Maoist

[riddla]

What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?

[Janus]

Well, one major difference is that Maoists believe that the peasantry can become the leading forces of revolution.

[Umoja]

Sarte liked Maoist more.

That's why they're infinitely cooler.

I mean come on.... It's Sarte.

[VenceremosRed]

Maoism was the third significant development, after Marxism and Leninism. Personally I think revolutionary communists have advanced past Maoism, per se, but we shouldn't ignore the huge contributions Mao made: the mass line, an understanding of the dialectical materialist method, the example of the Cultural Revolution as proletarian mass democracy, and the understanding that class struggle continues even after state power.

Very significant. I think our duty now is to sum these lessons up, and move forward. Not get nostalgic for the socialist days in China.

:redstar: :redstar: :redstar: :redstar: :redstar:

Venceremos! Free People's Movement (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:03 AM
What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?
Maoists...

-think the revolution should be based among the peasantry
-think there is a need for a cultural revolution
-think that Stalin and Mao contributed to socialism

Those are three things that distinquish them from other Vanguard schools of thought.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by "Umoja"
Sarte liked Maoist more.
That's why they're infinitely cooler.
I mean come on.... It's Sarte.

Best post ever :lol: But on a more serious note I would like to expand upon LeftyHenry’s generalized, but not wrong, statements.


-think the revolution should be based among the peasantry
Maoism does not specifically state the all revolutions should be based amongst the peasantry. Mao and the early Chinese communist leaders were active amongst the Chinese working class and fought for the rights of workers and unions. However, the rightists attacked the working class and smashed up the urban communist organisations. Mao and other communists fled to the mountainside to take refuge. There Mao realized the revolutionary potential of Chinese ‘peasants’ [I don’t like this term. Chinese ‘peasants’ were a very diverse group and they included a variety of social classes. Some resembled European peasants, while the vast majority resembled serfs and slaves]. However, Mao made a crucial error. The leadership and actions of the working class, especially the urban working class, cannot be substituted by that of peasant revolutionaries.


-think there is a need for a cultural revolution
Indeed, but many Marxists were proposing this long before Mao—especially Gramsci. The Soviet Union went through a cultural revolution itself were revolutionary art and literature flourished with the growth of realism and cubism, the works of Eisenstein, and other avant-garde cultural movements. In my opinion, the death of the Soviet cultural revolution was the biggest impact of Stalinism.


-think that Stalin and Mao contributed to socialism
Indeed, even Trotsky thought Stalin made miniscule, but certainly there, contributions to socialism. Mao once described Stalin as '70% good, 30% bad' meaning that Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union and his political theory were mainly progresssive contributions to Marxism. Mao most likely deemed the 'bad' portions of Stalin from his refusal to aid the Chinese revolution and his emphasis on unity between the Kuomintang and the CCP.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 23 2006, 03:38 PM
Mao once described Stalin as '70% good, 30% bad'
I thought that was said by Deng Xiaoping in regards to Mao.


What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?

I think that like some comrades have said before that Maoism differs from other Communist sects in that importance was placed on the agrarian peasantry, and not solely upon and focused upon the industrialized urban workers; meaning that the peasantry could become a powerful revolutionary force, and that the revolution could start with peasants, just as well as urban workers depending upon the situation faced in a given nation.

Maoism like Stalinism also realizes the need for an "aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism," plan, and that a Communist system can quickly go back to the typical bourgeoisie oppression and a crypto-capitalist system if such a plan is not in affect; which leads to the arrests and executions of counter-revolutionaries within the party, and elsewhere which Mao, and Stalin are criticized for.

[TC]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 23 2006, 04:44 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 23 2006, 04:44 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 01:03 AM
What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?
Maoists...

-think the revolution should be based among the peasantry
-think there is a need for a cultural revolution
-think that Stalin and Mao contributed to socialism

Those are three things that distinquish them from other Vanguard schools of thought. [/b]
Uh

No

They think there can be revolutions based on peasantry, not that there should be, and this is an empirical fact that they've demonstrated.

The "cultural revolution" was very complicated and remember that Mao withdrew his support from it soon after it started. Western Maoist's line on it is less Mao's and more Jiang Qings or maybe Lin Biaos. Moreover there were so many factions and so many different aspects of it its hard to make universial pronouncements about it which is why Mao didn't. At its best the cultural revolution instituted direct democracy and got rid of the burocracy that made government less responsive but at its worsed it was paranoid, sectarian mobs.

To think that stalin and mao contributed to socialism doesn't make one inherently a Maoist. Certaintly Deng Xiaoping would agree with that and yet no one would ever think him a Maoist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In any case i think, probably the single most important contribution from Maoism, and perhaps the defining quality of maoist third world revolutionary movements, is the use of protracted people's war rather than (or in concert with) a revolutionary party as a much more reliably efficent means to overthrow capitalist regimes.

[Janus]

Mao and the early Chinese communist leaders were active amongst the Chinese working class and fought for the rights of workers and unions. However, the rightists attacked the working class and smashed up the urban communist organisations. Mao and other communists fled to the mountainside to take refuge. There Mao realized the revolutionary potential of Chinese ‘peasants’ [I don’t like this term. Chinese ‘peasants’ were a very diverse group and they included a variety of social classes.
Mao was mainly active with the peasants. He rarely ever worked with actual workers since he was more familiar with the Hunan area. He recognized the peasants' potential long before Jinggangshan but the CCP never felt that they could become the dominant players of the revolution.


and remember that Mao withdrew his support from it soon after it started
He was mainly working in the shadows during much of the Cultural revolution but he more or less encouraged the Cultural Revolution the entire time. Furthermore, the important thing is that people were either acting under his instructions or were acting in his name.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:34 PM
Uh

No

I was simply speaking in generalized and summarized terms. Those are the three main aspects of Maoism. You can think Stalin was good for the socialist movement, or think that the cultural revolution is necessary and not be a maoist, it's just those things are characteristics of Maoism.

[redhmong]

Why do you merely think peasantry,if Maoism is remarked on? Yes, the peasantry is very important in Maoism, but it isn't the only.
His difference is that he gives us a new way to revolution struggle---unite with all the forces that can be united to get the win.

I don't think Maoism is more difference than Marxism. Marx told us the gernal theory in developed countries. Maoism mainly play roles in the third countries. Different conditions, different ways.

[VenceremosRed]

Maoism united the peasantry with the working class, it didn't replace the working class with the peasantry. First of all, the overwhelming majority of people in China were peasants, the proletariat made but a small number of people in urban areas. Secondly, Maoism is a continuation of MARXISM which is of course principally a working class ideology.

Maoism applied Marxism in the conditions of China, and took it further then Marx and Lenin left it. A significant contribution.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:03 AM
What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?
Mass murder and completely fucking up worker power (even though Maoism doesn't ivolve industrial workers). Also, see re-writing Marx. One more: belief in a state and that its members should live in luxury whilst famine and poverty reign. In a word, they are not communists at all; they are state-fascists.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by RedStarOverYorkshire+Sep 25 2006, 11:28 AM--> (RedStarOverYorkshire @ Sep 25 2006, 11:28 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 01:03 AM
What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?
Mass murder and completely fucking up worker power (even though Maoism doesn't involve industrial workers). Also, see re-writing Marx. One more: belief in a state and that its members should live in luxury whilst famine and poverty reign. In a word, they are not communists at all; they are state-fascists. [/b]
RedStarOverYorkshire Ridiculous, baseless, and peripherilly reactionary. Mao contributed a significant body of work to the international communist movement. He was a brilliant communist leader.

While you read books written by capitalist fiction novelists, the rest of us are busy making revolution. Why don't you join us.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by VenceremosRed+Sep 26 2006, 01:17 AM--> (VenceremosRed @ Sep 26 2006, 01:17 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:28 AM

[email protected] 23 2006, 01:03 AM
What makes a Maoist so different from other communist?
Mass murder and completely fucking up worker power (even though Maoism doesn't involve industrial workers). Also, see re-writing Marx. One more: belief in a state and that its members should live in luxury whilst famine and poverty reign. In a word, they are not communists at all; they are state-fascists.
RedStarOverYorkshire Ridiculous, baseless, and peripherilly reactionary. Mao contributed a significant body of work to the international communist movement. He was a brilliant communist leader.

While you read books written by capitalist fiction novelists, the rest of us are busy making revolution. Why don't you join us. [/b]
Well he does have a point. Mao made a shitload of mistakes which caused millions of deaths, but that was not completely his fault and probably would have been worse under Jiang Jishi. What was unexceptable was the hundred flower campaign and how he encouraged people to speak their mind, and when they did he slaughtered them like pigs or locked them up in jails. That cannot be justified.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:48 AM
Venceremos! Free People's Movement (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org)
the FPM is not Maoist, are they?

[Hiero]

The "cultural revolution" was very complicated and remember that Mao withdrew his support from it soon after it started.

What do you base this on? He may have declared it was finish after the purges of of people like Liu Shaoqi. But that he withdraw support? Are you implying he thought it was a mistake?

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 26 2006, 01:52 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 26 2006, 01:52 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 03:48 AM
Venceremos! Free People's Movement (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org)
the FPM is not Maoist, are they? [/b]
No, the FPM is based primarilly on the works of Marx and Engels.

But as an educated communist, I know better then to discredit revolutionary leaders for the sake of pleasing bourgeois-liberals.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by VenceremosRed+Sep 26 2006, 05:23 AM--> (VenceremosRed @ Sep 26 2006, 05:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:52 AM

[email protected] 23 2006, 03:48 AM
Venceremos! Free People's Movement (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org)
the FPM is not Maoist, are they?
No, the FPM is based primarilly on the works of Marx and Engels.

But as an educated communist, I know better then to discredit revolutionary leaders for the sake of pleasing bourgeois-liberals. [/b]
I don't see it as 'discrediting revolutionaries for bourgious liberals' It's more like discrediting red fascists.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 26 2006, 11:14 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 26 2006, 11:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:52 AM

[email protected] 23 2006, 03:48 AM
Venceremos! Free People's Movement (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org)
the FPM is not Maoist, are they?
No, the FPM is based primarilly on the works of Marx and Engels.

But as an educated communist, I know better then to discredit revolutionary leaders for the sake of pleasing bourgeois-liberals.
I don't see it as 'discrediting revolutionaries for bourgious liberals' It's more like discrediting red fascists. [/b]
You should listen to Michael Parenti. He is a communist with a pretty eclectic line, but he is good at pointing out the truth, he takes examples from Howard Zinn, etc.
One of the things is the issue of "totalitarianism" (or "Red fascism" as you simply put it.)

Is a dictatorship of the proletariat, especially at the merger first steps, capable of acting despotically? I think so. I think it would be a diservice to live in utopia, and reject everything short of that.

Nothing wrong with a hungry heart, as long as you don't pass up real meals.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 27 2006, 04:41 AM
I completely agree about Michael Parenti (though I disagree with him on some things, like "human nature"). You should especially look out for his talk "Reflections on the overthrow of communism".
Yeah, that's a good one. I agree on his thoughts on human nature, like I said - he has an eclectic line.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:35 AM
Is a dictatorship of the proletariat, especially at the merger first steps, capable of acting despotically? I think so. I think it would be a diservice to live in utopia, and reject everything short of that.

There should never any sort of dictator or totalitarianism in socialism. That goes completely against the worker liberation ideology. You cannot be liberated when you have someone who has unchecked power acting in what he thinks is good for you.

[VenceremosRed]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 27 2006, 09:57 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 27 2006, 09:57 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 04:35 AM
Is a dictatorship of the proletariat, especially at the merger first steps, capable of acting despotically? I think so. I think it would be a diservice to live in utopia, and reject everything short of that.

There should never any sort of dictator or totalitarianism in socialism. That goes completely against the worker liberation ideology. You cannot be liberated when you have someone who has unchecked power acting in what he thinks is good for you. [/b]
No shit.

1) "Totalitarianism" isn't real. It was invented during the Cold War to slant the intellectuals of the world towards the U.S.

2) My point was that a class can act despotically. Take the Spanish revolutions banning and shooting religious figures on the spot while fascist guns were killing off their comrades. We want a DICTATORSHIP of our class, and that dictatorship can (and should) act despotically to defend itself from reactionaries. Otherwise, you aren't serious, and for lack of a better term - jerking yourself off.

[RNK]

Yes, unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "happy" dictatorship. Supporting the dictatorship of the workers is something we all agreed upon when "signing up" as Communists.

[CombatLiberalism]

For info on maoism:

Goto http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM

http://irtr.org

[RGacky3]

I read somewhere that the Black panthers were Maoist, I don't get it, as far as I can see Mao's ideas only work in a 3rd world mainly agrarian society, definately not in the United States, how could the Black Panthers be considered Maoist, or really any organisation in an industrialized world?

[Janus]

how could the Black Panthers be considered Maoist
They were certainly not an orthodox Maoist organization, rather they brought in a lot of Maoist ideas concerning organizational structure and the idea of armed struggle as the means to bring about a revolution.

[Brownfist]

The Black Panthers did flirt with Maoism in different stages of the party, and there was numerous influences of Maoism on the party. However, I do not think that the BPP should be identified as Maoist because it changed its position consistently and was not really committed to a Maoist line or politics. Having said that, there were indeed numerous links between the BPP and the Maoist left in America (also known as the New Communist Movement), and numerous Black-led groupings and movements that were inspired by the BPP did indeed become Maoist. I would recommend reading Max Elbaum's book, "Revolution in the Air".

[Dimentio]

The Symbionese liberation army then?

[Brownfist]

The Symbionese Liberation Army was definitely not a Maoist formation. They tended to be more influenced by Herbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilizatin" and Freudian/Post-Marxist insurgency models than Maoism.

[Dimentio]

I am somewhat fascinated by odd groups, like the "Rebel movement" in Sweden in 1968. They were spartan maoists who lived a monkish lifestyle and believed everything in the "little read" to be interpreted literally. For example, they wanted to dissolve all communist parties, due to the fact that the little red states that the "struggke for the people is lead by KKP". They sold all their property and refused to even speak with their relatives. The only thing they kept was portraits of Mao.

[Brownfist]

Yes, I do share your same fascination for these kinds of groups and movements. I was wondering whether you had access to any more information about the Swedish, "Rebel Movement" in English because it sounds like a fascinating experiment within a social movement.

[RGacky3]

but in nations without a big peasantry would'nt maoism be kind of pointless?

[Brownfist]

Actually no. Mao himself argued that not all elements of Mao Zedong Thought would be applicable to the entire world, especially not advanced capitalist countries. Maoism in the first world is 1) a recognition of the importance of the Chinese experience (i.e. it is a historical summation of the experiences in revolutionary USSR and China); 2) a recognition of the theoretical contribution of Mao which may or may not be applicable to all countries, but does offer some useful strategies for the first world as well like the "mass line"; 3) situates first world movements in solidarity with third world movements that are able to apply Mao's PPW strategy.

[RGacky3]

Whats the "Mass Line"

[Brownfist]

The "mass line" is a revolutionary methodology which Mao puts forth. It is very complicated and there has been much written on it. I would recommend you look at the website www.massline.info This website has a very comprehensive analysis of the mass line. But in short the mass line is a methodology by which the party through social investigation takes the ideas of the masses, concentrates them with a revolutionary understanding, and then presents it back to the masses. Thus, the party is always learning from and teaching the masses.