Defending Mao [Archive]

bezdomni

4th December 2006, 04:51

I have said it before and I have said it again, our duty as materialists is not to defend or justify historical figures and events, but to understand them and explain them. For example, we should not bother with "justifying" the purges in the Soviet Union, as they were clearly negative and counterproductive to international socialism. However, we should be able to understand why the purges occured - so we can avoid a similar situation like that in the future.

Historical Materialism is not about justifying everybody who paraded under a red flag, but understanding the underlying material reasons behind historical events and applying them to today and the future.

Red Heretic

4th December 2006, 05:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 04:15 am
Check out MIM's FAQ.

Go to

thisiscommunism.org
Just to clear up any confusion, thisiscommunism.org has nothing to do with MIM :lol:

(and it kicks ass)

Red Heretic

4th December 2006, 06:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 04:51 am
I have said it before and I have said it again, our duty as materialists is not to defend or justify historical figures and events, but to understand them and explain them. For example, we should not bother with "justifying" the purges in the Soviet Union, as they were clearly negative and counterproductive to international socialism. However, we should be able to understand why the purges occured - so we can avoid a similar situation like that in the future.

Historical Materialism is not about justifying everybody who paraded under a red flag, but understanding the underlying material reasons behind historical events and applying them to today and the future.
I disagree comrade. It does matter what is actually the truth. There are things that happened historically that were mistakes, and we shoudln't defend those. In fact we should criticize those things. But it is absolutely crucial that we defend huge achievements of the historical experiences of socialism from the attacks of the bourgeoisie.

Red Heretic

4th December 2006, 06:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 01:49 am
On saturday I'm spending a week in a hostel in London for a brief teacher training course in preparation for going off to China on my gap year in feburary; I'm going to be with 20 or so other people, and some of them who I've talked to on MSN are total rich kids-I'm guessing maybe less than half the people there are going to be working class. And as we're all going to China, Mao will definitely be brought up in conversation. I'm no Maoist or even a Leninist, but I want to piss off the rich kids so any good arguments in defense of Mao and good counter-arguments against common criticisms would be much welcomed.
You might be interested in going to this comrade:

London Meeting: Mao Tse Tungs contributions plus critical debate on book by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (Mao: The Unknown Story)

Tuesday 5th December 2006,

6:30pm
Richard Hogart Building Cinema
Goldsmiths College
London, SE14

Close to New Cross Gate Station

bezdomni

4th December 2006, 21:51

I disagree comrade. It does matter what is actually the truth. There are things that happened historically that were mistakes, and we shoudln't defend those. In fact we should criticize those things. But it is absolutely crucial that we defend huge achievements of the historical experiences of socialism from the attacks of the bourgeoisie.
Of course, it would be very difficult to have a materialist understanding of history without knowing the truth...and it would also be very difficult to apply this understanding of history without defining what things were "good" and what things were "bad", but that does not mean we should be looking for arguments to "defend Mao" or "justify Stalin", because history is what decides that.

Furthermore, the real question should be defending the Chinese Revolution, which is far bigger than Mao. Revolutions are bigger than the leaders.

OneBrickOneVoice

4th December 2006, 22:01

Originally posted by Red Heretic+December 04, 2006 05:58 am--> (Red Heretic @ December 04, 2006 05:58 am)
[email protected] 04, 2006 04:15 am
Check out MIM's FAQ.

Go to

thisiscommunism.org
Just to clear up any confusion, thisiscommunism.org has nothing to do with MIM :lol:

(and it kicks ass) [/b]
I meant that to be separate. MIM hates the RCP.

Here's MIM's FAQ.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/index.html

Historical Materialism is not about justifying everybody who paraded under a red flag, but understanding the underlying material reasons behind historical events and applying them to today and the future.

Very true.

Leo

4th December 2006, 22:01

On saturday I'm spending a week in a hostel in London for a brief teacher training course in preparation for going off to China on my gap year in feburary; I'm going to be with 20 or so other people, and some of them who I've talked to on MSN are total rich kids-I'm guessing maybe less than half the people there are going to be working class. And as we're all going to China, Mao will definitely be brought up in conversation. I'm no Maoist or even a Leninist, but I want to piss off the rich kids so any good arguments in defense of Mao and good counter-arguments against common criticisms would be much welcomed.

Tell them that Mao was a capitalist and the current stance of China has actually followed the footsteps of the policies followed during Mao's period which was developing capitalism. That'll piss them off :lol:

OneBrickOneVoice

4th December 2006, 22:08

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2006 10:01 pm

On saturday I'm spending a week in a hostel in London for a brief teacher training course in preparation for going off to China on my gap year in feburary; I'm going to be with 20 or so other people, and some of them who I've talked to on MSN are total rich kids-I'm guessing maybe less than half the people there are going to be working class. And as we're all going to China, Mao will definitely be brought up in conversation. I'm no Maoist or even a Leninist, but I want to piss off the rich kids so any good arguments in defense of Mao and good counter-arguments against common criticisms would be much welcomed.

Tell them that Mao was a capitalist and the current stance of China has actually followed the footsteps of the policies followed during Mao's period which was developing capitalism. That'll piss them off :lol:
you're a capitalist who doesn't give a shit about real worker movements like the Chinese Civil War and instead, would rather whine and ***** secartarianism.

bezdomni

4th December 2006, 22:08

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2006 10:01 pm

Tell them that Mao was a capitalist and the current stance of China has actually followed the footsteps of the policies followed during Mao's period which was developing capitalism. That'll piss them off :lol:
It would also be a lie.

Leo

4th December 2006, 22:33

you're a capitalist who doesn't give a shit about real worker movements like the Chinese Civil War and instead, would rather whine and ***** secartarianism.

:) Oh you silly, confused lad... How many times have you changed your ideology since your arrival on this site? Keep trying, maybe you'll finally find one that'll really make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Anyway, Chinese Civil War had nothing to do with the "real workers movements" in China at all. Quite the contrary, Maoism owes its rise to the suppressing of the "real workers movements".

The tissue of lies that surrounds the legend of Mao Zedong begins with the veil cast over his obscure political origins. Maoist historians may repeat endlessly that Mao was one of the CPC’s “founders”; they nonetheless remain very discreet about his political activity throughout the period of rising working class struggle. They would otherwise have to admit that Mao was part of the CPC’s opportunist wing, which blindly followed all the orientations of the degenerating Executive Committee of the Communist International. More precisely, they would also have to admit that Mao was a member of the CPC group which in 1924 joined the Executive Committee of the Kuomintang, the National Popular Party of the big Chinese bourgeoisie, on the fallacious pretext that this was not a bourgeois party but a “class front”.

In March 1927, on the eve of the bloody suppression of the Shanghai rising by Kuomintang troops, and while the CPC’s revolutionary wing was desperately calling for an end to the Kuomintang alliance, Mao was in the opportunist chorus, singing the praises of the butcher Chang-kai-shek, and approving the actions of the Kuomintang.

Shortly afterwards, one of Mao Zedong’s companions in the Kuomintang, Qu Qiubai, was nominated leader of the CPC under the pressure of Stalin’s henchmen recently arrived in China.

Initially, the "Civil War" was a civil war alright, it was a war of taking power between former allies who worked together in destroying the actual workers movement and now wanted to be the sole ruling faction; it was a civil war between the Chinese national bourgeoisie.

It would also be a lie.

Not really; the traditional "free market" capitalist systems always developed from command economies of bureaucratic capitalists.

The Author

4th December 2006, 22:57

Originally posted by [email protected] December 04, 2006 06:08 pm
It would also be a lie.

Exactly. And not just a lie, but a revelation that he knows absolutely nothing about the process of how capitalism is to transition into communism.

chimx

4th December 2006, 23:49

More precisely, they would also have to admit that Mao was a member of the CPC group which in 1924 joined the Executive Committee of the Kuomintang, the National Popular Party of the big Chinese bourgeoisie, on the fallacious pretext that this was not a bourgeois party but a “class front”.

well, lets not get too ahead of ourselves leo. everybody admits that the CPC originally aligned itself with the Kuomintang because the soviets told 'em to. It was a nationalist movement, which is why Chiang kai-shek was at least able to allow the CPC to work with him. Chiang liked having some armed commies at his side for a time too, until he was able to exist without 'em. thus 1927.

if anything it shows the pure stupidity of soviet policy over that of chinese policy, dontcha think?

I mean, i certainly don't think mao liked having his commie club buddies massacred. he did, in his defense, lead a civil war against Chiang eventually. Mao was hardly some great theorist. If anything his crime is his hopeless naivity. In these early years, he was a puppet of soviet power, and was manipulated accordingly.

Lamanov

5th December 2006, 00:15

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry) [Y]ou're a capitalist who doesn't give a shit about real worker movements like the Chinese Civil War and instead, would rather whine and ***** secartarianism. [/b]

Oh, but he [Leo] is right.

The movement under the command of Mao gave rise to the new state-capitalist monster which we all refer to as the "Peoples' Republic of China".

The Chinese civil war was not a "real worker movement", but a peasant national-liberation movement directed against the land aristocracy, Japanese occupator and foreign capital.

It's about time you kinds stop mixing the national-liberation with proletarian movements.

Originally posted by [email protected]
If anything it shows the pure stupidity of soviet policy over that of chinese policy, dontcha think?

Stupidity? Why?

On the contrary, such policy was expressing the intrests of a Stalinist state.

I mean, why would you excpect anything other than that from them? It was supposed to be a policy from a standpoint of state-capitalist Kremlin... and it was. In no case it was supposed to express the tendency for anything else we would advocate.

CEA
Exactly. And not just a lie, but a revelation that he knows absolutely nothing about the process of how capitalism is to transition into communism.

Again with the dialectical materialist mysticism of "transition". The pearl of the "Marxist-Leninist" and "Orthodox Marxist" shell.

Guess what: that empty phrase means nothing. I could hear redstar2000 now saying [paraphase]: "You heard the new Russian joke: Socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and capitalism?"

chimx

5th December 2006, 00:24

while i essentially agree with ya'll, there is quite a hole y'all are leaving out between mao's alignment with chiang in the 1920s to the rise of china's "socialism with chinese characteristics" many decades later.

if the chinese communist experience was one unwavering path, why would so many later chinese capitalists like xiaoping come out and denounce acts such as the cultural revolution?

while i agree that the distinctions between state directed capitalism such as we have seen in china and the ussr and that of "free market" capitalism are few, are you trying to argue that mao believed this in the 1920s when he aligned himself with orthodox capitalists and nationalists? that strikes me as an absurdity.

edit add: i mean stupid in the sense that it is another example of how the ussr worked to undermine worker revolt and worker power. i agree it was in their interest to promote such a policy though.

which doctor

5th December 2006, 01:42

I wouldn't bother with defending the actions of any historical figure, especially Mao. I never really understood historical apologists.

As for China. The purpose of the revolution was to accumulate enough national capital in order to compete with other international nations, in a timely and efficient manner. It succeeded at that. China, as with all other nations and businesses, in order to stay competitive, was forced to exploit their workers and the environment. Call it state capitalism if you want, or even socialism if you insist, but capitalism by any other name is still capitalism.

Leo

5th December 2006, 05:15

everybody admits that the CPC originally aligned itself with the Kuomintang because the soviets told 'em to. It was a nationalist movement

Not all of it, there was an actually revolutionary wing which was suppressed.

I mean, i certainly don't think mao liked having his commie club buddies massacred. he did, in his defense, lead a civil war against Chiang eventually.

After 20 years of close friendship with the Kuomintang?! I don't think it was anything personal at all, as he was openly supporting the suppression of the actual workers movement.

Exactly. And not just a lie, but a revelation that he knows absolutely nothing about the process of how capitalism is to transition into communism.

:lol: That's cuz I'm an infidel according to the First Church of Mao.

chimx

5th December 2006, 06:17

1924 to 1927... where do you get 20 years from exactly?

Vargha Poralli

5th December 2006, 07:29

Furthermore, the real question should be defending the Chinese Revolution, which is far bigger than Mao. Revolutions are bigger than the leaders.

Seconded.

Leo Uilleann

After 20 years of close friendship with the Kuomintang?! I don't think it was anything personal at all, as he was openly supporting the suppression of the actual workers movement.

Unless you read start reading History you will never know the real reason for the failure of revolutions.

Lamanov

5th December 2006, 12:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 07:29 am
Unless you read start reading History you will never know the real reason for the failure of revolutions.

In the case of the "revolution" we are discussing: it didn't fail. It's primary task was done: a building of modern capitalist China.

Shanghai millionaires may thak Mao for that.

Again, kids, a peasant national-liberation movement (like Chinese, Yugoslav, Albanian, Cuban, Viet, Korean) has nothing to do with proletarian revolutions.

Alf

5th December 2006, 13:04

Not forgetting that Mao's 'national liberation' movement was - like all national liberation movements in the epoch of capitalist decline - entirely part of the inter-imperialist rivalries which were dragging the world towards a second imperialist world war. The Chinese-Japanese war of the 30s was part of this. A small minority of internationalists in China (and outside it) called on the working class to struggle against both camps, as they did during the world war itself.

So Mao was an agent of imperialism. In 1927, by collaborating with the Kuomintang and preparing the ground for the massacre of the Shanghai uprising, he served the interests of the nascent imperialism of Stalinist Russia. In the 30s and 40s he served the interests of 'allied' imperialism against the German-Japanese bloc. After 1948 he was aligned with Russian imperialism against the US bloc. In the 1960s Mao broke with the USSR because it didn't serve China's own imperialist interests. In the 70s he shook hands with Nixon over the new Chinese/US alliance against the USSR. Pretty much a life in the service of imperialism and counter-revolution, I would say.

Leo

5th December 2006, 16:28

1924 to 1927... where do you get 20 years from exactly?

It's more like from 1924 to 1945.

Unless you read start reading History you will never know the real reason for the failure of revolutions.

What you call Chinese Revolution was not a failure; it reached the exact place it was supposed to, a more developed and stronger capitalism. Look at the capitalist economy of China today; CCP was successful alright. As for the actual revolution, the Shanghai Commune, it failed because the Kuomintang suppressed it and the murderous bastards were supported by Mao's wing in the party. Yeah, unless you start reading history you will never know the real reason for the failure of revolutions.

The Author

5th December 2006, 16:46

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] December 04, 2006 08:15 pm
Again with the dialectical materialist mysticism of "transition". The pearl of the "Marxist-Leninist" and "Orthodox Marxist" shell.

This is gold. The way you dismiss dialectical materialism as "mysticism" either means

a: you do not know what dialectical materialism is, or

b: you do know what dialectical materialism is, but you would not care to use it as a philosophy as it contradicts with your ultra-leftist, utopian views.

In order to get to communism, the current order (capitalism) must be changed. Of course, there will be several changes concerning the relations of production, the productive forces, and the political and cultural superstructure. We will have to rid ourselves of every form of inequality and oppression which remained from the old society. Of course, there will be remainders of the former bourgeois class who will oppose us (by force if necessary), so we have to be prepared for their counterrevolutionary attacks. It is sheer fantasy to think that we will simply advance straight to full, stateless communism from capitalism, without taking care of these old woes and former class enemies. So no, I'm afraid to admit my phrase does have substance.

Lamanov

5th December 2006, 17:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:46 pm
b: you do know what dialectical materialism is, but you would not care to use it as a philosophy as it contradicts with your ultra-leftist, utopian views.

Of course I know what it is: it is a "philosophical" jerking off invented by Plekhanov and Kautsky, on the basis of few quotes from Engels' scriptures such as Anti-Duhring.

So yes, of course, it contradicts my ultra-left views.

It is sheer fantasy to think that we will simply advance straight to full, stateless communism from capitalism, without taking care of these old woes and former class enemies. So no, I'm afraid to admit my phrase does have substance.

That's all "nice and dandy", even if it sounds apologetic to the core, but there's one concrete problem with it: it applies only for proletarian revolutions, not pre-bureaucratic peasant "peoples'" movements such as "Chinese revolution".

No amount of diamat mumbo-jumbo "transitional" pearls cound shine away the obvious fact that bueraucratic state has nothing to do with socialism.

chimx

5th December 2006, 17:58

Um, Leo. I'm not following your logic. Here is the history of the CPC as I understand it, and please feel free to refute any commonly held misconception of the period.

The CPC was organized int he early 1920s, and by 1923ish adopted a policy of democratic centralism more inline with soviet thinking, and also at the suggestion of 'em. at this time china wasn't unified, but ran by a variety of warlords. Chiang kai-shek ran the Kuomintang (nationalist party) and wanted to militarily unify china.

under soviet advice, the chinese communists joined the Kuomintang on an *individual* basis in 1924. this was because the soviet union made the suggestion they do so, feeling that the time wasn't ripe for communism in china. both groups were nationalistic, just with differing economic objectives, thus the alliance.

by 1927, Chiang got sick of the commies and started killing them left and right. I think we agree up to this point. Now, in 1930, Mao and other communist leaders established a military base in south eastern china--the Jiangxi province. Mao helped to set up a soviet there and began engaging in battles with the Kuomintang. It wasn't until 1934 that the Kuomintang was successful at defeating the Jiangxi soviet, mainly because mao had been replaced as a military leader by some commies who had just got back from the soviet union and wanted to find the nationalists head-on.

soooooo, they retreated. thus the long march which took 'em all the way up to north western china, and whose province i forget. that far away, Chiang didn't really bother with 'em, thinking them to be a defeated force. Thousands of folk died as a result. There is no way that Mao was down with this.

Now, when Japan invaded China, the CPC again took a position that they should put aside problems with the nationalist party and fight japanese imperialism. thus, they temporarily realigned themselves with Chiang, and I can only assume this is why you date it from 1924 until 1945 and the end of wwii.

personally i think it would be more accurate to divide Kuomintang cooperation into two periods: 1924-1927 and mid-1930s-1945.

so while i agree that the tactic of continued alliance with capitalist interests in china was certainly poor thinking, and a manifestation of divisive nationalistic thinking, it certainly wasn't due to some allegiance to chinese capitalism out-right (though that as the result in the long term), but rather the idiotic values of upholding nationalism over peasant and worker revolution. this value wavered when nationalism wasn't being attacked, by warlords or japanese. thus the Jiangxi soviet of the early 1930s and the numerous bloody ass battles with Chiang's army.

Leo

5th December 2006, 20:25

by 1927, Chiang got sick of the commies and started killing them left and right.

You are (I assume) referring to the suppression of the Shanghai Commune, which was an action supported by Mao's wing in the party.

both groups were nationalistic

There was, however, a wing in the Chinese Communist Party that opposed nationalism and was crushed mostly during the suppression of the Shanghai Commune. Mao was, as you could easily imagine, thankful to his ultra-nationalist buddies in Kuomintang.

Now, when Japan invaded China, the CPC again took a position that they should put aside problems with the nationalist party and fight japanese imperialism. thus, they temporarily realigned themselves with Chiang, and I can only assume this is why you date it from 1924 until 1945 and the end of wwii.

Yes, that's why I said 1945.

There was a pre-civil war condition until the fall of the so-called Jiangxi "Soviet", nevertheless, it wasn't anything against capitalism at all, as Mao was destroying the remaining opposition within the party even by then. ICC has good articles about the period and the period following it:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/084_china_2.html

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/081_china.htm

chimx

6th December 2006, 01:53

While Mao and his group may have had lasting feelings for the Kuomintang following their brief flirtation in the 1920s, allowing it to condone such acts as the destruction of anti-nationalist communist elements, it was a flirtation that would ultimately fail starting in the late 1920s and into the early 1930s following the creation of the Jiangxi soviet, thanks to Chiangs persistant attacks on all communists, not just the workers of Shanghai.

How would you gauge the creation of the Jiangxi soviet in terms with the CPC's nationalist streak, considered it created its own currency, own postage, etc.?

In my own rather limited estimation, the period of the 1920s was time when Mao was simply a stooge for Russia. They opted to side with nationalists, not support the shanghai workers, and advocate capitalism because that is what the soviets were dictating to them. From the 1930s onward, chinese communism began to become more and more ideologically autonomous from there soviet counterparts, especially following the defeat of Jiangxi due to soviet mismanagement. Thus, the realignment with Chiang and the nationalists in the 1930s, up until 1945, seems more of a move for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological immaturity.

This isn't to mean that Maoism is any less anti-worker, but that Maoism was constantly evolving from 1920 until 1945.

OneBrickOneVoice

6th December 2006, 02:11

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2006 10:33 pm

:) Oh you silly, confused lad... How many times have you changed your ideology since your arrival on this site?

Um once? Quite a few people have changed their ideology.

Anyway, Chinese Civil War had nothing to do with the "real workers movements" in China at all. Quite the contrary, Maoism owes its rise to the suppressing of the "real workers movements".

True, winning a people's war thus liberating the Chinese workers and farmers from KMT Fuedal-capitalism was a bad thing :rolleyes:

The tissue of lies that surrounds the legend of Mao Zedong begins with the veil cast over his obscure political origins. Maoist historians may repeat endlessly that Mao was one of the CPC’s “founders”; they nonetheless remain very discreet about his political activity throughout the period of rising working class struggle. They would otherwise have to admit that Mao was part of the CPC’s opportunist wing, which blindly followed all the orientations of the degenerating Executive Committee of the Communist International. More precisely, they would also have to admit that Mao was a member of the CPC group which in 1924 joined the Executive Committee of the Kuomintang, the National Popular Party of the big Chinese bourgeoisie, on the fallacious pretext that this was not a bourgeois party but a “class front”.

In March 1927, on the eve of the bloody suppression of the Shanghai rising by Kuomintang troops, and while the CPC’s revolutionary wing was desperately calling for an end to the Kuomintang alliance, Mao was in the opportunist chorus, singing the praises of the butcher Chang-kai-shek, and approving the actions of the Kuomintang.

Shortly afterwards, one of Mao Zedong’s companions in the Kuomintang, Qu Qiubai, was nominated leader of the CPC under the pressure of Stalin’s henchmen recently arrived in China.

Initially, the "Civil War" was a civil war alright, it was a war of taking power between former allies who worked together in destroying the actual workers movement and now wanted to be the sole ruling faction; it was a civil war between the Chinese national bourgeoisie.

Source??? And? What's you're point? Mao Zedong once upon a time, agreed with the concept of an alliance to avoid annihilation of the movement. He then went on to lead a movement which overthrew the KMT bourgieousie and establish a socialist state. And?

chimx

6th December 2006, 03:03

no source is needed for that leftyhenry. it is common knowledge. also, it had nothing at ALL to do with the annihilation of the movement. it was done for purely opportunistic reasons.

Leo

6th December 2006, 12:16

Um once?

I remember the times you were calling yourself an anarcho-syndicalist.

True, winning a people's war thus liberating the Chinese workers and farmers from KMT Fuedal-capitalism was a bad thing

It didn't liberate anyone at all. Mao and his gang were fighting their old friends, it was a civil war within the different factions of the bourgeoisie.

Labor Shall Rule

6th December 2006, 13:47

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+December 06, 2006 02:11 am--> (LeftyHenry @ December 06, 2006 02:11 am)
Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2006 10:33 pm

:) Oh you silly, confused lad... How many times have you changed your ideology since your arrival on this site?

Um once? Quite a few people have changed their ideology.

Anyway, Chinese Civil War had nothing to do with the "real workers movements" in China at all. Quite the contrary, Maoism owes its rise to the suppressing of the "real workers movements".

True, winning a people's war thus liberating the Chinese workers and farmers from KMT Fuedal-capitalism was a bad thing :rolleyes:

The tissue of lies that surrounds the legend of Mao Zedong begins with the veil cast over his obscure political origins. Maoist historians may repeat endlessly that Mao was one of the CPC’s “founders”; they nonetheless remain very discreet about his political activity throughout the period of rising working class struggle. They would otherwise have to admit that Mao was part of the CPC’s opportunist wing, which blindly followed all the orientations of the degenerating Executive Committee of the Communist International. More precisely, they would also have to admit that Mao was a member of the CPC group which in 1924 joined the Executive Committee of the Kuomintang, the National Popular Party of the big Chinese bourgeoisie, on the fallacious pretext that this was not a bourgeois party but a “class front”.

In March 1927, on the eve of the bloody suppression of the Shanghai rising by Kuomintang troops, and while the CPC’s revolutionary wing was desperately calling for an end to the Kuomintang alliance, Mao was in the opportunist chorus, singing the praises of the butcher Chang-kai-shek, and approving the actions of the Kuomintang.

Shortly afterwards, one of Mao Zedong’s companions in the Kuomintang, Qu Qiubai, was nominated leader of the CPC under the pressure of Stalin’s henchmen recently arrived in China.

Initially, the "Civil War" was a civil war alright, it was a war of taking power between former allies who worked together in destroying the actual workers movement and now wanted to be the sole ruling faction; it was a civil war between the Chinese national bourgeoisie.

Source??? And? What's you're point? Mao Zedong once upon a time, agreed with the concept of an alliance to avoid annihilation of the movement. He then went on to lead a movement which overthrew the KMT bourgieousie and establish a socialist state. And? [/b]

[email protected] 06, 2006 02:11 am
Source??? And? What's you're point? Mao Zedong once upon a time, agreed with the concept of an alliance to avoid annihilation of the movement. He then went on to lead a movement which overthrew the KMT bourgieousie and establish a socialist state. And?
Leftyhenry, you claimed that you got your sources from MIM, and you actually encouraged people to go on that site in order to explain the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism. So being the curious cat that I am, I looked through it.

What are you sources? (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/sources.html)

""What are your sources" is a kind of nihilist save-all for the lazy. The worst only believe the Bible and that makes dispute a lot easier but worthless.

If your beloved MIM FAQ doesn't need sources, then why does Chimx and Leo have to provide sources over knowledge that should already be universally known by you?

chimx

6th December 2006, 17:22

except for perhaps the shanghai commune, nothing discussed here couldn't be found in an introductory history book, or probably even wikipedia.

Dimentio

6th December 2006, 17:26

Mao is probably one of the history's more inefficient managers. The great leap forward was a giant economic disaster and misallocation, comparable with the American suburban infrastructure.

Janus

6th December 2006, 22:23

Mao is probably one of the history's more inefficient managers
Mao wasn't a manager and though ultimately responsible for the Great Leap Forward, the failures were also due to the actual ineptitude of the lower bureaucrats.

They would otherwise have to admit that Mao was part of the CPC’s opportunist wing, which blindly followed all the orientations of the degenerating Executive Committee of the Communist International.
Mao strongly opposed many of the Comintern's policies such as the alliance with the Guomindang,etc.

More precisely, they would also have to admit that Mao was a member of the CPC group which in 1924 joined the Executive Committee of the Kuomintang, the National Popular Party of the big Chinese bourgeoisie, on the fallacious pretext that this was not a bourgeois party but a “class front”.
Really, the CCP didn't have much of a choice concerning the alliance with the Guomindang. Mao's only connection with the Guomindang was that he was in one of their peasant committees. It's ironic that Mao had a higher rank in the GMD for a time than the CCP.

In March 1927, on the eve of the bloody suppression of the Shanghai rising by Kuomintang troops, and while the CPC’s revolutionary wing was desperately calling for an end to the Kuomintang alliance, Mao was in the opportunist chorus, singing the praises of the butcher Chang-kai-shek, and approving the actions of the Kuomintang.
Few of the CCP members supported the GMD much less Jiang Jieshi. At this point, the CCP had only been working with the Left faction of the GMD. Mao, of course, was in Hunan trying to build the peasant movement and wasn't singing about anything.

Initially, the "Civil War" was a civil war alright, it was a war of taking power between former allies who worked together in destroying the actual workers movement and now wanted to be the sole ruling faction; it was a civil war between the Chinese national bourgeoisie.
The CCP was initially very successful with the labor movement but this was soon crushed which made them a little more open to the alliance with the GMD. It wasn't until 1927, that the labor movement was pretty much done altogether. The Chinese civil war was a struggle between the CCP along with the lower classes and the GMD which represented the upper class bourgeois and landlords.

Janus

6th December 2006, 22:27

Chiang liked having some armed commies at his side for a time too, until he was able to exist without 'em. thus 1927.
Jiang never like the CCP and though he posed as a moderate; he was more in line with the right faction of the GMD. It wasn't until 1927 that he really had an opportunity to wipe out the CCP after his Northern Expedition had finished.

Janus

6th December 2006, 22:29

After 20 years of close friendship with the Kuomintang?!
Mao may have been a member of the GMD but he only worked with them because they actually recognized the peasants at the time unlike the CCP. He was never a close friend and dropped all relations once the anti-communist membership policies of the GMD came out and the GMD showed its true skins.

it was a civil war within the different factions of the bourgeoisie.
The bourgeois were solely behind the GMD by 1927.

Janus

6th December 2006, 22:33

In my own rather limited estimation, the period of the 1920s was time when Mao was simply a stooge for Russia. They opted to side with nationalists, not support the shanghai workers, and advocate capitalism because that is what the soviets were dictating to them.
The CCP was the USSR's stooge. Stalin was basically using China as a testing ground for some of his theories which as you can imagine didn't turn out so well.

The CCP worked heavily with the Shanghai workers movement and actually held control of Shanghai after kicking out the local warlord before Jiang crushed it in 1927.

Leo

6th December 2006, 22:56

Really, the CCP didn't have much of a choice concerning the alliance with the Guomindang.

There was a revolutionary wing in the CCP, which was active in the the Shanghai Commune of 1927 and I think they had a choice other than joining forces with the bourgeoisie.

The CCP was initially very successful with the labor movement but this was soon crushed which made them a little more open to the alliance with the GMD. It wasn't until 1927, that the labor movement was pretty much done altogether.

That's what I've been saying.

Janus

7th December 2006, 00:01

There was a revolutionary wing in the CCP, which was active in the the Shanghai Commune of 1927 and I think they had a choice other than joining forces with the bourgeoisie.
The CCP wasn't like the GMD, the entire group due to its small numbers had pretty much the same views,etc..

Individual members had a choice over joining the GMD, but as a party they didn't have a choice in their alliance with it.

That's what I've been saying.
You stated

who worked together in destroying the actual workers movement

so I assumed you were saying that the CCP helped to crush the worker's movement.

OneBrickOneVoice

7th December 2006, 00:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 01:47 pm
[QUOTE=LeftyHenry,December 06, 2006 02:11 am] If your beloved MIM FAQ doesn't need sources, then why does Chimx and Leo have to provide sources over knowledge that should already be universally known by you?
LOL beloved MIM? I linked to them because they have some good stuff on Mao. Sources are necessary so you don't pull shit out of your ass and MIM sources there stuff.

It didn't liberate anyone at all. Mao and his gang were fighting their old friends, it was a civil war within the different factions of the bourgeoisie.

oh that's rich. Yeah his "gang" of workers, peasants, and the masses...

I remember the times you were calling yourself an anarcho-syndicalist.

eh? when was that and for how long? I was a trot since the first post here.

7th December 2006, 01:15

oh that's rich. Yeah his "gang" of workers, peasants, and the masses...

Do you think the armies of rich people are rich?

Red Heretic

7th December 2006, 02:40

You are (I assume) referring to the suppression of the Shanghai Commune, which was an action supported by Mao's wing in the party.

There was, however, a wing in the Chinese Communist Party that opposed nationalism and was crushed mostly during the suppression of the Shanghai Commune. Mao was, as you could easily imagine, thankful to his ultra-nationalist buddies in Kuomintang.

You are confusing two different incidents. The first Shanghai Commune was in the 1927, which was organized by Mao and was an attempt at a proletarian revolution. It was crushed in a bloody massacre by Chiang Kai Shek.

The Shanghai People's Commune was during the cultural revolution, when workers seized power from the CCP because of it's tendencies toward revisionism/capitalist restoration. Mao initially supported this as well, but he later became concerned that the fact that there was no state in Shanghai would be utilized by the Soviet or US imperialists to invade the country (which was a very real fear at the time). This actually highlights why we can't abolish the state until we defeat imperialism.

Anyway, the Shanghai People's Commune was disbanded consensually by the workers after Mao pointed out the imminent dangers of abolishing the state at that particular moment in time.

Janus

7th December 2006, 02:48

The first Shanghai commune was in the 1927, which was organized by Mao and was an attempt at a proletarian revolution.
Mao wasn't in Shanghai during this period, he was in Hunan organizing the peasant movement. You could say that Zhou Enlai was one of the main organizers of the Shanghai Commune of 1927.

Mao initially supported this as well, but he later became concerned that the fact that there was no state in Shanghai would be utilized by the Soviet or US imperialists to invade the country (which was a very real fear at the time).
Well, that may have been one reason though fearing for the stability of one city rather than all the rest doesn't really add up. Of course, Mao was also worried that the Shanghai Commune would set up a dangerous trend.