[STUDY GROUP] Quotations from Mao Zedong?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Anyone interested in reading and analyzing Quotations from Mao Zedong? I read it already a while ago, and I would like to read it again to understand it more. Post here if you're interested.

This is my first post in the Study Group forum so I'm not sure if this is allowed but if it isn't feel free to trash and I'll do it the proper way.

[Zeruzo]

Of course!

[The Author]

Definitely.

[Hiero]

It is a good idea. Though it may be hard to conduct, as we wont be able to exclude anarchists, Trots, post modernist and liberals who will want to interupt the discussion.

Maybe we could do something independent of revleft?

[Zeruzo]

Well, i doubt they'll even participate in this study group, since the only ones that have posted till now are anti-revisionists.

[Wanted Man]

I'm in. If people get seriously disruptive, we can always ask a mod to make them fuck off, and if that doesn't happen, do it somewhere else. The little nuggets of wisdom from the red booklet are always good.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:05 am
It is a good idea. Though it may be hard to conduct, as we wont be able to exclude anarchists, Trots, post modernist and liberals who will want to interupt the discussion.

Maybe we could do something independent of revleft?
invision boards allows you to create forums for free and very easily so we could do that but I don't think we'll need to go through the trouble. As Zeruzo pointed out no one who has posted here is a trot, revisionist, or anarchist.

When should we get started and how should we break down the reading? Should we do it Chapter by Chapter?

BTW, Here is a full online text for anyone who doesn't own and either doesn't want to buy it, prefers online texts, or can't find a book store that sells "The Little Red Book."

Quotations from Mao Zedong (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/index.htm)

[Zeruzo]

I vote for quote by quote!
We have the time anyway.

[Pirate Utopian]

i just finished it yesterday, i say we do it chapter for chapter

[The Author]

I like the quote by quote option.


If anyone is interested, there's two other versions of the Quotations (Little Red Book):

http version

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/QCM66.html

pdf version

http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/QCM66.pdf

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I vote quote by quote too. But what does that mean? We'll have a new thread for each quote? Perhaps someone with more "study group forum experience" should decide how to do this.

[Zeruzo]

Well, someone posts the first quote here, and adds his comment, then we discuss it. Then when most people seem satisfied, the next one is posted.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Okay I'll start. The first quote is:



The force at the core leading our cause forward is the Chinese Communist Party. The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism.

Nothing special about this. Just a 2 sentence summary of Marxist-Leninism. Not much to say about this in my opinion other than that for someone with little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism this is a basic.

[Pirate Utopian]

i agree with LH, basic profile of their party theory

[which doctor]

It's not a two sentence summary of Marxism-Leninism. It tells you absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism. It's more of a two sentence summary of the CCP.

Just my two (common) cents.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] December 02, 2006 07:47 pm

The force at the core leading our cause forward is the Chinese Communist Party. The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism.Nothing special about this. Just a 2 sentence summary of Marxist-Leninism. Not much to say about this in my opinion other than that for someone with little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism this is a basic.

I concur. Good basic introduction to the first chapter, "The Communist Party." The Party is the leading organization of the working-class and peasant movement in practice, and the theory adopted is ML.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 02, 2006 11:59 pm
:lol: I'm laughing at you guys so hard for reading this little joke book so seriously.
I&#39;m laughing at you for being a shithead troll... <_<


It&#39;s not a two sentence summary of Marxism-Leninism. It tells you absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism. It&#39;s more of a two sentence summary of the CCP.

Just my two (common) cents.

About as much as you can say in two sentences.

[Prairie Fire]

I&#39;ve read the red book, but I&#39;ll still join in.

Pay shit-disturbers like Leo no mind. I say just ignore anyone who invades this thread. Seriously, it&#39;s the only way to maintain the purpose.


I&#39;m not quite a Maoist myself, but here is one of my favorite quotes:

"We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war;but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun,it is necesary to take up the gun."

[Entrails Konfetti]

We must affirm anew the discipline of the Party, namely:

(1) the individual is subordinate to the organization;
(2) the minority is subordinate to the majority;
(3) the lower level is subordinate to the higher level; and
(4) the entire membership is subordinate to the Central Committee.

Whoever violates these articles of discipline disrupts Party unity.





"The Role of the Chinese Communist Party
in the National War" (October 1938),

If the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the membership is subbordinate to the Central Committee then, the masses really don&#39;t make up the party, they are just under the partys ruling. If a minority is subordinate to the majority and cannot express their different views, and cannot act up how they choose they they are coerced into acepting the line of the Central Committee.
Unity shouldn&#39;t be about following the rules-- unity is about cameradery with others for the cause. (emphasis in bold by me)


Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature‹they are real tigers and paper tigers at the same time. In past history, before they won state power and for some time afterwards, the slave-owning class, the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive; they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, because their opposites‹the slave class, the peasant class and the proletariat‹grew in strength step by step, struggled against them more and more fiercely, these ruling classes changed step by step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries, changed into backward people, changed into paper tigers. And eventually they were overthrown, or will be overthrown, by the people. The reactionary, backward, decaying classes retained this dual nature even in their last life-and-death struggles against the people. On the one hand, they were real tigers; they devoured people, devoured people by the millions and tens of millions. The cause of the people&#39;s struggle went through a period of difficulties and hardships, and along the path there were many twists and turns. To destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people more than a hundred years and cost them tens of millions of lives before the victory in 1949. Look&#33; Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers? But in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead tigers, bean-curd tigers. These are historical facts. Have people not seen or heard about these facts? There have indeed been thousands and tens of thousands of them&#33; Thousands and tens of thousands&#33; Hence, imperialism and all reactionaries, looked at in essence, from a long-term point of view, from a strategic point of view, must be seen for what they are‹paper tigers. On this we should build our strategic thinking. On the other hand, they are also living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers which can devour people. On this we should build our tactical thinking.

Speech at the Wuchang Meeting of the Polit-
ical Bureau of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of China (December 1, 1958)

Here in this longwinded quotation he just says that the imperialists will be defeated because they defeated the feudal lords, Mao only says their next in line to be defeated-- the only reason he says they will be is because they created the proletariat, he doesn&#39;t why the proletariat will defeat them, or why it wants to defeat them.

Their tactical thinking is built on that the imperialists will be defeated, though they are mighty now-- they will be defeated, it&#39;s very mechanistic.

This whole book which was designed to give people who knew nothing about Communism, give NOTHING to offer. There is no theoretical insight-- absolutely nothing.

The only thing great about this book is that Mao created a new insult "Bean-curd Tigers" :lol: what the hell is that&#33;? When a bean-curd tiger roars, does it actually fart bean stench out of its mouth?

All of you who believe that there are theoretical insights in this book are bean-curd tigers, smelly tigers, fart tigers, hippy-tofu gas tigers; though you&#39;re living tigers, you&#39;re not living very well. You&#39;re living like shit tigers, you&#39;re not very fierce, you&#39;re like the Easter Bunny with plastic vampire fangs tigers.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

El KABLAMO,

This is NOT the thread for that.

1) I don&#39;t think we&#39;re done with the first quote yet
2) That is not the next quote
3) That is not in Chapter 1

If you want, go start another thread. But don&#39;t do this here because the thread is already starting to get derailed.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

okay shall we move on to the second?


If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its running dogs.

This is an expansion on the first quote. I think that quote by quote is going to be a bit redundant, but so far it&#39;s fine.

[Hiero]

If the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the membership is subbordinate to the Central Committee then, the masses really don&#39;t make up the party,

How do you come to that conclusion. You have just describe centralism, it has no indication of who make up these ranks. The masses can be organised in a centralised party.


If a minority is subordinate to the majority and cannot express their different views, and cannot act up how they choose they they are coerced into acepting the line of the Central Committee.

They can express different views. You probally have never worked in a Marxist-Leninist party, so you don&#39;t know any better. Whenever planing and voting occurs at the lowest branch level to the highest level at the congress, anyone present can voice their opinion.

However you have to convince people your opinion is correct and best for the party. If you don&#39;t not coninve people, and people vote another way then the party has decided your idea was not the best present. For the sake of unity of the party comrades should follow what the party decides to be correct and best. In time if practice does prove you idea right, at the next appropriate time you can voice your opinions again.


This whole book which was designed to give people who knew nothing about Communism, give NOTHING to offer. There is no theoretical insight-- absolutely nothing.

The only thing great about this book is that Mao created a new insult "Bean-curd Tigers" what the hell is that&#33;? When a bean-curd tiger roars, does it actually fart bean stench out of its mouth

Well I think people have moved to quickly into the book. If we are going to be serious about discussing this book then we need to talk about the book&#39;s production, purpose, intent, who was invovled, who the aimed audience was, the historical context etc. We also need to control ourselves and wait till the quote we want to discuss is up for discussion.

I think we should discuss the book in two ways. We should discuss it&#39;s theory as well as it&#39;s use a agitation and propaganda. The book wasn&#39;t realised as groundbreaking work in the realm of Marxism-Leninism.

It was produced as a collection of quotes from Mao&#39;s works, speaches and study on Marixism-Leninism and its application in China. It was chief desginer was Lin Biao, early editions have introduction by Biao. It was intended to educate many illiterate (to be literate) or poorly educated peasants and workers who had not long ago lived under a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society in the basics of Marxism-Leninism. It was not to be used as a text book as such, rather as a simple guide to discussing revolutionary change in China.

When we (first world Communist) discuss the book we need to keep this in mind. This is why we should discuss the books propoganda style. We need to apply the quotes to our situation and expand beyond the simple approach of each quote and relate it back to experince.

Not to be offensive, but your post shows the exact ignorant approach we don&#39;t need when studying this book.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Hi[email protected] 03, 2006 05:30 pm
How do you come to that conclusion. You have just describe centralism, it has no indication of who make up these ranks. The masses can be organised in a centralised party.
I hate centralism, it&#39;s not democratic. You are subordinate to a representative, and not the other way around.

If you say that regular members can revoke a representative of any authority, you have to kidding. Unless there are multiple bureaucratic barriers.


They can express different views. You probally have never worked in a Marxist-Leninist party, so you don&#39;t know any better. Whenever planing and voting occurs at the lowest branch level to the highest level at the congress, anyone present can voice their opinion.

I&#39;m not talking about that.
Publicly, you can&#39;t express that you differ with the rest of your party on an issue, policy, or even the framework of the party.


It was intended to educate many illiterate (to be literate) or poorly educated peasants and workers who had not long ago lived under a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society in the basics of Marxism-Leninism.

But they are just statements...the are fragments of speeches. You say how a washing machine works by just having it&#39;s knob. MLism can&#39;t be "basic", same with any political theory, you have understand society&#39;s civil-mechanisms first before diving into any "basics".


We need to apply the quotes to our situation and expand beyond the simple approach of each quote and relate it back to experince.

A quote is just a quote, it&#39;s a fragment of a complete thought. Anyone can interpret quotes however they like. When that happens the content which the quote was in, then the context of the time it was taken out of are completely irrelevent to another situtation.


Not to be offensive, but your post shows the exact ignorant approach we don&#39;t need when studying this book.

Sorry but I think it&#39;s worst book ever written. As you said, it wasn&#39;t really for insight but for learning to read. It didn&#39;t teach peasents and workers how to influence policy in their favour, it didn&#39;t say what mechanisms the new state had, it didn&#39;t give ideas in how to organize.

You can&#39;t make something relevant, it has to already be relevant.

[Enragé]

How do you come to that conclusion. You have just describe centralism, it has no indication of who make up these ranks. The masses can be organised in a centralised party.


the representation of any leftist movement, including a centralised vanguard party, has to be subordinate to the members

not the other way around.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Zeruzo+ December 04, 2006 04:08 am--> (Zeruzo &#064; December 04, 2006 04:08 am)Anyway, the second quote is obvious too [/b]

I agree.


Mao [email protected] "Quotations from Chairman Mao"
If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its running dogs.

If there is no vanguard which leads the working class and inspires political consciousness to them from without, then working class action will never reach beyond Economism (trade union actions, strikes, etc.) and spontaneous action because the political question was ignored. Not everyone in the working class has the time or the resources to study in full detail the specifics of political economy since they have to toil to maintain a bare subsistence for their own lives; hence the reason why we have the intellectual minority submitting to the working class majority in the form of a party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise: I think you need to criticise that piece of dogma (and live up to your name)

[Enragé]

nah that would be revisionist

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NKOS:


nah that would be revisionist

According to Lenin, no science is beyond or above revision.

[Leo]

If there is to be salvation, there must be a righteous church. Without a righteous church, without a church built on the teachings of or lord Jesus Christ and in the true Christian style, it is impossible to lead true believers and the humanity in defeating blasphemous idol-worshiping and its running dogs.

Quote fixed.


I suggest ignoring comments such as the one posted by Leo Uilleann


Pay shit-disturbers like Leo no mind.

"Ignore the infidel&#33;" Oh, I just love this.

Mao&#39;s writings are so simple and dogmatic that they are only laughable. It is like the writings of a ten year old who had memorized the Stalinist dogma for his exam.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2006 07:56 pm
NKOS:


nah that would be revisionist

According to Lenin, no science is beyond or above revision.
according to mao

anything that doesnt agree with him is revisionism ;)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

no revisionism is/has been basically the paved road to capitalism. IE "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the Interest and Credit reforms of 1956. Critiscism and Self-Critiscism are important parts of Maoism.


If there is no vanguard which leads the working class and inspires political consciousness to them from without, then working class action will never reach beyond Economism (trade union actions, strikes, etc.) and spontaneous action because the political question was ignored. Not everyone in the working class has the time or the resources to study in full detail the specifics of political economy since they have to toil to maintain a bare subsistence for their own lives; hence the reason why we have the intellectual minority submitting to the working class majority in the form of a party.

very true. The vanguard of course, is made up of workers and peasants. Third quote?

[The Author]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] December 04, 2006 03:56 pm
Criticise: I think you need to criticise that piece of dogma (and live up to your name)

Well, if you&#39;re searching for criticism, I did criticize the commonly held viewpoint (especially on this forum) that one does not necessarily need a vanguard to lead a revolution. In fact, as history has shown, chances of a successful revolution using vanguard tactics has a better chance of being successful.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lefty:


no revisionism is/has been basically the paved road to capitalism. IE "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the Interest and Credit reforms of 1956. Critiscism and Self-Critiscism are important parts of Maoism.

In other words, as Maoists you have to give up thinking -- for to do so is to called a &#39;revisionist&#39; (and, in China, say 40 years ago, risk being shot, etc.).

In other words, you can criticise anything but the party -- so the party becomes god.

Bottom line: Lenin was wrong; there is a theory that cannot be questione -- Maoism.

Count me out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise:


Well, if you&#39;re searching for criticism, I did criticize the commonly held viewpoint (especially on this forum) that one does not necessarily need a vanguard to lead a revolution. In fact, as history has shown, chances of a successful revolution using vanguard tactics has a better chance of being successful

And yet, all have failed....

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+December 04, 2006 06:04 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ December 04, 2006 06:04 pm)
Mao [email protected] "Quotations from Chairman Mao"
If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its running dogs.

If there is no vanguard which leads the working class and inspires political consciousness to them from without, then working class action will never reach beyond Economism (trade union actions, strikes, etc.) and spontaneous action because the political question was ignored. Not everyone in the working class has the time or the resources to study in full detail the specifics of political economy since they have to toil to maintain a bare subsistence for their own lives; hence the reason why we have the intellectual minority submitting to the working class majority in the form of a party. [/b]
He wasn&#39;t talking about a Vanguard , he was just talking about a party. A party is just a group of people. As long as the party is formed around Marxism-Leninism it doesn&#39;t matter-- they can build their base at first as MList, their frame work can be bourgoeis socialist, and they can put like an Anarcho-Capitalist roof if they wanted to. Just as long as this group of people says they are for the working-class and makes it so they the workers have no other alternatives, they can lead the masses of workers.

They have to defeat the running dogs, but as for the sitting cats, they can live.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2006 01:11 am
Lefty:


no revisionism is/has been basically the paved road to capitalism. IE "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the Interest and Credit reforms of 1956. Critiscism and Self-Critiscism are important parts of Maoism.

In other words, as Maoists you have to give up thinking -- for to do so is to called a &#39;revisionist&#39; (and, in China, say 40 years ago, risk being shot, etc.).

In other words, you can criticise anything but the party -- so the party becomes god.

Bottom line: Lenin was wrong; there is a theory that cannot be questione -- Maoism.

Count me out.
Actually the cultural revolution was about criticizing the party and "bombarding the headquarters" so yeah, you&#39;re wrong.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+ December 04, 2006 09:12 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein &#064; December 04, 2006 09:12 pm)And yet, all have failed....[/b]

That&#39;s such a simplistic answer. No analysis of the quantitative and qualitative changes taking place with these revolutions throughout the twentieth century, no study of the objective material conditions and the strategies taken which either advanced or slowed down the revolutionary movement...all you have done is dismissed all of the practical experience of the past century and a half entirely without giving any second thought to what actually happened.


In other words, as Maoists you have to give up thinking -- for to do so is to called a &#39;revisionist&#39;

Astounding. You do not know what a revisionist is, do you? Revisionists are people who are Marxists in words, but anti-communist or reactionary in deeds. One is not a revisionist based on "thinking" or non-thinking, as you so colorfully describe.


EL [email protected] December 04, 2006 10:19 pm
He wasn&#39;t talking about a Vanguard , he was just talking about a party. A party is just a group of people.

Lenin once said that a proletarian party has a vanguard role. I note no contradiction between this and Mao&#39;s quote and my comment.


their frame work can be bourgoeis socialist

Their "frame work" (sic) is to organize the working class politically and instill in the workers a political consciousness. Without political consciousness, the revolutionary movement can never move beyond temporary gains such as wage increases and shorter working hours when the big goal is to seize political power from the bourgeois class and institute the proletarian dictatorship and make these temporary gains along with many other improvements to material life permanent. The working class needs to see "the bigger picture," the working class needs to know its enemy. Its enemy- the bourgeois class- thinks politically, therefore the working class must think politically if it is to win the class struggle.


have no other alternatives

And what other alternatives would there be, exactly?


as for the sitting cats, they can live.

And who would the "sitting cats" be, if we are to follow your metaphor? Bureaucrats, I presume?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise:


That&#39;s such a simplistic answer

This is the learning section; what else do you expect?

Except, for all its simplicity, it is still true.


You do not know what a revisionist is, do you?

I have in fact revised the term (on the lines advocated by Lenin himself).


Lenin once said that a proletarian party has a vanguard role. I note no contradiction between this and Mao&#39;s quote and my comment.

According to Lenin, this is a revisable claim, too.

You need to criticise more, and except less on faith alone.

Or, change your name to &#39;criticise only some things&#39;....

[The Author]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] December 05, 2006 02:49 am
This is the learning section; what else do you expect?

Except, for all its simplicity, it is still true.

I did not expect a long, exhaustive essay (which is your field of expertise, writing much about nothing on subjects you fail to comprehend). But quality does count, and your simple phrase "yet all have failed" lacks miserably in quality. Why does it lack in quality? As I said before, you simply dismissed the past experiences of a century and a half in revolution and counterrevolutions, all of the gains and all of the accomplishments made.


I have in fact revised the term (on the lines advocated by Lenin himself).

You have revised the term to accommodate your own views- which means you adopt Marxist words, but in deed distance yourself from Marxism as a theory successfully tested in practice and still applicable as a philosophy to the current world situation. It would be curious to know just which "lines advocated by Lenin" you employ in your action, and whether or not you truly understood those "lines."


According to Lenin, this is a revisable claim, too.

You must remember that if a theory does not work in practice, then the theory must be changed to work in tune with the objective conditions. Studying the objective conditions in the working class movement, we see that without politically conscious organization (a vanguard), there can never be a successful revolution because the working class does not have the political consciousness necessary to seize power and to make the necessary changes to improve life and better the world. If this "claim" did not work in practice (and history has shown that it did and still does), then it would need to be revised.


You need to criticise more, and except less on faith alone.

Or, change your name to &#39;criticise only some things&#39;....

I do not rely on "faith," I rely on what works. If something does not work, then it is criticized. That is the whole point of criticism, to demonstrate what has failed in order to define what must be improved or changed. Marxism works. Dialectical materialism works. It has been applicable in the past, and in the present. And as a theory dialectical materialism is not so difficult to comprehend once you study practical experience.

Moving along, I&#39;m looking forward to other statements about Mao&#39;s second quote. If there are enough responses, or no one responds after a lengthy period of time, I shall move on to the third quote.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise:


But quality does count, and your simple phrase "yet all have failed" lacks miserably in quality. Why does it lack in quality?

I have to be honest here, I matched the quality of my answer to the perceived quality of the comments already posted by your good self and others.

So, point a few fingers at yourself.

Nonetheless, it is true for all that: every &#39;vanguardist&#39; revolution has failed.


You have revised the term to accommodate your own views- which means you adopt Marxist words, but in deed distance yourself from Marxism as a theory successfully tested in practice and still applicable as a philosophy to the current world situation. It would be curious to know just which "lines advocated by Lenin" you employ in your action, and whether or not you truly understood those "lines."

Not really, since I have not said what I have revised it to, or on what basis. Now, you might want me to revise my version, but then you too would be a revisionist.

I am happy to welcome you aboard.

The point is, that if all things are revisable, according to Lenin, then not even Mao (shock, horror&#33;&#33;) was right.

And &#39;tested in practice&#39;?

You are joking, surely?

Marxism is perhaps the most unsuccessful political theory in history (when it need not be so). The philosophy behind it is partly responsible, since it was inherited from a ruling-class hack (Hegel).

More details at my site.


You must remember that if a theory does not work in practice, then the theory must be changed to work in tune with the objective conditions. Studying the objective conditions in the working class movement, we see that without politically conscious organization (a vanguard), there can never be a successful revolution because the working class does not have the political consciousness necessary to seize power and to make the necessary changes to improve life and better the world. If this "claim" did not work in practice (and history has shown that it did and still does), then it would need to be revised.

So, on that basis, dialectics should be the first thing out of the window.

And, you are once again just quoting dogma at me; there is nothing in history, nor theory, to show that workers cannot win their own revolution.

For sure, petty-bourgeois Maoists might want to argue differently, to defend their own attempts to substititute themselves for workers (as they did in China, in 1948, for instance), so that they can cling onto their position as the new ruling-class, but I think we are wise to that.

Or are we???

Maybe not....


I do not rely on "faith," I rely on what works. If something does not work, then it is criticized. That is the whole point of criticism, to demonstrate what has failed in order to define what must be improved or changed. Marxism works. Dialectical materialism works. It has been applicable in the past, and in the present. And as a theory dialectical materialism is not so difficult to comprehend once you study practical experience.

I chose the word &#39;faith&#39; carefully, since your brand of Marxism does not work.

And of all theories, Dialectical Materialsm is one of the weakest in human history.

Once more: details at my site.

Good luck with your Bible study, though....

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+December 05, 2006 03:39 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways &#064; December 05, 2006 03:39 am)
EL [email protected] December 04, 2006 10:19 pm
He wasn&#39;t talking about a Vanguard , he was just talking about a party. A party is just a group of people.

Lenin once said that a proletarian party has a vanguard role. I note no contradiction between this and Mao&#39;s quote and my comment.


their frame work can be bourgoeis socialist

Their "frame work" (sic) is to organize the working class politically and instill in the workers a political consciousness. Without political consciousness, the revolutionary movement can never move beyond temporary gains such as wage increases and shorter working hours when the big goal is to seize political power from the bourgeois class and institute the proletarian dictatorship and make these temporary gains along with many other improvements to material life permanent. The working class needs to see "the bigger picture," the working class needs to know its enemy. Its enemy- the bourgeois class- thinks politically, therefore the working class must think politically if it is to win the class struggle.


have no other alternatives

And what other alternatives would there be, exactly?


as for the sitting cats, they can live.

And who would the "sitting cats" be, if we are to follow your metaphor? Bureaucrats, I presume? [/b]
Are those automated responses?

I was trying to point out that anyone can interpret those quotes however they like.


Lenin once said that a proletarian party has a vanguard role. I note no contradiction between this and Mao&#39;s quote and my comment.

Where does it say that in the Little Red Book?


Their "frame work" (sic) is to organize the working class politically and instill in the workers a political consciousness. Without political consciousness, the revolutionary movement can never move beyond temporary gains such as wage increases and shorter working hours when the big goal is to seize political power from the bourgeois class and institute the proletarian dictatorship and make these temporary gains along with many other improvements to material life permanent.

Oh but Bourgeois socialists can use revolutionary jargon.


And what other alternatives would there be, exactly?
:huh:
Are you really SmarterChild from aim?


And who would the "sitting cats" be, if we are to follow your metaphor? Bureaucrats, I presume?
No those damned cats that rip up their furniture and piss in their loafers.
You know the kind that go "meow".

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2006 12:11 pm
Count me out.
Then leave the thread already.


In other words, as Maoists you have to give up thinking -- for to do so is to called a &#39;revisionist&#39; (and, in China, say 40 years ago, risk being shot, etc.).

In other words, you can criticise anything but the party -- so the party becomes god.

Yeah and by Mao saying "Bombard the headquarters" he secured the safety of the party from criticism...

The whole cultural revolution was about criticising the party and other institutions. The main part of Maoism is that the party can become corrupt and a class enemy to the proletariat.


You are subordinate to a representative

A representative elected by the member base. I don&#39;t see the problem.


Publicly, you can&#39;t express that you differ with the rest of your party on an issue, policy, or even the framework of the party.

Why would you publicly embarres your party? Members are meant to be above petty self interest and can wait till the appropriate time to criticise the party.


Sorry but I think it&#39;s worst book ever written. As you said, it wasn&#39;t really for insight but for learning to read. It didn&#39;t teach peasents and workers how to influence policy in their favour, it didn&#39;t say what mechanisms the new state had, it didn&#39;t give ideas in how to organize.

There is no point to continue discussing the book if you do not understand the purpose of propaganda and agitation. The book is similar to a pamphlet or an ABC book of Marxism. We are hardly going to go around giving out Das Kapital to workers are we now? We don&#39;t hope to turn workers into militant communists with one pamphlet. However we continue to do so to ignite discussion and keep people interested in politics. This was the intention of the book. It encouraed people to become educated and to continue further study on Marxism.

And actually it did give ideas on how to organise.


This is why I wont discuss the book on revleft. We can&#39;t seriously discuss the book with such disruptions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Then leave the thread already.

No.


Yeah and by Mao saying "Bombard the headquarters" he secured the safety of the party from criticism...

In fact, I think he preferred to fill the jails with the innocent, allow world record levels of executions, and set red guards on everyone (each armed with the Bible), just for starters.


The whole cultural revolution was about criticising the party and other institutions. The main part of Maoism is that the party can become corrupt and a class enemy to the proletariat.

Oh my non-existent deity, I think you really believe this.... :o

In that case, do not let me disturb your dogmatic slumber.

[I&#39;ll order you an extra lorry load of sand for you to bury your head in. :)]

[OneBrickOneVoice]

In fact, I think he preferred to fill the jails with the innocent, allow world record levels of executions, and set red guards on everyone (each armed with the Bible), just for starters.

Which is why he specifically issued a statement saying that all activity that occured in the cultural revolution should be peaceful. Usually in mass popular movements like the cultural revolution, one person doesn&#39;t control it. That was true for the cultural revolution.

[Prairie Fire]

Oy, this is why I said earlier that we should just ignore everyone who comes onto this thread trying to provoke us. If you do not respond to them, they will go away.
Seriously, try it.

Here are some more good ones:

"Imperialism will not last long, because it always does evil things. It persists in grooming and supporting reactionaries in all countries who are against the people, it has forcibly seized many colonies and semi colonies and many military bases, and it threatens the peace with atomic war. Thus, forced by imperialism to do so, more than 90 per cent of the people of the world are rising or will rise up in struggle against it. Yet imperilaism is still alive, still running amuck in Asia, Africa, Latin America. In the west, imperialism is still opressing people at home. This situation must change. It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism,and cheifly by U.S. imperialism."

"As for the imperialist countries, we should unite with their peoples and strive to coexist peacefully with those countries, do buisness with them and prevent any possible war, but under no circumstances should we harbour any unrealistic notions about them."

[Leo]

Satan will not last long, because he always does evil things. He persists in grooming and supporting non-believers in all countries who are against the Christians, he has forcibly seized many servants and semi servants and many castles, and he threatens the peace with unholy war. Thus, forced by the Satan to do so, more than 90 per cent of the Christians of the world are crusading or will crusade in struggle against it. Yet Satan is still alive, still running amuck in Asia, Africa, Latin America. In the west, Satan is still oppressing Christians at home. This situation must change. It is the task of the Christians of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by the Satan,and cheifly by his demon of hell.

Quote fixed.

Oh it feels so much like reading the Bible&#33;

[Hiero]

You the one taking a mystical and non-materialist approach here.


In fact, I think he preferred to fill the jails with the innocent, allow world record levels of executions, and set red guards on everyone (each armed with the Bible), just for starters.

Rosa blames a individuals actions, rather then social forces. This indicates that Rosa&#39;s sources are from bourgeois academics. These type of sources have the fantasy based idea that socialist leaders are dictators, and sole players. All their actions are based on individual motive, and any revolutionary actions is belittled to attempts to harm everyone (regardless of their class or politics). It is ridiculous to think that in any social movement, actions are random and victims are random.

You should leave and go rant about how Marx is an anti materialist, or whatever it is you do.


Quote fixed.

Oh it feels so much like reading the Bible&#33;

Your an idiot. Imperialism is real, it is in Asia, Africa and Latin America. At home it does oppress people. And everywhere people fight imperialism. How is this quote wrong or dogmatic? Do you support imperialism? Do you equate it&#39;s existance with Satan because you think it doesn&#39;t exist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heiro:


Rosa blames a individuals actions, rather then social forces. This indicates that Rosa&#39;s sources are from bourgeois academics.

I blame the ruling-class of &#39;Communist&#39; China, and I rather think Mao was an individual in the ruling clique.

You, absolve him and all the rest of these crimes.

This indicates your sources are from borgeois mass murderers.


You should leave and go rant about how Marx is an anti materialist, or whatever it is you do.

I see you have to invent stuff, like the rest of you mystics.

Right, you can get back to Bible class now.

[Leo]

Imperialism is real, it is in Asia, Africa and Latin America. At home it does oppress people. And everywhere people fight imperialism. Do you support imperialism? Do you equate it&#39;s existance with Satan because you think it doesn&#39;t exist?

Imperialism is real and it is everywhere, and I oppose it everywhere. Every nation-state is imperialist by its nature. You, on the other hand, support it in some places and oppose it in other places; you take sides among the imperialists.

I changed the word "imperialist" with the word "satan" because that&#39;s about how Mao wants people to understand it.


How is this quote wrong or dogmatic?

:rolleyes: It is ironic.


Your an idiot.

Thank you, I take every insult you make me as a compliment.

Anyway, get back to studying your bible, yeah?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2006 09:43 am
Heiro:


Rosa blames a individuals actions, rather then social forces. This indicates that Rosa&#39;s sources are from bourgeois academics.

I blame the ruling-class of &#39;Communist&#39; China, and I rather think Mao was an individual in the ruling clique.

You, absolve him and all the rest of these crimes.

This indicates your sources are from borgeois mass murderers.


You should leave and go rant about how Marx is an anti materialist, or whatever it is you do.

I see you have to invent stuff, like the rest of you mystics.

Right, you can get back to Bible class now.
Convincing arguement, you have changed my mind completly.


Imperialism is real and it is everywhere, and I oppose it everywhere. Every nation-state is imperialist by its nature. You, on the other hand, support it in some places and oppose it in other places; you take sides among the imperialists.

What imperialist do I side with?


I changed the word "imperialist" with the word "satan" because that&#39;s about how Mao wants people to understand it.

How did Mao want to see it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Convincing arguement, you have changed my mind completly.

You mystics are not too good at sarcasm, either.

[harris0]

How&#39;s the personality cult around the merciless dictator going? How many young impressionable youths without the proper knowledge of history have you been able to mislead into joining your group?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2006 02:55 am
Hiero:


Convincing arguement, you have changed my mind completly.

You mystics are not too good at sarcasm, either.
Mystics? What was mystical about my sarcasm? I am being "mystic" now?

Seriously where have you put forward a correct arguement that would change my mind? What you are saying is no different to what Jung Chang might say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


What was mystical about my sarcasm? I am being "mystic" now?

Seriously where have you put forward a correct arguement that would change my mind? What you are saying is no different to what Jung Chang might say.

Your sarcasm was eminently un-mystical, but you mystics are just not very good at it.

And what makes you think I either want to, or could, change your mind? Steeped in mysticism, you are in fact less of a threat to the working-class. So, if you stay a mystic, that is all to the good.

Why do I accuse you dialectical &#39;materialists&#39; of being mystics?

Simple: you have all caught a Hermetic intellectual virus from Hegel.

More details at my site.


What you are saying is no different to what Jung Chang might say.

Not so; she attacks Mao/Maoism from the right.

I attack him/it from the materialist left.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades can now read a clear demolition of Mao&#39;s vague ideas on &#39;contradictions&#39;, here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292380517 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70981&view=findpost&p=1292380517)

[Pawn Power]

Comrades can now read a clear demolition of Mao's vague ideas on 'contradictions', here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292380517 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70981&view=findpost&p=1292380517)

your link no longer works.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that PP; the link is now:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

A few confused comrades tried to pull my argument apart, but only by:

1) Denying what I had said about Mao was correct (that was easy to rebut by re-posting his own words), or:

2) Simply rejecting my argument out of hand (which is no more convincing that someone who just rejects Marx for no reason), or

3) Saying that this was not representative -- which was easy to refute:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1041886&postcount=27

[Lenin II]

Though I’m a Hoxhaist, I shall join in due to my undying respect for Mao. His ideas on Marxist-Leninist theory are instrumental to an understanding of scientific socialism.

The force at the core leading our cause forward is the Chinese Communist Party. The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism.
This quote is simply summery of the structure of Chinese society at the time. Nothing to really comment on.

If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its running dogs.
This quote is expressing Mao’s attitude that a vanguard party is necessary for the forefront of revolution. This is also an acknowledgement of the pattern of the working class on its own merely attaining trade-union consciousness and not revolutionary consciousness, no matter how miserable their conditions. Mao agrees with the theories of Marxism-Leninism over regular Marxism, which says that the working class will gain rational insight as to the nature of classes and capitalism all by itself, which is of course ludicrous. Marx himself even admitted this. An organized party of revolutionaries must exist to raise their consciousness and promote Marxist theory as well as being an organized military force to protect the class interests of the working people against the highly organized reactionary forces. There can be no other scientific way towards an overthrow of capitalism.This same role of the Chinese Communist Party Third is further expanded on the third quote:

Without the efforts of the Chinese Communist Party, without the Chinese Communists as the mainstay of the Chinese people, China can never achieve independence and liberation, or industrialization and the modernization of her agriculture.
And fourth quote:


The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause of socialism cannot be victorious.
Thoughts on these?

[Lenin II]

Why did this thread die? Speak up, someone!