Mao history books [Archive]

OneBrickOneVoice

8th June 2007, 04:42

Here are a bunch of resources I reccomend.

And Mao Makes 5 (http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Makes-Five-Tsetungs-Battle/dp/0916650081)

Story of the Gang of Four

Red Star Over China (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Star-over-China-Communism/dp/0802150934)

Ground breaking classic on the People's War in China and what a revolutionary society looked like.

SOCIALISM IS MUCH BETTER THAN CAPITALISM,
AND COMMUNISM WILL BE A FAR BETTER WORLD (http://thisiscommunism.org/)

Speech on the true history of the socialist movement, in particular Maoist China

Mao Tse-tung's Immortal Contributions (http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Tsetungs-immortal-contributions-Avakian/dp/0898510465)

Book by the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, talking about maoist theory, Maoist China, and what Maoism really is.

Re-evalutationmao.org (http://re-evaluationmao.org/)

Website dedicated to analyizing the successes of Maoist China and the lies spread about it.

They Made Revolution Within the Revolution (http://cgi.ebay.com/They-Made-Revolution-Within-the-Revolution-The-Story_W0QQitemZ300040469578QQcmdZViewItem)

Phamplet on the real story of the cultural revolution, what it meant for the chinese masses, and how it was a example of the masses taking history into their hand. Very short and informative.

La ComÃ©die Noire

8th June 2007, 09:52

Mao's China by Maurice Meisner

I thought that book was a very informative read, but you may want to supplement it by looking up info on key individuals and organizations. I was lost until i started doing that.

Janus

8th June 2007, 20:39

but you may want to supplement it by looking up info on key individuals and organizations. I was lost until i started doing that.
Of course, a basic knowledge of the terms, context, and organizations is necessary in order to understand the entire period.

Joseph Ball

10th June 2007, 18:42

Dear Lefty Henry, thanks for quoting my website but if people want to access it they need to go to www.re-evaluationmao.org (you got the spelling wrong). Or it can be accessed in the 'Commentary' section of the Monthly Review website www.monthlyreview.org.

Basically, any book written from the early 80s on is heavily influenced by figures released by Deng Xiaoping purporting to show that millions died as a result of the Great Leap Forward and also by the Deng Xiaoping that these deaths were mainly the result of Mao's policies.

Books before this tend to talk more about the huge advances China made in terms of life expectancy, economic development etc under Mao.

This whole development is completely ignored by most modern writers though Meisner provides a partial corrective to this. Modern writers just assume that the economy under Mao was a disaster and that the people started prospering mightily when Deng took over. Read these books and you hear complete rubbish about modern China. They always say how the farmers are so rich because of Deng's reforms. Have any of these people ever tried talking to Chinese farmers to find out how 'rich' they are? I have, and I have seen the unbearable conditions they work under, the paltry food they have to eat and the backward conditions they are expected to put up with.

Yes, the Cultural Revolution is a source of great division among the Chinese (although it was clearly a correct movement). However, no one I have spoken to, young or old knows anything about tens of millions dying in the Great Leap Forward. Mao's critics in China always bring up the CR, not the GLF. Yet in the west the GLF is meant to be the evidence that Mao was a mass-murderer and 'worse than Hitler' etc. Funny no-one mentions it.

OneBrickOneVoice

10th June 2007, 20:02

oh cool that's your site? its a great resource. And yeah my link spelled it wrong but if you click on the link it still works

Concept

12th June 2007, 14:26

thanks for the suggestions of literature...i'm definitely gonna have to check them out

i'm currently reading The Unknown Story: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
they show him as a power hungry little devil, killing whoever he needed to to get to the top
(shoulda looked at the comments better in the book, one says "This is the book that will wreck Mao's reputation beyond salvage.")
just grabbed it cuz it was the only book on Mao they had

could the man be that bad if Che, a man who left everything behind to take part in the revolution (generally speaking), believed him and the Chinese "had a higher socialist morality then the Russians" - from biography on Che

Janus

12th June 2007, 18:53

i'm currently reading The Unknown Story: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
That's the type of biased book that people in this thread were recommending the thread starter not to read. Zhang Rong is willing to skip academic honesty and sourcing in order to fulfill her quest for revenge.

Honggweilo

12th June 2007, 23:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:26 pm
thanks for the suggestions of literature...i'm definitely gonna have to check them out

i'm currently reading The Unknown Story: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
they show him as a power hungry little devil, killing whoever he needed to to get to the top
(shoulda looked at the comments better in the book, one says "This is the book that will wreck Mao's reputation beyond salvage.")
just grabbed it cuz it was the only book on Mao they had

could the man be that bad if Che, a man who left everything behind to take part in the revolution (generally speaking), believed him and the Chinese "had a higher socialist morality then the Russians" - from biography on Che
Its awfull how that book is propagated through media and bookstores, its one of the most rightwinged and biased book on mao available :( even the US goverment admits that. Its being glorified by a small group of right-winged (near fascist) Taiwanese Kuomintang supporters, conservative tibetain reactionaries and Falun Gongists.

OneBrickOneVoice

17th June 2007, 22:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:26 pm
thanks for the suggestions of literature...i'm definitely gonna have to check them out

i'm currently reading The Unknown Story: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
they show him as a power hungry little devil, killing whoever he needed to to get to the top
(shoulda looked at the comments better in the book, one says "This is the book that will wreck Mao's reputation beyond salvage.")
just grabbed it cuz it was the only book on Mao they had

could the man be that bad if Che, a man who left everything behind to take part in the revolution (generally speaking), believed him and the Chinese "had a higher socialist morality then the Russians" - from biography on Che
that books is full of shit, its a hysterical rant, not historical biography (http://rwor.org/a/021/mao-biography-hysterical-rant.htm)

Honggweilo

18th June 2007, 00:19

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+June 17, 2007 09:43 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ June 17, 2007 09:43 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:26 pm
thanks for the suggestions of literature...i'm definitely gonna have to check them out

i'm currently reading The Unknown Story: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
they show him as a power hungry little devil, killing whoever he needed to to get to the top
(shoulda looked at the comments better in the book, one says "This is the book that will wreck Mao's reputation beyond salvage.")
just grabbed it cuz it was the only book on Mao they had

could the man be that bad if Che, a man who left everything behind to take part in the revolution (generally speaking), believed him and the Chinese "had a higher socialist morality then the Russians" - from biography on Che
that books is full of shit, its a hysterical rant, not historical biography (http://rwor.org/a/021/mao-biography-hysterical-rant.htm) [/b]
great article, finally an exposing review in english

OneBrickOneVoice

19th June 2007, 00:00

yeah the RCP leafleted in en masse when the book came out and around places they were promoting the book

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th June 2007, 18:09

This is the best book I know of:

http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm

Although our Maoist friends will hate it.... :o

And there is a good review of that awful book on Mao (by Chang and Halliday) here:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=185&issue=110

OneBrickOneVoice

19th June 2007, 21:03

^ what a load of crap, but i don't expect any better from a self proclaimed Marxist who rejects half of marxism, so yes congrats! <_<

Leo

19th June 2007, 21:58

An important historical document: Whither China? by Sheng-wu-lien (Hunan Provincial Proletarian Revolutionary Great Alliance Committee) (http://www.marxists.de/china/sheng/whither.htm)

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th June 2007, 22:41

LH:

what a load of crap, but i don't expect any better from a self proclaimed Marxist who rejects half of marxism, so yes congrats

You Maoists are good at name-calling, but not too good at defending your 'ideas' though, which is probably why you resort to violence so quickly, and end up killing millions

RedStarOverChina

19th June 2007, 23:02

Chang and Halliday1 set out their agenda from the book’s opening words: ‘Mao Zedong, who for decades held absolute power over one quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other 20th century leader’ (p3).2 Mao was worse than Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, in other words, and the book fills out this argument in overwhelming—and often contradictory—detail. Mao was an amoral, opportunistic, idle psychopath who enjoyed violence for its own sake. He joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost by accident, murdered comrades, double-crossed allies, and was utterly incompetent as a military leader. After 1949 he killed millions in purges, was responsible for an appalling famine, and was sexually predatory on young women until well into his eighties.

Now, most of this is true. An awful lot of the standard history of Mao and Maoism was pure mythology, which persists in some contemporary histories. And Mao was a truly awful human being, willing to accept tens or even hundreds of millions of deaths as the price of rapid economic development. But a good biography needs to understand its subject in the context of the society that produced them.

:lol:

Well, I don't care much for Mao's reputation but this article doesn't really deserve much merit when it comes to historic accuracy.

OneBrickOneVoice

20th June 2007, 04:24

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 09:41 pm
LH:

what a load of crap, but i don't expect any better from a self proclaimed Marxist who rejects half of marxism, so yes congrats

You Maoists are good at name-calling, but not too good at defending your 'ideas' though, which is probably why you resort to violence so quickly, and end up killing millions
I think the sources we have provided namely re-evaluationmao and Raymond Lotta's speach in Set the Record Straight thoroughly debunk the bullcrap spread by bourgeois historical revisionists like yourself. Why don't you check it out?

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2007, 05:35

Oh dear, the Maoist groupies can't stand the truth about the monster.

RSOC:

Well, I don't care much for Mao's reputation but this article doesn't really deserve much merit when it comes to historic accuracy

The guy who wrote this is a China expert.

You can pick a fight with him, if you want, but be ready for a serious kicking if you do.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2007, 05:41

LH:

I think the sources we have provided namely re-evaluationmao and Raymond Lotta's speach in Set the Record Straight thoroughly debunk the bullcrap spread by bourgeois historical revisionists like yourself. Why don't you check it out?

Well, your abusive tone immediately puts me off taking your advice.

And, speaking of 'revisionists', Mao was one of these par excellence.

[Primary contradictions? Not only does that category not make any sense, neither Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov nor Lenin had heard of them....]

And a bourgeois nationalist, to boot.

Why you pay any attention to him (and slag me off for the same alleged crimes) is, therefore, a mystery.

It's off to the 're-education' camps for me, eh...?

RNK

20th June 2007, 11:17

Same old regurgitated "Oh noes, this book or this CNN news report says that Mao did this! It must be true!"

Then it must be true that Lenin was just as dictatorial, and Bakunin liked to murder prostitutes, and Marx was on the payroll of the CIA...

Please stop acting like you have some sort of monopolistic ownership on "proper revolutionary etiquette", and stop telling yourself that your opinion matters at all. Afterall, what the fuck difference does it make? Do you think that if Mao really was some sort of tyrant, that all Maoists must therefore also be tyrant-wannabes? Have you bothered reading any of Mao's "theories" which you so obsessively denounce?

I miss the common respect that Communists used to have for one another, when comrades used to give one another the benefit of the doubt, and an open mind -- not all of this childish, idiotic, counter-revolutionary close-minded sectarian bullshit.

And I'm talking to you just as much LH, I know you damned-well started it (in this thread atleast).

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2007, 12:02

Oh dear, I seem to have hit another Maoist raw nerve!

Please stop acting like you have some sort of monopolistic ownership on "proper revolutionary etiquette", and stop telling yourself that your opinion matters at all. Afterall, what the fuck difference does it make? Do you think that if Mao really was some sort of tyrant, that all Maoists must therefore also be tyrant-wannabes? Have you bothered reading any of Mao's "theories" which you so obsessively denounce?

Unfortunately, I have read (studied, and make copious notes on) his superficial and aprioristic twaddle. :wacko:

His philosophy is even worse than that of Engels! :o

I'd call it fifth-rate, but that would be too praise it way too highly.

I miss the common respect that Communists used to have for one another, when comrades used to give one another the benefit of the doubt, and an open mind -- not all of this childish, idiotic, counter-revolutionary close-minded sectarian bullshit.

Yes, you Maoists are well-known for your 'reasonable' attitude toward other Marxists, especially us Trots -- the inflammatory language you use is, indeed, a model of the genre. I am lucky you can't send me off to be 're-indoctrinated', or worse.

As I said, you Mao clones are good at the abuse, not so good at defending Mao-tse-tung 'Thought', though.

Herman

20th June 2007, 13:12

Mao wasn't very good at philosophy really. I believe he was very obsessed with 'the people' being able to do anything if they had the will.

I follow a certain lesson: if you don't know much about philosophy, don't try being a philosopher.

And Mao wasn't very knowledgeable in philosophy... or at least, marxist philosophy.

RedStarOverChina

20th June 2007, 14:42

Oh dear, the Maoist groupies can't stand the truth about the monster.

Labelling me a Maoist now, are ya?

The guy who wrote this is a China expert.

You can pick a fight with him, if you want, but be ready for a serious kicking if you do.

Fuck the experts. Here it is.

was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other 20th century leader’ (p3).

I'm sure Mao ordered all those floods and famines...And that he was solely responsible for the economic failures of a country with more than 500 million people.

Mao was an amoral, opportunistic, idle psychopath who enjoyed violence for its own sake.

Yeah, he sort of liked revolutions n' stuff. But unless you would want to argue that revolutions are violent for no reason what-so-ever, I don't see how Mao was "wrong" about wanting revolutions in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial shithole.

He joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost by accident,

He was one of the 12 founders of the Chinese Communist Party, for God's sake!

murdered comrades, double-crossed allies,

That's what politicians DO for a living...I don't defend that. Some of the comrades he "murdered" were genuine revolutionaries, and some not. That's what happens when you give a person too much power...Has nothing to do with Mao being "evil" or "monstrous".

But if by "double-crossing allies" he meant to say tricking the Nationalists then hooray for Mao!

Fuck those nationalists.

and was utterly incompetent as a military leader.

That's something even the most reactionary historians wouldn't say...unless he's been offered so much money he doesn't need to worry about his career anymore.

Mao's rugged peasant army crushed the most colossal military force in the history of mankind...A total of more than 8 million troops armed by the Germans and then Americans.

Not so special after all, according to you?

After 1949 he killed millions in purges,

Yeah, he killed people after the revolution. Millions? I doubt it. If you include every single casualty from the anti-right movement to the Cultural Revolution, then maybe...Just maybe. But surely you don't mean to say he personally shot or ordered the execution of millions! After 1959, he wasn't even the head of the state and lack the power to order executions.

What he did was to call onto the masses to get involved with the political struggle within the party...And that made some progress and some regress.

was responsible for an appalling famine,

Famines were a regular phenonmenon before Mao came to power and before the whole post-war population-boom. That is not to say Mao didn't royally screw up, but he can't held be responsible for the material conditions that existed before he came to power.

China had more than 20% of the world's population and less than 7% of the world's arable land to feed its population. Add that to the backwardness of technology and machinary...You do the math.

and was sexually predatory on young women until well into his eighties.

If that was the case, wouldn't the women he "preyed on" speak out now that he's long dead? Why aren't there any victims recounting their past?

Instead, all we have is this doctor named Li Zhisui who made millions for publishing a book on Mao in the US.

His former co-workers (many of whom also live abroad) accused him of being on FBI payroll, and all of them denied his accusations of "sexual deviancy" against Mao.

Like I said, I don't much care for Mao's reputation. I disagree with much of what he did...Heck, I don't even like the guy.

But this game of "beating the dead horse" is annoying and distracting everyone from real discussions.

Mao wasn't "naturally evil" or "monstrous"...He had reasons for making the decisions he made. Sometimes he's justified, sometimes not.

RedStarOverChina

20th June 2007, 14:57

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 06:02 am
Unfortunately, I have read (studied, and make copious notes on) his superficial and aprioristic twaddle. :wacko:

His philosophy is even worse than that of Engels! :o

I'd call it fifth-rate, but that would be too praise it way too highly.

Is it just me? Or have you yet to offer a real arugument of your own?

I tend to agree that Mao was by no means a better philosopher than Engels and that Engels was not as brilliant as Marx...But you are just being weird by unreasonably belittling Engels and to an extent, Mao.

At least refute Mao's argument so there can be a discussion rather than a stupid mud-slinging contest.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2007, 19:48

RSOC (a groupie gone wild):

Labelling me a Maoist now, are ya?

I am quite happy that you have now labelled yourself a defender of this monster.

Here it is.

The author you are quoting was in fact quoting the book he is criticising! They are not his words or figures.

I'm sure Mao ordered all those floods and famines...And that he was solely responsible for the economic failures of a country with more than 500 million people.

I thought you were trying to defend Mao? :o

The rest of what you say seems rather odd, since it is once more part of this autrhor's summary of the book he is criticising. :blink:

Wasted effort then.

Rawthentic

20th June 2007, 19:48

Off topic, I really like how the Canadian RCP works. I mean they are Maoist, but they are quite different than the RCP here. I especially liked this:
We don’t want people to believe either that the good will or the undertakings of professional politicians—whether they cloak themselves with the label of “socialist” or “communist”—can wage struggle instead of the exploited masses. These are the only ones able to really transform society and lead it to a higher stage.

The communist programme is not there to please everybody. Society is divided into different social classes whose interests clash with one another. At the top, the bourgeoisie—the capitalists who own the means of production and appropriate, directly or indirectly, the surplus value they extort from the proletariat. Alongside the exploiters are their loyal agents who work to preserve this system. At the other end, there is the proletariat, the great majority, who can only survive by the sweat of their brow.--Emphasis added for the petty-bourgeoisie.

I really applaud this stance. No "fight for the middle." Congrats, a principled party in Canada.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2007, 19:50

RSOC:

Is it just me? Or have you yet to offer a real arugument of your own?

Yes, you are 100% right -- it is just you.

At least refute Mao's argument so there can be a discussion rather than a stupid mud-slinging contest.

Wrong thread for that.

Anyway, already done -- at my site.

RedStarOverChina

20th June 2007, 20:19

I am quite happy that you have now labelled yourself a defender of this monster.

You labelled me that, you incoherent fool.

The author you are quoting was in fact quoting the book he is criticising! They are not his words or figures.

O RLY?

Chang and Halliday1 set out their agenda from the book’s opening words: ‘Mao Zedong, who for decades held absolute power over one quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other 20th century leader’ (p3).2 Mao was worse than Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, in other words, and the book fills out this argument in overwhelming—and often contradictory—detail. Mao was an amoral, opportunistic, idle psychopath who enjoyed violence for its own sake. He joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost by accident, murdered comrades, double-crossed allies, and was utterly incompetent as a military leader. After 1949 he killed millions in purges, was responsible for an appalling famine, and was sexually predatory on young women until well into his eighties.

Now, most of this is true. An awful lot of the standard history of Mao and Maoism was pure mythology, which persists in some contemporary histories. And Mao was a truly awful human being, willing to accept tens or even hundreds of millions of deaths as the price of rapid economic development. But a good biography needs to understand its subject in the context of the society that produced them.

The trot starts out by agreeing with Jung Chang's list of "facts"...I'm just here to refute it...Along with the notion that Mao made the decisions he made because he's "evil".

Quite a philosophically and politically immature view of history, that is...And Im surprised that I should have to deal with it in Revleft, espcially when it's from a mod.

I thought you were trying to defend Mao?

You also thought Mao ordered all the floods and famines. So you'll have to excuse me if I dont give a damn about what you think.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2007, 22:47

RSOC:

Now, most of this is true. An awful lot of the standard history of Mao and Maoism was pure mythology, which persists in some contemporary histories. And Mao was a truly awful human being, willing to accept tens or even hundreds of millions of deaths as the price of rapid economic development. But a good biography needs to understand its subject in the context of the society that produced them.

"Most"; can you see that?

So, do you know which parts he holds true.

No; but you are quite happy to guess.

[And, since he knows what he is talking about -- he is a friend on mine -- I trust his word against your snivelling any day.]

And, in your unseemly haste to defend the monster, you failed to read this review which takes a similar line to your ill-tempered rant -- this comrade says the book blames this monster (when he cannot possibly be held individually to blame), since these crimes were the result of the actions of a new and brutal ruling class , the CCP.

The trot starts out by agreeing with Jung Chang's list of "facts"...I'm just here to refute it...Along with the notion that Mao made the decisions he made because he's "evil".

In fact, us Trots were exposing these crimes before you were even thought of, and before these two hit upon this money-maker.

You also thought Mao ordered all the floods and famines. So you'll have to excuse me if I dont give a damn about what you think.

You like to invent when you are riled, don't you?

I made no such claims.

And the fact that you have to tell me you do not 'give a dam' tells me you do.

I think you mystics call that a 'unity of opposites'.

RedStarOverChina

21st June 2007, 23:54

"Most"; can you see that?
So, do you know which parts he holds true.
No; but you are quite happy to guess.
No, most of them are not true.

I have always suspected that, much of the bourgeois/Trotskyist criticism against Mao are meant to discredit Mao, and the CCP, AND the Revolution--The whole thing.

Like I said, I don't much care about Mao...But the Revolution that overthrow the gangster fascist regime of Chiang Kai-shek, radically improved the infrustructure of a semi-feudal state, and proved itself effective in the struggle against imperialism---that I'm quite willing to defend.

Fortunately, the sheer incompetence of the Bourgeoisie/Trotskyist critics makes my job much easier.

[And, since he knows what he is talking about -- he is a friend on mine -- I trust his word against your snivelling any day.]
You trust him, good for you. But if "trust" in "fellow comrades" is all you've got, then you shouldn't even be participating in this particular forum.

this comrade says the book blames this monster (when he cannot possibly be held individually to blame), since these crimes were the result of the actions of a new and brutal ruling class , the CCP.
Leon Trotsky, the "Holyman" himself was part of the "new and brutal ruling class" of Soviet Union!

Of course there would be a ruling class in a semi-feudal state---It's the inevitable fate of a backward country.

The only difference is, conditions under the Soviet Union was a lot better than under the Czarist Empire, and it was a lot better under Maoist China than under Chiang Kai-shek.

Capisce?

In fact, us Trots were exposing these crimes before you were even thought of, and before these two hit upon this money-maker.
You Trots were serving the capitalist system before other Leninists even thought of it, too.

Making a career out of criticising the Soviet Union for the bourgeoisie government shouldn't be something to brag about.

By the way, before you accuse me of being a Stalinist/Maoist or whatever the hell you can come up with, I don't buy into any personality cults like you do. I don't support Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin OR Mao.

What do ya make of that? ;)

I think you mystics call that a 'unity of opposites'.
Since when did ever I buy into dialectics?

You just assumed I did because you probably think you invented anti-dialectics.

Which is not true, by the way.

Wait, you're a trot? That explains everything.
I realized the article was written by a trot by the second paragraph.

It's not sucessful propaganda when you could tell their rhetoric THAT easily. :D

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd June 2007, 00:45

RSOC:

No, most of them are not true.

So you say.

I have always suspected that, much of the bourgeois/Trotskyist criticism against Mao are meant to discredit Mao, and the CCP, AND the Revolution--The whole thing.

I repeat, you Maoists/Maoist apologists are good at name-calling, not too good at defending that monster's 'thought'.

You trust him, good for you. But if "trust" in "fellow comrades" is all you've got, then you shouldn't even be participating in this particular forum.

As opposed to you trusting the word of those mass murderers in the CCP.

Leon Trotsky, the "Holyman" himself was part of the "new and brutal ruling class" of Soviet Union!

Well, I am quite happy to accept that descriptor of Leon, if you accept the one I used against the CCP.

Deal?

Of course there would be a ruling class in a semi-feudal state---It's the inevitable fate of a backward country.

The only difference is, conditions under the Soviet Union was a lot better than under the Czarist Empire, and it was a lot better under Maoist China than under Chiang Kai-shek.

Capisce?

So, you know one word of Italian?

But, once more, if you actually read the review I linked to (and/or the book) before you threw your toys out of your pram you'd see that us Trots welcomed the Chinese revolution as a blow against imperialism.

You Trots were serving the capitalist system before other Leninists even thought of it, too.

Eh?? :wacko:

Making a career out of criticising the Soviet Union for the bourgeoisie government shouldn't be something to brag about.

Well, stop doing it then.

By the way, before you accuse me of being a Stalinist/Maoist or whatever the hell you can come up with, I don't buy into any personality cults like you do. I don't support Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin OR Mao.

Maybe not, but you do have a thing about defending mass murderers. :o

What do ya make of that?

There's not much you can make out of hot air, sorry. :(

Since when did ever I buy into dialectics?

I am glad to hear it.

You just assumed I did because you probably think you invented anti-dialectics

I can see you are not too good with simple inferences, either.

How are you at opening and closing doors? Need any help/advice?

I realized the article was written by a trot by the second paragraph.

Looks like that was as far as you got before you began to mouth off in total ignorance.

It's not sucessful propaganda when you could tell their rhetoric THAT easily.

It is when it puts off ignorant know-nothings like you.

OneBrickOneVoice

22nd June 2007, 01:20

:lol: all I'm seeing Litchenson do is call Mao a monster despite the fact that under his leadership wimmin were liberated, land collectivized in the hands of the masses, factories taken over by revolutionary committees, private property abolished, and etc.. The only people I see calling him a monster is um you and probably capitalist pigs.

RNK

22nd June 2007, 12:49

And I believe you've swallowed every bit of anti-communistic propaganda that's ever concerned China. But hey, Trots have big mouths I guess.

And what about Mao am I supposed to be defending? And who said I'm a Maoist? I mean, all I've seen you do is repeatedly use the word "monster" and then go on about how nobody can deny it. And you seem to have come to this conclusion after reading some books that pretty much everyone (else) agreed were biased against Mao.

So, please, tell me, what about Mao's "thoughts" would you like me, or anyone, to defend? Or will I have to get out the ice pick... :D

And let me say, I have nothing against Trots, though they have something against me. Infact, the guy who basically introduced me to Communism was a Trot. Unfortunately, I wasn't interested in an ideology that seems to bend over backwards to make excuses to do absolutely nothing, and who's average party membership is 3 people. Ontop of that, all of you Trots seem to be ultra-sectarian. Hell, you put hardcore Maoists to shame with your unstoppable fury at anyone and anything that doesn't bow to the omnipotence of Trotsky. Yeah, I know there are some questionable aspects concerning Mao's history. I don't really care. There are just as many questionable aspects about Lenin, and even some about Marx. So what? It's not like every Leninist wants to go and mass-murder a few thousand sailors, and it's not like every Maoist dreams of creating a famine. In the end, after all of the bias one way or another, all we can really go on are the writings of our specific idols, and I haven't seen you bring up anything that Mao wrote about, or any of his actual ideology. All you talk about is fairly baseless conjecture and biased heresay, and then prance up and down the street saying "Oh! Oh! You can't defend Mao-Zedong Thought!"

Actually try bringing up some Mao-Zedong "thoughts" and maybe we can answer some of your confused questions. Or be quiet and go plan your 17th 1/2 International.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd June 2007, 19:46

RNK and LH, I am afraid my replies to you were trashed, but why yours were left standing mystifies me.

I will not try to reconstruct them, since they will only go the same way.

Suffice it to say, RNK, I will accept your allegation that I have swallowed the sort of propaganda you say, if you admit to doing the same.

Janus

22nd June 2007, 20:10

And I believe you've swallowed every bit of anti-communistic propaganda that's ever concerned China. But hey, Trots have big mouths I guess.
If you want to discuss and debate Mao Zedong and his ideas then do so properly as RSOC has been doing. Ad hominem and sectarian attacks are not welcomed here and will be trashed.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd June 2007, 22:05

Fine, but why have you left LH and RNK's ad hominem posts in??

OneBrickOneVoice

22nd June 2007, 23:02

where are my ad hominums. You're not debating. You're being a sectarian, and every post you make, I take you less and less seriously along with those around you.

Look here's proof

Originally posted by Rosa
Maybe not, but you do have a thing about defending mass murderers

I repeat, you Maoists/Maoist apologists are good at name-calling, not too good at defending that monster's 'thought'.

this comrade says the book blames this monster

etc... etc....

all your replies are like, 1 or 2 lines to RSOC but I'm done toying with sectarians like yourself. Why? Because its really fucking boring and LAME!!!

Janus

23rd June 2007, 01:00

but why have you left LH and RNK's ad hominem posts in??
What's your point? I left some of yours in as well. RNK's flame just happened to be buried in with some relevant material as well so I left it for people to address if they felt the need.

RNK

23rd June 2007, 01:07

You seem to have made some rather enormous assumptions about me. I haven't actually even stated any of my beliefs, and yet you want me to admit I've swallowed something.. what, exactly, have a I swallowed? How do you even know I'm a Maoist? Because only a Maoist would disagree with you?

And I enjoy that your first reaction to your posts being deleted is "why weren't their's?!?!" Stop being so sectarianist. You might be surprised at how many "Maoists" aren't frothing at the mouth from some sort of uncontrollable urge to mass murder every living person.

And please bring up some points about Mao's writings that you feel are "monstrous", and, like I said, I and others will try to address them for you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2007, 05:49

RNK, you have assumed things about me from the beginning, but moan when you think I have done the same to you.

Stop being so sectarianist. You might be surprised at how many "Maoists" aren't frothing at the mouth from some sort of uncontrollable urge to mass murder every living person.

They do not need to any more, they have already dispatched tens of millions.

But, I have no doubt they will do the same in the US if they ever gain power.

And please bring up some points about Mao's writings that you feel are "monstrous", and, like I said, I and others will try to address them for you.

The trashed post addressed that.

I made the point that you need to read this thread more carefully; I mentioned a few of Mao's whacko ideas earlier.

You can begin with them.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2007, 05:53

Janus, I PM-ed you my point, so don't ask what my point is

And you have trashed at least 6 posts of mine (2 lengthier ones have disappeared even from the trash can (one replying to LH, and one to RNK), so I do not know what you did with those) but only one of RNK's, and none of LH's.

And you think that is fair?

OneBrickOneVoice

23rd June 2007, 18:24

because um my posts weren't trash? Stop whining and reply to our posts in a civil manner. It's not like either of us believe anything you're saying anyway.

They do not need to any more, they have already dispatched tens of millions.

Um no. Look at the material we provided at the begining of the thread.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2007, 22:44

GMM:

because um my posts weren't trash? Stop whining and reply to our posts in a civil manner. It's not like either of us believe anything you're saying anyway.

Look, Janus is just looking for reasons to trash this, and you are not helping.

Look at the material we provided at the begining of the thread.

You mean, as carefully as you examined the material I posted?

So, I copied you, and after 5 seconds gave up.

[Like the new name; it somehow suits you.]

RNK

25th June 2007, 00:59

Okay, well, have fun criticising us from your university campus then.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th June 2007, 16:12

RNK:

Okay, well, have fun criticising us from your university campus then.

Now who is assuming things??

I do not work at a university or college; I left that environment 20 years ago.

RNK

25th June 2007, 18:02

Now who is assuming things??

Now I am. Good. We've established what assumptions are.

I took a look at your "sources"... I won't even bother mentioning the anti-communist "critique" and in my opinion it's incredibly shameful that you'd stoop so low as to cling to counter-revolutionary, right-wing reactionism in order to prove your case against a fellow Communist. But that's your choice, I guess.

As for "Nigel Harris", whoever he is, he seems awful biased. The sort of bias I'd expect to see someone write about Trots. For all intents and purposes, he seems to demonize everything Mao, praise everything not Mao, and yet come up with a quick and witty reponse to the failure of post-Mao China by saying that the anti-Maoists followed Mao anyway.

Who is this guy anyway? He was a member of the Socialist Worker's Party (and a Trot, what a surprise), is a member of of the EPC Think Tank, and, low and behold, works as a Consultant for the World Bank.

Care to give us more Trotskyist/Anti-Communist "sources"?

Also, perhaps one of the most telling facts about this whole endeavor.. I'm not the one hijacking a Trotskyist thread to bash Trotsky...

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th June 2007, 18:22

RNK, so your criticism amounts to this: I do not like the sound of these guys/trots (and even if they haven't murdered millions) I refuse to look at what they say -- instead, I prefer the dissembling of those who have murdered millions, or those who seek to defend it/explain it away.

Fine, stick with the monsters.

Nigel left the SWP many years ago, and chose the path you mentioned, and was given a hard time by his friends for it -- but his book is still a classic.

And no, he hasn't murdered anyone yet, unlike Mao.

But from you we just get a defense of the indefensible. :o

And its also no use you equating anti-Maoism with anti-socialism, either; they way things went on in China, to be a pro-Maoist is to be anti-socialist.

However, the other guy whose work I linked to (the China expert) is still in the SWP, and does not work for the banks.

And, this thread is about books on Mao, so it is no use you bleating on about books on Mao you happen not to like (alleging a hi-jack) -- mainly because of the uncomfortable truths they contain.

You can put your head back in the sand now, comrade.

RNK

25th June 2007, 21:03

You make it very hard to respect Trotskyists :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'll go stick my head back in this sand called "revolution". Continue idolizing a man who did absolutely nothing revolutionary and criticize everyone who actually does partake on this little escapade.

Thankfully, my Trot friend warned me about people like you. Otherwise, I might have actually gotten upset!

So yeah, back to Maoist stuff, besides books, I really enjoy some classical Chinese Revolutionary movies... Revolution Media has bunches, including a good one, "Tunnel Warfare" I think it's called... you'd expect it to be some sort of how-to manual, but it's actually a very well thought-out movie with quite an interesting storyline, about revolutionary peasants fighting the KMT...

Here's the link: http://www.revmedia.net/tw.html . Very good movie.

Janus

25th June 2007, 23:06

And you have trashed at least 6 posts of mine (2 lengthier ones have disappeared even from the trash can (one replying to LH, and one to RNK), so I do not know what you did with those) but only one of RNK's, and none of LH's.

And you think that is fair?
Yeah, you posted more flamebait than RNK and LH (the latter didn't flame or post any spam at all). All you've shown is that you tend to post more and continue the mud-slinging rather than stopping it as a mod should.

Look, Janus is just looking for reasons to trash this, and you are not helping.
I don't need to "look for" a reason, none of you are even attempting to actually debate except RSOC. All that's really been posted so far are ad hominem and sectarian attacks, something which I doubt will help out Matty UK much at all.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th June 2007, 23:49

Janus:

Yeah, you posted more flamebait than RNK and LH (the latter didn't flame or post any spam at all). All you've shown is that you tend to post more and continue the mud-slinging rather than stopping it as a mod should.

I respond to what I get, and since I was being attacked by two 'comrades' no wonder I responded with more than either of them but with as much as both put together.

As I said, I have no objection to you trashing my posts, I only ask you to be consistent, which are still refusing to do.

You cut my stuff but left this of LH's:

all I'm seeing Litchenson do is call Mao a monster despite the fact that under his leadership wimmin were liberated, land collectivized in the hands of the masses, factories taken over by revolutionary committees, private property abolished, and etc.. The only people I see calling him a monster is um you and probably capitalist pigs.

He equates me with pigs, but apparently you think that is OK.

And you left this of RNK's in:

And I believe you've swallowed every bit of anti-communistic propaganda that's ever concerned China. But hey, Trots have big mouths I guess.

And what about Mao am I supposed to be defending? And who said I'm a Maoist? I mean, all I've seen you do is repeatedly use the word "monster" and then go on about how nobody can deny it. And you seem to have come to this conclusion after reading some books that pretty much everyone (else) agreed were biased against Mao.

So, please, tell me, what about Mao's "thoughts" would you like me, or anyone, to defend? Or will I have to get out the ice pick...

Note the threat of violence at the end.

But, you think that is OK.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th June 2007, 23:56

RNK:

You make it very hard to respect Trotskyists

From your reaction it is obvious you began by disrespecting Trotskyists, so don't give me that.

Continue idolizing a man who did absolutely nothing revolutionary and criticize everyone who actually does partake on this little escapade.

I idolise no one, unlike you.

And howsoever much or little Trotsky did or did not do, he failed to murder mllions, unlike your hero.

Thankfully, my Trot friend warned me about people like you.

Translated this means, you are very easily misled.

And this annonymous 'friend' you conveniently invented knows nothing about me, but still you listen to the ignorant, or possibly voices in your head.... :wacko:

The rest of what you say looks like whistling in the dark to me.

Janus

26th June 2007, 01:09

As I said, I have no objection to you trashing my posts, I only ask you to be consistent, which are still refusing to do.
I have been consistent, if you haven't noticed I left many of your posts alone as well. I simply trashed the last couple of posts which were the worst ones in an attempt to clean up the thread. Once again, why do you keep bringing this up? I've already addessed this in response to your PM's.

He equates me with pigs, but apparently you think that is OK.
Nowhere did I say that but notice that I didn't wipe out all of your posts simply because they contained an insult; you've flamed just as much if not more than RNK so you can stop it with the unfair treatment plea. There were some actual relevant points in RNK and LH's posts which I thought could be addressed and discussed in order to promote the debate. Obviously, that didn't happen which is why I'm gonna close this thread since this thread has pretty much degenerated into little more than a mud-slinging contest.

If any of you feel the need to have an actual debate concerning Mao then please start a new thread in History.

Thread closed.