Discussion on China under Mao

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Do you believe China under Mao was led by the proletariat? That the proletariat ruled China?

What is your view on Mao?

[RedLenin]

Do you believe China under Mao was led by the proletariat?
No. It was led by Mao.


That the proletariat ruled China?
No, Mao ruled China.

The proletariat played no real role in the Chinese Civil War. It was a peasant war, led by Mao, which established a Stalinist state. That said, China under Mao was a massive advance for the Chinese people. However, it was not a socialist state.


What is your view on Mao?
Mao was a Stalinist with a twist. He may well have believed that he was leading the people toward socialism and he may have had great intentions. But, he was a Stalinist and had the wrong ideological line. On the one hand Mao massively improved the lives of the Chinese people, and on the other he and his party ruled the country without any significant participation on the part of the working class. The restoration of capitalism in China was really an inevitability.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:48 pm
No. It was led by Mao.


It was guided by Mao, and the CCP, but the peasantry made the main force of the revolution, along with to a more minor degree the urban proletariat.


No, Mao ruled China.

Totally goes against the way the government worked in China.


The proletariat played no real role in the Chinese Civil War. It was a peasant war, led by Mao, which established a Stalinist state. That said, China under Mao was a massive advance for the Chinese people. However, it was not a socialist state.

The reverse of orthodox Marxist revolutionary roles, was tailored to the material conditions of China at the time, in that the peasantry, and rural workers, were the main and primary modes of production, due to the fact that it was a feudalistic agrarian economy, in which the urban proletariat wasn't the main mode of production, hence they had a minor role in the revolution.

If you looked at China's history, this would be obvious.

Also "Stalinism," doesn't exist, it's just an derogatory term invented by Trotsky, and used by people, to lazy to give an accurate analysis, and anything that doesn't follow Trotsky, is suddenly "Stalinist."

How was China not a Socialist nation under Mao?


Mao was a Stalinist with a twist. He

No, he wasn't, and infact held many criticisms of Stalin, while still agreeing with him on basic lines, but again Maoist thought, and Stalin's thought, are different.


The restoration of capitalism in China was really an inevitability.

No in relation to Mao, but because of the market capitalism of Deng Xiaoping.

[Rawthentic]

I wonder what Maoists will come up with.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:37 pm
Do you believe China under Mao was led by the proletariat? That the proletariat ruled China?

What is your view on Mao?
What do you mean China "under" Mao?

Something that westerners often forget is that Mao was only in power for five years, 1954-1959, he had to resign after his economic failure in the 'great leap forward' Until his death in 1976 he basically acted as a political pressure figure with mass support rather than any kind of government executive.

During that time, power in china was mixed, there were both leftwing proletarian forces and rightwing reactionary forces, both in the government and communist party and mass movements.

The Chinese Communist Party was not, despite the belief of both its supporters and detractors, ever a monolithic party after the revolution.


As to my personal view of Mao, he had some good policies and theories and campaigns, such as leading the revolution and resistance against imperialism, the strategy of protracted people's war, the theory and strategy of cultural revolution against rightwing forces, patriarchy and hierarchical religion, and the defense of Korea against imperialism; and he also had some bad policies and theories, such as the great leap forward, the sino-soviet split, anti-revisionism, opening relations with the Americans, the bullshit theory of 'social imperialism' and a geopolitical understanding that lacked the necessary real politik cold war perspective, greatly damaging the socialist bloc.

[Whitten]

Do you believe China under Mao was led by the proletariat? That the proletariat ruled China?

No, the peasentry ruled for the most part, in their class alliance with the proletariat.


What is your view on Mao?

He was a great leader and theorist, maybe not so great with the economic policies.

[TC]

Agricultural workers are workers just as industrial workers are workers, to snobbishly imply that the 'peasentry' are not workers and that rule by agricultural workers is not socialism is totally unmarxist and reactionary.


The symbol of Communism is a hammer and sickle, not just a hammer, for a reason. Agricultural workers played a major role in the Russian revolution as well.


[edit]:please note this comment was not directed towards whitten but to some other people's general remarks like RedLenin's.

[UndergroundConnexion]

and good philosopher, poet , writer maybe.

a disastrous economist i believe

[RNK]

Yes, there's no escaping the fact that Mao's economic policies were disastrous. How much of the blame is his, however, is debatable. By some accounts Mao had little knowledge of the failure until it was catastrophic.

I do agree with his concept of cultural revolution, though (even if it failed). The idea that a post-revolutionary society must continue to seek and destroy counter-revolutionary elements is, I think, a very important line.

But in the end, figuring out what really happened and what roles Mao played in China's hardships is difficult... what is known is that during his short leadership, China suffered a horrible economic catastrophy, which was used as an excuse by much of the higher leadership of the CCP to gently nudge Mao out of authority. Mao then tried to rectify this by launching his cultural revolution to weed out what he called "capitalist roaders" in the party; people who were attempting to become, essentially, socialist bourgeoisie. This failed and Mao's position was permanently severed, his comrades and associates arrested or killed, and once his opponents had the reigns China set itself down the path of "socialism with Chinese characteristics", also known as "state capitalism".

By that, it's fairly clear that Mao was against the correct people, the ones that turned China into what it is today. His activity, though, is harder to determine. But his ideology and his writings I feel are very important to the revolutionary movement.

[RedLenin]

in which the urban proletariat wasn't the main mode of production, hence they had a minor role in the revolution.
The size of the proletariat in the country does not change the fact that the proletariat is the only class that can bring about socialism. In Russia, the main agent of revolution was the proletariat, despite it's very small size. The peasantry of course will play a role in any revolution in a backwards country, but it cannot serve as the main agent of revolution. The peasantry must be led by the proletariat and can only really serve an auxilery role. The proletariat, mainly concentrated in the cities, needed to wage the struggle and take power. Once the proletariat takes power, in alliance with the poor peasantry, it must carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, among them the task of giving the land to the peasants.

Mao and the CCP relied entirely on the rural peasantry as the source of revolution, with the urban proletariat playing no role. This is the complete opposite of what happened in Russia in 1917. The strategy of "people's war" cannot lead to socialism for the simple reason that the proletariat plays no revolutionary role.


Also "Stalinism," doesn't exist, it's just an derogatory term invented by Trotsky
Yes, it was invented by Trotsky, based on his analysis of the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union. The term is used to describe those states that have expropriated the bourgeoisie and have brought into being a planned economy, but in which the proletariat has no democratic control over the state or the planning of the economy. These states are also known as deformed workers states, because they have some characteristics of socialism, the planned economy, but the working class does not hold power.


How was China not a Socialist nation under Mao?
Socialism is not defined only by a planned economy. The working class must hold power, and that means workers have democratic control over the state and the planning of the economy. These two characteristic did not exist in China. Hence, China was caricature of socialism, a deformed workers state.


to snobbishly imply that the 'peasentry' are not workers and that rule by agricultural workers is not socialism is totally unmarxist and reactionary.
No, to say that there is no difference between the proletariat and the peasantry is unmarxist. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all very clear on this point. The proletariat is the class of producers, aka industrial workers. The peasantry is a rural class that is tied to the land. It is true that an alliance between these two classes is necessary, but the question is this; which class plays the primary and leading role? If you want socialism, the answer is the proletariat.


Agricultural workers played a major role in the Russian revolution as well.
Yes, but the peasantry only played an auxilary role. Russia was predominantly peasant, but it was the small proletariat that was the main force of the revolution. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, which I have been explaining throughout this post, was carried out in 1917.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:58 pm
The size of the proletariat in the country does not change the fact that the proletariat is the only class that can bring about socialism. In Russia, the main agent of revolution was the proletariat, despite it's very small size. The peasantry of course will play a role in any revolution in a backwards country, but it cannot serve as the main agent of revolution. The peasantry must be led by the proletariat and can only really serve an auxilery role. The proletariat, mainly concentrated in the cities, needed to wage the struggle and take power. Once the proletariat takes power, in alliance with the poor peasantry, it must carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, among them the task of giving the land to the peasants.


Setting aside your obvious and blatant dogmatism, why exactly can't the peasantry, and rural workers also be the revolutionary drive and class, when the urban proletariat are not the main mode of production? History proved that the peasantry can become the revolutionary class, and break away from both feudalistic and capitalistic modes of production, and establish Socialism, so in my opinion, this idiotic assumption that the rural workers can't be a revolutionary class, is not only idiocy, but intellectual dishonest, and being blindly dogmatic.


Mao and the CCP relied entirely on the rural peasantry as the source of revolution,

No, the urban proletariat (as Whitten stated), had a class alliance with the rural proletariat, and served a minor role, for very obvious reasons.


with the urban proletariat playing no role.

Bullshit.


The strategy of "people's war" cannot lead to socialism for the simple reason that the proletariat plays no revolutionary role.

In, Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, it doesn't state the revolutionary class must be the rural proletariat, it just says that it is possible, and in all honesty, if say, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party were to lead a revolution in a modernized industrial nation, the urban proletariat would be the revolutionary class; uniform revolution, is defeatism and dogmatism.

I will allow others to comment on your other points, or rather your Trotskyite dogmatism.

[RNK]

I'd have to agree. Mao himself started his "revolutionary career" in the urban proletarian movement, before realizing that it was the rural peasantry, not the urban proletariat, that held enough power to carry through a revolution. Infact, during the revolutionary process the KMT (iirc) began a systematic purge of the urban proletariat which forced thousands to flee the cities and join the ranks of Mao's movement.

[Leo]

China has a very important history of proletarian struggles and revolutions and the only role Mao ever played in this history is the role of an anti-working class and counter-revolutionary bureaucrat.

Lots of info and links on the revolutionary currents in the Chinese proletariat has been posted in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58452

[ComradeRed]

Tossed to history.

[Whitten]

So what woul dyou left-communist and leninists have done in that situation? I hear lots of complaining about the Maoist strategy but vhat would you have done? If only the proletariat can take part in the revolution, and there clearly wasnt a developed proletariat in China at the time, then what would you have done? Just left it in its semi-feudal proto-capitalists state?

[Che Guevara 1415]

Why did Mao make his country a manufacturing ground for western companies full of air and water pollution ? I don't see the reasoning behind this . Mao wasnt some agent of foreign corporations like that one General in Indonesia ... Why did he really turn away from the U.S.S.R ? Being allied with the U.S.S.R would be beneficial to China and establish a massive resistance against the capitalist bloc .

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 09:57 pm
China has a very important history of proletarian struggles and revolutions and the only role Mao ever played in this history is the role of an anti-working class and counter-revolutionary bureaucrat.

Lots of info and links on the revolutionary currents in the Chinese proletariat has been posted in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58452
No, Mao spent the early 20s planning urban based revolutions, however, he realized that a urban based revolution would be impossible considering that like 80% of the population were rural proletariat and peasantry. Thus he organized the masses as a whole. In particular, the rural proletariat.


Why did Mao make his country a manufacturing ground for western companies full of air and water pollution ?

wtf? No, that was Deng Xioping and his followers, who Mao had fought against from the begining of the Chinese Revolution


I don't see the reasoning behind this . Mao wasnt some agent of foreign corporations like that one General in Indonesia ... Why did he really turn away from the U.S.S.R ? Being allied with the U.S.S.R would be beneficial to China and establish a massive resistance against the capitalist bloc .

He didn't turn away from the USSR, the USSR turned away from socialism. It stopped moving forward. It moved backwards, and it sabotaged the cultural revolution.

It turned from international proletarian socialism vs. capitalism to east vs. west

Although I agree, and so do many present day maoists, that it was stupid of Mao to rank US imperialism as a lower threat then Soviet imperialism.

Even though the Soviet Union had stopped making rapid leaps towards communism, it was still a state with mostly popular owned means of production.

This is a critical mistake Mao made in my opinion.


Yes, there's no escaping the fact that Mao's economic policies were disastrous.

I would say this is debatable.

1st,

there were famines in China every year in China under the KMT and before under the fuedal system. Just look at any grain record and in county after county, year after year crop failure was reported.

What set the GLF apart from those famines was that it was under socialism and could be used by the bourgiousie to throw shit on worker struggles.

Now, basic study will reveal that there was also the role of the weather and the sino-soviet split which played a role in this, but no one cares enough.

Also, no one recognizes the fact that the people's communes would eventually completly eliminate starvation from China forever, for the first time, while at the same time ending exploitation from man to man. That is what collectivized production looks like.


No, to say that there is no difference between the proletariat and the peasantry is unmarxist. Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all very clear on this point. The proletariat is the class of producers, aka industrial workers. The peasantry is a rural class that is tied to the land. It is true that an alliance between these two classes is necessary, but the question is this; which class plays the primary and leading role? If you want socialism, the answer is the proletariat.


No the proletariat are those who have nothing to lose but their chains and own nothing but their labor. This is 100% true for workers, and mostly true for the peasantry. Mao relied on the rural proletariat because they were the masses. As the revolution seized the cities and seized power, the urban proletariat were of course relied on as well even though they were far less in numbers in proportion to the rural proletarian and peasantry.

This proven by the Tianamen Square Rebellion. While there was a bourgiousie liberal democrat student movement involved with this, the far more powerful movement was the urban workers who thought the reforms had gone to far. Amnesty Internation, when reporting on this expressed shock at the fact that while being suppressed by Chinese Pigs, the protestors burst out singing the internationale.

[RNK]

That's true. I also do know that Mao had little knowledge of the depth of the famine until it was too late. Officials close to him made it clear that Mao had little knowledge of it. Unfortunately, either way, it gave Deng the oppurturnity to twist it against Mao -- which raises the question, since it is generally accepted that Mao's failure rested no in his decisions but in the lack of information he received about it, could it have been purposeful sabotage on the part of the Deng faction? Could they have been the ones ensuring that Mao was never aware of the crisis, in order to use the crisis against him as they clearly did later?

[Prairie Fire]

It is refreshing to see that those that are in favour of Mao Tse Tung thought have taken this thread back and called some oppurtunists on thier shit.

Cryotank:

It was guided by Mao, and the CCP, but the peasantry made the main force of the revolution, along with to a more minor degree the urban proletariat.



Totally goes against the way the government worked in China.


The reverse of orthodox Marxist revolutionary roles, was tailored to the material conditions of China at the time, in that the peasantry, and rural workers, were the main and primary modes of production, due to the fact that it was a feudalistic agrarian economy, in which the urban proletariat wasn't the main mode of production, hence they had a minor role in the revolution.

If you looked at China's history, this would be obvious.

Also "Stalinism," doesn't exist, it's just an derogatory term invented by Trotsky, and used by people, to lazy to give an accurate analysis, and anything that doesn't follow Trotsky, is suddenly "Stalinist."

How was China not a Socialist nation under Mao?

Shit man, I'm impressed :) . It's awesome that you took a revolutionary stance.

Here are other good points:



Something that westerners often forget is that Mao was only in power for five years, 1954-1959, he had to resign after his economic failure in the 'great leap forward' Until his death in 1976 he basically acted as a political pressure figure with mass support rather than any kind of government executive.


By that, it's fairly clear that Mao was against the correct people, the ones that turned China into what it is today. His activity, though, is harder to determine. But his ideology and his writings I feel are very important to the revolutionary movement.


In, Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, it doesn't state the revolutionary class must be the rural proletariat, it just says that it is possible, and in all honesty, if say, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party were to lead a revolution in a modernized industrial nation, the urban proletariat would be the revolutionary class; uniform revolution, is defeatism and dogmatism.


Although I agree, and so do many present day maoists, that it was stupid of Mao to rank US imperialism as a lower threat then Soviet imperialism.Even though the Soviet Union had stopped making rapid leaps towards communism, it was still a state with mostly popular owned means of production.

This is a critical mistake Mao made in my opinion.


:D Read "Imperialism and Revolution" by Enver Hoxha. I'll make an online copy available online.



there were famines in China every year in China under the KMT and before under the fuedal system. Just look at any grain record and in county after county, year after year crop failure was reported.

What set the GLF apart from those famines was that it was under socialism and could be used by the bourgiousie to throw shit on worker struggles.

Now, basic study will reveal that there was also the role of the weather and the sino-soviet split which played a role in this, but no one cares enough.

Exactly. This always the way it is; FAMINES OCCASIONALLY HAPPEN. Now, I hail form a farming family, hence I understand that plant growth is influnced by soil fertility, precipitation and sunlight, not politcal climate.

There are famines in parts of the United States. Apparently though, this doesn't prove the failure of capitalism. That was a good point, Henry.


This proven by the Tianamen Square Rebellion. While there was a bourgiousie liberal democrat student movement involved with this, the far more powerful movement was the urban workers who thought the reforms had gone to far. Amnesty Internation, when reporting on this expressed shock at the fact that while being suppressed by Chinese Pigs, the protestors burst out singing the internationale.

:D Really? That's what I've been saying for years, but it would be nice to have some tangible proof to display. Do you have a link to the Amnesty international report?

But of course, despite the high concentration of intelligent discussion, there was also bourgie, secterian Bullshit. Here are a few gems:



The proletariat played no real role in the Chinese Civil War. It was a peasant war, led by Mao, which established a Stalinist state.

Cryotank has allready pointed out that you don't understand the way things were in China, so all I have to add is anyone who uses the term "Stalinist" is an especially stupid social democrat.


Yes, it was invented by Trotsky, based on his analysis of the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union. The term is used to describe those states that have expropriated the bourgeoisie and have brought into being a planned economy, but in which the proletariat has no democratic control over the state or the planning of the economy. These states are also known as deformed workers states, because they have some characteristics of socialism, the planned economy, but the working class does not hold power.

:rolleyes: Yes, I'm sure that inventing a slur word took SO much analysis on Trotskys part. Trotsky hated Stalin, nad therefore called everything that he disliked "Stalinist". :rolleyes: Wow, that is seriously some pretty deep socio-economic analysis. And now, contemporary Trots, and other donkey erotica enthusiasts, continue this great tradition of infallible analysis by labelling everything that they dislike "Stalinist". On the flipside, as some trot comrades earlier pointed out on this board, they label certain figures like Tito "Trotskyist"(Even though Tito never identified with Trotskyism).
Once again, that's the infallible science of trot analysis: Anything we like is Trotskyist, anything we hate is Stalinist. Brilliant!

Anyways, nice work defending the gains of the Chinese peoples revolution, comrades.

[Prairie Fire]

So what woul dyou left-communist and leninists have done in that situation?

Whoa, hey! Stop lumping Leninists in with the left communists! We aren't your enemy!

Don't be fooled, RedLenin is not a Leninist; He's a trot. apparently he isn't aware that Trotsky specifically denounced Leninism as "Poisonous".

[Che Guevara 1415]

I heard somewhere that Trotsky was financed by the CIA . Why do many people on the left like him ? True , he was the general of the Red Army , and thanks to him the Reds won , but denouncing Leninism as "poisonous" and having ties with the CIA ...

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Che Guevara,

great pictures. Keep it up :D

As for trotsky, yes he was a great leader of the Red Army, even Stalin praised him for his work but as time drew on he basically threatened party unity and nearly helped create a political civil war.

The CIA comment I think is bullshit, but I don't know. I'd be interested in seeing a source or article on it. Maybe the CIA attempted to fund the 4th international in order to split the communist movement or something. They did similiar shit with Tito I think, but its basically speculation.

As for RavenBlade's comment, I haven't heard that exact comment, but Trotsky did say something like "Leninism will self destruct". Lenin at the same time, said that Trotsky was a windbag who "completly misrepresented" his book What is to Be Done.

There was alot of that in the bolshevik party flying around.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Read "Imperialism and Revolution" by Enver Hoxha. I'll make an online copy available online.

That would be great. I've been wanting to read some of Hoxha's stuff but its extremely expensive to buy, impossible to find in libraries, and the online versions are rare and limited.

PM me the link or post it here once its up

[Che Guevara 1415]

Well I had two people complaining that I talked bad about drugs,pornography ? I dont know what other things insult you that I have said , but most people in the world would think that drugs and pornography are a bad thing .

[RNK]

Originally posted by Che Guevara [email protected] 19, 2007 08:26 pm
I heard somewhere that Trotsky was financed by the CIA . Why do many people on the left like him ? True , he was the general of the Red Army , and thanks to him the Reds won , but denouncing Leninism as "poisonous" and having ties with the CIA ...
This is a perfect example of the types of lies and bullshit that we need to keep careful watch for.

The CIA was established in 1947. Even its precursor, the OSS, wasn't created until 1942.

I'm all for arguing against Trotskyism, but not at the expense of fact.

[RedLenin]

Trotsky hated Stalin, nad therefore called everything that he disliked "Stalinist".
Really? I'm quite sure Trotsky reserved the term "Stalinist" for those states that expropriated the bourgeoisie and had a nationalized planned economy but no workers control, in the image of the USSR. Seems like a pretty solid definition to me. A better phraze is "deformed workers state".


And now, contemporary Trots, and other donkey erotica enthusiasts,
Wow. Quite a relevant and mature statement there.


continue this great tradition of infallible analysis by labelling everything that they dislike "Stalinist"
No, as I just explained, the term Stalinist is an alternative term for deformed workers states. Deformed workers state has been clearly defined.


Don't be fooled, RedLenin is not a Leninist
Right. I agree with Lenin's analysis of imperialism, his concept of the vanguard party, his view of the state, and indeed all of Lenin's contributions to Marxism. So apparently not supporting Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha makes me not a Leninist.


apparently he isn't aware that Trotsky specifically denounced Leninism as "Poisonous".
I would like a source for this. Even if he did say this, he was likely refering to the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, "Marxism-Leninism".

Perhaps you are not aware of Lenin's Last Testament, or his struggle against the emerging bureaucracy.


the state apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine. - Lenin: Works, vol. 36, page 605.


"Let it be said in parentheses that we have bureaucrats in our Party offices as well as in Soviet offices." - Lenin: Better Few, But Better.


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


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. - Lenin: Last Testament

It should be obvious here that Lenin was both aware of the danger of the emerging bureaucracy and the danger of Stalin holding so much power. Trotsky continued genuine Leninism by analysing the full consolidation of power by this bureaucracy and continuing the policy of proletarian internationalism that Lenin held to so firmly.

Sorry to get this thread off-topic, but I had to respond to this.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by RedLenin+March 19, 2007 07:49 pm--> (RedLenin @ March 19, 2007 07:49 pm)
Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work. - Lenin: Last Testament


Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. - Lenin: Last Testament [/b]
Typical Trotskyite argument, "Lenin clearly preferred Trotsky over Stalin, look at the last will!" and of course to couple this, you also have to throw in, the "rude," Stalin letter, but there meaning is oft misinterpreted, as I shall now demonstrate, not to mention, Lenin also said the following in response to Preobrazhensky's criticisms of Stalin having to much control;


Lenin
We need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail .... I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better comrade than Comrade Stalin.

The same thing applies to the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection. This is a vast business; but to be able to handle investigations we must have at the head of it a man who enjoys high prestige, otherwise we shall become submerged in and overwhelmed by petty intrigue.

In regards to the Last will, Lenin didn't say he didn't want Stalin to be the chairman, or that he had to much control, he simply stated that he was unsure that Stalin would have enough good judgment with such control, that's all, and in Trotsky he noted, that he was to bureaucratic, or "preoccupied with the purely administrative part of the work," so really Lenin was being more critical of Trotsky than Stalin, not to mention you left out some of the will.


These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split

Clearly the will is not saying Trotsky should be leader, just commenting on the two individuals.

Now, in regards to the "rude," Stalin letter, that was written after Lenin's wife Krupskaya repeatedly gave him news and political documents, going against the rules laid down by the doctors, in that the stress would only worsen his condition, and thus when hearing about this Stalin basically *****ed her out, and Lenin being pissed off that his wife got *****ed at wrote that specific letter, so he had a motive for saying Stalin was "rude," not to mention, his health was clearly and sharply failing, not to mention that text Lenin is referring to no one, and only said he wanted someone more "polite, and tolerant," meaning, someone who didn't ***** at Krupskaya, for aiding to Lenin's stress.

Now, back to the original topic.

[Prairie Fire]

Okay, okay, I got off topic. Still I guess I get a little steamed whenever someone uses a bullshit term like "Stalinist"

Another great post by Cryotank. Very informative commentary on the last testament. There are also those who doubt the authenticy of Lenins last testament.
Either way, it makes little difference.

Blah, I don't fall in with the concept of a "Degenerated workers state" (although I do accept the idea of "Social Imperialist" states). Seriously though, you're not getting it: You make an assertion that there was no workers control in the USSR under Stalin,without explaining how you got there. How is it a Solid definition, calling Kruschev a "Stalinist", as well as the governments of every state that rejected Stalin, and with him the old model of socialist development? As I said, the definiton of the slur word "Stalinist" is random and un-justified, as with any other slur.

As for the quote, I'll try and find it for you here. I'll PM you.

Anyways, lets get back on topic.

[Janus]

Do you believe China under Mao was led by the proletariat? That the proletariat ruled China?
No, China was dominated and headed by the CCP.


What is your view on Mao?
He certainly helped to develop China and implement much needed reforms but his final goals and methods were simply impossible and impractical in the context of China's social and economic development at the time no matter how many Great Leaps he could've undertook.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninD...cesTrotsky.html (http://users.ameritech.net/klomckin/LeninDenouncesTrotsky.html)

Red Lenin, the above is a resource of Lenin on Trotsky, and Lenin on Stalin.

The Last Testament arguement is bankrupt