Maoist analysis on Russia

[Dimentio]

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1640/maoistshitetv7.jpg

I wonder, why is Russia and eastern Europe gray on this maoist battle plan map?

[Tower of Bebel]

Battle plan map? And when was this map? There were some tentions between the USSR and the PRC during the 50's if I'm not mistaken.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:29 pm
Battle plan map? And when was this map? There were some tentions between the USSR and the PRC during the 50's if I'm not mistaken.
Well, the map was in one of the videos on our friend Hiero's signature. It looks a bit like a fascist-esque propaganda poster, but is apparently maoist. The question is why Russia is neither red or white, but grey.

[Comrade Rage]

Looks like one of those arrows goes over East Europe. China (in this scenario) might have been thinking of the USSR as a cooperative power, which are differentiated on most battle maps. White, presumably, is the color of the enemy.

[Labor Shall Rule]

That's the MIM battle-plan, not the Maoist.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 05, 2007 07:02 pm
Looks like one of those arrows goes over East Europe. China (in this scenario) might have been thinking of the USSR as a cooperative power, which are differentiated on most battle maps. White, presumably, is the color of the enemy.
China is itself an imperialist power today.

And yes, it is the MIM battle plan.

[Dimentio]

And here is the video itself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9UZg_-LxUE&mode=related&search=)

Why is China exploited? And why is Russia gray?

[Tower of Bebel]

In what way does the (former?) USSR differ from the (former?) PCR?

It is certainly not an enemy, and it is not oppressed. It does also not take part in the people's war.

Maybe the (former?) USSR is a non-cooperative State already freed from imperialism. In this caserRed stands for all those who are oppressed or are willing to take part in the people's war.

[Dimentio]

Like China, India, Saudi Arabia and South Korea?

The truth is that (protectionist) capitalism has allowed these nations to emerge as economic powers with own imperialist schemes.

Our issues with capitalism is not that it deprives people of wealth, but that it distributes wealth inefficiently and is a bad system for managing technology to the good of all people (alienation you know).

[Entrails Konfetti]

Goddamnit, a hot front comming from Brazil and Africa!
It's already 94 degrees here, for crissake!

This sucks, winter is never going to come here! :angry:

[Tower of Bebel]

Hell, I give up, I don't know what it means.

[Jazzratt]

It means MIMites are imbeciles.

I'm also going to move this to learning (although if another mod disagrees I'm sure chit chat would prove an okay home)

[PigmerikanMao]

Maoists consider the Soviet Union after Stalin to be a reactionary force. Though it is not pushing capitalist oppression on the third world in the MIM perspective (not maoist, by the way), it was not socialist. The USSR was literally, a gray area.

[Comrade Rage]

I realize that China is imperialist.

But wait, MIM is putting out battle plans?!

Do they actually still consider China Maoist ?!! :huh: :o :D :lol:

[bezdomni]

lol this isn't even a distortion of Maoism, it's the complete opposite of anything resembling it.

If this is, in fact, the work of so-called Maoists...they're the worst Maoists I have ever heard of.

Although this does sort of demonstrate the line of Lin Biao, who thought Protected People's War applied to countries...meaning that third world countries would actually have to dominate imperialist countries in the same manner that the proletariat must dominate the bourgeoisie through the stages of protracted people's war.

This line is also somewhat reflect in MIM's line.

[Comrade Rage]

I still don't know a lot about thi group, but yes they do not seem even remotely Maoist. Very odd indeed.

[RedHal]

It's the makeup of the population. Whatever your ananlysis of China as being imperialist or not, the vast majority of its population is exploited. I guess MIM considers russia to have a number of exploited workers hence it's grey.

[Hiero]

The Soviet Union invaded Nazi germany, no one cried then.

Is it that hard to conceive that if 3rd world people liberated themsevles and had the means to protect themsevles they would not fully disarm and occupy the imperialists?

If a proleteriat army from the 3rd world came to suppress the imperialist bourgeois, who's side would you be on?

So many people throw around the phrase "workers have no nation' yet rarely apply it. If workers have no nation, then workers say form China occupying wall street, is no different to workers in their native country occupying their own bourgeois means of oppresion.

If you are a real internationalist communist then you should have no problem aiming foreign workers who fight to destroy imperialism.

On the originally question, I guess Russia is grey because it was originally a 2nd world country not control by imperialism. They may not have created the map, found and old map illustrated 1st world, 2nd world and 3rd.

[quirk]

Who exactly are MIM and do they have much support. I have read some of their website and they seem a little crazy. They consider themselves to be Maoist and the Revolutionary Communist Party to be a CIA front.

[bezdomni]

The Soviet Union invaded Nazi germany, no one cried then.

Well...they were invaded first. They also were not applying the strategy of protracted people's war to the way countries acted.


Is it that hard to conceive that if 3rd world people liberated themsevles and had the means to protect themsevles they would not fully disarm and occupy the imperialists?



Of course they would disarm the imperialists...but after the stage of third world revolution, imperialism would be very weak and there would be a large-scale proletarianization of the labor aristocracy in first world countires...which would completely change the conditions of first world countries to be favorable for revolution.

So...are third world workers instrumental in the destruction of imperialism and socialist revolution in first-world countries? Yes, absolutely...but the proletariat of first world countries is critical as well.

I don't imagine it would be an "occupying force", but rather assistance in liberation.


If a proleteriat army from the 3rd world came to suppress the imperialist bourgeois, who's side would you be on?

Clearly the proletariat.

But in order for the conditions for a third world proletariat army capable of suppressing the imperialist bourgeoisie to exist, the international political economy as a whole will already be radically changed.

It's actually a very difficult question to deal with because it is contingent on so many things changing.



EDIT: Oh, and the answer to this question is because Russia and Eastern Europe are considered "second world" countries.

[RNK]

If a proleteriat army from the 3rd world came to suppress the imperialist bourgeois

Considering that according to the MIM, we're all a part of that imperialist bourgeois, and by extension, we would be the ones being suppressed, well, I think the answer is self-explanatory.


Who exactly are MIM and do they have much support. I have read some of their website and they seem a little crazy. They consider themselves to be Maoist and the Revolutionary Communist Party to be a CIA front.

They're essentially the "Maoists" your Trot parents told you nightmares about as a child. Frothing, viscious creatures that live only in perpetual darkness, and feed on the souls of the dead...

No. The MIM is an incredibly radically-minded group who have a lot of controversial and nonsensical beliefs, such as the belief that Jim Jones (of the Jonestown massacre) was a Communist of the highest regard and that his People's Temple was the most advanced form of communism to ever exist on American soil, and that their mass suicide/murder was a revolutionary act. Among other things.

And they essentially believe everyone is a CIA front.

[bezdomni]

And they essentially believe everyone is a CIA front.
Everybody but the Rural People's Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Juche Idea, Songun Thought, Pol Pot Ideology).

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:01 pm




No. The MIM is an incredibly radically-minded group who have a lot of controversial and nonsensical beliefs, such as the belief that Jim Jones (of the Jonestown massacre) was a Communist of the highest regard and that his People's Temple was the most advanced form of communism to ever exist on American soil, and that their mass suicide/murder was a revolutionary act. Among other things.


Curious, I searched their site and found no evidence of this. In fact, the only reference I could find describes him thusly:

"Three hundred families from San Francisco's Fillmore District were
murdered in 1977 by cyanide-laced Kool Aid at Jonestown, Guyana.
They had been brainwashed and relocated to Guyana by white
preacher Jim Jones. Jones left town after Mayor George Moscone was
assassinated by supervisor Dan White. Jones was a land-speculator
with political ties who commanded a bloc of Black votes."

Link (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:NzfckksrhX8J:www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn.php%3Fissue%3D071+site:www.etext.org+etext+Jone stown+MIM&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

Doesn't sound pro-Jim Jones to me. Not that I care to defend MIM or anything, but I'd like to know the basis of this charge.



And they essentially believe everyone is a CIA front.

True enough.

[RNK]

Interesting, there seems to be oppositional rife even within the MIM...

The glorification of Jim Jones comes from the Rural People's Party, which is essentially a mirror duplicate offshoot of the MIM (they have the exact same "programme").

Here's a link to their "polemic" about the People's Temple (http://www.freewebs.com/ruralmaoism/peoples_temple.htm)

With such interesting claims as Jim Jones as always an atheist, and that Jonestown was a case of "Revolutionary Suicide Protest".