Does Maoism scare you?

[mandy_z]

Revolutionary Anti-Imperialists in Denver -- not Maoist, but cool (http://raimd.wordpress.com)

Monkey Smashes Heaven (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Shubel Morgan, revolutionary movies (http://shubelmorgan.wordpress.com)

These are my favorite webpages. If Maoism or anti-imperialism frightens you, then don't look at these links.

Thank you.

[Great Helmsman]

Not everyone who posts on Revleft subscribes to the first world proletariat line you know. I'm personally offended that you would assume we're all trotskyist drones.

[Tomas]

Yes, it scares me half to death. I believe strictly in what Marx originally stated. A semi Democratic Marxist Community is the ideal one for me.

[mandy_z]

A semi Democratic Marxist Community is the ideal one for me.

That sounds great. I want something just like that, but with lots of hugs. If only there was a leader putting forth THAT vision.

[Bilan]

What if it doesn't, just arrogant Maoists annoy me? :o

[mandy_z]

What if it doesn't, just arrogant Maoists annoy me?

If you are afraid of Maoism, then don't post here. Heaven forbid you ruin another pair of pants.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:29 pm

What if it doesn't, just arrogant Maoists annoy me?

If you are afraid of Maoism, then don't post here. Heaven forbid you ruin another pair of pants.
haha, I said what if I'm not, but i don't like arrogant Maoists.
Ruin another pair of pants! ha ha ha!
Heaven forbid you betray another revolution!

[mandy_z]

haha, I said what if I'm not, but i don't like arrogant Maoists.
Ruin another pair of pants! ha ha ha!

You don't have to post here if you are scared. I already told you this. Just go post somewhere else, it is okay.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:37 pm

haha, I said what if I'm not, but i don't like arrogant Maoists.
Ruin another pair of pants! ha ha ha!

You don't have to post here if you are scared. I already told you this. Just go post somewhere else, it is okay.
You're an idiot.

[Marsella]

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/commupolitan.jpg


A mob of angry Chinese students protested at Massey University yesterday after Chairman Mao was lampooned on the cover of the student newspaper. Students likened the cover of Chaff, which this week satirises women's magazine Cosmopolitan, to the anti-Muslim cartoons circulated around the world in February.

UCOL student Xing Tang said Chaff staff are ignorant of Chinese culture. "Chairman Mao is like Jesus to us," he said on the verge of tears. "We pay $20,000 in fees and a Musa fee (which funds Chaff) and this is how we are treated."

Why in Marx's name would we be scared of this?

The simple fact is that a peasent-styled economy society can not 'jump' capitalism and lead to a communist society.

That isn't to say they don't try.

But the economic conditions prevail and Maoism ends up supporting a bourgeoise dictatorship, which isn't suprising for those who understand capitalism, but is increasingly frustrating when people equate communists to scum-bag dictators.

The only praise I can give for the Mickey Maoists is that they usually have an anti-American stance and that they encourage capitalism, which gets us one step closer to a real communist revolution, not mere Little Red Book chanting.


You don't have to post here if you are scared. I already told you this. Just go post somewhere else, it is okay.

Don't be such an arrogant ****. There are Maoists on here which you can at least have a conversation with. You clearly aren't one of them.

Happy chanting!

(EDIT:)


That sounds great. I want something just like that, but with lots of hugs. If only there was a leader putting forth THAT vision.

Oh, haven't you heard of Chairman Bob Avakian?!? He fancies himself as the next American Mao! :lol:

[Devrim]

I find Maoism in the west quite hilarious actually. At least in our country the Maoist have their pretence of 'people's war'. But what do they plan do do in the UK, or US? Start their 'people's war' from Epping forest, or the Everglades.
They seem to be a bunch of middle class kids with a theoretical analysis of why they look down on the working class. Actually, that is what they are here too.
Devrim

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:25 pm
I find Maoism in the west quite hilarious actually. At least in our country the Maoist have their pretence of 'people's war'. But what do they plan do do in the UK, or US? Start their 'people's war' from Epping forest, or the Everglades.
They seem to be a bunch of middle class kids with a theoretical analysis of why they look down on the working class. Actually, that is what they are here too.
Devrim
I agree. Anarchism and Trotskyism are far more popular in the West, probably because Westerners can identify with them far more than they can with Maoism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hello, MIMite. Are you still intending to turn the US into one big gulag? 'Cause if you are, I suggest you go run into heavy traffic.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:25 am
I find Maoism in the west quite hilarious actually. At least in our country the Maoist have their pretence of 'people's war'. But what do they plan do do in the UK, or US? Start their 'people's war' from Epping forest, or the Everglades.
They seem to be a bunch of middle class kids with a theoretical analysis of why they look down on the working class. Actually, that is what they are here too.
Devrim
The People's War will be fought by the third-world against the first-world, essentially the world's countryside against its cities. At this time the numbers of first world proletariat are very small or non-existent, so revolutionary conflict will have to be headed by the third-world proletariat until the first-world ruling classes capitulate. That is likely the only way we will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in the FW.

[Raúl Duke]

I wonder what life in the one big gulag is like...

:unsure:

[RedCommieBear]

essentially the world's countryside against its cities

I have a question, do you know what a proletariat is?

Edit: Had 2 of the same quote stacked up on each other

[Rawthentic]

These scum are not Maoists, they are MIMite anti-Maoists, and anti-communists.

There needs to be a distinction.

[Rawthentic]

Start their 'people's war' from Epping forest, or the Everglades.
Thats the strategy in imperialist-oppressed nations.

Thats obviously not the case in the US.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:32 am

essentially the world's countryside against its cities

I have a question, do you know what a proletariat is?

Edit: Had 2 of the same quote stacked up on each other
Yeah, do you?

Most FW workers fall into the upper levels of world earnings. How could this worker, who receives more than the value of what they produce, be defined as a proletariat?

[mandy_z]

Live for the People: Like I care what some zombie like you says. But, for the record, those links have nothing to do with MIM. Go back to selling dvds and scarfs for you cult. Bye. bye, paperboy.

Electronic Light: Good to see that not everyone here is a total moron.

[mandy_z]

Most FW workers fall into the upper levels of world earnings. How could this worker, who receives more than the value of what they produce, be defined as a proletariat?

Not only that, but they don't produce! Most are part of realization of surplus value. Whites are nation of paper pushers and people who work in distribution. Of course, nations of people who don't add to the global social product, but nonetheless appropriate as Amerikans do could not arise without massive influx of value, unequal exchange, etc.

In addition, they have more access to capital than many who are considered bourgeoisie in the Third World.

Don't bother arguing with these fools. It is a waste of your time. They've been trashed in this debate for decades.

[Faux Real]

Not every first world worker works in a huge skyscraper wearing a tie + suit, working on a computer.

I hope you're not bashing all Anglo-Americans--just look at a trailer park and see how 'bourgeois' they live.

Let's also not forget the millions upon millions of immigrants from the third world who make up the majority of the urban domestic workforce, who get exploited easily by not being able to form unions, or the process of finding one difficult.

"If you take away our Playstations, America would be just another third-world nation."

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:07 pm
Revolutionary Anti-Imperialists in Denver -- not Maoist, but cool (http://raimd.wordpress.com)
Right on, real cool to be watching comrades from the American Indian Movement get arrested while protesting Columbus day. Real cool dude.

mandy_z are you for real? Who let the troll out, and why would communist be afraid of anti-imperialism, we're all anti-imperialist, what we need to be prepared for is that bull shit that the pigs pulled at the protest.

Thats a powerful video, the pigs fucked up on this one and your just an idiot.



--Paz

[mandy_z]

Rebelde: What are you blathering on about? The webpage is NOT AIM's webpage, it is RAIM-D's web page, a member of the TCD coalition. RAIM-D works with Maoists, but is not Maoist. Learn to read.


your just an idiot.

Classic.

And, for the record, very few on this forum are communists. Most on this forum are social fascists, white nationalists and compradors.

[Bilan]

Classic.

Is that the best response you could come up with?

I was going to say I'm surpised, but due to the title of this - and every post you've made in this particular topic - it's really not that unusual.

Fail.

[mandy_z]

I hope you're not bashing all Anglo-Americans--just look at a trailer park and see how 'bourgeois' they live.

Let's also not forget the millions upon millions of immigrants from the third world who make up the majority of the urban domestic workforce, who get exploited easily by not being able to form unions, or the process of finding one difficult.

"If you take away our Playstations, America would be just another third-world nation."

Cry me a river. Most of the world lives on less than 3$ a fucking day.. We are talking a lot more than just play stations. If all the wealth globally were divided up equally nearly every amerikan would get less than they currently do. The same is true, in spades, if we divided up wealth by hours worked. Any reasonable global socialist distribution principle is going to make amerikans poorer.

edit: Workers in India living on less than 49 cents a day number more than entire U$ population (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/amerikkkans-rich-indians-poor-so-called-icm-deaf-and-dumb/)

[Faux Real]

Cry me a river.
No need to be a jerk.

Most of the world lives on less than 3$ a fucking day.. We are talking a lot more than just play stations. If all the wealth globally were divided up equally nearly every amerikan would get less than they currently do. The same is true, in spades, if we divided up wealth by hours worked. Any reasonable global socialist distribution principle is going to make amerikans poorer.

There's a little thing called price inflation.

Aside from that, "Amerikans" are not using real money, it's all borrowed money. Do you know how knee-deep they are in debt? Not only the people, but the federal government?

How do you think they maintain this cycle?

This 'wealth' we're living on is artificial at best, and once the shit hits the fan people throughout "Amerika" will not be able to afford shit.

Thankfully with the technology being developed here, should this this 'global socialist distribution' system arrive anytime soon, standards of living will rise throughout the world if those technological advances were to spread. The issue wouldn't be money any longer.

There wouldn't be a 'richer' or 'poorer' as 'wealth' will be a pre-socialist concept. People have what they need to live sustainably, and have the self-determination to run their lives.

What "Amerikans" need is a revolutionary class consciousness, not an invasion and systematic slaughter of them by the third world.

[mandy_z]

There's a little thing called price inflation.

Do you really think someone living on 49 cents a day in India is living like your average Amerikan? Are you that disconnected from reality? Someone living on 49 cents a day is basically living at subsistence or sub-subsistence. Such hardly describes any "working" amerikan. In fact, many commodities that Amerikan's consider common items, easily acquired, are actually more expensive in the Third World. An article on the high cost of living in the third world. (http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/high-cost-of-living-in-the-third-world/)


Aside from that, "Amerikans" are not using real money, it's all borrowed money. Do you know how knee-deep they are in debt?

Debt in the first world is not the same thing as debt in the third world. Debt in the first world is not a sign of pauperization, it is often a sign of access to capital and a higher standard of living. Amerikans take out loans and get access to cash that is greater than a third world worker may receive in an entire lifetime of work. Amerikan so-called "workers" often have access to more capital than the third world bourgeoisie.

How can this be? Well, it is because they are not exploited. They make more than the value of their labor (assuming we want to count what Amerikans do as labor in many cases). What makes this possible is massive value transfers from the third to the first world.

OK.... anyways.. i am outta here

[Bilan]

i am outta here

Hooray!

[Great Helmsman]

I don't know what Marx you've been reading rev0lt. In the Marx I've read, the labor theory of value quite clearly defines productive and unproductive labor; and what it means for a worker to produce value.

[Marsella]

Most FW workers fall into the upper levels of world earnings. How could this worker, who receives more than the value of what they produce, be defined as a proletariat?

How can any proletariat receive more than the value of what they produce?!?

That would mean that the capitalist would be losing money!

Edit:

&LFTP:


These scum are not Maoists, they are MIMite anti-Maoists, and anti-communists.

There needs to be a distinction.

Sorry, but could you explain it further. What does MIM mean?

[Raúl Duke]

Exactly...

Where are you 2 from? Are you a 3rd world proletariat?

Are you taking the conclusions of your Maoism to practice? (i.e. live in a 3rd world country, and like a 3rd world proletariat, and start a protracted people's war in the countryside?).

P.S.
Are Puerto Ricans, who live in the US colony of Puerto Rico, 3rd world proletariat or 1st?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 17, 2007 01:44 am
I don't know what Marx you've been reading rev0lt. In the Marx I've read, the labor theory of value quite clearly defines productive and unproductive labor; and what it means for a worker to produce value.
Where was I talking about value or the LTV?

[mandy_z]

How can any proletariat receive more than the value of what they produce?!?

A proletariat can't, that is my point. Not everyone who makes a wage or a salary is a proletarian. Not everyone who makes a paycheck is exploited, nor are they necessarily proletarian.




These scum are not Maoists, they are MIMite anti-Maoists, and anti-communists.

There needs to be a distinction.


Sorry, but could you explain it further. What does MIM mean?

The cult zombie is alleging that these links in this thread are MIM, which they are not as can be clearly be seen in the About pages.

Basically, Afakean's zombies think anyone who don't line up to sling their creepy cult leader's moronic DVDs on the street is a "MIMite." RCP is a paranoid cult, who cares what they think. They've really been pushing the cult lately, perhaps they are about ready to drink the kool-aid and transmutate their earthly shells.

[Led Zeppelin]

In the time of Marx workers in France, the US, UK etc. also earned a hell of a lot more than workers in the third world, and yet he still said that workers there were exploited and would rise up and revolt.

Even though a global revolution would have made them poorer, by your logic, right? Oh wait, I think I just completely disproved your argument and exposed you for the idiot you are.

A global socialist system would of course not be built on the current available capital and material conditions. They would have to be increased dramatically all over the world, and then, and only then, can socialism exist.

If a revolution happens in the US and one happens in India at the same time, the US socialist state wouldn't cut off its own population from capital and means of production to equalize their population with that of India. That would be moronic, and only something a MIMite such as yourself would believe. It is called the equalization or generalization of poverty. One person is poor, so all must be poor. That is a lie spread around by neo-cons and the likes. It's not a surprise that MIMites have taken it over from them.

No, they would use their means of production to aid India's development of their own means of production, and equalize their nations material conditions in that manner. By expanding the means of production, not by generalizing or equalizing the existing means of production.

It's kindof sad that I have to explain this to a person who believes they are the epitome of Marxist thought.

Oh well; such is life.

[mandy_z]

In the time of Marx workers in France, the US, UK etc. also earned a hell of a lot more than workers in the third world, and yet he still said that workers there were exploited and would rise up and revolt.

Even though a global revolution would have made them poorer, by your logic, right? Oh wait, I think I just completely disproved your argument and exposed you for the idiot you are.

Marx describes the industrial worker in England of his day as living at subsistence, having nothing but his labor to sell, nothing to lose but his chains, making only enough to reproduce his labor the next day, as a wage slave and so on..... This does describe a lot of non-European wage earners back then and it certainly describes the third world today! Anyone with a brain knows that this does not describe first worlders today.

Even so, let’s get back to your point, pinhead. Nobody has claimed that just because x makes more than y that x exploits y. Even in the third world today one worker may make more than another. This doesn’t mean one is exploiting the other.

There are various ways for establishing the bar for exploitation. For Marx, exploitation is when someone is paid less than the full value of their labor, which requires coming up with a method for establishing the value for labor. If you don’t like the methods that I proposed earlier in this thread, then come up with other ones. If you want a link to some calculations some Maoists have done, I will dig them up for you and link them if you are really interested. You don’t seem like you are seriously interested in understanding these issues, otherwise, you would have done a bit of research before spouting off your fascist mouth.

[Ismail]

Things like the three worlds theory are horrible and should never be repeated, but Mao had to adapt Socialism to China, as Lenin and Stalin had to Russia, Hoxha to Albania, etc. In this case, Maoism was decent for 1950s-70s China, but not for 21st century US. Good (in limited amounts) in Hoxha's Albania, bad in the USSR at any point and so on. I think the developing world can do alright with Maoism, but I think industrial development must be focused on at all times, and that peasants need to become proletarians as soon as economically feasible. To add onto this, Hoxha took the smashing of the four olds literally, whereas the Chinese Communists "updated" previous moral beliefs in many occasions to make them more secular and "Communistic".

In any case, Marxist-Leninism > Maoism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:17 am

In the time of Marx workers in France, the US, UK etc. also earned a hell of a lot more than workers in the third world, and yet he still said that workers there were exploited and would rise up and revolt.

Even though a global revolution would have made them poorer, by your logic, right? Oh wait, I think I just completely disproved your argument and exposed you for the idiot you are.

Marx describes the industrial worker in England of his day as living at subsistence, having nothing but his labor to sell, nothing to lose but his chains, making only enough to reproduce his labor the next day, as a wage slave and so on..... This does describe a lot of non-European wage earners back then and it certainly describes the third world today! Anyone with a brain knows that this does not describe first worlders today.

Even so, let’s get back to your point, pinhead. Nobody has claimed that just because x makes more than y that x exploits y. Even in the third world today one worker may make more than another. This doesn’t mean one is exploiting the other.

There are various ways for establishing the bar for exploitation. For Marx, exploitation is when someone is paid less than the full value of their labor, which requires coming up with a method for establishing the value for labor. If you don’t like the methods that I proposed earlier in this thread, then come up with other ones. If you want a link to some calculations some Maoists have done, I will dig them up for you and link them if you are really interested. You don’t seem like you are seriously interested in understanding these issues, otherwise, you would have done a bit of research before spouting off your fascist mouth.
First of all I would like to say: Shut the fuck up you piece of human garbage.

I am a fascist? Funny how you are the one who wants millions of people to live in one big Gulag and I am the fascist.

You are going to be banned soon so I'm not going to bother with your bullshit, but I am going to do one thing: suspend your account until an Admin comes around to ban your MIMite ass.

Bye bye now child.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:51 am
Are you taking the conclusions of your Maoism to practice? (i.e. live in a 3rd world country, and like a 3rd world proletariat, and start a protracted people's war in the countryside?).


I don't think it is the proletariat starting the people's war. It is generally intellectuals students, and those sort of elements.
Devrim

[Dimentio]

The only workers with the ability to move the world from capitalism to socialism are the labor aristocracy. Give third world workers/peasants literal control over the means of production, and it would end in emerging capitalism. Give communist vanguard parties control over the means of production, and we'll get a transition from semi-feudalism to capitalism (as we'll see in China).

The labor aristocracy in the west already has literal control over the production. Ownership is just formal, and the workers are often more well-educated than the business owners/the bourgeoisie. Of course, the labor aristocracy is quite small today, and shrinking, but it's level of organisation is tightening up.

The Bourgeoisie did not start capitalism because it was weakening, but because it was becoming fewer in number but stronger in influence and organisation due to the emerging capitalism.

When the Bourgeoisie made it's revolution in France in 1789, most of them just initially wanted the priests and nobility to start to pay taxes.

Give it a crisis, and we will see a situation when the engineers, scientists and technicians takes virtual power.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:25 am
I find Maoism in the west quite hilarious actually. At least in our country the Maoist have their pretence of 'people's war'. But what do they plan do do in the UK, or US? Start their 'people's war' from Epping forest, or the Everglades.
They seem to be a bunch of middle class kids with a theoretical analysis of why they look down on the working class. Actually, that is what they are here too.
Devrim
A certain Maoist principle is, that if you have not studied something you should not talk about it. If you would have studied it you would know the Maoist response to this, apparently you don't.

[Dimentio]

I am actually reading the IRTR forums and Monkey Smashes Heaven, when I need to laugh that is...

David Horowitz is a scumbag and should be vigorously opposed. He’s been hounding various academics for some time now in an attempt to stifle dissent on campuses across the country. His idiotic book, The Professors, attacks Ward Churchill, Sami al-Arian, Norman Finkelstein, Bill Ayers, Grover Furr, Amiri Baraka, Kathleen Cleaver, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and many others.

Horowitz’s latest effort is “Islamo-fascism awareness week” lasting from October 22nd to the 26th. Horowitz plans to rile up campuses across the U$ to support imperialist wars. It is also a stunt designed to cause controversy for those who fancy themselves as Amerika’s conservative warriors against an academic culture that they perceive as anti-Amerikan. Of course, the idea that Amerika’s university culture is anti-imperialist is pure fantasy. If only.

Part of Horowitz’s plan is to protest women’s studies departments for their supposed silence on the treatment of females by so-called Islamo-fascism. Horowitz and his ilk seek to rally White and first world feminists to oppose the Islamic anti-imperialist struggles in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Bob Afakean’s cult of fake-Maoists are now yapping about opposing David Horowitz’s “Islamo-fascism awareness week.” Why? Perhaps, Afakean is upset that Horowitz has stolen his thunder. Or, perhaps, all this noise is over a copyright dispute? After all, long before Horowitz’s latest stunt, every week was “Islamo-fascism awareness week” in the so-called RIM. Heck, Afakean and his zombies have been agitating alongside the neo-cons against the Islamic resistance for many years now, even leading rallies against the Iranian state. Afakean’s lackeys led an International Women’s Day march against the Islamic Republic of Iran not long ago. Afakean should consider seeking a court injunction against Horowitz.

Real Maoists support the broad united front against imperialism, especially U$ imperialism. Maoists and anti-imperialists should oppose those who align with U$ imperialism against Iran, the Islamic upsurge or other anti-imperialist struggles. Maoists oppose the attacks on Third World resistance, whether those attacks are by avowed neo-cons like Horowitz or fake-Maoist White nationalist cult leaders like Afakean.

[Marsella]

The video below was good for a laugh.

'The Iranian state is part of a united front against imperialism. Genuine Maoists know this. Counterfeit Maoists attack the Iranian state...Stamp out quack Maoists...Stamp out America.'

:lol:

[Leo]

Where are you 2 from? Are you a 3rd world proletariat?

Of course they are not from the 3rd world, they are a bunch of middle class kids from North "AmeriKKKa" :rolleyes:


These scum are not Maoists, they are MIMite (...)

There needs to be a distinction.

Yeah, MIMites are more honest about their own anti-working class nature than other Maoists.

[Invader Zim]

Why in Marx's name would we be scared of this?

I swear that there are few things that I find more idiotic than Maoism; but anyone who uses the term 'In Marx's name' as a substitute for 'in Gods name', has achieved that level of ridiculousness.

[Marsella]

I swear that there are few things that I find more idiotic than Maoism; but anyone who uses the term 'In Marx's name' as a substitute for 'in Gods name', has achieved that level of ridiculousness.

Mission accomplished! :lol:

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:39 pm
The only workers with the ability to move the world from capitalism to socialism are the labor aristocracy. Give third world workers/peasants literal control over the means of production, and it would end in emerging capitalism. Give communist vanguard parties control over the means of production, and we'll get a transition from semi-feudalism to capitalism (as we'll see in China).

The labor aristocracy in the west already has literal control over the production. Ownership is just formal, and the workers are often more well-educated than the business owners/the bourgeoisie. Of course, the labor aristocracy is quite small today, and shrinking, but it's level of organisation is tightening up.

The Bourgeoisie did not start capitalism because it was weakening, but because it was becoming fewer in number but stronger in influence and organisation due to the emerging capitalism.

When the Bourgeoisie made it's revolution in France in 1789, most of them just initially wanted the priests and nobility to start to pay taxes.

Give it a crisis, and we will see a situation when the engineers, scientists and technicians takes virtual power.
Utter nonsense. This is the kind of western chauvinism that has unfortunately been plaguing communism. Western labor aristocracy are not revolutionary at all. And even if your Utopian revolution were possible, it would just end up being the substitution of one set of bourgeois for another.

It's pretty disgusting that mandy z has "been suspended for being a piece of shit" and can't respond to any further arguments because a moderator can't handle real Maoism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 pm

Where are you 2 from? Are you a 3rd world proletariat?

Of course they are not from the 3rd world, they are a bunch of middle class kids from North "AmeriKKKa" :rolleyes:

We haven't got an answer to this question yet.

Devrim

[Marsella]

http://fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/508.JPG

Don't expect to Devrim.

[Rawthentic]

Please don't feed the trolls, let them be, they will be banned or restricted sooner or later.

[Rawthentic]

Whoever here thinks that Maoists in the West are all white, middle class kids, then they are really stupid.

First of all, the Black Panther Party, the most revolutionary vanguard in the 60s and one that had the support of a vast amount of proletarians, was Maoist.

I'm a Chicano proletarian.

Its like saying that all left-communists are theoretical purists that have no real presence in reality.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Electronic Light+October 17, 2007 05:28 pm--> (Electronic Light @ October 17, 2007 05:28 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 12:39 pm
The only workers with the ability to move the world from capitalism to socialism are the labor aristocracy. Give third world workers/peasants literal control over the means of production, and it would end in emerging capitalism. Give communist vanguard parties control over the means of production, and we'll get a transition from semi-feudalism to capitalism (as we'll see in China).

The labor aristocracy in the west already has literal control over the production. Ownership is just formal, and the workers are often more well-educated than the business owners/the bourgeoisie. Of course, the labor aristocracy is quite small today, and shrinking, but it's level of organisation is tightening up.

The Bourgeoisie did not start capitalism because it was weakening, but because it was becoming fewer in number but stronger in influence and organisation due to the emerging capitalism.

When the Bourgeoisie made it's revolution in France in 1789, most of them just initially wanted the priests and nobility to start to pay taxes.

Give it a crisis, and we will see a situation when the engineers, scientists and technicians takes virtual power.
Utter nonsense. This is the kind of western chauvinism that has unfortunately been plaguing communism. Western labor aristocracy are not revolutionary at all. And even if your Utopian revolution were possible, it would just end up being the substitution of one set of bourgeois for another.

It's pretty disgusting that mandy z has "been suspended for being a piece of shit" and can't respond to any further arguments because a moderator can't handle real Maoism. [/b]
There is not any basis for the idea that pre-modern or colonial modes of production could move into any form of stable socialism.

The bourgeoisie in France in 1779 was in no means revolutionary. There was of course ideologies, like those of Voltaire and Rousseau, which were hand-picked when the system became unrulable.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by Serpent+October 17, 2007 10:38 pm--> (Serpent @ October 17, 2007 10:38 pm)
Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 17, 2007 05:28 pm

[email protected] 17, 2007 12:39 pm
The only workers with the ability to move the world from capitalism to socialism are the labor aristocracy. Give third world workers/peasants literal control over the means of production, and it would end in emerging capitalism. Give communist vanguard parties control over the means of production, and we'll get a transition from semi-feudalism to capitalism (as we'll see in China).

The labor aristocracy in the west already has literal control over the production. Ownership is just formal, and the workers are often more well-educated than the business owners/the bourgeoisie. Of course, the labor aristocracy is quite small today, and shrinking, but it's level of organisation is tightening up.

The Bourgeoisie did not start capitalism because it was weakening, but because it was becoming fewer in number but stronger in influence and organisation due to the emerging capitalism.

When the Bourgeoisie made it's revolution in France in 1789, most of them just initially wanted the priests and nobility to start to pay taxes.

Give it a crisis, and we will see a situation when the engineers, scientists and technicians takes virtual power.
Utter nonsense. This is the kind of western chauvinism that has unfortunately been plaguing communism. Western labor aristocracy are not revolutionary at all. And even if your Utopian revolution were possible, it would just end up being the substitution of one set of bourgeois for another.

It's pretty disgusting that mandy z has "been suspended for being a piece of shit" and can't respond to any further arguments because a moderator can't handle real Maoism.
There is not any basis for the idea that pre-modern or colonial modes of production could move into any form of stable socialism.

The bourgeoisie in France in 1779 was in no means revolutionary. There was of course ideologies, like those of Voltaire and Rousseau, which were hand-picked when the system became unrulable. [/b]
There can be no hope for communism while imperialism dominates the third-world. Revolution is required to free them from the oppressive yoke of western domination. We have witnessed that the only successful revolutions historically have been those in nations oppressed by the imperialists. And why have FW workers not been behind the revolutionary engine?

"This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook, is the principal prop of the Second International, and in our days, the principal social (not military) prop of the bourgeoisie. For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism. In the civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie they inevitably, and in no small numbers. take the side of the bourgeoisie, the “Versaillese” against the “Communards”. "

V.I. Lenin. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Live for the People+October 17, 2007 09:38 pm--> (Live for the People @ October 17, 2007 09:38 pm) Whoever here thinks that Maoists in the West are all white, middle class kids, then they are really stupid.



[/b]
We will leave you obsession with race to yourselves. What the post said was:

Leo
Of course they are not from the 3rd world, they are a bunch of middle class kids from North "AmeriKKKa" :rolleyes:


I'm a Chicano proletarian.

Anyway with have established that you are from North America. We ware not really interested in your ethnic background, but please tell us what work you do.

Devrim

[Bilan]

First of all, the Black Panther Party, the most revolutionary vanguard in the 60s and one that had the support of a vast amount of proletarians, was Maoist.

Ah, my favorite Maoists.

[Dimentio]

The revolutions in the third world, maoist, leninist, nationalist, national liberal or islamist have all without exceptions lead to the establishment of a national bourgeoisie under the cloak of the ruling party. Of course dysfunctional or colonialised societies have more reasons to self-implode and then move onwards to more advanced means of production.

Moreover, in none of the revolutions in the third world have ever the working class in itself reached power. Rather, a bourgeoisie click of society has been formed within a party to "safeguard" (exploit) the proletariat. That is the case in both China and Iran, even though the first country is ruled by "communists" and the second one of reactionaries.

Technology matters, and understanding of technology matters more.

What people is out for is to increase their standard of life, not mainly to end exploitment. In fact, it has been rational for people since the day the first society was formed to give the power to control violence to a state and the power of capital to an elite - i.e, to specialise in order to be able to harvest more from nature.

Socialism, when it will be established, will not be a society where the party distributes one pair of shoes to the laborers each year and everyone breathes in proletarian conciousness, but rather a society where machines are doing all the work and everyone is guaranteed a basic income. That will mean the beginning of the end of human exploitment over other humans.

Experience shows that maoist revolutions tend to be very bloody and lead to initial devastation before stabilising as bourgeoisie dictatorships. The same thing could be said about islamists revolutions, although both versions will almost inevitable have the same end-results (birth of a new bourgeoisie nation-state), due to the level of development of the means of production.

[Rawthentic]

Experience shows that maoist revolutions tend to be very bloody and lead to initial devastation before stabilising as bourgeoisie dictatorships.
The only Maoist revolution there has been is in China, and it was consolidated as a bourgeois dictatorship, after Deng Xiaoping assumed power.


, but please tell us what work you do.
Grocery store. If you ask which one, I'll assume you are a Nazi bot out to get my personal information. :)

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 19, 2007 07:48 am

The only Maoist revolution there has been is in China, and it was consolidated as a bourgeois dictatorship, after Deng Xiaoping assumed power.

How do you understand that for Maoists, yet not see how similar situations have faced anarchists?
(sorry bout the grammar. I am drunk) :D

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 18, 2007 01:50 am
There can be no hope for communism while imperialism dominates the third-world. Revolution is required to free them from the oppressive yoke of western domination. We have witnessed that the only successful revolutions historically have been those in nations oppressed by the imperialists. And why have FW workers not been behind the revolutionary engine?
I would have to disagree with you, Electronic Light. Communism can not be realized if somewhere on this planet capitalism/imperialism still exists. As long as imperialism exists it proves that there are still class differences. I think you are referring to socialism (which is the first stage in the development of communism).

Now, as far as I am concerned none of the revolutions up till now were a real big success and I am personally convinced that this is due to the big economic problems these 3rd world country's have. Marx said that the world revolution would probably start in the most developed capitalist countries. I agree with this analysis but the situation had become more complex over the years...
A lot of third world countries are actually economically booming right know. Take China and India for instance. These are 3rd world countries which are becoming strong capitalist nations. This is a direct result of the internationalization of the production and the developments in communications and transportation over the years.
Globalization made a world revolution much more realistic. For a successful socialist revolution workers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world have to unite in action against the world wide imperialist system. If we cannot unify, we will fail.

That is why Marx & Engels said in 1848:
'Proletarians of all countries, unite!'

These are not just words... they are a strategy and the key to victory.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 17, 2007 04:51 am
I am a fascist? Funny how you are the one who wants millions of people to live in one big Gulag and I am the fascist.


I'm not arguing about whether mandy-z should have been banned or not, but where did she say that millions of people should live in one big gulag?

[Dros]

I wish that the rediculous MIMite false fascist "Maoists" would shut up OR ACTUALLY MAKE A FUCKING ARGUMENT instead of reasserting their rediculous slogans and insulting the communists by calling them "white nationalists" and "imperialists" or whatever these crazies like to call actual Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.

I will respond to their bullshit in another post. Right now I'm to pissed...

[RedAnarchist]

I don't really have any strong feelings towards Maoism- I just see it as maybe a little irrelevant to the modern world, at least for the West.