't account for natural deaths or analyze what would have happened. There is no doubt in my mind, even as a Trotskyist, that China would have been by far worse off without the Chinese Revolution than with it. Besides there are very progressive ideas within the Chinese and Nepalese revolutions
I definitely agree with the following things that you have said. Maoists have contributed greatly to all worker's movements across the world; there is no doubting that. There is also no doubt in my mind that China is now better off now than they were in the feudal, pre-revolutionary era. But I, as I am sure everybody has noticed, display a large amount of distrust towards the role of the "vangaurd" party in the revolutionary process. Maoists and Stalinist "Marxist-Leninist" parties tend to focus on the centralization of the means of production, the press, and all aspects of the average citizen's life into the hands of the strange worker's state. What is maoist opinion on worker's control? Democratic centralism?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2006, 11:23 PM
Well, you said "there aren't many Maoists around." period not "around here". This sight is not the centre of the universe and is very divourced from actual struggles this is a place for conversation, but you can't really expect to ask a question of such magniture and expect the answers to remain within the realms of the "reality" of revleft.

"A Revolution is not a dinner party." - Mao

Also, prove these "millions" were killed, and explain what you mean by "killed".
Okay my bad for not being clear. I've said this on the other Maoist thread and I'll say it again. I would be a maoist but I can't justify the gulags stalin ran and the labor camps. I can't justify the the state sponsored killings of people by Mao and his camps. While I do agree that they were both economic legends, and that without Stalin Russia would have fallen to the Nazis and without Mao the famine would have been far worse, I do think that politically they were far to harsh and they curbed free speech. In short, in the attempt of trying to liberate the people, Stalin in particular, created a police state. That is something I can't agree with.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Do you think Lenin and Trotsky didn't do such things?

[CombatLiberalism]

There aren't very many Maoists around...

That is because the Maoists have another forum.. http://irtr.org/forums The level of discussion is too low on revleft to be useful and there are too many love ameriKKKa chauvinists over here.

There is also an Indian Maoist forum that was advertised awhile ago on revleft.

[CombatLiberalism]

Okay my bad for not being clear. I've said this on the other Maoist thread and I'll say it again. I would be a maoist but I can't justify the gulags stalin ran and the labor camps. I can't justify the the state sponsored killings of people by Mao and his camps. While I do agree that they were both economic legends, and that without Stalin Russia would have fallen to the Nazis and without Mao the famine would have been far worse, I do think that politically they were far to harsh and they curbed free speech. In short, in the attempt of trying to liberate the people, Stalin in particular, created a police state. That is something I can't agree with.

I think you may need to do more investigation on these issues. It seems like you are just taking bourgeois lies at face value. MIM has done excellent research into all of these topics; there are also plenty of threads on IRTR. There are also some here at revleft who have braved the sea of ignorance and dogma at revleft to put forth the truth about Stalin. The truth is out there. You should go research it yourself. Check out MIM, IRTR, Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, etc. There are plenty of online resources that deal with these issues.

[Devrim]

Actually, while you are on the subject of Moaism, I have always wondered about American Moaism. Firstly if the working class are reactionary, and bought off by capital, who do they think will make a revolution in America? Secondly, where do they expect to launch their people's war from?

Devrim

[CombatLiberalism]

ctually, while you are on the subject of Moaism, I have always wondered about American Moaism. Firstly if the working class are reactionary, and bought off by capital, who do they think will make a revolution in America? Secondly, where do they expect to launch their people's war from?

The best groups to go with are the lumpen, the prisoner-proletariat, and captive nations peoples, youth, and intellectuals..

The lumpen is the best class to go with..

There are various scenarios that can lead to revolution in the first world.. reproletarization can happen, Third World invasion is possible, civil war between the internal semi-colonies and white settler nation, etc.. There are many ways revolution can happen.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:04 AM

ctually, while you are on the subject of Moaism, I have always wondered about American Moaism. Firstly if the working class are reactionary, and bought off by capital, who do they think will make a revolution in America? Secondly, where do they expect to launch their people's war from?

The best groups to go with are the lumpen, the prisoner-proletariat, and captive nations peoples, youth, and intellectuals..

The lumpen is the best class to go with..

There are various scenarios that can lead to revolution in the first world.. reproletarization can happen, Third World invasion is possible, civil war between the internal semi-colonies and white settler nation, etc.. There are many ways revolution can happen.
And you call this abandonment of the working class Marxism?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:27 AM
The thing to remember about Maoism, and variants of Leninism is that they primarily serve as a force for the transition to capitalism and a bourgeois society in third-world countries. Obviously this is not a conscious process, as most revolutionaries see themselves as enacting true Marxist principles despite the obvious discrepancies between what Marx said and their beliefs. As Marx said, socialism can only be achieved as a transcendence beyond advanced capitalism, and most of these third world countries listed above have not developed industrial capitalism to any great extent. Thus most of these revolutions fail to establish any kind of lasting socialism, especially not any that mirrors what Marx described. They do however serve the vital role of establishing a centralized state that can militarily defend against imperialism and devote its energies to developing infrastructure and economic development that is impossible under previous imperialist relations, which ergo allows for explosive growth and integration into global capitalism at an extremely rapid rate. Best example would be China. The differences between Trotskyism and Maoism likely boil down to their historical roots. Maoism has primarily served as a force for modernization and industrialization in primarily agraria rural communities, it has been particularly successful at this. Trotskyism and most other forms of Leninism usually focus on nascent urban proletariats in countries that have some level of industrial production, i.e. Russia in early 1900s. As such their views of 'what should be done' (to borrow a phrase) differ greatly because of the different circumstances they operate in. The reality is that "in the real world" they rarely fight or have disagreements since they rarely operate in the same realm. The squabbles are mostly based in internet forums and the such where most of the participants are from advanced nations, and their squabbles usually boil down to irrelevant divergences in interpretations of past squabbles and debates.
Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:53 AM
Do you think Lenin and Trotsky didn't do such things?
Remember, they were strong advocates of Democratic Centralism. Also Lenin at one point made an offer to supply all patries who wanted with equipment to print newspapers. The things lenin did were not to the same extent as Stalin.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:54 AM

Okay my bad for not being clear. I've said this on the other Maoist thread and I'll say it again. I would be a maoist but I can't justify the gulags stalin ran and the labor camps. I can't justify the the state sponsored killings of people by Mao and his camps. While I do agree that they were both economic legends, and that without Stalin Russia would have fallen to the Nazis and without Mao the famine would have been far worse, I do think that politically they were far to harsh and they curbed free speech. In short, in the attempt of trying to liberate the people, Stalin in particular, created a police state. That is something I can't agree with.

I think you may need to do more investigation on these issues. It seems like you are just taking bourgeois lies at face value. MIM has done excellent research into all of these topics; there are also plenty of threads on IRTR. There are also some here at revleft who have braved the sea of ignorance and dogma at revleft to put forth the truth about Stalin. The truth is out there. You should go research it yourself. Check out MIM, IRTR, Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, etc. There are plenty of online resources that deal with these issues.
Thanks I'll check irtr and MIM out.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what?

[grove street]

Originally posted by BreadBros+Sep 16 2006, 04:00 AM--> (BreadBros @ Sep 16 2006, 04:00 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what? [/b]
There is no place/no need for Maoism in a modern captalist industrilised country like America, Britain, France ect. Maoism works better in helping develop underdeveloped agricultural countries. Orthodox Marxism/Trotskyism is better suited fo well developed countries.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by grove street+Sep 16 2006, 04:50 AM--> (grove street @ Sep 16 2006, 04:50 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:00 AM

[email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what?
There is no place/no need for Maoism in a modern captalist industrilised country like America, Britain, France ect. Maoism works better in helping develop underdeveloped agricultural countries. Orthodox Marxism/Trotskyism is better suited fo well developed countries. [/b]
What use is Trotskyism? Bringing about social-democracy/imperialism?

[Devrim]

So comrade Marcel, can you answer my question?:
Originally posted by Devrim
Actually, while you are on the subject of Moaism, I have always wondered about American Moaism. Firstly if the working class are reactionary, and bought off by capital, who do they think will make a revolution in America? Secondly, where do they expect to launch their people's war from?
Devrim

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by grove street+Sep 15 2006, 10:50 PM--> (grove street @ Sep 15 2006, 10:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:00 AM

[email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what?
There is no place/no need for Maoism in a modern captalist industrilised country like America, Britain, France ect. Maoism works better in helping develop underdeveloped agricultural countries. Orthodox Marxism/Trotskyism is better suited fo well developed countries.[/b]
This is the least materialistic analysis I have ever seen on RevLeft and I've seen a lot. Trotskyism is not 'orthodox Marxism'; Leninism is not orthodox Marxism. Lenin formalized the theories of Marx and Engels with his concepts of imperialism, democratic centralism, class consciousness, and political organisation of the working class. The Bolsheviks applied the socio-historical conclusions of the Marx and Engels to the conditions of Russia by using the organisational principles of Lenin.

Trotskyism, Bolshevik-Leninism, is the development of Leninism to the historical tasks of the post-1920s world. Trotsky provides a programme to combat fascism and fight for socialism under the principles of Marxism. He expands upon Lenin’s organisational principles: democratic centralism (On Democratic-Centralism & The Regime), class consciousness (The Transitional Programme), and political organisation (The Revolution Betrayed). Trotsky thus internationalised Marxism [though I am sceptical in saying this because I would consider some portions of Marxism itself incomplete].

Maoism is the development of Leninism to the conditions of China after the systematic destruction of the industrial base of the party. Mao was forced to flee to the southern regions of China were he developed a peasant army that was led by the survivors of the massacre of the industrial communist-workers [Marcel, please correct me on this if I am wrong]. Thus, at least in my opinion, Maoism was only suitable for the conditions of the time. It is not an internationalist programme for revolution but an excellent reformation of the party by Chinese revolutionaries. We can see the consequences of attempts to internationalize Maoism in todays revolutions: the Sandanistas, Nepalese communists, and Vietnamese communists all had to deviate from central principles of Chinese Leninism in order to continue their revolutions.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by devrimankara+Sep 16 2006, 05:57 PM--> (devrimankara @ Sep 16 2006, 05:57 PM) So comrade Marcel, can you answer my question?:
Devrim
Actually, while you are on the subject of Moaism, I have always wondered about American Moaism. Firstly if the working class are reactionary, and bought off by capital, who do they think will make a revolution in America? Secondly, where do they expect to launch their people's war from?
Devrim [/b]
You're first question assumes that the situation in the imperialist countries is static, that the conditions and political thought of the working class can't change.

Also, there are sections of North ameriKKKa which are not part of the ameriKKKan "working class" which are potentially revolutionary national liberationists, such as the First Nations, Quebecois and Black/Latinos (in the U$ specifically).

There is also the possibility of third world invasion, or destruction of some or all of the imperialists countries via war.

Isn't it basic Marxism that revolution is basically spontanious and next to impossible to predict? One can only work towards creating the conditions that will make a revolution (and/or make the revolution go in a certain direction).

Your second question is answered similiar to the above. It depends on the conditions and if a people's war is even necessary. It is possible that all of it will be urban/suburban, or possible that it would all be rural, or a mix of both.

[Comrade Marcel]

Hopscotch Anthill: what is "Chinese Leninism"?

If this is your term for Marxist-Leninist Mao Zedong thought, the Sandinistas and Vietnames were not ever followers of this, though I'm sure Maoism may have had some influence. You would have to explain further exactly what you mean though.

[More Fire for the People]

By ‘Chinese Leninism’ I mean the mainstream of the Chinese communist movement before 1949. I guess one could call this ‘Maoism’ though it could include the likes of Chen Bilan.

[Devrim]

You're first question assumes that the situation in the imperialist countries is static, that the conditions and political thought of the working class can't change.

No, actually it doesn't. It is a question into the state of Maoist ideology, which I have always been vaguely interested in learning the answer to, but never enough to read what they actually have to say.
I understand the Maoists in this country, Turkey. I think that they are deeply wrong, and completely anti-working class, but I see that there is a possibility of armed struggle in the mountains.
I have always wondered about what American Maoists think. Well you have explained it to me.


Also, there are sections of North ameriKKKa which are not part of the ameriKKKan "working class" which are potentially revolutionary national liberationists, such as the First Nations, Quebecois and Black/Latinos (in the U$ specifically).

There is also the possibility of third world invasion, or destruction of some or all of the imperialists countries via war.

Isn't it basic Marxism that revolution is basically spontanious and next to impossible to predict? One can only work towards creating the conditions that will make a revolution (and/or make the revolution go in a certain direction).

Your second question is answered similiar to the above. It depends on the conditions and if a people's war is even necessary. It is possible that all of it will be urban/suburban, or possible that it would all be rural, or a mix of both.

Somebody else commented:
The best groups to go with are the lumpen, the prisoner-proletariat, and captive nations peoples, youth, and intellectuals..

The lumpen is the best class to go with..

There are various scenarios that can lead to revolution in the first world.. reproletarization can happen, Third World invasion is possible, civil war between the internal semi-colonies and white settler nation, etc.. There are many ways revolution can happen.

Now, I not only think that not only are you deeply wrong, and anti-working class, but also that you are completely divorced from reality, and on 'Planet Janet'.

Regards,

Devrim

[BreadBros]

There is no place/no need for Maoism in a modern captalist industrilised country like America, Britain, France ect. Maoism works better in helping develop underdeveloped agricultural countries. Orthodox Marxism/Trotskyism is better suited fo well developed countries.

Well, I agree about Maoism being useless in the modern capitalist countries. However, I would probably also say the same about Trotskyism and dispute that it is in fact orthodox Marxism. As someone else explains in here in greater depth, Lenin built upon Marx's theories and Trotsky built upon Lenin's. In my opinion Trotskyism is really best suited to countries that have a developing proletariat (and bourgeoisie) but that are under imperialist domination and where the proletariat is still very weak compared to say the agricultural/peasant sector of the economy. As such there are various countries around the world where I can think of Trotskyism or Leninism as being useful in kicking out the imperialists and modernizing the country, the First World is not one of those however. I think for countries like America, Britain, France etc. Marx's original theories (sans Lenin, Trotsky or Mao) still hold the most truth and possibility.


Also, there are sections of North ameriKKKa which are not part of the ameriKKKan "working class" which are potentially revolutionary national liberationists, such as the First Nations, Quebecois and Black/Latinos (in the U$ specifically).

There is also the possibility of third world invasion, or destruction of some or all of the imperialists countries via war.

I'm one of the people who definitely disagree 100% with the Maoists that the US working class (including whites and others) are not members of the working class in the sense Marx used it. The problem (that adds fuel to the Maoist fire) is that Europe, North America, Japan, etc. became modern industrial capitalist countries first among the world. Because of this, the wealth of the average worker in the first world is considerably higher than those in 'emerging countries'. Therefore when modern societies arise in other countries, national and ethnic differences can take precedence because workers are attempting to defend their traditional standard of living and pre-eminance globally. In my opinion, far more likely than any "people's war" or "third world invasion" happening, is that international bankers and capitalists will realize that profits can be maximized if they globalize labor in the same way that has been done with capital (it would allow greater global economic specialization and lower labor costs), which will go a long way towards destroying those national differences and will particularly exacerbate revolution in the first world. Regardless of whether those events happen or whether workers are able to wrest semi-control in some countries and change the nature of international relations, American workers are still workers.

[Ander]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2006, 08:23 PM
Well, you said "there aren't many Maoists around." period not "around here". This sight is not the centre of the universe and is very divourced from actual struggles this is a place for conversation, but you can't really expect to ask a question of such magniture and expect the answers to remain within the realms of the "reality" of revleft.
What the fuck are you going on about? No one ever said Revleft was the centre of the universe for leftists. All he said was that there are not many Maoists that he knows of on this board. Chill the hell out.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by BreadBros
In my opinion Trotskyism is really best suited to countries that have a developing proletariat (and bourgeoisie) but that are under imperialist domination and where the proletariat is still very weak compared to say the agricultural/peasant sector of the economy. As such there are various countries around the world where I can think of Trotskyism or Leninism as being useful in kicking out the imperialists and modernizing the country,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

This is the funniest shit I have ever heard on here... I mean, shit that wasn't meant as a joke but is a joke! Man, did you just stumble on Marxism yesterday or something? What you said actually goes against the theory, approach and practice of every Trotskyist begining with Trotsky. Too funny.

http://www.vicesounds.com/images/assclown.jpg

Jello Go back and read what he wrote. When someone says "there aren't such and such types around" I assume they mean in the entire fucking movement, not a message board. Think about it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The only thing I dislike about maoists is that I am called a revisionist for every human activity that I am engaged in. I am also somewhat annoyed that they can't spell America or Israel right.

[metalero]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2006, 10:15 PM
Peru: 20-30% of the countryside is liberated by Maoists and they have declared a republic
Philippines: 70% of the countryside are Red zones and basically every city is encircled, even in the face of U$ imperialists
India: huge Maoist movement and influence

What about the Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists as you call em')?
FARC-EP, Red Brigades, Red Front, Red Army (USSR), and the list goes on.

Now please name anything the Trots have done except newspapers. And no, 1917 doesn't count because that was the Bolsheviks not Trotsky.
you are outdated on Peru, no maoist organization in peru has any influence on mass action and workers or peasants organizing; FARC are a typical latinamerican marxist guerrilla that keeps its insurgent struggle because of the Colombian brutal regime response to leftist legal activism. They are not stalinists since we can predict that after the revolution they would degenerate into isolated burocracy.

[Comrade Marcel]

metalero:What is your source on Shining Path's influence in Peru?

As for FARC-EP, they are revisionist Marxist-Leninist. So, from the Trotskyite or ultra-Leninist/Marxist prospective they are "Stalinist", and it was a Trot I was pointing this out to.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:56 AM
The only thing I dislike about maoists is that I am called a revisionist for every human activity that I am engaged in. I am also somewhat annoyed that they can't spell America or Israel right.
Maoists and MIMites are different.

[Zeruzo]

Agreed with SovietPants, MIM is just silly... they cant truly be taken serious, and they're analyses are worthless... on revolution, power, class and stuff that is.
They do make good analyses on the old USSR, china, etc... for example.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by SovietPants+Sep 17 2006, 10:19 PM--> (SovietPants @ Sep 17 2006, 10:19 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 03:56 AM
The only thing I dislike about maoists is that I am called a revisionist for every human activity that I am engaged in. I am also somewhat annoyed that they can't spell America or Israel right.
Maoists and MIMites are different. [/b]
How so?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 01:38 AM
Okay, there is a thread floating around which is about Maoism and trotskyims but it doesn't really cover this. Why do Maoists hate trotskyists? Also to what extent do Maoists agree with Stalin and Mao? Do they recognize that millions died? DO they recognize that socialism should be democratic and free? There aren't very many maoists around but the ones are, should awnser this.
First of all I do not hate trotskyists, I just disagree with troskyists. I think the animosity between our two sects is mainly due to our support of Stalinism, and how much Stalinism and Maosim have in common, and also our ideological differences on certain issues regarding interpretations of Communist theory.

The whole "millions died," ploy that all opponents try to use is foolish considering that a lot of the time statistics are exaggerated, and the fact that the vast majority of those killed, if not all were counter-revolutionary, and rightist.

I think that we totally agree with Mao considering it is called Maoism, and that comes from his own policies that he put into place and his own interpretation and contributions of/to Communist theory.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 17 2006, 11:56 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 17 2006, 11:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:19 PM

[email protected] 17 2006, 03:56 AM
The only thing I dislike about maoists is that I am called a revisionist for every human activity that I am engaged in. I am also somewhat annoyed that they can't spell America or Israel right.
Maoists and MIMites are different.
How so? [/b]
This is pretty well known.

MIM has different position on many things, such as imperialist country workers.

RCP doesn't believe their is a labour aristocracy, have a personality cult around Bob Avakian and they support RIM.

PCR-RCP(OC) is similiar to RCP, but a but different. They are also sans personality cult.

There are other Maoists around as well that may have different prospectives/positions.

[bezdomni]

RCP doesn't believe their is a labour aristocracy, have a personality cult around Bob Avakian and they support RIM.


I am only involved with the RCP through proxy, I guess one could say...but I am pretty sure they agree with Lenin's analysis on the labor aristocracy, just not to the crazy degree as MIM.

Can you prove that the RCP doesn't believe there is a labor aristocracy with a document or something? I'm almost postive I've even read Avakian using the term.

I also think to say there is a personality cult around Avakian is a little too extreme. They promote his work an awful lot (which can be annoying sometimes), but I don't think they put him on a pedestal as much as they are accused of.

[Comrade Marcel]

Well, I'm not necessarily criticising his alleged personality cult. I should have been more clear in stating this is a criticism of MIM on RCP. MIM criticizes the personality cult of leaders before the Communist Party is actually in power, and I'm sure there is more details of why in their writings.

Also, I should have been clearer on the labour aristocracy thing. I meant that RCP doesn't believe the imperialist country workers are the labour aristocracy. MIM differentiates between labour aristocracy and labour beuruacracy.

I am actually pretty familiary with RCP's programme, as a group I was with a few years back, YL, used to do study groups and a fair bit of the material was based on their stuff. Actually, the last version I made of the course, when I was "commissar" (Coordinator of Educational and Cultural Activities) for the East end chapter still had much of the same content:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/intro29.htm

[CombatLiberalism]

There is much that is objectionable in these posts. I don't speak for MIM or anyone else. But, I have watched MIM consistently cream all of their opponents in debates for many years now.I have also seen them expose all kinds of real police plots. What is funny is that as MIM exposed the plots, the liberals always mocked them -- but in the end, the last laugh was always on the doubters. And all the while liberals and the brain dead call MIM "crazy" "sectarian" and all kinds of other crap. Liberals think that Cointelpro is a joke because they have never seen the real world sabotaging by the pigs. The pigs don't bother liberals, they bother revolutionaries like MIM. Liberals mock revolutionaries, nothing new about that. Anyone with half a brain and has actually studied MIM knows that MIM knows what they are talking about. Sure, there are all kinds of posers claiming to be "Maoists" -- so what? Being a Maoist isn't about a label. It's about applying revolutionary *science*. It is about putting politics in command.

There was a question about Peru. A document appeared on the El Dairo Internacional's web site awhile back giving an analysis of the situation in Peru. For those that don't know, Luis Arce borja is the one who interviewed Gonzalo for the "interview of the century" before Gonzalo's capture. The ananlysis can be found here: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/countrie...etrayedrev.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/countries/peru/labbetrayedrev.html)

[CombatLiberalism]

MIM doesn't think that persynality cults are useful in the imperialist capitalist nations. They think that a persynality cult is a step up from feudalism, so they have some use in other contexts. Persynality cults in the first world just encourage mysticism, pre-scientific thinking, degeneration, zombie-ism, etc...

There might be a role for the persynality cult in the mass movement, there is not a role for it in the Party.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by BreadBros+Sep 16 2006, 04:00 AM--> (BreadBros @ Sep 16 2006, 04:00 AM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what? [/b]
Maoism, as Britain is fully industrialised, the revolution will be an act solely of the proletariat, not of the peasants. You know, kinda like Marx said would happen...

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Sep 16 2006, 04:24 PM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Sep 16 2006, 04:24 PM)
Originally posted by grove [email protected] 16 2006, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:00 AM

[email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what?
There is no place/no need for Maoism in a modern captalist industrilised country like America, Britain, France ect. Maoism works better in helping develop underdeveloped agricultural countries. Orthodox Marxism/Trotskyism is better suited fo well developed countries.
What use is Trotskyism? Bringing about social-democracy/imperialism? [/b]
Why do people say Trots are all social-democrats? Trotsky was the one who was disgusted at how Stalin licked the capitalists' arses and put down the world revolution. THAT'S why there was no Marxist revolution in the 30's, abd that's why the republicans lost the civil war. Please explain the whole thing about why the people who follow leaders who weren't much better than Hitler damn Trotsky?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:04 AM
Why do people say Trots are all social-democrats?


Urm, let's see...

1.) Trotsky was a Menshevik well into 1917 (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass2-Trotsky1975.htm)

2.) After 1917 he launched horrendous attacks on Lenin even well being in the Bolsheviks (http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass3-Trotsky2-1975.htm)

3.) Every single neo-Trot organization is nothing more than a radical mouthpiece for some social-democratic party (the only exceptions being the Spartacist and IBT).


Trotsky was the one who was disgusted at how Stalin licked the capitalists' arses and put down the world revolution.

That's interesting. I wonder why Trotsky(ists) didn't just lead a world revolution instead of sitting around Turkey being disgusted and having sex with Frida in Mexico being disgusted.

But, would you care to actually back up your comment with some examples of how Stalin "licked capitalists arses" and "put down the world revolution" (it's odd, considering the Stalin era turned half of Europe red, compared to the Trotsky era that, oh wait... :lol: )


THAT'S why there was no Marxist revolution in the 30's

What's why? You are not explaining anything, just making rather crude remarks based on stupid logic.


abd that's why the republicans lost the civil war.

Are you talking about Spain? If so it was lost thanks to the ridiculous tactics of POUM and the Anarchists who actually believed "autonomism" can somehow be intergrated into military strategies.


Please explain the whole thing about why the people who follow leaders who weren't much better than Hitler damn Trotsky?

Well, with statements like that now people can see for sure you are nothing more than a bourgeois dick rider who pays lip service to radical and revolutionary ideas. When push comes to shove you support capitalism, bourgeois democracy and imperialism over the USSR.

I would say that it's actually you who are not much better than Hitler, in terms of the way you think.

[CombatLiberalism]

@Comrade Marcel: Don't be too hard on Frida, after all, she later hated Trotsky. She upheld Stalin and Mao. Of course, this is usually left out of Trotskyist accounts who try to claim her as their own. Here is one online bourgeois source on it:



After Trotsky was assassinated, however, Kahlo turned on her old lover with a vengeance, claiming in an interview that Trotsky was a coward and had stolen from her while he stayed in her house (which wasn't true). "He irritated me from the time that he arrived with his pretentiousness, his pedantry because he thought he was a big deal," she said.

Rarely is this unflattering detail included in the condensed Kahlo story. Nor is the fact that Kahlo turned on Trotsky because she had become a devout Stalinist. Kahlo continued to worship Stalin even after it had become common knowledge that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, not to mention Trotsky himself. One of Kahlo's last paintings was called "Stalin and I," and her diary is full of her adolescent scribblings ("Viva Stalin!") about Stalin and her desire to meet him. Less scandalous but worth noting is that Kahlo despised the very gringos who now champion her work, and her art reflects her obvious disdain for the United States. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...6.mencimer.html (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.mencimer.html)

Was she Comarada Frida? I don't have enough information to say. But, we Communists allow for people to change, even if they housed the great betrayer and imperialist lackey Trotsky.

[Comrade Marcel]

CombatLiberalism:Yes, I have heard that about Kahlo as well (I saw a biography of her at Value Village, but unfortunately in Spanish - I bought another book I didn't look closely at and found out later it's a fictional novel). I didn't mean to diss her really, I was just trying to show that Trotsky was having a good time well he was criticizing everyone else.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Stalin ordered that all rural collectives and worker councils be placed under the hierarchal dominance the Spanish Communist Party, he demanded that various political parties aligned with the Soviets take a more "reformist" tide and work within bourgeois parties, he allowed vast amounts of foreign capital to flow into Russia, he did not follow the orders of Lenin in the testament, in which he was to step down from all public positions, he shut down remaining newspapers within Russia that questioned Soviet leadership, he neutralized remaining revolutionary elements within the Bolshevik state, he allowed fascist Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, and German troops to train on Russian territory, he killed off whole ethnicities (the Jewish population of Eastren Ukraine, the Chechens, etc.), and he created a more centrally-planned economic system.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Stalin aligned himself with the Nationalist government in China, and did literally nothing to stop the massacre of thousands of workers in 1927.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:38 PM
Stalin ordered that all rural collectives and worker councils be placed under the hierarchal dominance the Spanish Communist Party,
You're jumping from one subject to another so quickly, it is difficult to make a coherent reply to something so incoherently written, but let's try...

What circumstances are you talking about here, and why was this a bad thing?


he demanded that various political parties aligned with the Soviets take a more "reformist" tide and work within bourgeois parties,

Are you talking about in the countries dominated by imperialism? Why is this a bad thing?


he allowed vast amounts of foreign capital to flow into Russia,

So?


he did not follow the orders of Lenin in the testament, in which he was to step down from all public positions,

This is a blatant lie. Lenin never order anything of the such. Please provide a source if you truly believe otherwise.


he shut down remaining newspapers within Russia that questioned Soviet leadership,

So?


he neutralized remaining revolutionary elements within the Bolshevik state,

Are you sure you don't mean counterrevolutionary elements?


he allowed fascist Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, and German troops to train on Russian territory,

When exactly? Where exactly? Who exactly? How exactly? Source?


he killed off whole ethnicities (the Jewish population of Eastren Ukraine, the Chechens, etc.),

Blatant lie. Especially the Chechens part, since there is a war with the Chechens in Russia today. Maybe you should tell them they are fighting a non-existant people! :rolleyes:

As for the Ukrainian part, many Jews where in a lot of danger and Stalin help organize the founding of the first ever Jewish nation in order to help Jews in Eastern Europe escape anti-Semitism. To claim Stalin did the opposite is simply a lie to the face of the working class who deserve the truth, not false analysis and bourgeois conspiracy theories that claim to know what Stalin was "really thinking" from a "psychology" prospective.

Article: Birobidzhan -
Jewish Autonomous State of within USSR (http://www.allianceml.com/AllianceIssues/All30iii.htm)

Many Jews where liquidated from the Ukraine of course; BY THE NAZIS, an entity defeated by the Red Army under the leadership of comrade Stalin!


and he created a more centrally-planned economic system.

And this is bad, why? Tell us, do you prefer a more capitalistic supply-and-demand system over a socialist planned economy?

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:39 PM
Stalin aligned himself with the Nationalist government in China, and did literally nothing to stop the massacre of thousands of workers in 1927.
First, it's important to realize that the Chinese Communists where using basically Trotskyite tactics at that time.

Second, what was Stalin to do? Invade China like the social-imperialist USSR did in Afghanistan? That worked well!

And third, if Comrade Stalin did indeed give bad advice to the Chinese Communists, then we should aknowledge this. However, Stalin was a human being who made errors. He was in a position of tremendous repsonsibility and people had great expectations of him. The reason the Trotsky and the Trotskyites as well as other enemies of Stalin made none of these mistakes is because it was only possible for them to criticise. They never lead a revolution!

Then again, who was right and wrong more often?

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics...ouso/index.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/wetoldyouso/index.html)

[RedCommieBear]

This is a blatant lie. Lenin never order anything of the such. Please provide a source if you truly believe otherwise.

I believe he is refering to "Lenin's Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Testament)", something Lenin wrote in the last days of his life. Here's what he had to say about Stalin:


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

He also said:


Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly

Edit: Moved some things around.

[Comrade Marcel]

First of all, the bit that your posting is certainly differently translated from the one I have read. Lenin asks it to be considered that Stalin be replaces.

As I already, mentioned on this site before, Stalin DID offer to resign, and his resignation was overwhelmingly refused, including by Trotsky!

Also, the so-called "Lenin testament" is refuted and contraversial. See these articles:

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n1/LenTest.htm
http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/TESTAMENT.HTM

[Poum_1936]

s I already, mentioned on this site before, Stalin DID offer to resign, and his resignation was overwhelmingly refused, including by Trotsky!

Whoa whoa whoa...

So I came into the conversation late, I dont have the ability to review the whole thread, could you re-summarize this? A good copy and paste will do.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by RedStarOverYorkshire+Sep 18 2006, 10:59 AM--> (RedStarOverYorkshire @ Sep 18 2006, 10:59 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:00 AM

[email protected] 15 2006, 10:57 AM

Then with Maoism being a force to industrialise agricultural nations like pre-communist China, there is no place for it in a fully industrialsed nation like Britain or Germany: the countries that Marx himself would get the ball rolling.
No place for what?
Maoism, as Britain is fully industrialised, the revolution will be an act solely of the proletariat, not of the peasants. You know, kinda like Marx said would happen... [/b]
If you dont understand Maoism, then dont talk about it.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...mswv6_11.htm#s1 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm#s1)

About the whole peasantry-thing...

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...e-1/mswv1_1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm)

As this clearly shows, Mao's analyses was only apliable to the Chinese situation. Since th eproletariat in China was so small, it needed a strong ally, which in China was the peasantry. One that calls himself a Maoist is not de facto for the peasentry as an ally, since every country has a different situation that needs a different analyses. First try to read and study Mao before talking shit. Thank you.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:15 AM

s I already, mentioned on this site before, Stalin DID offer to resign, and his resignation was overwhelmingly refused, including by Trotsky!

Whoa whoa whoa...

So I came into the conversation late, I dont have the ability to review the whole thread, could you re-summarize this? A good copy and paste will do.

On 18 May 1924 Krupskaya sent the 'Testament' to Lev Kamenev, who passed it on to Stalin, as General Secretary. On 19 May Stalin passed the documents to the steering committee for the next (13th) Congress, which was due to begin on 23 May 1924.

By a vote of 30-10, the steering conmittee resolved not to publish the document, but to read it to a closed session of delegates "With explanations that Lenin had been ill". R.H. McNeal (1988): p. 110.

"As regards publishing the 'will', the congress decided not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress and was not intended for publication". J.V. Stalin: Speech to Joint Plenum of CC & CCC of CPSU, in: 'Works', Vol 10; Moscow; 1954; p. 181..

First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, in his secret speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU(B) in February 1956, confirmed that Lenin's 'Testament'
"Was made known to the delegates at the 13th Party Congress who discussed the question of transferring Stalin from the position of Secretary General". N.S. Khrushchev: op. cit.; p. 7.
At the Congress itself, in view of the criticism of him made in 'Lenin's Testament', Stalin offered his resignation as Ceneral Secretary.

"This question. was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev*, obliged Stalin to remain at his post. What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature. I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so. . When the Party imposes an obligation upon ne, I must obey." J.V. Stalin: Speech to Joint Plenum of CC & CCC of CPSU, in: "Works',Volume 10; Mos; 1954; p. 181.

Krushchev confirms that
"The delegates (to the 13th Party Congress - Ed.) declared themselves in favour of retaining Stalin in this post". N.S.Krushchev: op. cit.; p. 7.

At the first meeting of the Central Committee elected at the 13th Congress of the Party, and again a year later, Stalin offered his resignation, and each time it was rejected:
"At the very first plenum of the Central Committee after the 13th Congress, I asked the plenum to release me from my duties as General Secretary.. A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do?" J.V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 181

http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/TESTAMENT.HTM

[black magick hustla]

Even if there was something resembling a "lenin's testament", it is really a fucking stupid argument. Should the administration of a socialist region be a piece of private property that you can leave to your appointed succesor?

That is what capitalists do. :rolleyes:

marxism-leninism :lol:

[Comrade Marcel]

Marmot: The point isn't whether or not Lenin should have been the one to decide "who's next", but we are arguing about the opinion Lenin and the Bolshevik party had of Stalin at that time, and whether or not Stalin was doing things that veered from Lenin's line.

And anyways, how well is your brand of communism selling, Marmot?

[black magick hustla]

Marmot: The point isn't whether or not Lenin should have been the one to decide "who's next", but we are arguing about the opinion Lenin and the Bolshevik party had of Stalin at that time, and whether or not Stalin was doing things that veered from Lenin's line.
If you are arguing about some "lenin's testament", you are sure arguing about who Lenin was going to decide who is the next. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't give it so much importance.





And anyways, how well is your brand of communism selling, Marmot?
Marxism?

Still to many people who adhere to capitalist ideologies. :(

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:14 PM

Marmot: The point isn't whether or not Lenin should have been the one to decide "who's next", but we are arguing about the opinion Lenin and the Bolshevik party had of Stalin at that time, and whether or not Stalin was doing things that veered from Lenin's line.
If you are arguing about some "lenin's testament", you are sure arguing about who Lenin was going to decide who is the next. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't give it so much importance.





And anyways, how well is your brand of communism selling, Marmot?

I agree with you to some extent, but the point is that the majority in the party supported Stalin. The Trots try to use the "Lenin testament" to argue otherwise.


Marxism?

Still to many people who adhere to capitalist ideologies. :(

So, you are one of the millions that claims to be a "true" Marxist? Good for you! :rolleyes:

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:25 AM

RCP doesn't believe their is a labour aristocracy, have a personality cult around Bob Avakian and they support RIM.


I am only involved with the RCP through proxy, I guess one could say...but I am pretty sure they agree with Lenin's analysis on the labor aristocracy, just not to the crazy degree as MIM.

Can you prove that the RCP doesn't believe there is a labor aristocracy with a document or something? I'm almost postive I've even read Avakian using the term.

I also think to say there is a personality cult around Avakian is a little too extreme. They promote his work an awful lot (which can be annoying sometimes), but I don't think they put him on a pedestal as much as they are accused of.
I'm not a spokesperson for them, or even a member, but here is my fairly educated understanding. The RCP believes that large sections of the proletariat in the imperialist countries have been "bourgeoisified" and integrated into the imperialist system. It believes that there is an upper and a lower section of the proletariat.

However, unlike MIM, the RCP does not believe that this bourgeoisified section of the proletariat is a part of a new class, which MIM calls "labor aristocracy." This usage of the term "labor aristocracy" is different from Lenin's, and it implies that the proletariat in the imperialist is countries is reactionary.

The RCP and Lenin both have the line that the proletariat in the imperialist countries has been made backward, which is different from MIM's belief that the proletariat in the imperialist countries is a part of a reactionary new class thast must be overthrown. This analysis that "proletarians in the imperialist countries are reactionary" by MIM leads them to believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be exerted over the proletariat in the imperialist countries (ie. they want America under a military occupation from a socialist country instead of a proletarian revolution).


I also think to say there is a personality cult around Avakian is a little too extreme. They promote his work an awful lot (which can be annoying sometimes), but I don't think they put him on a pedestal as much as they are accused of.

Well, I think the first point that needs to be made here is that neither Avakian or the RCP put Avakian on a "pedastal." This term implies that Avakian is being but above the party, and above the masses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that Maoists view all leaders as being concentrations of the class (and the ideology of the class) which they represent. Bush, for example, is a concentration of bourgeois, imperialist, and christian fascist ideology. The bourgeoisie popularizes him in that context.

The RCP popularizes Avakian in the context that he represents a concentration of proletarian ideology and revolutionary leadership.

I have been sort of brief in my explanations as I don't have much time to post on this board anymore, but please tell me if anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying.

[Red Heretic]

Oh, and I thought you might find this useful. Here is a link to Avakian's audio talk discussing the development of US imperialism. He answers this question directly in Part 1.

Why We're in the Situation We're In Today, and What To Do About It
Part 1 (http://bobavakian.net/sound/new/1_why_we-re_in_the_situation_we-re_in_today_1.mp3)
Part 2 (http://bobavakian.net/sound/new/1_why_we-re_in_the_situation_we-re_in_today_2.mp3)
Part 3 (http://bobavakian.net/sound/new/1_why_we-re_in_the_situation_we-re_in_today_3.mp3)

[Hit The North]

Red:


The fact is that Maoists view all leaders as being concentrations of the class (and the ideology of the class) which they represent. Bush, for example, is a concentration of bourgeois, imperialist, and christian fascist ideology. The bourgeoisie popularizes him in that context.

The RCP popularizes Avakian in the context that he represents a concentration of proletarian ideology and revolutionary leadership.

There you have the foundations of a cult of personality in a nutshell: The idea that a single individual has a priveleged position within a movement or a class and has access to a purer form of knowledge.

[Rhyknow]

Well, from what I know about the events following the Russian Revolution, Stalin and Trotsky had very opposed ideas, and both were fighting for power... Stalin got into power, then some time later had Trotsky exiled and assassinated... Since Maoists are closer to Stalin, i would assume they share the same hatred of Trotskyist principals and morals... but i could be entirely wrong.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:46 PM
Well, from what I know about the events following the Russian Revolution, Stalin and Trotsky had very opposed ideas, and both were fighting for power... Stalin got into power, then some time later had Trotsky exiled and assassinated... Since Maoists are closer to Stalin, i would assume they share the same hatred of Trotskyist principals and morals... but i could be entirely wrong.
Wow, try reading a thread before you reply to it. You have not only made yourself look foolish, you have waisted other people's time and bandwidth.

[Rhyknow]

actually, i'm trying to answer the question "Why do Maoists hate Trotskyists" which i beleive was the original question

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:56 PM
actually, i'm trying to answer the question "Why do Maoists hate Trotskyists" which i beleive was the original question
And you answered it with the 'George Orwell's Animal Farm = Soviet history' version they teach in 1st world high school, instead of reading the already exstensive discussion on the subject already in the thread. Good job! :lol:

[Rhyknow]

Well, i'm ever so sorry that what i thought wasn't right... enlighten me oh wise one. I clearly stated in my original post that "I could be wrong"..; yes i'm sorry i'm a stupid sixteen year old who doesn't know bollocks, thanks for pointing that out

[hoopla]

Edited for name.

Marcel: Do they give you a hard time for being w/c?

What sort of numbers of the labour aristocracy do you expect to kill?

If the labour aristocarcy was to go along with the peasents (maybe you think this is impossible, but hypothetically, would they be treated as counter-revolutionary?

Please don't shout at me if I made a mistake :o

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:05 PM
Well, i'm ever so sorry that what i thought wasn't right... enlighten me oh wise one. I clearly stated in my original post that "I could be wrong"..; yes i'm sorry i'm a stupid sixteen year old who doesn't know bollocks, thanks for pointing that out
This is the last time I'm going to say it: RTFT!

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:11 PM
Edited for name.

Marcell: Do they give you a hard time for being w/c?


What do you mean by "w/c"?


What sort of numbers of the labour aristocracy do you expect to kill?

I don't recall ever saying I expected to kill anyone. :huh:


If the labour aristocarcy was to go along with the peasents (maybe you think this is impossible, but hypothetically, would they be treated as counter-revolutionary?

Who said anything about the class struggle being peasants vs. labour aristocracy? What sort of context are you talking about?


Please don't shout at me if I made a mistake :o

Maybe the mistake was posting in this thread, when you should have first RTFT.

[hoopla]

I have read the FT.

Erm, yeah, in the struggle against the labour aristocracy, the peasentry I assume will erupt into violence. What sort of numbers of the labour aristocracy do you expect to be killed in this violence?

If the labour aristocracy were to capitulate without a fight, would they be rounded up as enemies of the peasentry and killed/imprisoned etc?

I meant at the start of my last post, do maoists give you a hard time for being a member of the labour aristocracy?

Unless I have misunderstood the thread, several people claimed, as you just have, that the nature of struggle is between the peasentry and the labour aristocracy. So I assume that there will be some violence between these two groups, especially considering that some posters here have been defending the terror in the USSR.

Cheers

[hoopla]

Cool thread title :o

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:24 PM
I have read the FT.

Erm, yeah, in the struggle against the labour aristocracy, the peasentry I assume will erupt into violence. What sort of numbers of the labour aristocracy do you expect to be killed in this violence?

If the labour aristocracy were to capitulate without a fight, would they be rounded up as enemies of the peasentry and killed/imprisoned etc?

I meant at the start of my last post, do maoists give you a hard time for being a member of the labour aristocracy?

Unless I have misunderstood the thread, several people claimed, as you just have, that the nature of struggle is between the peasentry and the labour aristocracy. So I assume that there will be some violence between these two groups, especially considering that some posters here have been defending the terror in the USSR.

Cheers
What peasentry?

What are you talking about? :huh:

[hoopla]

I don't think that any court of law could use this as evidence against you. And I don't think you are going to get any Maosit parties into trouble - everyone knows that they plan on killing sizeable amounts of the labour aristocrcay :rolleyes:

I ASSUME

Maybe I have mis-spelt 'peasantry' too many times.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:17 PM
I don't think that any court of law could use this as evidence against you. And I don't think you are going to get any Maosit parties into trouble - everyone knows that they plan on killing sizeable amounts of the labour aristocrcay :rolleyes:

I ASSUME

Maybe I have mis-spelt 'peasantry' too many times.
You dont know shit about maoism... so just shut up please. The MIM is not representative for 99% of the maoists. The labor aristocracy in short is a leninist idea of an appeased proletariat within imperialist states that has gotten so many benefits, such as social security and can ride on the wealth of the exploited thirt world to make them at peace with the current system. This makes it more difficult for a revolution to occur within imperialist states themselves. THIS my 'friend' is the labor aristocracy!

[hoopla]

Erm, well, I wasn't paying much attention to numbers. Erm, I find it quite surreal that you go around telling people that they "know nothing about Maoism" all the time, when all they are doing is asking questions about it :o :lol:

Er, yeah, any MIM's here? Er, do othe Maoists give the lkabour aristocracy a hard time at all?

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:29 PM
Erm, well, I wasn't paying much attention to numbers. Erm, I find it quite surreal that you go around telling people that they "know nothing about Maoism" all the time, when all they are doing is asking questions about it :o :lol:

Er, yeah, any MIM's here? Er, do othe Maoists give the lkabour aristocracy a hard time at all?
I didn't see any questionmarks in you're statements, which implies on a statement and not on a question.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Zeruzo+Sep 25 2006, 08:21 PM--> (Zeruzo @ Sep 25 2006, 08:21 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 07:17 PM
I don't think that any court of law could use this as evidence against you. And I don't think you are going to get any Maosit parties into trouble - everyone knows that they plan on killing sizeable amounts of the labour aristocrcay :rolleyes:

I ASSUME

Maybe I have mis-spelt 'peasantry' too many times.
You dont know shit about maoism... so just shut up please. The MIM is not representative for 99% of the maoists. The labor aristocracy in short is a leninist idea of an appeased proletariat within imperialist states that has gotten so many benefits, such as social security and can ride on the wealth of the exploited thirt world to make them at peace with the current system. This makes it more difficult for a revolution to occur within imperialist states themselves. THIS my 'friend' is the labor aristocracy! [/b]
Wrong. Any sections of the working class who have to depend upon state benefits is in the shit, not a member of the 'labour aristocracy'. If your definition is that any members of the Western working class who have access to these benefits comprises the labour aristocracy then your position is no different to MIM's.

Also, if access to material benefits directly linked to the labour of third world workers, rather than their own labour, is a criteria, once again your position is no different from MIMs.

I think it's beholden upon the Maoists to define exactly which sub-groups of the 1st world proletariat fall into the labour aristocracy and why.

[Zeruzo]

You silly! Maoists never denied they were proletarians!
Thats why it's called the LABOR aristocracy!

[mlm]

When you start a thread about Maoism, you must not think that posters supporting groups like "MIM", "RAIL", "RMP", "MIP-Kanada" or the IRTR forums are representative of the Maoist political line. The MIM and its four or five front groups have really weird positions and don't have any ties with the Maoist movement.

The position of Maoists in imperialists countries is that the proletariat still has a revolutionary potential in those countries and will be in fact the main force in the revolutionary movement, but cannot be seen as an homogeneous class. At the contrary, it is formed by various strata, to which correspond various interests.

The organization I support (RCP[oc]), defines in its programme that the revolutionary camp must have at its core the most oppressed strata of the proletariat, which are notably made up of (not necessarily exclusively): The poor and exploited workers who are at the very bottom of the social ladder.
The workers excluded from the labour market. They comprise the industrial reserve army for the capitalists.
The new strata of proletarians that come from recent immigration.
Women who continue to massively integrate the labour market. The capitalists profit from sexism and discrimination and overexploit them.
The youth that are, more than any other generation, confronted with precarious and underpaid work.
The Native workers, for who unemployment is the rule and who are subjected to the worst discrimination.
We refer to this hard core because we are aware that other social strata will and must join the struggle. This even includes some parts of the petty-bourgeoisie (intellectuals, for example). United, they will enfeeble and isolate the enemy. But we must first and foremost organize and reinforce that hard core. They are the ones who shall take the lead in the revolutionary struggle.

For more details about the RCP(oc)'s line on this question, here are links to two chapters of their programme:

The exploited proletariat, spearhead of the socialist revolution (http://www.pcr-rcpcanada.org/en/?programme/3)
The battle of two big adversaries (http://www.pcr-rcpcanada.org/en/?programme/4)

You can also check out the websites of these other Maoist organizations in imperialist countries:
www.revcom.us (http://www.revcom.us) (USA)
www.prolcom.org (http://www.prolcom.org) (Italia)

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Hmpf! Unfortunately the RCP is very top-down heirarchal and is engaged with a bizarre personality cult surrounding their Great Leader

To heck with Maoists, Stalninists and their ego-trip Great Leaders that all lessers must slavishly follow.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:33 PM
Hmpf! Unfortunately the RCP is very top-down heirarchal and is engaged with a bizarre personality cult surrounding their Great Leader

To heck with Maoists, Stalninists and their ego-trip Great Leaders that all lessers must slavishly follow.
If you were replying to mlm, you really need to look into things. They said they are a supporter of PCR-RCP(OC), not RCP-U$A. They are different organizations. RCP(OC) is generally organized in Quebec and has nothing to do with Avakianism. So "hmph" yourself.

[CombatLiberalism]

Check out irtr.org, the economics forum is open to all if I am not mistaken. I have read that there is an open invitation to debate class and global surplus value on IRTR. The Maoist position is that amerikkkans are a bought off labor aristocracy. There are groups that claim themselves to be Maoist, yet whose class analysis differs little if at all from any number of revisionists and Trotskyists. The difference between the Maoist position and others is that Maoists back up their claims with science, others just assert various positions. And, it is obvious to nearly everyone with a brain at this point. To see MIM's critics getting creamed just visit IRTR's economics forum or MIM's crypto-Trotskyism page.