Maoism

[Rawthentic]

What does it consist of, what is it exactly? Dicussion, please

[ComradeRed]

Moved to learning.

[The Grey Blur]

Good question.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In summary, it's this weird notion that the PEASANTRY are capable of implementing socialism from the get-go. As I employ my cranial repository, I find that Maoism is little different from Narodism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnik) (save for the break from terrorism and more emphasis on waging a "people's war").

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:15 pm
What does it consist of, what is it exactly? Dicussion, please
With Which perspective you want to discuss ?

The Current struggles of Maoists in various places ? or Historical Role of Mao in China ? or The Role of Mao's regime with regards to working class movement ?

To put in simple words Mao's ideas were mostly derived from his own political experience in China and the lessons he had drawn from the Russian Revolution and the mode at which Stalinist Russia's industrial programme attained success. Deep down the primary motive to Maoist thought was making China a powerhouse. Just like Socialism in Soviet Russia meant the Communist Parties would do the Soviet Bureaucracies bidding the Socialism in China meant Maoists to take the line whatever dictated by Beijing.A best example would be the historic stupidity of CPI(ML) and East Pakistan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) who took pro West Pakistan line in the Bangladesh Liberation war which screwed them both in India and the newly independent Bangladesh. The Sino-Soviet split of the sixties split off the communist parties all over the world which more at each other's throat rather than the Common enemy - Bourgeoisie

In many cases Mao's actions didn't didn't meet his own words. There are numerous threads in this forum regarding this. Despite his numerous theories about Imperialism and his quotes in his Little Red Book, Mao openly joined Hands with US imperialists.

Cultural Revolution is yet another thing which is great in name but really a tool used by Mao to purge CPC and the Government.

Mao took the Menshevik two stage theory to its limit calling for alliance with "National Bourgeoisie". (http://anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm)

The really substantiate Maoism is Stalinism with Chinese characteristics.

[bezdomni]

In summary, it's this weird notion that the PEASANTRY are capable of implementing socialism from the get-go.

No, it isn't.

The peasantry is capable of uniting with the proletarian class in semi-feudal countries to make a revolution, but it is still a proletarian revolution.


EDIT: Also, there are different branches in Maoist thought. Mainly, the anti-revisionist line and the third worldist line.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If so, then that, like Trotsky's notion of permanent revolution, still goes against Lenin's classical Marxist notion that the peasant class is hostile to socialism.

There can be no such thing as a "proletarian" revolution until developed capitalism exhausts itself. HOWEVER, there can be a "revolutionary-democratic" revolution made by an alliance of workers and peasants:

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/30cTrotsky.html


Yet, just as the Stalinists do, the Trotskyists negate the basic principles of Marx and Lenin...

But strictly speaking, it refers to Trotsky's view that the former Marxist distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolution is outdated and obsolete. Instead, Trotsky held that revolution in any country--no matter on what issues it breaks out, what the local alignment of classes was, and what the economic level of development is--would either be utterly defeated, or directly go on to a proletarian dictatorship and socialist measures. The only type of revolution possible in the current era was supposed to be the socialist revolution

Red October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, NOT a socialist revolution!

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:04 pm
^^^ If so, then that, like Trotsky's notion of permanent revolution, still goes against Lenin's classical Marxist notion that the peasant class is hostile to socialism.

There can be no such thing as a "proletarian" revolution until developed capitalism exhausts itself. HOWEVER, there can be a "revolutionary-democratic" revolution made by an alliance of workers and peasants:

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/30cTrotsky.html


Yet, just as the Stalinists do, the Trotskyists negate the basic principles of Marx and Lenin...

But strictly speaking, it refers to Trotsky's view that the former Marxist distinction between bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolution is outdated and obsolete. Instead, Trotsky held that revolution in any country--no matter on what issues it breaks out, what the local alignment of classes was, and what the economic level of development is--would either be utterly defeated, or directly go on to a proletarian dictatorship and socialist measures. The only type of revolution possible in the current era was supposed to be the socialist revolution

Red October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, NOT a socialist revolution!
What the hell does Trotsky have to do with Maoism? Yes both the chinese and russian revolutions were bourgeois-democratic, and claimed to be. Again, what does that have to dow ith this thread?

In answer to the roginal question. Maoism is associated with many of the policies and stances of Mao, however throughout most of his time as a revolutionary and communist party figure, he was ideologicly a marxist-leninist. His policies may have appeared to differ somewhat but that is mostly due to its application to a far less developed society. From a theoretical standpoint it can be taken to include the ideas of "New Democracy" and the class alliance, as well as the later emphasis on the cultural revolution (which is usually seen as the key distinguishing feature between many modern Maoists and regular ML's, particuarly in the west).

[LSD]

What the hell does Trotsky have to do with Maoism? Yes both the chinese and russian revolutions were bourgeois-democratic, and claimed to be.

I get the bourgeois part, but where exactly was the "democratic" in the Russian Revolution?

I mean, for all their claims of representing the proletariat, I don't think even the most ardent Bolshevik can reasonably argue that Lenin et al. were in any sense a democratic organ of the Russian working-class.

And yeah, I know the argument, Russia 1917 wasn't economically or politically developed enough to support a modern democratic transition of government, and I don't know, that may well be true. But whether it is or not, the fact remains. Lenin was an absolutely no sense, the democratic choice of the people.

Certainly, Mao wasn't

And whatever you have to say about their policies, positive or negative -- and believe me, there is a lot to be said -- the fact that at no time either one of them made any serious attempt to put their regimes up for public evaluation in any form whatsoever, speaks, I think, rather incontrovertibly to their lack of a single democratic bone.

Now, understand. I'm not saying that either of them were bad people. I mean, I obviously don't know either of them personally, and the literature that has been written is far too divided and far too politicized for me to come to a reasonable conclusion on either of their personalities.

But what I do know is their type. What I know is that to rise to the positions they rose to and to hold the kind of power they held, they had to be pretty dedicated, pretty confident, and pretty damned assured in their own abilities.

And when you give that kind of person that kind of power, it's a pretty rare individual who will opt to give it back.

The old saying is that power inevitably corrupts, but the truth is, some people are more corruptible and others. And it's not the "evil" ones who most often give in to temptation, it's the true believers.

Lenin, and Mao, didn't betray the principles of communis because they were bad or even because they were bourgeois. They did it, ultimately, because they believed. Because they genuinely believed that they, and to a lesser extent their immediate compatriots, could truly change things for the better.

And in the end whether they were right or not didn't even matter. Because the system they constructed to manifest their whales. Ultimately became more important than whatever those wills might have been.

That's why I say that the great tragedy of Lenin the scholar is that Lenin the politician is the one that history will remember

Because whatever good ideas Lenin may have had, and he did have some good ones, it isn't State and Revolution that comes to mind when Lenin's name is spoken, it's the gulags and 75 years of state repression.

With Mao, it's probably the cultural Revolution and crazy red Army soldiers running around breaking things. In neither case, however, is it the ideas.

And that's sad.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

LSD



I mean, for all their claims of representing the proletariat, I don't think even the most ardent Bolshevik can reasonably argue that Lenin et al. were in any sense a democratic organ of the Russian working-class.

The elections in Russia in September 1917 where the Bolsheviks won majorities in the cities of Petrograd, Moscow and other smaller cities. That meant that the Bolsheviks were going to control the congress of the soviets.

So, you see, they did win the support of the majority of the Russian Proletariat.

[LSD]

The elections in Russia in September 1917 where the Bolsheviks won majorities in the cities of Petrograd, Moscow and other smaller cities.

Ah, so your argument is that a couple of elections in a few urban centers gave the Bolsheviks a mandate to rule for the next 70 years? Is that correct?

The elections you're talking about weren't even to form a government! Nobody ever asked the Russian people, let alone the Russian working-class, if they wanted Lenin et al., to rule them politically.

Again, though, I don't think that many bolshevik apologists actually argue any of these facts. They may have all sorts of fancy justifications, but the reality that Lenin never put his mandate all for popular review is pretty much incontrovertible.

Although I must say, the idea that the Soviet elections of 1917, constituted a Democratic check on bolshevik power is a novel, albeit rather pathetic, approach to this question.

[Demogorgon]

Out of interest. What was the electoral system used for the constituent assembly in 1917?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Parliamentary, I believe.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Ah, so your argument is that a couple of elections in a few urban centers gave the Bolsheviks a mandate to rule for the next 70 years? Is that correct?

Your only way of "arguing" is to make stupid assumptions when presented with a fact that you dont like.

First off, calm down.

And of course i don't think any country should be ruled for 70 years without genuine democracy.

What i was saying was, the inertia for the taking of power in October was on the back of the majority of soviets won by the Bolsheviks.

The Russian urban working class supported the creation of socialism. Bolsheviks were well known radicals of the time.



Initially, soviet rule was implemented through a multiparty system. Bolsheviks, as well as delegates from various Menshevik and SR factions and anarchists and activists not affiliated with any party, had voice and vote in all sessions of soviets. Freedom of press and assembly flourished in the general political life of the country. An executive body of government was established, the Council of People’s Commissars, with Lenin at its head. It was responsible to the Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets, which was elected by the periodic meetings of the Congress of Soviets. The delegates to the Congress, in turn, were elected from various regional and local bodies and could be replaced easily if they failed to satisfy the worker and peasant voters.

I would waste more time, but Frankly, a section of the lefts politics are only 'bashing' Lenin. Nothing really substantial comes from you guys, you call us apologists of Lenin if we defend him, so you try to create an atmosphere where you can denounce him where noone should respond or you call them support of totalitarianism.

[LSD]

What i was saying was, the inertia for the taking of power in October was on the back of the majority of soviets won by the Bolsheviks.

Which is, of course, completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Lenin's seizure of power was democratic.

It certainly doesn't contradict my point that upon gaining power Lenin became victim to the temptations of that power and was utterly unwilling to put his mandate up for review in any democratic sense.

If you have nothing to say, you might find a way to use less space saying it.

[Lenin II]

I think you guys have strayed from the original argument, about Maoism. Between 16.4 million and 29.5 million people died in the Great Leap Forward. I think these starvation deaths are the cause of malicious programs and the mismanagement of industrialization and distribution of goods.

Like the Soviets, the Chinese had the capitalist blood still flowing. They had an absolute ruler, money, cult of personality, indoctrination, a lack of democracy, terrible human rights, anti-intellectualism…I could go on.

As a Marxist, I feel that Mao’s regime, while infinitely flawed, does promote the advantages of Socialist theory. Under Mao and the Chinese Communist Party, the life expectancy of the Chinese people doubled from 35 under the capitalist Kuomintang to 69.

For a criticism of Maoism, there is no need for much reference to what Marx has really said. One can directly go to the main nationalist core and expose its hypocrisy. A basis of nationalism is racism. Racism comes from Darwinism. Darwinism is capitalism.

[Rawthentic]

Well, that does not explain Maoist theory.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:39 am
Well, that does not explain Maoist theory.
Ok, how about this?

Maoism is a variant of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is the belief in the necessity of a violent overthrow of capitalism through a communist revolution, which is then followed by a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage in moving towards communism. M.L. theory also stresses the need for a vanguard party to lead the proletariat in this effort.
In the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Maoist doctrine is part of the CPC, but since the 1978 capitalist market economy reforms, the concept and role of Mao’s original ideology in the PRC has been radically altered and reduced.
Unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism in which the urban proletariat is seen as the main source of revolution and the countryside is largely ignored, Mao focused on the peasantry as the main revolutionary force who could be led by the proletariat and its vanguard.
Furthermore, unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism, in which large-scale industrial development is seen as positive, Maoism made rural development the priority. Mao felt that this strategy made sense during the early stages of socialism in a country in which most of the people were peasants. Unlike most other political ideologies, including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains an integral military doctrine and explicitly says that power comes from a gun.

The peasantry is mobilized in a people’s war of armed struggle involving guerrilla warfare in three stages. The first stage involves mobilizing and organizing the peasantry, the second involves setting up rural base areas and increasing coordination among the guerrilla organizations, and the third involves a transition to conventional warfare. In Maoism, deliberate organizing of massive military and economic power is necessary to defend the revolutionary area from outside threat, while centralization keeps corruption under supervision, amid strong control and sometimes alteration by the revolutionaries.

A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from most other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period, as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism. Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for a bourgeoisie to restore capitalism. Mao stated that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented.

[syndicat]

The victory of the Communist Party in China was the result of a civil war in which the party ran a guerilla army, the People's Liberation Army. This formation was not accountable to some mass organizations of immediate producers (like the soviets in the Russian revolution). it was a party army.

in the late '50s Mao's strategy for industrializing, modernizing China was based on decentralization...an ironworks in every town. This was the "Great Leap Forward" that wasn't. It was a massive waste of resources, which drove China to famine. As a result Marshall Po, a respected veteran of the PLA, called out Mao at a party congress. Marshall Po was purged for this since Mao was sort of sacrosanct but the party was pragmatic enough they realized Mao didn't know what he was doing with the economy. So they created a new position, Chairman of the party, which was a mere figurehead. The only role assigned to him was "cultural affairs". (In Marxist-Leninist parties since Stalin it is usually the General Secretary who has power.) So in effect Mao was kicked out of power.

When the Chinese Communists broke from Moscow, they did so because they believed that Stalin wanted them to continue in a kind of colonial relationship to Russia. But they had to come up with a rationale for the break, so they accused the Communists, under Kruschev of "restoring capitalism." Actually the organization of production hadn't changed. But the Maoists argued that the ideas of the leaders had changed. So, they were saying the mode of production depends on the ideas of the leaders -- the sort of view that Marx would have called "idealism".

But Mao didn't accept being assigned to being a mere elderly figurehead. His strategy for trying to get back into power was to use his control over "cultural affairs" to use this to mobilize young cadres all over to mount an attack on the party bureaucracy. This was when the disruptions of the "cultural revolution" took place. Young people were being essentially manipulated by what was really a faction fight among party appartchiks, with the Shanghai party organization aligned with Mao.

I would recommend Simon Leys "The Chairman's new clothes" for a good account of the cultural revolution. "Simon Leys" is the pseudonymn of a Belgian China studies professor and libertarian socialist.

As someone else said, the main preoccupation of the Chinese Communist leadership is modernization and industrial development China, dragging it out of poverty. and they've been following the "capitalist road" to do that, using an extremely low wage workforce to compete with other countries, and using plenty of repression to prevent the emergence of a genuinely autonomous labor movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:23 am
Unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism in which the urban proletariat is seen as the main source of revolution and the countryside is largely ignored, Mao focused on the peasantry as the main revolutionary force who could be led by the proletariat and its vanguard.
In other words, not much different than what I said above regarding Narodism, then <_<

Capitalism also results in increased decimation of the peasantry as a class. By the time a proper socialist revolution comes around, it will have been reduced in great number sufficient to render it powerless. Oh, and the peasantry are a reactionary class (at least in regards to proper socialist revolution).


Mao felt that this strategy made sense during the early stages of socialism in a country [...] A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from most other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period, as a result of the fundamental antagonistic contradiction between capitalism and communism. Even when the proletariat has seized state power through a socialist revolution, the potential remains for a bourgeoisie to restore capitalism. Mao stated that corrupt Party officials would subvert socialism if not prevented.

Well, he&#39;s definitely wrong on that one, not having exactly read or understood Lenin&#39;s rather obscured works on the difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first AND LENGTHIER transition to communism than the second transition known as "socialism." Furthermore, the China of his time was ripe only for a "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" - which Lenin explicitly differentiated from the DOTP and deemed completely non-socialist.

[RNK]

Even with the wonders of the internet, factual information seems to still be able to elude some people...

First, Mao&#39;s Great Leap Forward was an utter failure, and I find it telling that you&#39;re regurgitated the reformist CCP line concerning the matter. The economic failure China faced had a lot less to do with Mao himself than you realize; there&#39;s mountains of evidence pointing to the fact that the famines were caused by inter-party miscommunication, inefficiency and some abuse of power. Afterwards, the new party bourgeoisie, which Mao warned about from day one, used the oppurtunity to oust Mao -- followed shortly by a round-up of all of his supporters, who were faced with jailtime or death if they didn&#39;t renounce Mao (though I like how you&#39;ve brought up Marshal Po). And the "Cultural Revolution" wasn&#39;t started by Mao. He did not press some magic red button to start it. The cultural revolution was essentially spontaneously started in worker and student bodies. Yes, Mao egged it on -- and he should have. The cultural revolution was by far the most advanced attempt of society to abolish the state, including the CCP, and create radically communist society. Of course, it failed, and you&#39;ve completely swallowed the line of pro-capitalist bourgeoisie who soon took over.


As someone else said, the main preoccupation of the Chinese Communist leadership is modernization and industrial development China, dragging it out of poverty.

Oh, I get it. China isn&#39;t actually introducing private ownership, limiting workers&#39; rights, or cracking down on people&#39;s mass assemblies -- we&#39;re all imagining it. All of the millionaires and billionaires in China are in complete subservience to the workers. Riiight.


Capitalism also results in increased decimation of the peasantry as a class. By the time a proper socialist revolution comes around, it will have been reduced in great number sufficient to render it powerless.

I suppose Mao should&#39;ve sat on his hands for another one or two hundred years while China&#39;s capitalism advanced fruitfully. I suppose Lenin should have as well, considering Russia was primarily made up of peasants. Infact, every revolution that has ever happened shouldn&#39;t have.


Well, he&#39;s definitely wrong on that one, not having exactly read or understood Lenin&#39;s rather obscured works on the difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first AND LENGTHIER transition to communism than the second transition known as "socialism."

First of all, nothing you&#39;ve said contradicts the statement you replied to. Second of all, what is he wrong about? That corrupt party officials would subvert socialism? That class struggle continues after the revolution, after the people have taken state power? Please tell me you aren&#39;t so ignorant as to believe that all of society&#39;s problems will magically disappear the day after a revolutionary movement overthrows the bourgeois state.


The victory of the Communist Party in China was the result of a civil war in which the party ran a guerilla army, the People&#39;s Liberation Army. This formation was not accountable to some mass organizations of immediate producers (like the soviets in the Russian revolution). it was a party army.

Not quite true. Mao worked in urban proletarian movements for the first part of his life. During this time, the various workers and socialist movements had something of an "alliance" with the right-wing Koumintang (the bourgeois) and both were abolishing fuedalism. During this process the KMT "turned" against the radicalized workers and peasants, seiged cities, and jailed or killed anywhere from hundreds to thousands of proletarian activists. Because of the tiny size of China&#39;s urban proletariat at the time, there wasn&#39;t much that could be done, that the KMT could not crush. So the movement largely moved into the countryside. Mao&#39;s army was called the "Revolutionary Army of Workers and Peasants", not the "People&#39;s Liberation Army" (that is the Chinese state army at the moment). And it was no more a "party army" than the Red Armies during the Russian civil war; it was a broad armed guerilla army comprising members of the urban proletariat and the peasantry, under the direction of the vanguard.

And I&#39;ll end with this quote from Principles:


Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

I don&#39;t get where this notion of "revolutions can not occur in countries with a large peasant population alongside a proletarian population". The peasants aren&#39;t a reactionary class; they simply have not yet fallen into either catagory (of proletariat or petty-bourgeois). As the quote says, through the process of the revolution, the peasantry largely becomes proletarian, either by process of adaption or conflict.

[The Grey Blur]

Good post RNK. Very good post. I recently got a pamphlet on class struggle in the Chinese Revolution by Victor Serge which I&#39;m gonna read as I don&#39;t know enough on the subject. Maybe I&#39;ll add some opinions when I&#39;m done.


Mao worked in urban proletarian movements for the first part of his life. During this time, the various workers and socialist movements had something of an "alliance" with the right-wing Koumintang (the bourgeois) and both were abolishing fuedalism. During this process the KMT "turned" against the radicalized workers and peasants, seiged cities, and jailed or killed anywhere from hundreds to thousands of proletarian activists
And they never should have allied with the KMT in the first place. It was the line of Moscow, of the "Popular Front", that resulted in their destruction.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks for the help y&#39;all. I definitely agree with the anti-capitalist roader idea, the purpose behind the cultural revolution, and the freedom of dissent.

What about allying with "national bourgeoisie" and what about Maoism in the US for example?

[Pirate Utopian]

I&#39;m not a Maoist but I read this essay by Mao, availible here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-5/mswv5_07.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_07.htm)
In wich he basically says that he does it so he doesnt have too much enemies and he can focus on only the "really bad" guys.

[syndicat]

And it was no more a "party army" than the Red Armies during the Russian civil war; it was a broad armed guerilla army comprising members of the urban proletariat and the peasantry, under the direction of the vanguard.

in other words, a party army, as I said. for it not to be a party army, there would have needed to be organs of popular democracy to which it was accountable.

Avakian has advocated the idea that there will continue to be managers, hierarchical authority over workers, and a hierarchical state apparatus for a long time after a revolution. this view is inconsistent with the self-emancipation of the working class. That&#39;s because what Avakian is describing is a system where the working class is still subordinated to a dominating class, the class of managers and professionals runngin the state and industry, what i call the "coordinator class". no dominating class has ever given up its power voluntarily. to say that eventually classes will be gotten rid of because the leaders in charge of the state are committed to some conception of "socialism" is idealist nonsense. what happens is that they just change the interpretation of "socialism" to justify their own power. the Leninist theory of the "vanguard party" works here as a meritocratic ideology, justifying the power of the new dominating class, because of its emphasis on the role of the vanguard running things.

this is why class struggle will continue to exist under their programmatic scheme. but they don&#39;t say class struggle will continue to exist just because they recognize that a hierarchical state and management control of workers creates a class system, but because they see differences of opinion about direction as expressing "class struggle" -- again, an idealist intepretation of "class", characteristic of Maoism.

this is how the conflict between Deng ("capitalist roader") and Mao was seen as "class struggle" even tho they were both part of the coordinator ruling class in China.

[Janus]

As a result Marshall Po, a respected veteran of the PLA, called out Mao at a party congress. Marshall Po was purged for this since Mao was sort of sacrosanct but the party was pragmatic enough they realized Mao didn&#39;t know what he was doing with the economy.
You mean Marshall Peng.


So they created a new position, Chairman of the party, which was a mere figurehead. The only role assigned to him was "cultural affairs". (In Marxist-Leninist parties since Stalin it is usually the General Secretary who has power.) So in effect Mao was kicked out of power.
Mao stepped down as Chairman of the PRC but retained his position as the Chairman of the CCP (which he had held since the mid 40&#39;s). Mao&#39;s "fall from power" was the result of both self and personal isolation which continued up until the mid 60&#39;s.

[Janus]

Past threads on this:

Trotskyism and Maoism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55429&hl=Maoism)
Maoism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51575&hl=Maoism)
Maoism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50776&hl=Maoism)
Maoism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56415&hl=Maoism)
Maoists in the US (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52899&hl=Maoism)

[syndicat]

Yeah, Marshall Peng. in the CCP the main power was the party secretary. chairman was a merely figurehead position. his being tossed out of power was due to the severe consequences of his decentralist policy, which wasted resources and led the country to famine. that&#39;s what Marshall Peng criticized him for.

[Janus]

in the CCP the main power was the party secretary
During the early years of the CCP and after Mao&#39;s death yes.


chairman was a merely figurehead position
No, Mao&#39;s position within the Party may not have necessarily stemmed from this position but the position could only be attained by someone of his power. Hua Guofeng, his successor, was the only other Party member to hold the position before it was abolished in 1982. Besides, one could easily argue that Party leadership had much more to do with influence than simple party positions, Deng Xiaoping didn&#39;t hold any pre-eminent positions within the Party after the Cultural Revolution yet was still the de facto head of the PRC from 1980 up until his death.