Hey all: is it true that Mao was evil and killed? [Archive]

View Full Version : Hey all: is it true that Mao was evil and killed?

rebel_lord

16th July 2007, 23:45

Hello all: How are you? I was in an IRC chat room debating politics with some people, and some said that Mao was real evil, that he killed a lot of people, and that there was cannibalism and so on, in the Maoist-Era. I would like to know if this is true and backed by evidence and facts, or is this just capitalist-propaganda spurred by capitalist mass media?

The thing that started the anti-Mao rant was a quote i posted in the chat room by Stalin.

My IRC nick in the following chat is oppressed, Maoist, and Mao_Gym, here it is and see for yourselves how distorted, twisted and confused americans are. They think Green Party, Ron Paul, Obama are good alternatives (haha):

<opressed> "Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts." - Joseph Stalin
<`DayWa|ker-> stalin murdered lenin along with the rest of the bolshivks
<`DayWa|ker-> bolsheviks
<`DayWa|ker-> stalin was the worst thing to ever happen to the left
<Pyrotic> He was only the true manifestation of the theory.
<`DayWa|ker-> haha, he was a true manifestation of a criminal malcontent
<opressed> i was kicked out of a greenparty group coz i said that i will invite cops to eat pecan pies at home so that they could get diabetes and heart attacks
<Pyrotic> Any commie will show you that. They're all 'Kill them all' and stuff.
<opressed> daywalker: in an evil world, u have to fight evil with evil not with flowers
<Pyrotic> See?
<`DayWa|ker-> yikes
<`DayWa|ker-> fuck stalin
<`DayWa|ker-> he was a total bastard
<Pyrotic> Fuckin' murderers if they had the guts.
<`DayWa|ker-> he was harder on other leftists than he was on right wing guys
<`DayWa|ker-> he went after them more
<robwerks> Wars Costing $12 Billion a Month http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070709/D8Q97VI00.html
<`DayWa|ker-> coz he wanted to be the only voice of the left
<HotThang> <@`DayWa|ker-> haha, he was a true manifestation of a criminal malcontent <-- like bush ?
<opressed> but leftists are not evil coz they wanna be evil, but because rightists are evil too so u see it's just a bigger picture, we have to apply political-realism, when we are in power
<`DayWa|ker-> hotthang, worse than bush
<robwerks> evil is evil
<opressed> <`DayWa|ker-> hotthang, worse than bush <--hmmm, nobody in history is worse than bush
<Pyrotic> robwerks is robwerks
<`DayWa|ker-> not true
<robwerks> yep
<opressed> daywalker is a bush fan now
<`DayWa|ker-> haha no
<`DayWa|ker-> im just being realistic
<opressed> bush is lucifer remember?
<`DayWa|ker-> stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, all worse than bush
<`DayWa|ker-> i know its hard to believe
<`DayWa|ker-> but its a fact
<HotThang> Dr Evil
<opressed> <`DayWa|ker-> stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, all worse than bush <--u sound like green party elitists
<Pyrotic> Even Hitler!?
<`DayWa|ker-> but it isnt for lack of trying on bushs part
<Pyrotic> opressed, we are not exchanging emails. You don't have to point out what `DayWa|ker- had previously said.
<opressed> i was kicked out of a 911 truth blogger coz i attacked Bill Gates
<robwerks> Ron Paul is the US Military's #1 Choice http://studentsforpaul.org/ron_paul_us_militarys_1_choice
<opressed> pyrotic: haha true
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, u dont really know the history obviously, coz as bad as bush is, and he is really, really bad, he doesnt come close to these other guys, there are no death camps, there are no mass-purges, theres no "cultural revolution" or "thousand flowers campaign" or "the great leap forward"
<panini> opressed, they are
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, mao made it that rival chinese villages were eating eachother
<opressed> daywalker: you have twisted world views, Mao was the negation of fascism, Stalin and Hitler were evil indeed, but I think Bush is worse than Hitler and Stalin
<`DayWa|ker-> literally
<`DayWa|ker-> coz everyone was starving
<`DayWa|ker-> nobody in america is eating eachother
<`DayWa|ker-> come on
<`DayWa|ker-> i know its bad with bush and cheney, and it is, but its not the cannibalism
<panini> Bush is worse than Hitler? lol what childish nonsense
<catnip> the neighbor around the corner has a HUGE Ron Paul sign in his yard - must be like 6' X 12' (wild guess there)
<`DayWa|ker-> well bush is terrible, but hitler is the worst of all time
<opressed> <`DayWa|ker-> nobody in america is eating eachother <---Feman concentration camps? Patriot acts? Swat teams in schools? u actually mean that USA is a democracy right now?
<Pyrotic> No he means it has not resorted to cannibalism as of yet.
<opressed> Daywalker: i think u are deffending Bush
<`DayWa|ker-> im not
<`DayWa|ker-> im just pointing out how agregious your claims are
<opressed> Mao didn't kill anybody like US troops have done, or like 9-11 inside job
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, if bush was as bad as mao stalin or hitler, u would be dead right now
<catnip> egregious, but let's not be picky on spelling
<`DayWa|ker-> so would i
<`DayWa|ker-> so would everyone in here
<`DayWa|ker-> we'd all be fuckin dead
<opressed> Daywalker: U have a US history world view, stop reading those text books
<robwerks> Judge's Damage-Before-Discovery Raises More 9/11 Questions http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=45745
<`DayWa|ker-> coz under those guys u couldnt say ANYTHING
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, u wouldnt be able to talk like u're talking
<`DayWa|ker-> u would be killed
<`DayWa|ker-> labeled a counter revolutionary
<catnip> I agree with Walker : Bush is no where close to being a Hitler
<`DayWa|ker-> and off to the gulag
<opressed> Daywalker: Where did you get that info that Mao is worse than Bush?
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, from communist press reports
<opressed> catnip: But Bush is worse than Mao
<`DayWa|ker-> haha
<opressed> Daywalker: which communist reports?
<`DayWa|ker-> chinese
<`DayWa|ker-> maos own people
<opressed> China is not communist now
<robwerks> who cares which evil fucking bastard was worst?
<catnip> opressed : well, thing is, Bush is not yet DEAD - so who knows how bad Bush will really prove to be? I dunno ...
<opressed> China is capitalist now
<`DayWa|ker-> dude 20-30mil people starved to death under mao
<`DayWa|ker-> and he had millions more killed
<robwerks> they all suck
<`DayWa|ker-> they were eating eachother
<opressed> robwerks: But Clinton was evil too, he bombed Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia to ashes
<`DayWa|ker-> u dont understand
<catnip> rob : true, they all suck
<robwerks> agreed
<`DayWa|ker-> people were literally eating eachother
<opressed> robwerks: it seems that Daywalker is shifting to the right-wing
<robwerks> all politicians suck
<opressed> Daywalker: That's a reactionary B.S.
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, no, im not shifting anywhere, im just telling u u're wrong, and not because i *think* you're wrong, not because its my opinion, because its a fact
<opressed> u gotta get info from more scientific sources, like www.marxists.org
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, u would be dead right now
<`DayWa|ker-> seriously
<`DayWa|ker-> u talk all this shit about bush
<`DayWa|ker-> me too
<`DayWa|ker-> we all do
<`DayWa|ker-> well we couldnt do that in maoist china
<opressed> Daywalker: hehehe, Mao was a revolutionary democrat not a fascist like Bush
<`DayWa|ker-> or stalinist russia
<`DayWa|ker-> or nazi germany
<opressed> Stalin was evil, but not Mao
<`DayWa|ker-> haha mao was a democrat
<`DayWa|ker-> you're insane
<opressed> That's like saying Carter is evil coz he was a U.S president
<`DayWa|ker-> mao wasnt evil, he was just really crazy
<`DayWa|ker-> and ontop of it
<`DayWa|ker-> he was a peasant
<`DayWa|ker-> who didnt understand economics
<opressed> of course Carter did corruption, but he was not evil like Bush
<`DayWa|ker-> he thought he could make everyone make steel in their backyard
<`DayWa|ker-> told everyone dont farm
<`DayWa|ker-> make steel;
<`DayWa|ker-> and they did
<`DayWa|ker-> and the crop failed
<opressed> Daywalker: You have to get info. from objective sources, not from US high school text books
<`DayWa|ker-> and everyone starved
<`DayWa|ker-> i dont read text books
<`DayWa|ker-> read Mao: The Life
<opressed> yeah that's what the History Channel says
<`DayWa|ker-> the guy who wrote it lived in china
<opressed> Histor Channel distorts history so much
<`DayWa|ker-> have u ever lived in china?
<robwerks> Iranian Newspaper Labels Osama Bin Laden As A Creation of U.S. http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=126&a=2777
<`DayWa|ker-> ok so there was no great leap forward?
<opressed> no but i have read Maoism, and Mao so i know what i am talking about
<`DayWa|ker-> there was no thousand flowers campaign?
<`DayWa|ker-> but u havent read maoism
<`DayWa|ker-> u havent read anytihng it seems
<opressed> Yeah, i am a scholar in Maoism, he was the negation of centralism and fascism, he liberated millions of chinese people
<`DayWa|ker-> http://www.freemoviescinema.com/content/view/1350/83/
<`DayWa|ker-> damn
<opressed> i wish US had a Mao now
* opressed is now known as Mao_
<`DayWa|ker-> haha
<`DayWa|ker-> u do not
<Mao_> Mao rules
<`DayWa|ker-> u would be killed for talking
<`DayWa|ker-> http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Life-Philip-Short/dp/0805031154
<`DayWa|ker-> read that
<Mao_> Ok join the Republican party (beats me)
<robwerks> The Reaper is loaded, but there is no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...er_N.htm?csp=34 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-15-reaper_N.htm?csp=34)
* Mao_ is now known as Maoist_
<`DayWa|ker-> you're crazy
<Maoist_> Daywalker: amazon sells lots of books, i only read original stuff like Descartes, Marx, Nietzsche, and objective historical sources
<`DayWa|ker-> mao, so then communist press reports arent good enough for you?
<`DayWa|ker-> i dont understand
* Maoist_ has to go to the gym now to get into more positive endeavours, than stayin at IRC masturbating mentally ;-p
<`DayWa|ker-> mao was a peasant guy
<`DayWa|ker-> a good warrior
<`DayWa|ker-> good organizer
<`DayWa|ker-> but he didnt really understand economics
<`DayWa|ker-> ok so wait
<`DayWa|ker-> there was no great leap forward?
* Maoist_ smells a shift to the right in daywalk
<`DayWa|ker-> is that what u're telling me?
* Maoist_ is now known as Mao_Gym
<Mao_Gym> take care
<`DayWa|ker-> you saying im shifting to the right is code for you dont wanna face the facts
<robwerks> hahaha
<Pyrotic> Watch it `DayWa|ker-, if you become too right the leftists might murder you for it.
<Mao_Gym> hahaha
<`DayWa|ker-> why would u like mao?
<robwerks> Congressmembers rule: No calling Bush a liar http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Congress_mem..._Bush_0716.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Congress_members_agree_No_calling_Bush_0716.html)
<`DayWa|ker-> whynot castro?
<`DayWa|ker-> castro is way more reasonable than mao
* peterre has to leave - it's 23:07 - bedtime! G'nite everyone.
<`DayWa|ker-> night peterre
<catnip> night, peterre
<peterre> g'nite DW and catnip
<Mao_Gym> keep supporting Wall Street, IMF, Luwig Von Mises, Adam Smith and your right wing thinkers i will see u in the capitalist hell of poverty, inflation and more fake-terrorism
<`DayWa|ker-> i dont support any of these people
* peterre has quit IRC (Quit: The universe may not only be stranger than we think, it may be stranger than we CAN think.)
<`DayWa|ker-> but i would rather live under bush than mao stalin or hitler
<`DayWa|ker-> and so would u
<`DayWa|ker-> coz u would be dead for talking this shit
<`DayWa|ker-> so would i
<`DayWa|ker-> we all would
<`DayWa|ker-> u couldnt walk around china and criticize mao
<`DayWa|ker-> u couldnt speak out against stalin
<`DayWa|ker-> u wound up dead
<Mao_Gym> ok let's do this: let's vote for right wingers for Mccain, Guiliani, Bush, Hillary coz Mao, Marx, Chavez, Castro are so bad and evil oh no, they might murder us, Bush that evangelical father figure guy he is so good, the right wingers are packaged into a Brady Bunch father figure
* cvxbcxbc has joined #uspolitricks
<Mao_Gym> yeah syndicalists, labour leaders, marxists, leninists, che guevara are/were so evil, let's read Forbes Magazine instead of Socialist worker, let's read Wall Street Journal ;-)
<Mao_Gym> i love bill gates too, he might share that wealth with us
<Mao_Gym> i forgot Alexander Hamilton he was so democratic and humanist, and rockefeller too
<robwerks> Padilla trial doesn't fit its initial billing http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._padilla14.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003788875_padilla14.html)
<panini> hillary is not a right winger dumbass
<Mao_Gym> u guys are all distorted, u have an ideological mixbag in your brains, it's like u hate bush, IMF, wall street, banks, zionists, etc, but u don't wanna divorce yourselves from the corporate mentality
<panini> i don't hate bush, wall street, banks, or zionists... but i do hate the IMF
<Mao_Gym> it's like if i have diabetes, but i couldn' stop eating starches and sweets
<`DayWa|ker-> opresseed, u know who else is much better than mao?
* Mao_Gym hugs panini around a bit ;-)
<Pyrotic> I hate panda bears
<`DayWa|ker-> tito in yugoslavia
<`DayWa|ker-> but u dont even know about him
* `DayWa|ker- sets mode: +v cvxbcxbc
<Pyrotic> *Eating all our bamboo..
<`DayWa|ker-> mao, i will take mccain, giuliani, bush, and hillary over stalin or mao
<robwerks> The zionist movement is facing it's greatest challenge, more and more Jews are speaking out against Israeli policies than ever before. Instead of trying to change those policies it seems the tactic of the zionists remains the same... SHOUT ANTI SEMITISM from the hilltops, even at Jews. http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/07/je...tisemitism.html (http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/07/jewish-antisemitism.html)
<Mao_Gym> the reality is that US needs an altenative united party with a workers and 'we the people's' economic program, and so far all the alternative canditates like Obama, Kucinich, Ron Paul don't have that program
<`DayWa|ker-> and u would to, coz if u had to live under mao or stalin u would throw up
<JanHuss> I think there is little difference
<`DayWa|ker-> mao, ever heard the saying "the grass is always greener on the other side of the pasture"?
* Mao_Gym is now known as opressed
<JanHuss> they all serve/served the same masters
<robwerks> JanHuss, right, just another flavor of tyranny
<`DayWa|ker-> i guess
<opressed> jan: look, the thing is that americans hate fascism and capitalism but they don't wanna try a new ideology and political system, because of fear, we have to be strong, conquer your fear and u can conquer death
<`DayWa|ker-> we wouldnt be able to talk shit if that were exactly true
<JanHuss> opressed: Hitler could not have said it better
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito
<`DayWa|ker-> this guy was much better than mao
<`DayWa|ker-> he wasnt a total psycho
<robwerks> actually people have been arrested for having anti-bush t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc
<opressed> daywalker: u know i don't like Alex Jone's ideology, but he is right in Police-fascism, opression, fearmongering of cops against regular citizens, fake-terror to inflict fear, etc. and he is not even a marxist
<`DayWa|ker-> he was more moderate
<robwerks> they weren't killed but arrested is bad enough
<robwerks> so we can't really talk shit, just on irc and in private
<opressed> daywalker: but don't direct your anger against mao, direct it against monopoly-corporate-capitalism and bush [the superman of monopoly-capitalism right now]
<robwerks> and it's getting worse every dat
<robwerks> day
<`DayWa|ker-> alex jones would be dead if we lived under mao
<`DayWa|ker-> so would michael moore
<`DayWa|ker-> or anyone who said anything ever
<robwerks> they can't make a martyr out of jones now
<`DayWa|ker-> they would kill him anyway
<opressed> daywalker: Ron Brown (The secratary of labour under clinton died) and clinton was not Mao ;_)
* clothilde1 has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<`DayWa|ker-> just because
<opressed> Rachel Corrie didn't die under Mao ;-)
<JanHuss> day: be patient. der fuehrer is working on that
<`DayWa|ker-> hehe jan
<`DayWa|ker-> yes
<`DayWa|ker-> but thats the difference
<`DayWa|ker-> hes working on it
<`DayWa|ker-> mao had it perfected
<opressed> Luther King didn't die under Mao, JFK wasn't killed by castro or Mao
<`DayWa|ker-> so did stalin and adolf
<robwerks> it's definately in the works, I've seen the camps
<robwerks> some of them anyway
<`DayWa|ker-> opressed, stalin and mao purged millions, and let millions more starve to death
<Pyrotic> Yeah, both guys were killed by even more insane individuals.
<opressed> Daywalker: it's like your capitalist life is still good, and that's why u don't wanna say bye to it. It seems to me that you are not poor, you are middle class elite. That's why in the psychology of classes by Professor Bosch, the poor working classes are the most revolutionary classes, coz middle-classes don't have any thing to worry about ;-)
<robwerks> we only have bush right now
<Pyrotic> The Illuminati! Dum dum duuuum
<opressed> Daywalker: u are totally wrong. Even Chavez deffended Mao
<robwerks> fuck comparing them, it's waste of time
<opressed> so go direct your anger against banks, bush and capitalism and not against mao who is already dead
<robwerks> distraction
<panini> rachel corrie died under the weight of her own stupidity
<Pyrotic> opressed, or maybe not be so angry.
<opressed> panini: haha wow u are harsh
<robwerks> that tank was named "her own stupidity"?
Session Close: Mon Jul 16 18:21:13 2007

Thanks and I would like to learn more about Mao and Maoism.

Take care all

rebel_lord

Matty_UK

17th July 2007, 00:13

I hate people who say "oh well I'd rather live under Bush in present day USA than Mao in 1960s China."

You cannot compare the USA in 2007 to China during Mao's rule.

When people say shit like that, ask them if they'd rather live in pre-revolutionary China, or post-revolutionary China.

abbielives!

17th July 2007, 01:12

He wasn't evil just very rigid ideologically, this and the totalitarian goverment are the main reasons for the deaths.

redterror19

17th July 2007, 05:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:45 pm
Hello all: How are you? I was in an IRC chat room debating politics with some people, and some said that Mao was real evil, that he killed a lot of people, and that there was cannibalism and so on, in the Maoist-Era. I would like to know if this is true and backed by evidence and facts, or is this just capitalist-propaganda spurred by capitalist mass media?

Thanks and I would like to learn more about Mao and Maoism.

Take care all

rebel_lord
Most of typical capitalist bullcrap you encountered in that IRC room distorts the true history of capitalism and communism. George Bush has killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqis. We won't ever know how many people really died, because the U$ military doesn't want people finding out. The capitalists don't typically tell you about the death toll of their economic philosophy, but are always quick to point to the people who starved while Mao was in power. Capitalism rules our world today, and it's estimated that about 25,000,000 people die every year from hunger. (source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/11/25/hunger031125.html))

Capitalists make calculating decisions everyday that result in people's deaths or misery. It's understandable why they are so reluctant to admit this. Insurance companies decide that not covering chemotherapy for a certain type of cancer will improve their bottom line, so someone dies from cancer because they can't afford the treatment.

Part of the problem is that imperialist countries like the U$ enrich themselves off other nations. Corporations send jobs to countries where labor and environmental laws are lax, import the cheaper goods into the U$, and sell them to consumers looking for a bargain. We are way too isolated from the suffering of the rest of the world in the imperialist countries. The honest capitalists will acknowledge that our plenty is cultivated on the backs of the rest of the world, and they don't want to change that because then they couldn't have their iPhone or PS3.

rebel_lord

17th July 2007, 05:23

Originally posted by abbielives!@July 17, 2007 12:12 am
He wasn't evil just very rigid ideologically, this and the totalitarian goverment are the main reasons for the deaths.

Hello how are you? The thing is that like i said in another forum most people out there have a subjective world-view and not an objective neutral world-view. Ok let me explain. What i mean is that for most americans it is ok and moral for Bush and US troops to go to Irak and obliterate Iraq to death. Now if Hugo Chavez, Castro, or Iran's president deffended their nations by executing right-wingers, there would be an international anti-left wing propapaganda saying how evil Leninism and Marxists are. even though the numbers of death of US and right wing imperialist nations have been a lot more than left-wing nations.

In fact it is safe to state that US has killed millions of people since it's imperialist system was founded in 1776. So i really don't think that Mao was more evil than any of the US present and past governments which have been bombing nations all the time

rebel_lord

xskater11x

17th July 2007, 05:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:23 am
Hello how are you? The thing is that like i said in another forum most people out there have a subjective world-view and not an objective neutral world-view. Ok let me explain. What i mean is that for most americans it is ok and moral for Bush and US troops to go to Irak and obliterate Iraq to death. Now if Hugo Chavez, Castro, or Iran's president deffended their nations by executing right-wingers, there would be an international anti-left wing propapaganda saying how evil Leninism and Marxists are. even though the numbers of death of US and right wing imperialist nations have been a lot more than left-wing nations.

In fact it is safe to state that US has killed millions of people since it's imperialist system was founded in 1776. So i really don't think that Mao was more evil than any of the US present and past governments which have been bombing nations all the time

rebel_lord
That is completely true. The United States just finds ways to make them look good in a situation they should not be able to look good in, and for some reason, no other country has ever spoken out against the country's actions for the long-term either, which may also be the problem.

Looking at it from a point of defending Mao, there isn't really a non-violent way to implement a revolution in such a large country, or even a small one at that. For him to be successful, most opposition had to be completely removed from the picture, and what better way then some public executions? Which would probably actually cause less killing, because less people would openly speak out against him.

Faux Real

17th July 2007, 05:38

Those two obviously are ignorant of the conditions that led to Maoist China. Seriously, they compare what happened under his rule to the present-day country/situation they're in and make an asinine assumption on how "evil" he was. I doubt Mao was with glee when he heard of the news that peasant farmers were dying because of famines.

It's not to say that the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology he built upon didn't necessarily help manifest a truly democratic worker's state.

rebel_lord

17th July 2007, 06:12

Hello all, thanx a lot for explaining me the important points about Mao and Maoism. :-)

rebel_lord

al-Ibadani

17th July 2007, 07:01

Mao wasn't evil, just a fucking capitalist pig, like Bush. His regime killed millions of workers and peasants in the name of building so-called socialism aka state capitalism.

Anyway, the fact that the ruling party is implementing more and more neo-liberal policies is ample proof that China was never socialist, nor a workers' state. It was state-capitalist and imperialist. It exploited the hell out of China's proletariat, while usurping Marxist language.

Marion

17th July 2007, 07:45

If the argument is:

Most of typical capitalist bullcrap you encountered in that IRC room distorts the true history of capitalism and communism. George Bush has killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqis. We won't ever know how many people really died, because the U$ military doesn't want people finding out. The capitalists don't typically tell you about the death toll of their economic philosophy, but are always quick to point to the people who starved while Mao was in power. Capitalism rules our world today, and it's estimated that about 25,000,000 people die every year from hunger.

then effectively you're constructing an anti-capitalist and pro-Communist argument by stating that both have starved loads of people?! Is the sole difference that capitalism has starved more? If you're mentioning Bush in Iraq then why not mention Mao in Angola where he supported Apartheid South Africa - just another inter-imperialist squabble...

Alibadani. Just wondering over:

Anyway, the fact that the ruling party is implementing more and more neo-liberal policies is ample proof that China was never socialist, nor a workers' state. It was state-capitalist and imperialist. It exploited the hell out of China's proletariat, while usurping Marxist language."

Surely, however, the ICC don't apply the same argument to the USSR - you wouldn't say that because the Communist Party there eventually implemented neo-liberal politics and exploited the proletariat that the USSR was always state-capitalist and imperalist? Surely the question of whether the USSR or China was initally a workers state depends on more than that?

al-Ibadani

17th July 2007, 08:10

Surely, however, the ICC don't apply the same argument to the USSR - you wouldn't say that because the Communist Party there eventually implemented neo-liberal politics and exploited the proletariat that the USSR was always state-capitalist and imperalist? Surely the question of whether the USSR or China was initally a workers state depends on more than that?

Good point. It is possible that a workers party could go over to the side of the bourgeoisie. There is a difference between what happened in Russia and China. In Russia there was actually a situation of a monopoly of power by the soviets, even if it was for at most a few years. There never was such a situation in China. In fact there weren't any soviets. What happened in China was an extension of the Stalinist counter-revolution.

Just to let you know I'm not in the ICC. I support them, as well as other left communist groups like the IBRP, the EKS, and the Bordiguists.

redterror19

18th July 2007, 00:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:45 am
then effectively you're constructing an anti-capitalist and pro-Communist argument by stating that both have starved loads of people?! Is the sole difference that capitalism has starved more? If you're mentioning Bush in Iraq then why not mention Mao in Angola where he supported Apartheid South Africa - just another inter-imperialist squabble...

We're all familiar with the Marxist slogan: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Fewer people starve under communism than under capitalism and that is a positive thing. People would laugh at me if I talked about a Utopia without starvation. It's not clear how many people died from starvation in Mao's China, but we have reasons to disbelieve the distortions of capitalists, which base numbers on projected population size vs. actual population size. The distortions also fail to take the floods, drought, and Soviet withdrawal of aid into account. The Chinese admitted they set their goals unrealistically high. Mao had an incredibly difficult task. He transformed a colonial and feudal country into a major industrial power in less than 30 years.

I don't know much about Angola's civil war and would need more specifics to respond.

rebel_lord

18th July 2007, 02:47

Originally posted by redterror19+July 17, 2007 11:47 pm--> (redterror19 @ July 17, 2007 11:47 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:45 am
then effectively you're constructing an anti-capitalist and pro-Communist argument by stating that both have starved loads of people?! Is the sole difference that capitalism has starved more? If you're mentioning Bush in Iraq then why not mention Mao in Angola where he supported Apartheid South Africa - just another inter-imperialist squabble...

We're all familiar with the Marxist slogan: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Fewer people starve under communism than under capitalism and that is a positive thing. People would laugh at me if I talked about a Utopia without starvation. It's not clear how many people died from starvation in Mao's China, but we have reasons to disbelieve the distortions of capitalists, which base numbers on projected population size vs. actual population size. The distortions also fail to take the floods, drought, and Soviet withdrawal of aid into account. The Chinese admitted they set their goals unrealistically high. Mao had an incredibly difficult task. He transformed a colonial and feudal country into a major industrial power in less than 30 years.

I don't know much about Angola's civil war and would need more specifics to respond. [/b]

How many people die from starvation in Africa, in Haiti, in Dominican Republic, in Nicaragua, in Mexico, and in all most capitalist-opressed nations?

For example guys: the US right wing media never, never, never attacks Mexico or Dominican Republic, it attacks better economically nations like Venezuela and Cuba.

I don't think that Mao was evil as the capitalist TV claims

rebel_lord

RedStaredRevolution

18th July 2007, 03:16

idk if mao was evil but his policies did get a lot of people killed (ive never heard of the cannibalism though). and i also agree that you cant compare living in the US with living in china before or after mao. but just because he industrialized china really quickly doesnt justify all those people dying because of his idiotic policies. i dont agree with those peoples politics but i dont support the kind of totalitarian dictatorship of state capitalism that mao put in place.

RNK

18th July 2007, 04:00

Of course Mao killed millions. And Trotsky was a CIA agent; Engels was a male prostitute; Stalin liked to wear the skin of his purge victims; and Marx was in actuality working for the English nobility.

That is, if you believe every piece of right-wing (or anarchist) bullshit you hear.

Rather than take at face value every pro-capitalist, anti-communist piece of information you hear about someone like Mao, try to get some more balanced perspectives. Otherwise, go home.

rebel_lord

18th July 2007, 05:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:00 am
Of course Mao killed millions. And Trotsky was a CIA agent; Engels was a male prostitute; Stalin liked to wear the skin of his purge victims; and Marx was in actuality working for the English nobility.

That is, if you believe every piece of right-wing (or anarchist) bullshit you hear.

Rather than take at face value every pro-capitalist, anti-communist piece of information you hear about someone like Mao, try to get some more balanced perspectives. Otherwise, go home.

Hi, hahaha, you are right. Even Chavez one of the most honest leaders of Latin America deffended Mao, and his government. And Chavez really knows his Socialism 101.

I read in another article that the so called millions dead by Mao was a hoax by capitalist propaganda

rebel_lord

Labor Shall Rule

18th July 2007, 07:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:00 am
Stalin liked to wear the skin of his purge victims;
Yes, it's true. It is believed that Stalin is directly responsible for personally shooting, cooking and consuming as many as 230 million Soviet people. As well as collecting their mustaches for his vast underground collection. In Soviet Union, Stalin would of slaughtered your whole family! I heard it was Stalin's use of his amazing powers of telekinesis to bring about a giant snow storm that was visible from space - the storm was so vast it blew over the invading German army and neatly buried them beneath a blanket of pure white.

RNK is absolutely correct though.

Marion

18th July 2007, 10:33

Well, if you're not aware of China's role in Angola its well worth reading up on. The twists and turns of Maoists trying to justify China's support for overtly right-wing regimes are very amusing. Basically their foreign policy since the 70s could be summed up as support for whoever was against the USSR - inter-imperialist squabbles on all sides.

Its quite interesting that this thread has been reduced into a) assertions that starvation in China is capitalist media lies, b) crap jokes. Yeah, China may have industrialised quickly (thanks to redterror for at least putting forward an argument) but the difference between capitalism and communism is not which can industrialise more quickly. On what basis would those who refer to China as communist back up their assertion?

Vargha Poralli

18th July 2007, 12:29

Its quite interesting that this thread has been reduced into a) assertions that starvation in China is capitalist media lies,

Well in my opinion I agree with both. I don't deny that starvation in China during the great leap forward was real but the numbers are overtly exaggerated by the capitalist media.

a previuos thread about this. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56664)

On what basis would those who refer to China as communist back up their assertion?

I think most of people who posted in thread don't say that. The crap joke is in my opinion refers to the book Mao an untold story whose whole purpose is to demonise Mao . It argues that Mao from the time of his birth had plans to kill some x million Chinese people and till death worked to fullfill that plan alone.

Marion

18th July 2007, 12:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:29 am

On what basis would those who refer to China as communist back up their assertion?

I think most of people who posted in thread don't say that. The crap joke is in my opinion refers to the book Mao an untold story whose whole purpose is to demonise Mao . It argues that Mao from the time of his birth had plans to kill some x million Chinese people and till death worked to fullfill that plan alone.
Yeah, very possible that not everyone is saying outright that China is capitalist. However, references to the capitalist media attacking Mao as being "anti-communist" (RKN) and that fewer starve under communism than capitalism (redterror - basing this at least in part on an assessment of Mao's China as opposed to various other countries) suggest either seeing China as communist or a slack use of vocab.

Certainly, however, there's a general attempt throughout most of the posts to try and back up the view of Mao as progressive that is very dubious.

Vargha Poralli

18th July 2007, 13:16

Originally posted by Marion+July 18, 2007 05:27 pm--> (Marion @ July 18, 2007 05:27 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 11:29 am

On what basis would those who refer to China as communist back up their assertion?

I think most of people who posted in thread don't say that. The crap joke is in my opinion refers to the book Mao an untold story whose whole purpose is to demonise Mao . It argues that Mao from the time of his birth had plans to kill some x million Chinese people and till death worked to fullfill that plan alone.
Yeah, very possible that not everyone is saying outright that China is capitalist. However, references to the capitalist media attacking Mao as being "anti-communist" (RKN) and that fewer starve under communism than capitalism (redterror - basing this at least in part on an assessment of Mao's China as opposed to various other countries) suggest either seeing China as communist or a slack use of vocab.

Certainly, however, there's a general attempt throughout most of the posts to try and back up the view of Mao as progressive that is very dubious. [/b]
I don't know about others. But I don't see China as communist both during and after Mao.

But Mao's alleged communist system is the thing that made me a communist. No one can deny china actually progressed under Mao and CPC. China under them had always been better than China under Chiang or the Warlords.

Just compare India with China during 50's,60's and 70's you can see the difference.Look the the progress that China had made ahead of India.

There are some facts that cannot be denied by the principles that we have. Sure China's developement had paid the devastating cost in developement but the only thing we can hope for is the Chinese workers and peasants to overthrow the CPC rule.

Random Precision

18th July 2007, 16:37

Check out this article from the International Socialist Review (it also concerns Deng, so just ignore those parts if you don't need to learn about him):

http://www.isreview.org/issues/01/mao_to_deng_1.shtml

I think you'll find that Mao, while he certainly could not be considered evil, was quite idealistic and ideologically rigid and was the main leader of a regime that caused tragedy for China. His version of socialism also had very little to do with the socialism of Marx or Lenin.

al-Ibadani

18th July 2007, 20:08

What made me a communist was two things. The discovery of Marx's historical materialism, and the discovery of soviets.

Where were the soviets in China under Mao? There were none. Soviets are the ONLY way workers can exert their control.

The whole argument shows just how bourgeois the left is. Mao did this, Mao did that. What did the workers do? What did the elected and revocable delegates do?

Even if we were to be as delusional and blind to reality as to deny the murderous nature of Mao's rule. Even if Mao were a saint. THe fact remains. NO soviets= No workers' state. No soviets = no socialism.

Janus

19th July 2007, 02:57

Using nebulous moralistic terms such as "evil" in order to describe people aren't very helpful in truly trying to analyze figures and the era in which they lived. As for Mao's failures and faults, please check these threads:

Mao (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63166&hl=+Zedong++China)
thread 2 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59650&hl=+Zedong++China), 3 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56664&hl=+Zedong++China), 4 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45338&hl=+Zedong++China)

RNK

19th July 2007, 03:19

Holy assumptions, Marxman.

Criticism is a healthy thing. There were quite obvious faults in post-revolutionary China's economy and social infastructure that did lead to unecessary suffering. But the same can easily be said for any post-revolutionary society. Shit happens.

And catbert, you forgot to include "Trotsky". As that's what the article says, isn't it? And all of the article's sources are Trotskyist publications... hell, half of the sources are from International Socialist itself. Are you allowed to quote yourself as a source? Anyway, it was a nice article.

And it's hard to have Soviets without workers...

Random Precision

19th July 2007, 03:46

And catbert, you forgot to include "Trotsky". As that's what the article says, isn't it?

True. I just happen to think that Marx and Lenin are more important.

And all of the article's sources are Trotskyist publications... hell, half of the sources are from International Socialist itself. Are you allowed to quote yourself as a source?

Not the same publication, sorry. The article was from International Socialist Review, an American magazine, while the citations you mention were of the old series of International Socialist, a British journal.

As for the Trotskyist sources, that's bound to happen when you have a primarily analytical article. And I think he did a nice job of showing how far Mao's thought was from Marxist theory in general, not just Trotskyism.

bobroberts

19th July 2007, 11:17

Has anyone compared the death rate per capita between nations? China is a very populous nation, so any deadly famine would kill a lot more people than in a less populous country in terms of sheer numbers.

The population of China was something around 400 million from the Opium Wars until Mao came to power, and 700 million upon his death.

RNK

19th July 2007, 12:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:46 am
As for the Trotskyist sources, that's bound to happen when you have a primarily analytical article. And I think he did a nice job of showing how far Mao's thought was from Marxist theory in general, not just Trotskyism.
Oh, of course -- because, necessarily, anything to do with Marxism and intelligent analysis naturally involves Trotskyism, for he is the father of all knowledge, and all Marxists should be judged according to Trotsky's infallible analytical mind. :rolleyes:

And Marion... please research what Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is before you try to debunk it.

Random Precision

19th July 2007, 17:22

Oh, of course -- because, necessarily, anything to do with Marxism and intelligent analysis naturally involves Trotskyism, for he is the father of all knowledge, and all Marxists should be judged according to Trotsky's infallible analytical mind. :rolleyes:

I must say, you've completely missed the point. The article quotes Mao himself, and I think from what he said, and not just in the article , it is self-evident how far he was from real Marxism.

rebel_lord

19th July 2007, 17:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:19 am
Holy assumptions, Marxman.

Criticism is a healthy thing. There were quite obvious faults in post-revolutionary China's economy and social infastructure that did lead to unecessary suffering. But the same can easily be said for any post-revolutionary society. Shit happens.

And catbert, you forgot to include "Trotsky". As that's what the article says, isn't it? And all of the article's sources are Trotskyist publications... hell, half of the sources are from International Socialist itself. Are you allowed to quote yourself as a source? Anyway, it was a nice article.

And it's hard to have Soviets without workers...

hello all, i'm a socialist, but not a dogmatic one. Well the thing is that i'm in that i was debating about a possible 9-11 in USA, and i posted an article from Alex Jones site www.prisonplanet.com about a possible staged terror 9-11 in US.

But the sectarian leftists instead of analyzing that article they bashed me coz Alex Jones is in favor of conspiracy theory, militias and they [the sectarians] think that all people have to think exactly like they think instead of being more wide open, less sectarian, less closed minded, less reactionary, and more democratic, more open to welcome all people from all sectors of USA to the large united front that we need to be the juggernaut machine of wars and plunder against the people of this world.

But with such a sectarian stalinist view we are dead, and divided, instead of strong and united

The Author

21st July 2007, 02:40

Alex Jones is in favor of conspiracy theory, militias and they [the sectarians] think that all people have to think exactly like they think instead of being more wide open, less sectarian, less closed minded, less reactionary, and more democratic, more open to welcome all people from all sectors of USA to the large united front that we need to be the juggernaut machine of wars and plunder against the people of this world.

Alex Jones is an extreme anti-communist who once claimed that rich bankers created the "myth" of communism in the early 1900s to suppress serfs. He even says so here,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4NDMpZC_WPc

Sectarianism is not the issue, and neither is "Stalinism."

grove street

21st July 2007, 06:02

Where is Left Henry when you need him.

Labor Shall Rule

21st July 2007, 08:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:22 pm

Oh, of course -- because, necessarily, anything to do with Marxism and intelligent analysis naturally involves Trotskyism, for he is the father of all knowledge, and all Marxists should be judged according to Trotsky's infallible analytical mind. :rolleyes:

I must say, you've completely missed the point. The article quotes Mao himself, and I think from what he said, and not just in the article , it is self-evident how far he was from real Marxism.
Catbert836, that is an excellent article. For the sake of giving anybody who is unwilling to read the article a taste of what is encoded in it, I will take out the Mao quote and paste it here.

The present political problem in China is none other than the problem of the national revolution… The merchants, workers, peasants, students, and teachers should all come forward to take on the responsibility for a portion of the revolutionary war…We know that the politics of semi-colonial China is characterized by the fact that the militarists and the foreign powers have banded together to impose a twofold oppression on the whole country. The people of the whole country naturally suffer profoundly under this kind of dual oppression. Nevertheless the merchants are the ones who feel these sufferings most acutely and most urgently.

I will also like to quote On New Democracy, which also gives a taste of how disconnected Mao was from Marxism.

Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy's side and within the ranks of our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.

In other words, there will be a 'stage' under the 'joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes' in which capitalist objectives will be accomplished.

Vargha Poralli

21st July 2007, 08:37

Originally posted by RedDali
In other words, there will be a 'stage' under the 'joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes' in which capitalist objectives will be accomplished.

On new democracy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm) with the text you have quoted in its context.

And more about class colloboration. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm)

Labor Shall Rule

21st July 2007, 08:50

Originally posted by g.ram+July 21, 2007 07:37 am--> (g.ram @ July 21, 2007 07:37 am)
RedDali
In other words, there will be a 'stage' under the 'joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes' in which capitalist objectives will be accomplished.

On new democracy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm) with the text you have quoted in its context.

And more about class colloboration. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm) [/b]
Thanks, I meant to post On New Democracy as a link, but I forgot.

Marion

21st July 2007, 09:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:21 am
And Marion... please research what Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is before you try to debunk it.
Well, how about you start telling me where you think I've gone wrong and then I reply?

RNK

22nd July 2007, 02:15

Two quotes:

Basically their foreign policy since the 70s could be summed up as support for whoever was against the USSR - inter-imperialist squabbles on all sides.

On what basis would those who refer to China as communist back up their assertion?

...lead me to believe that you're under the impression that modern Maoists assert that China is still communist/socialist, hell, even progressive -- which it isn't, and which I've never seen a MLM do.

Also, you've disregarded all claims that the scale of the famine that hit China post-revolution was exhagerated by Western mediums -- without giving anything but a sly remark. You didn't exactly back up any sort of point concerning why western media wouldn't protray an anti-communist view of China. You've also seen to taken it a step further and made some innuendo that I believe China was or is communist -- which I haven't.

then effectively you're constructing an anti-capitalist and pro-Communist argument by stating that both have starved loads of people?!

How has Communism starved anybody? Last I checked, the power to control weather does not exist today, let alone in the 1950s. Yes, problems arised facing a very serious ecological crises -- problems of food distribution, etc, but that in no way makes the grossly exhaggerated claims of western accounts "truth" anymore than it proves that Mao was some bloodthirsty vampire bent on annihilating millions of his countrymen (which is a silly claim anyway, and one I'd only expect to hear from an idiot, not a person claiming to have even the most basic knowledge of socialism).

In other words, there will be a 'stage' under the 'joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes' in which capitalist objectives will be accomplished.

How is this disconnected from Marxism in any way?

First, 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.

First, Marx does not discount that a post-revolutionary society may be indirectly led by a minority proletariat in countries where a relatively small number of proletarians existed; second:

Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it.

It is not discounted that revolutionary proletarians will have to join with elements of the bourgeoisie to carry out their objectives -- which is precisely what Mao did when he sided with the Koumintang during the bourgeois revolution and the destruction of fuedalism in China. Immediately afterwards -- infact, even before the 'job was done' -- the KMT turned on the proletariat, dealt it massive defeats in the cities and brought about the necessity of a proletarian and peasant revolution. I've seen a lot of Marxists disagree with this choice, disagree with the decision to launch a revolution in a country not yet ready -- but it was either that, or face the complete annihilation of the fledgeling class-conscious population and the utter domination of the entire state by the bourgeois.

I also don't agree with this belief that only an industrialized country can "revolutionize"; Marx himself states that

The sole advantages which the proletariat would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist ... in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start.

The Chinese revolution followed this path. To the letter.

Where were the soviets in China under Mao? There were none. Soviets are the ONLY way workers can exert their control.

Funny, I don't remember Marx claiming this.

In any case, early into the Chinese revolution (infact, the precursor to it, in a way), the KMT almost completely destroyed all organized urban proletarians -- of which Mao was a member. They were not called "Soviets", and they were much smaller and had far less control than the Russian Soviets, but organized urban proletariat did exist and did attempt to exert their class interests via their organizing. The KMT's campaign sent Mao and all other revolutionary forces into the countryside, where the Revolutionary Army of Workers and Peasants was formed to continue on the revolution. And as a consequence of the historical realities of China at the time, Mao developed and adopted a strategy of rural guerilla warfare coupled with smaller-scale insurrection in the cities, as we now see in places like Nepal and the Philippines, countries similar to China during the 30s and 40s where the bourgeoisie was concentrated in and had full control over "urban fortresses" where revolutionary activity was brutally repressed.

Anyway I'm done. Typed too much.

Marion

22nd July 2007, 10:45

Thanks for taking the time to post.

Nope - didn't think that most "modern Maoists" think China is still progressive. However, during the 70's large proportions did. For present-day Maoists there is the question of at which period China stopped being communist/socialist/progressive. What's your position?

With regards to the rest of the post:

Redterror wrote:

The capitalists don't typically tell you about the death toll of their economic philosophy, but are always quick to point to the people who starved while Mao was in power.

My sole point was that this discussion about the number of famine deaths in China versus capitalist countries presupposes that that China was a fundamentally different type of society. I wasn't actually making any points whatsoever about the number of famine deaths in China or the US or anywhere else or about the role of the media in one or the other, merely just referring to the implications of Redterror's argument.

You replied with the assumption that I'd taken at "face value every pro-capitalist, anti-communist piece of information you hear" that I presume was either aimed at me or Alibadani. Given that neither of us have said anything about the number of famine deaths what pieces of "pro-capitalist" media have either of us have wrongly taken as correct? Do you believe that people can be anti-Mao while still accepting that media in the IS or UK or wherever probably exaggerates stuff about him?

The rest of what you've written doesn't deal at all with the question of why China should be considered communist in any way whatsoever, which is the question I'm trying to raise. Apart from the focus on the peasantry, moreover, how does any of this differ from Stalinism?

Also, you've rather skipped over the question of workers councils. You suggest that there was an organised urban proletariat which existed and organised itself to exert their class interests. Well, in what way were they 'organised' and what structures were in place to ensure that their interests were at the heart of the actions of the "Communists" at the time? If workers councils weren't at the base of "Communist" organising at the time then what was? How was this control maintained throughout the history of China until it stopped being "communist" (whenever you think this was)? How does this compare to the repeated influence throughout Mao's time of various inter-factional conflicts?

Marion

22nd July 2007, 11:03

PS Just thought - I've used the word "communist" a few times in reference to China in the last couple of paragraphs when you might think its never been communist. Shouldn't really change the basic points though...

chimx

22nd July 2007, 13:56

It is generally agreed that during the Great Leap Forward, upwards of 30 million people died because of famine. While natural causes no doubt played a part in these deaths, the rapid change in the agrarian economy nou doubt complicated matters and lead to an increase in deaths. But I have not read anywhere that this was the intent of Mao--to kill Chinese peasants. If his intentions were for the betterment of China's people, even if the end result was horrid, I don't see how he could be qualified as "evil" for it.

The Great Leap Forward is where the most massive amount of death occured. Early purges constituted a couple of million probably, and could be labeled as capitalists, nationalistists (that opposed communism), wealthy landlords, wealthy peasants, collaborators, or people simply confused as being such.

The Cultural Revolution is also attributed with causing the deaths of a million or two usually. These statistics generally include the surge in suicide among intellectuals, artists, professors, and rightists.

But these latter two movements were relatively decentralized, and to attribute the resulting deaths to the "evilness" of Mao is to ignore the social nature of revolution in a political unstable environement.

RNK

22nd July 2007, 19:18

The rest of what you've written doesn't deal at all with the question of why China should be considered communist in any way whatsoever, which is the question I'm trying to raise.

The obvious answer I gave was no, China is not and has never been communist, just like the USSR was never communist, nor Cuba or Vietnam... as communism is a classless society where the state has been abolished, and that obviously didn't happen, then the answer is fairly obvious.

Also, you've rather skipped over the question of workers councils. You suggest that there was an organised urban proletariat which existed and organised itself to exert their class interests. Well, in what way were they 'organised' and what structures were in place to ensure that their interests were at the heart of the actions of the "Communists" at the time?

No, I suggested that there was short-lived organized urban proletarian organizations that met with complete disaster in the 20s and 30s, and that their attempts to exert their class interest were impossible under the social characteristics of China at the time. Hence Mao's realization that the urban proletariat were unable to create a revolutionary movement on their own, and his decision to gather the revolutionary force of the rural peasantry.

If workers councils weren't at the base of "Communist" organising at the time then what was?

Up until their eradication, the Communist Party was essentially a standard Marxist urban proletarian platform party. Then, like I said, during the 20s and 30s, the urban proletarian movement was shattered, Communist forces were forced to flee to the countryside where most were killed. Mao adapted to the situation. The "base" of organization was around revolutionary peasant councils and the Chinese Soviet Republic until the creation of the PRC.

How was this control maintained throughout the history of China until it stopped being "communist" (whenever you think this was)?

As it was never communist, this question is superfluous, but... "power" was maintained via the peasantry and their role in the vanguard party. As Marx wrote, the peasant saw in the Communists their future, and, as the Communists and their urban proletarian base were too weak to carry out a revolution on their own, it was a necessity to use the revolutionary force of the peasants to defeat the KMT. Do you disagree?

For present-day Maoists there is the question of at which period China stopped being communist/socialist/progressive. What's your position?

The "slow-down" of China's progressive socialist nature began immediately after the revolutionary victory. Power struggles throughout society, and the inclusion of the deposed bourgeois who had fled into the Party before and after 1949, led to the first honest attempt by the people to once-and-for-all destroy the state, eliminate class antagonisms and build a better society. They failed, and everything gained was undone. I can't put an exact date on when this occured. It was a decades-long process.

I didn't say anything about any numbers killed blahblahblah

You don't have to. Your intent is quite clear through what you have said.

I still haven't been told how the Chinese revolution, and Mao inparticular are not Marxist... where did Mao go against the principles of Marxism? Where did his ideology split from that of Marxism?

And remember, Leninism is not Marxism.

Marion

22nd July 2007, 21:24

Your intent is quite clear through what you have said.

Please don't make any assumptions about what my intent is. You suggested that I should "go home" as I had swallowed "pro-capitalist" and "anti-communist" media lies - its pretty clear that I haven't said anything to lead to this impression so you have to insinuate about what my intention is (which is obviously critical but has nothing to do with the "pro-capitalist" media).

You seemed to have missed the PS I appended to the post. Anyway, I'll try to clarify things as I know my original phrasing may not have been the greatest and in light of your stated views...

Given that you think China was "progressive socialist" for a few decades (although declining over that period) what exact processes were there in place to make sure that this "progressive socialist" state of affairs and any attempted move towards communism was organised by either the workers or the peasants from below? Your sole comment seems to be:

"power" was maintained via the peasantry and their role in the vanguard party

which doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. Again, apart from the focus on the peasantry how does any of what you've said differ from Stalinism?

In terms of Marx, its pretty clear that there are numerous interpretations of Marx that can sustain anyone from Social Democrats to "Infantile" left-wingers. Personally, I tend to favour the Marx who suggested that emancipation had to be the work of the working-class themselves and who was in favour of internationalism as I think this is the position that makes best sense of the history of much of Marxism and Communism since Marx's death (I also think it helps interpreting Marx as well). I'd argue that Maoism clearly goes against both these principles. Of course, these criticisms are exactly the same criticisms made by the capitalist media so I've perhaps just been swallowing their lies again ;)

Joseph Ball

22nd July 2007, 23:28

As I have said before the figure of 30 million dead during the Great Leap Forward only emerged during a political campaign against the ideological legacy of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution by Deng Xiaoping, followed by further dubious statistical work by US demographers. Check out my article 'Did Mao Really Kill Millions In The Great Leap Forward' at www.monthlyreview.org ('Commentary' section.)

By the way, if anyone is wondering why so few pro-Mao views are expressed on 'RevLeft' and why so much white chauvanist, racist rubbish goes on it unchecked you might want to check out this email exchange by the administrator of these forums, who clearly couldn't care less about racism and sexism (as he doesn't answer my complaint about it) and who seeks to close down opposing opinions on these forums so that white, western supremicism can have open sway.

Joseph Ball schrieb:
> Message =
> Dear Admin Team
> I want to protest in the strongest terms about the banning of Glory to Bethune and Sandyanon.
>
> You have never given any reasons for banning them. As far as I can tell, it is due to the views they have expressed about the priviliged,chauvanistic nature of the US working class. This is just commonsense to anyone not caught up in Trotskyist/anarchist fantasies. I am particuly sickened by this because in the past racist material has been posted on this website in the form of racist, sarcastic messages to a Chinese poster along with a falsified 'joke' picture of an enemy of the
US in his underwear. This was a clear echo of the humiliation meted out by yankees and Brits against prisoners of war in Iraq. In addition the word 'c**t' was used. Nothing was ever done about this but 2 revolutionaries are now banned for challenging the western supremicist views that seem to have hegemony over these forums.
>
> I demand that 'RevLeft' immediately
> 1. States its reasons for banning these 2 revolutionaries.
> 2. Makes public self-criticism for its actions.
> 3. Reverses the ban.
> Joseph Ball

['Malte's' reply] Who the fuck cares what you demand outside your ridiculous little cult?

Malte is the person who runs these forums. He does not care about racial abuse and insults or sexist abuse and insults. I would suggest people need to think very carefully about their use of these forums and whether someone like Malte is a fit and proper person to be administrating a purportedly socialist forum.

chimx

23rd July 2007, 00:35

Joseph Ball

23rd July 2007, 00:57

I know the figure of 30 million is in all the books you read about the Great Leap Forward but the source is always the same-the death rate figures released by Deng Xiaoping, I ask everyone to read my article before judging on this issue.

By the way, apparently there has been some vote among the administrators to ban me too. Apparently it is believed I am a member of the group Glory to Bethune and Sandyanon are in. I don't think they actually are in any group. They sound like they used to be MIM/IRTR supporters. I believe these groups are mainly correct but are significantly wrong in its attacks on maoist leaders. I also uphold the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) which they certainly do not.

It's not important if I am banned, as I have said before the internet is a big place where it is easy to find people to debate with.

I urge others to consider whether they should support forums that can ban revolutionaries for stating the obvious about the revolutionary potential of the western proletariat while tolerating racism and sexism. I have offered to assist Malte in dealing with the racism and sexism that appears on these forums and I hope he takes up the offer.

chimx

23rd July 2007, 01:33

I doubt if you would be banned because you behave in a civil manner. Glory and Sandy didn't.

I know the figure of 30 million is in all the books you read about the Great Leap Forward but the source is always the same-the death rate figures released by Deng Xiaoping, I ask everyone to read my article before judging on this issue.

They don't all use that figures. The figures vary from 18 million to 45 million depending on the historian.

RNK

23rd July 2007, 02:52

The fact that numerous western historians came up with similar figures does not necessarily prove their validity. On the contrary, if that were true, then the fact that 1000 years ago everyone thought the world was flat would have made it fact.

Two things are certain (in my mind, atleast):

1) There's a troubling reluctance to question western accounts on the number of casualties during the Leap and Cultural Revolution -- though the same comrades will argue similar figures by similar historians when it comes to the revolution in Russia and elsewhere until they are blue in the face. Why?

2) What I "believe" and what is true are most likely two very different things. I choose to believe, based on the facts I have personally seen, that the famine was mainly an ecological and natural disaster compounded by mismanagement on the part of the Leap's agricultural distribution and the CPC's mishandling of the crisis, and that the Cultural Revolution was an honest attempt by class-conscious revolutionaries, both in and outside of the Party, to create a social "Great Leap Forward" and accomplish that which, as yet, hadn't been attempted -- the destruction of class and state.

It's quite possible I'm wrong. Naturally, I don't have all the facts available to me. Those that do know were imprisoned and executed by those that now tell the "official story", and who are the same people who initiated the market reforms and re-introduced capitalism into China. I am against them, and that's what's important. I attempted to have an ideological debate about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and all I got in return were quotes of famine deaths and heresay about the cultural revolution. Rather than a discussion about Maoist principles, I got people who are obsessed with pointing out what Mao may or may not have been responsible for 50 years ago. If I had argued in a similar fashion about Lenin, ignoring his ideology and focusing on the brutalities of the Soviet Union which may or may not have occured, I'd probably be in OI right now. Or be branded an Anarchist. Or both.

Marion

23rd July 2007, 10:09

Rather than a discussion about Maoist principles, I got people who are obsessed with pointing out what Mao may or may not have been responsible for 50 years ago.

Perhaps you just haven't had time to reply to my message yet (very possible), but I think all my posts have been very much to do with Maoist principles and there have been one or two similar posts from others.

Although I've tried to avoid the famine deaths issue in my discussion with you (only really raising it as you tried to say, without any evidence, that I'd swallowed pro-capitalist crap), if you call yourself a Maoist you've got to expect to be asked to explain your position in relation to various things that Mao and his party did, whether it be 50 years ago or whenever. Saying that, I can understand how you might get pissed off if you end up having the same debates over and over again, but then that's just something you need to deal with.

Joseph Ball

23rd July 2007, 22:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:33 am
I doubt if you would be banned because you behave in a civil manner. Glory and Sandy didn't.

They don't all use that figures. The figures vary from 18 million to 45 million depending on the historian.
Check out the disgusting treatment of China Student on the Kim Jong Il thread on Chit Chat back in February for some examples of people that behaved in a very uncivil manner but weren't dealt with because they were Trotskyists or anarchists. See current debate in 'Technical' on the 'Permission Denied' thread for more on this.

The 18 million figure and the 45 million figure all depend on the Deng Xiaoping figures. There are just various extrapolations from these figures that bring you down to 18 million or up to 45 million depending on what you do with them.

Labor Shall Rule

25th July 2007, 20:42

No one here has challenged Mao on the basis of the allegations of how many were killed in the famine, but rather the class he represented through his theories as illustrated in On New Democracy, in On The Peoples' Democratic Dictatorship. and the other quoted work that was taken out of the International Socialist Review. At best, he represented the nationalist bourgeoisie, and the proletariat; you have offered no argument to counter this otherwise.

PigmerikanMao

27th July 2007, 02:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:01 am
Mao wasn't evil, just a fucking capitalist pig, like Bush. His regime killed millions of workers and peasants in the name of building so-called socialism aka state capitalism.

Anyway, the fact that the ruling party is implementing more and more neo-liberal policies is ample proof that China was never socialist, nor a workers' state. It was state-capitalist and imperialist. It exploited the hell out of China's proletariat, while usurping Marxist language.
Im sorry, but no. Maoist China was the last socialist state to exist until the bourgeois were instated after the overthrow of the gang of four in 1976, just like Russia after the death of Stalin. Furthermore, explain how Mao was a capitalist pig. The cultural revolution has been regarded by most as the furthest advance of socialism in history- so I would like to know how Mao was like Bush.

Random Precision

27th July 2007, 04:54

Im sorry, but no. Maoist China was the last socialist state to exist until the bourgeois were instated after the overthrow of the gang of four in 1976, just like Russia after the death of Stalin.

China was never a socialist state, neither was Stalin's Soviet Union. Read the article I posted upthread.

Furthermore, explain how Mao was a capitalist pig.

Read the article. And you're going to have to do more than throw out all these ridiculous claims and not back them up.

The cultural revolution has been regarded by most as the furthest advance of socialism in history

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Not much you can say to that!

chimx

27th July 2007, 05:27

Following the Chinese civil war, Mao led a moderate position that emphasized the eventual creation of a socialist economy, but in the short term, advocated economic recovery by siding with rightists such as Fan Hong, who said in 1949, "The national bourgeoisie still has a historical task . . . the development of capitalism through exploitation. Workers' welfare and their majority employment is inseparable from the right of exploitation. Enough restrictions are present: the private sector is utterly dependent on the state sector for raw materials; hence the changeover from capitalism to socialism will be easy through state control."*

This sentiment is somewhat mirrored by Mao himself a year later when he said, "In line with the principle of making over-all plans and taking all factors into consideration, drifting and anarchy in our economic work should be gradually eliminated, existing industry and commerce should be properly readjusted, and relations between the state sector and the private sector and between labour and capital should be effectively and suitably improved; thus under the leadership of the socialist state sector all sectors of the economy will function satisfactorily with a due division of labour to promote the rehabilitation and development of the whole economy. The view held by certain people that it is possible to eliminate capitalism and realize socialism at an early date is wrong, it does not tally with our national conditions."**

* China Under Threat by Gurtov and Hwang, pg. 29
** Selected works of Mao, vol. 5, link (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_06.htm)

Labor Shall Rule

27th July 2007, 05:35

Mao was not a 'member' of the urban proletariat; at the time of the suppression of the revolutionary cadres, he was working with small-landed and landless proprietors in Hunan. He was in a section of the Communist Party of China that willingly followed the bureaucratic Executive Committee of the Communist International with the obedience of a police dog, and later became apart of the Executive Committee of the Guomintang and a member of the National Popular Party while claiming that it was a 'class front'. As a matter of fact, shortly after the suppression, Stalin pressured the remnants of the CPC to appoint Qu Qiubai, who was a class associate of Mao, as head of the party.

It was the Comintern under Stalin that insisted upon an alliance of the Chinese Communist Party to the Nationalists, which was nothing more than Menshevism. The struggle between the Left Oppostion and the Center and Right was precisely over the question of which class should lead the revolution; the former arguing that all efforts must be made to place the working class at the head of the revolutionary insurrection, the latter arguing that it was necessary to let the national bourgeoisie steer the course with the communist forces loyally holding up the rear, which they knew would lead to their annihilation. Mao, who upheld the policies of Comintern and took on a form of Menshevism himself through his writings that we have already posted in this thread, substituted the remnants of the party. The near destruction of revolutionary movement and the more or less absolute destruction of its working class cadres created a vaccum which peasant-based guerrillas such as Mao would fill, with all of the later disastrous economic and social consequences that came as a result of the capitalist development that Mao adopted.

"Only the proletariat of the most advanced capitalist countries – with the organized assistance of the Chinese proletariat – will be able to take in tow the 400 million atomized, pauperized, backward peasant economy, and through a series of intermediate stages lead it to socialism, on the basis of a worldwide exchange of commodities, and direct technical and organizational assistance from the outside. To believe that without the victory of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries, and prior to this victory, China is capable with her own forces of “skipping over the capitalist stage of development” is to trample underfoot the ABCs of Marxism."

The Chinese Revolution was anti-imperalist and historically progressive, but it did not establish a workers state or anything resembling a socialist society. It couldn't. And whatever chances it may have had were flushed down the drain by the policy of Stalin's Comintern. I'm not playing a "blame game" here - there is a chain of cause and effect that stands outside anyone's subjective wishes.

Never Give In

27th July 2007, 16:16

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so excuse me if what i'm about to say has already been said.

Mao was not "evil". Mao was just very, uh, rigid when it came to politics and ideas and all the deaths were the result of Totalitarianism, i'd think.

RNK

2nd September 2007, 07:03

It took me awhile, but I finally found this thread.

It was the Comintern under Stalin that insisted upon an alliance of the Chinese Communist Party to the Nationalists, which was nothing more than Menshevism.

Here is what Mao wrote on the subject in On The Ten Major Relationships (1956):

Stalin did a number of wrong things in connection with China. The "Left" adventurism pursued by Wang Ming in the latter part of the Second Revolutionary Civil War period and his Right opportunism in the early days of the War of Resistance Against Japan can both be traced to Stalin. At the time of the War of Liberation, Stalin first enjoined us not to press on with the revolution, maintaining that if civil war flared up, the Chinese nation would run the risk of destroying itself. Then when fighting did erupt, he took us half seriously, half sceptically. When we won the war, Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed.

Mao clearly had his own reservations on Stalin's behaviour towards the Chinese.

Also, I believe you misunderstand the nature of pre-revolutionary China. Our understanding of the term "Menshevism" is based on the historical development of revolutionary Russia, where it was proven that the Mensheviks adopted an erroneous policy regarding the revolution. China, during the 1920s and 1930s, was not ready for revolution; during the 20s, the focus was, correctly, against fuedalism and the "bourgeois revolution". It wasn't until the defeat of fuedalism that revolution was possible; this was not only proven a fact in China, but is also a well-developed analysis of Marx himself. His opinions on the need for revolutionaries to form a temporary strategic alliance with the bourgeoisie in order to eradicate fuedalism is obvious. This is what occured in China. Infact, I'd have more merit saying that it may have even been too early for revolution in 1949 than you have merit claiming the communists' refusal to act in the 20s and 30s was Menshevism.

OneBrickOneVoice

2nd September 2007, 07:46

shit how did i completely miss this thread

RNK

2nd September 2007, 09:32

It was buried, and hadn't been posted in since July 27th...

Hiero

2nd September 2007, 09:43

I heard that Mao invented famine for the purposing of controlling the people just so he could use famine to kill them.

grove street

14th September 2007, 07:05

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+July 27, 2007 01:38 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ July 27, 2007 01:38 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:01 am
Mao wasn't evil, just a fucking capitalist pig, like Bush. His regime killed millions of workers and peasants in the name of building so-called socialism aka state capitalism.

Anyway, the fact that the ruling party is implementing more and more neo-liberal policies is ample proof that China was never socialist, nor a workers' state. It was state-capitalist and imperialist. It exploited the hell out of China's proletariat, while usurping Marxist language.
Im sorry, but no. Maoist China was the last socialist state to exist until the bourgeois were instated after the overthrow of the gang of four in 1976, just like Russia after the death of Stalin. Furthermore, explain how Mao was a capitalist pig. The cultural revolution has been regarded by most as the furthest advance of socialism in history- so I would like to know how Mao was like Bush. [/b]
I would classify the Cultural Revolution as the furthest advance towards Communism in history before the Albanian Uprising of 1997.