Mao and Maoism - Craving knowledge beneath the sea

[Geddan]

What's the stuff about it? What are the principles? What politics did Mao lead?

[deadpool 52]

*Looks at number of replies*

Mao wanted to throw abstract Marxism out of the window. What was abstract Marxism?

"If a Chinese Communist who is a part of the great Chinese people, bounds to his people by his flesh and blood, talks of Marxism apart from Chinese peculiarities, this Marxism is merely an empty abstraction. . . The Sinification of Marxism. . . becomes a problem that must be understood and solved without delay."- Mao

Mao feared that the growing reliance on Russian-style heavy industrial and technological development, concentrated in a few big cities would aggravate the traditional gap between city and country.
Nor could the Chinese do what Stalin had done - drain the existing surplus in the rural areas in order to develop industry. There was no surplus in China.
In any case, said Mao, "The Russians have made grave mistakes in handling the peasants. . . . You want the hen to lay more eggs and yet you don't feed it, you want the horse to run fast, and yet you don't let it graze. What kind of logic is that?"

Eventually Mao's land reforms led the peasants to form communes.

Mao said that:

1. An irreconcilable and antagonistic class contradiction has emerged between the Soviet peo0ple and the privileged bureaucratic stratum.

2. A tiny number of bureaucrats are reaping high salaries, high rewards, and a great variety of personal subsidies. They are completely divorced from the working people.

3. Material incentives have been substituted for the socialist principles, "from each according to his ability, of each according to his work."

4. Stalin's basic error was mistrust of the peasants.

5. Stalin emphasized only technology. He wanted nothing but technology, nothing buy cadre. No politics, no masses.

6. From start to finish of his book, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Stalin says nothing about human beings. He sees things, but not people.

[redstar2000]

As I understand the current Maoist perspective, it says there has been a fundamental change in the world since the time of Marx and Engels.

Maoists argue that class struggle is no longer between workers and capitalists in each country, but rather takes place on a regional and global scale: the peasantry and the workers of the underdeveloped world are the new "working class" in a Marxist sense, while even the workers in the developed countries are the junior partners of the capitalist class in those countries.

Thus communist revolution takes place first in the underdeveloped nations and only afterwards in the developed countries...exactly the opposite of what Marx and Engels predicted.

So who's right?

It seems to me that the experience of 20th century communism has been an unhappy one for the Maoist outlook. It is possible to make a revolution in a backward country under the banner of communism...but then what happens? Class realities prevail; a predominately peasant society can no more build communism than they could build a moon rocket...and for the same reason. Marx and Engels constantly emphasized that a new society could not emerge until all of the productive possibilities of the old society have been exhausted.

When the peasants of Russia, China,Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. overthrew the old landed aristocracy, they simply laid the foundations for the emergence of capitalism. The rhetoric was inspiring and the red flags looked splendid...but material reality is what really counts.

Russia, China and Yugoslavia are already capitalist, of course. The leadership in Cuba and Vietnam are trying quite desparately to save at least the remnants of socialism...and cheers for them.

But if Marx were alive today, he's look to the European Union and possibly Japan as the places where a communist revolution not only can happen but one that will stick.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

I have already posted this stuff for you in another thread Geddan, here it is again for anyone else.

I think the best way to understand Mao was to understand what he said, here are some quotes from the little red book:

'War, this monster of mutual slaughter among men, will be finally eliminated by the progress of human society, and in the not too distant future too. But there is only one way to eliminate it and that is to oppose war with war, to oppose counter-revolutionary war with revolutionary war, to oppose national counter-revolutionary war with national revolutionary war, and to oppose counter-revolutionary class war with revolutionary class war. . . . When human society advances to the point where classes and states are eliminated, there will be no more wars, counter-revolutionary or revolutionary, unjust or just; that will be the era of perpetual peace for mankind. Our study of the laws of revolutionary war springs from the desire to eliminate all wars; herein lies the distinction between us Communists and all the exploiting classes.'

‘The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods. Towards the enemy, it uses the method of dictatorship, that is, for as long a period of time as is necessary it does not let them take part in political activities and compels them to obey the law of the People's Government and to engage in labour and, through labour, transform themselves into new men. Towards the people, on the contrary, it uses the method not of compulsion but of democracy, that is, it must necessarily let them take part in political activities and does not compel them to do this or that, but uses the method of democracy in educating and persuading them.’

'We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.'

'Inner-Party criticism is a weapon for strengthening the Party organization and increasing its fighting capacity. In the Party organization of the Red Army, however, criticism is not always of this character, and sometimes turns into personal attack. As a result, it damages the Party organization as well as individuals. This is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois individualism. The method of correction is to help Party members understand that the purpose of criticism is to increase the Party's fighting capacity in order to achieve victory in the class struggle and that it should not be used as a means of personal attack.'

'The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side.'

'Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the full sense.'

[El Brujo]

http://www.maoism.org

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM

Everything you need to know. I would post excerps but Im really tired and about to go to bed. I might tomorrow.