Anti-Mao

[AlwaysAnarchy]

It is disturbing to see that the personality cult around totalitarian monster Mao Zedong still exists. The man is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own people. He created a totalitarian dictatorship, a state capitalist regime which was ripe for complete capitalist takeover. They had government control not workers control per the requirement under socialism. Furthermore, they destroyed much of what the workers did in the cities in creating workers councils and some socialist openings.

To boot, Mao created a obscene personalitiy cult where people worshipped one individual, namely him. Even Marx and Lenin hated personality cults so he was really even more authoritiarian then them. BTW, Maoists and Stalninists apparenlty never read that Marx also hated the death penalty and said "NO Nation can call itself civilized while still having the death penalty"

And this was almost 100 years before the Chinese revolution happened. So much for progress.

And to all the Maoists out there, please don't give me that "he industrialized the country, made China a superpower" nonsense, socialism isn't about making one nation a " great power" it's about internationalist solidarity and workers control.

China under Mao even toasted with war criminals Kissinger and Nixon in the height of the Vietnam War. Mao also was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Pinochet's government in Chile.

So much for solidarity.

[Marukusu]

You are absolutely right. China was much better under Emperor Puyi, the warlords, Jiang Jieshi and the Kwantung army.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

:rolleyes: lol of course very nice

If you don't support totalitarian dictator A you must then support totalitarian dictator B.

:rolleyes:

[Marukusu]

I just don't see how this is a discussion-friendly topic since one are not "allowed" to talk about the good things about Mao Zedong:


And to all the Maoists out there, please don't give me that "he industrialized the country, made China a superpower"

And about internationalist solidarity and worker's control: Mao supported the Vietnamese liberation and the independence of Biafra, among others; and you should read more about the Cultural Revolution in general and the Shanghai Commune in particular.

[Prairie Fire]

I would like a link the work were Marx says that the death penalty is uncivilized.
Seriously, I'm not being a prick, I'm serious.

Mostly, I'm interested in context. Keep in mind, the bible says "Thou shal not kill",
but there are a multitude of cases that the bible says it is excusable to kill.

If Marx was for the proletarian revolution, how could he be against the death penalty? I guess that this is assuming that all of the counter-revolutionaries were liquidated during the revolution.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

and you should read more about the Cultural Revolution in general and the Shanghai Commune in particular.


Disbandment

Mao Zedong later decided that the commune would not be the best idea at the time. He became fearful that communes would soon replace the PRC and that there would be no need for the party and the government. Therefore, he ordered the disbandment of the commune after a discussion with the founders. It had only existed for less than a month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_People%27s_Commune

[Marukusu]

Mao Zedong was also in charge of the Chinese Communist Party when the Shanghai Commune was created, and thus had no problem at all with the formation of the commune in the beginning.
By the way, Wikipedia is biased.

[The Grey Blur]

Mao made a few valuable contributions to communist as well as military theory. Under the leadership of Mao China made huge leaps forward in terms of industrialisation and modernisation, raising millions and millions out of poverty and feudal relations.

I am not sure about Mao's role as regards the growth of the CCP bureaucracy but it soon developed, perhaps due to his own tactics or perhaps due to the incorrect tactics adopted by the Communist movement directed to them by Moscow during the early perod of revolution. Still, Maoists in the mass 60s movements , as well as today, seem content to work alongside Trotskyists, something which automatically puts them above Stalinists anyway.

I don't see why people uphold the Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward to be honest though, both just seem like spectacular bureacratic cock-ups degenerating into faction fighting. If anyone cares to explain to me why they feel they are so great I would be than willing to listen.

[Cryotank Screams]

AnarchyAlways, you "critcisms," are simplisitc and have been discussed over and over again, and serve no real purpose other than pissing of Marxists.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

It is disturbing to see that the personality cult around totalitarian monster Mao Zedong still exists.

Socialist China; 1949-1976 was the peak of the socialist experience, the farthest advance towards communism in the 20th century.

In terms of economic achievements, the People's Communes turned production relations upside down. No more was anyone exploited and oppressed. People collectivly produced and an equal share and equal participation in society. During the cultural revolution, this was expanded on as the China made great leaps towards communism, as factory after factory was taken over by workers and the 4 alls were achieved.

In terms of social achievements, people were encouraged to attack the capitalist roaders in the CCP and push towards communism and completly radicalize society. For the first time in the history of China, woman were given an active role in society, and told they were equal to men in every way as they "held up half the sky." workers and peasants saw greatly increased standards of living as basic things were garunteed to them like food, education, and healthcare. It was a radical society where the masses had state power.


The man is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own people

Nooo... actually, anybody who has basic knowledge of Chinese history, even bourgieousie scholars, will admit that China had YEARLY famines since the begining of history. In fact it was during Mao's rule, and probably because of collective farming, that China would never again have a famine. Was the famine that China did have, which is greatly exagerated, Mao's fault? No. Again, even bourgieousie sources admit that China had the 3 worst years of weather in a century as well as had to couple with the sudden pullout of Soviet engineers and advisors who had blueprints for factories key to the great leap forward.


He created a totalitarian dictatorship, a state capitalist regime which was ripe for complete capitalist takeover.

bullshit. Please give a principled arguement, the red baiting rhetoric is boring.

Mao wrote extensivly on Democratic Centralism. There was one party, but it was a party based on the mass line which engaged peasants and workers and learned from them as well as was made up of them. There was only one vanguard party because it was a dictatorship of the proletariat which was pushing forward the revolution. It had created proletarian people's rule where the people had state power not only on the political and social front but on the economic one. the DoP is not some liberal bullshit.

Please elaborate on how is was state capitalist before you expect to be countered.

As for capitalist takeover, it was not. Ever heard of the cultural revolution? this was the ultimate battle against revisionism and capitalism. The masses were putting up big character posters and actively battling capitalism at every turn it was a revolution within a revolution, a struggle against capitalism.


Furthermore, they destroyed much of what the workers did in the cities in creating workers councils and some socialist openings.

wtf are you talking about??? you mean the CCP started them.


To boot, Mao created a obscene personalitiy cult where people worshipped one individual, namely him.

um no, actually that was Deng Xioping and Lin Biao. Mao actuallly tried to discourage its spread. It was a tool by revisionists in the party to look like they were on the anti-revisionist's side.


China under Mao even toasted with war criminals Kissinger and Nixon in the height of the Vietnam War. Mao also was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Pinochet's government in Chile.

the US was offering recognition and an end to the sanctions for a diplomatic summit. So fucking what? Its what countries do. Play politics. Doesn't mean shit. Maoist China was funding the Vietcong until the end oh yeah and the Vietnam War was over by that time. America had pulled out. Do you have proof the PRC was the first to recognize Pinochet's Chile?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 23, 2007 09:39 pm
I don't see why people uphold the Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward to be honest though, both just seem like spectacular bureacratic cock-ups degenerating into faction fighting. If anyone cares to explain to me why they feel they are so great I would be than willing to listen.
the cultural revolution was a mass upsurge encouraged by the party. Society was completely revolutionized. It was a struggle to avoid the beauracratic capitalism of Krushevite USSR as well as push towards communism.

The great leap forward, although it failed due to sabotage, was important because it completly ended capitalist production relations.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:15 pm
I would like a link the work were Marx says that the death penalty is uncivilized.
Seriously, I'm not being a prick, I'm serious.

Mostly, I'm interested in context. Keep in mind, the bible says "Thou shal not kill",
but there are a multitude of cases that the bible says it is excusable to kill.

If Marx was for the proletarian revolution, how could he be against the death penalty? I guess that this is assuming that all of the counter-revolutionaries were liquidated during the revolution.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm

It is actually more of a paraphrase. The actual quote is something along the lines of: "it [is] very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."

[OneBrickOneVoice]

that means something pretty different

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:28 pm
And to all the Maoists out there, please don't give me that "he industrialized the country, made China a superpower" nonsense, socialism isn't about making one nation a " great power" it's about internationalist solidarity and workers control.
We can't take note of his accomplishments? You totalitarian monster!

[A.J.]

totalitarian

^I stopped reading this clap-trap after I seen the above meaningless buzzword.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:35 pm
:rolleyes: lol of course very nice

If you don't support totalitarian dictator A you must then support totalitarian dictator B.

:rolleyes:
OH PLEASE.

The very concept of "totalitarianism" was coined by reactionary academics in the NATO bloc in their effort to demonize the USSR and equate it to Nazi Germany.

There is no such thing as a "totalitarian dictator". Read up on historical materialism.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 23, 2007 10:31 pm
AnarchyAlways, you "critcisms," are simplisitc and have been discussed over and over again, and serve no real purpose other than pissing of Marxists.
I'm Anti-Stalinist and I know many Marxists who would take issue with describing Stalinist Russia, Fidel's Cuba and Mao's China as being remotely"Marxist."

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by RavenBlade+February 23, 2007 09:15 pm--> (RavenBlade @ February 23, 2007 09:15 pm) I would like a link the work were Marx says that the death penalty is uncivilized.
Seriously, I'm not being a prick, I'm serious.

Mostly, I'm interested in context. Keep in mind, the bible says "Thou shal not kill",
but there are a multitude of cases that the bible says it is excusable to kill.

If Marx was for the proletarian revolution, how could he be against the death penalty? I guess that this is assuming that all of the counter-revolutionaries were liquidated during the revolution. [/b]
The Stalinists might be shocked to see this but Marx actually had a VERY progressive view of crime punishment and the death penalty in stark contrast to the regimes of Stalin and Mao. Unsurprisingly, few Stalinists are actually aware of it:


Marx

“The reinstitution of the death penalty is not just another legal argument lost before an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court. It is one among many proofs of the failure of capitalism in its death agony to fulfill its promise of a decent life…. Only the victorious proletarian revolution that overthrows the bourgeois state will abolish the death penalty for good and smash the prisons, in the course of rooting out the whole vicious cycle of crime, punishment and repression caused by capitalism.”


Source = http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/883/deathpenalty.html

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:42 pm
I'm Anti-Stalinist and I know many Marxists who would take issue with describing Stalinist Russia, Fidel's Cuba and Mao's China as being remotely"Marxist."
One "Stalinism," doesn't exist, and secondly, all you did was post the usual critiques of Mao, that have been endlessly discussed in this forum, even in my short time being here on revleft, and I don't see this thread as being productive, and will inevitably end up in a huge flame war.

If you had posted maybe some facts, proof, and arguments, in a better manner, then maybe this would be a more productive thread.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Socialist China; 1949-1976 was the peak of the socialist experience, the farthest advance towards communism in the 20th century.

Maoist propaganda. In reality, it was a dictatorship. State-capitalist.

There is probably no point in debating you as you seem to be brainwashing by RCP Maoist-worship but for what it's worth:

On the supposed "free expression" in China:


Programs pursued during this time include the Hundred Flowers Campaign, in which Mao indicated his supposed willingness to consider different opinions about how China should be governed. Given the freedom to express themselves, liberal and intellectual Chinese began opposing the Communist Party and questioning its leadership. This was initially tolerated and even encouraged. However, after a few months, Mao's government reversed its policy and persecuted those, totalling perhaps 500,000, who criticized, and were merely alleged to have criticized, the Party in what is called the Anti-Rightist Movement.

On personality cults, even Mao himself defending the usage of personality cults. His pictures, books etc were propped all over China and Mao's personality cult is undenaible, not even defenders of Mao seriously deny one existed.


Originally posted by Mao

“ There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands.

On Mao's mass executions and repression: Again, not even Mao denied that he killed "Hundreds of thousands" of people. Virtually every historian puts the figure at a much greater number, in the millions


These campaigns of mass repression targeted former KMT officials, businessmen, former employees of Western companies, intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect, and significant numbers of rural gentry. The U.S. State department in 1976 estimated that there may have been a million killed in the land reform, 800,000 killed in the counterrevolutionary campaign. Mao himself claimed a total of 700,000 killed during these early years (1949–53).[10] However, because there was a policy to select at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution,[11] 1 million deaths seems to be an absolute minimum, and many authors agree on a figure of between 2 million and 5 million dead.[12][13] In addition, at least a million-and-a-half more disappeared into ‘reform through labor’ camps(laogai).[14] Mao’s personal role in ordering mass executions is undeniable.[15][16] He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.[17]


Its what countries do

Bourgeois countries do. Explain what role the Chinese workers had in making these foreign policy decisions. Or was it just Mao as usual?

Mao under China recognized the Pinochet government as a way of getting back with the Soviet Union and Cuba, who they considered Russia's puppet. Again, it wasn't about class solidarity but about bourgeois power politics and competing national rivalries. It wasn't about class but about country. IE, not socialist.

Fortunately, Pinochet paid Mao back by recognizing the Khmer Rouge in return for Mao's favor. Ahh, fascists cooperating with Mao, lovely couple don't ya think?


True, but also: Red China was the first country to recognize the Pinochet regime, because they shared an opposition to the Soviet Union, and considered Castro and Allende to be Soviet puppets.

In return, Pinochet's Junta recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia, and Pinochet sent condolences to China on the death of Chairman Mao.

Chinese support for Pinochet caused divisions in far left groups, and caused the Guardian newspaper and some Maoist grouplets to begin criticing the Chinese Communists.

[Rawthentic]

I stopped reading this clap-trap after I seen the above meaningless buzzword.
You're going to deny that Stalin was a brutal dictator?

[Marukusu]

I know that you hate Mao and want to share your views on his "totalitarianism", but I ask again: what's the point in this thread when there's "no point in debating" the topic?
Where is your sources to your claims? Can you trust them? Are they unbiased?

Right now this thread is completely useless, no personal offence.

[Prairie Fire]

Always Anarchy:


He created a totalitarian dictatorship, a state capitalist regime which was ripe for complete capitalist takeover.

As has allready been pointed out, the word Totalitarian is a phrase used to smear communists by the bourgeosie. All flavours of communist recognize this. If you use the term, then your capitalist slant is apparent.

Actually, now that I think about it, your advocating capitalist takeover, so that shows your capppie slant pretty clearly.


boot, Mao created a obscene personalitiy cult where people worshipped one individual, namely him.

As before, you make un-informed statements. What you need to realize is, most of the men who have a persynallity cult did not create it. Most of them, rather, were victims of the persynality cult. Here is a text by Comrade Bill Bland about Stalins "Persynality cult", to give you an example:

The cult of the individual (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm)


People just have a tendancy to create idols, and it happens in every society. Now, it can be debated that this is, as Henry said, not always detrimental.
China under Mao even toasted with war criminals Kissinger and Nixon in the height of the Vietnam War. Mao also was one of the first countries in the world to recognize Pinochet's government in Chile.

Enver Hoxha allready made that point 30 years ago. :D


I'm Anti-Stalinist and I know many Marxists who would take issue with describing Stalinist Russia, Fidel's Cuba and Mao's China as being remotely"Marxist."

Then they are not Marxists. They are simply Bourgie, Chomskyite Fucks like you.


The Stalinists might be shocked to see this but Marx actually had a VERY progressive view of crime punishment and the death penalty in stark contrast to the regimes of Stalin and Mao. Unsurprisingly, few Stalinists are actually aware of it:

I am one of the "Stalinists", you prick! Besides, you are taking all of these quotations largely out of context, ignoring the fact that Marx was pro-revolution ,hence in his plan, all of the reactionaries would have most likely been liquidated during the revolution. The problem is, that isn't usually what happens.


personality cults, even Mao himself defending the usage of personality cults. His pictures, books etc were propped all over China and Mao's personality cult is undenaible, not even defenders of Mao seriously deny one existed.

As I said, you obviously don't understand how persynality cults work; Look, Abraham Lincoln has his face inscribed into every american penny, every five dollar bill, a giant statue of himself in the capital, and his face inscribed into the side of a fucking mountain. Now, whatever you choose to think of Lincoln, all of these things were done AFTER he died. As I said, more often than not, the subjects of persynality cults are the victims, rather than the initiators.


On Mao's mass executions and repression: Again, not even Mao denied that he killed "Hundreds of thousands" of people. Virtually every historian puts the figure at a much greater number, in the millions

You are so painfully bourgie. Let me explain something to you: It's not how many people you kill, it's why you're killing them. If Mao killed a Million bourgeousie, landlords, koumintang leaders, and other reactionaries, that is jsut a necesity of revolution. Believe it or not, people get killed when one class restles power away from another.


Mao under China recognized the Pinochet government as a way of getting back with the Soviet Union and Cuba, who they considered Russia's puppet. Again, it wasn't about class solidarity but about bourgeois power politics and competing national rivalries. It wasn't about class but about country. IE, not socialist.

No arguments here.

Marakusu:

Still, Maoists in the mass 60s movements , as well as today, seem content to work alongside Trotskyists, something which automatically puts them above Stalinists anyway.

Maoists ARE the "Stalinists". Especially during the 60's, there were few organizations that just supporter Stalin. all of the Communists who rejected Kruschevite revisionism turned to Mao in china, and Hoxha in Albania.

Cryotank screams:

AnarchyAlways, you "critcisms," are simplisitc and have been discussed over and over again, and serve no real purpose other than pissing of Marxists.


One "Stalinism," doesn't exist, and secondly, all you did was post the usual critiques of Mao, that have been endlessly discussed in this forum, even in my short time being here on revleft, and I don't see this thread as being productive, and will inevitably end up in a huge flame war.

If you had posted maybe some facts, proof, and arguments, in a better manner, then maybe this would be a more productive thread.

Cryotank, I'm impressed! :) i didn't expect you to answer that way. Nicely done.

LeftHenry.


bullshit. Please give a principled arguement, the red baiting rhetoric is boring.

Mao wrote extensivly on Democratic Centralism. There was one party, but it was a party based on the mass line which engaged peasants and workers and learned from them as well as was made up of them. There was only one vanguard party because it was a dictatorship of the proletariat which was pushing forward the revolution. It had created proletarian people's rule where the people had state power not only on the political and social front but on the economic one. the DoP is not some liberal bullshit.

Please elaborate on how is was state capitalist before you expect to be countered.

Word.


OH PLEASE.

The very concept of "totalitarianism" was coined by reactionary academics in the NATO bloc in their effort to demonize the USSR and equate it to Nazi Germany.

There is no such thing as a "totalitarian dictator". Read up on historical materialism.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nicely done.

HastalaVictoria:

You're going to deny that Stalin was a brutal dictator?

You're going to deny that you're a bourgie social-democrat? :D

[Marukusu]

Originally posted by RavenBlade
Marakusu:


Still, Maoists in the mass 60s movements , as well as today, seem content to work alongside Trotskyists, something which automatically puts them above Stalinists anyway.

Maoists ARE the "Stalinists". Especially during the 60's, there were few organizations that just supporter Stalin. all of the Communists who rejected Kruschevite revisionism turned to Mao in china, and Hoxha in Albania.

Well, I didn't write that...

[Rawthentic]

You're going to deny that you're a bourgie social-democrat?
Wow, listen to this, I'm now a social-democrat for correctly calling Stalin a brutal dictator? Talk about ignorance and sectarianism.

[Prairie Fire]

Wow, listen to this, I'm now a social-democrat for correctly calling Stalin a brutal dictator? Talk about ignorance and sectarianism.

Excuse me? You're the one who called Stalin a brutal dictator, and now I"M the sectarian one? Are you high?

[Rawthentic]

Stalin was a brutal dictator, this has been proven time and time again. I suggest you take a look at the pinned thread in this History forum on Stalin's crimes.

This does not make me sectarian, I do it in the best interests of the workers, because having a new Stalin is not part of them.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by AlwaysAnarchy+February 24, 2007 04:44 pm--> (AlwaysAnarchy @ February 24, 2007 04:44 pm) The Stalinists might be shocked to see this but Marx actually had a VERY progressive view of crime punishment and the death penalty in stark contrast to the regimes of Stalin and Mao. Unsurprisingly, few Stalinists are actually aware of it:


Marx

“The reinstitution of the death penalty is not just another legal argument lost before an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court. It is one among many proofs of the failure of capitalism in its death agony to fulfill its promise of a decent life…. Only the victorious proletarian revolution that overthrows the bourgeois state will abolish the death penalty for good and smash the prisons, in the course of rooting out the whole vicious cycle of crime, punishment and repression caused by capitalism.”


Source = http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/883/deathpenalty.html [/b]
You may find that actually reading your sources will help you in debates AlwaysPacifistFreedomLiberalPeaceManAnarchy.

For example, in this case,

The Sparticist League wrote the quote you provided as proved in the organized letters above the quote.


Following the first U.S. execution since 1967, WE wrote in “State Butchers Gilmore” (WV No. 141, 21 January 1977):

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:10 pm




Maoist propaganda. In reality, it was a dictatorship. State-capitalist.

Once again, could you elaborate on HOW it was state capitalist rather than just writing off worker struggles as evil totalitarian state capitalist despotisms?


There is probably no point in debating you as you seem to be brainwashing by RCP Maoist-worship but for what it's worth:

:lol:




On the supposed "free expression" in China:

keep in mind that the Anti-Rightist Campaign was exactly what it says it was; a campaign against the right wingers; the imperial Japanese fascists leftover, the corporate businessmen who had lived like war kings while the people sold their children into slavery, and in general the bourgeoisie who wanted to bring back the days of ruthless exploitation and widespread poverty and brutality against the masses.

There was free expression for the workers and peasants and students. This would be clearly shown to outsiders in the cultural revolution.

Even westerners generally admit that the masses in the cultural revolution were encouraged to become full time radicals who put up big character posters as well as critiscize leadership, government and each other and themselves. Critiscism and Self-Critiscism are an important part of Marxist Leninist Mao Zedong Thought.

This was not some liberal bullshit free expression, it was militant class struggle expression, and the proletariat and peasantry would be damned if after all those years of oppression it would go easy on the bourgieosie and suck the bourgieosie's dick like you seem to want.

Suppression of the capitalist imperialists is not unique to marxist-leninists. Go talk to Chimx or Nachie or anyone here who isn't a liberal.


On personality cults, even Mao himself defending the usage of personality cults. His pictures, books etc were propped all over China and Mao's personality cult is undenaible, not even defenders of Mao seriously deny one existed.

See my last post. I dealt with this already. Instead of just reiterating your first post, why not respond to mine???


On Mao's mass executions and repression: Again, not even Mao denied that he killed "Hundreds of thousands" of people. Virtually every historian puts the figure at a much greater number, in the millions

Yeah every Western Historian during the cold war voting democrat or republican. Yes people died. It's called the dictatorship of the proletariat and a revolution. Wtf do you think the revolution is going to be like? The bourgieousie will join us and then we'll "forgive them for their sins" and dance in the meadows with them? Fuck that. They'll try their hardest to win power back and to suppress the workers and sabotage their achievements. In the end, they managed to do just that.

[grove street]

Mao wasn't perfect and made mistakes, but to call him a brutal dictator that was reponsible and took delight in the deaths of millions is a load of shit.

Mao was very upset about the famine caused by the Great Leap Foward and admited he felt a great sorrow to those that died. The famine was caused by bad weather, soviet sabotage and poor planning on the half of Mao. Anyone that says it was a man made famine are as dumb as those that beleive that Stalin planned the Ukraine famine.

Mao is hardly responsible for the deaths of the Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards weren't police or military soldiers taking direct orders from Mao. They were civilian organised militas, mostly made of youth who organised themselves into units/bands to get rid of reactionaries. The closet thing that they had from orders from Mao was his ''Little Red Book'' and his speach/message to society to rebel. Even Mao beleived that by the end of the Cultural Revolution the Red Guards had gone too far.

There was an anti-Mao documentary that I was watching called ''Mao last emperour of China''. They were interviewing an ex Red Guard who now considers Mao a monster but during the ''Cultural Revolution'' loved him. One of things that he said that he and other Red Guards did was eat the hearts of their victims to show their class concuisness. What annoyed me the most was that he was blaming his own brutality on Mao, when Mao never ordered or supportered such behaviour.

[The Grey Blur]

Maoists ARE the "Stalinists". Especially during the 60's, there were few organizations that just supporter Stalin. all of the Communists who rejected Kruschevite revisionism turned to Mao in china, and Hoxha in Albania
May 68 in Paris - the Trot and Maoist students worked side by side while the Stalinists held the workers back from joining them.

And Hoxha? :lol:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 26, 2007 12:14 am

Maoists ARE the "Stalinists". Especially during the 60's, there were few organizations that just supporter Stalin. all of the Communists who rejected Kruschevite revisionism turned to Mao in china, and Hoxha in Albania
May 68 in Paris - the Trot and Maoist students worked side by side while the Stalinists held the workers back from joining them.

And Hoxha? :lol:
If you're refering to the Communist Party of France, they're hardly, "stalinist". They are and were revisionist eurocommunist trash that has become more and more blatantly social-democratic.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

grove street,

Mao actually issued a statement through the Central Committee that all rebellion during the Cultural Revolution should happen peacefully.

[Prairie Fire]

LeftyHenry:

If you're refering to the Communist Party of France, they're hardly, "stalinist". They are and were revisionist eurocommunist trash that has become more and more blatantly social-democratic.

Respect, Henry :D . The problem is, to people who hate Stalin, it makes little difference. In my experience, these call any organization/individual that they dislike "Stalinist", regardless of of wether or not they have any ideologicla connections or respect for Stalin. This just goes to show the mudslining nature of the term "Stalinist", as it requires absolutely no analysis.

By this way of thinking, Trots consider Kruschev a "Stalinist". All of the revisionist, social-imperialist governments of europe (which specifically rejected Stalin) were "Stalinists" too.

With this way of thinking, The Nazi party, Al Quaeda, the Republican Party of America... All of them can be labeled "Stalinists". It has no analysis at all, but it doesn't have to.

Grove Street:


One of things that he said that he and other Red Guards did was eat the hearts of their victims to show their class concuisness. What annoyed me the most was that he was blaming his own brutality on Mao, when Mao never ordered or supportered such behaviour.


That was the problem with the Chinese cultural revolution, in a nutshell. Now, i'm not blaming Mao or Mao Tse Tung thought for these excesses, but it was a policy error on his part, encouraging cultural revolution without the control of a party vanguard to limit the vigilantism and chaotic excesses of the masses.


HastalaVictoria:


Stalin was a brutal dictator, this has been proven time and time again. I suggest you take a look at the pinned thread in this History forum on Stalin's crimes.

This does not make me sectarian, I do it in the best interests of the workers, because having a new Stalin is not part of them.

You make assertions,then don't back them up. I suggest you go to Stalins crimes thread and speak your peice.

I've allready been on that thread, read 11 pages, and kicked some revisionist ass.

:D he he, listen to this guy; he does things "in the best interests of the workers".
This is not the vanguardist approach. Basically you aspire to make decrees, and have other follow them, rather than using the democratic-centralist method and forming policy from the bottom up through popular discussion and vote. See, you are a social democrat.

[Rawthentic]

I'm a social-democrat because I don't practice democratic centralism. I don't care how much you "speak you piece", the point is that Stalin was a counterrevolutionary and sent millions to their deaths. You cannot deny that.

[RedSabine]

I never met the man, so I wouldn't know.

All I know is that all rulers, no matter how intentioned they are, are anti-communist.

[Prairie Fire]

Hastalavictoria:

I don't care how much you "speak you piece", the point is that Stalin was a counterrevolutionary and sent millions to their deaths. You cannot deny that.

Sure I can, and I do. Go back and read my posts on the "Stalins crimes" thread.
If you believe this to be historical revisionism, I suggest that you hit the books (the kind of books that aren't in your library). I would suggest Ludo Martens book "another view of Stalin" for starters.

Commie_god:


I never met the man, so I wouldn't know.

All I know is that all rulers, no matter how intentioned they are, are anti-communist.

All things in good time. Lenin said "Under communism, all will rul ein turn, and soon become accustomed to no one ruling."
It stands to reason that a society can not go from capitalism yo a stateless society without a transitional stage (socialism).

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:46 am
grove street,

Mao actually issued a statement through the Central Committee that all rebellion during the Cultural Revolution should happen peacefully.
Thank you for the information.

It's sad how this information is supressed by the capatalist media and their control of what the public knows and thinks about history.

I am not a Maoist, but I do respect his contribution and beleive his memory and image needs to be protected against those that sling lies and half truths about a man that did his best and dedicated almost his whole life to his country and people.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected]ry 26, 2007 01:33 am
I'm a social-democrat because I don't practice democratic centralism. I don't care how much you "speak you piece", the point is that Stalin was a counterrevolutionary and sent millions to their deaths. You cannot deny that.
Please don't make baseless assertions like this. That is reserved for chit chat.

[Rawthentic]

LeftyHenry, you call yourself a communist and apologize for Stalin?
Why is it that some self-described "leftists" insist on supporting Stalin and denying what he did? He's the main motherfucker that dirtied the name of communism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:50 am
LeftyHenry, you call yourself a communist and apologize for Stalin?
Why is it that some self-described "leftists" insist on supporting Stalin and denying what he did? He's the main motherfucker that dirtied the name of communism.
hasta,

bring up some complaints you have with specific things Stalin did, and RavenBlade and I will respond.

I'd agree with you that Stalin made some critical mistakes but considering the circumstances he was in he also did some very good things.

It's not Stalin who dirtied the name of Communism, it is Communism that dirtied the name of Communism in the eyes of the west. The bourgieousie will NEVER be happy and supportive of socialism, don't you think?

[Rawthentic]

I agree with you in the last part. Yet Stalin purged the Communist Party except his faction and loyal side. He used the excuse of "transitioning to communism" to justify his grip on power and the sending of "counterrevolutionaries", which were more like workers who protested even the smallest thing, and were sent to the labor camps or prisons.

[Janus]

They were interviewing an ex Red Guard who now considers Mao a monster but during the ''Cultural Revolution'' loved him.
That is because the former Red Guard are now referred to as the Lost Generation because they have been left behind with none of the necessary skills in order to succedd in China's current climate.


One of things that he said that he and other Red Guards did was eat the hearts of their victims to show their class concuisness.
A Western inspired rumor with no evidence. Cannibalism may have occured during famines but there is no record of politically motivated ones.

[Joseph Ball]

I've said all this before but the 'Mao committed genocide' stuff is bourgeois nonsense. Check out my article 'Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward', published on the Monthly Review website at http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm .

If you want to know about how peasants beneifted in the Cultural Revolution check out Han Dongping's article
The Great Leap Famine, the Cultural Revolution and Post Mao Rural Reform: The Lessons of Rural Development in Contemporary China at http://www.chinastudygroup.org/index.php?a...e=printer&id=26 (http://www.chinastudygroup.org/index.php?action=article&type=printer&id=26) . Also read his book 'The Unknown Cultural Revolution. Educational Reforms and Their Impact on China's Rural Development.' There wasn't even a police force in rural areas in the Cultural Revolution, according to Han Dongping, so I don't think it's sensible to say it was authoritarian.

It was authoritarian to the capitalists but when they came back they took away the peasants free health care and education and began to seize their land without proper compensation. Now the peasants are being forced into slums in the big cities where they work in unbearable conditions in sweatshops and sometimes have to endure coporeal punishment from their bosses. But we only ever hear about the cases where capitalists were beaten by Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution, funny that.

[Liberal Kid]

Interesting I suppose.

Now I would like a few things, first off I can go to the library or reach next to me and grab the two biographies of Mao and read any number of Mao's atrocities.

But I honestly won't bother because if I actually find something that is against you guys, you will refer to it as misinformation and discredit it.

So at any rate as long as there are some people here defending Stalin.

I want you to defend EVERY SINGLE ONE OF STALIN'S Purges.
I want you to defend the GULAGS ie the work camps where people were sent often to die.
Defend the ousting of Leon Trotsky
Respond to the fact that LENIN himself when he was ill wrote that Stalin should be removed.

Moving on to things about Mao
I've already heard your defense for the great leap forward

Now defend the execution of the president of China Liu Shaio
Defend the public humiliation of Peng Dehuai for criticizing the Great Leap Forward (should not any dictator be willing to listen to criticism and defend himself? not strip them of all rank)
Defend the accusations against Luo the Tall (that ruined his life). Luo the Tall was a very loyal bodyguard to Mao.
Why is it that Mao's number 2 Lin Biao attempted a coup against Mao and failed. Don't respond with because Biao was ambitious, explain why Mao would have someone such as him as his number two.

Okay that about sums it up for now.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Liberal [email protected] 01, 2007 03:57 am
I want you to defend EVERY SINGLE ONE OF STALIN'S Purges.
I want you to defend the GULAGS ie the work camps where people were sent often to die.
Defend the ousting of Leon Trotsky
Respond to the fact that LENIN himself when he was ill wrote that Stalin should be removed.

Moving on to things about Mao
I've already heard your defense for the great leap forward

Now defend the execution of the president of China Liu Shaio
Defend the public humiliation of Peng Dehuai for criticizing the Great Leap Forward (should not any dictator be willing to listen to criticism and defend himself? not strip them of all rank)
Defend the accusations against Luo the Tall (that ruined his life). Luo the Tall was a very loyal bodyguard to Mao.
Why is it that Mao's number 2 Lin Biao attempted a coup against Mao and failed. Don't respond with because Biao was ambitious, explain why Mao would have someone such as him as his number two.

Okay that about sums it up for now.
No. Stop interrogating people. I feel like a defendant in a show trial of the Great Purge. Don't act so Stalinist!

[Liberal Kid]

I'm going to take that as sarcasm and I'll wait and see if any Maoist or Stalinist responds.

[Joseph Ball]

This Maoist and 'Stalinist' does want to respond to 'Liberal Kid'.
Liu Shaoqi wasn't executed.
Everyone in the Chinese Communist Party disliked Peng Dehuai because he cosied up to Khruschev when Khruschev was doing his best to undermine Chinese socialism.
What is it that you are actually accusing Mao of doing to Luo Ruiqing? He wasn't shot, he wasn't imprisoned. Political struggles happen in parties.
Maoists don't exactly analyse people in terms of their personal characteristics. We analyse their line. When Lin Biao betrayed the Chinese revolution it was a matter of his line. There had certainly been problems with it before (it had been Confucian). But still Lin Biao had done certain positive things. God knows why Lin went so badly wrong. Philip Short quotes sources that seem to claim Lin Biao's son took the leading role in the farcical coup attempt and Lin Biao was a passive participant who put his loyalty to an awful family member before the interests of the people. Even if this is so, it is a wrong line. You don't put one person's selfish interests before millions, even if that one person is your son.

[Liberal Kid]

Liu Shaoqi was imprisoned, tortured and thrown out of power it amounted to a similar thing. Also remember the other three in the four, they just as well were taken out of power for defending culture.

Luo attempted to commit suicide because Mao outed him so that Lin Biao would back him on the cultural revolution.

And I didn't note much defending of Stalin.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Liberal Kid, try reading the thread first. Then also look around. You're critiscisms have been refuted or are just plain silly and irrelevent.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

As for Liu, he wasn't tortured. He was placed under house arrest, and then later tried and jailed.

[Janus]

As for Liu, he wasn't tortured.
During those times, torture/beating was synonmyous with arrests especially if they were caught by the Red Guards.

[Herman]

And I didn't note much defending of Stalin.

Because people are tired of doing it time and time again.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:54 pm

As for Liu, he wasn't tortured.
During those times, torture/beating was synonmyous with arrests especially if they were caught by the Red Guards.
It depended on the faction. Only hardline Red Guard factions went to the extremes the west spreads rumors about.