I can't understand Mao

[Sand Castle]

Ok, so I don't care how stupid this makes me look (I've looked worse elsewhere). Ever since January 30, 2007 I've been struggling to find an ideology of communism that I understand and like. I read The Communist Manifesto, I understood it, and I liked it. ;)

I've been doing months of searching the internet (I'm afraid of being harmed in bookstores, but lets not discuss that) and I've noticed there are very few sources on communism. Not even the Marxist Internet Archive could help me much, and wikipedia is worse. But I give a big hand to MIA for as much as it has helped.

I found that I agree with Lenin on the need of a vanguard party, but I can't find a Leninist party in the US. I've found a Marxist-Leninist party (is there even a difference between the M-L and Leninism?), called the CPUSA, but they are reformist (I think) and I have little in common with them. If you have a link for me regarding this little paragraph, please feel free to post it.

Now, down to the actual topic. The earlier stuff is an explanation of my own disarray (to say the least).

I think I'm a Maoist (yes, I know the term "Mao Zedong Thought"). I believe its idea of people's war is something great due to the fact that the American bourgeoisie will never let any type of communist party gain control through peaceful means like election. I also think I'm correct when I believe that the New Democracy stage is not needed in the US (in the event of a victorious Maoist revolution). But I could be wrong on any of those things. I normally am wrong.

So I need other humans to help me learn, reading the books alone can't give a clear understanding. Here are my questions:

1. Does Maoism advocate private ownership of land, the means of production and so forth? I don't advocate those things, but I heard Maoism did. I heard Mao gave land to peasants (not for collective ownership) and let a portion of the Chinese people's money go to capitalists. I could have misunderstood as I often do.

2. See paragraph 3

3. Are there any Maoist parties out there in the US besides RCP, USA and MIM?

Please reply gently, thank you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My advice: don't bother...

[Sand Castle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 05:18 am
My advice: don't bother...
So you'd like me to give up and not advocate, yet not want to bring down capitalism? I've already been deemed worthless or a lost cause?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, just forget about Mao.

[Faux Real]

Why settle for just one? There is always secular communism...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Read this as a corrective:

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

Or this (it's much shorter):

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

[RNK]

As a "Maoist", you'll find yourself the target of a massive amount of sectarianism from others of the left, particularly the infantile ultra-left, Trotskyists, and reformists (like the CPUSA). To them, Maoists are nothing but savage, illiterate brutes, as they've been essentially programmed by western media to simply hate Mao, refer to him as nothing but a mass-murder, a tyrant, a dictator, etc, without actually taking the time to dig deeper into the Chinese revolution.

Anyway I'll try to answer your questions.


1. Does Maoism advocate private ownership of land, the means of production and so forth? I don't advocate those things, but I heard Maoism did. I heard Mao gave land to peasants (not for collective ownership) and let a portion of the Chinese people's money go to capitalists. I could have misunderstood as I often do.

Typical leftist attempt to debunk the Chinese revolution. No, Maoism does not advocate private ownership of anything. Mao did give land to peasants, but yes, for collective ownership; because of the fundmanetally agrarian nature of China in 1949, the peasantry were the largest, most revolutionary class available. Mao never gave up on proletarian revolution, as a lot of leftists think. In actuallity he simply recognized that the peasantry, who made up something like 80% of the population, would better be able to carry our a revolution than the proletariat. But throughout, he felt that the peasantry would always have to become proletarians. And yes, agrarian collectives and communes were one of the staples of China.


2. See paragraph 3

The CPUSA is not Marxist-Leninist. If you've heard of the term "Menshevik", that best describes the CPUSA -- essentially, social-democratic oppurtunists who simply ride the wave of whatever's popular at the time. The CPUSA has become nothing more than a leftist mouthpiece for the US Democratic Party.


3. Are there any Maoist parties out there in the US besides RCP, USA and MIM?

There are smaller ones, such as, I believe, R.O.L. However most contemporary "Maoism" in the US is closer to the RCPUSA. The MIM really have no presence outside of the internet. They're a sort of bizzare quasi-cult organization who believe, among other things, that the 3rd world should invade the US and kill them, that nuetering all males is the only way to stop rape, and that the People's Temple under Jim Jones or whatever his name is (re: Jonestown massacre) was the "most advanced state of communism ever attained on US soil". However, the RCPUSA isn't really all that "Maoist", atleast not nearly as much as they should be.

The best source of information about MLM would be: www.marx2mao.com.

I'm also planning on starting a web forum specifically for discussing, learning and studying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It should be up by the end of the weekend. Check out this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70535) on Sunday, I should have it up by then.

[p.m.a.]

Instead of picking one ideology like it's a religion, maybe you should base your political ideas on today, and not anachronistic writings of clearly failed revolutions. How in the world is a revolutionary paradigm designed in a proto-capitalist country damn near a hundred years ago going to help us in the advanced capitalist world today? Marxism isn't how well you can follow one particular red book: it's about scientific analysis of the material conditions of your present. And there's a reason why the RCP and MIM are both fucking crazy: because Maoism doesn't work.

[RNK]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 05:39 am
Read this as a corrective:

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

Or this (it's much shorter):

http://www.marxists.de/china/hore/index.htm
I'd just like to point out, those are probably the most unapologetic lies I've ever heard said about China. The bourgeois would do well to take a page out of that book. :lol:

[Leo]

Here's several good articles on the history and "theories" of Maoism:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/084_china_2.html

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/081_china.htm

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html

And another relevant link on the revolutionary struggle of 1927 in China:

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2...hina-march-1927 (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/china-march-1927)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


I'd just like to point out, those are probably the most unapologetic lies I've ever heard said about China. The bourgeois would do well to take a page out of that book

Yeah, you said that before, and you said it before you had read them.

If you prefer to believe state propaganda, produced by mass murderers, fine.

But we have more sense.

[Bilan]

RNK, in regards to Mao, I read in fields, factories, and workshops by Kropotkin that Mao had based some of his ideas off Kropotkins book, fields, factories, and workshops. Is that true?

[RNK]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 08, 2007 09:17 am
RNK, in regards to Mao, I read in fields, factories, and workshops by Kropotkin that Mao had based some of his ideas off Kropotkins book, fields, factories, and workshops. Is that true?
How can Kropotkin write that Mao based some of his ideas on a book that didn't yet exist (as he was currently writing it)? Either way, I have no idea.


Here's several good articles on the history and "theories" of Maoism:

It's funny, when you want to learn about Marxism, they tell you to read Marx's own writings. When you want to learn about Maoism, they tell you to read someone else's critique of Mao. :rolleyes:

Oh, also, several of us are trying to do a study group on Mao's "On the ten major relationships" in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70463&view=getlastpost).

[grove street]

I"m on the side of RNK and mostly Mao for this thread>

Sultan all you need to understand is that Mao had a strong grasp of applying Marxist Leninist theory to the material conditions that China was facing at the time> On top of this Mao was able to expand upon Marxist Leninist theory mostly for his theory that class
struggles continue under Socialism even though on more of an ideological scale then material< In short the Bourgise even after the revolution and the loss of their power and wealth are waiting for any opportunity to reclaim power>

Mao"s answer to this problem was Cultural Revolution which has a massive smare campagain against it like most of Mao"s other policies>

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


When you want to learn about Maoism, they tell you to read someone else&#39;s critique of Mao.

In fact, I actually went further and told him not to waste his time reading the drab, banal, and philosophically confused &#39;thoughts&#39; of this mass murderer.

The commentaries I suggested were aimed at undoing any damage already done.

[Sand Castle]

Well, I certainly thank everyone for their answers (a non-biased thanks).

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 05:33 am
No, just forget about Mao.
Is this what passes for historical materialism?

[Leo]

It&#39;s funny, when you want to learn about Marxism, they tell you to read Marx&#39;s own writings. When you want to learn about Maoism, they tell you to read someone else&#39;s critique of Mao.

Yeah, I think it&#39;s a fair difference of attitude towards a poor guy who would have starved to death if he didn&#39;t had a few good friends and an imperialist state leader. With the former, it is the theory itself that one needs to understand; for the latter it is the historical period of the "theory" so that the actual realpolitik line behind it can be understood. Basically we do the same thing to someone who wants to learn about, for example, Churchill: we give the historical content, from the proletarian perspective of course, before linking to his written works - if still necessary.

[RNK]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 08, 2007 09:28 pm

It&#39;s funny, when you want to learn about Marxism, they tell you to read Marx&#39;s own writings. When you want to learn about Maoism, they tell you to read someone else&#39;s critique of Mao.

Yeah, I think it&#39;s a fair difference of attitude towards a poor guy who would have starved to death if he didn&#39;t had a few good friends and an imperialist state leader. With the former, it is the theory itself that one needs to understand; for the latter it is the historical period of the "theory" so that the actual realpolitik line behind it can be understood. Basically we do the same thing to someone who wants to learn about, for example, Churchill: we give the historical content, from the proletarian perspective of course, before linking to his written works - if still necessary.
:lol:

Alright. Next time someone asks about Marxism or Communism, rather than turn them to any of Marx&#39;s writings, I&#39;ll link them to a right-wing critique first, and then tell them to check Marx out "if needed". :lol:

All you&#39;re saying, essentially, is "we must try to convince you of our distorted view of the Chinese Revolution before you actually go and learn about it from the original source..."


In fact, I actually went further and told him not to waste his time reading the drab, banal, and philosophically confused &#39;thoughts&#39; of this mass murderer.

I&#39;m playing the world&#39;s smallest (materialistically) violin. Can you hear it?

:rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SP:


Is this what passes for historical materialism?

No, just working class good sense.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I personally don&#39;t get the whole fascination behind "Marxism," "Stalinism," "Maoism," "Leninism," and other philosophies with names attached to them. Is there Peopleism? Wait, that&#39;s socialism. :huh:

[RNK]

Unfortunately there are a small group of agitators among the left who seem content on ensuring that everyone be labelled as one thing or another, and that anything not sharing their label be destroyed. Rosa is a good example.

For instance, I never started calling myself a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, or really caring about labels, until I was essentially forced to after facing so much hostility from people like Rosa. Fortunately, all their efforts to "debunk" me only push me further towards Maoism, both because they do such a good job at justifying MLM and because it pisses them off. So now I embrace the label, and the ideology, more than ever.

Funny, huh?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


For instance, I never started calling myself a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, or really caring about labels, until I was essentially forced to after facing so much hostility from people like Rosa. Fortunately, all their efforts to "debunk" me only push me further towards Maoism, both because they do such a good job at justifying MLM and because it pisses them off. So now I embrace the label, and the ideology, more than ever.

What happened was that I attacked the &#39;sacred&#39; memory of this mass murderer, and you leapt to his defence.

So, I did not attack you.

Odd how you confuse my hostility to this monster with hostility to you.

[manic expression]

What happened was that I attacked the &#39;sacred&#39; memory of this mass murderer, and you leapt to his defence.

Among the things you attacked include a.) discussion of the actual topic at hand and b.) historical context itself.


I personally don&#39;t get the whole fascination behind "Marxism," "Stalinism," "Maoism," "Leninism," and other philosophies with names attached to them. Is there Peopleism? Wait, that&#39;s socialism. huh.gif

Labels are necessary to a certain point, since they allow us to define different views and recognize various perspectives without too much confusion. So this "fascination" is a natural part of the whole process of debate. Sectarianism is a problem, however, when labels are substituted for actual arguments, and that is arguably happening on this very thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Manic:


Among the things you attacked include a.) discussion of the actual topic at hand and b.) historical context itself.

How does one attack a &#39;historical context&#39;?

And I never attack discussions (of thnis sort) -- but I did attack the &#39;sacred&#39; memory of this mass murderer.

Clearly etiquette is more important to you.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 10:26 pm
RNK:


For instance, I never started calling myself a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, or really caring about labels, until I was essentially forced to after facing so much hostility from people like Rosa. Fortunately, all their efforts to "debunk" me only push me further towards Maoism, both because they do such a good job at justifying MLM and because it pisses them off. So now I embrace the label, and the ideology, more than ever.

What happened was that I attacked the &#39;sacred&#39; memory of this mass murderer, and you leapt to his defence.

So, I did not attack you.

Odd how you confuse my hostility to this monster with hostility to you.
I resent the fact that you call him a mass murderer. Why? Because its some fucking bullshit. He was leader of the masses, someone who brought the emancipation of humanity closer to a reality than anyone else

[bezdomni]

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


Is this what passes for historical materialism?

No, just working class good sense.
In that case, I will give this comrade my revolutionary communist good sense:

Ignore everything the SWP has to say.

[RNK]

Ignore everything the SWP has to say.

I thought that was already universal common sense already? :P

[Leo]

Alright. Next time someone asks about Marxism or Communism, rather than turn them to any of Marx&#39;s writings, I&#39;ll link them to a right-wing critique first, and then tell them to check Marx out "if needed".

It seems that you have problems with reading.


All you&#39;re saying, essentially, is "we must try to convince you of our distorted view of the Chinese Revolution before you actually go and learn about it from the original source..."

No, "all I&#39;m saying, essentially", is that we must analyze proletarian theorists (like Marx) and imperialist statesman (like Mao) differently.

[Bilan]

How can Kropotkin write that Mao based some of his ideas on a book that didn&#39;t yet exist (as he was currently writing it)? Either way, I have no idea.

No, I mean, the guy who wrote the introduction to the new edition ( I should&#39;ve specified this) said that.
but never mind.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SP:


In that case, I will give this comrade my revolutionary communist good sense:

Ignore everything the SWP has to say.

Oh no -- does that mean the SWP has just killed millions of Chinese peasants/communists&#33;&#33;

RNK:


I thought that was already universal common sense already?

You are right, but only among supporters of mass murdering CCP ex-leaders.


If you say it a few more times, it might actually come true.

A bit like the way &#39;red guards&#39; endlessly repeated the brainless contents of Mao&#39;s &#39;litttle red book&#39;??

Lefty:


I resent the fact that you call him a mass murderer. Why? Because its some fucking bullshit. He was leader of the masses, someone who brought the emancipation of humanity closer to a reality than anyone else

As I said, it&#39;s sad what that dialectical virus does to the human brain...

[Karl Marx's Camel]

He was leader of the masses, someone who brought the emancipation of humanity closer to a reality than anyone else

If he was a representative of the masses, why would he crack down on freedom of speech among the masses?* I can only see one reason and that is: Mao was afraid of the masses.

* I am refering to, among other things, how the Hundred Flowers Campaign went

[RNK]

Originally posted by Karl Marx&#39;s [email protected] 09, 2007 09:54 am

He was leader of the masses, someone who brought the emancipation of humanity closer to a reality than anyone else

If he was a representative of the masses, why would he crack down on freedom of speech among the masses?* I can only see one reason and that is: Mao was afraid of the masses.

* I am refering to, among other things, how the Hundred Flowers Campaign went
:rolleyes:

Peeling back this gross misunderstanding of the Chinese Revolution is like endlessly peeling layers of onions.

Read Have Firm Faith in the Majority Of the People (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/FMP57.html), written 1957.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Read Have Firm Faith in the Majority Of the People, written 1957.

No more believable that Hitler&#39;s faith in the German Volk.

You really must stop believing state propaganda.

[RNK]

Now comparing Mao to Hitler, Rosa? That&#39;s a new low. You really are no different than a neocon, are you? Go back to your materialism and let us grown up folks worry about revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Now comparing Mao to Hitler, Rosa? That&#39;s a new low. .

No, as you would know if you learnt to read.

I was making the pont that ruling class mass murderers always bang on about trusting, and being lead by, the people.

Only they never quite get round to actually doing it.

In the meantime they murder them in their millions.

In that respect he was like Hitler, and Saddam, and Stalin, and Mobutu, and...


You really are no different than a neocon, are you?

Well, you are the one who swallows state propaganda.


Go back to your materialism and let us grown up folks worry about revolution

Oh, you mean like that unsuccessful one in China.

The one that Mao and the CCP screwed up?

[Janus]

I found that I agree with Lenin on the need of a vanguard party, but I can&#39;t find a Leninist party in the US.
Political contacts (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31615)


No, I mean, the guy who wrote the introduction to the new edition ( I should&#39;ve specified this) said that.
Mao may have read Kropotkin (if so this would only have been much later in his life when such works had been translated) but I doubt that he drew any influences from said book particularly when it advocated policies that were the opposite of his programs.

[RNK]

Well, you are the one who swallows state propaganda.

Lol, you&#39;re so blind. Then again, most of you materialists are.


The one that Mao and the CCP screwed up?

Right, because it was sooo unsuccessful. I mean look at those crappy figures... widespread literacy, massive industrialization (industrial production rose 2500%) in 8 years, establishment of worker co-operatives and unions, people&#39;s communes and councils.. it&#39;s a neocon&#39;s nightmare&#33; I can understand why you&#39;re so hostile to it, Rosa.


No, as you would know if you learnt to read.

...


In that respect he was like Hitler, and Saddam, and Stalin, and Mobutu

So, I was right. You were comparing Mao to Hitler, according to your own admittance.

Material inconsistency strikes again&#33;

[funkmasterswede]

Didn&#39;t Mao believe that war was desirable as life during a time of peace was boring? And war somehow brought both excitement and meaning.

I remember reading this; but I am unsure of where. And Rosa is right on this one.

[RNK]

Yes, you&#39;re correct.

He also liked to wear the skins of children as raincoats.

:rolleyes:

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:24 am
Yes, you&#39;re correct.

He also liked to wear the skins of children as raincoats.

:rolleyes:
Actually I can direct you to the source now. It is from a book about Mao called "Mao:The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and Jon Haliday. His diaries are quoted often in this text and in one passage he says that the ideal of a harmonious and peaceful society were unbearable for most people. Disturbances and disorder were necessary for humans to exist and brought great enjoyment- in this particular example he compares learning about times of peace as boring and learning about war as exciting. He comes to the conclusion that swift disturbances are preferred by the people and thus should be embraced.

[grove street]

Originally posted by funkmasterswede+September 10, 2007 03:54 am--> (funkmasterswede @ September 10, 2007 03:54 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 03:24 am
Yes, you&#39;re correct.

He also liked to wear the skins of children as raincoats.

:rolleyes:
Actually I can direct you to the source now. It is from a book about Mao called "Mao:The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and Jon Haliday. His diaries are quoted often in this text and in one passage he says that the ideal of a harmonious and peaceful society were unbearable for most people. Disturbances and disorder were necessary for humans to exist and brought great enjoyment- in this particular example he compares learning about times of peace as boring and learning about war as exciting. He comes to the conclusion that swift disturbances are preferred by the people and thus should be embraced. [/b]
Jung Chang&#39;s books are nothing but straight up bullshit. Her parents who were in the Chinese Communist Party were exposed for being the reactionaries that they truly were and she has followed in their footsteps.

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by grove street+September 10, 2007 04:17 am--> (grove street @ September 10, 2007 04:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:54 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 03:24 am
Yes, you&#39;re correct.

He also liked to wear the skins of children as raincoats.

:rolleyes:
Actually I can direct you to the source now. It is from a book about Mao called "Mao:The Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and Jon Haliday. His diaries are quoted often in this text and in one passage he says that the ideal of a harmonious and peaceful society were unbearable for most people. Disturbances and disorder were necessary for humans to exist and brought great enjoyment- in this particular example he compares learning about times of peace as boring and learning about war as exciting. He comes to the conclusion that swift disturbances are preferred by the people and thus should be embraced.
Jung Chang&#39;s books are nothing but straight up bullshit. Her parents who were in the Chinese Communist Party were exposed for being the reactionaries that they truly were and she has followed in their footsteps. [/b]
While I do not deny that Chang&#39;s position is biased, but I am not sure if the diaries that are being quoted are fabricated. If those diaries are not fabricated my point stands as I was interpreting a quote that was supposed to be from Mao. Not rhetoric added by the person using the quote.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Lol, you&#39;re so blind. Then again, most of you materialists are.

Coming from an idealist like you, that is praise indeed.


Right, because it was sooo unsuccessful. I mean look at those crappy figures... widespread literacy, massive industrialization (industrial production rose 2500%) in 8 years, establishment of worker co-operatives and unions, people&#39;s communes and councils.. it&#39;s a neocon&#39;s nightmare&#33; I can understand why you&#39;re so hostile to it, Rosa.

Nazism was &#39;successful too&#39;; so is capitalism -- in Scandinavia.

But, history has refuted Maoism: look at China today.

Unions and worker cooperatives; give me a break: they are all controlled by the CCP.


So, I was right. You were comparing Mao to Hitler, according to your own admittance.

Material inconsistency strikes again&#33;

Not so; merely to the lies all ruling elites tell &#39;about their love of the people&#39; etc.

If you learnt to read (as I said earlier), you will see that I am compairing the ruling class in China (Mao and the CCP etc) with all other ruling elites.

And you, you poor schmuck, have fallen for their lies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Funkmaster, you will get nowhere with these &#39;true believers&#39;.

Even if you got the sworn trestimony of Mao himself, that he and the rest of the CCP were capitalist agents, he&#39;d refuse to believe you.

They have been &#39;born again&#39;, saved, and the &#39;Maoist truth&#39; has made them free of having to think for themselves.

It&#39;s a religion to them, and you will never get past that. So anything you quote, no matter how valid, will be allowed to sully the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mao.

Like all other religions they will defend irrationally the object of their worship, and believe all the lies their &#39;Prophet&#39; tells them.

But, then, they will turn around and criticise other religions for the same failings.

So whatever you throw at them, it&#39;s just &#39;bourgeois proapaganda&#39;, and they will say this with a straight face while they swallow the CCP&#39;s own propaganda. RNK is a classic example. To him, Mao is as perfect as Christians regard Jesus.

Priceless...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Sultan
I can&#39;t understand Mao,

Don&#39;t worry, no one understands Mao; Mao didn&#39;t even Mao understand Mao.

Maoism is nothing more than a strange cult of people looking to hoist the new &#39;dear leader" onto the gold pulpit and pretend to comprehend the crap that spills forth.

[RedHal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:15 pm
Unfortunately there are a small group of agitators among the left who seem content on ensuring that everyone be labelled as one thing or another, and that anything not sharing their label be destroyed. Rosa is a good example.

For instance, I never started calling myself a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, or really caring about labels, until I was essentially forced to after facing so much hostility from people like Rosa. Fortunately, all their efforts to "debunk" me only push me further towards Maoism, both because they do such a good job at justifying MLM and because it pisses them off. So now I embrace the label, and the ideology, more than ever.

Funny, huh?
I agree with this, ppl like rosa ppl away from whatever ideology he adheres to. These ppl are obsessed with thieir own "pure" revolutionary ideology rather than the fact that oppressed ppl take up revolution that does not follow their "pure" way. He&#39;ll probably follow the same path as Max Eastman :wacko:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Shallow Hal:


I agree with this, ppl like rosa ppl away from whatever ideology he adheres to. These ppl are obsessed with thieir own "pure" revolutionary ideology rather than the fact that oppressed ppl take up revolution that does not follow their "pure" way. He&#39;ll probably follow the same path as Max Eastman

This is a bit rich coming from someone who defends a tradition that will not tolerate "revisionism" (indeed it executes &#39;revisionists&#39;), and which treats every word, hiccup, fart and bogey Mao produced as sacred.

Moreover, I have been a revolutionary for longer than most "ppl" at RevLeft have been alive.

Finally, I am a &#39;she&#39;.

Not too good with detail are you...

[Black Cross]

Not to take sides or anything, but Rosa, you did, indeed, compare Mao to Hitler. I, personally have no problem with that, but the fact that you tried to deny it afterwards is annoying.


Originally posted by Rosa
In that respect he was like Hitler, and Saddam, and Stalin, and Mobutu

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marxist-Rev:


Not to take sides or anything, but Rosa, you did, indeed, compare Mao to Hitler. I, personally have no problem with that, but the fact that you tried to deny it afterwards is annoying.

Well, let&#39;s have a look at the offending passage. In reply to this comment of RNK&#39;s:


Peeling back this gross misunderstanding of the Chinese Revolution is like endlessly peeling layers of onions.

Read Have Firm Faith in the Majority Of the People, written 1957.

I responded:


No more believable that Hitler&#39;s faith in the German Volk.

You really must stop believing state propaganda.

You see that?

So no comparison with Hitler; I actually say no more believable than his faith in the Geman Volk. And I specifically refer to state propaganda -- any state propaganda.

I did not say as believable as, only no more believable.

It could be less believable.

In other words, I do not trust any leader of any country to tell the truth about their people, as I made clear.

But, while we are on the subject, Mao is only slightly less of a monster than Hitler.

Now I have compared them.

So hang me...

[grove street]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 08:09 am
Funkmaster, you will get nowhere with these &#39;true believers&#39;.

Even if you got the sworn trestimony of Mao himself, that he and the rest of the CCP were capitalist agents, he&#39;d refuse to believe you.

They have been &#39;born again&#39;, saved, and the &#39;Maoist truth&#39; has made them free of having to think for themselves.

It&#39;s a religion to them, and you will never get past that. So anything you quote, no matter how valid, will be allowed to sully the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mao.

Like all other religions they will defend irrationally the object of their worship, and believe all the lies their &#39;Prophet&#39; tells them.

But, then, they will turn around and criticise other religions for the same failings.

So whatever you throw at them, it&#39;s just &#39;bourgeois proapaganda&#39;, and they will say this with a straight face while they swallow the CCP&#39;s own propaganda. RNK is a classic example. To him, Mao is as perfect as Christians regard Jesus.

Priceless...
Rosa what you&#39;ll find that us Anti-Revisionists/Maoists unlike Ultra-Leftists don&#39;t take everything we are told at about historical events and people at face value. We investigate into the material conditions of the time and make our conclusion on the bases of how well a person or people were able to deal with the material conditions that they were handed.

Mao made mistakes and even Mao admits to it. We don&#39;t aim to copy Mao to the last dot, but learn from his mistakes and most importantly his acheivements which by far out way the mistakes that he made. We do this so we can learn to apply Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory to our own material conditions and arrive at our own conclusions.

[RNK]

Originally posted by grove street+September 11, 2007 12:19 am--> (grove street @ September 11, 2007 12:19 am)
Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 08:09 am
Funkmaster, you will get nowhere with these &#39;true believers&#39;.

Even if you got the sworn trestimony of Mao himself, that he and the rest of the CCP were capitalist agents, he&#39;d refuse to believe you.

They have been &#39;born again&#39;, saved, and the &#39;Maoist truth&#39; has made them free of having to think for themselves.

It&#39;s a religion to them, and you will never get past that. So anything you quote, no matter how valid, will be allowed to sully the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mao.

Like all other religions they will defend irrationally the object of their worship, and believe all the lies their &#39;Prophet&#39; tells them.

But, then, they will turn around and criticise other religions for the same failings.

So whatever you throw at them, it&#39;s just &#39;bourgeois proapaganda&#39;, and they will say this with a straight face while they swallow the CCP&#39;s own propaganda. RNK is a classic example. To him, Mao is as perfect as Christians regard Jesus.

Priceless...
Rosa what you&#39;ll find that us Anti-Revisionists/Maoists unlike Ultra-Leftists don&#39;t take everything we are told at about historical events and people at face value. We investigate into the material conditions of the time and make our conclusion on the bases of how well a person or people were able to deal with the material conditions that they were handed.

Mao made mistakes and even Mao admits to it. We don&#39;t aim to copy Mao to the last dot, but learn from his mistakes and most importantly his acheivements which by far out way the mistakes that he made. We do this so we can learn to apply Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory to our own material conditions and arrive at our own conclusions. [/b]
"Materialists" like Rosa aren&#39;t interested in learning from past experiences and correcting mistakes based on critical analysis of material conditions. They still believe that 150-year-old theories can be applied seamlessly to the dot, to use your expression, without the need for any actual thought about real conditions. It&#39;s all about theory. Reality is meaningless to them. Funny that Rosa keeps comparing MLM to religion, when her blind adherance to "materialism" is why most leftists view her type as fundamentalists themselves.

Oh well. Irony will probably be lost on the "materialist".

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 10:20 pm
In other words, I do not trust any leader of any country to tell the truth about their people, as I made clear.
What about Lenin?

And RNK, it&#39;s kinda funny that you&#39;re attacking materialism, given the fact that all Marxists are per definition materialists. I think you need to read up on some Marxism 101.

[Rawthentic]

I think he&#39;s being sarcastic, LZ.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grove Street:


Rosa what you&#39;ll find that us Anti-Revisionists/Maoists unlike Ultra-Leftists don&#39;t take everything we are told at about historical events and people at face value. We investigate into the material conditions of the time and make our conclusion on the bases of how well a person or people were able to deal with the material conditions that they were handed.

Mao made mistakes and even Mao admits to it. We don&#39;t aim to copy Mao to the last dot, but learn from his mistakes and most importantly his acheivements which by far out way the mistakes that he made. We do this so we can learn to apply Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory to our own material conditions and arrive at our own conclusions.

Well, that is what you say, but when confronted with the truth, as outlined in those two links I posted eralier, you (not you personally) get abusive.

That suggests Maoism is a faith not a science.

Look at how easy it to get your Maoist comrades (like RNK here) to froth at the mouth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LZ:


What about Lenin?

And RNK, it&#39;s kinda funny that you&#39;re attacking materialism, given the fact that all Marxists are per definition materialists. I think you need to read up on some Marxism 101.

Lenin did not come out with the kind of brainless things Mao did (except of course when he was wring on dialectics).

But, sure, I would not have trusted him it he had said such things; that is the whole point of workers&#39; democracy.

You know, of the sort that did not exist in China after 1949.

Live for the People:


I think he&#39;s being sarcastic, LZ.

1) As you can see, I wasn&#39;t.

2) I am a &#39;she&#39;.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, of course I agree with workers democracy, but are you saying that the proletariat can&#39;t democratically elect their leaders? I think it&#39;s a bit anarchistic to say that the proletariat does not have a vanguard, that is, a most advanced section, which naturally becomes the leadership of the class in the workers&#39; state.

I think the issue here isn&#39;t the position of leader, because leaders will always exist in any situation until they are no longer required by material conditions. Current material conditions dictate that there is an advanced section of a class and a backward section, the advanced naturally assumes the role of leadership in that class.

Democratically elected leaders or leaders brought forth by the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat (which Lenin was) are different from leaders like Mao, Stalin etc., not only were their policies different, their coming into being was different as well.

[RNK]

You know, of the sort that did not exist in China after 1949.

:lol: It&#39;s really sad how you&#39;ve become so religiously attached to this belief. You&#39;d make a good "Maoist", by your definition, if only you weren&#39;t so ignorant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LZ:


Well, of course I agree with workers democracy, but are you saying that the proletariat can&#39;t democratically elect their leaders? I think it&#39;s a bit anarchistic to say that the proletariat does not have a vanguard, that is, a most advanced section, which naturally becomes the leadership of the class in the workers&#39; state.

I think the issue here isn&#39;t the position of leader, because leaders will always exist in any situation until they are no longer required by material conditions. Current material conditions dictate that there is an advanced section of a class and a backward section, the advanced naturally assumes the role of leadership in that class.

We are talking of a mandated democracy here, not a representative one.

In such cases, &#39;Leaders&#39; are servants, not prophets.

In such a democracy the only real leaders would be the soviets.

People like Lenin would then be out of a job.

[manic expression]

Just to reiterate:

(From Rosa)

In that respect he was like Hitler, and Saddam, and Stalin, and Mobutu

[RNK]

On a more serious note, I really would&#39;ve figured someone who fashions themselves a "fundamentally dialectical materialist", or whatever you want to call it, would be more interested in fact rather than embracing what amounts to nothing more than a mountain of childish name-calling without a single shred of anything remotely "materialist" about it.

Oh he was a tyrant, a Nazi, a dictator, mass murderer, prophet-wannabe, mystic, and here&#39;s proof: an article written by a dumbass that would take a 5 year old a matter of seconds to disprove&#33;

So infantile.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12, 2007 04:47 pm
Manic Behaviour:


Pathetic.

Such a profound and well-reasoned response.
Almost on par with automatically rejecting Maoism and encouraging others to do so&#33; ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SP:


Almost on par with automatically rejecting Maoism and encouraging others to do so&#33;

Except I gave reasons -- maybe ones you reject, but I did try to argue for my case.

And of course, it wasn&#39;t automatic. There was a time, when I was becoming a revolutionary, that I had illusions in monsters like Mao and Stalin, too -- and I wrongly thought they were socialists.

Nigel Harris&#39;s book (the one I linked to earlier) put me right on Mao, and Tony Cliff did the same for Stalin.

Now, you might reject all that, too, but I merely quote it to show that my rejection of this monster was never automatic.

If so, you&#39;d expect me to try to put others off Mao if I think that he is a disaster, and that the rest of the Chinese ruling-class in the CCP are a waste of space.

Just like I am sure you will try to put still others off Cliff.

[And I hasten to add, just in case you raise this: no I do not accept everything Cliff says as gospel, unlike you Maoists do with Mao. I certainly do not venerate him, either.]

[RNK]

maybe ones you reject, but I did try to argue for my case.

After how long?


Nigel Harris&#39;s book (the one I linked to earlier) put me right on Mao

So you went from believing one version to believing another? That&#39;s quite surprising. I figured materialist analysis would be more scientific than simply believing the last piece of literature you came upon.


no I do not accept everything Cliff says as gospel, unlike you Maoists do with Mao.

I accept everything Mao says as "gospel"? Jeez, Rosa, your "materialism" is really degenerating. Not only are you wrong about Mao, you&#39;re also wrong about Maoists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


So you went from believing one version to believing another? That&#39;s quite surprising. I figured materialist analysis would be more scientific than simply believing the last piece of literature you came upon.

More invention.

How do you know this was the first? You don&#39;t, but that does not stop you making stuff up.

I know you Maoists believe the first thing you read from Mao, but us materialists examine all the evidence before making our minds up.


Jeez, Rosa, your "materialism" is really degenerating. Not only are you wrong about Mao, you&#39;re also wrong about Maoists.

OK; list me the things you disagree with Mao over (you can leave out trivial things like favourite colour and food).

[dawn star]

I am a supporter of commuism from China which I could not be called a Marxist in formal meaing. Why? Because in the border of People&#39;s Republic China, the so-called communist party monopolized the explanation to the socialism. Other than the CCP and its fellow buorgeios party, the political groups who are in support of Marxism, Maoism, Anarchism or Liberitism are defined illegal in my states.
Mao established the country with the deprivation of the exploiting class and the control of the political resource. With his economy risk on the field of agriculture and the plan for Great Culture Revolution, the socialist activities desined by Mao Zedong in China have lost the reputations.
Mao passed away 31years ago. After his death, his wife and the left wing of bureaucrats lose the struggles in the party. Deng Xiaoping became the leader of China with three actions: disbanding the collective agriculture communes, privatizing gradually in the industry and the repression of the dissidents. He claimed that he should sentence those who disobey the leadership of the communist party to the crime in name of Mao. Deng abolish the achievements of Mao&#39;s socialist economy activities.
China have finished the resoration of the capitalism in the past 30 years with the proletariation of the pesants, the unemployment of the workers, the detoration of some urban intellecutals. In the past years, myriad srikes happened in China. Thousands of workers held the image of Chairman Mao with the illusion that the central committee of the communist party would care for their dilemma. However, what did they obtain. The so-called outstanding Marxist duplicated the conclusion of the former leader, Mao, that any one who is against the rule of the party is the enemy of the people, the degenerate and the traitor. The armed police opened fire to the innocent masses.
I do not want to narrate the past tragic events with details. I just want to display my viewpoint that the route of Mao is not the gospel of the laborers in China. Authority publicized their former leader as a nationalism hero to control the emotions of the oppressed classes. In the dogma of Mao Zedong Thought, the liberation of the Chinese exploited masses have paid the cost. Only on the basis of worker democracy could we establish the classless societies in China, Unite States and other regions in the world.

[Robespierre2.0]

I don&#39;t mean to hijack this conversation, but can any of the maoists in this thread provide me with information on Mao&#39;s contraversial policies, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution?

I want to beleive that Mao was a good communist, but the only analyses of his policies I can find are bourgeois hyperboles. However, if it turns out that millions actually did starve because of Mao, I can&#39;t forgive him for that. Someone please just find me a definitive answer on this.

[Pirate Utopian]

I myself think Mao is quite simple to understand, because his theories are quite simple, not much depth.

A point of critism when it comes to Mao is he quite often uses terms like "the masses", "popular trends", "great revolution" to kinda subtly (sometimes it&#39;s quite obvious) trying to make you think his theory is more "cool" then it really is.

[RNK]

I don&#39;t mean to hijack this conversation, but can any of the maoists in this thread provide me with information on Mao&#39;s contraversial policies, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution?

I&#39;d be happy to try. First with the Great Leap Forward...

It was basically an attempt to speed up China&#39;s industrial development by organizing the former peasantry into a force of labour that could also develop industrial products through the use of the infamous "backyard iron furnaces". Communes themselves were an organization of agrarian workers along co-operative lines. There were about 20,000 communes developed, each consisting of about 25,000 people, who would organize together to oversee and control the production of agriculture and industry in their area through the use of community councils, etc, and who also managed local people&#39;s militias. Because of China&#39;s severe lack of industrialization, a plan developed to get the rural communes to start little home-made smelting facilities going to make metal. This outright failed, unfortunately, as there simply wasn&#39;t the technology available to do this and essentially the metal development process was no different than that of the middle ages, leading to metal products of severely inferior quality, so much so that they were absolutely useless. Also, organizational, and beauraucratical problems developed, which coupled with natural disasters lead to a moderate-to-severe food shortage. All in all, the failure of the "rural industry" and low crop turnouts led to a lot of alienation and unhappiness on the part of agricultural workers, who were still the massive majority in China (in 1957, there were still only 12,000,000 industrial workers in China, in a population of 600,000,000; though that was still a 400% increase from 1949). It was a good concept, but too advanced for China at the time. And, of course, this period was also marked by a lot of oppurtunism, and people who used the failure of that specific socialist endeavor to stand up and speak out against socialism in general -- but also a lot of legitimate criticisms over the management and organization of the economy. It&#39;s important to remember that at this point, political parties were still quite legal in China, and rightists, bourgeois intellectuals and nationalists were still very present in society and politics (the CCP had a policy of "let them speak, but not act"). As a result of the criticisms and the obvious failure of that economic plan, Mao voluntarily stepped down as Chairman of the People&#39;s Republic in 1959 after urging the Party and the masses to "put him to task" for the failure, and also after urging the Party also criticize itself for the management of the GLF. The communes and the economy were organized into a more stable and efficient form.

As for the Cultural Revolution, its very complicated and filled with controversy, contradiction, etc. I suppose it could all start with the Hundred Flowers campaign, which started towards the middle-end of the GLF, where the CCP urged the people to stand up and voice opinions and criticisms from all sectors of society. Communes gathered regularly, heated debates were an everyday occurance in both governmental institutions and popular assemblies, criticisms flew, slandering, name-calling, what-have-you. Of course, as expected, the bourgeois intellectuals, anti-communists and counter-revolutionaries mobilized en masse (though by "en masse" they were quite the minority in the country) and made quite a lot of noise, until eventually the situation deteriorated into an outright attempt by these rightists to try and destabilize socialism. In response, the CCP and the masses essentially assaulted them ideologically, a lot of them faced social pressure from colleagues and neighbours, while a few were arrested and imprisoned for more radical right-wing actions (throughout this period, Mao urged to the Party and the people to "arrest few, kill none").

The actual "start" of the Cultural Revolution is kind of hard to pinpoint. Towards the end of the 100 Flowers Campaign, the CCP pushed for stronger and more intense ideological class struggle throughout the masses, and Mao and his colleagues, who were becoming concerned at what they saw as bourgeois ideas developing themselves in the Party beauraucracy, launched the "Socialist Education Movement" to try and agitate more class consciousness throughout the population, to stifle bourgeois ideas of production relationships which were still prevelent in the upper classes (land-owning rich peasants, factory owners, etc, who still existed and were in the process of being abolished). This was only moderately successful but as class consciousness mobilized, so did oppurtunism. The Cultural Revolution kicked off with sections of the masses organizing in workplaces, schools and communes to ideologically confront bourgeois ideals throughout society. The "Four Big Rights" were adopted at Mao&#39;s urging; Freedom of speach, freedom of opinion, freedom of debate and freedom of attacking the character of bourgeois opponents. Urban members of society, such as students and factory workers, developed plans to educate their less fortunate rural brothers in the ways of socialism, communism, and Maoism. The Mao&#39;s Little Red Book was their weapon of choice, and they spread to teach the values of socialist society and the materialist "philosophy" of Mao (a point I have a lot of criticisms about). There were also a lot of clashes between socialist-minded members of society and bourgeois rightists, oppurtunists and anti-communists. To most (including Mao) it had become clear that the CCP had become a beauraucratic, hegemonic and oppressive institution. Both sides (the left and the right, austensibly) carried out ideological and, sometimes, physical attacks against the other; workers publically confronted and humiliated "bourgeois intellectuals", such as factory owners, educational leaders, party cadres, etc. A favoured tactic was establishing public preceedings in which the accused were brought to a faux "public trial", where members of society blasted them for this or that bourgeois tendency. Nothing ever came of these "trials" except for the oppurtunity for the masses to speak out against their oppressors. There were, of course, actual arrests, physical beatings and in some cases execution -- from both sides. "Revisionist" Party cadres would incarcerate and execute their enemies; "Red Guards" would do the same. Eventually, however, the beauraucrats got the upper hand; Mao&#39;s failing health allowed them to maneuver freely, purge leftists from the party and military and re-instate Party dominance. Mao died in 1976. Almost immediately, all major political and social figures who adhered to Mao and socialism were kicked from their positions or arrested, and the "new government", soon to be headed by Deng Xiaoping, began an era of denouncing socialism and communism and instituting capitalist economic reforms and westernization and continuing the political monopolization and hegemonization that we see in China to this day, as manifested in incidents such as the Tiananmen Square massacre. Whatever personal view people here hold of Mao, it&#39;s incontrovertable that the things he warned against, and mobilized against -- such as increasing party beauracracy and hegemony, oppurtunist capitalist "roaders" taking over the party and moving it away from socialism, and increasing top-down dictatorship by the government against the masses -- did occur.

Years later, in 1980, a "trial" of sorts, headed by Deng, estimated that about 700,000 people were persecuted in various ways throughout the period immediately before, during, and after the Cultural Revolution (this accounts for about .1% of the population); various ways, as I indicated above, were public humiliation trials, temporary incarceratation and other social pressures. The investigation also concluded that about 35,000 had died or were killed, from both sides (about .005% of the population). A far cry from the "tens of millions" claimed by western "experts" and the "hundreds of millions" oppressed by this "monster&#39;s" dictatorship (and keep in mind, these are anti-Maoists coming up with these figures -- they have no reason to minimize the numbers).


A point of critism when it comes to Mao is he quite often uses terms like "the masses", "popular trends", "great revolution" to kinda subtly (sometimes it&#39;s quite obvious) trying to make you think his theory is more "cool" then it really is.

I think Mao figured that the masses (keep in mind, the masses means mostly uneducated backwards post-peasants and rural people) would respond better to a more "pop culture" version of Communism than the deeply materialist and scientific literature of Marxist theory. He always maintained a proper materialist Marxist outlook on economic and political views, but I think he went far too far trying to give a nicely decorated, easier-to-understand version of socialism to the people. For instance, the cult of personality engineered around him by his colleagues and Red Guards and other supporters (a cult he confidently supported and pursued) was, I believe, a mostly negative impact overall. While it&#39;s true that "Marxist dialectics" is quite undigestible by a lot of people (atleast in full), particularly poor peasants, I think he underestimated their potential for grasping the full meaning of Marxism. Eventually, it led to socialism in China having a rather weak base to support itself; while the vast majority supported socialism, they had little actual understanding of what it was and relied on the national Party to "lead them". As a consequence, when the national Party was fractured with power struggles between authentic Marxists and right-oppurtunists, the masses couldn&#39;t rely on themselves fully; and when the authentic revolutionaries were defeated and purged, there was no basis for mass self-management. The masses still relied on the Party for direction, and, naturally, as that direction was towards the right and towards bourgeois capitalism, the masses, in general, could only follow.

Even the "Socialist Education Movement" and the policy of Red Guards going to the countryside to teach peasants about Communism was mishandled and rife with this somewhat glorification of Mao. Really, their goal should have been proliferating communism and class struggle, and not about proliferating Mao&#39;s personality. Though I have no doubt their intentions were good, they obviously went about it the wrong way.


However, if it turns out that millions actually did starve because of Mao, I can&#39;t forgive him for that. Someone please just find me a definitive answer on this.

Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer to this. Western scholars, who usually come up with figures like 10,000,000-60,000,000, based their analysis on birthrate census data and other indirect means to compare population growth from before the Great Leap and during the Great Leap. Needless to say, people, died, probably a great many people, and yes, some of the blame does lie on Mao and on the CCP. It&#39;s historical fact that the period of the GLF was shadowed with a massive natural famine. This, coupled with the aforementioned failures of the economic policies of the GLF, as well as mis-management and dis-organization of the economy, and the severe underdevelopment of China&#39;s industrial capacity (not only technologically but also the underdevelopment of the skill of China&#39;s own new labourers) all led to the disaster. But there are also several interesting factors. First, we all know that Stalin adopted a policy of low rural priority with his economic planning which resulted in essentially oppressive practices against rural workers; Mao, from the start, rejected this. He actually put a higher priority on the rural economy, urging that rural workers and peasants need to treated equally, given equal benefits and an equal "share". Second, at the start, the GLF actually did produce a large increase in production, and led to an immediate (if short lived) boost to standards of livings for Chinese workers. However, after the next few years the standard of living fell dramatically (though not to pre-revolutionary levels), though also only temporarily, and by the end of the GLF the standard was about equal with before the GLF.

Also, another important factor that must be considered is the size of China&#39;s population at the time (roughly 600,000,000). Even if we do accept western scholar&#39;s bloated figure of 30,000,000 deaths (the average accepted number, though it ranges from 10m to 60m), that&#39;s about 5% of the population (and if we accept the smaller end of western calculations, 10,000,000 dead, that&#39;s roughly 1.6%. It&#39;s also important to note that Hu Yaobang, leader of the PRC from 1980-1987, and one of Deng&#39;s revisionist supporters, apparently gave a figure of 20,000,000 having died during the GLF, though I have no idea what process he used to come up with these figures. In any case, that&#39;s about 3.3%). Compare this with popular estimates of the Irish Potato Famine, which show anywhere from 5% to 25% of the population dying, and the Soviet-engineered famine in the Ukraine, in which about 15% of the population died.

Anyway, of course Mao shares some of the blame. No legitimate Maoist today would claim otherwise. On the contrary, most Maoists believe that nobody is immune to criticism or self-criticism; Mao&#39;s economic policies deserve criticism, the organization of the PRC, the CCP and the communs deserve criticism, the management of industry and development of the economy deserves criticism, etc. Only idiots like Rosa believe that this is not the case. But that is mainly because they lack the strength of character and, more importantly, the strength of historical materialist fact, to see through the mass amounts of anti-Mao rhetoric and propaganda in the West. Modern Maoists do not want a repeat of the disasters that hit China throughout Mao&#39;s rules -- we want a repeat of his successes (which were still a great many), while learning from his mistakes in order to avoid them.

One would think that, calling oneself a revolutionary leftists, or a communist, or anarchist, or Trotskyist or what-have-you, and having been subjected to similar slander and untruths in western society ("communism is dictatorship" etc), that people like us would be more open to scientific investigation and rejecting unsubstantiated and agitative claims of barbarity and oppression. Apparently this characteristic isn&#39;t universal among the left.

[RNK]

OK; list me the things you disagree with Mao over (you can leave out trivial things like favourite colour and food).

Finally you show some willingness to investigate Maoism...

I partially disagree with his notion of "skipping" capitalism;
I disagree with his economic planning for China&#39;s industrial development;
I partially disagree with his theories of "New Democracy";
I disagree with his planning of the Great Leap Forward;
I disagree with the his role in his own cult of personality;
I disagree with the strategy adopted by the Red Guards to spread Mao&#39;s message - IMO, they should have gone to the countryside to teach only socialism and class struggle, and not include the focus on Mao&#39;s literary works;
I partially disagree with the invasion of Tibet;
I disagree with Mao accepting Nixon&#39;s visit;
I disagree with some of Mao&#39;s heavy-handedness when it came to removing political opponents (though I accept that most of these instances were against counter-revolutionaries and oppurtunists, there are other instances, even though a minority, where Mao acted arbitrarily in his own political self-interest, though I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for China);

Let&#39;s see, what else... I disagree with the cordial relationship between China and the USSR (though this relationship is not as close and intimate as you anti-Stalinists believe).

Now, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but that&#39;s a rather large list of criticisms I have of Mao.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK, thanks for your honesty&#33;

Nowe, all we have to get you to do is admit that man was a leading figure in a brutal state capitalist regime, and you are home and dry&#33;

[Rawthentic]

It is clear for all to see that RNK takes the time to write large posts to clear up bourgeois misconceptions about Mao and the PRC, while Rosa spits one-liners and little more than a troll.

Keep it up RNK.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Live for Who?

What is this? Another one liner:


while Rosa spits one-liners and little more than a troll.

Not so; check out my response to SP. I am quite happy to discuss things with reasonable comrades.

Nip over to the Philosophy section and discuss Mao&#39;s confused ideas on dialectics with me if you want shed loads of detail.

Go on, I double dog dare you...

Maoists are conspicuous by their absence there.

[RNK]

There is, by now, a shitload of reference that you can use to challenge any of Mao&#39;s materialist theories. You&#39;re essentially asking me to defend Mao&#39;s dialectics, when all you&#39;ve done is use petty sensationalist word-games and trollish bullshit. You&#39;ve not once given anything even resembling a "materialist scientific theory" on anything related to Mao, nor have you even challenged the most basic economic concepts of revolutionary China, or done anything, actually, other than throw around meaningless unmaterialist accusations and insults. And now you&#39;re trying to twist it around into Maoists having no dialectic leg to stand on? That&#39;s rich.

If you want to discuss any finer points of China from 1949-1980, please, bring up one single substantial and meaningful issue. Are you capable of doing that, Ms. Materialite? How about you start with addressing any of the dozens upon dozens of little tidbits of knowledge I&#39;ve brought up?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I thought -- scared...

[RNK]

Uh... I just told you to bring up any points of disagreement on Mao&#39;s dialectics that you have... and I&#39;m "scared"?

:rolleyes: Really Rosa, try harder.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 10:53 pm
RNK, thanks for your honesty&#33;

Nowe, all we have to get you to do is admit that man was a leading figure in a brutal state capitalist regime, and you are home and dry&#33;
I am not a Maoist, but how in the hell can you have capitalism without capitalists? China is capitalist now, but it was not as such under Mao. And although I am not a Maoist, China was far better off under Maoism than it is today under capitalism - the living standards are crap and the nationalized healthcare system has been totally dismantled.

Capitalism -> Social production with an individual mode of appropriation.

Nationalized planned economy (whether it be democratic or totalitarian) -> Social production with a state mode of appropriation.

With the nationalized planned economy, the contradiction between social production and individual appropriation is abolished and therefore capitalism ceases to exist.

This is pretty funny, given that by Rosa&#39;s logic, even the early USSR was "state capitalist" judging from property forms. "State capitalism" started out from a faulty analysis. Now it is just a political swearword for any ultra-leftist to use against a nation that has or has had a nationalized planned economy that he/she does not like.

Interestingly, perhaps capitalism in China is not incredibly as stable as they would like us to think - I have heard that there are all kinds of peasant revolts, worker disputes, etc. that don&#39;t make the mainstream media. Literally thousands of them, if what I hear is correct.

Regardless from where you are approaching things, it is best to study and come back to various works of the author you are studying at least several times. Lenin made note of such things during his lecture on the state at Sverdlovsk University (he noted that the question of the state is initially a rather complex one.). I seriously doubt that any of us really got anywhere by reading some work just once when we were beginners.

[RNK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:34 am
Interestingly, perhaps capitalism in China is not incredibly as stable as they would like us to think - I have heard that there are all kinds of peasant revolts, worker disputes, etc. that don&#39;t make the mainstream media. Literally thousands of them, if what I hear is correct.
I hear the same. There was a short documentary a few months ago which shined some light on this; it followed economic growth in China, and had a small piece about how the government is distributing land to capitalist businessmen -- residential land, which the corporations then bulldoze, supplanting thousands of workers, in order to build skyscrapers or privately-owned factories and such. There was a lot of discontent with this; however, like western capitalist nations, the Chinese government has become adept at placating the masses (atleast most of them) by misinformation and information dominance.

[dawn star]

Originally posted by RNK+September 16, 2007 02:39 am--> (RNK @ September 16, 2007 02:39 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 01:34 am
I hear the same. There was a short documentary a few months ago which shined some light on this; it followed economic growth in China, and had a small piece about how the government is distributing land to capitalist businessmen -- residential land, which the corporations then bulldoze, supplanting thousands of workers, in order to build skyscrapers or privately-owned factories and such. There was a lot of discontent with this; however, like western capitalist nations, the Chinese government has become adept at placating the masses (atleast most of them) by misinformation and information dominance.
I hear the same. There was a short documentary a few months ago which shined some light on this; it followed economic growth in China, and had a small piece about how the government is distributing land to capitalist businessmen -- residential land, which the corporations then bulldoze, supplanting thousands of workers, in order to build skyscrapers or privately-owned factories and such. There was a lot of discontent with this; however, like western capitalist nations, the Chinese government has become adept at placating the masses (atleast most of them) by misinformation and information dominance. [/b]
In March of this years, the People Congress passed the law that private property right should be preserved, while at the same time in a city situated in Western China, a citizen who is against that the administration sell his own shelter to a businessman for exploitation received the punishement that the government forced his family to move with violence.
Spotaneously, in September, many Chines intenet based forums mainly held for the discussion of the social science must be closed during the time of the 17th national congress of the CCP. The rulera of China are faced with the question. In one point, it should be altered to the party just like the social democracy party in North Europe which means they have to discard their monopoly of political resources. On the other hand, some tough factions in the party hold the sturdy attitude which perhaps will result in the intensification of the sruggles and conflicts in the societies.

[dawn star]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:01 pm
I partially disagree with the invasion of Tibet;
Hardly could the peasant slave systm in Tibet be abolished without the so-called invasion of the Mao&#39;s army. Furthermore, the policy of CCP on the Tibet issue in 1950s is aparently distinct from the policy of nowadays.Despite the party&#39;s forsaking to the people self-determination in 1940s, the violence broght by the CCP regime in 1959 promote the social development in Tibet.
However, with the rebuilding of the capitalism in China, the nationalism ideology of the mionrities in this country has increased contiually in the past few years acompanied with the attack from the central government.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Uh... I just told you to bring up any points of disagreement on Mao&#39;s dialectics that you have... and I&#39;m "scared"?

As I said, nip over to the Philosophy section, and witness his ideas being trashed.

And I know you are scared. You do not need to tell me.

Axel:


This is pretty funny, given that by Rosa&#39;s logic, even the early USSR was "state capitalist" judging from property forms. "State capitalism" started out from a faulty analysis. Now it is just a political swearword for any ultra-leftist to use against a nation that has or has had a nationalized planned economy that he/she does not like.

The only way Ted Grant could make his arguments against Cliff work was to appeal to &#39;dialectics&#39;, which is odd since the Stalinists appealed to the same contradictory theory to rubbish Trotskyist analyses of the former USSR. Similarly, Maoists use it to rubbish both.

And to cap it all, Cliff used dialectics to criticise Trotsky&#39;s analysis.

Which just goes to show that this &#39;theory&#39; can be made to say anything.

Small wonder then that you mystics love it.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:01 pm
I partially disagree with his notion of "skipping" capitalism;
I disagree with his economic planning for China&#39;s industrial development;
I partially disagree with his theories of "New Democracy";
I disagree with his planning of the Great Leap Forward;
I disagree with the his role in his own cult of personality;
I disagree with the strategy adopted by the Red Guards to spread Mao&#39;s message - IMO, they should have gone to the countryside to teach only socialism and class struggle, and not include the focus on Mao&#39;s literary works;
I partially disagree with the invasion of Tibet;
I disagree with Mao accepting Nixon&#39;s visit;
I disagree with some of Mao&#39;s heavy-handedness when it came to removing political opponents (though I accept that most of these instances were against counter-revolutionaries and oppurtunists, there are other instances, even though a minority, where Mao acted arbitrarily in his own political self-interest, though I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for China);

Let&#39;s see, what else... I disagree with the cordial relationship between China and the USSR (though this relationship is not as close and intimate as you anti-Stalinists believe).

Now, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but that&#39;s a rather large list of criticisms I have of Mao.
May I ask then why you remain a Maoist? This cuts right at the heart of it; his "theory", disastrous economic and political policy, imperialistic tendencies. Extrapolate just a little and you would have a pretty solid case that Mao wasn&#39;t even a Marxist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cathbert, it&#39;s a religion to them.

That is why it is impossible to reason with a Maoist. They refuse to read anything critical of Mao (witness the reaction to those two links I posted earlier), and when it comes to dialectics, they just stick their fingers in their ears and sing "La&#33; La-La&#33; Lah&#33; Lah&#33;"

Not one of them will take me on in the Philosophy section.

I note you are in the ISO (am I right?).

If so, they hate us trots more than they hate the capitalists.

[You will also, probably have read Nigel Harris on Mao and China, and/or Charlie Hore?]

[RNK]

Originally posted by dawn star+September 16, 2007 08:49 am--> (dawn star @ September 16, 2007 08:49 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:01 pm
I partially disagree with the invasion of Tibet;
Hardly could the peasant slave systm in Tibet be abolished without the so-called invasion of the Mao&#39;s army. Furthermore, the policy of CCP on the Tibet issue in 1950s is aparently distinct from the policy of nowadays.Despite the party&#39;s forsaking to the people self-determination in 1940s, the violence broght by the CCP regime in 1959 promote the social development in Tibet.
However, with the rebuilding of the capitalism in China, the nationalism ideology of the mionrities in this country has increased contiually in the past few years acompanied with the attack from the central government. [/b]
Yes, I&#39;m aware of this; hence "partially"; I would have preferred if the Chinese agitated change through support, not occupation, but yes, either way it was a progressive move.


As I said, nip over to the Philosophy section, and witness his ideas being trashed.

Humiliated here, so now you have to try again in a new thread where people can&#39;t so easily see your trollish bullshit? :lol: :lol:


May I ask then why you remain a Maoist? This cuts right at the heart of it; his "theory", disastrous economic and political policy, imperialistic tendencies. Extrapolate just a little and you would have a pretty solid case that Mao wasn&#39;t even a Marxist.

Actually, it doesn&#39;t "cut at the heart of it". Rather than assume my disagreement is absolute, perhaps you should ask what specific criticisms and disagreements I have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Humiliated here, so now you have to try again in a new thread where people can&#39;t so easily see your trollish bullshit?

I disagree&#33;

I do not think you have been "humiliated" here, but I am willing to do that to you in the Philosophy section if you can summon up enough courage to venture there.

Get someone to hold your hand...

[RNK]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 03:22 pm
RNK:


Humiliated here, so now you have to try again in a new thread where people can&#39;t so easily see your trollish bullshit?

I disagree&#33;

I do not think you have been "humiliated" here, but I am willing to do that to you in the Philosophy section if you can summon up enough courage to venture there.

Get someone to hold your hand...
Oh silly Rosa, you have the formulative brain-power of a preteen. :rolleyes:

If not humiliated by several people accusing you of being a contradictory idiot (even non-"maoists"), then why the need to create a new thread? If there some "mysticism" involved preventing you from talking materialism here in this thread? Perhaps the exclusion of the words "dialectics" and/or "materialism" in the title of this thread?

:rolleyes: (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=70981&st=0#entry1292380507) <- Click Me

[RNK]

Ah wait, I see it now...

According to KOC, you have a big tendency to edit and remove posts of people you are "debating with"... and I see you are a mod in the Philosophy section... it all makes sense now&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Right, smarty pants, in the Philosophy section, I have posted a summary of just two of my objections to Mao loopy ideas on &#39;contradictions&#39;.

Nip over there, and try not to wet your pants...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So, RNK, scurried away, have you?

[Rawthentic]

I note you are in the ISO (am I right?).
Hey, neat, the ISO, a student based reformist organization.

On the other hand, the Marxist and communist organizations (and I&#39;m speaking to Maoist organizations in particular) are the ones that have not abandoned revolution and in fact are carrying revolution out in places such as Nepal, the Philippines, Bhutan, and India&#33;

So really, Maoists hate the capitalists more than the trots because for one, they still are fighting the capitalists while Trots are fighting themselves&#33;

[Led Zeppelin]

Don&#39;t be an idiot. There are a lot of Trotskyists fighting for revolution successfully in nations such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Nigeria etc.

Just because they don&#39;t proclaim a "peoples&#39; war" and start guerrilla wars that will last for decades and won&#39;t bring the revolution an inch closer, doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re not doing anything.

[RNK]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 04:23 pm

I note you are in the ISO (am I right?).
Hey, neat, the ISO, a student based reformist organization.

On the other hand, the Marxist and communist organizations (and I&#39;m speaking to Maoist organizations in particular) are the ones that have not abandoned revolution and in fact are carrying revolution out in places such as Nepal, the Philippines, Bhutan, and India&#33;

So really, Maoists hate the capitalists more than the trots because for one, they still are fighting the capitalists while Trots are fighting themselves&#33;
Eh, that&#39;s not altogether correct though I do understand your viewpoint. There is basis in claiming that Trotskyists have a tendency to split apart like a detonating tree. ;)

It is true that Marxist-Leninist-Maoists in the Philippines, Nepal, India, Turkey, Sri Lanka, even Columbia and throughout most of the 3rd world, and now Bhutain, are actively creating a progressive movement. Not only that, but they are dying and being executed or imprisoned for it. The vast majority of western "revolutionaries" would never have the balls for that; they&#39;d rather sit comfortably in the West and preach from pulpits, or, in Rosa&#39;s case, do nothing but argue dialectics from the comfort of their computer chair, all the while criticizing every inch of progress made by real revolutionaries who pick up guns and engage in real struggle. Not this watered-down internet debate shit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LFTP:


Hey, neat, the ISO, a student based reformist organization.

On the other hand, the Marxist and communist organizations (and I&#39;m speaking to Maoist organizations in particular) are the ones that have not abandoned revolution and in fact are carrying revolution out in places such as Nepal, the Philippines, Bhutan, and India&#33;

So really, Maoists hate the capitalists more than the trots because for one, they still are fighting the capitalists while Trots are fighting themselves&#33;

Coming from a group of petty-bourgeois worhippers of mass muderers, that is a bit rich.

[Rawthentic]

LZ, are you saying that people&#39;s wars won&#39;t bring the revolution any closer?

RNK, yeah, thats what I am speaking of, and its good to see how there are many more countries than I thought that are undertaking (or are beginning the process) of revolutionary struggle.

And Rosa, I see that there is nothing more you can say. Typical.

[RNK]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 16, 2007 04:32 pm
Don&#39;t be an idiot. There are a lot of Trotskyists fighting for revolution successfully in nations such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Nigeria etc.

Just because they don&#39;t proclaim a "peoples&#39; war" and start guerrilla wars that will last for decades and won&#39;t bring the revolution an inch closer, doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re not doing anything.

Just because they don&#39;t proclaim a "peoples&#39; war" and start guerrilla wars that will last for decades and won&#39;t bring the revolution an inch closer, doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re not doing anything.

That&#39;s a silly claim to make. Revolution isn&#39;t an inch closer in Nepal? Or the Philippines? I suppose the revolution is knocking on the front door here in the West :rolleyes:. More realistically, the defeatist attitude adopted by most 1st world communists (including, but not limited to, the vast, vast majority of Trots) has set revolution back. Just compare today with 30 years ago, and 30 years ago with 80 years ago. "Electoral" politics have become the tool the bourgeois use to pacify us, as opposed to Lenin&#39;s theory that electoral politics are the tool the proletariat uses to pacify the bourgeoisie.

This is solid fact, and is exactly why Leninism is a dead ideology in most of the 1st world (though I must stress the fact that this is not because of any failure of Leninism, but simply the logical conclusion of the past 80 years of social and political progress that the bourgeoisie has gone through. The bourgeoisie has wholly adapted, atleast in the 1st world and most of the 3rd, to deal with, pacify and destroy Leninism -- a fact only the incredibly ignorant can not see. This is why tactics must be changed and new revolutionary strategies developed - and that is why MLM is needed, because it is still a powerful force which global capitalists find incredibly difficult to defeat).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LFTP:


And Rosa, I see that there is nothing more you can say. Typical.

Well, let&#39;s see if you are brave enough to read, and then reply to my post on Mao&#39;s loopy ideas in the Philosophy section.

Go on; make yourself useful...

[RNK]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 16, 2007 04:42 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein &#064; September 16, 2007 04:42 pm) LFTP:


And Rosa, I see that there is nothing more you can say. Typical.

Well, let&#39;s see if you are brave enough to read, and then reply to my post on Mao&#39;s loopy ideas in the Philosophy section.

Go on; make yourself useful... [/b]
aka:


The Inner Mind of Rosa Lichtenstein
I&#39;ve been completely defeated here, and exposed for the useless, infantile troll I am. So I&#39;m going to start a new thread in a new forum and hope I can cleanse myself of the humiliation I&#39;ve faced here.

:rolleyes:

[RNK]

Coming from a group of petty-bourgeois worhippers of mass muderers, that is a bit rich.

Are you ultra-leftist goons always this blatantly ignorant, btw? I&#39;ve already refuted your claims of "mass murderer" with sources far more reputable than yours -- and yet, you continue parroting yourself like a moron, hoping the "bad man" will go away. Face facts, Rosa -- dialectics aside, you, and everything you say, are worthless shit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK, now reduced to making stuff up, to make &#39;himself&#39; feel a little better:


The Inner Mind of Rosa Lichtenstein)
I&#39;ve been completely defeated here, and exposed for the useless, infantile troll I am. So I&#39;m going to start a new thread in a new forum and hope I can cleanse myself of the humiliation I&#39;ve faced here.

But, still you can&#39;t defend that monster, Mao, and his loopy ideas on &#39;contradictions&#39;.

[Rawthentic]

But, still you can&#39;t defend that monster, Mao, and his loopy ideas on &#39;contradictions&#39;.
But you still gotta admit the fact that you have shit to say on this thread, and must keep referring to another thread to look better.

We get the point, but its not working for you. Keep diggin&#39; yourself deeper.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LVTP:


But you still gotta admit the fact that you have shit to say on this thread, and must keep referring to another thread to look better.

We get the point, but its not working for you. Keep diggin&#39; yourself deeper.

Still prevaricating?

Don&#39;t tell me you too cannot defend that mass murderer and his whacko ideas on &#39;contradictions&#39;?

[Rawthentic]

Are you serious lady? Have you been so thoroughly refuted in this thread that you have to keep summoning up that other thread?

In all honesty, I don&#39;t know a thing about dialectical materialism, and I have the guts to say that thats the reason why I won&#39;t go posting there. You don&#39;t know shit about Mao other than your trumped up "mass murdered" and "state-capitalist" shit, so just do like I do and leave this thread.

I mean, you can make a poll to see who thinks you&#39;re a troll here or not, and you would lose big time. Its so clear, just get over it and move on before you look even more stupid.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, whistling in the dark now.

Someone hold his tiny white, shaking hand:


Are you serious lady? Have you been so thoroughly refuted in this thread that you have to keep summoning up that other thread?

In all honesty, I don&#39;t know a thing about dialectical materialism, and I have the guts to say that thats the reason why I won&#39;t go posting there. You don&#39;t know shit about Mao other than your trumped up "mass murdered" and "state-capitalist" shit, so just do like I do and leave this thread.

I mean, you can make a poll to see who thinks you&#39;re a troll here or not, and you would lose big time. Its so clear, just get over it and move on before you look even more stupid.

Still unable to respond, I see.

A tiny dose of analytic philosophy and you mystics fall to pieces:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70981

Just shows you have never really thought about the loppy &#39;philosophical&#39; ideas you swallowed.

[Rawthentic]

I&#39;m not a mystic, and I&#39;m not a dialectical materialist.

But you have shown how much of a fucking moron you are, and I won&#39;t be responding to your crap until you bring forward some substance to this thread. But that would be a new for you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LFTP, confirming his abusive status:


I&#39;m not a mystic, and I&#39;m not a dialectical materialist.

But you have shown how much of a fucking moron you are, and I won&#39;t be responding to your crap until you bring forward some substance to this thread. But that would be a new for you.

Still prevaricating?

[RNK]

:lol:

Poor Rosa. She has to hide her accusations of "monster" behind her anti-dialectic rants. Why don&#39;t you simply come out and address your accusations? What does your accusations of mass murder have to do with Mao&#39;s "loopy dialectics"? You&#39;re using strawmen to back up your baselessness. It&#39;s quite pathetic. You&#39;re acting more and more desperate, trying to scramble away from repeatedly being proven wrong.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Live For the People, with all due respect, I don&#39;t think you could classify those &#39;people wars&#39; as socialist revolutions. They might be national-liberation struggles, anti-imperialist struggles, or radical-democratic struggles tied to the radical bourgeoisie of the native country, but they can not be classified as a revolution of the working class to appropriate the means of production.

I hate all this talk about how “Trotskyism has never made a revolution,” simply because it is not true. Lenin, at first, called for “the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,” that was based purely on the basis that even though it would be lead by the proletariat, it could only attain the gains of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. But Trotsky, who had been writing polemics on the necessity of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat which leads the peasant masses behind it’ for decades, had gained the support of Lenin on the eve of their revolution. So, I would argue that the role of the proletariat was determined by Trotsky, and adopted by Lenin, which proved to be the strategic formula that lead to the conquering of power by the Workers&#39;, Soldiers&#39;, and Peasants&#39; Deputies as a whole. Trotsky, in his writings on Germany, France, Spain, and China, had displayed why these revolutions failed, and how the Bolshevik experience needed to be copied in order to ensure success. So, I think it should be said that there is contemporary significance in his theories. It is not the "idea" of Trotskyism that has lead to it&#39;s power trips, name-calling, and fierce sectarianism.

Mao, on the other hand, had adopted a crude form of Menshevism.


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.

He came from the petit-bourgeois elements the Chinese Communist Party. He became a member of the Executive Committee of the Guomintang, and joined the National Popular Party. Comintern demanded for the working class to remain at the rear of the national bourgeoisie, and by the time of the slaughter of two-thirds of the entire party, which was once composed mostly of working-class cadres concentrated in industrial centers, a vacuum was created that allowed the peasant guerillas that Mao head to take leadership. He accomplished the historical tasks of the nascent bourgeoisie in China; super-industrialization, revolutionizing of agrilculture in order to yield greater produce, and the subsequent modernization of transportation across the entire country.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Poor Rosa. She has to hide her accusations of "monster" behind her anti-dialectic rants. Why don&#39;t you simply come out and address your accusations? What does your accusations of mass murder have to do with Mao&#39;s "loopy dialectics"? You&#39;re using strawmen to back up your baselessness. It&#39;s quite pathetic. You&#39;re acting more and more desperate, trying to scramble away from repeatedly being proven wrong.

You still cannot respond to my argument; I suspect you can&#39;t even follow it. :o

[Random Precision]

Rosa: Yes, I am a member of the ISO (US). While we&#39;re on the subject, I see some of the same old tired criticisms of my organization as "reformist" and "student based". I guess this is what happens when one has the largest, most active organization on a very small and divided Left.

I might also note that RedDali&#39;s post is excellent. Anyone who wants to really understand Mao would do well to read this (http://www.isreview.org/issues/01/mao_to_deng_1.shtml) article.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Catbert: excellent magazine. I&#39;ve got a subscription to it&#33;

Must have missed that article though&#33;

And is the ISO still the largest in the US?

Good to hear, if it is&#33;


--------------------------

Ah, now I have looked that article up, I recall that started it a few months back, stopped, and for some unknown reason did not start again.

I&#39;ll definitely finish it this time. :)

[Invader Zim]

Arguing with Maoists is a completely futile waste of time simply because, in the same manner that their idol is comparable to Hitler, Maoists are comparable to holocaust deniers. You present them with the facts which have been carefully weighed up by professional historians many of whom are real leftists (unlike Maoists), and they claim that these facts are fictions; that the historians who have exposed them to the public domain are &#39;capitalist propagandists&#39; and that it is all &#39;lies&#39;. This thread contains numerous examples of such behaviour on the part of our Maoists. So at the end of the day, trying to argue with Maoists and their intellectually bankrupt post-modernist attitude towards history, is futile and pointless.

And to be quite honest, Maoists are no better than holocaust deniers, and i don&#39;t know why we tolerate them here. If I thought it would get anywhere, I would vote that they be restricted to OI (not that they diserve any platform for their ahistoric rubbish).

[Rawthentic]

Live For the People, with all due respect, I don&#39;t think you could classify those &#39;people wars&#39; as socialist revolutions. They might be national-liberation struggles, anti-imperialist struggles, or radical-democratic struggles tied to the radical bourgeoisie of the native country, but they can not be classified as a revolution of the working class to appropriate the means of production.
I said they were a step closer towards socialist revolutions, not that they were. Big difference.


Comintern demanded for the working class to remain at the rear of the national bourgeoisie, and by the time of the slaughter of two-thirds of the entire party, which was once composed mostly of working-class cadres concentrated in industrial centers, a vacuum was created that allowed the peasant guerillas that Mao head to take leadership. He accomplished the historical tasks of the nascent bourgeoisie in China; super-industrialization, revolutionizing of agrilculture in order to yield greater produce, and the subsequent modernization of transportation across the entire country.
The Comintern, led by Stalin, were the ones that demanded that the CCP tail the Kuomintang, causing the slaughter of workers and party members. At this point, he did not abandon revolution, but had to move in from the countryside.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader Z, I totally agree.

But it&#39;s fun to wind them up -- they are just a oversensitive as born-again Christians.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The prospects of socialist revolution ended at that point. The remaining fragments of the party scrapped their manifesto, their ideological statement that displayed their organic relation to the class it represents. As the party formerly warned in the manifesto itself, "…the working class must not become the appendage of the petty bourgeoisie within this democratic united front, but must fight for their own class interests." Mao continued to press his strategy of two-stagism, in which the proletariat would be subordinated to the tale of the nationalist bourgeoisie. Mao&#39;s friend and political partner, Qui Qiubai, who was also a member of the Kuomintang, was nominated leader of the Chinese Communist Party by the bureaucratic Comintern. Mao denounced the "left opportunism" of Chen Duxiu, an increasingly popular figure in the party that was growing close to gaining leadership, while demanding that Moscow&#39;s interests be tended to.

This was all at the time in which Chiang-kai-shek was at the gates of Shanghai - while Duxiu and other party members called for the arming of the workers and the appropriation of the factories, Mao and Qiubai demanded &#39;moderation&#39; and blind support to the orders of the Communist International. It was already known by Mao that party members were being slaughtered in Kwangtung and Canton, but of course, his interests laid in the hands of nothing but the working class.

The party adopted Mao&#39;s line of a &#39;bloc of four classes&#39;, and after a few political opponents were killed here and there, he controlled the entire party himself.

[RNK]

Live For the People, with all due respect, I don&#39;t think you could classify those &#39;people wars&#39; as socialist revolutions. They might be national-liberation struggles, anti-imperialist struggles, or radical-democratic struggles tied to the radical bourgeoisie of the native country, but they can not be classified as a revolution of the working class to appropriate the means of production.

Actually, yes, they can be classified as a revolution of the working class, as they are appropriating the means of production for the workers and peasant as long as it is in their ability to do so (re: red zones in Nepal). It&#39;s also ironic that you&#39;re attempting to debase these movements for lack of appropriation of the means of production when they are still in the process of doing so. Of course Maoists in the Philippines, India, Turkey, Colombia, Bhutain, Sri Lanka, etc, have not appropriated the means of production -- they have not yet destroyed the ruling class&#33;


I hate all this talk about how “Trotskyism has never made a revolution,” simply because it is not true.

Ohhh, so Marxism-Leninism is actually Trotskyism, not the other way around? All Leninists are Trotskyists and just don&#39;t know it? :rolleyes:


So, I would argue that the role of the proletariat was determined by Trotsky, and adopted by Lenin, which proved to be the strategic formula that lead to the conquering of power by the Workers&#39;, Soldiers&#39;, and Peasants&#39; Deputies as a whole.

The formula used in the Russian revolution had grevious errors that, according to some, led Lenin to abolish the Soviets and introduce dictatorship of the Party.


So, I think it should be said that there is contemporary significance in his theories. It is not the "idea" of Trotskyism that has lead to it&#39;s power trips, name-calling, and fierce sectarianism.

I don&#39;t deny that Trotsky contributed greatly to revolutionary theory. My problem isn&#39;t with him. It&#39;s with the chauvanist attitudes of modern Trotskyists, who criticize everything under the sun from their priviledged pulpit of narcissism.


Mao, on the other hand, had adopted a crude form of Menshevism.


Originally posted by Mao
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.

Way to quote a statement that was made in 1923, dumbass, when fuedalism still rules China and the KMT and CP were in the process of destroying it. This statement has nothing to do with socialism in China (hence the title "The Role of Merchants In The National Revolution").


He came from the petit-bourgeois elements the Chinese Communist Party.

He came from a peasant family.


He became a member of the Executive Committee of the Guomintang, and joined the National Popular Party.

...during the national revolution against fuedalism. Not to mention he helped a peasant revolt against the KMT and nationalists during this time.


Comintern demanded for the working class to remain at the rear of the national bourgeoisie,

A demand Mao opposed, and was removed from the leadership of the Communist Party for it.


and by the time of the slaughter of two-thirds of the entire party, which was once composed mostly of working-class cadres concentrated in industrial centers, a vacuum was created that allowed the peasant guerillas that Mao head to take leadership.

Damn that evil man. Why didn&#39;t he give up and go home? Or turn himself in?


He accomplished the historical tasks of the nascent bourgeoisie in China; super-industrialization, revolutionizing of agrilculture in order to yield greater produce, and the subsequent modernization of transportation across the entire country.

He accomplished those tasks by organizing workers and peasants together, to, as you put it, carry out the tasks of the bourgeoisie with the workers and peasants in power.


Anyone who wants to really understand Mao would do well to read this article.

Yay&#33; Tony Cliff&#33; Again, funny that the "best way to understand" Mao is to read an article of someone else opinions on Mao, written over 50 years after the revolution in China, rather than read Mao himself.

While you&#39;re at it, instead of reading Marx or Lenin, pick up a copy of "RED COMMIE-NAZIS: The Story Of How 100,000,000 People Died" :rolleyes:


Arguing with Maoists is a completely futile waste of time simply because

...because Maoists actually have a legitimate global movement to liberate working men and women, and are doing so at this very moment, while the rest of you are either still fantasizing about a 90-year-old failure, or better yet, an ideology which has never seen the light of day?


You present them with the facts which have been carefully weighed up by professional historians many of whom are real leftists (unlike Maoists)

You mean by comparing birth rates in China from 1954 and 1958, seeing a lower birthrate, and screaming "omfg 60,000,000 people died&#33;"? :lol:


and they claim that these facts are fictions; that the historians who have exposed them to the public domain are &#39;capitalist propagandists&#39; and that it is all &#39;lies&#39;.

Actually, if you had bothered to read any of my posts (specifically the large one dealing with exactly this issue), you&#39;d know that I do not "deny" as many as 30,000,000 dying during the famine. I suppose you didn&#39;t bother reading why they died, either (all that matters is that people died, right? Ignore the fact that the famine was a combination of natural and organizational/technical errors -- no&#33; Mao might as well have slit the throats of each and every one of them&#33; :rolleyes:). I suppose you didn&#39;t bother reading how the worker communes were organized... hell, I bet you waltzed in here and just decided to be a little troll.


The remaining fragments of the party scrapped their manifesto, their ideological statement that displayed their organic relation to the class it represents. As the party formerly warned in the manifesto itself, "…the working class must not become the appendage of the petty bourgeoisie within this democratic united front, but must fight for their own class interests."

Which it did. You are attempting to force Mao&#39;s opinions from the 1920s onto Mao from the 1940s; yes, in the 1920s, he did collaborate with the national bourgeoisie; that was what was needed at the time to fight fuedalism and colonialism. However, even that early, in 1926, Mao said:


The leading force in our revolution is the industrial proletariat.

And that was something he repeated throughout the rest of his life.


Mao continued to press his strategy of two-stagism, in which the proletariat would be subordinated to the tale of the nationalist bourgeoisie.

Where the fuck are you getting this from? Oh -- 1922.


Mao&#39;s friend and political partner, Qui Qiubai, who was also a member of the Kuomintang, was nominated leader of the Chinese Communist Party by the bureaucratic Comintern.

An was executed in 1935 by the KMT.


Mao denounced the "left opportunism" of Chen Duxiu, an increasingly popular figure in the party that was growing close to gaining leadership, while demanding that Moscow&#39;s interests be tended to.

...are you serious? You do realize that the Comintern also tried to have Mao similarly dismissed for opposing the demands of the Comintern, yes?


This was all at the time in which Chiang-kai-shek was at the gates of Shanghai - while Duxiu and other party members called for the arming of the workers and the appropriation of the factories, Mao and Qiubai demanded &#39;moderation&#39; and blind support to the orders of the Communist International. It was already known by Mao that party members were being slaughtered in Kwangtung and Canton, but of course, his interests laid in the hands of nothing but the working class.

What, exactly, would you expect Mao to do about it? Caste away the overwhelming forces of the KMT with the unstoppable power of Mao Zedong Thought? :rolleyes:


The party adopted Mao&#39;s line of a &#39;bloc of four classes&#39;, and after a few political opponents were killed here and there, he controlled the entire party himself.

Sounds like the accusations against Lenin.

While I would agree with you fully if these statements were made during the 1940s and 1950s, the fact that this took place during the 20s and 30s, when China was still in a fuedal and semi-colonial state and occupied by imperialist Japan, really kinda changes the context in which they were made, as the situation of China is vastly different than it would be in the 40s and 50s.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Live For the People, with all due respect, I don&#39;t think you could classify those &#39;people wars&#39; as socialist revolutions.

People&#39;s War is a strategy for socialist revolution. People&#39;s War has brought about the overthrow of capitalist states, and at the very least the establishment of People&#39;s run governments and courts with the redistribution of land and the collectivization of things like grain, healthcare, education etc in parts of different countries (India, Phillipines).


They might be national-liberation struggles, anti-imperialist struggles, or radical-democratic struggles tied to the radical bourgeoisie of the native country, but they can not be classified as a revolution of the working class to appropriate the means of production.


what are you talking about? Tenant Peasants (the base of these revolutions) are rural proletarians. You can&#39;t be so fucking dogmatic.


I hate all this talk about how “Trotskyism has never made a revolution,” simply because it is not true. Lenin, at first, called for “the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,” that was based purely on the basis that even though it would be lead by the proletariat, it could only attain the gains of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. But Trotsky, who had been writing polemics on the necessity of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat which leads the peasant masses behind it’ for decades, had gained the support of Lenin on the eve of their revolution.

and? Even if that were true, Mao said that the key classes are the proletariat and peasantry, and of those 2 classes, the working class is the central one.

Even if it wasn&#39;t like that, it still put the masses in control, land was collectivized, woman liberated, imperialism thrown out, all property was turned into collective property or property of the whole people, people had more control of shit than ever before, communal kitchens were set up, people lived together in people&#39;s communes, education was spread broadly and more broadly than ever dreamed of before. That&#39;s Socialism.


Mao, on the other hand, had adopted a crude form of Menshevism.

No Mao followed the bolshevik idea that democratic revolution has gotta be led by the working class because that leads inevitably to socialism. If it is lead by the capitalist class, than it&#39;ll lead to that because democracy would serve those interests. It was Lenin who gave support and aid to the KMT in exchange for unity and co-operation with the CCP. But I guess Lenin was a Menshevik traitor who was nothing without trotsky&#39;s theories :lol:


He came from the petit-bourgeois elements the Chinese Communist Party. He became a member of the Executive Committee of the Guomintang, and joined the National Popular Party.

yeah because the KMT and CCP had an alliance at this time, it was leading progressive, anti-imperialist, working class based democracy at this time. BTW how did he come from the Petty bourgeois elements of the CCP?



Comintern demanded for the working class to remain at the rear of the national bourgeoisie,

no it didn&#39;t. THere was a bourgeois right wing coup in the KMT, a counterrevolution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Comintern, led by Stalin, were the ones that demanded that the CCP tail the Kuomintang, causing the slaughter of workers and party members.

no comrade, there was a counterrevolution within the leadership. There was nothing that could be done, just as the Deng coup in China

[Invader Zim]

RNK&#39;s latest post is further evidence of just what I have been saying. Some holocaust deniers accept that many died and were murdered in Russia during the wehrmacht&#39;s occupation but claim that it was not intentional and some, like David Irving, seek to protect Hitler by contending that the crimes of the Nazi regime were unknown to Hitler. They take the legitimate functionalism of Browning, Mommsen, Broszat, etc, and bastardise it to defend Hitler claiming that the holocaust was &#39;nothing to do with him&#39;, that the famines and mass murders in Russia committed by the wehrmacht were largely either legitimate or a simple result of the war, or they claim that the extermination of European Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, etc, was down to Hitlers lieutenants, primarily Himmler and Heydrich.

Nazis are infatuated with the leader and, even if they come to accept the crimes of the Nazi regime will protect Hitler at all costs.

RNK is no different when it comes to Mao, it seems that he accepts that there was a famine, but rather than placing the blame for that on Mao&#39;s door (where it belongs) he blames it on &#39;natural&#39; causes and &#39;technical and organisational errors&#39;, anything to protect the great leader.



...because Maoists actually have a legitimate global movement to liberate working men and women, and are doing so at this very moment, while the rest of you are either still fantasizing about a 90-year-old failure, or better yet, an ideology which has never seen the light of day?

No sweetie, I didn&#39;t say that as that would be bollocks; care to read again?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:18 am
Yay&#33; Tony Cliff&#33; Again, funny that the "best way to understand" Mao is to read an article of someone else opinions on Mao, written over 50 years after the revolution in China, rather than read Mao himself.

While you&#39;re at it, instead of reading Marx or Lenin, pick up a copy of "RED COMMIE-NAZIS: The Story Of How 100,000,000 People Died"
RNK, I would quite honestly recommend Mao&#39;s more important works to anyone wanting to understand him and the phenomenon of Maoism, as long as they keep in mind the proper analysis. Just as I would recommend a read of Mein Kampf to anyone trying to understand Hitler.

The problem with taking Mao at face value is that there&#39;s a great leap (if you&#39;ll forgive the pun) to make between his words and his actions. Furthermore, any "theory" that he developed was basically a justification for the actions he and his Stalinist bureaucracy took in their own interest.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I read recently of how central planning, with factory and technical advisors appointed from the top who were in control of management, was widely used across industrial China during this time period. If anyone could offer a source about the success of worker&#39;s control after the victory of the Red Army, I will take back all of my statements.

The peasantry (or &#39;rural proletarian&#39;) has shown time and again the incapability to construct socialism on their own. It cannot be the leading revolutionary class, because it is a class of small proprietors that is rooted in pre-capitalist mode of production. It can and must be revolutionized, but it is not sufficient to pursue an independent role itself. The proletariat always need to take the leading role, and we can not repeat the days of the economic mismanagement of peasants making pig iron in their backyards instead of in proper plants, or scientists and specialists taken out of their offices and factories and thrown into the fields, or the destruction of cities altogether.

Even if it was within Mao&#39;s subjective desire to create his concept of socialism, the proletariat was completely subservient to the peasantry since they didn&#39;t (and maybe even unable) to play an independent role themselves. A clique arised out of a stratum of factory managers and middle bureaucrats that held a monopoly over the state, and took chips out of the state yearly until they finally began their brutal campaign of privatization. So, he didn&#39;t "accomplish tasks by organizing workers and peasants together, to, as you put it, carry out the tasks of the bourgeoisie with the workers and peasants in power," he rather organized the peasants into, even if he didn&#39;t even aspire to, carrying out the tasks of the bourgeoisie.

As for the slogan, Lenin had openly criticized Kamenev for upholding the slogan through letters and addresses to the party. His theoretical conclusions were rewritten for the purposes of fighting revolutionary factions that remained in the party.

[Random Precision]

Excellent post, RedDali. After they were defeated in the cities by the Kuomanting, the leadership of the CCP decided that the proletarian consciousness necessary to build socialism rested within the party, even when it was nothing more than a core of intellectuals leading a bunch of peasants.

It continues to amaze me that many fellow Marxists will unabashedly claim that socialism and workers&#39; power can be established without the workers serving any function besides as cheerleaders.

I am also struck once again by how futile it is to debate Stalinists of any stripe. This thread is an excellent example. Apparently Mao was responsible for all the good things that happened under his rule, like the increase in literacy, developments in industry and healthcare, collectivization of land and so on. But when one mentions the famines of the Great Leap Forward, the lack of workers&#39; power, the personality cult, the horrible abuses of the Cultural Revolution and everything else, suddenly it can&#39;t be Mao&#39;s fault.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:07 pm
I am also struck once again by how futile it is to debate Stalinists of any stripe. This thread is an excellent example. Apparently Mao was responsible for all the good things that happened under his rule, like the increase in literacy, developments in industry and healthcare, collectivization of land and so on. But when one mentions the famines of the Great Leap Forward, the lack of workers&#39; power, the personality cult, the horrible abuses of the Cultural Revolution and everything else, suddenly it can&#39;t be Mao&#39;s fault.
Exactly.

In the face of facts, they either say &#39;it&#39;s capitalist propaganda&#39;, or they will go half-way and admit grevious errors by saying it is one of their &#39;criticisms&#39; of Mao.

I have no problem with many Maoists out there today - the Revolutionary Communist Party has been accused for &#39;Trotskkkyi&#036;m&#39; by MIM and IRTR simply because they have an orientation with the urban proletariat of &#39;Amerikkka&#39;. As much as I dislike them, they are correct. The RCP contradicts the theories of the same all-knowing wizard that they religiously follow.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 04:39 pm
LZ, are you saying that people&#39;s wars won&#39;t bring the revolution any closer?
Yes, and I have been proven right by history. See Peru, Colombia, Nepal etc. and contrast that with Russia, where a revolution occured not through some "people&#39;s war" declared by the Bolsheviks, but by agitating and organizing the proletariat.

The only success a "people&#39;s war" strategy led to was in China, and that had more to do with the peculiar situation created in that country through the war, soviet aid, etc. rather than the strategy of declaring a "people&#39;s war". Any logical thinking person would&#39;ve supported the creation of a revolutionary army there to fight the imperialist forces and later on the nationalists, no special theory was required for this.

[Rawthentic]

The RCP contradicts the theories of the same all-knowing wizard that they religiously follow.

How, exactly? Are you saying MIM and IRTR represent Maoism?

An how does the RCP "religiously follow" Mao Tse-Tung? I really think thats a load of bullshit. A simple look at all the documents and works they put forward would prove you wrong.

[dawn star]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:34 am
The prospects of socialist revolution ended at that point. The remaining fragments of the party scrapped their manifesto, their ideological statement that displayed their organic relation to the class it represents. As the party formerly warned in the manifesto itself, "…the working class must not become the appendage of the petty bourgeoisie within this democratic united front, but must fight for their own class interests." Mao continued to press his strategy of two-stagism, in which the proletariat would be subordinated to the tale of the nationalist bourgeoisie. Mao&#39;s friend and political partner, Qui Qiubai, who was also a member of the Kuomintang, was nominated leader of the Chinese Communist Party by the bureaucratic Comintern. Mao denounced the "left opportunism" of Chen Duxiu, an increasingly popular figure in the party that was growing close to gaining leadership, while demanding that Moscow&#39;s interests be tended to.

This was all at the time in which Chiang-kai-shek was at the gates of Shanghai - while Duxiu and other party members called for the arming of the workers and the appropriation of the factories, Mao and Qiubai demanded &#39;moderation&#39; and blind support to the orders of the Communist International. It was already known by Mao that party members were being slaughtered in Kwangtung and Canton, but of course, his interests laid in the hands of nothing but the working class.

The party adopted Mao&#39;s line of a &#39;bloc of four classes&#39;, and after a few political opponents were killed here and there, he controlled the entire party himself.
It was Stalin-Bukharin alliantion but not Qui Qiubai or Mao should be responsible for the catastrophe of the Chine working class in 1927. After the boom fron KMT, Stalin transformed to a so-called radical attitude. Chen Duxiu was slandered as a scapegoat with the replacement of Qiubai as the secretary of CCP. Stalin demanded the communist party organize the uprising in the metropolis with only resulting thosands death of the elite among the proletariat. Qiubai was the performer of the damn policy under the political leadership from Soviet Union bureaucrats. Mao selected another route as a supplementation of the Stalism. He went to the broad rural area in China to organize the Red Army with revisionism of the Marxism.
The soldiers of the Red Army deserved the respection of the people who desire for the advancement all over the world. However, with the military power in the hand, the upper group of the CCP began its long course of degeneration which they played as a role of "red warload" when struggling with the reactionary KMT government.
Mao gave some new explanation to the "phase revolution". He held that CCP should not be fully obey the KMT as the French Stalinist had done. Yet without the land reform in the civil war, CCP could not establish the regime. Furthermore, without the nationalization of the caplitalist firm in 1950s, People Republic of China would be overthrown by the supporters of imperalism sooner or later.
Mao established a distorted country with dictatorship of proletariat whose life span was only placed about forty years old.
Mao has passed away while Chines laborers faced a long march in the course of their liberation.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:01 pm
I partially disagree with his notion of "skipping" capitalism;
I disagree with his economic planning for China&#39;s industrial development;
I partially disagree with his theories of "New Democracy";
I disagree with his planning of the Great Leap Forward;
I disagree with the his role in his own cult of personality;
I disagree with the strategy adopted by the Red Guards to spread Mao&#39;s message - IMO, they should have gone to the countryside to teach only socialism and class struggle, and not include the focus on Mao&#39;s literary works;
I partially disagree with the invasion of Tibet;
I disagree with Mao accepting Nixon&#39;s visit;
I disagree with some of Mao&#39;s heavy-handedness when it came to removing political opponents (though I accept that most of these instances were against counter-revolutionaries and oppurtunists, there are other instances, even though a minority, where Mao acted arbitrarily in his own political self-interest, though I believe he thought he was doing the right thing for China);

Let&#39;s see, what else... I disagree with the cordial relationship between China and the USSR (though this relationship is not as close and intimate as you anti-Stalinists believe).
What about the three worlds theory?

Yes, random, but just curious.

[Hiero]

RNK&#39;s latest post is further evidence of just what I have been saying. Some holocaust deniers accept that many died and were murdered in Russia during the wehrmacht&#39;s occupation but claim that it was not intentional and some, like David Irving, seek to protect Hitler by contending that the crimes of the Nazi regime were unknown to Hitler. They take the legitimate functionalism of Browning, Mommsen, Broszat, etc, and bastardise it to defend Hitler claiming that the holocaust was &#39;nothing to do with him&#39;, that the famines and mass murders in Russia committed by the wehrmacht were largely either legitimate or a simple result of the war, or they claim that the extermination of European Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, etc, was down to Hitlers lieutenants, primarily Himmler and Heydrich.

You can&#39;t compare the Holocaust to China&#39;s history.

The Holocaust occured in a industrial society where millions of people were marched off to death camps.

China from 1949 to 1971 was and is still coming out of feudalism. People just died in mass numbers in China, either by famines caused by drought or flood, or killed by landords through execution or malnutrition. No matter what you any government whether it would be Anarchist, Communist, Fascist, Capitalist wanted to do, it was going to be rough. The Communist had to work through famine

At the end of the Mao&#39;s period, China had overcome huge problems, it was a great effort. And due to China&#39;s large population, a large number of the population were against this, so conflict is bound to surface.

If Mao as you wierdos say killed millions of people, then I wonder how many in the billions he personally saved with industrialisation and progressive social and cultural programs.

[RNK]

RNK&#39;s latest post is further evidence of just what I have been saying.

See the infantile attempts at passive agitation Zim is trying to pull by talking about me in the 3rd person :lol:


The problem with taking Mao at face value is that there&#39;s a great leap (if you&#39;ll forgive the pun) to make between his words and his actions.

Only if you&#39;re a person of rather weak mind and conscious who has the critical fault of being unable to think outside the box. I don&#39;t blame you, though, no more than I blame the majority of the population in the West for hating Communism. They simply do not know better -- they&#39;ve been taught to since the minute they were born. Knowledge to the contrary of this, however more reputable then their original sources, are met with hostility and violent disbelief that rivals the "brainwashing" they accuse their opponents of.


The peasantry (or &#39;rural proletarian&#39;) has shown time and again the incapability to construct socialism on their own. It cannot be the leading revolutionary class, because it is a class of small proprietors that is rooted in pre-capitalist mode of production.

I agree, and so did Mao, and the CCP. Come on, atleast read the previous posts in this thread. That fantasy that Mao upheld the peasantry as the leading revolutionary class has been debunked so many times (even in this one thread), it&#39;s mind-boggling how many times people repeat it.


But when one mentions the famines of the Great Leap Forward

So now Mao has the ability to control the weather, eh?


, the lack of workers&#39; power

And he&#39;s responsible for the entirety of China&#39;s industrial history?


the personality cult,

Learn to read.


the horrible abuses of the Cultural Revolution

Another debunked fantasy. Do try to keep up.


The RCP contradicts the theories of the same all-knowing wizard that they religiously follow.

Using infantile wordplay doesn&#39;t make you any more correct. Is it impossible for people to argue against Maoism without restorting to childish insults when their so-called &#39;solid evidence&#39; is proven wrong?


Yes, and I have been proven right by history. See Peru, Colombia, Nepal etc. and contrast that with Russia, where a revolution occured not through some "people&#39;s war" declared by the Bolsheviks, but by agitating and organizing the proletariat.

Again, Russia turned out real well, didn&#39;t it? That one time platforming worked (for a couple of years at most), 90-odd years ago -- claiming that as anything other than an incredibly temporary success is as silly as Anarchists using the Spanish Civil War as justification for how their "ideology" works.


and contrast that with Russia, where a revolution occured not through some "people&#39;s war" declared by the Bolsheviks, but by agitating and organizing the proletariat.

It&#39;s also disturbing how many Marxists today seem so blindly obsessed with trying to reproduce the past (particularly given its monumental errors). Even the most materialistically underdeveloped person can recognize that the world of 2007 is not the world of 1917.


The only success a "people&#39;s war" strategy led to was in China, and that had more to do with the peculiar situation created in that country through the war, soviet aid, etc. rather than the strategy of declaring a "people&#39;s war".

And Vietnam? Let&#39;s not revise history and leave out that important incident. Not to mention the fact that in many ways, the revolutionary movement in Nepal and the Philippines has done as much to throw back capitalism as the Bolshevik&#39;s revolution -- not nation-wide, granted, but I&#39;d urge you to look into the Red Zones in those countries if I knew you&#39;d actually do it.


What about the three worlds theory?

I believe in a purely political sense it is correct (and this is what I believe his meaning is). Economically, however, there is no differing between a Japanese capitalist and an American or Canadian or European capitalist.


You can&#39;t compare the Holocaust to China&#39;s history.

You can if you revise history enough, and are blatantly ignorant to it. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Another debunked fantasy. Do try to keep up.

And again RNK proves my point.



You can&#39;t compare the Holocaust to China&#39;s history.



Actually, you can. Its called &#39;comparative history&#39;, and historians regularly compare and contrast the brutal regimes of the 20th century; Mao&#39;s dictatorship not being an exception.

However I am not comparing the regimes, I am comparing the arguments of todays &#39;internet followers&#39; of both regimes; which I think you will conceed is different to comparing the regimes.

[Led Zeppelin]

RNK, you accuse me of trying to recreate the past, but I&#39;m not the one supporting age-old tactics and strategies based solely on the fact that Mao used them, or called for them to be used. Think about that a little before lumping that criticism onto others.

And the Bolshevik revolution was unique in that it was a proletarian revolution started from the point of the organization of the proletariat, the Bolshevik party. To ask the question "how did that work out?" is a typical capitalist rightist argument to disprove the usefulness of Marxist revolutionary tactics. Of course in this case I can say to you the same thing "how did China work out?", even worse than Russia, actually, at least the former had a Marxist leadership throughout its earlier years.

Anyway, the point is that the reason the tactics of the Russian revolution are supported by Marxists is not because they worked, although that certainly plays a part in it as well, it is mostly because they are Marxist tactics, proven by the theoretical arguments of the Marxist paradigm. You know, that whole "organize the working-class" thing, instead of the "arm some peasants and start attacking in the countryside until you finally get to overthrow the bourgeoisie through military force, if you&#39;re lucky, if you&#39;re not lucky you can just keep on with your "people&#39;s war" until you get crushed military, which could take decades since you can resort to kidnapping, drug trafficing etc. to keep your finances up and running" thing.

The former is Marxist, revolutionary, effective, and doesn&#39;t downplay the role of the proletariat in the struggle. The latter is idealist, force-based, and almost always fails. Also, in Vietnam there certainly wasn&#39;t a "people&#39;s war" in the same manner as it was in China, but even if it was, simple common sense dictates that the Vietnamese forces should&#39;ve armed themselves and fought the imperialists. So what? The Bolsheviks did the same against the whites and entente, does that make them Maoist?

Yeah, I guess "Mao Tse Tung thought" isn&#39;t really needed, just some simple common sense, jee, what a surprise.

[Random Precision]

RNK:

Let&#39;s skip all the endless debating about historical details of Mao&#39;s rule and stick to the basics. There are really only two questions that are important here:

1. Did Mao establish control of the workers over the means of production?
2. Was his movement controlled by the workers?

If the answer is "no" to either of these, then his regime was a failure.

[Hiero]

How can workers have control over the means of production in a semi-feudal society where workers are the minority?

You going to confiscate farm land and leave it to a bunch of mechanics?

The only failure here is you calbert836, you fail to see what they were doing in China.

[RNK]

Actually, you can. Its called &#39;comparative history&#39;, and historians regularly compare and contrast the brutal regimes of the 20th century; Mao&#39;s dictatorship not being an exception.

Let&#39;s see:

1933-1945; Hitler engages in policies of religious and racial discrimination of Jews; removes laws protecting Jewish property and assets, which are seized by the state or powerful individuals; mass forced exodus out of Germany; mass detention of all Jews; who are sent to concentration camps and gassed...

1949-1959; Mao engages in land reform policies; removes laws protecting privately-owned property and redistributed them collectively; peasants are introduced to collective ownership of communes; private property of factory owners seized and distributed collectively; communes given plans for independance in metal production; massive natural disasters hit...

So, according to your scientific historical analysis, those events are comparable? If anything, that&#39;s quite an exposure of what kind of "scientific analysis" you prescribe to...


is a typical capitalist rightist argument to disprove the usefulness of Marxist revolutionary tactics.

I concur; but since that seems to be the only tactic the majority of anti-Maoists are using, I thought I&#39;d give you some insight into how fruitless and unsubstantiated it is.


The former is Marxist, revolutionary, effective, and doesn&#39;t downplay the role of the proletariat in the struggle.

Same is said of MLM -- which, I might add, is made up of two parts Marxist-Leninist :rolleyes:


So what? The Bolsheviks did the same against the whites and entente, does that make them Maoist?

Not at all; Maoism differs little from Bolshevism in that it simply forces this confrontation from the beginning while organizing.


1. Did Mao establish control of the workers over the means of production?

Where possible (as Heiro pointed out, there were 3,000,000 industrial workers in China in 1949, the eve of revolution; out of a population near 600,000,000. Though by 1956 this jumped to 12,000,000, they still remained a massive minority. Despite this, Mao never went back on the fact that the industrial workers were the only truely revolutionary class; the peasants, he argued, were simply in-transition and carrying out revolutionary tasks in their own self-interest as future proletarians). Workplaces, both urban industry and rural farmlands, were collectivized under communal control; workers were given independance over their production where they reaped the full profit of their labour.


2. Was his movement controlled by the workers?

No more or less than the Russian movement. Technologically, China still had a long ways to go to achieve the industrial advancement necessary for full worker&#39;s control -- unless you&#39;re hinting that industrialization isn&#39;t necessary to achieve a communist society.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+September 17, 2007 11:03 pm--> (Led Zeppelin &#064; September 17, 2007 11:03 pm)
Live for the [email protected] 16, 2007 04:39 pm
LZ, are you saying that people&#39;s wars won&#39;t bring the revolution any closer?
Yes, and I have been proven right by history. See Peru, Colombia, Nepal etc. and contrast that with Russia, where a revolution occured not through some "people&#39;s war" declared by the Bolsheviks, but by agitating and organizing the proletariat.

The only success a "people&#39;s war" strategy led to was in China, and that had more to do with the peculiar situation created in that country through the war, soviet aid, etc. rather than the strategy of declaring a "people&#39;s war". Any logical thinking person would&#39;ve supported the creation of a revolutionary army there to fight the imperialist forces and later on the nationalists, no special theory was required for this. [/b]
Precisely. There were peculiar circumstances that had allowed Mao&#39;s peasant army to win in China:

1. The inability of US imperialism to intervene.
2. The complete inability of capitalism to advance China.
3. The existence of a powerful deformed workers&#39; state on China&#39;s borders.

These "Peoples&#39; Wars" have been miserable failures, as history has shown. They don&#39;t call for agitation among the workers and organizing them. Many of them seem to end up being some small group of guerrilla fighters with no connection with the working class taking up arms and shooting at troops and cops. Without a connection with the working class, the movement is doomed to failure.

And even if they were capable of seizing power, they would just use their Menshevik tactics to do a complete sell out, like they did in Nepal&#33; :lol: Unless there are highly peculiar circumstances going on, a "Peoples&#39; War" has no chance in hell of eliminating capitalism&#33;

[Invader Zim]

"scientific analysis" :lol:

Oh my, the ignorant Maoist wants to dicuss historiography and historical paradigms such as comparitive history, yet is blissfully ignorant of basic historical premises such as the fact that history is not scientific and does not apply scientific analysis. I suggest you get your ignorant behind to a book shop or library and find your self a copy of E. H. Carr, What is History and Richard. J. Evans, In Defence of History. These may fix some of the apparently gaping holes in your understanding of historical methodology.

While you are there you can also look up, C. W. Cassinelli, Total Revolution: A Comparative Study of Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and China under Mao, as evidence that historians do indeed construct comparative histories of various dictatorships, Mao&#39;s and Hitler&#39;s being no exception.

[Random Precision]

Where possible (as Heiro pointed out, there were 3,000,000 industrial workers in China in 1949, the eve of revolution; out of a population near 600,000,000. Though by 1956 this jumped to 12,000,000, they still remained a massive minority. Despite this, Mao never went back on the fact that the industrial workers were the only truely revolutionary class; the peasants, he argued, were simply in-transition and carrying out revolutionary tasks in their own self-interest as future proletarians). Workplaces, both urban industry and rural farmlands, were collectivized under communal control; workers were given independance over their production where they reaped the full profit of their labour.

Really now? Alright, you&#39;ve made the claim. Now prove it.


No more or less than the Russian movement. Technologically, China still had a long ways to go to achieve the industrial advancement necessary for full worker&#39;s control -- unless you&#39;re hinting that industrialization isn&#39;t necessary to achieve a communist society.

Wasn&#39;t the CCP mostly made up of peasants? I&#39;ll try to find some sources, but I remember learning that it was the peasants who made up most of the Army and the Party cadres. Completely unlike Russia, whose Communist Party had a base made up of the urban proletariat during the revolution.

Industrialization is completely necessary to achieve a communist society- the only problem was that in China, Mao never tried to build one.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:15 am
How can workers have control over the means of production in a semi-feudal society where workers are the minority?
The same way they did in Russia during the revolution.

[Hiero]

Actually, you can. Its called &#39;comparative history&#39;, and historians regularly compare and contrast the brutal regimes of the 20th century; Mao&#39;s dictatorship not being an exception.

Poor historians who try to make NY times best seller list. I think I will stick with my Marxist historians thanks.


These "Peoples&#39; Wars" have been miserable failures, as history has shown. They don&#39;t call for agitation among the workers and organizing them. Many of them seem to end up being some small group of guerrilla fighters with no connection with the working class taking up arms and shooting at troops and cops. Without a connection with the working class, the movement is doomed to failure.

And even if they were capable of seizing power, they would just use their Menshevik tactics to do a complete sell out, like they did in Nepal&#33; Unless there are highly peculiar circumstances going on, a "Peoples&#39; War" has no chance in hell of eliminating capitalism&#33;

...Trotsky anyone? I hear thoose Troskyist make some good...newspapers.


The same way they did in Russia during the revolution.

Each country has different circumstance to overcome. We can&#39;t simple discuss what problems China face from our arm chairs. To say "just do what Russia did" is naive in the unequal development of capitalism.

[RNK]

These "Peoples&#39; Wars" have been miserable failures, as history has shown.

:lol: Come onnnnn guys, you have terrible attention spans.. I&#39;m getting tired of continuously having to repeat myself every 3 posts because some new asshole comes along repeating the same shit that&#39;s already been disproven or debunked half a dozen fucking times already...

How are they "miserable failures"? Vietnam stopped the full power of US imperialism dead in it&#39;s tracks; in the Philippines, women&#39;s rights and personal freedoms have increased dramatically; in Nepal, the monarchy is being disassembled; and in India, Colombia, and Turkey, MLM forces have survived for years without being destroyed.


They don&#39;t call for agitation among the workers and organizing them.

:rolleyes:


Many of them seem to end up being some small group of guerrilla fighters with no connection with the working class taking up arms and shooting at troops and cops. Without a connection with the working class, the movement is doomed to failure.

:rolleyes: I can only imagine what idiocy must&#39;ve burrowed into your brain in order to convince you that MLM in any way rejects this.


And even if they were capable of seizing power, they would just use their Menshevik tactics to do a complete sell out, like they did in Nepal&#33;

The usual Trotskyite "you&#39;re damned if you do, damned if you don&#39;t" B.S.: If you launch a People&#39;s War, you&#39;re abandoning agitation and the connection with the working class; if you abandon People&#39;s War, you&#39;re Mensheviks.

You Trots really ought to make up your mind.


Unless there are highly peculiar circumstances going on, a "Peoples&#39; War" has no chance in hell of eliminating capitalism&#33;

Unless there are highly peculiar circumstances going on, "electoral politics and agitation" has no chance in hell of anything whatsoever&#33;


history is not scientific and does not apply scientific analysis.

Wow, why are you on this board then?


evidence that historians do indeed construct comparative histories of various dictatorships

I didn&#39;t claim that it isn&#39;t done. Afterall, historians are people, and like you, some are subject to idiocy.


Wasn&#39;t the CCP mostly made up of peasants? I&#39;ll try to find some sources, but I remember learning that it was the peasants who made up most of the Army and the Party cadres.

Yes, obviously. When there&#39;s a 100/1 ratio of peasants/industrial workers, it&#39;s entirely fathomable that peasants would make up the majority of... everything.


Industrialization is completely necessary to achieve a communist society- the only problem was that in China, Mao never tried to build one.

Are you kidding me? Then wtf was the 5 Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward? God damn, you must be smoking some hardcore shit.


Really now? Alright, you&#39;ve made the claim. Now prove it.

This (http://workmall.com/wfb2001/china/china_history_index.html) has some good info. Also:

Penny Kane, The Second Billion
Ruth and Victor Sidel, Serve the People: Observations on Medicine in the People&#39;s Republic of China
William Hinton, The Importance of Land Reform in the Reconstruction Of China
S. Ishikawa, China&#39;s Economic Growth Since 1949
Carl Riskin, Judging Economic Development: The Case of China
Mao Zedong, On The Ten Major Relationships


...Trotsky anyone? I hear thoose Troskyist make some good...newspapers.

Ehh, their newspapers aren&#39;t all that great either. But atleast they exist, I suppose.

[Invader Zim]

Poor historians who try to make NY times best seller list.

Proof?


I think I will stick with my Marxist historians thanks.

And what do you know about Marxist historians? :lol:




Wow, why are you on this board then?

RNK, just because you don&#39;t understand basic historiography doesn&#39;t mean that I don&#39;t; you see this is the reason i am a post-grad studing history and I suspect you are not.

Had you been appraised on this subject, you may have realised that eminent Marxist historians (like the ones Heiro has probably never read in his life), have come to the conclusion that history is not scientific and is awful at predicting the future or even noting future trends and generalisations; this is largely because history is not a science nor is it scientific. I will point you in the direction of a Marxist historian even you and Hiero just may have heard of, Eric Hobsbawm and his Age of Extremes opening few pages. If history was a science and subject to scientific analysis then we would be able to create accurate paradigms of the past which would undoubtedly be repeated in the future. As historical investigation is always going to be employing only a tiny fragment of the evidence any such paradigm is always going to inherently flawed, unless of course that paradigm is only an exceptionally broad one. For example we can predict, through observation of the past that there will be violence in the future. We cannot however say with great certainty that violence will certainly include socialist revolution, however much we would like to. You see history and historians have a truly abismal record when it comes to predicting the future.

But as I said, read Carr and Evans.

So to answer your question with a very apt quote from Hobsbawm: -

"We dream forward. There is plenty of reason to. Historians, like other human beings, are entitled to have their idea of a desirable future for mankind, to fight for it and to be cheered up if they discover that history seems to be going their way, as sometimes it does."

Eric Hobsbawm, On History, (St ives, 1997) p. 71.



I didn&#39;t claim that it isn&#39;t done.

Oh good, then maybe you can answer your own earlier question.


Afterall, historians are people, and like you, some are subject to idiocy.

LOL, the ignorant maoist is calling me and professional historians idiots&#33; :lol:

Again he proves exactly what I was saying earlier.

[Random Precision]

Are you kidding me? Then wtf was the 5 Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward? God damn, you must be smoking some hardcore shit.

I never said that Mao did not industrialize China. What I said was that he never attempted to build a communist society. That was a mistaken statement and I apologize. What I meant was that the way Mao could not build a communist society, no matter how hard he tried, because his theory was wrong.


Yes, obviously. When there&#39;s a 100/1 ratio of peasants/industrial workers, it&#39;s entirely fathomable that peasants would make up the majority of... everything.

The only problem with that is that peasants are not, nor can they ever be a revolutionary class. They therefore cannot make a socialist revolution.

The only way a revolution could have succeeded in China is if it had been led by the proletariat, and if it had put into practice the principles of the permanent revolution. This is what is required to establish socialism in an under-developed country.


This has some good info. Also:

Penny Kane, The Second Billion
Ruth and Victor Sidel, Serve the People: Observations on Medicine in the People&#39;s Republic of China
William Hinton, The Importance of Land Reform in the Reconstruction Of China
S. Ishikawa, China&#39;s Economic Growth Since 1949
Carl Riskin, Judging Economic Development: The Case of China
Mao Zedong, On The Ten Major Relationships

The online one mentions agricultural collectivization, which to me is relatively unimportant. It says that industry was nationalized, not collectivized.

I&#39;ve read "The Ten Major Relationships", and you&#39;ll forgive me if I want more objective sources. As for the other ones, I&#39;ll see if there are any at the library.

[RNK]

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.


The only problem with that is that peasants are not, nor can they ever be a revolutionary class. They therefore cannot make a socialist revolution.

Here&#39;s what Marx and Engels had to say (in Principles of Communism for fuck&#39;s sake&#33;) on revolution:


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.

You can also check out Engel&#39;s "The Peasant Question in France and Germany" which goes on for some length about how Communists must win over peasants to their cause.

In any case, I did not say that the peasants were the revolutionary class in China. As I&#39;ve said probably a dozen times already, they were not viewed as such. The peasants were viewed as potential allies against capitalism, and their involvement in the revolutionary movement -- which was always aimed at industrialization and proletarian goals -- was completely necessary.


The only way a revolution could have succeeded in China is if it had been led by the proletariat, and if it had put into practice the principles of the permanent revolution. This is what is required to establish socialism in an under-developed country.

Why, you mean the principles of an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry? Where the aims of the revolution would be geared towards industrialization and the peasantry made to invest themselves in the political interests of the proletariat?&#33; Durr, that&#39;s what happened.


The online one mentions agricultural collectivization, which to me is relatively unimportant. It says that industry was nationalized, not collectivized.

I am under the impression that these communes also had limited industrial capacity -- also, China was in the process of nationalization and collectivization, as we see today in Venezuela. Again, as I&#39;ve said, China&#39;s revolution was not some massive, bloody overnight squallor in which all suspected non-socialists were butchered. Capitalist relations remained, as did bourgeois and pro-capitalist political parties, land owners and factory owners, businessmen etc, which the Party would spend the next decade or two trying to rid themselves of through progressively heavy taxations, nationalizations of key industries, appropriation of land, etc. There is a reason for a socialist transitional phase.


And what do you know about Marxist historians?

A lot more than you, apparently. You seem to have made a nice, fancy looking paragraph "proving" how "historians" don&#39;t look to the past to predict the future -- I hardly see how this has anything to do with comparing the Holocaust with China, two past events which are well-documented and materialistically comparable and requires no assumptions or predictions on any outcomes -- it&#39;s already happened&#33; Though it&#39;s nice you took so much time to solidify the statement "historical investigation is always going to be employing only a tiny fragment of the evidence". It&#39;s quite evident what kind of historical investigating you care about. Me, I like investigations that deal with evidence, facts, truth -- but hey, maybe that&#39;s just personal preference. I simply assumed that people calling themselves "Marxists" (or whatever you do call yourself) wouldn&#39;t be so quick to swallow "historical investigations containing only a tiny fragment of evidence".

I mean, honestly, you and a few others here seem altogether too eager to abandon "evidence" and "fact" in order to pursue a silly witchhunt to which you have absolutely no answer. You&#39;re the first who&#39;s actually come out and admitted it, though, so I suppose I give you credit for that. But please, do try harder to commit to logic.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:39 pm
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.

Here&#39;s what Marx and Engels had to say (in Principles of Communism for fuck&#39;s sake&#33;) on revolution:

You can also check out Engel&#39;s "The Peasant Question in France and Germany" which goes on for some length about how Communists must win over peasants to their cause.

In any case, I did not say that the peasants were the revolutionary class in China. As I&#39;ve said probably a dozen times already, they were not viewed as such. The peasants were viewed as potential allies against capitalism, and their involvement in the revolutionary movement -- which was always aimed at industrialization and proletarian goals -- was completely necessary.

Why, you mean the principles of an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry? Where the aims of the revolution would be geared towards industrialization and the peasantry made to invest themselves in the political interests of the proletariat?&#33; Durr, that&#39;s what happened.

I am under the impression that these communes also had limited industrial capacity -- also, China was in the process of nationalization and collectivization, as we see today in Venezuela. Again, as I&#39;ve said, China&#39;s revolution was not some massive, bloody overnight squallor in which all suspected non-socialists were butchered. Capitalist relations remained, as did bourgeois and pro-capitalist political parties, land owners and factory owners, businessmen etc, which the Party would spend the next decade or two trying to rid themselves of through progressively heavy taxations, nationalizations of key industries, appropriation of land, etc. There is a reason for a socialist transitional phase
That&#39;s all quite nice. The problem is that the proletariat did not lead the Chinese Revolution. It was lead by Mao and his fellow intellectuals, whose base was a predominantly peasant organization.

But I guess that doesn&#39;t matter- because proletarian consciousness rests with the party&#33; :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Catbert:


But I guess that doesn&#39;t matter- because proletarian consciousness rests with the party&#33;

Nice definition of &#39;substitutionism&#39;&#33;

[Invader Zim]

A lot more than you, apparently.

I doubt it, I really do.


You seem to have made a nice, fancy looking paragraph "proving" how "historians" don&#39;t look to the past to predict the future

You think a paragraph i knocked up, quote beneath and reference included, in five minutes was &#39;nice&#39; and &#39;fancy looking&#39;? Well I said you knew very little about historiography, and I was right.


I hardly see how this has anything to do with comparing the Holocaust with China, two past events which are well-documented and materialistically comparable and requires no assumptions or predictions on any outcomes

Well, I was responding to your inane view that history is scientific; rather than your previous and equally inane rejection of comparative history, when it comes to the two dictatorships we have been discussing.


It&#39;s quite evident what kind of historical investigating you care about.

Yes, real history; not the propaganda you spout in praise of the glorious leader.


Me, I like investigations that deal with evidence, facts, truth

You are a self proclaimed Maoist, if you were interested in facts you would have long since dropped your ludicrous ideology with its warped perspective on history.

If you are looking for absolute truth in history you will be looking for ever. And, if you knew anything about history, you would know that... but apparently you don&#39;t.


wouldn&#39;t be so quick to swallow "historical investigations containing only a tiny fragment of evidence".

LOL, the Maoist is trying to play the &#39;opposition puts too much faith in too few facts&#39; card, yet ironically enough that is exactly what he is, the only difference being he rejects most of the evidence because it doesn&#39;t favour the &#39;glorious leader&#39;.



you and a few others here seem altogether too eager to abandon "evidence" and "fact" in order to pursue a silly witchhunt to which you have absolutely no answer.

So going from the accusation that I am all too willing to &#39;swallowing&#39; historical assumption with meagre evidence you are now going the other way. Apparently I am "eager to abandon evidence and fact", which presumably implies I am a post-modernist of sorts and diametrically opposed to the empiricist steadfastly clinging too his limited sources I was accused of in the paragraph above. Which is it, my Maoist chum?

But to move on from your faulty logic and to address your faulty points; simply because one is aware of the flaws of over confidence in historical &#39;evidence&#39; (in other words naive trust of the sources), and accepts that relativism (in this case being critical of the sources and acceptance that you are not dealing with a science) must be injected into historical conclusions; does not mean one automatically takes the post-modernist approach. To utterly discount the evidence would be ludicrous and would utterly invalidate all history. Thus, like in most situations, one must take the middle line and walk the tightrope making care not to fall into the abyss that is either extreme of the argument. Though if one were to drop, you would want to be falling towards the side of empiricism. After all while Elton and von Ranke are outmoded, Jenkins is simply in error. Now do you &#39;get it&#39;?

[RNK]

Originally posted by Catbert+--> (Catbert)That&#39;s all quite nice. The problem is that the proletariat did not lead the Chinese Revolution. It was lead by Mao and his fellow intellectuals, whose base was a predominantly peasant organization.[/b]

When all else fails and the evidence stops supporting you -- just make blind, grandiose and contradictory statements&#33;


Zim
blah blah blah

I&#39;m tired of arguing with 8-year-olds. You&#39;re almost exactly like Rosa -- your qualitatively consist of nothiung more than "I know you are but what am I"-type statements.


You think a paragraph i knocked up, quote beneath and reference included, in five minutes was &#39;nice&#39; and &#39;fancy looking&#39;? Well I said you knew very little about historiography, and I was right.

Hi, ever heard of sarcasm? No? Oh.


Well, I was responding to your inane view that history is scientific;

Historical investigation MUST be scientific, otherwise it is nothing more than a lie. And while investigating the history of a 5000-year-old tribe from central Indonesia necessitates colourful assumptions, comparing two events which took place only 60 years ago and which both are well-documented does not require such an infantile and illigitimate investigation.


You are a self proclaimed Maoist, if you were interested in facts you would have long since dropped your ludicrous ideology with its warped perspective on history.

Another "I know you are but what am I" arguement. Congratulations, you can now have a debate with a 3rd-grader. Yet the fact still stands, I have backed up my statements with sources, facts, truth -- you&#39;ve done nothing but childishly repeat the same boring, over-used wordplay over and over and over and over...


If you are looking for absolute truth in history you will be looking for ever.

Now you&#39;re writing off ever finding truth on the basis that any attempt to do so is "looking for absolute truth"? No, not absolute truth, moron -- factual truth.


LOL, the Maoist is trying to play the &#39;opposition puts too much faith in too few facts&#39; card, yet ironically enough that is exactly what he is, the only difference being he rejects most of the evidence because it doesn&#39;t favour the &#39;glorious leader&#39;.

You&#39;ve got to stop switching back and forth, from talking directly to me, to speaking about me in the 3rd person, and so on. It&#39;s confusing, and makes you look slightly mentally handicapped.

In any case, the real irony lies in the fact that while I&#39;ve given actual, hard, scientific evidence, the most you&#39;ve given is some utterly idiotic claim that "historical investigation is based on very, very little evidence". It&#39;s quite sad, really. Behind all that contradiction you must be a very confused person.


But to move on from your faulty logic and to address your faulty points; simply because one is aware of the flaws of over confidence in historical &#39;evidence&#39; (in other words naive trust of the sources), and accepts that relativism (in this case being critical of the sources and acceptance that you are not dealing with a science) must be injected into historical conclusions; does not mean one automatically takes the post-modernist approach. To utterly discount the evidence would be ludicrous and would utterly invalidate all history. Thus, like in most situations, one must take the middle line and walk the tightrope making care not to fall into the abyss that is either extreme of the argument. Though if one were to drop, you would want to be falling towards the side of empiricism. After all while Elton and von Ranke are outmoded, Jenkins is simply in error. Now do you &#39;get it&#39;?

Quick, Robin&#33; Backpedal&#33; BACKPEDAL&#33; :rolleyes: You&#39;re a gigantic fleshy bag of contradiction, Zim. Not that you&#39;ve ever been anything else.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


I&#39;m tired of arguing with 8-year-olds. You&#39;re almost exactly like Rosa -- your qualitatively consist of nothiung more than "I know you are but what am I"-type statements.

Eh? :blink: :blink: :blink:

[Invader Zim]

I&#39;m tired of arguing with 8-year-olds. You&#39;re almost exactly like Rosa -- your qualitatively consist of nothiung more than "I know you are but what am I"-type statements.

:lol:



Hi, ever heard of sarcasm?

You weren&#39;t being sarcastic RNK, you can&#39;t spot it and you sure can&#39;t give it out.


Historical investigation MUST be scientific

Well, I was already aware that you knew fuck all about historography, now you&#39;re just confirming it. To explain your confusion, there are indeed some scientific methodology involved in order to achieve an objective a study as possible; but that is as far as it goes; ultimately history is an art rather than a science.


otherwise it is nothing more than a lie.

Well much smarter individuals than you have made the same critique, but they like you are wrong.


And while investigating the history of a 5000-year-old tribe from central Indonesia necessitates colourful assumptions, comparing two events which took place only 60 years ago and which both are well-documented does not require such an infantile and illigitimate investigation.

It depends on what one is comparing. But in the case of Mao and Hitler, the comparison would be of dictatorial reign.


Yet the fact still stands, I have backed up my statements with sources, facts, truth

No what you do is ignore all the evidence from other sources, the work of numerous historians whose conclusions you don&#39;t like. That is ignoring the sources and facts and drawing your own ridiculous conclusions and proclaiming them to be true, and to get back to my origional point&#39; just like a holocaust denier.


No, not absolute truth, moron -- factual truth.

You are calling me a &#39;moron&#39;, yet the sad thing is you&#39;re the one who doesn&#39;t get it. Something is either true or it is not and, repeat after me, historians can never be 100% sure if they have discovered the truth. The simple reason for this historians can collect the evidence and it may all point towards one resounding conclusion, but unless they can go back and check they can only ever model the past. The result is that they only can make general statements and expect them without any doubt to be true. For example, the battle of Waterloo as in 1815 and won by allied troops under the command of Wellington and Blücher. As soon as you go into any depth, asking if say the forces under Wellington would have held out until nightfall, any such declarations of truth become highly debatable and doubt creeps in. In the case of Mao, you read one set of sources and one set of historians (the fringe) and conclude that Mao was as sweete as sugar and that all his detractors are liars and reactionaries attempting to smeer the &#39;glorious leader&#39;. Of course this is not to take a postmodernist line, because as common sense shows, a statement that there is no absolute truth at all would be in its self a statement of absolute truth and thus leave us in a paradox. However, in terms of historical understanding and investigation one can never achieve absolute truth; a best an approximate truth; which is the best a model of the past can ever hope to be. A photograph taken out of focus, with basic outlines but blurred details. Get it now?


It&#39;s confusing, and makes you look slightly mentally handicapped.

Sorry, the fact that you can&#39;t keep up says more about your faculties than mine.



Quick, Robin&#33; Backpedal&#33; BACKPEDAL&#33;

Thats not pack peddling sweetie, as it is the exact same line I have always had. I realise that in you find it hard not to think that unless one accepts one position, one must by default accept the uttermost diametrically opposed position, because you are incapable of seeing any kind of middle ground; but thankfully I am both better informed than you and don&#39;t see the world in such juvernile black and white terms. So my position is absolutely consistant, its just a pitty you lack the either the theoretical understanding of historiography or even the ability too see it. Indeed I largely suspect you accused me of packpeddling because you don&#39;t have a clue what I am talking about and are clinging desperately to little sections you do have an incling about.

Do try and keep up.


Oh and answer my question; unless of course it is too complicated for you: -

"So going from the accusation that I am all too willing to &#39;swallowing&#39; historical assumption with meagre evidence you are now going the other way. Apparently I am "eager to abandon evidence and fact", which presumably implies I am a post-modernist of sorts and diametrically opposed to the empiricist steadfastly clinging too his limited sources I was accused of in the paragraph above. Which is it, my Maoist chum?"

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:06 pm
When all else fails and the evidence stops supporting you -- just make blind, grandiose and contradictory statements&#33;
Eh? You yourself admitted that the overwhelming majority of the CCP was made up by peasants. I fail to see how repeating that is either "grandiose" or "contradictory". In fact, it&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying all along.

[bezdomni]

The Russian Revolution was made up primarily of peasants as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SP, formally correct, but it was led by the Soviets.

[RNK]

To explain your confusion, there are indeed some scientific methodology involved in order to achieve an objective a study as possible;

You still seem to be contradicting yourself. Which is it -- either history is made up of facts, or not. While I completely understand that given a historical subject in which little or no information is known, it is necessary to "sort truth from facts" (good ol&#39; revisionist line). But, like I said, we are not talking about some obscure, barely-known historical event that happened millenia ago, whose existence we are only scant aware of through decaying fossils and shattered pottery. We are comparing two historical events which are both well-documented and, as such, are fully capable of being scrutinized by scientific investigation without the need to "rely on very, very small amounts of evidence".


It depends on what one is comparing. But in the case of Mao and Hitler, the comparison would be of dictatorial reign.

Which, as I&#39;ve proven, is a baseless accusation, for which I&#39;ve given ample evidence and scientific investigation, both external and internal; I&#39;ve even gone so far as to explain the scientific methodology used by scholars to come to their conclusions. What&#39;ve you brought to the &#39;table&#39;? Where I come from, we call it &#39;fuck all&#39;.


In the case of Mao, you read one set of sources and one set of historians (the fringe) and conclude that Mao was as sweete as sugar and that all his detractors are liars and reactionaries attempting to smeer the &#39;glorious leader&#39;.

Actually, I&#39;ve read several sets of sources, most of which I stated above. I even used western scholars attempts to catalogue the famine.

Also, you&#39;re the only one using the term "glorious leader". Just thought I&#39;d point that out.


but thankfully I am both better informed than you

Yet you&#39;ve not given one single source, piece of evidence, or reference for any of the charges you&#39;ve brought forth.


"So going from the accusation that I am all too willing to &#39;swallowing&#39; historical assumption with meagre evidence you are now going the other way. Apparently I am "eager to abandon evidence and fact", which presumably implies I am a post-modernist of sorts and diametrically opposed to the empiricist steadfastly clinging too his limited sources I was accused of in the paragraph above. Which is it, my Maoist chum?"

It is not a contradiction at all. While you&#39;ve obviously seen the various figures of "30,000,000 dead" or what-have-you, you haven&#39;t an ounce of will in you to find out how or why those people died, and instead have swallowed the suggestive rhetoric of western bourgeois scholars and intellectuals, all of whom claim "millions butchered by mass murderer". So, yes, on the one hand you&#39;ve swallowed propaganda which only just dips itself into historical truth; on the other, when confronted with your belief with solid fact, you&#39;ve rejected it outright, refused to give your own, and discounted it all as "a certain acceptable measure of historical inaccuracy and assumption".

It&#39;s also a reflection on how back-and-forth your statements have been throughout the past 3 days or so, from die-hard propaganda-spewer, to anti-dialectic dialectician, to fictional historian.


Originally posted by Rosa
Eh?

The comparison comes from the fact that the both of you essentially sat there and repetitiously spat out the same baseless accusations, name-calling and slander. ;) Although you used the word "mass murderer" and Zim is starting to use the term "dictator". You also had the good of sense to recognize the historical difference between Hitler and Mao, while he seems to have rejected historical &#39;objectivism&#39; entirely.


SP, formally correct, but it was led by the Soviets.

As the Chinese revolution was led by a proletarian vanguard who maintained proletarian revolution and simply accepted the peasant population as potentially revolutionary due to its imminent capitulation to the proletariat. Quantitatively the CCP was made up of mostly peasants; however, their policy was, from day 1, about proletarian revolution, and transforming the peasantry into collectivized workers.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:46 pm
As the Chinese revolution was led by a proletarian vanguard who maintained proletarian revolution and simply accepted the peasant population as potentially revolutionary due to its imminent capitulation to the proletariat. Quantitatively the CCP was made up of mostly peasants; however, their policy was, from day 1, about proletarian revolution, and transforming the peasantry into collectivized workers.
Does not compute.

[Rawthentic]

RNK means that while the CCP had a majority of peasants, the focus and base was always proletarian revolution, and how the peasantry would have to succumb to the interests of the proletariat in order to continue on the socialist road.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 21, 2007 11:09 pm
RNK means that while the CCP had a majority of peasants, the focus and base was always proletarian revolution, and how the peasantry would have to succumb to the interests of the proletariat in order to continue on the socialist road.
I don&#39;t care what the focus was. A peasant organization led by a small group of intellectuals cannot accomplish a proletarian revolution.

[Invader Zim]

Well RNK, you have supprised me, that was a polite and mature responce; maybe I have had you all wrong.



You still seem to be contradicting yourself.

I disagree.


Which is it -- either history is made up of facts, or not.

History is made up of facts as you note, historians however, have no real means of determining whether they have discovered all the facts, even whether they can determine the salient facts and whether they are accurately interpreting the facts.



But, like I said, we are not talking about some obscure, barely-known historical event that happened millenia ago, whose existence we are only scant aware of through decaying fossils and shattered pottery

They may as well be the same. The problem with ancient history is we have too little source material, the problem with moder history is we have too much to ever be read, or governments/individuals (or they have been destoryed) hide salient sources. Ultimately the issue is the same, you can neither trust your sources 100% nor can you ever hope to have all the facts. Even if it is the case that there are so many that you are overwhelmed.


are fully capable of being scrutinized by scientific investigation without the need to "rely on very, very small amounts of evidence".

The case of the Nazis and Mao however is different, the nazis destroyed a great deal of documents before they were defeated and the Chinese government famously will not release a great deal of its archives for public investigation. However, historians such as Jasper Becker have made histories using what evidence is available; histories that maoists are quick to demonise, which was my origional point. Indeed what do you say to the revelations of Jung Chang?




Which, as I&#39;ve proven, is a baseless accusation

Well what can i say, a lot of far better read histiorians than any of us, disagree. Who are we to disagree? My criticisms of history are all very well if you are an expert in the field, but for us mere lay people; it would be the height of arrogance to say that years of research are wrong.



Yet you&#39;ve not given one single source, piece of evidence, or reference for any of the charges you&#39;ve brought forth.

Well that is not true, my primary charge was that Maoists use the same arguments in defence of mao as neo-Nazis use in the defence of Hitler. I have cited your own posts as evidence of this. You can deny it all you want, but I promise you that if you visit stormfront you will see comparable denials of historical argument.




It is not a contradiction at all.

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you there, it is. One cannot hold a postmodernist stance as well as an empiricist stance; they are diametrically opposed.


While you&#39;ve obviously seen the various figures of "30,000,000 dead" or what-have-you

This is irrelevent to the point I was making; but I will answer it anyway. I have indeed read such statistics, I have also read why the various historians choose to say why they think it is that high. I also disagee with it for various reasons not worth going into now. However we can all be certain that there was indeed a famine, and we can all be certain that it was in part due to the economic decisions of either Mao or his underlings. I have read the counter responces that had Mao not formed this policy more would have died. However, I do not agree with this kind of historical claims. History deals with what happened, or rather what we think happened, not what could have happened or would have happened or should have happened. Once you leave the realms of reality what is already had enough to pin down as true or even likely becomes impossible. Indeed such history is the worst kind of postmodernistic crap, in my opinion.



swallowed the suggestive rhetoric of western bourgeois scholars and intellectuals, all of whom claim "millions butchered by mass murderer".

And this returns me to my origional point; the point that brought me into this discussion. That is the same argument that Neo-Nazis use. Indeed if you replaced the word &#39;bourgeois&#39; with &#39;jewish&#39; I suspect you could find it word for word at storm front. I personally know dozens of professional historians or those who are likely to be professional historians within the next year or so. I can assure you there is no conspiricy to demonise Mao or even Hitler for that matter. Historians report the facts as they see them. As I have said, that makes for a blurred vision of the past; but one that is most likely.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


The comparison comes from the fact that the both of you essentially sat there and repetitiously spat out the same baseless accusations, name-calling and slander.

So, how are you coming along with that defence of Mao on &#39;contradictions&#39;, then?


As the Chinese revolution was led by a proletarian vanguard who maintained proletarian revolution and simply accepted the peasant population as potentially revolutionary due to its imminent capitulation to the proletariat.

Spot on, except for one or two tiny words; I have corrected it for you here:


As the Chinese revolution was led by a peasant vanguard who claimed they had maintained the proletarian revolution....

No, don&#39;t thank me, I am just gald to help... :)

[Hiero]

Wow, why are you on this board then?

To spread lies. See Noxion is a technocrat, which is theorising how Europeans will distribute third world loot amongst Europeans. A communal gang of colonialists. Mao and Stalin threatend the hegomony they so love.


The Russian Revolution was made up primarily of peasants as well.

But they weren&#39;t crazy Chinese peasants.


LOL, the ignorant maoist is calling me and professional historians idiots&#33;

If it&#39;s professional, it must be true&#33;

[Hiero]

Originally posted by catbert836+September 22, 2007 11:12 am--> (catbert836 @ September 22, 2007 11:12 am)
Live for the [email protected] 21, 2007 11:09 pm
RNK means that while the CCP had a majority of peasants, the focus and base was always proletarian revolution, and how the peasantry would have to succumb to the interests of the proletariat in order to continue on the socialist road.
I don&#39;t care what the focus was. A peasant organization led by a small group of intellectuals cannot accomplish a proletarian revolution. [/b]
A semi-fuedal society can not create a proleterian revolution. Peasant society has to be dealt with and worked with to destroy underdevelopment.

I don&#39;t see what you are proposing. Are you saying the industrial workers in the cities create little communes and locked out the majority of the country and just ignore them?

Or they just do nothing and starve while they wait for this European revolution?

[Invader Zim]

To spread lies

Sorry, my other maoist chum, but you catch me in quite a placid mood. If you really want to play the flame game try OI; with all the other trolls.


See Noxion is a technocrat, which is theorising how Europeans will distribute third world loot. Mao and Stalin threatend the hegomony they so love.

:rolleyes:



If it&#39;s professional, it must be true&#33;

No, but it is peer reviewed and nearly always requires at least a PhD to reach that standard; both of which are solid indicators that what you are reading is better than just some crap off the internet.

[Random Precision]

A semi-fuedal society can not create a proleterian revolution.

I beg to differ, one happened in Russia.


Peasant society has to be dealt with and worked with to destroy underdevelopment.

Very true. But this could have been done by a proletarian movement instead of a peasant one.


I don&#39;t see what you are proposing. Are you saying the industrial workers in the cities create little communes and locked out the majority of the country and just ignore them?

Or they just do nothing and starve while they wait for this European revolution?

What I am proposing is that Mao&#39;s movement should have been run by the workers, as the CCP was before the disasters in the 1920s. Everything proceeds from there.

It may seem harsh, but no, I do not think Mao could have done anything toward the building of a socialist society without the workers in full control of his movement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Although, catbert836, when you say this:


I beg to differ, one happened in Russia.

I am sure you would want to add that in order to succeed it needed the support of revolutions in other advanced capitalist countries.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 06:56 pm
Although, catbert836, when you say this:


I beg to differ, one happened in Russia.

I am sure you would want to add that in order to succeed it needed the support of revolutions in other advanced capitalist countries.
Yes, obviously.

[RNK]

History is made up of facts as you note, historians however, have no real means of determining whether they have discovered all the facts, even whether they can determine the salient facts and whether they are accurately interpreting the facts.

I agree, but that is not the case in this instance where the means of determining a clear picture -- or, rather, a clear enough picture to discern between the two events in question -- are there. Facts such as the number of dead (~60,000,000 in WW2, ~20,000,000 in China); the overall reasons for those deaths (institutionalized genocide and imperialism vs. economic mismanagement and natural disaster); and the results or expected results (imperialist conquest and racial purity vs. industrialization).


Ultimately the issue is the same, you can neither trust your sources 100% nor can you ever hope to have all the facts. Even if it is the case that there are so many that you are overwhelmed.

Again I agree, which is why I do put forward criticisms of the economic policies in China and criticisms of Mao.


However we can all be certain that there was indeed a famine, and we can all be certain that it was in part due to the economic decisions of either Mao or his underlings. I have read the counter responces that had Mao not formed this policy more would have died.

I think it would be entirely impossible to accurately guess whether or not more would have died had Mao not done this.


That is the same argument that Neo-Nazis use.

I understand where you&#39;re coming from, but I do take offense to that arguement, as I&#39;m sure you understand why.


Originally posted by Catbert
stuff

It seems rather pointless to uphold the failures of the Russian revolution but denounce the failures of the Chinese revolution. Both failed, if you hadn&#39;t noticed, and both have very similar goals -- creating a revolution in countries with a minority proletariat, who will carry on the tasks of industrial revolution.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:24 pm
It seems rather pointless to uphold the failures of the Russian revolution but denounce the failures of the Chinese revolution. Both failed, if you hadn&#39;t noticed, and both have very similar goals -- creating a revolution in countries with a minority proletariat, who will carry on the tasks of industrial revolution.
Well, the one in Russia actually had a chance to be successful, if it had been joined by revolutions in Germany and other nations. Whereas the Chinese revolution never had a chance, because it was never lead by the proletariat.

But I can see why that distinction might be hard to see for a Stalinist like yourself...

[RNK]

And I could easily say that the Chinese revolution could&#39;ve been successful if it weren&#39;t for revisionists like you turning your back on Chinese workers and peasants.


But I can see why that distinction might be hard to see for a Stalinist like yourself...

I knew it was only a matter of time before you started slinging pejorative labels around. I figured you&#39;d last longer, but seems I overestimated your character.

[Random Precision]

And I could easily say that the Chinese revolution could&#39;ve been successful if it weren&#39;t for revisionists like you turning your back on Chinese workers and peasants.

You could say that, but it wouldn&#39;t be true. And I&#39;m not a "revisionist", whatever the hell that means.


I knew it was only a matter of time before you started slinging pejorative labels around. I figured you&#39;d last longer, but seems I overestimated your character.

I didn&#39;t intend for it to be perjorative, I would have called you a "stalinite" or something like that if I did. But apoligies all the same.

[RNK]

So you&#39;re claiming that you have absolutely no knowledge of the pejorative insinuation behind the "Stalinist" label? Oh please. What did you mean it as, a compliment? :rolleyes:


And I&#39;m not a "revisionist", whatever the hell that means.

A revisionist, in simplest terms, is someone who revises history or revises aspects of history in order to further their own agenda -- for instance, the most famous revisionist was Kruschev, who "revised" Soviet history in order to turn the USSR towards beauracratic oppurtunism; and Deng Xiaoping, who "revised" Chinese history in order to severe China from its socialist path and head it down the road of market reforms and state capitalism.

A revisionist is also someone who repeats revisionist sentiments (since it&#39;d be silly for me to accuse you of re-writing history).

[Random Precision]

So you&#39;re claiming that you have absolutely no knowledge of the pejorative insinuation behind the "Stalinist" label? Oh please. What did you mean it as, a compliment? :rolleyes:

I know that Stalinists think it&#39;s a political slur. It isn&#39;t. I could go into more depth, but when I use the word all I mean by it is one who upholds regimes like Stalin&#39;s USSR and Mao&#39;s China.


A revisionist, in simplest terms, is someone who revises history or revises aspects of history in order to further their own agenda -- for instance, the most famous revisionist was Kruschev, who "revised" Soviet history in order to turn the USSR towards beauracratic oppurtunism; and Deng Xiaoping, who "revised" Chinese history in order to severe China from its socialist path and head it down the road of market reforms and state capitalism.

A revisionist is also someone who repeats revisionist sentiments (since it&#39;d be silly for me to accuse you of re-writing history).

I am also familiar with Stalinist nonsense about "revisionism", which is basically just a line you guys draw on a country&#39;s timeline after your favorite dicatator dies. For example, Khruschev "revised" nothing aside from having all of Stalin&#39;s statues demolished and taking his name off the buildings. Mao at that point found it opportune to label the USSR "revisionist" and "social imperialist" so he could justify his moves toward an alliance with the US.

[RNK]

Yes, ignore everything I said about the surge in oppurtunism and beauracratic corruption that rose with Kruschev. It&#39;s all because he denounced Stalin.

[bezdomni]

For example, Khruschev "revised" nothing aside from having all of Stalin&#39;s statues demolished and taking his name off the buildings.

More importantly, he restructured the economy in a manner that made profit the primary factor in determining if something was worthwhile. Before that, profit was a factor...but it was not the primary factor in production.

Maoists don&#39;t say that capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union just because it helps out. It actually would have been great if the Soviet Union was still socialist, because then the DPRK, Vietnam, and Cuba would all be socialist countries...and there would probably still be socialism in China as well.

The restoration of capitalism in socialist countries is something enormously complicated, and to be perfectly honest, something that I don&#39;t even have a full grasp of. But the Maoist denouncement of Khruschev as a capitalist comes more from the way he handled political economy than the fact that he became General Secretary after Stalin died.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by RNK+September 26, 2007 12:25 pm--> (RNK @ September 26, 2007 12:25 pm) Yes, ignore everything I said about the surge in oppurtunism and beauracratic corruption that rose with Kruschev. It&#39;s all because he denounced Stalin. [/b]
That was all present during Stalin&#39;s rule. In fact, Stalin&#39;s rise to power was only possible because of the growing party bureaucracy, which attracted a great deal of career-seeking opportunists into the party, where Stalin happily became their patron in exchange for political support. Read a book or something.


Soviet Pants
Maoists don&#39;t say that capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union just because it helps out. It actually would have been great if the Soviet Union was still socialist, because then the DPRK, Vietnam, and Cuba would all be socialist countries...and there would probably still be socialism in China as well.

The restoration of capitalism in socialist countries is something enormously complicated, and to be perfectly honest, something that I don&#39;t even have a full grasp of. But the Maoist denouncement of Khruschev as a capitalist comes more from the way he handled political economy than the fact that he became General Secretary after Stalin died.

None of this gets at the real issue. The fact is that after Stalin&#39;s death, Mao started fancying himself as his successor to the leadership of the worldwide "socialist" revolution. However, Khruschev, like all infected by the Great Russian Chauvinism, was never willing to accept a shift in leadership of the socialist world away from Russia, and thus insulted Mao repeatedly and generally handled him in a cavalier manner, repeatedly letting him know who was the "little brother" in their alliance. In fact, Stalin had treated Mao in much the same way, which is an interesting side-note if nothing else. But as the leader of an imperialist national bureaucracy, Mao naturally could never accept that state of affairs and so he decided to break with the USSR, later coming up with ideological reasons for the split, as is the nature of all Stalinist bureaucracies.

[UndergroundConnexion]

well my dear comrade, there is a mao study group in th estudy group section on a very itnerest text, namely the 10 relations. I suggest to all of you y&#39;all join

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

UndergroundC:

No thanks, we don&#39;t like carol sevices either.

[RNK]

None of this gets at the real issue.

The real issue here is that you&#39;re grasping for straws. First it&#39;s Mao "invented" revisionism to have an excuse to "ally" with the US; then it&#39;s because Kruschev treated him like the junior partner globally... what next? He got really drunk one night?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:41 am
The real issue here is that you&#39;re grasping for straws. First it&#39;s Mao "invented" revisionism to have an excuse to "ally" with the US; then it&#39;s because Kruschev treated him like the junior partner globally... what next? He got really drunk one night?
It&#39;s a complex issue that has several different causes. I should have made that more clear.

[Hiero]

None of this gets at the real issue. The fact is that after Stalin&#39;s death, Mao started fancying himself as his successor to the leadership of the worldwide "socialist" revolution. However, Khruschev, like all infected by the Great Russian Chauvinism, was never willing to accept a shift in leadership of the socialist world away from Russia, and thus insulted Mao repeatedly and generally handled him in a cavalier manner, repeatedly letting him know who was the "little brother" in their alliance. In fact, Stalin had treated Mao in much the same way, which is an interesting side-note if nothing else. But as the leader of an imperialist national bureaucracy, Mao naturally could never accept that state of affairs and so he decided to break with the USSR, later coming up with ideological reasons for the split, as is the nature of all Stalinist bureaucracies.

The Maoist in this thread talk about economics, yet you still hang onto personality. At this point you do not have the capabilities to start to understand the Chinese revolution. You need to put Mao, Stalin and Kruschev aside and look at the class character and what people were trying to do. Hanging on to dead personalities you can only understand the small political conflict.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:13 am
The Maoist in this thread talk about economics, yet you still hang onto personality. At this point you do not have the capabilities to start to understand the Chinese revolution. You need to put Mao, Stalin and Kruschev aside and look at the class character and what people were trying to do. Hanging on to dead personalities you can only understand the small political conflict.
I understand that the Chinese Revolution was carried out by an intellectual-headed peasant organization. And I understand that Khrushchev made few changes in the Soviet Union, and none that were of any importance. And lastly, I understand that the conflict between him and Mao was entirely political.

[RNK]

Wow, Hiero, I think he just completely and incontrovertably proved your point. Astounding.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As you proved Invader Zim&#39;s, RNK.