Cultural Revolution

[Red Scare]

I am wondering what people think about a country undergoing a cultural revolution, I think one is definitely necessary in the US because except for some good music and art the US's culture is capitalism

[Random Precision]

The Cultural Revolution in China was completely bureaucratic in origin and its theory was adapted to suit the needs of Mao at the time he started it, namely getting back atop the Stalinist bureaucracy.

Even if the idea of a cultural revolution was genuine in ideological origin, I think it would be incredibly foolish to force one on the population like Mao did. I don't know if one would be necessary here, but if it is it must come from the masses themselves.

[Dominicana_1965]

In my opinion they are completely necessary and one of the most overlooked forms of Bourgeois oppression. The Bourgeois culture can find many ways to "slip" through even a revolutionary state..in that the state itself is Bourgeois culturally, not only the state but the Bourgeois culture also to a extent stays intact with the people of that region.

The culture I am talking about far surpasses any movie or music, its more based on human's social normatives that are widely influenced by a Bourgeois mentality (humans maintain these normatives by policing society in whats considered right and wrong). For instance some people that want change in the world often utilize a Bourgeois normative, privatization. Although they have a alternative view..in reality they are still very conservative in their thinking. For example some groups like to liberate "their" people & "their" homeland...people end up creating a "us" and "them".

They help enforce social constructions without noticing it. Instead of moving away from the Bourgeoisie they are actually getting much closer.
In some political revolutionary states there is very much still a Bourgeois culture that is adhered to..it goes from love, family, movies, shows, children, psychiatrists, sports..you name it and it will most likely be hidden in there. The Bourgeois culture is also a big part of why people think its "normal" for humans to be greedy, due to society's egotistical lifestyle that was taught to them socially since a early age. I feel that this parasitical vagabond is one of the reasons why some of the most progressive Socialist states of the past collapsed. Due to society's lack of critique of Bourgeois culture it lives on unabated....and it attaches itself to those that are the most revolutionary. They maintain a cultural memory and thus ressurect it or just simply don't try to attack it.

I think the easiest way to wither it away is by deconstructing and criticizing wherever the Bourgeois cultural institution lies..beginning with privatizing people and giving individuals essentials based on their socially constructed identities. Breaking it down in basic education for children of the revolutionary states.

Maybe then we can truly talk about a independent proletarian state.
A proletarian state that is politically & culturally independent and not dependent on a homophobic, sexist, ageist, racist, privatizing lifestyle.

[Tower of Bebel]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to end bourgeois ideology. If we are talking about ideology, then it must already have ended during the social revolution. I think the "cultural revolution" was unique and could only have occured in the PRC.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:28 am
In my opinion they are completely necessary and one of the most overlooked forms of Bourgeois oppression. The Bourgeois culture can find many ways to "slip" through even a revolutionary state..in that the state itself is Bourgeois culturally, not only the state but the Bourgeois culture also to a extent stays intact with the people of that region.

The culture I am talking about far surpasses any movie or music, its more based on human's social normatives that are widely influenced by a Bourgeois mentality (humans maintain these normatives by policing society in whats considered right and wrong). For instance some people that want change in the world often utilize a Bourgeois normative, privatization. Although they have a alternative view..in reality they are still very conservative in their thinking. For example some groups like to liberate "their" people & "their" homeland...people end up creating a "us" and "them".

They help enforce social constructions without noticing it. Instead of moving away from the Bourgeoisie they are actually getting much closer.
In some political revolutionary states there is very much still a Bourgeois culture that is adhered to..it goes from love, family, movies, shows, children, psychiatrists, sports..you name it and it will most likely be hidden in there. The Bourgeois culture is also a big part of why people think its "normal" for humans to be greedy, due to society's egotistical lifestyle that was taught to them socially since a early age. I feel that this parasitical vagabond is one of the reasons why some of the most progressive Socialist states of the past collapsed. Due to society's lack of critique of Bourgeois culture it lives on unabated....and it attaches itself to those that are the most revolutionary. They maintain a cultural memory and thus ressurect it or just simply don't try to attack it.

I think the easiest way to wither it away is by deconstructing and criticizing wherever the Bourgeois cultural institution lies..beginning with privatizing people and giving individuals essentials based on their socially constructed identities. Breaking it down in basic education for children of the revolutionary states.

Maybe then we can truly talk about a independent proletarian state.
A proletarian state that is politically & culturally independent and not dependent on a homophobic, sexist, ageist, racist, privatizing lifestyle.
It sounds like you belive that the culutural revolution could occur as part of the socialist transition phase, rather than the violent outburst that occurred in Mao's Stalinist PRC. Is this the case?

[Red Scare]

i think it should be not as violent but not gradual at all :hammer: :che: :redstar: :cuba:

[RGacky3]

Culture is'nt something that should be revolutionized, Culture is something that happens naturally, when social conditions change, culture will change Naturally, i.e. you can't force Culture, and you should'nt want too.

The Chinneese Cultural revolution was nothing more than Mao Consolidating power.

[Dominicana_1965]

It sounds like you belive that the culutural revolution could occur as part of the socialist transition phase, rather than the violent outburst that occurred in Mao's Stalinist PRC. Is this the case?
In my opinion Mao & Stalin's attempt at a cultural change was Bourgeois in itself.
I feel that a cultural revolution can either occur through raising awareness like we do with Socialism...but under the current normatives its nearly impossible, so we need a cultural revolution inside of a political revolution where we analyze how and why do the Bourgeois normatives continue to exist. In my opinion the cultural revolution should start in a school under a Socialist state, so we can critique the Bourgeois mentality, especially among the elders that consider it a cultural memory and have the potential to live it and ressurect it.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:05 pm
Culture is'nt something that should be revolutionized, Culture is something that happens naturally, when social conditions change, culture will change Naturally, i.e. you can't force Culture, and you should'nt want too.

The Chinneese Cultural revolution was nothing more than Mao Consolidating power.
I agree completely.

[Rawthentic]

Looks like y'all have some bad misunderstandings of what needs to be done to get to communism.

One of the "4 Alls" that Marx talked about and Mao elaborated was the revolutionizing of the ideas that correspond to the social relations in society, something that the cultural revolution attempted to do, by emphasizing criticisms of party leaders, new forms of art, etc, etc.

This is a good article on it: "The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)"

[Tatarin]

How is a cultural revolution any different than the "war on internet piracy"?

[RGacky3]

One of the "4 Alls" that Marx talked about and Mao elaborated was the revolutionizing of the ideas that correspond to the social relations in society, something that the cultural revolution attempted to do, by emphasizing criticisms of party leaders, new forms of art, etc, etc.

Interestingly though, Mao himself and his Mao's allies were not critisized, infact, not being a supporter of Mao could get you killed during that time. The Cultural revolution was not a grass roots affair, it was organized by Mao and his Cronies, so it was'nt, as the article makes it out to be, a popular upheaval, it was organized and directed from above, above being Mao, and the critisism was against party leaders that stood in Maos way. When you come down to it, it was Mao Consolidating power, and leaving many dead, and destroying much while doing it.

The attack on art, and culture was really nothing more than censorship and gross objectivity (i.e. Maos way is the only right way), Culture and art is'nt something that can or should be directed from above. Like I said before you can't force Culture, nor should anyone want too.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:53 pm
How is a cultural revolution any different than the "war on internet piracy"?
what does that have to do with this? i am myself a large supporter of the pirate bay and piratbyran :ph34r: :star: :che:

[RedHal]

Ppl who criticize the cultural revolution, use it to criticize Mao's "obssesion" with power.. Sure one can argue that Mao's use of the cultural revoluton was to solidify his power, but take Mao out of the equation, and one can see the need for cultural revolution and the truth behind it.

Again, those ppl who don't see the necessity of cultural revolutions envision a perfectly smooth revolution, where everyone will miraculously drop all the beourgious cultural baggage that has existed in societies for milleniums.


How is a cultural revolution any different than the "war on internet piracy"?

yeah WTF? some ppl really need to find out the basics of what something is before commentating. I understand the difficuties with the distortion by the beourgious media but plz do some basic research. Piracy for all!

[Tatarin]

what does that have to do with this?

No, I just thought of the paralell with the Cultural Revolution. People will choose culture as they please, and it is with the onset of the internet that culture can basically grow unlimited - whatever it may be.


i am myself a large supporter of the pirate bay and piratbyran

So am I.


I understand the difficuties with the distortion by the beourgious media but plz do some basic research. Piracy for all!

I never said I was against internet piracy, only that a cultural revolution would be hard to do if there is an internet. Who would decide what and what isn't revolutionary culture? What would happen if people didn't go along with it?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:56 pm

One of the "4 Alls" that Marx talked about and Mao elaborated was the revolutionizing of the ideas that correspond to the social relations in society, something that the cultural revolution attempted to do, by emphasizing criticisms of party leaders, new forms of art, etc, etc.

Interestingly though, Mao himself and his Mao's allies were not critisized, infact, not being a supporter of Mao could get you killed during that time. The Cultural revolution was not a grass roots affair, it was organized by Mao and his Cronies, so it was'nt, as the article makes it out to be, a popular upheaval, it was organized and directed from above, above being Mao, and the critisism was against party leaders that stood in Maos way. When you come down to it, it was Mao Consolidating power, and leaving many dead, and destroying much while doing it.

The attack on art, and culture was really nothing more than censorship and gross objectivity (i.e. Maos way is the only right way), Culture and art is'nt something that can or should be directed from above. Like I said before you can't force Culture, nor should anyone want too.
Spoken like a true bourgeois historian.

Setting the Record Straight - Raymond Lotta (http://www.thisiscommunism.org)

Maybe this time you will read it. ;)

[RNK]

Rgacky, you're once again demonstrating quite clearly your complete lack of knowledge about what actually took place during the GPCR and the years immediately prior and following. Frankly, I'm tired of having to explain it to people like you repeatedly. I have nothing more to say to you other than express my opinion that you'd make a great right-wing blogger.


I never said I was against internet piracy, only that a cultural revolution would be hard to do if there is an internet.

It depends on your knowledge of what "cultural revolution" actually means. And judging by your statements, you don't quite understand it.


Who would decide what and what isn't revolutionary culture?

The masses, as it occured in China.


What would happen if people didn't go along with it?

The only people that wouldn't would be bourgeois, capitalist roaders and their sympathizers. And as history has proven by China's pro-capitalist development since the "enemies of the cultural revolution" took over, that's exactly what occured.

What occurs on this forum every single day is an example of "cultural revolution" -- it is a great mass movement that questions and criticizes every old tradition, every nonsensical philosphy, every illogical opinion that the histories of fuedalism and capitalism have concocted. It critically analyses and does away with all of the old conservative notions of society and replaces them with scientific understanding and logical conclusion. And, above all, it was not a movement of Mao, it was a movement of the masses. And if you think it was Mao who had people arbitrarily arrested and killed, I'd emplore you to investigate some of the leaders of the cultural revolution who still rot in Chinese prisons to this day, or who have long since died in incarceration, as well as those executed by the pro-capitalist roaders and beauraucrats.

[Vargha Poralli]

The problem with Chinese cultural revolution it became a battleground for the two factions of the bureaucarcy. It is same as the great purges of Stalin the primary difference being Stalin relied on the Secret Police to conduct the purges while Mao used Students and Common workers to conduct it.It is really confusing that LinBiao who had been polished as Mao's successor during the beginning of the cultural revolution was demonised later as yet another capitalist roader and DengXioPing was brought back by Mao himself to manage the chaotic situations during its end and again purged until Mao's death. It is a tragic thing for Chinese which accomplished accomplished nothing even in the Mao's original intentions. It was Deng Xioping who gained power after the cultural revolution's end.

As for cultural revolution itself - yes it is needed but certainly not in the manner it is carries out it China. Culture cannot be uprooted on the whole - it can only be built upon the existing ones.

Rgacky3 pretty much says it well in his posts. And none of the links provided by Mosists address this issue.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:56 pm


Interestingly though, Mao himself and his Mao's allies were not critisized

bullshit. They actually were critiscized by revisionist forces like Liu Shaq'ui and his supporters for example.



The Cultural revolution was not a grass roots affair, it was organized by Mao and his Cronies, so it was'nt, as the article makes it out to be, a popular upheaval, it was organized and directed from above, above being Mao, and the critisism was against party leaders that stood in Maos way.

No it was a grassroots affair, it was encouraged by Mao but it was actively taken up by the masses. Very little organization was from "above" on the contrary it was a mass upheaval against sections of the government which were trying to bring back capitalism (and did as you can clearly see now~!) the fact that you can look at China today in its fully capitalist form, where sweatshops are norm, and the communist party is almost wholly made out of multi-millionaire businessmen, and tell me that it was "just mao consolidating power" rather than a historic fight against the restoration of capitalism proves you are simply dellusional. The fact that in the end after ten years that the GPCR didn't stop capitalism simply means that maoist forces didn't go far enough!


When you come down to it, it was Mao Consolidating power, and leaving many dead, and destroying much while doing it.

Um actually Mao was only Party Chairman at this time which meant he didn't hold any actual state power he was just the leader of the party and had major influential roles. He saw that new capitalists like Deng Xioping were rising and trying to gain more and more power and restore capitalism as was done in the Soviet Union, so he encouraged the masses to rise up and attack these leaders who were attempting to strip them of power by destroying what remains of capitalism were left in China and fight their corresponding social and economic and cultural relations as well as fighting to bring socialism even farther, to break down capitalist bureacracy. Mao didn't really have power to consolidate, he just was a ideological voice.


The attack on art, and culture was really nothing more than censorship and gross objectivity (i.e. Maos way is the only right way), Culture and art is'nt something that can or should be directed from above. Like I said before you can't force Culture, nor should anyone want too.

too bad that's not what the GPCR was all about.


Culture
Let’s turn to culture. We’re told that the Cultural Revolution led to a cultural wasteland. But the truth is quite different. There was an explosion of artistic activity among workers and peasants—poetry, painting, music, short stories, and even film. Mass art projects and new kinds of popular and collaborative artistic undertakings spread, including to the countryside and remote areas. Large-scale collective sculptural works, like the Rent Collection Courtyard figures, reached a very high level of artistic expression and revolutionary content.

The Cultural Revolution produced what were called “model revolutionary works.” They were pacesetters which the people all over China could use as models in their development of numerous and artistic works. Model operas and ballets put the masses on stage front and center. They conveyed their lives, and their role in society and history. These model works were of extraordinarily high level, combining traditional Chinese forms with western instruments and techniques. Significantly, strong women figured prominently in the revolutionary operas.

Different Peking Opera companies would tour in the countryside, helping local culture groups to develop and learning from local performances. Let me read from an account by someone talking about how the model revolutionary works and the general spread of revolutionary culture affected his village.

He says: "I witnessed an unprecedented surge of cultural and sports activities in my own home village, Gao Village. The rural villages, for the first time, organized theater troupes and put on performances that incorporated the contents and structure of the eight model Peking operas with local language and music. The villagers not only entertained themselves, but also learned how to read and write by getting into the text in plays, and they organized sports meets and held matches with other villages. All these activities gave the villagers an opportunity to meet, communicate, fall in love. These activities gave them a sense of discipline and organization, and created a public sphere where meetings and communications went beyond the traditional household and village clans. This had never happened before and it has never happened since."*
http://rwor.org/a/044/socialism-communism-...talism-pt14.htm (http://rwor.org/a/044/socialism-communism-better-than-capitalism-pt14.htm)

[RGacky3]

bullshit. They actually were critiscized by revisionist forces like Liu Shaq'ui and his supporters for example.

Yeah, and what happend to him? He was put under house arrest and dropped from his position, he was one of the lucky ones, many others (reactionary or not) were killed. So was critiscizm (against Mao and his cronies) really encouraged? Not at all.


No it was a grassroots affair, it was encouraged by Mao but it was actively taken up by the masses. Very little organization was from "above" on the contrary it was a mass upheaval against sections of the government which were trying to bring back capitalism (and did as you can clearly see now~!) the fact that you can look at China today in its fully capitalist form, where sweatshops are norm, and the communist party is almost wholly made out of multi-millionaire businessmen, and tell me that it was "just mao consolidating power" rather than a historic fight against the restoration of capitalism proves you are simply dellusional. The fact that in the end after ten years that the GPCR didn't stop capitalism simply means that maoist forces didn't go far enough!

It was started by Mao, the red Guard and the Cultural revolutionary committee were set up by Mao, and the enemies were picked by Mao. Kind of like the witch hunts in the middle ages, the people killing the 'witches' organized themselves, to do the bidding of the church, same way the people (some of them) did Mao's bidding.

There is no evidence at all, that the cultural revolutoin did anything to stop the return to Capitalism, or that doing it harder would have achieved anything, what it did achieve is bloodshed, fear, and Maos dictatorship.


Um actually Mao was only Party Chairman at this time which meant he didn't hold any actual state power he was just the leader of the party and had major influential roles.

If you look at both the USSR and China historically you'll see that State power was 100% subservient to Party Power.


Mao didn't really have power to consolidate, he just was a ideological voice.

Thats laughable, Mao did'nt have power to consolidate??? He Ruled China through the CCP, and the Cultural Revolution made sure of that.


I have nothing more to say to you other than express my opinion that you'd make a great right-wing blogger.

Thanks .... I guess. Well all I know is this, I'd be one of the very few anti-Capitalist, pro-Socialist, anti-State, pro-Anarchist Right-Wing Bloggers out there, the right wingers would LOVE me. :P.


Spoken like a true bourgeois historian.

Setting the Record Straight - Raymond Lotta

Maybe this time you will read it.

Or just a Historian, history is history.

I'll read it when I have time, although seeing that its written by a Maoist I can already tell its going to be Biased, but I will read it and comment later.

[RNK]

Rgacky3 pretty much says it well in his posts. And none of the links provided by Mosists address this issue.

There is nothing to address in Rgacky3's posts. They are filled with utter nonsense and historical inaccuracy. His entire position, from formulation to execution, is riddled with the plain and simple fact that he knows nothing about what occured during the Cultural Revolution. For instance:


Thats laughable, Mao did'nt have power to consolidate??? He Ruled China through the CCP, and the Cultural Revolution made sure of that.

Here he exhibits his complete lack of understanding of what actually occured. By the start of the Cultural Revolution, Mao was essentially forced into obscurity in the Party, which by that time was already controlled by the reactionaries. What little "oppression", as Rgacky calls it, did befall these reactionaries, it pales in comparison to the oppressive measures taken out against honest revolutionaries. The GPCR was not some instance of Mao sitting down and declaring "alright, let's turn China into one big gulag!" On the contrary, Mao actually had little to do with its direction and orientation; it was the revolutionary masses, the peasants and reborn proletarians, who rose up and declared their unwillingness to allow their revolution to be subverted by capitalist cronies and reactionary pigs. It was common villagers and students and workers who organized it and carried it out -- people you are supposed to support.

Though I guess some are too ignorant and blinded by sectarianism to carry out their revolutionary tasks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For a different account of the 'Cultural Revolution' in China, check these out:

http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/05-cultrev.htm

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

Summarised here:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12785

[Janus]

Cultural liberation/revolution of some sort is more or less inevitable following the collapse of capitalism in line with a shift from "bourgeois culture" to a more proletarian one. Not only that but we'll probably see many of the current social movements push their respective cultures into the fold following their former repression under capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Here he exhibits his complete lack of understanding of what actually occured. By the start of the Cultural Revolution, Mao was essentially forced into obscurity in the Party, which by that time was already controlled by the reactionaries. What little "oppression", as Rgacky calls it, did befall these reactionaries, it pales in comparison to the oppressive measures taken out against honest revolutionaries. The GPCR was not some instance of Mao sitting down and declaring "alright, let's turn China into one big gulag!" On the contrary, Mao actually had little to do with its direction and orientation; it was the revolutionary masses, the peasants and reborn proletarians, who rose up and declared their unwillingness to allow their revolution to be subverted by capitalist cronies and reactionary pigs. It was common villagers and students and workers who organized it and carried it out -- people you are supposed to support.

Though I guess some are too ignorant and blinded by sectarianism to carry out their revolutionary tasks.

Well all I can say is this, History disagrees. You might call it Bourgeoisie History, I call it History, I don't think Mao wanted to turn China into a Gulag, he was afraid of loosing the revolution to other people in the party, he was afraid of being marginalized by what he called reactionary bourgoeisie, to say that the Cultural Revolution was NOT Maos doing is simply historically incorrect, HE FOUNDED THE RED GUARDS, the Cultural revolution was an campaign entity, started by Mao. I mean to suggest that it was the peasents and workers who were just egging to censor culture, humiliate people, kill people, maintain severe disapline, and Mao was just in the background cheering them on is rediculous, Mao made sure the red guards followed his orders, purging them of any one that was'nt 100% loyal. Also many many of the people attacked by the red guards were workers and peasents.


Cultural liberation/revolution of some sort is more or less inevitable following the collapse of capitalism in line with a shift from "bourgeois culture" to a more proletarian one. Not only that but we'll probably see many of the current social movements push their respective cultures into the fold following their former repression under capitalism.

I don't see how censorship and centralization of culture has anything to do with Cultural liberation.

Let me ask again this, was critisism of Mao encouraged? Or just his rivals?

Also what oppression was there against your "honest revolutionaries," and saying little oppression against reactionaries is a long long long shot, it reminds me of a guy in another thread saying the Shining Path "may have exposed the peasents to violence" :P, if by reactionaries you mean any one not loyal to Mao then fine, if by little oppression you mean humiliation, censorship and murder, then fine.

[RNK]

Is that the best you can do? Seriously, even for a sectarianist, you're pretty idiotic.


Well all I can say is this, History disagrees. You might call it Bourgeoisie History, I call it History,

The mere fact that you are incapable of even recognizing the existence of bourgeois propaganda is worrying. And, honestly, more than enough reason to not take you seriously.

I'll humour you, though.


he was afraid of being marginalized by what he called reactionary bourgoeisie

More accurately, he was afraid of the people's authority being marginalized but what turned out to be reactionary bourgeois.


to say that the Cultural Revolution was NOT Maos doing is simply historically incorrect

Again, your inability to recognize bourgeois revisionism is worrying.

First, how did Mao "create" the cultural revolution?
How did he organize it?
Through what channels of authority did he enforce it?
With what army did he carry it out?


HE FOUNDED THE RED GUARDS, the Cultural revolution was an campaign entity, started by Mao

FFS, a quick jaunt to fucking wikipedia is all you have to do to debunk this myth. The term "Red Guard" was first used by a group of university students who were struggling against the conservative bourgeois administration of their university by forming an underground student movement called the Red Guards (hell, the fact that such a student movement had to remain underground throughout its inception is telling enough that Mao's power over society was not nearly as "absolute" as you're trying to make it out to be). After hearing news of it, Mao expressed his support for the students; this led to more radical grassroots student, and then worker movements to organize under the name Red Guards.


I mean to suggest that it was the peasents and workers who were just egging to censor culture, humiliate people, kill people, maintain severe disapline, and Mao was just in the background cheering them on is rediculous

First off, this is the most unscientific critique of the cultural revolution I've ever encountered in my entire life.

The Red Guards were a grassroots movement, as I pointed out, that mobilized throughout China to push towards a classless communist society free from reactionaries and rulers. And yes, actually, Mao WAS in the background cheering them on -- which is exactly what he should have been doing. While violent at times, the Red Guards were certainly more revolutionary than you -- they actually got up off their asses and helped spread communism, rather than complain on the internet.


Mao made sure the red guards followed his orders, purging them of any one that was'nt 100% loyal.

The fact that you're acting as if the Red Guards were some paramilitary special forces unit that reported to Mao speaks volumes to your knowledge on the matter.


Also many many of the people attacked by the red guards were workers and peasents.

The people attacked, mainly through criticism but also through violence, were class traitors, labour aristocracy, rich land-owning peasants and other petty bourgeois who had vested interest in capitalism. It was campus leaders, factory owners, land owners, and, sometimes, idiot workers and peasants who simply knew no better.

Here's what Mao himself had to say on the matter in 1956 in an address to the Party:


Originally posted by Mao
Third, from now on there should be fewer arrests and executions in the suppression of counter-revolutionaries in society at large. They are the mortal and immediate enemies of the people and are deeply hated by them, and therefore a small number should be executed. But most of them should be handed over to the agricultural co-operatives and made to work under supervision and be reformed through labour. All the same, we cannot announce that there will be no more executions, and we must not abolish the death penalty.

Fourth, in clearing out counter-revolutionaries in Party and government organs, schools and army units, we must adhere to the policy started in Yenan of killing none and arresting few. Confirmed counter-revolutionaries are to be screened by the organizations concerned, but they are not to be arrested by the public security bureaus, prosecuted by the procuratorial organs or tried by the law courts. Well over ninety out of every hundred of these counter-revolutionaries should be dealt with in this way. This is what we mean by arresting few. As for executions, kill none.

...Adopting the policy of killing none when eliminating counter-revolutionaries from Party and government organs in no way prevents us from being strict with them. Instead, it serves as a safeguard against irretrievable mistakes, and if mistakes are made, it gives us an opportunity to correct them.

Hardly the man egging people on to kill. :rolleyes:


I don't see how censorship and centralization of culture has anything to do with Cultural liberation.

It doesn't; that's not what the Cultural Revolution was. If anything, it was the decentralization of culture; the attempt to forever seperate culture from state and rule.


Let me ask again this, was critisism of Mao encouraged? Or just his rivals?

Yes. Mao was critized frequently, just as he criticized others, and others were criticized by others, and so on and so forth. It's idealist idiots like you who spread this mythical belief that once the bourgeois is gone, all personal conflicts will suddenly up and disappear; that human beings, free from exploitation, will suddenly lose the ability to disagree with one another. :rolleyes:

And honestly, if you've got nothing better to do than repeat your own pathetic attempts at sectarian insults, why are you even bothering? Atleast the other sectarianists around here have some expressive way of making their distrust of Mao known. All I see you doing is acting like a fucking parrot.

[PigmerikanMao]

All cultural revolutions are necessary to wash away the reactionary arts left by capitalism, feudalism, and reactionary forces- both external and internal. The cultural revolution is the second stage on the road to communist utopia, and if it is maintained long enough (it was not in mao's case), further socialist development can take place.

[Comrade Rage]

I agree. Not to be overly critical of Comrade Mao, but the Cultural Revolution was probably a 20+ year project. I do believe the Cultural Revolution model is a practical and viable one, however it needs the correct amount of time and effort to succeed.

[Janus]

I don't see how censorship and centralization of culture has anything to do with Cultural liberation.
Neither do I, my post was a response to the original topic. Besides, the PRC's Cultural Revolution had less to do with actual cultural issues than it did with political struggle.

[Rawthentic]

What do you mean Janus?

[Janus]

What do you mean Janus?
The majority of the focus during the Cultural Revolution was directed towards political struggle and conflict against elements of the government as well as suspected counter-revolutionaries rather than actual cultural values (which is what the thread starter was asking about). Although a few policies such as the Four Olds Campaign were enacted to change various traditions (much of it was useless), the character of the "revolution" was always political in nature and helped to ensure that China's direction would stay loyal to Mao's vision.

[Rawthentic]

Oh ok, that sounds good, thanks.

[Tatarin]

All cultural revolutions are necessary to wash away the reactionary arts left by capitalism, feudalism, and reactionary forces- both external and internal.

But how can you do that with the spread of technology? Nazi music is bad - but how do you stop it when there is an internet? What about any capitalist music? Same thing with movies, art...

Before it may had been possible, but I can't see how that is today, except education and the consciousness of the people.

[grove street]

"Where there is debate, it should be conducted by reasoning and not by force."- Mao Tse Tung.

This was the main idea behind the Cultural Revolution, the masses challenging Bourgise ideals.

The Bourgise as a materialistic class maybe destroyed by an external revolution, but as a cultural/ideological class they will still exist and if something is not done then they can return to power.

I don't beleive in making an identical copy of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but I do beleive in learning from it's mistakes and achievements as it serves as a great tool to challenge Capitalist restoration.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 11, 2007 12:49 am
I don't beleive in making an identical copy of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but I do beleive in learning from it's mistakes and achievements as it serves as a great tool to challenge Capitalist restoration.
Why do you believe that the Cultural Revolution in China failed to crush the bourgeoisie within the party who later took power under Deng?

I believe that is the correct Maoist interpretation, yes?

[RNK]

Several reasons, the largest of which was probably Mao's lenience against the bourgeoisie and political and intellectual anti-communists and counter-revolutionaries. By the mid-50s he was urging that repression of these anti-communists and revolutionaries be lightened, that they be allowed to essentially roam free throughout society (contrary to the popular "Mao was a brutal dictator" line) and defeated through ideological debate. Unfortunately he seems to have wholly underestimated the snake-like slyness and apt oppurtunism of the bourgeoisie, who were able essentially to operate auspiciously by simply acting like communists, when really they were destabilizing socialism at almost every level. In essence, by the time the Cultural Revolution came around, the oppurtunists were pretty much already in control, and it was easy for them to suppress the disorganized public dissent.