Maoism and Trotskyism [Archive]

Dros

4th November 2007, 21:16

bezdomni

4th November 2007, 21:43

What Trotsky said constitutes what Trotskyism is. I'd consider groups like the Spartacist League to take an orthodox Trotskyist line (ie, if trotsky were alive today he'd probably be a spart).

Trotskyism and Maoism are mutually exclusive for the fundamental reason that Trotskyism is not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

There are innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Stalin to Mavrakis to Mao and beyond) that criticize Trotsky and explain why Trotsky's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

Led Zeppelin

4th November 2007, 21:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:43 pm
There are innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Stalin to Mavrakis to Mao and beyond) that criticize Trotsky and explain why Trotsky's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
There are also innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Trotsky to Cannon to Grant and beyond) that criticize Stalin and explain why Stalin's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

Ismail

4th November 2007, 22:04

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 04, 2007 04:59 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 04, 2007 04:59 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 09:43 pm
There are innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Stalin to Mavrakis to Mao and beyond) that criticize Trotsky and explain why Trotsky's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
There are also innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Trotsky to Cannon to Grant and beyond) that criticize Stalin and explain why Stalin's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism. [/b]
Yeah, but they're wrong so we ignore them. :lol:

Comrade Nadezhda

4th November 2007, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:10 pm
No no no. I understand that. I don't see Trotsky as a reformist. My question is why is it that some people believe that Trotsky was reformist.
Trotsky was definitely not a reformist.

Anyone who makes arguments of the such clearly has a misconception of Trotsky himself.

There, indeed, are many different tendencies within "Trotskyism" which is particularly why I avoid using this term, and even though there are certain tendencies which could be considered "reformist" that doesn't mean Trotsky himself was a reformist.

What Trotsky said constitutes what Trotskyism is. I'd consider groups like the Spartacist League to take an orthodox Trotskyist line (ie, if trotsky were alive today he'd probably be a spart).

Trotskyism and Maoism are mutually exclusive for the fundamental reason that Trotskyism is not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

There are innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Stalin to Mavrakis to Mao and beyond) that criticize Trotsky and explain why Trotsky's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
In regards to the argument of "socialism in one country" and the argument for "permanent revolution" (world-wide socialist revolution)-- these are two very different arguments (in regards to Stalin and Trotsky).

There are also innumerable essays by Marxist-Leninists (from Trotsky to Cannon to Grant and beyond) that criticize Stalin and explain why Stalin's line was not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.
Marxism-Leninism is definitely not the same as "Stalinism", this being why not all Marxist-Leninists supported Stalin. Marxist-Leninist became a term used by Stalinists (and sometimes Maoists) but Stalinism doesn't necessarily determine Marxism-Leninism and the other way around. Not all Marxist-Leninists support(ed) Stalin and/or didn't necessarily advocate for Stalinism.

Yeah, but they're wrong so we ignore them. :lol:
Stalinism rejects many foundations of Marxism.

"proletarians of the world unite" I don't think that is a phrase Stalin or a "Stalinist" would use.

Dros

4th November 2007, 22:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:43 pm
Trotskyism and Maoism are mutually exclusive for the fundamental reason that Trotskyism is not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

WHY?! What is the inconsistency?

I think you are wrong. Why don't you back up your arguments with some substance?

Comrade Nadezhda

4th November 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by drosera99+November 04, 2007 04:15 pm--> (drosera99 @ November 04, 2007 04:15 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 09:43 pm
Trotskyism and Maoism are mutually exclusive for the fundamental reason that Trotskyism is not consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

WHY?! What is the inconsistency?

I think you are wrong. Why don't you back up your arguments with some substance?[/b]
I don't necessarily think Stalinism is the only varient of Marxism-Leninism, therefore it isn't necessarily true-- Stalin's line wasn't necessarily consistent.

Regardless, I find the arguments for "socialism in one country" to be the least bit marxist by any means- at least in regards to marx's arguments and the arguments of Marxists (including Lenin).

Random Precision

4th November 2007, 22:32

What Trotsky said constitutes what Trotskyism is. I'd consider groups like the Spartacist League to take an orthodox Trotskyist line (ie, if trotsky were alive today he'd probably be a spart).

Comrade, the Sparticists have a bizarre fetishization toward Trotsky and his works that is fundamentally incorrect, along the line of he could never make mistakes. Trotsky himself never took that attitude toward his own position.

Random Precision

4th November 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:10 pm
I don't see Trotsky as a reformist. My question is why is it that some people believe that Trotsky was reformist.
I don't think anyone is claiming that Trotsky was a reformist. However, many (including myself, though I could be considered one) have criticized the reformist tendencies of various Trotskyist organizations.

Comrade Nadezhda

4th November 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 04, 2007 04:32 pm

What Trotsky said constitutes what Trotskyism is. I'd consider groups like the Spartacist League to take an orthodox Trotskyist line (ie, if trotsky were alive today he'd probably be a spart).

Comrade, the Sparticists have a bizarre fetishization toward Trotsky and his works that is fundamentally incorrect, along the line of he could never make mistakes. Trotsky himself never took that attitude toward his own position.
I don't think Trotsky had that attitude either-- as I don't think all "trotskyists" see Trotsky in that way in regards to that matter, just as I find Stalinists' arguments in regards to Stalin representing Marxism-Leninism to be incorrect. Not all Marxist-Leninists support Stalin or Stalinism.

Panda Tse Tung

4th November 2007, 23:17

Yeah, but they're wrong so we ignore them.

That would be a ridiculous dogmatic error to make. We should by all means study it, criticize it where necessary. Get our facts straight and study your opponents. By all means, of course one needs the ideological capacity's before doing so. But that is no reason to ignore them De-Facto.

Ismail

4th November 2007, 23:40

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 04, 2007 05:12 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 04, 2007 05:12 pm) "proletarians of the world unite" I don't think that is a phrase Stalin or a "Stalinist" would use. [/b]
Uh, yeah, they would including me. Why wouldn't they? Unless you mean "Socialism in one country" in which case Cuba must be a bourgeois, "Stalinist" bureaucratic nightmare. :rolleyes:

Socialism in one country isn't in conflict with Marxism. Look at Enver Hoxha. Was his nation isolated? Sure it was. But he did his best to make active Marxist-Leninist parties across the world. Look at the DPRK. Isolated? More than Albania. Thing is, the DPRK isn't really spreading revolution. (Unless you count Juche, which I believe has fatal flaws)

I don't see how socialism in one country caused the death of socialism either. I see flaws from various other things, not the fact that the USSR, Albania, etc had socialism each in their own countries. Besides this, Socialism doesn't even need to be isolated (at least not to extent of Albania and the DPRK).

No. [email protected] 04, 2007 06:17 pm

Yeah, but they're wrong so we ignore them.

That would be a ridiculous dogmatic error to make. We should by all means study it, criticize it where necessary. Get our facts straight and study your opponents. By all means, of course one needs the ideological capacity's before doing so. But that is no reason to ignore them De-Facto.It was a joke. This is the second time this has happened where someone took a joke post completely serious. ("Hoxha built up Albania with his bare hands" with a sarcasm smiley being the other)

Comrade Nadezhda

5th November 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by Mrdie+November 04, 2007 05:40 pm--> (Mrdie @ November 04, 2007 05:40 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 05:12 pm
"proletarians of the world unite" I don't think that is a phrase Stalin or a "Stalinist" would use.
Uh, yeah, they would including me. Why wouldn't they? Unless you mean "Socialism in one country" in which case Cuba must be a bourgeois, "Stalinist" bureaucratic nightmare. :rolleyes:

Socialism in one country isn't in conflict with Marxism. Look at Enver Hoxha. Was his nation isolated? Sure it was. But he did his best to make active Marxist-Leninist parties across the world. Look at the DPRK. Isolated? More than Albania. Thing is, the DPRK isn't really spreading revolution. (Unless you count Juche, which I believe has fatal flaws)

I don't see how socialism in one country caused the death of socialism either. I see flaws from various other things, not the fact that the USSR, Albania, etc had socialism each in their own countries. Besides this, Socialism doesn't even need to be isolated (at least not to extent of Albania and the DPRK).[/b]
I never mentioned Cuba-- I never made such a claim, nor would I argue that in any regard. That wasn't part of the argument which I stated in this topic, either, and the arguments I have made in the past in regards to the "Stalinist bureaucracy" had nothing to do with Cuba.

Yes, my argument was in regards to "socialism in one country", but I am not arguing that "socialism in one country" causes a Stalinist bureaucracy-- however, it seems relevant to bring up the fact that the purpose of revolutionary movement is not with the intention to eliminate a small portion of the conditions which cause exploitation but with the intention of eliminating all exploitive conditions.

I will define my argument, as it seems you have misunderstood it.

I am arguing that it conflicts with Marxism simply because "socialism in one country" defeats the entire point of revolutionary movement in the first place-- the such isn't even an attempt at eliminating exploitive conditions and the forces causing their existence world-wide. Therefore, it seems relevant to argue that "socialism in one country" isn't likely to succeed in regards to attaining communism because it only eliminates the exploitive conditions and the causes of those conditions in one country- to successfully attain communist society there has to be world-wide movement towards it, otherwise it is simply defeating the purpose. There are other bourgeois states in existence, monopolist capitalist powers, etc. which will make it impossible for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to lead to the attaining of communist society-- what you have is a socialist movement in one country and the necessity for eliminating threats to it will never diminish unless there is world-wide revolution-- it just doesn't work otherwise. World-wide socialist revolution allows for communist society to be attained, and it would be much more sustainable in that regard. "Socialism in one country" can't go on forever, and there is reason for this-- exploitive conditions are still existent across the world, imperialism can't possibly diminish if there isn't a world-wide revolutionary movement. Ultimately certain exploitive forces will still be existent, therefore, it seems relevant to conclude that it conflicts with Marxism.

"socialism in one country" cannot possibly lead to communist society being attained-- as I have explained above-- there will be no possible end to the elimination of threats.

Axel1917

5th November 2007, 03:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:00 pm
Maoism and Trotskyism are mutually exclusive tendencies. In fact, there are several tendencies within what is called "Trotskyism", making it incredibly difficult to discern what exactly Trotskyism is.

In general, I'd consider Trotskyism to be an economist and reformist tendency that is incapable of organizing for revolution due to basic organizational and line issues.

There is a good series of essays on Marx2Mao about Trotskyism by Kostas Mavrakis. It is a criticism from a Maoist perspective.

On Trotskyism Part I (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73i.html)
On Trotskyism Part II (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73ii.html)
On Trotskyism Part III (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/OT73iii.html)

Single Spark has a good summary of Mao's criticisms and analysis of Stalin (http://www.singlespark.org/?id=StalinMaoEval).

Basically, Maoists uphold Stalin's leadership as being fundamentally socialist, although we acknowledge that he handled many things incorrectly.
Trotskyism is neither reformist nor economist; economism seems to be your latest political swearword. I have been reading What is to be Done?, and so far, I have concluded that you never understood it. You write off working with unions as "workerism" and "economism," when Lenin clearly states in a footnote in What is to be Done that communists need to work within trade unions to convert their trade union consciousness to socialist consciousness.

Personality cults are also anti-Marxist to the core.

And why would an economist play the leading role in the construction and victory of the Red Army during the Russian Civil War? Something does not stack up here. Gunning down reactionaries and being Lenin's "right-hand man" in a certain sense is going far beyond trade union consciousness! Trade union consciousness does not build up a Red Army or have the same positions as Lenin on important aspects!

Mao, on the other hand, adopted Menshevism, the two-stage theory. This has wrecked a good deal of revolutions, and as we can see in the case of Nepal, the two-stage theory in many cases amounts to de facto reformism. They fought for something like a decade only to enter a bourgeois government when they could have easily seized power. To refuse to seize power when you have the chance plays a highly reactionary role, as it passively lets the bourgeoisie continue their dictatorship.

Mao was able to take power due to peculiar circumstances: the inability of the Chinese bourgeoisie to carry society forward, the inability of US imperialism to intervene, and the presence of a powerful deformed workers' state on China's borders. Without such peculiar circumstances, Mao may have very well let the bourgeoisie continue to rule China.

People should read the works of Lenin and compare them to those of Trotsky or Stalin or Mao. It will quickly become clear that Lenin and Trotsky have the most in common.

Labor Shall Rule

5th November 2007, 03:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:05 pm
Actually, Trotskyists opposed the tactics of the CCP against the KMT and especially Japanese Imperialism.

The Orthodox Trotskyists thought the popular front against japanese imperialism was "class collaborationist" and was a betrayal to the chinese proletariat. They thought, instead, that there should have been an anti-imperialist movement built in Japan to dismantle Japanese imperialism, instead of the KMT being forced (quite literally) to unite with the CCP and combat imperialism.
What the fuck?

Where in hell's name have we stated that it is 'class collaborationism' to resist imperialism? The critics of the regime still considered the expulsion of foreign capital in China to be the most progressive event of the century, but understood what the nature of the nascent "Worker's and Peasant's Government" truly was.

The policies of the Center-Right in Comintern had lead to the destruction of two-thirds of the entire party, which was facillitated by peasant guerillas that Mao lead. It was not "usurped," but democratic discussion within the party disappeared. There was a short power struggle over the position of party chairman, which was won by Mao and his faction. There was only one Party Congress in the first seventeen years that his party was in power. The “Great Leap Forward”, as well as the “Proletarian Cultural Revolution” was not democratically discussed and decided by the party, nor were the even discussed by the Central Committee. If anyone raised concerns against Mao, they became “capitalist restorationists” and “enemies of the people.”

I am not saying that I agree with Trotsky. I am against many of his positions for the most part, but his analysis of the Chinese revolution is correct.

Comrade Nadezhda

5th November 2007, 03:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:03 pm
People should read the works of Lenin and compare them to those of Trotsky or Stalin or Mao. It will quickly become clear that Lenin and Trotsky have the most in common.
What I don't understand is why comrades are so quick to propose arguments against Trotsky-- especially arguments consisting of no factual basis; simply all that is said in regard to this is remarks consisting of utter stupidity (usually made by Stalinists who believe "Trotsky was a liar").

From everything I have read (and keep in mind marxism is not "new" to me-- neither is revolutionary theory, practice and movement. I have considered myself a Leninist for quite some time now, a matter of a few years. I'm not saying that I'm an expert but I have read quite a bit- enough to know that Trotsky's arguments weren't bullshit or completely irrelevant-- especially not in regard to Lenin's. Stalin had a much different approach in regard to this-- and I don't think that can be denied.

I would suggest that if comrades here are going to make statements and arguments against Trotsky that they read up a bit-- and rely less on Stalinist conceptions-- there is more there than what these arguments consist of and what is being represented-- Trotsky's arguments, by all means, had much more in common with Lenin's than did the arguments Stalin made.

Rawthentic

5th November 2007, 04:15

The “Great Leap Forward”, as well as the “Proletarian Cultural Revolution” was not democratically discussed and decided by the party, nor were the even discussed by the Central Committee. If anyone raised concerns against Mao, they became “capitalist restorationists” and “enemies of the people.”
So the Cultural Revolution was not about attaining a scientific communist outlook or defeating the nascent bourgeoisie within the CCP that Mao consistently said would rise and need to be combatted?

The GPCR was not decided by the party at all, but by the masses themselves, yes, lead by Mao's communist leadership in continuing socialism. One only has to take a small glance to see that it was a mass movement of workers and peasants to continue the socialist road.

Rawthentic

5th November 2007, 04:21

You write off working with unions as "workerism" and "economism," when Lenin clearly states in a footnote in What is to be Done that communists need to work within trade unions to convert their trade union consciousness to socialist consciousness.
Well, things are a bit different in the United States when like 10-15% of the working class is unionized, and they are of course the better-off, white workers. Whats needed is a solid theory that understands why winning over the lower tier of the proletariat (mainly black and latino) is crucial to a seizure of power in this kind of country.

Didn't Lenin say that workers can only achieve a trade union consciousness when left to their own devices? And that communists need to provide communist political leadership that would ultimately lead to a seizure of power as it did in Russia?

The nature of the trade union struggle is by nature to get a better day's wage, which is reformism. Workers can already do that themselves, and far better than we can. Not to say, that communist dont support them, but what the proletariat needs is political leadership, in mass political battles such as anti-war, gay-rights, immigrants, struggle, etc.

Personality cults are also anti-Marxist to the core.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

Labor Shall Rule

5th November 2007, 11:49

I would describe the situation as a bureaucratic power struggle, with revolutionary elements arising here and there.

A majority of the Red Guard militias were controlled by Mao, Ch'en Po-ta, and Jiang Qing. They played a dual role with the military in removing party and government officials. The “captalist roaders” were just more dominant sections of the bureaucracy that Mao opposed.

The industrial development was very bureaucratizied, with a middle strata of state functionaries acting as managers across the countryside. The regulation of village life, the creation of production brigades, and the formation of the communes was the act of the party. The failure of their economic policies, which lead to famine, was directly related to the bureaucratic deformations that were inherent the Chinese state.

Rawthentic

5th November 2007, 22:45

I would describe the situation as a bureaucratic power struggle, with revolutionary elements arising here and there.
What did Mao represent as opposed to the capitalist roaders? What did it mean when he stood next to workers, peasants, and students and told them to revolt against all reactionary forms of authority and to revolt? How many communist leaders have ever taken this leap? None.

What does it mean when a city like Beijing has about 900 newspapers and people are given the material ability to create such forms of dissent and expression? How about the factory workers that created forms of governing that they had bever experienced before, such as factry committees?

Reducing the struggle between Mao and the revisionists to a bureaucratic struggle denies the fact that it was a struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie within the very Communist Party.

And the Red Guards were grass-roots, student created.

Wanted Man

5th November 2007, 23:39

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 11:12 pm
Marxism-Leninism is definitely not the same as "Stalinism", this being why not all Marxist-Leninists supported Stalin. Marxist-Leninist became a term used by Stalinists (and sometimes Maoists) but Stalinism doesn't necessarily determine Marxism-Leninism and the other way around. Not all Marxist-Leninists support(ed) Stalin and/or didn't necessarily advocate for Stalinism.
Err. The term "Marxism-Leninism" was originally the doctrine of the Soviet Union under Stalin. The term "Stalinism" was not commonly used (the ones that did use it happened to end up the greatest revisionists!). Trotskyists originally called themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists", although they have not rejected the label "Trotskyist", unlike the "Stalinists". "Trotskyite" is a pejorative used by opponents of Trotskyism.

"Marxism-Leninism" remained in usage by revisionists after Stalin's death, even though they rejected him. The term is also used as a suffix to the names of anti-revisionist parties, to contrast them with the "official" revisionist parties from which they split.

To get back to the topic, it would be interesting if someone would compare and contrast Maoism and Trotskyism when it comes to their attitudes on the history and the class nature of the USSR. Some Maoist writings (particularly referring to the RCP) have declared the entire USSR "state-capitalist" from one particular moment. This can be when Krushchev held his Secret Speech in 1956, or from the moment of Stalin's death.

In any case, they uphold the USSR as a workers' state right up to the moment that "bad leaders" or "bureaucrats" stood up and restored capitalism. Of course, that's not very materialist, so they also grudgingly admit that Stalin "made mistakes" that allowed it to happen. Still, they attribute a "restoration of capitalism" to a precise moment when "bad leaders" got into power.

This is an interesting comparison with Trotskyists, who believe that the USSR degenerated by a combination of Stalin's political machinations and the rise of a bureaucratic clique. Rather than bringing class into it, they place emphasis on Lenin's Testament (and, like Stalinists, they endlessly nitpick over who Lenin criticized more in those two pages, as if it was his most important piece of writing), the individual exile of Trotsky and the demise of the "Old Bolsheviks".

By the way, both of them have extremes that will end up siding with imperialism. There are some "McMaoists" that uphold Mao's and Deng's collaboration with US imperialism because Soviet "social imperialism" was worse. Likewise, Schachtmanites have attacked the USSR as "bureaucratic collectivist" which is also worse than capitalism. They mostly ended up as neo-cons.

Random Precision

5th November 2007, 23:41

What did Mao represent as opposed to the capitalist roaders? What did it mean when he stood next to workers, peasants, and students and told them to revolt against all reactionary forms of authority and to revolt?

Yeah... about that...

First off came the attack on "economism." As mentioned above, many demonstrations and strikes were being organized with economic demands. The part-time, temporary, "contract" workers and apprentices were demanding better pay, benefits and working conditions. Full-time workers were themselves demanding better housing and more equitable pay scales (at this time favored workers were able, through bonus systems, to earn many times what the average worker did). Workers from Shanghai and other cities were sending delegations to Beijing to demand that the national leadership look into their grievances.

While the average worker suffered, party bureaucrats had been living high on the hog for years.As in other state-capitalist countries, the party bureaucrats had access to specialty stores, higher pay, privileged access to cars, telephones, quality housing and schools, etc. As they organized their rebel groups, workers naturally took up demands for a more equitable system, something that fit better their notion of socialism.

But Mao's answer to these demands was "let them eat cake." The worker delegations in Beijing were ordered to return to their homes. Workers were urged to return to their workplaces, to stop traveling around and exchanging experience, and to do what they could to disrupt the demonstrations of apprentices and other semi-proletarians. All of this was couched in the language of "the working class seizure of power", but there was no question about what Mao's orders were: Get back to work, where you belong!

The Maoists even attempted to paint the struggle around economic demands as a "rightist" struggle. The way they told it, workers who demanded economic benefits were being put up to this subversive activity by old-line party bureaucrats carrying on a sinister plot to undermine the cultural revolution.

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/20cChinaLeft.html

Comrade Nadezhda

6th November 2007, 00:21

Originally posted by Van [email protected] 05, 2007 05:39 pm
Err. The term "Marxism-Leninism" was originally the doctrine of the Soviet Union under Stalin. The term "Stalinism" was not commonly used (the ones that did use it happened to end up the greatest revisionists!). Trotskyists originally called themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists", although they have not rejected the label "Trotskyist", unlike the "Stalinists". "Trotskyite" is a pejorative used by opponents of Trotskyism.

"Marxism-Leninism" remained in usage by revisionists after Stalin's death, even though they rejected him. The term is also used as a suffix to the names of anti-revisionist parties, to contrast them with the "official" revisionist parties from which they split.
My point was simply that not all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists. I wasn't trying to argue in regards to how the term was used, but certainly there were Marxist-Leninists who rejected Stalin and the "bureaucracy".

To get back to the topic, it would be interesting if someone would compare and contrast Maoism and Trotskyism when it comes to their attitudes on the history and the class nature of the USSR. Some Maoist writings (particularly referring to the RCP) have declared the entire USSR "state-capitalist" from one particular moment. This can be when Krushchev held his Secret Speech in 1956, or from the moment of Stalin's death.

In any case, they uphold the USSR as a workers' state right up to the moment that "bad leaders" or "bureaucrats" stood up and restored capitalism. Of course, that's not very materialist, so they also grudgingly admit that Stalin "made mistakes" that allowed it to happen. Still, they attribute a "restoration of capitalism" to a precise moment when "bad leaders" got into power.
The problem with Maoism and Trotskyism is how greatly the emphasis is placed on Stalin, the bureaucracy, etc.-- it has relevance, but not to the extent where all other conditions are completely done away with and arguments are proposed that none of it had any relevance. I don't deny the circumstances existent which lead to the deterioration of the worker's state, though I don't necessarily think Stalin and the bureaucracy had nothing to do with it all- it certainly had an impact but that wasn't the only reason for the conditions which existed even after the civil war.

This is an interesting comparison with Trotskyists, who believe that the USSR degenerated by a combination of Stalin's political machinations and the rise of a bureaucratic clique. Rather than bringing class into it, they place emphasis on Lenin's Testament (and, like Stalinists, they endlessly nitpick over who Lenin criticized more in those two pages, as if it was his most important piece of writing), the individual exile of Trotsky and the demise of the "Old Bolsheviks".
That isn't necessarily irrelevant, either, though I do recognize that sometimes the emphasis is placed too greatly on these details and many other important details are often regarded with little importance if mentioned at all.

By the way, both of them have extremes that will end up siding with imperialism. There are some "McMaoists" that uphold Mao's and Deng's collaboration with US imperialism because Soviet "social imperialism" was worse. Likewise, Schachtmanites have attacked the USSR as "bureaucratic collectivist" which is also worse than capitalism. They mostly ended up as neo-cons.
That is why it seems too much emphasis is placed upon the bureaucratic powers as it was not the only cause of the deterioration of the worker's state. It ultimately leads right back to capitalist imperialism with this idea that all of it was "bad"-- that is too much a generalization and too much a misunderstanding of conditions existent as it completely throws out all else relevant to the deterioration of the worker's state.

Though I would argue that Trotsky would have been better than Stalin (at least in the regard to "excessive measures"- it is clear that there were problems on both sides which cannot be ignored-- leading me to the conclusion that it wasn't entirely because of the bureaucracy gaining power.

The main reason it seems Trotskyism would bring many of the same problems as did the "stalinist" bureaucracy is that both regarded much too highly certain "problems" of the other and this creates a distraction from the movement-- by placing too much emphasis on certain details and disregarding that which had much more importance (i.e. both reacted to the other opponent while in the meantime becoming distracted from the conditions which made the largest impact-- it can't be denied how greatly the civil war made an impact, either.

Dros

6th November 2007, 00:54

Thank you comrades. This whole conversation is very interesting but I still haven't gotten an answer that satisfactorally closes the question. Is Maoism inconsistent with the writings of Trotsky? Is there a contradiction between the theory of Permanent Revolution and Maoism on an ideological level?

Thank you.

Random Precision

6th November 2007, 01:24

Err. The term "Marxism-Leninism" was originally the doctrine of the Soviet Union under Stalin. The term "Stalinism" was not commonly used (the ones that did use it happened to end up the greatest revisionists!).

Actually it was a quite common practice for party cadre during the Stalin years to use the term "Stalinist". For example in many pronouncements of the local party CCs, they would heap praise "our bold Leninist-Stalinist leadership" and thus-and-so.

This is an interesting comparison with Trotskyists, who believe that the USSR degenerated by a combination of Stalin's political machinations and the rise of a bureaucratic clique. Rather than bringing class into it, they place emphasis on Lenin's Testament (and, like Stalinists, they endlessly nitpick over who Lenin criticized more in those two pages, as if it was his most important piece of writing), the individual exile of Trotsky and the demise of the "Old Bolsheviks".

I agree that the Testament is not really important. Most who uphold Trotsky will, however, say that the most important factor contributing to Stalin's rise was the rise of the bureaucratic caste, facilitated by the isolation of the revolution and the devasatation wreaked on the party and country by the Civil War, which lead to the absense of necessary proletarian cadre. So the "Trotskyist" position does not ignore class at all.

Random Precision

6th November 2007, 01:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:54 am
Thank you comrades. This whole conversation is very interesting but I still haven't gotten an answer that satisfactorally closes the question. Is Maoism inconsistent with the writings of Trotsky? Is there a contradiction between the theory of Permanent Revolution and Maoism on an ideological level?

Thank you.
Yes. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution proposes that late-developing capitalist nations can move through both the bourgeois democratic revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution by an alliance of the proletariat and peasantry within the framework of a workers' state. In contrast, Mao proposed the theory of "New Democracy", a development of Menshevik two-stagism. New Democracy proposes that the "bloc of the four classes", the proletariat, peasantry, petit-bourgeoisie and national capitalists (the so-called "red bourgeoisie") can accomplish the tasks of the bourgeois democractic revolution for the same late-developing countries under communist leadership, then work forward toward communism. The key difference is the Maoist insistence on bourgeois and petit-bourgeois participation in the establishment of socialism, although this is certainly overly reductionist.

So it looks like you're going to have to choose one or the other. My advice, insofar as I'm entitled to give any, is to read "The Permanent Revolution" by Trotsky and "On New Democracy" by Mao, and see which makes sense to you. Best of luck!

Dros

6th November 2007, 01:50

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 06, 2007 01:45 am
Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution proposes that late-developing capitalist nations can move through both the bourgeois democratic revolution and the proletarian socialist revolution by an alliance of the proletariat and peasantry within the framework of a workers' state. In contrast, Mao proposed the theory of "New Democracy", a development of Menshevik two-stagism. New Democracy proposes that the "bloc of the four classes", the proletariat, peasantry, petit-bourgeoisie and national capitalists (the so-called "red bourgeoisie") can accomplish the tasks of the bourgeois democractic revolution for the same late-developing countries under communist leadership, then work forward toward communism. While both theories have similar goals, the method to attain them is quite different.
In what way is it different? I understand New Democracy (to some extent) and the theory of Permanent Revolution. My problem is I don't see how they are different (in theory or practice). My other big question regards socialism in one country. Do Maoists take the line that socialism in one country is possible? I've never been able to find anything on this.

Thank you for your help.

Random Precision

6th November 2007, 02:01

Sorry, I edited my post before I saw your response. Anyways, the key difference in between the two theories is that Mao proposes that the capitalists and petit-bourgeoise as well as the workers and peasants should ally to achieve the bourgeois-democratic tasks, then move forward to socialism. Trotskyists argue that this is class collaboration and lesser-evilism at its worst.

As for socialism in one country. I recall that Mao upheld Stalin's analysis stating that a classless society could be established in one country, but not where exactly he said that. I'll look to find out more.

Die Neue Zeit

6th November 2007, 02:42

Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+November 05, 2007 04:39 pm--> (Van Binsbergen @ November 05, 2007 04:39 pm) In any case, they uphold the USSR as a workers' state right up to the moment that "bad leaders" or "bureaucrats" stood up and restored capitalism. Of course, that's not very materialist, so they also grudgingly admit that Stalin "made mistakes" that allowed it to happen. Still, they attribute a "restoration of capitalism" to a precise moment when "bad leaders" got into power.

This is an interesting comparison with Trotskyists, who believe that the USSR degenerated by a combination of Stalin's political machinations and the rise of a bureaucratic clique. Rather than bringing class into it, they place emphasis on Lenin's Testament (and, like Stalinists, they endlessly nitpick over who Lenin criticized more in those two pages, as if it was his most important piece of writing), the individual exile of Trotsky and the demise of the "Old Bolsheviks".

By the way, both of them have extremes that will end up siding with imperialism. There are some "McMaoists" that uphold Mao's and Deng's collaboration with US imperialism because Soviet "social imperialism" was worse. Likewise, Schachtmanites have attacked the USSR as "bureaucratic collectivist" which is also worse than capitalism. They mostly ended up as neo-cons. [/b]
While I was never a Maoist, I broke off from Stalinist ideas (having turned to them after abandoning Trotskyist ones) mainly because of the issue of state capitalism.

In hindsight, Lenin was very much correct in regards to "revolutionary democracy"; the revolution that brings this about is NOT socialist, and while he MAY have mistakenly jumped onto Trotsky's bandwagon in his revolutionary euphoria during 1917, material conditions around him certainly allowed him a greater perspective to get back to his senses.

As I stated in my Stamocap thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240), and as discussed in this other thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72651), the "revolutionary democracy" of the Bolsheviks was an attempt to compress Russia's historical-stage with capitalism, and not, unlike Trotsky's idea of "permanent revolution" for skipping capitalism altogether. [Of course, the more "sympathetic" bourgeois media lumped the two fundamentally different ideas together.]

As Leo pointed out, there were four distinct positions at that time, each relating to economics and international affairs:

Stalin: Bureaucratic expansion to boost the national economy + postponement of world revolution

Bukharin: NEP + postponement of world revolution

Trotsky: Bureaucratic expansion to boost the national economy + world revolution

[No matter how distorted Stalin's plan was in comparison to the Left Opposition's, Trotsky and his group wanted rapid growth, and I believe Preobrazhensky himself said something about "socialist primitive accumulation." That could only be achieved through bureaucratic means.]

Lenin: NEP + world revolution

Hope
petit-bourgeoisie as well as the workers and peasants should ally to achieve the bourgeois-democratic tasks

What's the class difference between the peasantry and the shopkeepers? :huh:

The problem I find with Maoism isn't the same as yours: Mao completely dumped the working class and based his revolution on peasant revolts ("people's war"), and then invited some of the ousted but more nationalistic elements of the bourgeoisie proper in afterwards.

Mao's ideas were, alas, little different from Brezhnev's later idea of "national democratic revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev#Brezhnev_and_the_National_Democrat ic_Revolution) and their common Menshevik ideological predecessor.

Random Precision

6th November 2007, 03:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:42 am
What's the class difference between the peasantry and the shopkeepers? :huh:

The problem I find with Maoism isn't the same as yours: Mao completely dumped the working class and based his revolution on peasant revolts ("people's war"), and then invited some of the ousted but more nationalistic elements of the bourgeoisie proper in afterwards.
That is my problem with Maoism as well. My critique, however, was based on Mao's warped theory that supposes the workers and peasants can ally with the middle class and "red bourgeoisie" to accomplish socialism. :rolleyes:

Dros

6th November 2007, 03:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:42 am
Mao completely dumped the working class and based his revolution on peasant revolts ("people's war")
I don't think that's true. If you read Mao, he clearly says that the Proletariat and their vanguard lead the peasentry in a Protracted People's War. But that doesn't really matter. His argument is that in backward countries there is not a large enough industrial proletariat to conduct a revolution. The peasantry, however, can.

It seems to me that revolutionary stratedgy needs to be grounded in the materialistic reality of the specific region and era and not in dogmatic beliefs.

Rawthentic

6th November 2007, 03:43

I recall that Mao upheld Stalin's analysis stating that a classless society could be established in one country, but not where exactly he said that. I'll look to find out more.
Thats false, once again.

That is my problem with Maoism as well. My critique, however, was based on Mao's warped theory that supposes the workers and peasants can ally with the middle class and "red bourgeoisie" to accomplish socialism.
False, again. During the Chinese Revolution, the Japanese had taken over key areas of China. The only way that Japanese imperialism could be driven out was by an alliance of the CCP and Kuomintang and all other anti-imperialist forces. Only then could imperialism be taken out, and socialist revolution continue, as it did.

It seems to me that revolutionary stratedgy needs to be grounded in the materialistic reality of the specific region and era and not in dogmatic beliefs.
This is central to Mao's theories. Those who believe that because Mao did not follow Lenin's theories in Russia to China is because he is a "Menshevik" are silly dogmatists.

Yeah... about that...
Yeah...

The Cultural Revolution was not about "round-ups," people being sent to "forced-labor camps," or "totalitarian group-think." The methods of the Cultural Revolution were quite different. Workers, peasants, and people from all walks of life engaged in mass criticism of corrupt officialdom. They engaged in great debates about economic policy, the educational system, culture, and the relation between the Communist Party and the masses of people. Mao wasn't interested in "purges." He was calling for mass action from below to defeat the enemies of the revolution. Here are some examples of how the Cultural Revolution was waged.

* The Red Guards. Millions of young people formed into these political brigades. They criticized government and party leaders taking society down the capitalist road. They called out elitist practices in the universities. They roused workers and older people to lift their heads and to question and challenge reactionary authority and policies. They traveled to the countryside to spread the movement and to learn about the conditions of the peasantry.
* "Big-character posters ." These handwritten posters went up on the walls of schools, factories, and neighborhoods. They were an incredible expression of public criticism of policies and leaders. Paper and ink were provided free of charge. Accessible to everyone, they gave an immediate platform for debate. Over 10,000 kinds of newspapers and pamphlets were published by ordinary people in China as a means to debate political issues on a large scale (and in Beijing alone there were over 900 newspapers).2
* Overthrowing capitalist-roaders and creating new power structures from below. 40 million workers in China's major cities took part in intense and complex political struggles to seize power back from entrenched elites. The political atmosphere was electric--in the city of Shanghai, there were over 700 organizations in the factories. Through political debate and experimentation, and with the leadership provided by the Maoist revolutionaries, new institutions of proletarian rule were forged.

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

Random Precision

6th November 2007, 04:01

False, again. During the Chinese Revolution, the Japanese had taken over key areas of China. The only way that Japanese imperialism could be driven out was by an alliance of the CCP and Kuomintang and all other anti-imperialist forces. Only then could imperialism be taken out, and socialist revolution continue, as it did.

That's beside the point.

Yeah...

The Cultural Revolution was not about "round-ups," people being sent to "forced-labor camps," or "totalitarian group-think." The methods of the Cultural Revolution were quite different. Workers, peasants, and people from all walks of life engaged in mass criticism of corrupt officialdom. They engaged in great debates about economic policy, the educational system, culture, and the relation between the Communist Party and the masses of people. Mao wasn't interested in "purges." He was calling for mass action from below to defeat the enemies of the revolution. Here are some examples of how the Cultural Revolution was waged.

* The Red Guards. Millions of young people formed into these political brigades. They criticized government and party leaders taking society down the capitalist road. They called out elitist practices in the universities. They roused workers and older people to lift their heads and to question and challenge reactionary authority and policies. They traveled to the countryside to spread the movement and to learn about the conditions of the peasantry.
* "Big-character posters ." These handwritten posters went up on the walls of schools, factories, and neighborhoods. They were an incredible expression of public criticism of policies and leaders. Paper and ink were provided free of charge. Accessible to everyone, they gave an immediate platform for debate. Over 10,000 kinds of newspapers and pamphlets were published by ordinary people in China as a means to debate political issues on a large scale (and in Beijing alone there were over 900 newspapers).2
* Overthrowing capitalist-roaders and creating new power structures from below. 40 million workers in China's major cities took part in intense and complex political struggles to seize power back from entrenched elites. The political atmosphere was electric--in the city of Shanghai, there were over 700 organizations in the factories. Through political debate and experimentation, and with the leadership provided by the Maoist revolutionaries, new institutions of proletarian rule were forged.

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

Your link doesn't work. Furthermore, it is unsourced and helpfully ignores what the article I provided said.

Rawthentic

6th November 2007, 04:25

Your link doesn't work. Furthermore, it is unsourced and helpfully ignores what the article I provided said.
It's thoroughly sourced.

Here's the link: http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism...china_facts.htm (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

Labor Shall Rule

6th November 2007, 04:37

The state machinery is not just a machine with cogs that operate in a similar fashion, it is based on layer upon layer of remaining bourgeois elements, rich proprietors, and mid-level administrators.

Mao was apart of it, and though he initiated the events, he backed down in cowardice when faced with “capitalist roaders.”

In Shanghai, the center of social upheavel, the local committees controlled by the party were defeated, and the workers created their own councils in their workshops and neighborhoods. Though the “revolution” was to encourage greater expression by the workers themselves, Mao repressed the discontent in Shanghai, saying that "if you have everybody taking part in these elections, directly choosing all the political representatives in that way, then bourgeois forces are going to come to dominate these elections, and we're going to get representatives of the bourgeoisie elected."

In other words, it is excellent to democratize the workplace, draft referundums and initiatives that effect production, and to elect all managerial officials by secret ballot. It is excellent to form your own militias, and to actively battle the bureaucracy where it stands. It is excellent to “live for the people” and “criticize everything.” But they have somehow 'crossed the line,' and have 'bourgeois objectives' that would 'put the country at risk to imperialism' after they threaten to swallow the state capitalist bureaucracy whole.

It was Mao, under the justification of 'protecting the country from imperialism', that the People's Liberation Army was called out on the Red Guards.

I have a few concerns. How did Mao decide that the “capitalist roaders” were on the verge of reinstituting capitalism? Mao was not in a position of power for over a decade, and Liu Shaoqi was directing all policy. I want a complete historical analysis on how the bureaucracy was about to create capitalism.

bezdomni

6th November 2007, 04:44

I recall that Mao upheld Stalin's analysis stating that a classless society could be established in one country, but not where exactly he said that. I'll look to find out more.

LOL

If you can find where Stalin and Mao make the assertion that classless society can be established in one country for me, I will eat my hat.

The reason you probably forgot where he said that is because he never fucking did.

This leads me to conclude you are either an outright liar or just a really sloppy reader. Or who knows maybe you just have really vivid dreams.

At any rate, this is 100% untrue.

In the fight for complete liberation the oppressed people rely first of all on their own struggle and then, and only then, on international assistance. The people who have triumphed in their own revolution should help those still struggling for liberation. This is our internationalist duty.

-Mao

The socialist countries are states of an entirely new type in which the exploiting classes have been overthrown and the working people are in power. The principle of integrating internationalism with patriotism is practised in the relations between these countries. We are closely bound by common interests and common ideals.

-Mao

Thus, the October Revolution, by establishing a tie between the peoples of the backward East and of the advanced West, is ranging them in a common camp of struggle against imperialism.

Thus, from the particular question of combating national oppression, the national question is evolving into the general question of emancipating the nations, colonies and semi-colonies from imperialism.

-Stalin

From this it follows, however, that the revolution in Russia could not but become a proletarian revolution, that from its very inception it could not but assume an international character, and that, therefore, it could not but shake the very foundations of world imperialism.

Under these circumstances, could the Russian Communists confine their work within the narrow national bounds of the Russian revolution? Of course not. On the contrary, the whole situation, both internal (the profound revolutionary crisis) and external (the war), impelled them to go beyond these bounds in their work, to transfer the struggle to the international arena, to expose the ulcers of imperialism, to prove that the collapse of capitalism was inevitable, to smash social-chauvinism and social-pacifism, and, finally, to overthrow capitalism in their own country and to forge a new fighting weapon for the proletariat -- the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution -- in order to facilitate the task of overthrowing capitalism for the proletarians of all countries. Nor could the Russian Communists act otherwise; for only this path offered the chance of producing certain changes in the international situation which could safeguard Russia against the restoration of the bourgeois order.

-Stalin

This is reminiscent of what Marx writes in the Communist Manifesto:

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization, and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the
seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

and what Lenin writes in What Is To Be Done:

History has now confronted us (i.e., the Russian Marxists -- J. St.) with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediete tasks that confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but also (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.

Rawthentic

6th November 2007, 05:40

I have a few concerns. How did Mao decide that the “capitalist roaders” were on the verge of reinstituting capitalism? Mao was not in a position of power for over a decade, and Liu Shaoqi was directing all policy. I want a complete historical analysis on how the bureaucracy was about to create capitalism.
I think Raymond Lotta's speech can summarize my position best:

Different class and social forces were involved in the Cultural Revolution. There were the genuine Maoists in the party and mass organizations. There were anti-Mao groupings within the party who organized students, workers and peasants. And there were conservative military forces, ultra-left groupings, mass organizations that divided into rebel and conservatives camps, criminal elements, and others. Different social interests and motivations were in play. Some people used the Cultural Revolution to settle personal grievances. Often, the enemies of Mao within the Party who were coming under political attack would resort to the tactic of pretending to uphold Mao and incite factionalism and violence in the name of the Cultural Revolution. They would do this in order to deflect the struggle away from them and to discredit the revolutionary movement. The reality was that the Cultural Revolution was a complicated struggle over which class would rule society: the proletariat, which in alliance with its allies who make up the great majority of society continues the revolution to transform society, or a new bourgeois class.

Because of the food crisis and industrial dislocations that occurred during the difficult years of the Great Leap Forward, a time when the Soviets had also suddenly withdrawn aid and technical assistance, it was necessary to make certain economic and organizational adjustments. But this gave openings to conservative forces in the Communist Party--who in fact had opposed and even tried to undermine the Great Leap.

By the early 1960s, these conservative forces were gaining ground and strength. They wanted to use profit measures to decide investment priorities. They wanted to consolidate an elite-based educational system. Keep in mind that the higher-educational system in post-1949 China was greatly influenced by the Soviet model of hierarchy, specialization, and recruitment of "better-trained" students. The conservative forces were very much entrenched in the cultural realm. The cultural sphere remained a stronghold of tradition. Opera, a highly popular art form, was still dominated by old feudal themes and characters.

These conservative forces pushed to focus health care resources in the cities at the expense of the countryside. They told workers and peasants to forget politics--leave that to "competent" party leaders--and just keep your nose to the grindstone and think about your livelihoods.

These neo-capitalist forces had a coherent program—and by the mid-1960s they were maneuvering to seize power.

Second, the Cultural Revolution was the furthest thing from a purge and mass bloodletting. Mao analyzed that Stalin’s purges did not solve the problem of preventing counter-revolution in the Soviet Union. The masses were left passive. They were not for the most part politically and ideologically mobilized. Relying on these kinds of administrative measures does not enable the masses to gain the ability to distinguish between programs and outlooks that would propel society towards communism, and programs and policies that would take society down the road back to capitalism. For Mao the challenge was how to unleash the masses to play their decisive, conscious role in taking society forward.

Mao had been searching for a solution to the problem of the revolution going stale and facing the danger of getting turned back. As he said in 1967, "In the past we waged struggles in rural areas, in factories and the cultural field, and we carried out the socialist education movement. But all this failed to solve the problem because we did not find a form, a method, to arouse the broad masses to expose our dark aspects from below."1 Mao was grappling with a world historic problem of communist revolution. Bob Avakian puts it this way: "How do you deal with the intensification of attempts to overthrow the rule of the proletariat, while at the same time giving expression to the fact that the dictatorship of the proletariat must be rule by the masses of the people, and this must take concrete and institutionalized form--and that the more this state is strengthened, the more it has to be qualitatively different than all previous forms of state."2 In other words, how do you prevent counter-revolution in a way that is consistent with the means and goals of communist revolution?

"if you have everybody taking part in these elections, directly choosing all the political representatives in that way, then bourgeois forces are going to come to dominate these elections, and we're going to get representatives of the bourgeoisie elected."
whats so wrong with this? Without communist leadership, you honestly think that reactionary, bourgeois forces wont seize upon such a chance?

Labor Shall Rule

6th November 2007, 17:04

The fact is that the events at Shanghai was the first proletarian insurrection since 1927.

It is strange when first, the Maoists say:

Mao proposed and popularized a form that...brought forward what were called revolutionary committees, which combined representatives of the masses with representatives of experts and party members in various forms to actually be the administrative body in all the different institutions...This is something that we can actually implement which will keep power in the hands of the masses of people...

But when the center of economic activity in the country is captivated in the throes of a worker's revolt, it becomes a 'threat' that will swallow the entire country whole. They also suppresed several 'ultra-leftist' organizations that represented links of militias, factory and food committees, as well as education and art.

So, because of 'cultural' norms, and a shift of health care resources from rural areas to the cities, there was "neo-capitalist" forces that were moving in for the kill? They had several years before the "second" revolution, why didn't they just move in and start privatizing from there?

The fact is that the peasant guerillas, lead by a strata of party bureaucrats, founded the state. They nationalized capitalist property, but instituted 'administrators' that were former managers. The “Great Leap Forward” was a policy of primitive accumulation, where “the bloc of four classes” were allied in developing the productive forces. Mao's forces suppressed independent workers' organizations, put trade unions under police control, and jailed and killed socialists. Not only that, but “national liberation” became the foreign policy of the new state, which lead to the deaths of millions of communists in Indonesia, Africa, and elsewhere.

Random Precision

6th November 2007, 23:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:44 am
If you can find where Stalin and Mao make the assertion that classless society can be established in one country for me, I will eat my hat.
You have my apologies, then. That's not what I meant at all, I was very tired at time of posting.

Rawthentic

10th November 2007, 02:13

But when the center of economic activity in the country is captivated in the throes of a worker's revolt, it becomes a 'threat' that will swallow the entire country whole. They also suppresed several 'ultra-leftist' organizations that represented links of militias, factory and food committees, as well as education and art.

So, because of 'cultural' norms, and a shift of health care resources from rural areas to the cities, there was "neo-capitalist" forces that were moving in for the kill? They had several years before the "second" revolution, why didn't they just move in and start privatizing from there?

The fact is that the peasant guerillas, lead by a strata of party bureaucrats, founded the state. They nationalized capitalist property, but instituted 'administrators' that were former managers. The “Great Leap Forward” was a policy of primitive accumulation, where “the bloc of four classes” were allied in developing the productive forces. Mao's forces suppressed independent workers' organizations, put trade unions under police control, and jailed and killed socialists. Not only that, but “national liberation” became the foreign policy of the new state, which lead to the deaths of millions of communists in Indonesia, Africa, and elsewhere.

Things in China were very complex what is being referred to when you talk about "ultra-leftist" organizations that were suppressed? This is extremely vague. When I think of "the suppression of ultra-leftists" I think of the claims by the revisionists that the Red Guard youth were ultra-leftist, and how they used that claim to suppress the revolutionary forces in China.

There was a new emerging bourgeoisie is party not simply because "healthcare was being moved from the countryside to the city," but because a new emerging capitalist class was following an actual political line that the market should be put into command, and that whatever produced the most goods possible was what was best. Mao and the revolutionary forces had to fight against this revisionist line for an understanding that production should be carried out according to whatever was best for the proletariat. People like Deng Xaioping and Lin Biao wanted to widen the gap between the city and the countryside, neglecting things like healthcare, education, and development of the countryside. They wanted efficiency at all costs, market in command with all of the horror that that meant for the masses of people... and the nightmare that it is for them today.

And the shot at national liberation is just sick. Let's tell Black people not to rise up, who cares if they hang from trees? Who gives a crap about the genocide of the Palestinian people? Let's just sit around while oppressed nations of people all over the world suffer genocide. This is immoral, and stands counter to ending all forms of oppression and achieving the "4 alls." It runs counter to everything that communists are all about...

This is an important quote from Avakian on this:

"There will never be a revolutionary movement in this country that doesn't fully unleash and give expression to the sometimes openly expressed, sometimes expressed in partial ways, sometimes expressed in wrong ways, but deeply, deeply felt desire to be rid of these long centuries of oppression. There's never gonna be a revolution in this country, and there never should be, that doesn't make that one key foundation of what it's all about."

Random Precision

10th November 2007, 04:35

There was a new emerging bourgeoisie is party not simply because "healthcare was being moved from the countryside to the city," but because a new emerging capitalist class was following an actual political line that the market should be put into command, and that whatever produced the most goods possible was what was best. Mao and the revolutionary forces had to fight against this revisionist line for an understanding that production should be carried out according to whatever was best for the proletariat. People like Deng Xaioping and Lin Biao wanted to widen the gap between the city and the countryside, neglecting things like healthcare, education, and development of the countryside. They wanted efficiency at all costs, market in command with all of the horror that that meant for the masses of people... and the nightmare that it is for them today.

Then why weren't Deng, Lin and their nefarious companions fucking shot? Just asking.

OneBrickOneVoice

12th November 2007, 05:25

The Shanghai commune wasn't "suppressed", there was a problem in the model. One reason why the Paris Commune was defeated originally was that it didn't act on suppressing counterrevolutionaries and didn't expropriate capitalists. The Shanghai Commune, which was essentially a Paris Commune, would face the same problems. It didn't have a strong worker's vanguard which could do that. The Triple Alliance which superceded the commune all over the country was a model which could do that. It was a combination between representitives of mass organizations/masses, the PLA, and the CPC.

OneBrickOneVoice

12th November 2007, 05:35

Mao completely dumped the working class and based his revolution on peasant revolts

Nonesense. The Chinese Revolution was perhaps the most revolutionary revolution ever because of how it involved millions of people organizing them in a disciplined and protracted fashion, each section of the population playing a historic role. Students and workers formed cells in the schools, neighborhoods, and factories, woman ran away from their foot-binding family and joined the People's Army. Peasants resisted landlords from field to field and joined People's Liberation Army.

ShineThePath

12th November 2007, 05:46

Dros

12th November 2007, 14:48

Could someone please tell me what the Maoists have against what Trotsky actually wrote? For instance, how is he revisionist in your view?

RedJacobin

12th November 2007, 15:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:48 pm
Could someone please tell me what the Maoists have against what Trotsky actually wrote? For instance, how is he revisionist in your view?
You should check out the book by Kosta Mavrakis that was posted earlier in the thread.

As for the Trotskyist lie that two-stage revolution is equivalent to Menshevism, you should check out Lenin's Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, which puts forward an argument for two-stage revolution.

bezdomni

14th November 2007, 13:32

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 10, 2007 04:35 am

There was a new emerging bourgeoisie is party not simply because "healthcare was being moved from the countryside to the city," but because a new emerging capitalist class was following an actual political line that the market should be put into command, and that whatever produced the most goods possible was what was best. Mao and the revolutionary forces had to fight against this revisionist line for an understanding that production should be carried out according to whatever was best for the proletariat. People like Deng Xaioping and Lin Biao wanted to widen the gap between the city and the countryside, neglecting things like healthcare, education, and development of the countryside. They wanted efficiency at all costs, market in command with all of the horror that that meant for the masses of people... and the nightmare that it is for them today.

Then why weren't Deng, Lin and their nefarious companions fucking shot? Just asking.
That isn't how you handle contradictions within the party.

There was definitely a tendency for Stalin to think this way, and also to act this way. But incorrect lines within the Party must be criticized in the party and struggled against by the masses.

If you just shoot your problems away (instead of relying on the masses), incorrect lines are never fully repudiated and thus still live on in some way.

For example, Stalin should have led a mass campaign against the Trotskyists and relied on the masses to criticize and repudiate the line of the Trotskyists; rather than bureaucratically purging them (and having more than a few executed).

Stalin's inability to handle contradictions within the party properly actually ended up giving a lot of the platform for the revisionism of Khrushchev.

(As you may or may not know, Deng was expelled from the party for a long period of time.)

Axel1917

14th November 2007, 15:27

Originally posted by SovietPants+November 14, 2007 01:32 pm--> (SovietPants @ November 14, 2007 01:32 pm)
Hope Lies in the [email protected] 10, 2007 04:35 am

There was a new emerging bourgeoisie is party not simply because "healthcare was being moved from the countryside to the city," but because a new emerging capitalist class was following an actual political line that the market should be put into command, and that whatever produced the most goods possible was what was best. Mao and the revolutionary forces had to fight against this revisionist line for an understanding that production should be carried out according to whatever was best for the proletariat. People like Deng Xaioping and Lin Biao wanted to widen the gap between the city and the countryside, neglecting things like healthcare, education, and development of the countryside. They wanted efficiency at all costs, market in command with all of the horror that that meant for the masses of people... and the nightmare that it is for them today.

Then why weren't Deng, Lin and their nefarious companions fucking shot? Just asking.
That isn't how you handle contradictions within the party.

There was definitely a tendency for Stalin to think this way, and also to act this way. But incorrect lines within the Party must be criticized in the party and struggled against by the masses.

If you just shoot your problems away (instead of relying on the masses), incorrect lines are never fully repudiated and thus still live on in some way.

For example, Stalin should have led a mass campaign against the Trotskyists and relied on the masses to criticize and repudiate the line of the Trotskyists; rather than bureaucratically purging them (and having more than a few executed).

Stalin's inability to handle contradictions within the party properly actually ended up giving a lot of the platform for the revisionism of Khrushchev.

(As you may or may not know, Deng was expelled from the party for a long period of time.) [/b]
Wasn't Deng still allowed to keep his party card?

The Cultural Revolution was an event where Mao made an attempt to curb the excesses of the Chinese bureaucracy, not an actual revolution, as the masses themselves did not enter the scene interfering with events in an attempt to take their lives into their own hands. They were commanded by Mao at the top from the very beginning.

Random Precision

14th November 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by ShineThePath+November 12, 2007 05:46 am--> (ShineThePath @ November 12, 2007 05:46 am) Just interesting that a Trot wants us to resort to some good ole' fashioned Stalinist methods of dealing with the Bourgeois line in the party. [/b]
I actually couldn't care less how the "bourgeois line" in the party was dealt with.

If you just shoot your problems away (instead of relying on the masses), incorrect lines are never fully repudiated and thus still live on in some way.

But I bet the Gang of Four wished they had done that to Deng later on...

Soviet Pants
For example, Stalin should have led a mass campaign against the Trotskyists and relied on the masses to criticize and repudiate the line of the Trotskyists; rather than bureaucratically purging them (and having more than a few executed).

I agree, that would have been a riot. :lol:

The Cultural Revolution was an event where Mao made an attempt to curb the excesses of the Chinese bureaucracy, not an actual revolution, as the masses themselves did not enter the scene interfering with events in an attempt to take their lives into their own hands. They were commanded by Mao at the top from the very beginning.

As well as getting back on top of the bureaucratic pile. Liu Shaoqui and the others figured they could just keep him on as a figurehead after the disaster of the Great Leap Forward. I guess he showed them!

bezdomni

14th November 2007, 21:52

Wasn't Deng still allowed to keep his party card?

I was actually incorrect in what I said earlier. Deng Xiaopeng was still allowed to retain his party membership, but he was declared a capitalist roader by the Central Committee and was thusly removed from his positions within the party.

(I was thinking of Liu Shaoxi earlier, who was expelled from the CCP).

The Cultural Revolution was an event where Mao made an attempt to curb the excesses of the Chinese bureaucracy, not an actual revolution, as the masses themselves did not enter the scene interfering with events in an attempt to take their lives into their own hands. They were commanded by Mao at the top from the very beginning.

How can you have a top-down struggle against bureaucracy? That makes no sense.

Furthermore, you aren't getting to the real essence of the Cultural Revolution. Yes, there was a mass struggle against bureaucratization, but that was not what the GPCR was in essence.

The goal of the Cultural Revolution was to break down the inequalities and contradictions in Chinese society (dominance of men over women, severe contradictions between the urban and rural populations, contradictions between the intelligentsia and the proletariat...etc), and to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat by leading the masses in a struggle against the reactionary tendencies within the party itself.

The Cultural Revolution in China was the greatest advance of socialism that the world has ever seen. It was much much more than just a "struggle against bureaucracy".

bezdomni

14th November 2007, 21:55

But I bet the Gang of Four wished they had done that to Deng later on...

It would have meant nothing if Jiang Qing held a gun to Deng Xiaopeng's head.

It would have been incredibly meaningful, however, if Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four had been able to rally the masses to all point their guns at Deng Xiaopeng!

Sky

15th November 2007, 00:19

Trotskyism is an ideological and political petit bourgeois trend that is hostile to Marxism-Leninism and to the international communist movement and that conceals its opportunistic essence with radical, "left-wing" slogans. Trotskyism arose within the Russian Social Democratic movement at the beginning of the 20th century as a form of Menshevism. The theoretical sources of Trotskyism are mechanical materialism in philosophy and voluntarism and schematism in sociology. The methodological basis of the trend is subjectivism, which is characteristic of the petit bourgeois world view as a whole. Since Trotskyism is a reflection of the antiproletarian views of the petite bourgeoisie, it is characterized by an anticommunist tendency in its political positions, by abrupt shifts from an extreme revolutionary stance to one of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, by a misunderstanding of the dialectics of social development, and by dogmatism in evaluating the events and phenomena of social life. The views and principles of Trotskyism were formulated in opposition to those of Leninism on all fundamental questions concerning the strategy and tactics of the working class movement. Trotskyism took as its point of departure the rejection of the Leninist doctrine of a new type of party.

During the Revolution of 1905-07, Trotskyists, distorting Marx's idea of permanent revolution, propounded their own theory of permanent revolution, which they opposed to Lenin's doctrine of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois democratic revolution and the doctrine of the transformation of this revolution into a socialist revolution. Trotskyists repudiated the revolutionary nature of the peasant masses as well as the proletariat's ability to establish a firm alliance with the peasantry; they ignored the bourgeois democratic tasks of the first Russian revolution and put forth the voluntaristic idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat as a result of the bourgeois democratic revolution. Their slogan was "no tsar, but a workers' government" Trotskyists claimed that permanance of the revolutionary process and the fate of the socialsit revolution in each country dependent on the victory of the world revolution, and they therefore asserted tht without state support of the European proletariat, the working class of Russia could not retain power. As Lenin pointed out, Trotsky's theory was in fact helping the "liberal-labor politicians in Russia, who by 'repudtiation' of the role of the peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the revolution!"

During World War I, Trotskyism was a component of international centrism, a social democratic trend that wavered between social chauvinism and petit bourgeois pacifism. Trotksyists rejected Lenin's conclusion that it was possible in the period of imperialism for the proletarian revolution to triumph first in a few countries or even in a single country. In opposition to Lenin's slogan transforming the imperialist war in to a civil war, Trotsky advanced the slogan "Neither victory nor defeat," which essentially meant that everything would remain as before; consequently, even tsarism would be preserved.

After the February Revolution of 1917, just as in 1905, the Trotskyists confused the bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution in Russia with the socialist stage; failing to recognize the bourgeois democratic stage, they demanded the immediate creation of a "true workers' government," the leading role in which they assigned to conciliatory parties. They continued to advocate the alliance of the Bolsheviks with the opportunists under the aegis of Trotskyism, and they attmpted to make the Mezraiontsy, or "interfaction" Social Democrats, into a nucleus around which a united, centrist Social Democratic Party could be formed. After the October Socialist Revolution, Trotskysits alleged that the victory of the revolution would be short lived; they claimed that Sovier power would inevitably perish if socialist revolutions did not occur in the very near future in other European countries and if the Soviet republic did not receive direct state aid from the proletariat of the West.

The Trotskyists viewed the raison de'etre of Soviet power to be the fostering, or pushing, of world proletarian revolution by any means, including military measures. This interpretation was completely at variance with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to 'pushing' revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions. The thesis of pushing world revoluton by means of war is also a tenet of present day Trotskyism. During the difficult period of reconstruction after the Civil War of 1918-20, Trotksyism took shape as a petit bourgeois deviation within the Russian Communist Party. The Trotskyists initiated an intraparty struggle during the trade union controversy of 1920 and 1921. They created a faction ith its own political platform demanding the transformation of the unions into an adjunct of the state machinery and the reduction of the Party's guiding role in building socialism. They attempted to impose on the party wartime methods of leading the masses.

The existence of Trotskyism and its periodic activiation in individual countries are traceable to various causes, among which are the following: the attraction into the revolutionary movement of large numbers of petit-bourgeois minded and politically inexperienced intellectuals, students, peasants, and craftsmen, who easily fall under the influence of the "ultrarevolutionary" slogans of the Trotskyists, the antirevoultionary activity activity of "left-wing" and right-wing revisionists, whose views and actions often coincide with those of the Trotskyists; and the use and support of Trotskyism by forces of anticommunism and imperialism, which find in Trotskyism an ally in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism.

Trotskyists render substantial aid to the bourgeoisie in its efforts to cause schisms in working class and national liberation movements. During periods of mass demonstrations by working people, extremist factions among the Trotskyists carry out provocative acts that provide the forces of reaction with an opportunity to arouse the politically inexperienced portion of the population against the proletariat and its vanguard, the Communists. During the 1968 general strike in France, Trotskyists and other "ultrarevolutionaries" supported the adventuristic idea of an immediate armed uprising. In Japan the Trotskyists gave the reactionary forces a pretext for the bloody suppression of the demonstrations in Shinjuku in October 1968 and in Yokosuka in January 1969. Trotskyists have engaged in similar activities in other countries as well. Schismatic efforts of the Trotskyists in Chile aided the fascist coup there. Trotskyists attmept to penetrate mass revolutionary organizations for the purpose of destroying the organizations from within. They are particularly active in youth organizations, where they take advance of some of the youngsters' political immaturity and failure to recognize the true face of Trotskyism.