"Being a good communist" by Liu Shaoqi

[Herman]

Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles - if their aim is more is to do more for the Party - then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.

If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.

First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow himself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place himself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of mankind and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all mankind. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy himself".2 Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares himself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither poverty nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".3

Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give himself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".4 Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds himself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.

Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.

Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over himself when he is alone"5 and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.

Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct himself and has no need to humble himself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of himself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-to-be/ch06.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1939/how-to-be/ch06.htm)

Note: I am not a maoist.

While I was checking on some documents on trade unionism, I found the chinese communism section in www.marxists.org.

I was curious, so I entered and found this particular document by Liu Shaoqi.

It struck me as being an incredibly progressive piece of work, with many good points on how to behave. Although critically it exaggerates the importance of "subordinating" to the party and it idealizes a wee bit the traits a communist should have, I nonetheless was impressed seeing such an agreeable piece of work.

So, thoughts? (Again, I am not a maoist. Do not post things like 'lol maoist scum vanguard discipline shit democratic centralism'. I am very open to any theoretical works, which means I do not adhere with any single current of socialism like a dogmatic and sectarian fool)

[Panda Tse Tung]

I fully agree with it.
And of course it is an exaggeration and 95% of the Chinese Communist Party probably never behaved in such a correct manner. I think it is more of a guideline on where you should aim to be as a Communist Party member. Just reading the document and seeing your own flaws, criticizing those and trying to work on them. And for this it is a great piece of work.

[repeater138]

Note:

Liu Shaoqi was not a maoist.

Liu Shaoqi was the designated enemy of maoists during the Cultural Revolution.

The call to chase him and his followers out of the Party was the founding call of the Cultural Revolution, which went under the slogan of "Bombard the Headquarters". He was the president at the time.

He was rehabilitated after Deng Xiao Ping rose to power in the 80's, as part of the process undoing maoist reforms.

[Luís Henrique]

Whatever this is...

... it is not Marxism in any meaningful way.

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

How so Luís?

[Herman]

Liu Shaoqi was not a maoist.

Liu Shaoqi was the designated enemy of maoists during the Cultural Revolution.

So? What's your point? That we should ignore this (written in the 30's) because of something that happened 30 years later?


... it is not Marxism in any meaningful way.

No? Being honest, kind, generous, critical, brave and tolerant isn't marxist? Did you even bother to read?

[Panda Tse Tung]

Liu Shaoqi was not a maoist.


And?
It's a great piece of work either way. We shouldn't censor out works because someone who wrote it is not 'ideologically pure'. We should look at what they wrote. See whats good about it, and what isn't. In this case i didn't find many wrongs, meaning that in my opinion it remains a good piece of work whether he is a Maoist or not.

[Luís Henrique]

It sets impossible goals to the CP members, so that they are always short of being "good communists" - that is to say, that they are "bad communists". So the members of the CP are always "in debt"; they cannot ever criticise the leadership, for fear that their non-compliance with these guidelines will bring themselves under criticism.

It is a tool for dictatorship.

And the goals are impossible because they are completely unmaterialistic; they call for human beings that have no material needs, no social class, no gender, no sexual preferences, no language, etc. And because it is anti-materialist, it is not Marxist.

Luís Henrique

[Panda Tse Tung]

It sets impossible goals to the CP members, so that they are always short of being "good communists" - that is to say, that they are "bad communists". So the members of the CP are always "in debt"; they cannot ever criticise the leadership, for fear that their non-compliance with these guidelines will bring themselves under criticism.

Bull-shit, thats just points to work on, or as Mao stated:

"Anyone should be allowed to speak out, whoever he may be, so long as he is not a hostile element and does not make malicious attacks, and it does not matter if he says something wrong. Leaders at all levels have the duty to listen to others. Two principles must be observed: (1) Say all you know and say it without reserve; (2) Don't blame the speaker but take his words as a warning. Unless the principle of "Don't blame the speaker" is observed genuinely and not falsely, the result will not be "Say all you know and say it without reserve"."

Which is merely one example.

They are just said goals that one should work towards, and i think it is not even impossible to reach.



And the goals are impossible because they are completely unmaterialistic; they call for human beings that have no material needs, no social class, no gender, no sexual preferences, no language, etc. And because it is anti-materialist, it is not Marxist.

Errr... no self-improvement based on an ideology is perfectly possible. They never asked them not to have a social class, on the contrary. And i don't understand where you got the whole, sexual preference, gender and language part from. But it just doesn't make any sense...

[RNK]

He was rehabilitated after Deng Xiao Ping rose to power in the 80's, as part of the process undoing maoist reforms.


Wow, that's quite the bag of BS you've gathered there. Maoist reforms? And why the fuck would being rehabilitated by Deng Xiao Ping (the man responsible for China's current imperialist phase) be anything good?

[RNK]

BTW, statements of Luis' remind me of the massive uproar from the right-wing media when that actress, whatshername, showed up at some stupid thing in Latin America with a Maoist-style bag that said "Serve the People" on it... because like those right-wing nutjobs, to people like Luis, the message is completely meaningless. It's all about the perception of who said it.

Anyway, as for criticizing the actual text, it does seem rather far-fetched and a little bit idealist. But the message that revolutionaries should strive to be good, responsible people is not a bad message.

[p.m.a.]

Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests.

Haha. If the revolution is not one borne personally, it will never be revolutionary. Why would I want a new era where "my personal" self is merged solely with The Glorious People's Democratic Centralist Party of Workers?

[Herman]

Haha. If the revolution is not one borne personally, it will never be revolutionary. Why would I want a new era where "my personal" self is merged solely with The Glorious People's Democratic Centralist Party of Workers?

Like I said, it exaggerates subordination to the party. Personal life and the party are two different things.

What about the other points (bravery, honesty, etc)?

[Panda Tse Tung]

Haha. If the revolution is not one borne personally, it will never be revolutionary.

He's talking about personal fame and the likes. Which is something that should fervently be opposed. You should struggle for the masses not for your own personal fame.


Why would I want a new era where "my personal" self is merged solely with The Glorious People's Democratic Centralist Party of Workers?

Then don't join the party. It's simple as that, if you don't want to make sacrifices in order to build the revolution you should just not join the party. It's simple as that. Or don't you understand the entire principle behind the vanguard party?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 09, 2007 07:47 pm
Bull-shit, thats just points to work on, or as Mao stated:

"Anyone should be allowed to speak out, whoever he may be, so long as he is not a hostile element and does not make malicious attacks, and it does not matter if he says something wrong. Leaders at all levels have the duty to listen to others. Two principles must be observed: (1) Say all you know and say it without reserve; (2) Don't blame the speaker but take his words as a warning. Unless the principle of "Don't blame the speaker" is observed genuinely and not falsely, the result will not be "Say all you know and say it without reserve"."
And who decides who is a hostile element making malicious attacks?


They are just said goals that one should work towards, and i think it is not even impossible to reach.

They are, according to Liu Shaoqi, features of the "good Communist". So tell me, those thousands of rank-and-file Communist Party members that fall short of these standards are "bad" Communists? "Evil" Communists?


Errr... no self-improvement based on an ideology is perfectly possible. They never asked them not to have a social class, on the contrary. And i don't understand where you got the whole, sexual preference, gender and language part from. But it just doesn't make any sense...

Listen: a Communist, whether "good" or not, is someone who is dedicated to proletarian class struggle. Being kind, tolerant, hard-working, selfless, etc, etc, etc, may be interesting traits of personality, but they do not a Communist make.

What Liu Shaoqi calls for is for automatons with no personality of themselves, mere tools of the Party.

And since no one, not even Stakhanov, is like that - Liu's text is a tool for making the Communist activist feeling always guilty for not fulfilling these impossible goals, so that his/her guilt can be manipulated by the dictatorial top of the degenerate party.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Liu Shaoqi
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests.

So, all of our merely human interests - music, comics, astrophysics, the girl next door - are only valid if the Party bureaucracy shares them. I fail to see how a person like that - if someone could be like that, which I doubt - can be an activist of a Party that puts critical thought as its higher value.


If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.

Here the Party is idealised as an end in itself, instead of being considered as a tool (yes, an important tool, but merely a tool and nothing more than a tool) of the working class in its way to power and abolition of capital. The good militant is not the class fighter, but the "selfless" guy whose only interests are the "aims of the party".

Not of the class, but of the party.


First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow himself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place himself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of mankind and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all mankind.

Unhappily, it is not up to our "selfless" hero to decide who are "comrades, ... revolutionaries and working people" and who are "the pernicious enemies of mankind"...


"He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy himself".

:lol: This is ridiculous and self-contradictory. You cannot have a competition to see who is less competitive.

But it means that our selfless hero is a worried (wo)man, and a sad one too.


Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear.

This is evidently wrong; the absence of fear is not courage, and neither are logically connected to selflessness.


Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds himself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.

But how will s/he do this, if s/he must have no interests of his/herself, and if his/her aims must "harmonise" those of the Party?


Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.

This is again confusion. Intellectual acumen is not either result or cause of selflessness. And how will someone "test all theories" in the context of political practice, in which experiments cannot be repeated at will, and a mistake can put you in no position to make further experiments?


Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men.

And so, if you are unhappy, you are not a good Communist. Smile, comrade!

Bad? No; worse. Because we have already seen that our Communist hero is worried and sad and should not enjoy him/herself! So our Communist hero must be able to be happy without enjoying... how so? Perhaps being a masochist?


Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct himself and has no need to humble himself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of himself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.

The truth under those idealist statements is simple. The party is a competitive environment; comrades fight each other for greater power and status. To be a rank-and-file activist is not the same as being the Chairman. Against this material reality, Liu Shaoqi tries to build idealist barriers, which are doomed to fail. The personal will of one activist cannot stop the material logic of a top-down party, in which it is always better to be on top than to be on bottom. As such, calls to "selflessness", just like in any class society, are in fact calls to refrain from competing against the selfish, from fighting selfishness in a material way.

Or to put it otherwise, Liu Shaoqi's is a moral for slaves. No wonder it sounds so much "Christian".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 12, 2007 08:56 am
It's simple as that, if you don't want to make sacrifices in order to build the revolution you should just not join the party. It's simple as that.
I'm willing to make sacrifices to build revolution. In fact I have made some. But there are sacrifices that I am not willing to make, even for the revolution, because a "revolution" that asks for some sacrifices doesn't seem like a revolution at all.

Critical thought and autonomous personal life are things no one should sacrifice for any reason, even revolution.

Proletarian revolution is to make sure nobody will never again have to be a tool for the interests of others. It cannot be attained by tools, and it cannot be attained by glorifying a tool mentality.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

Today the clerical vermin have given way to the missionaries of a Christ dyed red. Everywhere official pronouncements bear in their watermark the disgusting image of the crucified man, everywhere comrades are urged to sport the stupid halo of the militant martyr. And with their blood, the kitchen-hands of the good Cause are mixing up the sausage-meat of the future: less cannon-fodder, more doctrine-fodder!

[Leo]

Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. And so, if you are unhappy, you are not a good Communist. Smile, comrade!

:lol: That comment really made me laugh.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:54 am
While I was checking on some documents on trade unionism, I found the chinese communism section in www.marxists.org.

I was curious, so I entered and found this particular document by Liu Shaoqi.

It struck me as being an incredibly progressive piece of work, with many good points on how to behave.
Really?

I thought it was a moralistic piece of crap.

If you liked that, then you'll certainly enjoy Confucianist indoctrination.


To be sure, Liu Shaoqi was undeniably correct in his writtings regarding the Chinese economic condition, but his "party-displine philosophy" is by no means Marxist.

Take into consideration his embarrassing praises for Mao Zedong, you can conclude that his "philosophy" is the following:

Selflessly follow the Party--->Chairman Mao is the greatest leader of the Party--->Selflessly follow Chairman Mao.

It's ironic, really. Without Liu Shaoqi's ass-kissing campign devoted towards Mao in Yan'an, Mao would have never attained so much power.

In the short term, Liu Shaoqi's ass-kissing made him rise from a insignificant union leader to a Party leader. But in the long run, Liu Shaoqi killed himself.

[Herman]

I thought it was a moralistic piece of crap.

If you liked that, then you'll certainly enjoy Confucianist indoctrination.

Please, read what I said in the first post carefully and you'll notice how I mention a certain exaggeration over idealism and subordination to the party.

It's a moralistic piece of crap? So if someone told you to be kind and selfless, you'd dismiss his comment by saying that he is a "moralistic piece of crap"?

Talk about being devastatingly critical with no respect whatsoever.

Let me show you a more respectful way of answering:

"I didn't like it. It is an idealized piece of work, which emphasizes how a communist should 'subordinate himself to the party'. It is very similar to confucianist philosophy on morality. Of course, i'll emphasize that this is my opinion."

And suddenly, it isn't such a hostile post! In fact, it is pleasant to read.

PS: Your avatar is funny.

[LSD]

The above is a five-point moral digram, the third plank being central and focused on ancient learning, the first and last on innner morality; the second and fourth on outer morality and relations with others.

It's ascetic, legalistic, and overly concerned with "harmony".

In otherwords, this is Confucianism 101, just slightly adapted to fit "communist" rhetoric". You see this a lot in the PRC, traditional philisophies "reinterpreted" as politicallly relevent.

Basically party filial piety.

Nothing to do with communism.

[gilhyle]

THe level of sacrifice and commitment that communism demands from people derives from the objective circumstances and it should not be turned into an absolute. It should vary depending on the class struggle. There are moments when communism can reasonably demand all and there are moments when it cannot reasonably make demands for total sacrifice.

What sects do is ignore the material circumstances in trying tto create a hothouse environment in which they can exploit members. They create a 'voluntarist' culture that transforms issues of party discipline into irrational moral codes.

Furthermore, communism is not a way of life; in other words it does not tell you how to live all your life. It doesnt deal with your personal relations, except when the intensity of struggle impedes those personal relations.

The mechanisms of moralising of confucianism, Christianity etc seek to persuade us that there is some overarching moral authority beyond question which dictate to us how to live and usually set impossible standards that we are supposed to then devote ourselves to, consuming us, instead of understanding the world around us.

The original poster may not be a maoist, the author may not be a maoist, but the article says more about the flawed character of Chinese Communism in the period than it does about how any of us should act.

[Panda Tse Tung]

And who decides who is a hostile element making malicious attacks?


The masses do.


They are, according to Liu Shaoqi, features of the "good Communist". So tell me, those thousands of rank-and-file Communist Party members that fall short of these standards are "bad" Communists? "Evil" Communists?

No, your taking it to the concrete. It's not a concrete statement, more of a relative one. As in they are guidelines for what communists should be striving towards.


Listen: a Communist, whether "good" or not, is someone who is dedicated to proletarian class struggle. Being kind, tolerant, hard-working, selfless, etc, etc, etc, may be interesting traits of personality, but they do not a Communist make.

Thats not what he's saying. He is saying that at the point that you are a Communist (and thus joined the Communist party) you should be striving towards these said aims.


What Liu Shaoqi calls for is for automatons with no personality of themselves, mere tools of the Party.


Everything he said fell in the framework of the party. You can have a live outside of the party, besides considering the concrete conditions of Socialist China you could see that such a high level of self-sacrifice was a necessity. And i doubt there are many revolutions whereas this would not be the case.


And since no one, not even Stakhanov, is like that - Liu's text is a tool for making the Communist activist feeling always guilty for not fulfilling these impossible goals, so that his/her guilt can be manipulated by the dictatorial top of the degenerate party.

I still don't see how you 'proved' this.

I'll add some other quotes:

"If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it."

Ask your subordinates about matters you do not understand or do not know, and do not lightly express your approval or disapproval.... We should never pretend to know what we do not know, we should "not feel ashamed to ask and learn from people below" and we should listen carefully to the views of the cadres at the lower levels. Be a pupil before you become a teacher; learn from the cadres at the lower levels before you issue orders.... What the cadres at the lower levels say may or may not be correct, after hearing it, we must analyse it. We must heed the correct views and act upon them.... Listen also to the mistaken views from below, it is wrong not to listen to them at all. Such views, however, are not to be acted upon but to be criticized.

Before you start talking crap about party-dictatorship I'll add the following:

Take the ideas of the masses and concentrate them, then go to the masses, persevere in the ideas and carry them through, so as to form correct ideas of leadership - such is the basic method of leadership.


So, all of our merely human interests - music, comics, astrophysics, the girl next door - are only valid if the Party bureaucracy shares them. I fail to see how a person like that - if someone could be like that, which I doubt - can be an activist of a Party that puts critical thought as its higher value.

No, cause there's a thing called a private life. But if any of those interests would be against the party's interests then it could be harmful and thus they should struggle against them.
I don't see how music, comics nor the girl next door could work against the interest of the party.


Here the Party is idealised as an end in itself, instead of being considered as a tool (yes, an important tool, but merely a tool and nothing more than a tool) of the working class in its way to power and abolition of capital. The good militant is not the class fighter, but the "selfless" guy whose only interests are the "aims of the party".

Not of the class, but of the party.

You said it yourself, the party is an important tool, the party is the vanguard of the working class. And thus struggling in favor of the party equals struggling in favor of the working class.

Unhappily, it is not up to our "selfless" hero to decide who are "comrades, ... revolutionaries and working people" and who are "the pernicious enemies of mankind"...

Thats not what he said. He said that they should struggle against the classes enemy's. These enemy's are determined by the masses, not by him as an individual. But he should struggle against them.

This is ridiculous and self-contradictory. You cannot have a competition to see who is less competitive.

But it means that our selfless hero is a worried (wo)man, and a sad one too.

Of course he/she should worry, about the cause, about progress, setbacks, etc.. Thats logical when you are a member of a revolutionary party. Look at society right now, who are most worried about capitalism? Yes, it's the people in the Communist Party's.

And I'm not unhappy, trust me.

This is evidently wrong; the absence of fear is not courage, and neither are logically connected to selflessness.


I'll have to agree with you on the first, just not on the second. Selflessness makes you capable of giving your life for the cause, for the masses. It's logical that this will lead to courage, but i doubt it will lead to an absence of fear.


But how will s/he do this, if s/he must have no interests of his/herself, and if his/her aims must "harmonise" those of the Party?

Criticism and self-Criticism is internal, so within the party you can easily do that. And some self-criticism or Criticism if approved by the party can be given externally as well.


This is again confusion. Intellectual acumen is not either result or cause of selflessness. And how will someone "test all theories" in the context of political practice, in which experiments cannot be repeated at will, and a mistake can put you in no position to make further experiments?

Mao for example made plenty of mistakes, and he wasn't kicked out of the party.


And so, if you are unhappy, you are not a good Communist. Smile, comrade!


Again, your taking it to the concrete. If you want to do valuable work, then yes being happy helps a lot.


Bad? No; worse. Because we have already seen that our Communist hero is worried and sad and should not enjoy him/herself! So our Communist hero must be able to be happy without enjoying... how so? Perhaps being a masochist?


You can be happy and worry about the situation that is currently in place. Why not?


The truth under those idealist statements is simple. The party is a competitive environment; comrades fight each other for greater power and status. To be a rank-and-file activist is not the same as being the Chairman.

It is true, only party members determine who is Chairman and who not, thus granting democratic control over these positions. The only way to 'rise' would thus be to have some significant support amongst the party-cadres. Thereby forcing you to at least be respectful towards these members.

Against this material reality, Liu Shaoqi tries to build idealist barriers, which are doomed to fail. The personal will of one activist cannot stop the material logic of a top-down party, in which it is always better to be on top than to be on bottom.

Not really, a greater function would mean greater responsibility. And this democratic system automatically forces members to at least get a grip on Marxist-Leninism and be empathetic towards the masses and party-members. Thus caring about their needs and interests.

As such, calls to "selflessness", just like in any class society, are in fact calls to refrain from competing against the selfish, from fighting selfishness in a material way.

Selflessness (in concern to power-status) is possible, it is difficult to achieve for most of the members of course but it is not an impossible task. Thus the set goals provided by Comrade Liu Shaoqi are not impossible to reach. I know plenty of selfless people, for example the members who are in the Communist Party right now (not all obviously, but a lot of them are). Ideological conviction is stronger then mater, look at Buddhist Monks for example.


I'm willing to make sacrifices to build revolution. In fact I have made some. But there are sacrifices that I am not willing to make, even for the revolution, because a "revolution" that asks for some sacrifices doesn't seem like a revolution at all.

Errr... why's that?


Critical thought and autonomous personal life are things no one should sacrifice for any reason, even revolution.


Who talked about these?
Certainly not the article.


Proletarian revolution is to make sure nobody will never again have to be a tool for the interests of others. It cannot be attained by tools, and it cannot be attained by glorifying a tool mentality.

Yes, thats it's purpose. But the way to achieve this goal is through a disciplined proletarian dictatorship that does ask for sacrifices. And again I'll repeat, if you do not want to live up to the standards of the party, don't join it.


To be sure, Liu Shaoqi was undeniably correct in his writtings regarding the Chinese economic condition, but his "party-displine philosophy" is by no means Marxist.

It's guidelines. Not a strict discipline schedule that is to be followed, you should strive towards these goals.


Selflessly follow the Party--->Chairman Mao is the greatest leader of the Party--->Selflessly follow Chairman Mao.


Look, the party is made of out of it's members, not by individuals. I doubt that said statement is correct, it is true that some red gardists perceived it to be this. But this tendency was actively fought (as Mao always fought Dogmatism).


It's ascetic, legalistic, and overly concerned with "harmony".

It's guidelines, anyways asceticism is not wrong concerning the party, it is a guarantee that party-members do not join for selfish reasons. And harmony is only harmony to the extend of you being a party member. Thus not doing things that might harm the party, that is basically the extend of 'harmony' as stated in the article. I have no idea what legalistic means, so I'll skip that one.


In otherwords, this is Confucianism 101, just slightly adapted to fit "communist" rhetoric". You see this a lot in the PRC, traditional philisophies "reinterpreted" as politicallly relevent.

Thats quite an empty statement.

THe level of sacrifice and commitment that communism demands from people derives from the objective circumstances and it should not be turned into an absolute. It should vary depending on the class struggle. There are moments when communism can reasonably demand all and there are moments when it cannot reasonably make demands for total sacrifice.

At every single point both in building Socialism and in struggling against Capitalism the Communist Party members should be on-guard and struggling. That is an objective fact, would they 'lose sight of the situation for even a second it might already go wrong. The point of view you are promoting is a dangerous one to hold.


What sects do is ignore the material circumstances in trying tto create a hothouse environment in which they can exploit members. They create a 'voluntarist' culture that transforms issues of party discipline into irrational moral codes.


Again, they are guidelines, not concrete standing facts. They are things to struggle towards.


Furthermore, communism is not a way of life; in other words it does not tell you how to live all your life. It doesnt deal with your personal relations, except when the intensity of struggle impedes those personal relations.

Who talked about personal relations?
All they talked about was inner-party relations and the attitude towards reactionaries.


The mechanisms of moralising of confucianism, Christianity etc seek to persuade us that there is some overarching moral authority beyond question which dictate to us how to live and usually set impossible standards that we are supposed to then devote ourselves to, consuming us, instead of understanding the world around us.

Morals do exist, whether you like it or not. And thus Communists should struggle to create a Communist morality. Not only amongst the party-members but also among the masses.

[Enragé]

i agree with luis

exchange the word Party for Nation and the article is blatantly fascist.


No, your taking it to the concrete. It's not a concrete statement, more of a relative one. As in they are guidelines for what communists should be striving towards.

as is the bible not concrete, not to be taken literal, yet hundreds of millions do and the ruling class as well, as will the party leadership, at least in face of the membership. If you do not think this will happen you are being rather utopian.


Of course he/she should worry, about the cause, about progress, setbacks, etc.. Thats logical when you are a member of a revolutionary party. Look at society right now, who are most worried about capitalism? Yes, it's the people in the Communist Party's

yet when the Party (capital P) is in power, will they be so critical? That is the problem here. This whole article is calling for conformism to the communist party, and the communist party is not always right.
This mindset as outlined in the article induces unconscious following of the Party line.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:39 am
The above is a five-point moral digram, the third plank being central and focused on ancient learning, the first and last on innner morality; the second and fourth on outer morality and relations with others.

It's ascetic, legalistic, and overly concerned with "harmony".

In otherwords, this is Confucianism 101, just slightly adapted to fit "communist" rhetoric". You see this a lot in the PRC, traditional philisophies "reinterpreted" as politicallly relevent.

Basically party filial piety.

Nothing to do with communism.
I have to agree with LSD here, the whole "critisize confusianism, critisize Li Shaoqi" campaign during the GPCR was iniated because of old confusianist rethoric wrapped in communist thought. Its clearly visible in modern day china, when you hear Hu Jintao talk about a "Harmonious Society" .

Although some confusianist elements do have something in common with communist philosophy. Thats why its easilly mistaken. I wouldnt say it has nothing to do with communism.

[RNK]

Well, no more than Christianity has to do with it. As in, the two may share common aspects on one topic or another but they're hardly fully compatible.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:29 pm
Although some confusianist elements do have something in common with communist philosophy. Thats why its easilly mistaken. I wouldnt say it has nothing to do with communism.
Eh, THAT I'm not aware of, even though I was taught with Confucianist indoctrinations as I was growing up.

Look, people keep confusing Marxism with a "lifestyle ideology". No, Marx doesn't care if you have sex with 200 people everyday---He'd be very jealous of you but he wouldn't judge you.

I believe it was the early social-democrats who first started treating Marxism as a "philosophy of lifestyle", simply because they don't think communism is ever possible. So in order to cling onto the name of "democratic socialism" they decided to make Marx a "moral figure" so that they could still claim to be "Marxists".

But no serious Marxist at the time took that seriously----Until Lenin decided that his party was to be organized like the military. Then, of course you'd need "moral guidelines" to make everyone behave the way you want them to.

But that's got nothing to do with Marx's communism.

[Herman]

Look, people keep confusing Marxism with a "lifestyle ideology". No, Marx doesn't care if you have sex with 200 people everyday---He'd be very jealous of you but he wouldn't judge you.

What are you talking about? No one has said anything about following a certain moral behaviour.

You're taking our comments to the extreme. All I said is that this particular extract is quite progressive when it talks about what people should strive for. I am not saying you should follow step by step everything he says.

No, marxism isn't a "lifestyle ideology", but you can't just lie, cheat, kill or be rude constantly and claim to be a marxist. There is a limit to the freedom of morality and this is basic for any ideology. Yes, as society progresses you'll have more of this freedom, you'll be able to be more open about yourself, your thoughts and your ideas, but there is a limit to what you can do, unless you want something along the lines of Brave New World.

What next? "You don't have to be a marxist to believe in marxism!"

So what if it has confucianist ideas lurking in the shadow? Marx and Engels aren't the only philosophers or theorists in history. If you want to learn, then you have to try to study as much as you can from everyone. Marx had to, so did Engels, Lenin, or any other marxist.

[Panda Tse Tung]

exchange the word Party for Nation and the article is blatantly fascist.

And exchange working class with bourgeouisie in some Communist writings and you'll have the most blatant piece of Capitalism right there. Whats your point?


as is the bible not concrete, not to be taken literal, yet hundreds of millions do and the ruling class as well, as will the party leadership, at least in face of the membership. If you do not think this will happen you are being rather utopian.

Err... thats not really a comparison. These are merely guidelines as to what a Communist should strive towards, the bible is a book that is the center of a certain religion. Within the Communist Party you can criticize this piece of work, i don't know any Christian who criticizes the Bible.


yet when the Party (capital P) is in power, will they be so critical? That is the problem here. This whole article is calling for conformism to the communist party, and the communist party is not always right.
This mindset as outlined in the article induces unconscious following of the Party line.

Read this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...d-book/ch24.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch24.htm)


I have to agree with LSD here, the whole "critisize confusianism, critisize Li Shaoqi" campaign during the GPCR was iniated because of old confusianist rethoric wrapped in communist thought. Its clearly visible in modern day china, when you hear Hu Jintao talk about a "Harmonious Society" .

I'm sorry, but in this article i don't see much of that. Perhaps ones attitude towards fellow party-members. But i perceived that to be within the context of Maoism. Criticize mistaken idea's, never hold back your criticism. But always be kind and friendly towards your party-members, the masses and the party's allies.

Well, no more than Christianity has to do with it. As in, the two may share common aspects on one topic or another but they're hardly fully compatible.

Thats not really the point, the people who are criticizing this article, claim it's bad because there's 'Confucian' rhetoric in it. But they fail to show how in the given situation and in the given article that would be a bad thing.


I believe it was the early social-democrats who first started treating Marxism as a "philosophy of lifestyle", simply because they don't think communism is ever possible. So in order to cling onto the name of "democratic socialism" they decided to make Marx a "moral figure" so that they could still claim to be "Marxists".

I don't see how it's wrong to adapt your lifestyle to the cause. Or as Lenin ones stated: (not the exact quote, just out of the top of my head) lifestyle = mindset (whatever, thats the closest i got to translating and getting a correct quote :P).

[Enragé]

And exchange working class with bourgeouisie in some Communist writings and you'll have the most blatant piece of Capitalism right there. Whats your point?

The point is that the Party seized state power to the fullest. The Party equalled the state apparatus. This article is simply calling for obedience to the State and could just as well have been written by some reactionary conservative.

And no, if you exchange working class with bourgeoisie in communist writings you get a very illogical piece of work, since the bourgeoisie arent exploited in the current system, since classless society isnt possible with the bourgeoisie in power etc etc etc.


Read this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...d-book/ch24.htm

What are you getting at? We're not discussing Mao, we're discussing Liu Shaoqi. Liu Shaoqi's article actually is antithetical to those Mao quotes.

(Its as anti-thetical as some quotes from the bible or the qu'ran compared to one another :lol:)

[Enragé]

This whole article is just a dangerous moralisation of marxist thought, dangerous because it encourages conformism, and/or gives the leadership of the party an excuse to attack those which do not conform.

Marxism has no morality, certainly not the one described in this article. Marxism's only morality is the triumph of the working class over the bourgeoisie, and the establishment of communism. Anything which enables that, is good, anything which inhibits that, is bad, anything which is irrelevant, is irrelevant (such as, friendliness, polygamous/monogamous, altruism/selfishness [communism is structured so that to be selfish is in practice the same as to be altruistic, what is good for you yourself is good for all] etc).

[Panda Tse Tung]

The point is that the Party seized state power to the fullest. The Party equalled the state apparatus. This article is simply calling for obedience to the State and could just as well have been written by some reactionary conservative.

Only it did never equalize the state, the proletariat did. The party was merely the vanguard. Admittedly with some significant powers, but it remained the mere vanguard.



And no, if you exchange working class with bourgeoisie in communist writings you get a very illogical piece of work, since the bourgeoisie arent exploited in the current system, since classless society isnt possible with the bourgeoisie in power etc etc etc.

That would depend on said work.



What are you getting at? We're not discussing Mao, we're discussing Liu Shaoqi. Liu Shaoqi's article actually is antithetical to those Mao quotes.


Because we're acting like Liu Shaoqi was the only influence on the CPC. And his works should be seen in the context of the party as a whole. Where Mao's works we're of great influence.


This whole article is just a dangerous moralisation of marxist thought, dangerous because it encourages conformism, and/or gives the leadership of the party an excuse to attack those which do not conform.

If you look at the whole of the party ideology you could see that these are albeit moral guidelines, but not the only guidelines. As criticism and self-criticism combined with democracy on the three fronts we're even greater guidelines.



Marxism has no morality,

Not true, Marxism starts from the principle of all men being equal. Which is whether you like it or not a form of morality.


Marxism's only morality is the triumph of the working class over the bourgeoisie, and the establishment of communism.

Wow, this looks like a major contradiction to what you said only 2 seconds ago.
And how do we triumph over the bourgeoisie? How do we maintain a socialist and communist society?
These are all questions that need to be answered and on not very rare occasions the answer will be moral.


Anything which enables that, is good, anything which inhibits that, is bad, anything which is irrelevant, is irrelevant (such as, friendliness, polygamous/monogamous, altruism/selfishness [communism is structured so that to be selfish is in practice the same as to be altruistic, what is good for you yourself is good for all] etc).

Not necessarily, i can think of countless situations within a Communist society whereas this would not be the case.

[Enragé]

Only it did never equalize the state, the proletariat did. The party was merely the vanguard. Admittedly with some significant powers, but it remained the mere vanguard.

And seeing as the vanguard is regarded as the driving force of the post-revolutionary state, the vanguard in much respects equalled the state. To call for conformism amongst the vanguard, which this article does, is to call upon the death of any democracy left in the already (in my mind) perverted circumstances in China (which were to some degree inevitable seeing the undeveloped nature of china).


Because we're acting like Liu Shaoqi was the only influence on the CPC. And his works should be seen in the context of the party as a whole. Where Mao's works we're of great influence.


Well I'm not saying he was the only influence, im just saying the article is a load of dangerous rubbish. This article in itself doesnt make the whole CPC perverted, i dont even know the extent to which this article was seen as something consistent to the party line, but the article itself is a perversion of communist thought.


If you look at the whole of the party ideology you could see that these are albeit moral guidelines, but not the only guidelines. As criticism and self-criticism combined with democracy on the three fronts we're even greater guidelines.


The point is that this article encourages conformism to the party, which in turn means conformism to the party leadership. As such it cannot be merged with other guidelines such as criticism and self-criticism.

The party is presented as a goal in and of itself, not even contemplating the very real possibility that the position the party (the party leadership) takes in post-revolutionary society leads it to having interests contrary to that of the general working and in the case of the chinese revolution peasant classes.
What is important in a revolutionary organisation is adherence to revolutionary theory and practice developing from understanding of revolutionary theory and practice coupled with an ever present criticism of both theory and practice and the democratic control mechanisms which make this possible. The existance, in theory, of democratic control mechanisms mean absolutely nothing when it isnt supported by a radical anti-conformism amongst the members of the revolutionary organisation.
This article is nothing but an attack on the free spirit of the party members, if such free spirit ever existed.

Insofar as marxism does have morality, it is never fixed, subject to constant change, and does not include such morality as "friendliness", "altruism" etc. Though such traits of character are nothing to be discouraged, it is complete rubbish to draw that morality from marxist theory.

The morality espoused in the article is simply the morality of the self-sacrificing martyr with the goal of sustaining/promoting/expanding the current power structure. It consists of the complete eradication of individual thought and spirit, and the glorification of the collective transposed by the Party (in which it is never clear-cut whether the Party actually represents the interests of the collective). This morality is really nothing more than an updated version of older Chinese morality in which the Emperor was "The Party".
Though perhaps noble at first sight, it is completely anti-thetical to the self-liberation of that mass of individuals we call the working class.


And how do we triumph over the bourgeoisie? How do we maintain a socialist and communist society?


not by this rubbish.


Not necessarily, i can think of countless situations within a Communist society whereas this would not be the case.

In actually communist society it would be nearly impossible, in socialist society it would either be a consequence of deterioration (in which case the society would be gradually less socialist) or a consequence of outside capitalist interference.. but even those things are likely to be minute and just as capitalism goes on with us raging against it, so will socialism/communism with a few raging against that.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by ddxt301+October 13, 2007 07:29 pm--> (ddxt301 @ October 13, 2007 07:29 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 11:39 am
The above is a five-point moral digram, the third plank being central and focused on ancient learning, the first and last on innner morality; the second and fourth on outer morality and relations with others.

It's ascetic, legalistic, and overly concerned with "harmony".

In otherwords, this is Confucianism 101, just slightly adapted to fit "communist" rhetoric". You see this a lot in the PRC, traditional philisophies "reinterpreted" as politicallly relevent.

Basically party filial piety.

Nothing to do with communism.
I have to agree with LSD here, the whole "critisize confusianism, critisize Li Shaoqi" campaign during the GPCR was iniated because of old confusianist rethoric wrapped in communist thought. Its clearly visible in modern day china, when you hear Hu Jintao talk about a "Harmonious Society" .

Although some confusianist elements do have something in common with communist philosophy. Thats why its easilly mistaken. I wouldnt say it has nothing to do with communism. [/b]
Confucianism, is completely incompatible with communism.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Confucianism, is completely incompatible with communism.

Great theoretical contribution. Thank you very much for sharing your vast amount of knowledge with us.

And seeing as the vanguard is regarded as the driving force of the post-revolutionary state, the vanguard in much respects equalled the state. To call for conformism amongst the vanguard, which this article does, is to call upon the death of any democracy left in the already (in my mind) perverted circumstances in China (which were to some degree inevitable seeing the undeveloped nature of china).

It says you should treat your fellow party-members with respect. Whats wrong with that?
You should not just go around insulting people, you should make constructive criticism if you disagree with someone's position.
Besides, you seem to ignore previous statements i just made about the whole masses and party thing (either that, or you never even read it).

Well I'm not saying he was the only influence, im just saying the article is a load of dangerous rubbish. This article in itself doesnt make the whole CPC perverted, i dont even know the extent to which this article was seen as something consistent to the party line, but the article itself is a perversion of communist thought.

The article in itself if read outside of the context of Maoism and Marxism-Leninism in general would be dangerous. Yes.
The thing is, it should not. It is a historical document that should be read within this context.

The point is that this article encourages conformism to the party, which in turn means conformism to the party leadership. As such it cannot be merged with other guidelines such as criticism and self-criticism.


It never said you should brainlessly follow the party, quote where it said so.

The party is presented as a goal in and of itself, not even contemplating the very real possibility that the position the party (the party leadership) takes in post-revolutionary society leads it to having interests contrary to that of the general working and in the case of the chinese revolution peasant classes.

No, the party is just a very important part of the revolution. Criticism and Self-criticism remain an important, albeit unmentioned in this article. Which is merely a set of guidelines, as to what would be preferable behavior for a Communist Party member.


What is important in a revolutionary organisation is adherence to revolutionary theory and practice developing from understanding of revolutionary theory and practice coupled with an ever present criticism of both theory and practice and the democratic control mechanisms which make this possible. The existance, in theory, of democratic control mechanisms mean absolutely nothing when it isnt supported by a radical anti-conformism amongst the members of the revolutionary organisation.

Something that again was vastly supported by the party-leadership (criticism and self-criticism in combination with democracy in the three fields).

Insofar as marxism does have morality, it is never fixed, subject to constant change, and does not include such morality as "friendliness", "altruism" etc. Though such traits of character are nothing to be discouraged, it is complete rubbish to draw that morality from marxist theory.

If you are not altruistic to some extend it is quite difficult to be a Marxist anyway. And friendliness is merely a guideline as to acting towards the masses. Give them some positive spirit, etc... etc...
Again, they are guidelines.

This morality is really nothing more than an updated version of older Chinese morality in which the Emperor was "The Party".

That makes no sense, if you read the article and replace party with emperor it would just be... silly.

Though perhaps noble at first sight, it is completely anti-thetical to the self-liberation of that mass of individuals we call the working class.

The collective is the highest form of authority. Simple as that, individuals come next after the interests of the collective as a whole are met.


In actually communist society it would be nearly impossible, in socialist society it would either be a consequence of deterioration (in which case the society would be gradually less socialist) or a consequence of outside capitalist interference.. but even those things are likely to be minute and just as capitalism goes on with us raging against it, so will socialism/communism with a few raging against that.

This is a separate discussion, which can be found somewhere in the 'philosophy'-section i think.
Because I'm such a friendly guy i found it for you :).

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71362

[Dimentio]

I think that while it may contain useful information, it's general direction is flawed. Human development is moving from collectivist units to units with more room for personal space.

Under tribal communism, the human being was an integrated part of a collective. There was/is no personal space at all (look at bushmen or other stone-age peoples).

The more we have moved through the productive stages, the more personal space for bigger and bigger groups of people has been created.

Religious communities and subcultures are partially a reaction against this development.

A party/organisation should strive to reach progressive goals by setting a basic moral standard on the behavior and attitude of it's members, but not to create some form of sectarian unreachable ideal dooming it to become a fringe group.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:01 am

Look, people keep confusing Marxism with a "lifestyle ideology". No, Marx doesn't care if you have sex with 200 people everyday---He'd be very jealous of you but he wouldn't judge you.

What are you talking about? No one has said anything about following a certain moral behaviour.

You're taking our comments to the extreme. All I said is that this particular extract is quite progressive when it talks about what people should strive for. I am not saying you should follow step by step everything he says.

No, marxism isn't a "lifestyle ideology", but you can't just lie, cheat, kill or be rude constantly and claim to be a marxist. There is a limit to the freedom of morality and this is basic for any ideology. Yes, as society progresses you'll have more of this freedom, you'll be able to be more open about yourself, your thoughts and your ideas, but there is a limit to what you can do, unless you want something along the lines of Brave New World.

What next? "You don't have to be a marxist to believe in marxism!"

So what if it has confucianist ideas lurking in the shadow? Marx and Engels aren't the only philosophers or theorists in history. If you want to learn, then you have to try to study as much as you can from everyone. Marx had to, so did Engels, Lenin, or any other marxist.
Marxism should definetly have a lifestyle ideology... especially in Western society. We have far to much luxury's and not enough organization. Communists, who are party members, should invest in their party. Live soberly, donate money for flyers, posters and other propaganda material besides the normal contribution. A communist should be in a good physical state, have a patient, serious and friendly character, act as a collectivist by placing the common interests above personal interests. Don't use drugs, don't get drunk and help people in your community who are in need of help. These things are very hard and I try to live by these rules. However, the truth is that we live in a capitalist society and it is putting a constant pressure on us to adopt a bourgeois lifestyle of individualism, hedonism, decadence and corruption. This is a struggle within your person and it reflects how you fight the struggle without, in the world.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't want to be a good communist.

I want to be an evil communist.

Luís Henrique